Notice of meeting and agenda
Planning Committee 10.00 a.m., Thursday, 16 May 2013 Dean of Guild Courtroom, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh This is a public meeting and members of the public are welcome to attend.
Contact E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 5242
1. Order of business
1.1 Including any notices of motion and any other items of business submitted as urgent for consideration at the meeting. 2. Declaration of interests
2.1 Members should declare any financial and non-financial interests they have in the items of business for consideration, identifying the relevant agenda item and the nature of their interest. 3. Deputations
3.1 (If any) 4. Minutes, for approval as correct records or for noting
4.1 Planning Committees of 28 February and 19 March 2013 (circulated for approval) 4.2 Development Management Sub-Committee of 6 March; 20 March; 27 March; 17 April and 1 May 2013 (circulated for approval) 4.3 City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body of 27 February; 13 March and 24 April 2013 (circulated for noting) 5. Development Plan
5.1 Supplementary Guidance: City Centre Retail Core and Tollcross Town Centre - report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated) 5.2 Supplementary Guidance: Edinburgh Bioquarter+SEW Parkland - report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated) 6. Planning Policy
6.1 Edinburgh Design Guidance - report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated) 6.2 Tram Developer Contributions - report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated) 7. Planning Process
7.1 Planning and Building Standards Service Plan 2013-14 - report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated) 7.2 SESplan 2013-14 Operating Budget – report by the Director of Services for Communities (circulated)
Planning Committee – date 16 May 2013 Page 2 of 4
8. Motions
8.1 Motion by Councillor Bagshaw - Cycle Storage in Gardens Committee 1. Recognises the issues which have arisen, and continue to arise, in connection with cycle storage in gardens; particularly in front gardens where households have very limited other storage options; 2. Recognises and welcomes the City Council’s ambitious targets to encourage increased cycle use, the achievement of which requires existing barriers to cycle use to be addressed; 3. Acknowledges that householders seeking storage solutions find it difficult to get a clear steer on what is permitted and how best to provide storage; 4. Notes the proposals prepared by SPOKES in its draft Factsheet on Cycle Storage in Gardens and its accompanying note on Steps that the Council should consider to clarify and seek to resolve these issues; 5. Instructs officers to investigate the proposals put forward by SPOKES, in order to improve clarity for householders, reduce the likelihood of abortive applications and/or enforcement measures, and reduce costs to a proportional level; and to report on measures to support those proposals or alternatives with the same aim. 9. Routine Decisions
9.1 The Leith Programme: Consultation and Design - referral from the Transport and Environment Committee (circulated) Note: Referred report by the Director of Services for Communities is available on The Leith Programme Consultation and Design
Carol Campbell Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance
Committee Members
Councillors Perry (Convener), Howat (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Blacklock, Brock Cairns, Child, Dixon, Griffiths, Heslop, McVey, Milligan, Mowat, Rose and Ross.
Information about the Planning Committee
Planning Committee – date 16 May 2013 Page 3 of 4 The Planning Committee consists of 15 Councillors and is appointed by the City of Edinburgh Council. The Planning Committee usually meets every eight weeks. It considers planning policy and projects and other matters but excluding planning applications (which are dealt with by the Development Management Sub-Committee). The Planning Committee usually meets in the Dean of Guild Court Room in the City Chambers on the High Street in Edinburgh. There is a seated public gallery and the meeting is open to all members of the public.
Further information
If you have any questions about the agenda or meeting arrangements, please contact Lesley Arbuckle, Committee Services, City of Edinburgh Council, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh EH1 1YJ, Tel 0131 529 4230, e-mail [email protected] A copy of the agenda and papers for this meeting will be available for inspection prior to the meeting at the main reception office, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh. The agenda, minutes and public reports for this meeting and all the main Council committees can be viewed online by going to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/cpol.
Planning Committee – date 16 May 2013 Page 4 of 4 M in u te s Minutes
Planning Committee 10.00 am, Thursday, 28 February 2012
Present CouncCouncillorillor Perry (Convener), Howat (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Blacklock, Brock, Cairns, Child, Dixon, Griffiths, Heslop, McVey, Milligan, Mowat, Rose and Ross. 1. Minutes
Decision 1) To approve the minutes of the Planning Committee of 6 December 2012 as a correct record. 2) To approve the minutes of the Development Management Sub-Committee of 5 and 19 December 2012, and 16 and 30 January 2013 as correct records. The minutes of meeting of 20 February 2013 were approved, subject to noting that Councillor Rose had left the meeting during consideration of item 4.2 and had taken no part in the consideration of that item. 3) To note the minutes of the City of Edinburgh Local Review Body of 28 November and 12 December 2012, and 23 January and 6 February 2013.
2. Deputation – Reference Group – Short term Commercial Letting of Leisure Accommodation
The deputation made the following points in relation to the report by the Head of Planning and Building Services on the Annual Review of Guidance, as regards the section on guidance to business on proposals for short stay commercial leisure apartments: (a) In recent years there had been a very large increase in Edinburgh and other cities of owners renting out properties via the internet for very short stays, often only two or three days, and often cramming a lot of people in to residential flats. Where these properties were flats, there was a real loss of quality of life for other residents in the stair - noise at night, unpleasant and disturbing behaviour, residents meeting many strangers on their stair and having no sense of contact or community with those who lived in their building. (b) On the definition of short-stay serviced apartments/short term commercial leisure residential property in flats: they considered this should be residential flats not used primarily as residences but used primarily as self-catering holiday
accommodation on a regular basis for short periods of occupation, which were generally less than 5 days duration, and where services such as a concierge and/or cleaning and laundry were provided, either on a daily basis or between periods of occupation and where the numbers of people in occupation generally exceeded the original design capacity. (c) The legislation recognised that in planning terms flats should be treated differently to houses because any activity in a flat had a much greater potential to affect the quality of life of other residents who shared the building. (d) They considered that existing legislation showed that flats were a special case and that planning permission would not normally be granted for flats to be used for these short term commercial leisure rentals. (e) They considered that using any residential property used for short term leisure commercial purposes in this way could be classified as a material change of use and therefore required planning permission in certain circumstances. (f) This would make a big difference to people whose quality of life had suffered from these short term let flats, and would also encourage owners of flats to rent longer term to “real” residents who would contribute to the year round life and economy of Edinburgh. Decision To note the points made by the deputation, for consideration under item 3. 3. Annual Review of Guidance
The Head of Planning and Building Services reported on progress in reviewing the Council’s planning guidance. Significant progress had been made towards a new, user- focused structure of guidance as agreed previously. Further consolidation would take place in 2013, along with other reviews of free-standing guidelines. Since the Guidance for Businesses was approved in December 2012, the Council had considered whether short term stay commercial leisure apartments, or ‘party flats’ could constitute a material change of use in planning terms. The Council considered that in certain cases they could involve change of use.
The Head of Planning and Building Services considered that the following text should be added to the relevant section of the published version of the Guidance for Businesses:
(a) The change of use from a residential property to short stay commercial leisure apartments may require planning permission. In deciding whether this is the case, regard will be had to:
- The character of the new use and of the wider area; - The size of the property; - The pattern of activity associated with the use including numbers of occupants, the period of use, issues of noise, disturbance and parking demand; and - The nature and character of any services provided.
Planning Committee – 28 February 2013 Page 2 of 6 (b) In the case of short stay commercial leisure apartments, the Council is unlikely to grant planning permission in respect of flatted properties where the potential adverse impact on residential amenity is greatest.
Decision 1) To note the progress towards a reorganised and consolidated suite of planning guidance as set out in the report. 2) To approve the additional text to be added to the Guidance for Businesses, relative to short term stay commercial leisure apartments, as described above, subject to amendment of (b) to read as follows – (b) In the case of short stay commercial leisure apartments, the Council will not normally grant planning permission in respect of flatted properties where the potential adverse impact on residential amenity is greatest. 3) That the amended guidance be reviewed in 6 months time. (Reference – report by the Director of Services for Communities, submitted.) 4. Development Management Sub-Committee – Review of Procedures
The Head of Planning and Building Services had undertaken a six months review of procedures, as agreed by the Planning Committee on 9 August 2012, which required ward councillors to request a hearing on a planning application if they wished to address the Committee on the case. Following review, he considered that the changes should now be made permanent. He also suggested further minor changes to procedures for the administration of meetings of the Development Management Sub- Committee. It was also reported that a response had recently been received from the Standards Commission (in a letter dated 20 February 2013) to the Committee’s earlier concerns about the interpretation of the Code of Conduct for Councillors as affected ward members’ ability to speak on planning applications and the particular requirement on any member declaring a significant interest in a matter to leave the room whilst that item was being discussed. (A copy of the response had been circulated to the Committee.) Decision 1) To continue the present procedure for ward members requesting a hearing, and with a further review of the hearings procedure in 6 months. 2) To note the recent response from the Standards Commission and that they were to look at the procedures currently being applied across authorities in Scotland. 3) To ask the Convener to seek a meeting with the Minister to express the Committee’s concerns over the Standards Commission interpretation of the Code of Conduct regarding members’ declarations of interest /requirement to leave the room and the limitations on ward councillors in speaking on planning applications.
Planning Committee – 28 February 2013 Page 3 of 6 4) Otherwise, to approve the revisions to procedure as recommended in the report. (Reference – report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.) 5. Edinburgh Urban Design Panel: Third Progress Report
The Edinburgh Urban Design Panel aimed to raise both the quality of the built environment in Edinburgh and the profile of design within the city, which it did through reviewing development proposals at a pre-planning application stage as well as planning policies and guidance that have an impact on urban. The Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on the findings from the annual review of the Panel’s work and sought the Committee’s approval for a range of measures aimed at improving the effectiveness of the Panel.
Decision
1) To note the progress made by the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel and the outcomes of its third annual review;
2) To note the Panel’s advocacy of tenure blind design, benefits of minimisation of car use and higher density development on urban sites and its approach to providing advice on accessibility;
3) To approve the measures to improve the effectiveness of the Panel as set out in the Panel’s report;
4) To approve the amendments as to how projects would be referred to Architecture and Design Scotland and to the Panel by the Council and the revised Remit, Roles and Functions of the Panel (appendix 3); and,
5) To record the Committee’s appreciation of the voluntary contribution made by the Urban Design Panel members to the design review process. (Reference – report by the Director of Services for Communities, submitted.) 6. Planning Appeal Decision – 34 Hamilton Place, Edinburgh
The Head of Planning and Building Services reported on the findings of a planning appeal against refusal of planning permission for a change of use of 34 Hamilton Place, Edinburgh, from a former theatre to a restaurant and six flatted dwellings etc. (application 12/00618/FUL). The appeal had been upheld and the reporter had been critical of the lack of evidence to support one of the reasons for refusal, relating to traffic issues, and also found a need to impose additional conditions in order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents.
(The report notes that training workshops for officers and elected members are carried out on a regular basis so that such issues can be addressed and relevant lessons learned.)
Planning Committee – 28 February 2013 Page 4 of 6 Decision To note the information. (References – minute of Development Management Sub-Committee of 1 August 2012 (item 1); report by the Director of Services for Communities, submitted.) 7. Area Development Frameworks – Progress Report
The Head of Planning and Building Services gave a progress report on the initiatives, projects and actions promoted by the Waterfront & Leith and City Centre Southern Arc Area Development Frameworks, since their approval in October 2011 and March 2012, respectively.
Decision To note the information. (Reference – report by the Director of Services for Communities, submitted.) 8. Royal Mile Action Plan – Draft For Consultation
The Head of Planning and Building Services had prepared a draft consultation paper on the Royal Mile Action Plan, the plan is based on the outcomes of the Royal Mile Charrette which had taken place in January 2012. The plan had divided the Royal Mile into six zones, set out the issues identified in each one and proposed a series of actions to address these. It was proposed that the plan was developed further through consultation with stakeholders. Decision To approve the Royal Mile Action Plan as a draft for consultation. (Reference – report by the Director of Services for Communities, submitted.) 9. Pilrig Proposed Conservation Area – Appraisal
The Head of Planning and Building Standards submitted a draft consultation paper on the potential to designate Pilrig as a conservation area. The basis of the consultation was the officer’s appraisal of historic and architectural interest of the area. The area under consideration incorporated a mainly residential area to the north west of Leith Walk. The consultation paper would be made available to residents of the affected area and interested bodies. The findings would be reported back to the Planning Committee. Decision
To approve the appraisal as a basis for consultation on the potential to designate Pilrig as a conservation area. (Reference – report by the Director of Services for Communities, submitted.)
Planning Committee – 28 February 2013 Page 5 of 6 10. Edinburgh Colonies – Designations of Conservation Areas
The Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on the outcome of the additional consultation on (a) the proposed designation of the Leith Links (Industrial Road) Colonies as a conservation area and (b) the extension of the proposed Slateford (Flower) Colonies Conservation Area to include a section of railway line. The report provided details of the additional consultation and recommended that the Leith Links (Industrial Road) Colonies were not designated as a conservation area and that the extension of the proposed Slateford (Flower) Colonies Conservation Area to include a section of railway line was not supported. Decision 1) To agree that the Leith Links (Industrial Road) Colony group was not taken forward for conservation area designation. 2) To agree that the boundary of the proposed Slateford (Flower) Colonies Conservation Area is not extended to include the section of railway line to the south east. (References – report by the Director of Services for Communities, submitted.) 11. Review of Scottish Planning Policy - Consultation
The Scottish Government was proposing to review of Scottish Planning Policy on nationally important land use matters. The Council had been invited to comment on a consultation paper. The Head of Planning and Building Standards said that the review was welcomed as an opportunity to provide better connections between national policies. There are elements of the current policy which work well and provide flexibility for local authorities to implement policy at local level. There are elements of the policy which could be improved. These were identified within the Council’s response, as set out in his report. Decision To approve the consultation response as submitted. (Reference – report by the Director of Services to Communities, submitted.) 12. The Civic Trust Awards 2013
The Civic Trust was to present its 2013 Awards at a ceremony to be held at the City Hall, Cardiff, on 9 March 2013. The Council had been invited to present the awards at the ceremony to winners of categories in Scotland. Decision To approve the attendance of Councillor Howat at the awards ceremony. (Reference – report by the Director of Corporate Services, submitted.)
Planning Committee – 28 February 2013 Page 6 of 6 M in u te s Minutes
Planning Committee 10.00 am, Thursday, 19 March 2013
Present CouncCouncillorillor Perry (Convener), Howat (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Blacklock, Brock, Cairns, Child, Dixon, Griffiths, Heslop, McVey, Milligan, Mowat, Rose and Ross.
A Special Meeting of the Planning Committee had been called to consider the following item - 1. Local Development Plan for Edinburgh – Proposed Plan
The Committee agreed to receive a deputation in connection with the Head of Planning and Building Services’ report on the Proposed Local Development Plan. Deputation – Juniper Green Community Council The Community Council were concerned at the proposal to build 100 houses at Curriemuirend (HSG29) and the associated improvement of green space at Clovenstone Drive (GS10). They had sought to improve the use of Curriemuirend Park, in particular by the possible development of allotments. However, they believed that there were no adequate guarantees for the continued provision of open space at Curriemuirend Park. They asked that the area continue to be categorised as open space, as they were of the view that proposed improvements to a neighbouring site at Clovenstone Drive would not compensate for the loss of open space at Curriemuirend. The Community Council was also concerned about proposals to restrict traffic flows on Wester Hailes Road, between Gillespie crossroads and Clovenstone roundabout, by making the road single carriageway. They had further concerns about the possible route for children to take in reaching Juniper Green Primary School, and the inclusion of unspecified retail development in the indicative plan. They also felt that the proposed development would lead to greater coalescence between existing settlements. (Following questions from members, the points made by the deputation were noted. The Convener also spoke in regard to the opportunities for the Community Council to make representations during the statutory period that was to follow.) Proposed Local Development Plan The following papers had been circulated to the Committee – Proposed Local Development Plan - report by the Director of Services for Communities, and which contained: Appendix 1: Written Statement
Appendix 2: Proposed Action Programme Appendix 3: Schedule of Consultation Responses Appendix 4: Development Plan Scheme (Also circulated were five Background Papers, relative to: Revised Environmental Report; Habitats Regulations Appraisal; Transport Appraisal; Education Appraisal, and Equalities and Rights Impact Assessment.) The Head of Planning and Building Services prefaced his report with an explanation of the reasons for the Council bringing forward the timetable for the Local Development Plan (LDP), as against the background of the emerging South East Scotland Strategic Development Plan (SDP) which was currently in ‘proposed plan’ form and at the examination stage. There was a possibility that the SDP examination would result in recommendations that would necessitate further work to be done on the SDP and in consequence could otherwise substantially delay the Local Development Plan. It had been decided therefore to bring forward the preparation of the Proposed Local Development Plan, in advance of the SDP. It was possible that the Council might have to publish a Modified LDP to address any changes that might emerge from the ongoing considerations on the SDP. If approved by the Committee, the Proposed LDP would be published for representations, with a statutory six week period allowed (1 May to 16 June 2013), following which the Council would need to consider all the representations received. The Plan could not be adopted by the Council until any unresolved representations had been dealt with, through an examination which would be likely to be held in 2014. The Local Development Plan, once approved, would replace the existing local plans for Edinburgh i.e. the Edinburgh City Local Plan (2010) and the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan (2006, as amended in 2011). The Head of Planning and Building Services thereafter gave a detailed presentation of the report, in terms of: Appendix 1: Written Statement which identified the aims of the Plan and described, firstly, the strategy to be employed and secondly, the detailed planning proposals that were to apply. The Written Statement outlined the areas of development within the city and was accompanied by a ‘Proposals Map’. Appendix 2: Proposed Action Plan, which was an explanation of how the LDP proposals and policies were to be delivered. The Council had to publish its action plan within 3 months of adoption of the Plan, and then to review every two years thereafter. (The Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee had agreed in December 2012 that the action plan should be reported annually, in order to assist in setting priorities within the budget.) Appendix 3: Schedule of Consultation Responses, which set out how the Council had taken account of the responses received on the earlier Main Issues Report, in drawing up the policies and proposals in the Proposed LDP.
Planning Committee – 19 March 2013 Page 2 of 3 Appendix 4: Development Plan Scheme, which set out the procedures involved in considering the LDP, including an updated programme for the next steps in its preparation and also a Participation Statement which described the action to be taken by the Council in notifying interested parties and more general arrangements for public engagement. Following the presentation, the Head of Planning and Building Services responded to questions from members, on the policies and including the sites proposed for future development, explaining in particular the housing requirements for the city, as had been assessed through the Strategic Development Plan considerations of SESplan, and the methodology employed in the identification of housing sites and in particular the required allocations for the West and South East Edinburgh areas. He also explained the opportunities for representations to be made during the six week statutory period (to be arranged from 1 May – 14 June 2013) and consequent further considerations. (Note: A motion by Councillor Heslop that proposed housing site Ref HSG29 (Curriemuirend) be deleted from the Proposed LDP did not receive a seconder and fell.) Decision 1. To approve the Proposed Local Development Plan as submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Services, and with any minor drafting or technical editing changes to be made by officers and as requested in points raised by the Committee. 2. To approve the supporting documents, as contained in Appendix 2 and Appendix 3. 3. To approve the new Development Plan Scheme, for immediate circulation to interested parties (Appendix 4). 4. To note the Background Papers to be published with the Local Development Plan.
(Reference – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Services, submitted)
Planning Committee – 19 March 2013 Page 3 of 3 M in u te s Minutes
Development Management Sub-Committee 10.00 am, Wednesday 6 March 2013
Present CouncillorCouncillor Perry (Convener), Howat (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Blacklock, Brock, Cairns, Child, Griffiths, Heslop, McVey, Milligan, Mowat, Rose and Ross. Also in attendance: Councillors Bridgman and Walker (item 2).
1. General Applications and Miscellaneous Business
The Sub-Committee considered the reports on planning applications, as listed under Sections 3, 5 and 8 on the agenda. (Note: Councillor Rose had requested presentations by the Head of Planning and Building Standards in relation to agenda items 3.3 and 3.4.)
Decision To determine the applications as detailed in the Appendix to this minute. (Reference – reports by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)
2. 1-77 Kinnaird Park, Edinburgh – Multiplex Cinema
The Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on an application for development of a multiplex cinema at 1-77 Kinnaird Park (Fort Kinnaird Retail Park), Edinburgh. The application was for a seven screen multiplex cinema within the retail park at Fort Kinnaird. He gave details of the proposals and the planning considerations involved. In conclusion he recommended that the application be refused for reasons that the proposals did not comply with the development plan and the relevant guidance in Scottish Planning Policy, for reasons that: there was a sequentially preferable site available that could accommodate the proposed cinema; there was no quantitative or qualitative deficiency in cinema provision in the local area; the proposals were likely to harm the vitality of existing centres including the City Centre, Ocean Terminal and Wester Hailes, and the proposed cinema would increase the sub-regional role of the Newcraighall/Jewel commercial centre and jeopardise the development strategy in support of the city centre.
He considered that there were no compelling reasons for departing from policy and that there were no material considerations that outweighed this conclusion. The application was to be considered by means of a hearing, with the applicants, community council, objectors and local ward councillors invited to speak. In summary, the deputations made the following points - (a) Craigmillar Community Council/Portobello Community Council Craigmillar Community Council said that the community would welcome the return of a cinema to Fort Kinnaird. They were working hard to regenerate Craigmillar, which was officially recognised as an area of multiple deprivation, and the proposals would assist in these plans. Commercial entertainment hardly existed at all in Craigmillar at the present time. The added local employment prospects were an important element. Portobello Community Council were in support of the proposals. There was a need for a cinema in the wider area. The Fort Kinnaird centre had changed a lot since the previous cinema had closed, and the cinema would be likely to succeed in the different conditions, and with the benefit of new restaurants and other late-night openings. They would not be keen to see a cinema at Baileyfield on grounds that it could draw trade away from the 36 or so small cafes and restaurants in Portobello; the Fort Kinnaird site was likely to have its own generated demand and the impact would be much less. In reply to questions from members, the deputation acknowledged that a cinema at Fort Kinnaird was likely to draw trade away from other centres. As a cinema required at least four restaurants (before it would go ahead), they felt if it were too close to Portobello it could impact on the local businesses of the town. They also felt that, with regard to the city centre sites, some of these had benefitted from the previous cinema closure at Fort Kinnaird and it was to be accepted that some trade would now revert from the city centre cinemas. (b) Ward Councillors Councillors Bridgman and Walker spoke as ward members. They were supportive of the proposals on grounds that it would assist in the re-generation of the area and provide for a recognisable gap in entertainment provision. The proposals supported the potential for further job creation at Fort Kinnaird. They felt in planning terms it met most of the criteria, it being noted that a cinema had been present on site until recent years. The previous operation had failed because the building was not capable of being modernised and adapting. Planning permission had been granted to expand the centre and this was a key element of that strategy to improve the centre. The Baileyfield site at Portobello was less attractive and by its situation was more likely to impact locally. Fort Kinnaird could cater for a separate clientele and draw from different markets than the city centre. They noted the forecast impacts in the officer’s report but felt this a difficult area to estimate and in their view the overall impacts on any one centre would be less. (c) Owners of Ocean Terminal centre The deputation represented the owners of the Ocean Terminal centre. As owners, they were concerned at the impact of the proposals on the overall vitality of the Ocean
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 6 March 2013 Page 2 of 9 Terminal centre which they considered to be an anchor to the re-generation of Leith. At present there were 17 vacant units in the centre, with 5 major retail failures in the last 12 month, and a total vacant floor-space of approximately 42,000 sq. ft.. In December, the owners had publicly exhibited a £6 million refurbishment programme aimed at stimulating the centre. These investment plans could be jeopardised by the proposals which were likely to draw trade away from Ocean Terminal. They considered that Edinburgh’s shopping and leisure provision was delicately balanced with the dominance of Fort Kinnaird putting pressure on the other centres. They were of the view that the proposals would seriously affect investor confidence and the retail and leisure jobs bound up in the centre. They considered the application did not comply with the planning policies - in particular, the sequential test assessment required in the development plan. They considered that whilst there had been a cinema previously at Fort Kinnaird, a precedent had not been set, because so much had been changed within the development plan since the closure. In reply to questions from members, they expressed their view that Fort Kinnaird had already achieved the critical mass necessary to succeed, and it was not necessary to provide a cinema as an additional draw; that the majority of its audience would come from displacement of the other existing cinemas in the city, of which Ocean Terminal would be hardest hit. There were 17 units vacant at present in Ocean Terminal and to be noted that about 30 of the current leases would be up for renewal in the coming year. They confirmed that the owners had aspirations for a large expansion of the Ocean Terminal but felt it was unlikely to come forward in the current climate. They agreed that Fort Kinnaird could be in competition with other sub-regional centres such as Livingston, or Newcastle, but at the same time considered that it would mainly be in competition with the city centre and in particular with Ocean Terminal. They confirmed that the cinema operators at Ocean Terminal had not offered to be represented at this hearing as was regarded as normal practice within the industry, cinema operators not inclined to comment on other competitors’ plans within the planning system. (d) Owners of OMNI Centre The agents for the owners of the Omni Centre referred to the application being contrary to the development plan. The proposed cinema would provide for 1246 seats which was about 60% of the existing provision at the OMNI – it being important to note that four of the OMNI’s screens seated less than 100 persons and were vulnerable to competition. The application was contrary to the development plan in particular the sequential approach to the location of commercial leisure developments. They noted the Edinburgh City Local Plan had indicated that Newcraighall/The Jewel should experience no further growth beyond existing approvals. It was not a ‘preferred location’ for entertainment and leisure facilities. The central area was the focus for leisure and tourist activities and proposals which would undermine this policy were to be resisted. Whilst entertainment and leisure developments played a key role in re-
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 6 March 2013 Page 3 of 9 generation, the development of a multiplex cinema at Kinnaird Park could not be regarded in the same manner as the regeneration strategies for Leith Waterfront and Granton. Whilst the applicants had referred to a cinema having been in the location previously, planning policy had moved on a lot and it could not be seen as a precedent having been set. There were other possible sites for a cinema development, such as the Baileyfield site at Portobello, which was closer to the city centre and should have been considered within the sequential test, and also a consent for a cinema at Cameron Toll. In reply to questions, the deputation gave their views on whether there would be growth in the cinema market, in view of patterns of audience attendances increasing in recent years. They agreed that cinemas attempted to cater for different segments of the market, but they felt that the cinema market in Edinburgh was at saturation point. (c) Owners of Cameron Toll centre The agents for the owners of Cameron Toll referred to there being a current consent for a cinema within Cameron Toll. The Fort Kinnaird proposal would undermine that consent and the ability to attract a cinema to Cameron Toll, contrary to the intentions of the development plan. The recently obtained planning permission for an extension to the Cameron Toll centre involved retail, restaurants and leisure, including a three screen cinema. The extension was necessary if the Cameron Toll centre was to succeed. The applicants’ planning statement had not addressed this issue of a recent consent. Given the new planning permission in place for a cinema use in the south east of Edinburgh, the requirement for an additional cinema was to be questioned. The applicants had said that a cinema at Fort Kinnaird would restore the balance of accessibility of cinema goers throughout the city - but there had been no evidence submitted to suggest there was any requirement for two cinemas in the south east quarter. Fort Kinnaird was by far the most dominant retailing destination in Edinburgh, aside from the City Centre, and was of such a size that it drew significant amounts of trade away from the City Centre. If a cinema use was permitted, then this competitive advantage would increase significantly, resulting in a harmful impact on the City Centre, which was presently suffering from the economic downturn. The deputation responded to questions regarding the efforts to attract investment for the centre: they confirmed that a cinema operator had not been contracted for the centre, at the present time. (e) Applicants The deputation represented the applicants and on behalf of the owners of the Fort Kinnaird retail park. The centre was operating in a dynamic and changing market and it had been acknowledged by the Council, in granting consent two years ago for an extension of floor-space, that the centre was in need of revitalising. Fort Kinnaird had to fulfil a sub-regional role, but it had not been operating as well as envisaged. At present 14% of the park was vacant or about to become vacant. The centre owners
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 6 March 2013 Page 4 of 9 had made efforts to improve the public realm, and as agreed with the Council, and were working to stimulate the centre. They intended to invest £13m to improve the centre and address its deficiencies. The proposals for the re-configuration were dependent on this cinema use – the centre lacked in leisure provision at the present time and without it the expansion was not likely to take place. They had a cinema operator ready to be contracted to deliver the multiplex cinema as well as the necessary restaurant provision. They did not believe that the cinema would be in direct competition with Cameron Toll. The previous cinema at Fort Kinnaird had failed, they believed, on account of being too large and unable to be adapted; the proposed new Odeon cinema would be correctly sized for the catchment area. The catchment would include East and Mid Lothian, Scottish Borders and SE Edinburgh. There was potential to grow the market. As regards Wester Hailes, it was to be noted that the audiences at its Odeon had not grown after the former cinema at Fort Kinnaird had closed - therefore they did not believe that a new Fort Kinnaird cinema would draw trade away from Wester Hailes. With regard to the sequential test, and the Baileyfield site in Portobello, they wished to report, with the selling agent’s permission, that there had been 8 notes of interest to develop that site, now reduced to a short-list of 6, of which none involved a cinema use. They believed therefore that the Baileyfield site had now to be discounted as a potential site. They noted that no operator had yet been engaged for Cameron Toll. In reply to questions from members, they agreed that Ocean Terminal cinema revenues had grown considerably in the five years since the Fort Kinnaird cinema had closed and therefore a corollary was that a re-introduced cinema was likely to affect Ocean Terminal’s cinema; however there had been general growths in the cinema audiences in that period, some of which could be attributable to wider changes in the product during that period. It was difficult to accurately forecast the likely effect on other cinemas in the city centre areas or whether this would lead to a cinema closure elsewhere. (Following the deputations, the Head of Planning and Building Standards responded to questions from members in his relation to his report and issues raised by the speakers.) Motion That the Committee considered the application to be consistent with development plan policies, on grounds that: - whilst approval of the multiplex cinema at Fort Kinnaird would have an impact on cinemas in the City Centre, including Ocean Terminal, the Omni centre and the Wester Hailes centre, the Committee considered, on balance, that the impact was not likely to be significant in terms of retail policies and would not threaten the overall vitality or viability of these other centres. In this, they noted the locality of Fort Kinnaird Retail Park, and the likelihood of a separate clientele being attracted to the retail park, and the overall background of cinema attendances in the city in recent years. The Committee was of the view that granting of permission for these
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 6 March 2013 Page 5 of 9 proposals would not be incompatible with the Council’s retail strategy for the city centre; - the application had met the requirements of the sequential test; in particular the Committee accepted the view that the Baileyfield site in Portobello was unlikely to be available for a cinema development, a recent bidding process for the site having been concluded without a proposal for a cinema development; - the development would provide an opportunity to re-vitalise the Fort Kinnaird centre which was important to the overall growth of the City, and
- it would meet a recognisable need for leisure provision for the Craigmillar and surrounding area, and assist with the re-generation strategies for the area. (And with the Head of Planning and Building Services being asked to report back on suitable conditions for the granting of planning permission.) - moved by Councillor Howat, seconded by Councillor Perry. Amendment That planning permission be refused for the reasons as recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Services and as detailed in his report. - moved by Councillor Mowat, seconded by Councillor Milligan Voting For the motion 8 votes For the amendment 5 votes.
Decision To resolve in terms of the motion by Councillor Howat and therefore that the Committee be of a mind to grant planning permission and with the Head of Planning and Building Standards asked to report back on conditions for a grant of consent. (Reference – report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards, 6 March 2013, submitted)
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 6 March 2013 Page 6 of 9 APPENDIX Applications
Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No
Note: Detailed conditions/reasons for the following decisions are contained in the statutory planning register.
Item 3.1 - 14 Adelphi Erect temporary portacabins To GRANT planning permission Grove (Jessfield connected to the existing subject to informatives as detailed Bowling Club), clubhouse in order to provide in the report by the Acting Head of Edinburgh toilet and kitchen facilities Planning an Building Standards. (temporary period to be 5
years); provide wheelchair toilet facilities and access. 12/04436/FUL
Item 3.2 - 2 Beresford Installation of broadband To GRANT planning permission Avenue, Edinburgh (at cabinet (1.4m x 0.75m x 0.4m). subject to a condition and telecomms apparatus 8 informatives as detailed in the (13/00145/FUL) metres east of) report by the Acting Head of Planning an Building Standards.
3.3 - 21 Dalkeith Road, Operate an outdoor market with To GRANT planning permission Edinburgh up to 24 traditional market stalls subject to the following condition every Sunday (extending to and informative –
Fridays, Saturdays and Condition: The permission shall be Sundays during August and restricted to Sundays only December) on the public and limited to a period of six footway near The Royal months from the date of the Commonwealth Pool. decision letter. The use shall cease (13/00125/FUL) at the expiry of this permission. Informative: The applicant to be advised to contact the Local Neighbourhood Manager to at least one month prior to the first market to agree arrangements with respect to access, parking, protection of footway area from damage and littering and monitoring of the market operation. All at no cost to the Council.
Item 3.4 - 31 Liberton Redevelopment of vacant land To GRANT planning permission Road, Edinburgh for Later Living Retirement subject to conditions and
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 6 March 2013 Page 7 of 9 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No
Housing together with informatives and a legal agreement landscaping and car parking. as detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning an (12/04342/FUL) Building Standards.
3.5 – 75 Main Street, Change of Use from retail To GRANT planning permission Davidson’s Mains, (Class 1) to tanning salon subject to a condition and Edinburgh (Class 2). informatives as detailed in the report by the Acting Head of (12/04403/FUL) Planning an Building Standards.
3.6 - 2 Peffer Place, Alter existing To GRANT planning permission Edinburgh warehouse/factory unit and subject to a condition and offices providing new parking informatives as detailed in the
inside warehouse in addition to report by the Acting Head of existing exterior car park and Planning an Building Standards. widen gates. (12/03962/FUL)
3.7 - 3 Rose Street, Installation of new signage and To GRANT planning permission Edinburgh way finding street furniture. subject to a condition and New vertical gable signpost informatives as detailed in the
including projector, new stone report by the Acting Head of seat, and new painted metal Planning an Building Standards. and stone way finding and information map. (12/03956/FUL)
3.8 - 77 Rose Street, Installation of new signage and To GRANT planning permission Edinburgh way finding street furniture. subject to a condition and New vertical gable signpost informatives as detailed in the
including projector, new stone report by the Acting Head of seat, and new painted metal Planning an Building Standards. and stone way finding and information map. (12/03941/FUL)
3.9 - 168 Rose Street, Installation of new signage and To GRANT planning permission Edinburgh way finding street furniture at subject to a condition and the entrance of Rose Street off informatives as detailed in the
Castle Street. New vertical report by the Acting Head of gable signpost including Planning an Building Standards. projector, new stone seat, and new painted metal and stone Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 6 March 2013 Page 8 of 9 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No
way finding and information map. (12/03936/FUL)
3.10 - 2 Wardieburn Erect a tool shed to store tools To GRANT planning permission Road, Edinburgh (26 and provide space for subject to informatives as detailed metres west of) supporting a community food in the report by the Acting Head of growing initiative in the back- Planning an Building Standards.
green. (12/04452/FUL)
5.1 - 1-77 Kinnaird Erection of Multiplex Cinema. The Sub-Committee was minded to Park (Fort Kinnaird GRANT planning permission – with (12/02091/FUL) Retail Park), Edinburgh the Head of Planning and Building - protocol note and Services to report back on suitable report by the Acting conditions for consent. Head of Planning and (On division – see item 2 of Building Standards minutes. )
8.1 - 132 McDonald Proposed residential To GRANT planning permission Road Edinburgh (35 development of flats and colony subject to conditions, informatives Metres south-west of) housing. and a legal agreement as detailed report by the Acting in the report by the Acting Head of (12/03518/FUL) Head of Planning and Planning an Building Standards. Building Standards
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 6 March 2013 Page 9 of 9 M in u te s Minutes
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 10.00 am, Wednesday, 20 March 2013
Present Councillors Perry (Convener), Howat (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Blacklock, Brock, Cairns, Child, Dixon, Griffiths, McVey, Milligan, Mowat, Rose and Ross.
1. General Applications and Miscellaneous Business
The Sub-Committee considered the reports on planning applications, pre-applications and enforcement issues as listed in Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the agenda for the meeting. Note: under Section 4, Councillor Bagshaw had requested a presentation by the Head of Planning and Building Standards in relation to agenda item 4.2. .
Decision To determine the applications as detailed in the appendix to this minute.
(Reference – reports by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)
Dissent
Councillor Bagshaw requested that his dissent be recorded in regard to the decision on agenda item 4.2
2. Caltongate Development
The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on fifteen applications to vary conditions to extend the time to commence development, for previously granted applications for sites at New Street, Canongate, East Market Street, Cranston Street and Jeffrey Street within the Caltongate Development which were detailed at agenda item numbers 6.2 to 6.16. (Application nos 13/00085/FUL, 13/00088/FUL, 13/00090/FUL, 13/00091/FUL, 13/00092/FUL, 13/00093/FUL, 13/00094/FUL, 13/00095/FUL, 13/00096/FUL, 13/00103/CON, 13/00106/CON, 13/00100/LBC, 13/00101/LBC, 13/00102/LBC and 13/00107/LBC). He gave details of the proposals and the planning considerations involved, and advised that these were in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan, there were
no new material considerations which prevented the granting of consent for the extension of time for the development.
The applications were to be considered by means of a hearing, with the applicants, the community council, objectors and local ward councillors invited to speak. In summary, the speakers made the following points -
(a) Old Town Community Council
Julie Logan advised that the Community Council objected to all the applications on the grounds that the applications effectively sought to renew the original consents, and should therefore demonstrate justification for the potential departure from the statutory planning policies used when those consents were obtained.
The developers had over a year to progress revised proposals for the site or implement any of the existing consents which were considered to be viable i.e. the social housing on Calton Road. No development had been undertaken to date and no revised plans had been submitted.
The applicant maintained the renewals were required for private commercial reasons to maintain the investment value of the site to attract suitable investors, and had stated:
“Allowing the permissions to expire will fundamentally alter the valuation of the site, which would have significant implications for Artisan's financial appraisals and ultimately the ability to deliver the regeneration of the overall site”
Scottish Planning Policy (SPP1) clearly stated: “The planning system did not exist to protect the interests of one person or business against the activities of another.
In distinguishing between the public and private interests the basic question was whether the proposal would unacceptably affect the amenity and existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest, not whether owners or occupiers of neighbouring or other existing properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development, and that Planning decisions should always be made on planning grounds and in the public interest.
The developer had taken account of the reduced investment value of the completed scheme which had plummeted making it no longer commercially viable when negotiating a reduced price for council assets. The development contributions required (section 75 agreement) had also been substantially scaled back from what was originally agreed to take account of economic conditions.
The community had engaged constructively with the developers to progress the development and the submission of new applications and revised plans but to date only applications for renewal of the failed scheme had been submitted. The applicant was under no obligation to implement either existing or revised consents as a phased development or comprehensively. Realistically the site could remain vacant for a further 3 years or further demolitions could be progressed.
The approval of applications to renew the consents would enable the developer to further delay use of the site and delay the submission of new applications for a revised development.
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 20 March 2013 Page 2 of 13
The planning process had been made unnecessarily complicated by combining the consultation process for both renewals and revised plans. This undermined public confidence in the planning system and in the Council's commitment to improving community engagement.
The recommended extensions to demolition consents did not comply with updated Scottish Historic Environmental Policy (SHEP). No supporting case had been made to justify this departure. SHEP required the applicant to provide evidence that:
• the building was not of special interest or
• the building was incapable of repair or
• the demolition of the building was essential to delivering significant benefits to the economic growth of the wider community or
• the repair of the building was not economically viable and that it had been marketed at a price reflecting its location and condition to potential restoring purchasers for a reasonable period
None of the above conditions had been met in relation to the applications for extensions to the planning consents.
The original consents did not take account of any recent planning research, National Policies and supplementary and local policy guidance, including:
- Designing Places (Scottish Government)
- Main Issues Reports supporting the new Local Development Plan (CEC)
- Building a Vision for the City Centre (CEC transportation)
- Southern Arc Development Framework and Royal Mile Action Plan (CEC planning)
- The City Centre Neighbourhood Partnership Community Plan (CEC SfC)
The revised plans on display last week could be progressed and approved as a Planning in Principle application (as was recently done for Holyrood North) before the existing consents expired in October. This would provide the applicant with security for potential investors and allow detailed applications to come forward for the phased development of particular buildings, as and when specific end users are identified.
In conclusion the Community Council requested that the applications be refused for the following reasons;
1. The proposed developments did not comply with Local Plan policies or the Caltongate Masterplan and no longer demonstrated a realistic prospect of delivering a comprehensive development which would stimulate the sustainable economic growth needed to justify this departure from policy.
2. The developer had indicated the proposals were no longer economically viable and consent was being sought purely to maintain an inflated speculative development Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 20 March 2013 Page 3 of 13 value, the proposed time extension was not in the public interest.
3. Approval of the development would prejudice the delivery of new plans and proposals for a more sympathetic and sustainable development.
4. The proposed demolition of sound and reusable Listed and unlisted buildings within an outstanding conservation area in the World Heritage Site was unjustified and did not comply with the guidance in SHEP or other National and Local planning policy for the locality.
(b) The Cockburn Association
Euan Leitch on behalf of the Cockburn Association advised that they objected to the proposals for the following reasons:
The case for the demolition of the category C-listed Sailor's Ark in 2008 was made under the auspices of what is now criteria C of the Scottish Historic Environment Policy, that the demolition of the building was essential to delivering significant benefits to economic growth or the wider community.
The attendant guidance on demolition required evidence to be supplied to the local authority "that there was no practical way of realising the benefits without demolishing the building" and "that every effort was made to incorporate the listed building into it.
The Supporting Planning Policy Statement asked to put aside the reality of the situation. The reality was a reappraisal of the consents for the plots on south of the Caltongate Masterplan and this wholly called into question the absolute need for the demolition of the Sailor's Ark.
The argument that the demolition was for the economic benefit of the wider community was based upon the March 2007, EKOS Ltd briefing report, Caltongate Development: Assessment of Economic Benefits and the need for a Hotel and Conference Centre, commissioned by Mountgrange Caltongate Ltd. It stated that there was a recognized demand for a five star hotel and conference facility on the Royal Mile that would result in employment for 439 people and wealth creation of £1.63m. The document based the demand on the fact that Edinburgh had dropped out of the top 20 Revenue Per Available Room Global Ranking Index for 2005.
The Revenue Per Available Room Global Ranking index 2013 placed Edinburgh in second place behind Paris and ahead of London
In light of the above information and the completely different economic climate of today, the supporting documentation for the planning application was manifestly six years out of date and the City of Edinburgh Council cannot determine these applications based on out of date information.
Further developments since the 2008 consent cannot be ignored including UNESCO's recommendation that the destruction of the listed buildings should be avoided, should be a material consideration in determination.
While it may be in the commercial interest of the applicant to renew the existing consent it is not in the interest of the city of Edinburgh's heritage and the role of the Council is to protect the latter, not the shareholders of a private company. It would be Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 20 March 2013 Page 4 of 13 reprehensible of the City of Edinburgh Council to ignore the realities of the situation when alternative proposals for Caltongate South were known to the city and stakeholders, albeit not yet in the public domain.
The forthcoming proposals may negate the arguments of economic necessity that resulted in the 2007 proposals being consented and the Council renewing these consents in that knowledge would suggest a less than transparent planning process.
The Association eagerly anticipated the revised proposals for Caltongate South and it is therefore regrettable that the applicants seek to revive the consents for a scheme within the Old Town that the Association had previously strongly resisted in conjunction with Edinburgh World Heritage, The Old Town Community Council and The Old Town Association and others.
In conclusion he requested that these applications be refused.
(c) Edinburgh Old Town Renewal Trust
Neil Simpson on behalf of the Edinburgh Old Town Development Trust advised that they objected to all fifteen applications, as there was an ongoing redesign of the southern sites and the applicant had made it clear that they did not intend to implement the existing consents.
The reasons given by the applicant to protect the interests of commercial investors was not a material planning consideration.
The proposed demolitions had not been considered in terms of new policy guidance “Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP)” and Historic Scotland Guidance “Managing Change in the Historic Environment – Demolition”
To grant an extension of time for the proposals would lead to a further increase in uncertainty around the development, in conclusion he requested that the applications be refused.
(d) Applicant
Richard Slipper on behalf of the applicant advised that the extension of time was required to attract further investors in the site. He also advised that alternative proposals were being considered for parts of the site and these would take some time to bring forward.
He gave a brief outline of the new proposals that were under consideration, but indicated that these would be unlikely to be forthcoming as new investors would be hard to attract to the development unless the applications under consideration were granted.
(d) Ward Councillors
Councillor Rankin advised that he was in favour of granting the applications as this would protect the development and allow new designs and investors to come forward
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 20 March 2013 Page 5 of 13 Councillor Doran advised that she supported the views expressed by the community council and would wish to see new proposals that include social housing brought forward as soon as possible.
Motion
To grant the applications subject to conditions, informatives and a legal agreement as detailed in the reports by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
- moved by Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor Howat.
Amendment
To indicate that the Sub-Committee was minded to refuse the applications on the grounds that the proposals did not comply with updated Scottish Historic Environmental Policy (SHEP) and did not show that the development was essential to delivering significant benefits to the economic growth of the wider community and did not take into account did not take account the material considerations of any recent planning research national policies and supplementary and local policy guidance.
- moved by Councillor Bagshaw, seconded by Councillor Mowat.
Voting
For the motion - 11 votes For the amendment - 2 votes
Decision
To grant the applications subject to conditions, informatives and a legal agreement as detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
(Reference – reports by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 20 March 2013 Page 6 of 13
APPENDIX Applications
Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No
Note: Detailed conditions/reasons for the following decisions are contained in the statutory planning register. Item 4.1 – 72 (Telecomms Apparatus 22 To GRANT planning permission Commercial Street Metres East of) subject to a condition and Edinburgh. 12/04520/FUL. informatives as detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
Item 4.2 - 140 Crewe Demolition of existing office To GRANT planning permission Road South building and construction of subject to a conditions, Edinburgh. five storey hotel (Class 7) informatives and a legal with associated facilities, car agreement as detailed in the parking, hard and soft report by the Acting Head of landscaping. – Application Planning and Building no. 12/04235/FUL. Standards.
Councillor Bagshaw requested that his dissent be recorded.
Item 4.3 - 204 Rose Installation of new signage at To GRANT planning permission Street, Edinburgh the entrance of Rose Street subject to a condition and (Land 30 Metres off South Charlotte Street. informatives as detailed in the West of). New vertical gable signpost report by the Acting Head of including projector and new Planning and Building stone seat (as amended) – Standards. Application no. 12/03933/FUL.
Item 4. 4 - 131 Rose Installation of new signage To GRANT planning permission Street, Edinburgh and way finding street subject to a condition and (Land 8 Metres West furniture. New vertical gable informatives as detailed in the of). signpost including projector, report by the Acting Head of new stone seat, and new Planning and Building painted metal and stone way Standards. finding and information map. - Application no. 12/03940/FUL.
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 20 March 2013 Page 7 of 13 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No
Item 4.5 - 73 Rose Installation of new signage To GRANT planning permission Street, Edinburgh and way finding street subject to a condition and (Land 14 Metres furniture. New vertical gable informatives as detailed in the West of). signpost including projector, report by the Acting Head of new stone seats, and new Planning and Building painted metal and stone way Standards. finding and information map. – Application no. 12/03944/FUL.
Item 4.6 - 37 Rose Installation of new signage To GRANT planning permission Street, Edinburgh (as amended). New vertical subject to a condition and (Land 35 Metres East gable signpost including informatives as detailed in the of). projector and new stone report by the Acting Head of seat. – Application no. Planning and Building 12/03948/FUL. Standards.
Item 4.7 - 27 Rose Installation of new signage To GRANT planning permission Street, Edinburgh and way finding street subject to a condition and (Land 6 Metres West furniture. New vertical gable informatives as detailed in the of). signpost including projector, report by the Acting Head of new stone seat, and new Planning and Building painted metal and stone way Standards. finding and information map. – Application no. 12/03951/FUL.
Item 4.8 - 46 Stanley Change of use from social To GRANT planning permission Place, Edinburgh. club (Class 11) to offices and subject to informatives as repair and storage facilities detailed in the report by the (cycle rickshaw business) Acting Head of Planning and (Class 4 and Class 6) with Building Standards. associated external building alterations. – Application no. 13/00072/FUL.
Item 4.9 - Stopping To CONFIRM the Stopping Up Up Order - West Order. Pilton Crescent, Edinburgh.
Item 5.1 - 1-77 Erection of Multiplex Cinema To GRANT planning permission Kinnaird Park, Fort - Application no. subject to a conditions, Kinnaird Park, 12/02091/FUL. informatives and a legal Edinburgh. agreement as detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 20 March 2013 Page 8 of 13 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No
Item 6.1 - Caltongate Protocol Note. Noted. Development.
Item 6.2 - Land Section 42 Application to To GRANT the application Adjacent to New vary condition 1 of Planning subject to conditions, Street, Edinburgh. Permission 07/00101/FUL – informatives and a legal Application no agreement as detailed in the 13/00085/FUL. report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
(on a division)
Item 6.3 - Land Section 42 Application to To GRANT the application Adjacent to New vary condition 1 of Planning subject to conditions, Street, 221 - 223 Permission 07/01287/FUL informatives and a legal Canongate, (PA3) - Application no agreement as detailed in the Edinburgh. 13/00088/FUL. report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
(on a division)
Item 6.4 - Land Section 42 Application to To GRANT the application Adjacent to New vary condition 1 of Planning subject to conditions, Street 221-223 Permission 07/04400/FUL informatives and a legal Canongate, (PA4a) - Application no agreement as detailed in the Edinburgh. 13/00090/FUL. report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
(on a division)
Item 6.5 - Land Section 42 Application to To GRANT the application Adjacent to New vary condition 1 of Planning subject to conditions, Street 2, 4, 5 New Permission 07/01237/FUL informatives and a legal Street 223, 227, 229, (PA5) - Application no agreement as detailed in the 231 Canongate, 13/00091/FUL. report by the Acting Head of Edinburgh. Planning and Building Standards.
(on a division)
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 20 March 2013 Page 9 of 13 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No
Item 6.6 - CEC Depot Section 42 application to To GRANT the application East Market Street, vary condition 1 of Planning subject to conditions, Cranston Street, Permission 07/01288/FUL informatives and a legal Edinburgh. (PA6) - Application no agreement as detailed in the 13/00092/FUL. report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
(on a division)
Item 6.7 - Land at Section 42 application to To GRANT the application East Market Street, vary condition 1 of Planning subject to conditions, 1-15 East Market Permission 07/01241/FUL informatives and a legal Street, 5a-24 (PA7) - Application no agreement as detailed in the Cranston Street, 13/00093/FUL. report by the Acting Head of Edinburgh. Planning and Building Standards.
(on a division)
Item 6.8 - Land Section 42 application to To GRANT the application Adjacent to New vary Condition 3 subject to conditions, Street Former Bus (Archaeology) and Condition informatives and a legal Depot, Edinburgh 5 (Boundary Treatment and agreement as detailed in the Footway Details) of Planning report by the Acting Head of Permission 7/00101/FUL - Planning and Building Application no 13/00094/FUL Standards.
(on a division)
Item 6 .9 - Land Section 42 application to To GRANT the application Adjacent to New vary Condition 2 subject to conditions, Street, 221-223 (Archaeology); Condition 4 informatives and a legal Canongate, (Sustainability Management agreement as detailed in the Edinburgh. System); Condition 6 report by the Acting Head of (Construction Details); Planning and Building Condition 7 (Sustainability Standards. Management System); and Condition 21 (Boundary (on a division) Treatments) of Planning Permission 07/01287/FUL – Application no 13/00095/FUL
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 20 March 2013 Page 10 of 13 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No
Item 6.10 - Land Section 42 application to To GRANT the application Adjacent to New vary condition 2 subject to conditions, Street, 221-223 (Archaeology); Condition 4 informatives and a legal Canongate, (Sustainability Management agreement as detailed in the Edinburgh. System); Condition 6 report by the Acting Head of (Construction Planning and Building Details);Condition 7 Standards. (Sustainability Management System); and Condition 17 (on a division) (Boundary Treatments) of Planning Permission 07/04400/FUL - Land Adjacent To New Street 221, 223 Canongate Edinburgh – Application no13/00096/FUL
Item 6.11 - 5 New Application under section 17 To GRANT the application Street, Edinburgh. of the Planning (Listed subject to conditions, Building and Conservation informatives and notification to Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 Scottish Ministers prior to for variation of condition 1 of determination as detailed in the Listed Building Consent report by the Acting Head of 07/01208/LBC to allow Planning and Building additional time for works to Standards. commence - 5 New Street Edinburgh – Application no (on a division) 13/00100/LBC.
Item 6.12 - 231 Application under section 17 To GRANT the application Canongate, of the Planning (Listed subject to a conditions, Edinburgh. Building and Conservation informatives and notification to Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 Scottish Ministers prior to for variation of condition 1 of determination as detailed in the the Listed Building Consent report by the Acting Head of 07/01231/LBC to allow Planning and Building additional time for works to Standards. commence - Application no 13/00101/LBC. (on a division)
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 20 March 2013 Page 11 of 13 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No
Item 6.13 - East Vary condition 1 of planning To GRANT the application Market Street, permission 07/01290/CON - subject to conditions, Cranston Street, Application no informatives and notification to Edinburgh. 13/00103/CON. Scottish Ministers prior to determination as detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
(on a division)
Item 6.14 - 227-229 Vary Condition 1 of planning To GRANT the application Canongate, permission 07/01206/CON - subject to conditions, Edinburgh. Application no informatives and notification to 13/00106/CON. Scottish Ministers prior to determination as detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
(on a division)
Item 6.15 - Jeffrey Application under section 17 To GRANT the application Street, Market Street, of the Planning (Listed subject to conditions, Jeffrey Street Arches Building and Conservation informatives as detailed in the 1-24, Edinburgh. Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 report by the Acting Head of for variation of condition 1 of Planning and Building Listed Building Consent Standards. 07/01289/LBC to allow additional time for works to commence - Application no 13/00102/LBC. (on a division)
Item 6.16 - 5a - 7-9 Application under section 17 To GRANT the application Cranston Street, of the Planning (Listed subject to an informative as Edinburgh Building and Conservation detailed in the report by the Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 Acting Head of Planning and for variation of condition 1 of Building Standards. Listed Building Consent 07/01207/LBC to allow additional time for works to commence -– Application no (on a division) 13/00107/LBC
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 20 March 2013 Page 12 of 13 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No
Item 7.1 - Dalkeith Forthcoming Application by To note the key issues Road, Glasgow 2014 Ltd for the Commonwealth Pool, Erection of Temporary Edinburgh. Overlay Installations to be Implemented for the 2014 Commonwealth Games.
Item 7.2 - 200 Forthcoming Application by To note the key issues Mansfield Road, Barratt/David Wilson Homes Balerno (Land 300 for a Residential Metres West -of). Development with Associated landscaping and Footpaths.
Item 9.1 - 16 Enforcement Report into That ACTION IS TAKEN to Holyrood Park Road. Breach of Control at rectify the breach of Parkside Bowling Club - advertisement control as Reference no detailed in the report by the 12/00743/ENCOMP. Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 20 March 2013 Page 13 of 13 M in u te s Minutes
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 10.00 am, Wednesday, 27 March 2013
Present Councillors Perry (Convener), Howat (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Blacklock, Brock, Cairns, Child, Dixon, Griffiths, Heslop, McVey, Milligan, Mowat, Rose and Ross.
1. General Applications and Miscellaneous Business
The Sub-Committee considered the reports on planning applications, as listed under Sections 4 and 8 on the agenda. Councillor Perry had requested a presentation in relation to agenda item 4.6.
Decision To determine the applications as detailed in the appendix to this minute.
(Reference – reports by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)
2. 8 East Scotland Street Lane, Edinburgh (Agenda item 8.1)
The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on an application to change the use of the domestic garage/lock-up to studio office accommodation at 8 East Scotland Street Lane, Edinburgh (as amended) (application no. 12/03242/FUL).
The site had been visited on 21 March 2013.
Motion
To grant planning permission subject to a condition as detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
- moved by Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor Howat.
Amendment
To indicate that the Sub-Committee was minded to refuse planning permission for the reason that the proposal would materially change to the character of the lane and the conservation area.
- moved by Councillor Mowat, seconded by Councillor Blacklock.
Voting
For the motion - 9 votes For the amendment - 6 votes
Decision
To grant planning permission subject to a condition as detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
(Reference – Development Management Sub-Committee 20 February 2013 (Item 1) report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)
3. 28 West Harbour Road, Edinburgh (Agenda item 4.6)
The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on an application for a Change of use from hard standing to temporary car parking, with associated works including clearing the site and making good the hard standing areas, replacing the existing fencing and gates, providing CCTV and a security hut next to the entrance gates and providing flood lighting at 28 West Harbour Road, Edinburgh (application no. 13/00236/FUL).
Motion
To refuse planning permission for the reasons detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
- moved by Councillor Bagshaw, seconded by Councillor Milligan.
Amendment
1) To indicate the Sub-Committee was minded to grant planning permission for a period of five years.
2) The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards to report back on detailed conditions.
3) To request the applicant to investigate producing a green travel plan.
- moved by Councillor Rose, seconded by Councillor Howat.
Voting
For the motion - 4 votes For the amendment - 10 votes
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 27 March 2013 Page 2 of 5 Decision
1) To indicate the Sub-Committee was minded to grant planning permission for a period of five years.
2) The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards to report back on detailed conditions.
3) To request the applicant to investigate producing a green travel plan.
(Reference – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)
Declaration of Interests
Councillor Ross declared a non-financial interest as a director of Waterfront Edinburgh and left the room during the consideration of this item
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 27 March 2013 Page 3 of 5 APPENDIX Applications
Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No
Note: Detailed conditions/reasons for the following decisions are contained in the statutory planning register. Item 4.1 - 119(Flat 2) Install sliding screen doors To GRANT planning permission Grange Loan, and new window on rear subject to informatives as detailed Edinburgh elevation. Application no. in the report by the Acting Head of 13/00353/FUL Planning and Building Standards.
Item 4.2 - 121(Flat 1) Conversion of lower ground To GRANT planning permission Grange Loan, floor to connect with ground subject to informatives as detailed Edinburgh floor flat and formation of in the report by the Acting Head of three uPVC patio doors. Planning and Building Standards. Application no. 13/00148/FUL
Item 4.3 - For a modification of the To GRANT planning permission Greendykes Road Planning Obligation. subject to informatives and a legal (Land at), Edinburgh Application no. agreement as detailed in the report 13/00420/OBL by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
Item 4.4 - 62 Install 1 x DSLAM Telecoms To GRANT planning permission Inverleith Row Cabinet on pavement. - subject to a condition and (Telecomms Application no. informatives as detailed in the Apparatus 8 Metres 13/00329/FUL report by the Acting Head of Northeast of) Planning and Building Standards.
Item 4.5 - Ravelston Replace the existing 1.8m To GRANT planning permission Park, Craigcrook high chain link fence subject to informatives as detailed Road, Edinburgh between the play area and in the report by the Acting Head of the ball court with a 2.4m Planning and Building Standards. high T8 ball stop fence. Application no. 13/00275/FUL
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 27 March 2013 Page 4 of 5 Agenda Item No/ Details of Decision Address Proposal/Reference No
Item 4.6 - 28 West Change of use from hard 1) To indicate intention to GRANT Harbour Road, standing to temporary car planning permission. Edinburgh parking, with associated works including clearing the 2) The Acting Head of Planning site and making good the and Building Standards to report hard standing areas, back on detailed conditions. replacing the existing fencing and gates, providing CCTV, 3) To request the applicant to providing a security hut next investigate producing a green to the entrance gates, and travel plan. providing flood lighting. Application no. 13/00236/FUL (On a division)
Item 8.1 - 8 East Change of use of domestic To GRANT planning permission Scotland Street Lane, garage/lock-up to studio subject to a condition as detailed in Edinburgh office accommodation (as the report by the Acting Head of amended) Application no. Planning and Building Standards. 12/03242/FUL (On a division)
Item 8.2 (a) -1 Malta Residential development and To CONTINUE consideration for Terrace, Edinburgh part new build, part further discussion with the applicant conversion comprising 8 new on reducing the scale of the build and three conversions frontage of the development to (eleven in total). Application retain the views of Malta Terrace. no. 12/04044/FUL
Item 8.2(b) - 1 Malta Demolish the existing To CONTINUE consideration for Terrace, Edinburgh warehouse on the southern further discussion with the applicant boundary of the site. on reducing the scale of the Application no. frontage of the development to 12/04522/CON retain the views of Malta Terrace.
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 27 March 2013 Page 5 of 5 M in u te s Minutes
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 10.00 am, Wednesday, 17 April 2013
Present Councillors Perry (Convener), Howat (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Blacklock, Brock, Child, Dixon, Griffiths, McVey, Milligan, Mowat and Ross.
1. Hearing Requests from Ward Councillors
Councillor Jackson had requested that agenda item 4.10, an application to remove the existing conservatory and replace with single-storey extension at 76 Trinity Road, Edinburgh (Application No.12/003803/FUL) be considered by the Sub-Committee holding a hearing.
The Sub-Committee considered the information submitted by Councillor Jackson.
Decision
1) To decline the request for a hearing.
2) To receive a detailed presentation on the application from the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards and to determine the application, as detailed in the appendix to this minute.
2. General Applications and Miscellaneous Business
The Sub-Committee considered the reports on planning applications and a pre- application report, as listed under Section 4 on the agenda. Councillor Bagshaw had requested a presentations in relation to agenda item 4.4.
Decision To determine the applications, as detailed in the appendix to this minute.
(Reference – reports by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)
Declaration of Interests
Councillor McVey declared a non-financial interest in item 4.7 as the applicant was known to him and took no part in the consideration of this item. Councillor Brock declared a non-financial interest in item 4.10 as the applicant was known to her and took no part in the consideration of this item.
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 17 April 2013 Page 2 of 6
APPENDIX Applications
Agenda Item No/ Details of Proposal/Reference No Decision Address
Note: Detailed conditions/reasons for the following decisions are contained in the statutory planning register.
Item No 4.1 - 53 Strip off existing defective slates To GRANT listed building consent Albany Street, (mix of scotch slates, spanish subject to a condition and an Edinburgh etc) and re-slate entire roof in informative as detailed in the report Cupa H3 type slates with new by the Acting Head of Planning and felt/metalwork. Building Standards. Application No. 13/00400/LBC
Item no 4.2 - 2 Proposed new water-based To GRANT planning permission Carrington Road synthetic hockey pitch. subject to conditions and an (College East, Fettes Application No.13/00137/FUL informative as detailed in the report College), Edinburgh by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
Item No 4.3 - Old Application for the modification or To APPROVE the application Dalkeith Road discharge of planning subject to informatives as detailed (Edmondstone obligations. in the report by the Acting Head of House), Edinburgh Application No.13/00564/OBL Planning and Building Standards.
Item No 4.4 - 194 Discharge of the planning To APPROVE the application Fountainbridge (Land obligation. subject to informatives as detailed Adjacent to), Application No. 13/00480/OBL in the report by the Acting Head of Edinburgh Planning and Building Standards.
Item No 4.5 - 10, 12 Non-compliance with conditions To GRANT the application as Inglis Green Road. on hours of deliveries and detailed in the report by the Acting Edinburgh collections on planning Head of Planning and Building permission (refs: 10/02306/PPP Standards. and 11/04125/AMC) for a supermarket, petrol filling station and car parking. Application No.13/00354/FUL
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 17 April 2013 Page 3 of 6 Agenda Item No/ Details of Proposal/Reference No Decision Address
Item No 4.6 - 15 Erection of a full size (2 m) To GRANT planning permission Links Place, statue of John Rattray in Leith subject to a condition and Edinburgh Links on a circular raised informatives detailed in the report reinforced grass area. by the Acting Head of Planning and Application No.13/00396/FUL Building Standards.
Item No 4.7 - 6 (BF) Construction of gas boiler flue To GRANT listed building consent Lennox Street, and very slight alteration of line subject to a condition as detailed in Edinburgh of rhone pipe on front elevation the report by the Acting Head of of garden flat (below street level) Planning and Building Standards. (in retrospect). Application No. 13/00182/LBC Item No 4.8 - 2 Residential development of 32 To GRANT planning permission Ocean Drive (Land townhouses and 9 flats including subject to conditions, informatives 40 Metres North associated roads and and a legal agreement as detailed West of), Edinburgh landscaping (as amended). in the report by the Acting Head of Application No. 12/003959/FUL Planning and Building Standards.
Item No 4.9 - 18 Change of use from Class 1 To GRANT planning permission South Bridge, (retail use) to Class 2 subject to conditions and Edinburgh (community use) at 18B South informatives as detailed in the Bridge (ground floor only). report by the Acting Head of Application No. 13/00305/FUL Planning and Building Standards.
Item No 4.10 - 76 Remove existing conservatory 1. To decline the request for a Trinity Road, and replace with single-storey hearing. Edinburgh extension. 2. To GRANT planning permission Application No. 12/03803/FUL subject to a condition and informatives detailed in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
Item No 4.11 - 40 Erection of 32 flatted properties To GRANT planning permission Waterfront Park over four storeys with associated subject to conditions, informatives (Land 42 Metres East parking, landscaping and and a legal agreement as detailed of), Edinburgh drainage. in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards. Application No. 12/04568/FUL
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 17 April 2013 Page 4 of 6 Agenda Item No/ Details of Proposal/Reference No Decision Address
Item No 7.1 - 1 Forthcoming application by To note the key issues. Craigpark (Craigpark CALA Management Ltd for a Quarry), Ratho proposed residential development including demolition of existing building.
Item No 8.1 - 52 Residential development of To GRANT planning permission Albion Road (Land colony housing and flats subject to conditions, informatives 137 Metres South of) including roads, landscaping and and a legal agreement as detailed Edinburgh pedestrian connections (as in the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards. amended). Application No. 12/03574/FUL
Item No 9.1(a) - 7 Demolition of the flytower, single To GRANT planning permission Clerk Street, storey queue shelter and subject to conditions and Edinburgh associated structures to the rear informatives as detailed in the of the auditorium of the former report by the Acting Head of Odeon cinema, Clerk Street. Planning and Building Standards, and an additional informative Construction of 18 student flats requesting the applicant have on the site of the flytower and discussions with the Culture and queue shelter totalling 102 Sport division on the entertainment bedrooms. uses for the auditorium. Application No 12/04587/FUL
Item No 9.1(b) - 7 Demolition of the fly tower, single To GRANT listed building consent Clerk Street, storey queue shelter and subject to conditions, an Edinburgh associated structures to the rear informative and notification to of the auditorium of the former Scottish Ministers prior to Odeon cinema and infill of the determination as detailed in the report by the Acting Head of existing opening in the dividing Planning and Building Standards. wall between the auditorium and flytower. Application No 12/04584/LBC `
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 17 April 2013 Page 5 of 6 Agenda Item No/ Details of Proposal/Reference No Decision Address
Item No 9.2(a) - 1 to Construction of 94 new-build To GRANT planning permission 157 North Fort Street residential units, communal subject to conditions and (Fort House), external space and associated informatives as detailed in the Edinburgh roads, footpaths and report by the Acting Head of landscaping. Including works to Planning and Building Standards. category B-listed stone wall surrounding site. Application No 12/04268/FUL
Item No 9.2(b) - 1 to Construction of 94 new-build To GRANT listed building consent 157 North Fort Street residential units, communal subject to informatives as detailed (Fort House) external space and associated in the report by the Acting Head of Edinburgh roads, footpaths and Planning and Building Standards. landscaping. Including works to category B-listed stone wall surrounding site. Application No 12/04268/LBC
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 17 April 2013 Page 6 of 6 M in u te s Minutes
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 10.00 am, Wednesday, 1 May 2013
Present Councillors Perry (Convener), Howat (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Blacklock, Brock, Cairns, Dixon, Griffiths, McVey, Milligan, Mowat, Rose and Ross.
1. General Applications and Miscellaneous Business
The Sub-Committee considered the reports on planning applications and a pre- application report, as listed under Section 4, 5, 7 and 9 on the agenda. Councillors Bagshaw and Brock had requested a presentations in relation to agenda item 4.2.
Decision To determine the applications, as detailed in the appendix to this minute.
(Reference – reports by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted.)
Declaration of Interests
Councillors Blacklock and Ross declared a non-financial interest in agenda item 7.2 as Directors of EDI, left the room and took no part in the consideration of this item.
APPENDIX Applications
Agenda Item No/ Details of Proposal/Reference No Decision Address
Note: Detailed conditions/reasons for the following decisions are contained in the statutory planning register.
Item No 4.1 - 63 Residential development To APPROVE the application Dreghorn Loan (land (including affordable housing subject to conditions and 260 metres south) provision) and associated open informatives as detailed in the Edinburgh space tree planting, access road, report by the Acting Head of enhancement of existing Planning and Building pedestrian routes and all Standards. ancillary – Application no. 12/03823/AMC
Item No 4.2 - 7 Shrub Section 42 application to vary To CONTINUE consideration of Place (Shrubhil condition of planning permission the application for: House) Edinburgh reference 06/05371/FUL –
Application no. 13/00241/FUL 1.information on any planning considerations for reducing the time period from 3 years to 1 year,
2.Clarification of the section 75 agreement attached to the original application,
3. Clarification of the data zone used for student housing.
4. Confirmation of any demolition requirements/ clarification on other legislation for demolition of dangerous buildings,
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 1 May 2013 Page 2 of 5 Agenda Item No/ Details of Proposal/Reference No Decision Address
Item No 4.3 - 9 Retrospective: Demolish existing To GRANT planning permission, Wester Coates fence on north and west Terrace Edinburgh boundaries (incorrect boundary line) and erect new fence of similar type and height (correct boundary line) – Application no. 13/00537/FUL,
Item No 5.1 - 28 Change of use from hard To GRANT planning permission West Harbour Road standing to temporary car subject to conditions and Edinburgh parking, with associated works informatives as detailed in the including clearing the site and report by the Acting Head of making good the hard standing Planning and Building areas, replacing the existing Standards. fencing and gates, providing
CCTV, providing a security hut next to the entrance gates, and providing flood lighting – Application no. 13/00236/FUL,
Item No 7.1 - 31 Forthcoming application by To note the key issues as Abbeyhill Edinburgh Watkin Jones and Sons Limited described in the report and for student residential including: accommodation and ancillary a) Roofscape in views from uses, Regent Road and the Terraces. b) The height of the development, c) The access from Abbeymount, particularly the junction with the railway bridge. d) Possible overconcentration of student housing including management issues, e) Relationship to primary school and potential for overlooking, f) Materials to be used,
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 1 May 2013 Page 3 of 5 Agenda Item No/ Details of Proposal/Reference No Decision Address
Item No 7.2 - 103 Forthcoming application by To note the key issues as Newcraighal Road Taylor Wimpey East Scotland described in the report and Edinburgh and EDI Group Ltd for the including access to the site, erection of 200+ new detached,
semi-detached, terraced dwellings and apartments and ancillary works,
Item No 7.3 - Old Forthcoming application by To note the key issues, Dalkeith Road Sheratan Ltd for residential
Edinburgh (South development and ancillary uses East Wedge and formation of community Development Site) parkland,
Item No 7.4 - Forthcoming application by the To note the key issues, Pennywell Road City of Edinburgh Council – SfC
Edinburgh for renewal of Planning (Regeneration Permissions in Principle Masterplan (10/01273/PPP and Pennywell, 12/00357/PPP) for development Muirhouse) of affordable housing and housing for sale with associated landscaping and public realm at sites adjacent to Muirhouse Parkway, Pennywell Road and Ferry Road,
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 1 May 2013 Page 4 of 5 Agenda Item No/ Details of Proposal/Reference No Decision Address
Item No 9.1 - 55 - 63 Proposed new secondary school To GRANT planning permission Dundee Street (Site and associated facilities and in principle subject to conditions, 57 Metres Southeast ancillary development, as informatives and a legal of) amended to include public park – agreement as detailed in the Application no 13/00073/PPP, report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
Item No 9.2 - 24 Change of use from existing car To CONTINUE consideration of Featherhall showroom with office and living the application for a site visit on Avenue Edinburgh accommodation to private 9 May 2013, daycare nursery. Proposal includes alterations and extension to existing bungalow and workshop / garage and
associated landscaping works (as amended) – Application no 12/04583/FUL,
Item No 9.3 - 168 - Change of Use to a mixed use as To GRANT planning permission 172 Morningside an Open Air Market (operating subject to conditions and Road (The Merlin on selected days) whilst being informatives as detailed in the Unit 5) Edinburgh retained as a Car Park at all report by the Acting Head of other times – Application no Planning and Building 13/00337/FUL, Standards.
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee – 1 May 2013 Page 5 of 5 M in u te s Minutes
City of Edinburgh Local Review Body
10.00 am, Wednesday, 27 February 2013
Present Councillors Howat, Milligan and Rose.
1. Chair
Councillor Rose was appointed as Convener.
2. Planning Local Review Body Procedure
Decision
To note the outline procedure for consideration of reviews.
(Reference – Local Review Body Procedure, submitted.)
3. Request For Review – 35 Hazelbank Terrace, Edinburgh
Details were provided by a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for alteration to first floor dining room window to bring the cill down to floor level and replace S&C window with traditional inward opening timber 'French' doors and external metal balustrade. New rybat stones to match existing below old cill line, at 35 Hazelbank Terrace, Edinburgh which was dealt with by the Head of Planning and Building Standards under delegated powers. Application No 12/02675/FUL
Assessment
The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted by the applicant, including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of review documents only and the holding of one or more hearing sessions. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.
The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development.
The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-05 (Scheme 1), being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services.
The LRB, having considered these documents, agreed that it had sufficient information before it, did not require to hold a hearing session and would therefore determine the review using the information circulated to it.
The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
2) The non-statutory guidelines on “Colonies”, “Replacement Windows and Doors” and “House Extensions and Alterations”.
3) The Shandon Conservation Character Appraisal
4) The procedure used to determine the application.
5) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by you in the request for review.
6) The further representations received in respect of the Notice of review
Conclusion The LRB carefully considered all the arguments put before it in respect of the proposed sensitive nature of the alteration by using traditional materials which would have a minimal impact on the surrounding area and also noted that similar works at ground floor level had been carried out within the colonies. The LRB also noted that there would be no significant impact on neighbouring residential amenity or privacy.
The LRB also took into account the applicants opinion that the works undertaken in the area already appeared to contradict the non-statutory guidelines taken into account by the case officer and that the merits of the application should allow a relaxation of these standards, however the LRB noted that the proposals did not comply with the development plan and were of the opinion that no argument had been presented that would merit a relaxation of the standards in the relevant non-statutory guidelines
The LRB, having taken all the above matters into consideration, agreed with the assessment of the issues in the case officer’s report and concluded that the proposals would adversely affect the character and appearance of the property and the conservation area. The LRB was of the opinion that no material considerations had been presented in the request for a review which would lead it to overturn the determination by the Head of Planning.
Decision
To uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards to refuse planning permission for alteration to first floor dining room window to bring cill down to
City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 27 February 2013 Page 2 of 6 floor level and replace S&C window with traditional inward opening timber 'French' doors and external metal balustrade. New rybat stones to match existing below old cill line, at 35 Hazelbank Terrace, Edinburgh Application No 12/02675/FUL
Reasons for Refusal 1. The proposal was not architecturally compatible with the original house and appearance of the Conservation Area contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Des11 and Non-Statutory Guidelines “House Extensions and Alteration”
2. The proposal disrupted the uniformity achieved by the historic window proportions on the colonies and did not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Env 6 and Non Statutory Guidelines “Shandon Conservation Area”, Colonies Developments and “Replacement Windows and Doors”
(References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)
4. Request For Review – 12 Spottiswoode Road, Edinburgh
Details were provided of a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for the installation of external windows/doors to rear of ground floor property giving access to raised deck and shared green serving property 12 Spottiswoode Road, Edinburgh which was dealt with by the Head of Planning and Building Standards under delegated powers. Application No 12/03606/FUL
Assessment The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted by the applicant including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of review documents only. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.
The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development.
The plans used to determine the application were numbered 1- 4 (Scheme 1), being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services.
The LRB, having considered these documents, agreed that it had sufficient information before it, and would therefore determine the review using the information circulated to it.
The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 27 February 2013 Page 3 of 6
2) The non-statutory guidelines on “Daylighting, Privacy and Sunlight” and “Replacement Windows and Doors”.
3) The procedure used to determine the application.
4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by you in your request for a review.
Conclusion The LRB, having taken all the above matters into consideration, agreed with the assessment of the issues in the case officer’s report and concluded that the proposals would adversely affect the character and appearance of the property. The LRB was of the opinion that no material considerations had been presented in the request for a review which would lead it to overturn the determination by the Head of Planning.
Decision To uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards to refuse planning permission the installation of external windows/doors to rear of ground floor property giving access to raised deck and shared green serving property at 12 Spottiswoode Road, Edinburgh Application No 12/03606/FUL
Reasons for Refusal
1. The proposal was contrary to Polices Env6 and Des11 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan as the proposed development by reason of its design, scale, positioning was not compatible with the character of the original building and would introduce an alien feature to the detriment of the character and appearance of Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area.
2. The proposal was contrary to Non-Statutory Guidelines in respect of Replacement Windows and Doors, as UPVC was an inappropriate material for a conservation area.
(References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)
Dissent
Councillor Rose requested that his dissent be recorded in respect of the above decision.
5. Request For Review – 28 Thornville Terrace, Edinburgh
Details were provided for a review of the refusal of planning permission to erect proposed rear facing dormer at 28 Thornville Terrace, Edinburgh which was dealt with by the Head of Planning and Building Standards under delegated powers. Application No 12/04106/FUL
City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 27 February 2013 Page 4 of 6 Assessment
The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted by the applicant including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of review documents only. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.
The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development.
The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-02 (Scheme 1), being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services.
The LRB, having considered these documents, agreed that it had sufficient information before it, and would therefore determine the review using the information circulated to it.
The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points:
1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
2) The non-statutory guidelines for “Householders”.
3) The procedure used to determine the application.
4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by you in your request for a review.
Conclusion
The LRB carefully considered all the arguments put before it in respect of the materials to be used which would respect the building heritage and also noted that proposal would maintain the height of the existing roof with identical ridge and eaves lines. The LRB also noted that consent had been granted for similar works in the surrounding area.
The LRB also took into account the applicant’s opinion that the alterations would enhance the existing building by allowing enhanced habitable accommodation to meet the needs of owner’s family.
The LRB, having taken all the above matters into consideration, was of the opinion that the material considerations it had identified were of sufficient weight to lead it to overturn the original determination by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to grant planning permission.
City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 27 February 2013 Page 5 of 6 Decision
To not uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and grant planning permission to erect proposed rear facing dormer at 28 Thornville Terrace, Application No 12/04106/FUL subject to the following informatives.
Informatives
1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.
2. No development shall take place on the site until a Notice of Initiation of Development has been submitted to the Council stating the intended date on which the development is to commence. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of planning control under Section 123(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
3. As soon as practicable upon the completion of the development of the site, as authorised in the associated grant of permission, a Notice of Completion of Development must be given in writing to the Council.
4. As soon as practicable upon the completion of the development of the site, as authorised in the associated grant of permission, a ‘Notice of Completion of Development’ must be given, in writing to the Council.
(References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.)
City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 27 February 2013 Page 6 of 6 M in u te s Minutes
City of Edinburgh Local Review Body 10.00 am, Wednesday, 13 March 2013
Present CouncillorsCouncillors Blacklock, Bagshaw, Cairns, Heslop and Ross. 1. Chair
Councillor Heslop was appointed as Convener.
2. Planning Local Review Body Procedure
Decision
To note the outline procedure for consideration of reviews.
(Reference – Local Review Body Procedure, submitted.)
3. Request For Review – 45 Cluny Drive, Edinburgh
Details were provided of a request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for a planning application for the formation of an external first floor balcony and staircase on rear elevation of existing house including conversion of window to french doors, at 45 Cluny Drive, Edinburgh (application no. 1203152/FUL). Assessment The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted including the request for the review to proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents and a site inspection. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development. The plans used to determine the application were numbered 1-3, being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. 2) Non-statutory guidelines on ‘Daylighting, Sunlight and Privacy’, and ‘House Extensions and Alterations’.
3) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by the applicant in the notice of review. Conclusion The LRB took a view that, with the use of available photographs and plans, it had sufficient written material information with which to proceed without need for a site visit or further procedure. The LRB carefully considered the applicant’s arguments as contained in the notice of review, as set against the officer’s report of handling and the reasons for refusal of consent. The applicant had stated in the notice of review that the development was at ‘ground level’ as opposed to the first floor level description given in the report by the Planning Officer. The LRB took a view that the question of whether ground or upper was dependent on whether being viewed from the front or rear of the property but in any case was not an issue to affect their consideration of the review. The applicant had made the point that the proposal would allow easier access to the back garden from the ground level and this was accepted and therefore that the development could improve the functionality and therefore the amenity and enjoyment of the house.
The key issue was considered to be whether the proposals in terms of their design and scale would be compatible with the existing house and the wider character of the conservation area. The applicant had argued that the design, scale and use of materials had been carefully thought out to provide an architectural solution that would ‘work’ in the particular setting against the rear wall of the stone built house. Also, that the structure would only be able to be seen from a limited number of viewpoints and - as indicated in photographs submitted - from the rear and side rear views and not from the roadway to the front of the house. The arguments regarding sight of the development was accepted in part but it would still be seen from certain angles. It was noted however that there had been no objections lodged by any neighbours and that there was no adverse effect on their residential amenity.
However, on balance, on the main issue of whether the proposals would be compatible with the setting, the LRB was not persuaded that there would not be a detrimental effect on the setting of the house and, if approved it would also be likely to be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Morningside Conservation Area.
They considered that no material considerations had been identified in the notice of review which were of sufficient weight to lead it to overturn the original determination by the Head of Planning and Building Standards to refuse planning permission. Decision To uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to refuse planning permission for the formation of external first floor balcony and staircase on rear elevation of existing house including conversion of window to french doors, at 45 Cluny Drive, Edinburgh (planning application no. 1203152/FUL). Reason The proposal is contrary to policies Env 6 and Des 11 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan as the proposed development by reason of its design, scale and positioning was not compatible with the character of the existing building and will introduce an alien feature to the detriment of the character and appearance of Morningside Conservation Area.
City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body –13 March 2013 Page 2 of 7 (Reference – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.) 4. Request For Review – 58 Malbet Wynd, Edinburgh
Details were provided of a request for a review of the decision to refuse planning permission for the above planning application for erection of a 1.5 storey extension, materials to match existing property, at 58 Malbet Wynd, Edinburgh. Assessment The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted, including the request for the review to proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents and a site inspection. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development. The plans used to determine the application were numbered 1-14, being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. 2) Non-statutory guidelines on ‘Daylighting, Privacy and Sunlight’, and ‘House Extensions and Alterations’. 3) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by the applicant in the notice of review.
4) Representations received on the planning application. Conclusion The LRB took a view that, with the use of available photographs and plans, it had sufficient material with which to proceed without need for a site visit or further procedure. The LRB carefully considered the applicant’s arguments as contained in the notice of review, as set against the officer’s report of handling and the reasons for refusal of consent. The applicant had argued in the notice of review that the extension should not be regarded as large and unbalanced, taking into account precedents with extensions in the Malbet Park/Malbet Wynd area.
The LRB considered that the key issue was whether the proposals in terms of their design and scale would be compatible with the existing house and the wider character of the area. They considered the plans and representations of views submitted by the applicant with the notice of review. They noted in particular the size of the extension which represented an area of 67% over the original property and the configuration of the site with the extension being located to one side of the house.
The LRB considered that the extension by its size and design was unlikely to appear subordinate to the house and would appear incongruous and have an adverse effect
City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body –13 March 2013 Page 3 of 7 on the existing streetscape. They noted that one objection had been made, but that no over-looking of neighbouring properties would result from the proposals and any over- shadowing would impact mainly on the applicant’s own property. However, they considered that the scale and design of the proposals was inappropriate for the site.
In conclusion, they found that the planning officer’s report of handling had been fair and balanced and that there were no material considerations to out-weigh the conclusion that the proposals if approved would adversely affect the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area. The LRB therefore agreed to uphold the original determination by the Head of Planning and Building Standards to refuse planning permission. Decision To uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to refuse planning permission for erection of a 1.5 storey extension, with materials to match existing property, at 58 Malbet Wynd, Edinburgh. Reason The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy DES 11 in respect of House Extensions and to non-statutory guidelines in respect of House Extensions and Alterations, as the predominantly two-storey side extension would appear as a large and unbalanced form of addition to the original symmetrical character and appearance of the original house. It had been derived in order to fit into a particular shaped area of ground and consequently appeared awkward in its design and form that took no cognisance of its protruding appearance within the streetscape. As a result, the proposal did not provide a suitably subordinate form of mass of extension to the original property or which respected the prevailing character of this part of Malbet Wynd, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the house and an unacceptable means of incursion into the planned existing streetscape. (References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.) 5. Request For Review – 2 Newhouse Cottages, Edinburgh
Details were provided of a request for a review of the decision to refuse planning permission for proposals involving the removal of existing timber double garage to rear of house and build new masonry double garage to front of house at 2 Newhouse Cottages, Kirknewton (application no. 12/03580/FUL). Assessment The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted, including the request for the review to proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development. The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01, being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services.
City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body –13 March 2013 Page 4 of 7 The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. 2) Non-statutory guidelines on ‘Daylighting, Sunlight and Privacy’, and ‘Development in the Countryside and Green Belt’. 3) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by the applicant in the notice of review. Conclusion The LRB took a view that, with the use of available photographs and plans, it had sufficient information with which to proceed to consider the review and without further procedure. The LRB carefully considered the applicant’s arguments as contained in the notice of review, as set against the officer’s report of handling and the reasons for refusal of consent. The applicant had argued in the notice of review that it was her wish to avoid erecting the garage in the back garden so that it did not affect the amenity of neighbours, and also a wish to retain the amenity of her own back garden. The proposed situation, involving the frontage of the garage protruding beyond the front building line of the house, was mitigated to some extent by being situated behind a 1.1 metre high stone wall and being 2.5 metres away from the road edge (as opposed to some existing buildings which directly fronted the roadway). The applicant had also argued there were examples of buildings protruding beyond the building line in the immediate area and which was otherwise characterised by a mixture of building types. The original character of the single storey cottages, it was argued, had been eroded over the years by ad hoc developments including flat roofed extensions to the front of cottages. In this context, she argued that the development was not likely to harm the overall character of the area.
The LRB noted the applicant’s arguments but was essentailly concerned that the development involved a large garage (55 sq. m.) and was of a domestic (rather than agricultural) appearance and would, despite the mitigating effect of the stone wall, be very prominent in its position. The positioning of it, by protruding beyond the front of the house, would have a considerable impact on the setting of the house. Although it was acknowledged that there had been ongoing changes, the essential countryside character of the area remained. The LRB felt that the garage by means of its size, appearance and situation, would be inappropriate to its setting and have a detrimental effect on the overall rural character of the area.
They were not persuaded of any material circumstances that would outweigh the conclusion that the proposals if approved would adversely affect the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area. The LRB therefore agreed to uphold the original determination by the Head of Planning and Building Standards to refuse planning permission. Decision To uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to refuse planning permission to take down existing timber double garage to rear of house and build new masonry double garage to front of house at 2 Newhouse Cottages, Kirknewton.
City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body –13 March 2013 Page 5 of 7 Reason The proposal due to its size, appearance and position fails to respect the setting of the cottage and has a detrimental effect on the character and ameniity of the surrounding rural area, contrary to policy E6 of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan and non- statutory guidance ‘Development in the Countryside and Green Belt’. (References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted.) 6. Request For Review – 28 Southfield Loan, Edinburgh
I refer to your request for a review of the refusal of planning permission for a single- storey rear extension and to remove existing roof and form new mansard roof to main house with new front and rear dormers at 28 Southfield Loan, Edinburgh. The request was considered by the City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body at a meeting on 13 March 2013. Assessment The Local Review Body had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted by the applicant including the request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development. The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-06 being the drawings shown under the application reference number on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The LRB, having considered these documents, agreed that it had sufficient information before it, and would therefore determine the review using the information that had been circulated. The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following points: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. 2) The non-statutory guidelines on ‘Guidance for Householders’ and ‘Daylighting, Privacy and Sunlight’. 3) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward by you in the notice of review. Conclusion The LRB noted that the rear extension complied with the development plan and the non-statutory guidance, it being of an appropriate scale, form and design and would preserve the character and appearance of the street and surrounding area. The Planning Officer in his handling of the case had not raised any objections to this element of the scheme. The removal of the window and the installation of a door in the rear elevation did not comprise development and therefore did not require planning permission.
City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body –13 March 2013 Page 6 of 7 The LRB considered the main issue to be the proposals for the alterations involving the roof. The Planning Officer had considered that the proposals were likely to overwhelm the original form and appearance of the house and impact on the general character of the street. The LRB did not consider mansard roofs to be a characteristic of the area but at the same time noted that a number of houses had alterations to their original roof lines and there now existed a variety of roof styles and extensions in the streets surrounding the property, these alterations having become prevalent over some period of time.
On the design and scale of the proposals, the LRB took a view that it was a reasonably well balanced solution and did not feel its proportions to be out of scale with the house. The design proposals, by making use of traditional materials, were considered to have had respect for the house style. Overall, they considered the development to be acceptable and without compromise to the appearance and character of the house. The extended accommodation would improve the amenity and enjoyment of the house.
On the key issue of how it would relate to the streetscene and the overall character of the area, the LRB felt that whilst mansard roofs were not considered to be a characteristic of this type of house nor of the area, in its context this particular development was not likely to have an adverse impact on the overall streetscene or the character of the area. They noted that no objections to the application had been received.
The LRB, having taken all the above matters into consideration, was of the opinion that the material considerations it had identified were of sufficient weight to lead it to overturn the original determination by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to grant planning permission for the proposals. Decision To not uphold the decision by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and to grant planning permission for a single-storey rear extension and to remove existing roof and form new mansard roof to main house with new front and rear dormers at 28 Southfield Loan, Edinburgh (application no. 12/04246/FUL), with informatives, as follows:-. Informatives 1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent. 2. No development shall take place on the site until a Notice of Initiation of Development has been submitted to the Council stating the intended date on which the development is to commence. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of planning control under Section 123(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 3. As soon as practicable upon the completion of the development of the site, as authorised in the associated grant of permission, a Notice of Completion of Development must be given in writing to the Council. (References – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted)
City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body –13 March 2013 Page 7 of 7 Planning Committee
10am, Thursday, 16 May 2013
Supplementary Guidance: City Centre Retail
Core and Tollcross Town Centre – drafts for consultation
Item number Report number Wards City Centre Fountainbridge/Craiglockhart Meadows/Morningside L inks Links
Coalition pledges P15 Council outcomes CO7, CO8, CO19, CO21 Single Outcome Agreement SO1, SO4
Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities
Contact: Naomi Sandilands, Planning Officer
E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 3600
Executive summary
Supplementary Guidance: City Centre Retail Core and Tollcross Town Centre – Draft for Consultation
S um m a ry Summary
The purpose of this report is to seek Committee approval of Supplementary Guidance (SG) for the City Centre Retail Core and Tollcross Town Centre for consultation. The SG will guide the balance of uses in town centres. It will be used to determine planning applications for the change of use of shop units to non-shop uses.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the Committee:
1. approves the draft Supplementary Guidance for the City Centre Retail Core for consultation; and
2. approves the draft Supplementary Guidance for Tollcross Town Centre for consultation.
Measures of success
The vitality and viability of the City Centre Retail Core and Tollcross Town Centre are preserved and enhanced.
Financial impact
There are no direct financial impacts arising from this report. The costs of printing and publishing the draft SG will be met from existing budgets.
Page 2 of 7 Equalities impact
The impacts of this report in relation to the Public Sector Equalities Duty and the ten key areas of rights have been considered. The report has no significant direct impact on the Council’s three equalities duties. The SG will have positive impacts on rights. The process of preparing the SG enhances the rights to participation, influence and voice by allowing people to participate in the formation of policy. The Guidance will enhance the rights to health, physical security and standard of living.
Sustainability impact
The proposals in this report will:
• reduce carbon emissions because they supports town centres which provide local services in sustainable locations, reducing the need for travel;
• increase the city’s resilience to climate change impacts because supporting town centres reduces the need to travel for services;
• help achieve a sustainable Edinburgh because town centres are places for social and economic interaction, and fostering their vitality and viability will protect their identity within our communities;
• help achieve a sustainable Edinburgh because it supports the town centres where many local businesses choose to locate; and
• help achieve a sustainable Edinburgh because they promote the continued use of shop units in beneficial use.
Consultation and engagement
Preliminary consultation on both items of SG has already taken place: • an afternoon workshop attended by key stakeholders was held in June 2012 that focussed on shopping uses in the city centre retail core. This informed the City Centre Retail Core SG; and • two drop-in events were held in March 2013 in Tollcross. All residents and local businesses in Tollcross were invited by letter. The views collected informed the Tollcross Town Centre SG.
Once approved, consultation on the two drafts will take place for a minimum period of eight weeks. The draft SGs will be available on-line and further engagement events will take place.
Page 3 of 7
Background reading / external references
• Summary Report from Shopping Uses in the City Centre Workshop, June 2012 • Summary note of the Tollcross consultation drop-in events March 2013 • Report to Planning Committee, Local Development Plan – Proposed Local Development Plan and Development Plan Scheme (19 March 2013) • Annual Review of Guidance report to Planning Committee (28 February 2013) • Edinburgh Local Development Plan Main Issues Report (October 2011)
Page 4 of 7 R e p o r t Report
Supplementary Guidance: City Centre Retail Core and Tollcross Town Centre – Draft for Consultation
1. Background
1.1 The Proposed Local Development Plan was approved on the 19 March 2013. It requires supplementary guidance (SG) to be prepared for each town centre, including the city centre retail core. This new approach was consulted on in the Main Issues Report and set out in the report on the Annual Review of Guidance to Planning Committee on 28 February 2013.
1.2 Statutory SG is prepared under Section 22 of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006.
1.3 When the items of SG are finalised they can be considered as material considerations in the determination of planning applications for the change of use of shop units. Once adopted, they will form part of the statutory development plan. It is intended to review the guidance every two years to take account of changes of use over time.
1.4 A programme for the seven remaining town centres SG has been prepared and is attached as Appendix 1.
2. Main report
City Centre Retail Core
2.1 Initial consultation on the alternative uses of shops in the City Centre Retail Core took place at a workshop held in June 2012.
2.2 The draft SG is attached at Appendix 2. It allows food and drink uses in the City Centre Core Frontage (Princes Street) in shop units that can safely accommodate outdoor seating and if the unit is under 300 sq m gross. This size is comparable to the Costa café on Castle St (310 sq m) or Starbucks on the corner of George St and Castle St (207 sq m). There are 25 shop units of 300 sq m or under on Princes St out of 78 units in total.
2.3 Future changes of use of food and drink establishments to financial, professional or other services (e.g. banks, betting office) will not be permitted. An Article 4
Page 5 of 7 Direction will be sought from Scottish Ministers to revoke Permitted Development Rights for the change of use of Class 3 to Class 2 uses on Princes Street.
2.4 In Primary Frontages and elsewhere in the city centre retail core, the policy allows the change of use to non-shop uses, provided the resulting proportion of non-shop units will not exceed one third and no more than four consecutive non- shop uses.
2.5 This policy supports the aims of the report to the Transport and Environment Committee on 19 March 2013 on Building a Vision for the City Centre.
Tollcross
2.6 Two drop-in sessions took place in March 2013 where local residents and businesses were invited to record their views of shops and the environment in Tollcross. These views have informed the draft guidance.
2.7 The draft SG is attached at Appendix 3. It allows shops, financial, professional or other services and food and drink establishments in the town centre. Restrictions to this are made in order to retain prime retail units in shop use on parts of Lothian Road and Earl Grey Street. No further pubs or hot food shops are allowed, in line with the Council’s Guidance for Businesses, with the exception of units along 1-11 Earl Grey Street which have office use above.
.Further Consultation
2.8 Consultation on the draft SGs will take place prior to their finalisation and before they can be used as a material consideration for planning purposes. The following groups and organisations will be consulted: Community Councils, city- wide amenity bodies, property investors, commercial property letting agents, traders associations and the local residents and businesses.
2.9 The draft SGs will be available in local libraries and on-line for comment for a minimum of eight weeks. Further public engagement events are proposed for: • residents and local businesses (Tollcross) • key stakeholders such as property investors, letting agents and Essential Edinburgh (City Centre).
Page 6 of 7 3. Recommendations
3.1 It is recommended that the Committee:
1 approves the draft Supplementary Guidance for the City Centre Retail Core for consultation; and
2 approves the draft Supplementary Guidance for Tollcross Town Centre for consultation.
Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities
Links
Coalition pledges P15 Work with public organisations, the private sector and social enterprise to promote Edinburgh to investors Council outcomes CO7 Edinburgh draws in new investment in development and regeneration CO8 Edinburgh’s economy creates and sustains job opportunities CO19 Attractive Places and Well Maintained – Edinburgh remains an attractive city through the development of high quality buildings and places and the delivery of high standards and maintenance of infrastructure and public realm CO21 Safe – Residents, visitors and businesses feel that Edinburgh is a safe city. Single Outcome SO1 Edinburgh’s economy delivers increased investment, jobs Agreement and opportunities for all SO4 Edinburgh’s communities are safer and have improved physical and social fabric Appendices Appendix 1: Supplementary Guidance for Town Centres: Outline * Preparation Programme at April 2013 Appendix 2: Supplementary Guidance: City Centre Retail Core – Draft for Consultation Appendix 3: Supplementary Guidance: Tollcross Town Centre – Draft for Consultation
Page 7 of 7 Appendix 1
Supplementary Guidance for Town Centres
Outline Preparation Programme at April 2013
Title Stage* Indicative Date Early ‘pilot’ cases City Centre Retail Core Draft May 2013 Finalised December 2013 Tollcross Draft May 2013 Finalised December 2013 2nd Batch Corstorphine Draft Spring 2014 Finalised End 2014 Gorgie/Dalry Draft Spring 2014 Finalised End 2014 Leith/Leith Walk Draft Spring 2014 Finalised End 2014 3rd Batch Morningside/Bruntsfield Draft Autumn 2014 Finalised Spring 2015 Nicolson St/Clerk St Draft Autumn 2014 Finalised Spring 2015 Portobello Draft Autumn 2014 Finalised Spring 2015 Stockbridge Draft Autumn 2014 Finalised Spring 2015 * Supplementary Guidance cannot be formally adopted and issued as part of the development plan until the related Local Development Plan (LDP) has been adopted. The Edinburgh LDP is expected to be adopted in 2015.
Supplementary Guidance: City Centre Retail Core – Draft for Consultation
Appendix 2 Supplementary Guidance: City Centre Retail Core – Draft for Consultation
Supplementary Guidance: City Centre Retail Core – Draft for Consultation
Introduction What is a change of use?
This document comprises Supplementary Guidance (SG) under Section 22 of the Most properties are classified under categories known as Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 and once adopted will form part of the ‘Use Classes’. Common uses in town centres include: development plan. The SG was prepared in accordance with Edinburgh Proposed • Class 1 Shops Local Development Plan Policy Ret 8 Alternative Use of Shop Units in Defined • Class 2 Financial, professional and other services Centres. It applies to all shop units within the defined City Centre Retail Core. • Class 3 Food and Drink
Other relevant policies in the Local Development Plan include: Some uses fall outwith these categories and are defined as • Ret 1 City Centre Retail Core – generally supports retail development, having ‘sui generis’, meaning ‘of its own kind’. Examples of sui particular regard to design, the city centre character and bringing upper floors generis uses include pubs and hot food takeaways. This is into beneficial use. set out in The Use Classes (Scotland) Order 1997 (Amended • Ret 10 Food and Drink Establishments – considers the impact on residential in 1998). amenity. o Detailed guidance is contained in the Guidance for Businesses Moving to a different use class is known as a change of use December 2012 and may require planning permission, although some changes between use classes are allowed without planning
permission. Planning permission is not required when both Purpose the present and proposed uses fall within the same ‘class’ The purpose of this SG is to guide the balance of shop uses and other related unless there are specific restrictions imposed by the Council. appropriate services to enhance the city centre’s character and shopping The Scottish Government Circular 1/1998 contains guidance experience. This draft version takes account of initial public engagement in June on use classes. 2012. ‘Non-shop’ uses are those defined as uses not covered by Scope Class 1. The extent of the area covered by this SG is illustrated in attached map.
Preparation What is a shop unit? This draft SG has been prepared by: Premises opening directly onto • Survey work – analysis of shop unit history, current shop uses and the street the street and designed environment. primarily for shop use. In some • Community engagement – initial views and reactions from stakeholders. locations the shop unit can be above street level or at Further consultation on this draft SG will take place before it is finalised. It is basement level but still have intended to frequently review the SG (potentially every 2 years). direct access and visible from the street Supplementary Guidance: City Centre Retail Core – Draft for Consultation
Policies
ERC 1: City Centre Core Frontage (Princes Street) Planning permission will be granted for new shop units meeting the criteria in policy Ret 1 or for the reinstatement to shop use. Proposals for the change of use of shop units on the Core Frontage (Princes St) (defined in the map) to non-shop uses will only be permitted: a) if the proposal is for a change of use to Class 3 Food and Drink use; and b) it is in a location that can safely accommodate outdoor pavement seating; and c) the change of use applies to a shop unit floor area of under 300 square metres (gross).
Explanatory Note • Prior to the finalisation of this SG an Article 4 Direction of the General Permitted Development Order 1992 will be sought from Scottish Ministers to revoke Permitted Development Rights for the change of use of Class 3 to Class 2 along the Core Frontage (Princes St). The introduction of food and drink uses on Princes Street is considered here for exceptional reasons to enhance the shopping experience and animate the street in the evening. It is not considered that Class 2 uses, such as banks, would be able to deliver these aims. • While pavement seating on the Core Frontage may not always be compatible with daytime shopping, it may be appropriate in the evening, especially in the summer months. • The size threshold given is to ensure that larger shop units are retained in retail use. • Any proposal for the change of use to Class 3 should consider how upper floors, if not in active retail use, could be brought back into beneficial use. • This policy deals with the principles of changes of use for planning purposes. Food and drink uses will often require other consents and are subject to separate controls by licensing for alcohol, hours of operation and outdoor pavement seating. For more information on these see the Council’s website on the One Door Approach to development consents, the Council’s Guidance for Businesses December 2012 or contact the Business Gateway.
Supplementary Guidance: City Centre Retail Core – Draft for Consultation
ERC 2: City Centre Primary Frontage In the City Centre Primary Frontages (defined in the map), the change of use of a shop unit to a non-shop use will be permitted provided: a) as a result of permitting the change of use, no more than one third of the total number of units in the frontage will be in non- shop use; and b) permitting the change of use, would not result in four or more consecutive non-shop uses; and c) the proposal is for an appropriate commercial or community use which would complement the character of the City Centre Retail Core and would not be detrimental to its vitality or viability.
ERC 3: Elsewhere in the City Centre Retail Core Elsewhere in the City Centre Retail Core, the change of use of a shop unit to a non-shop use will be permitted provided: a) permitting the change of use would not result in four or more consecutive non-shop uses; and b) the proposal is for an appropriate commercial or community use which would complement the character if the City Centre Retail Core and would not be detrimental to its vitality or viability.
Supplementary Guidance: City Centre Retail Core – Draft for Consultation
Core Frontages: 10 – 147 Princes Street South St David’s Street (Jenners)
Primary Frontages: 133a – 167 Rose Street 168 – 202 Rose Street 77 – 131 Rose Street 106a – 160 Rose Street 37 – 73 Rose Street 50 – 104 Rose Street 3 – 25 Rose Street 2 – 40 Rose Street
30 – 70 George Street 72 – 102 George Street 33a – 69 George Street 71 – 107 George Street
4 – 20 Castle Street 1 – 19 Castle Street 21 – 35 Castle Street
6a – 18 Frederick Street 20 – 36 Frederick Street 3a – 19 Frederick Street 21 – 31 Frederick Street
2 – 24 Hanover Street 28 – 56 Hanover Street 3 – 31 Hanover Street 35 – 51 Hanover Street
6 – 19a South St Davids Street 1 – 15 Multrees Walk 16 – 27 Multrees Walk
2 – 56 Shandwick Place 7 – 99 Shandwick Place 1 – 21 Queensferry Street 23 – 46 Queensferry Street 1 – 52 South Bridge 85 – 108 South Bridge
Each group of addresses constitutes a frontage for the purposes of calculating the proportion of ‘shop’ to ‘non-shop’ uses.
Supplementary Guidance: Tollcross Town Centre – Draft for Consultation
Appendix 3 Supplementary Guidance: Tollcross Town Centre – Draft for Consultation
Supplementary Guidance: Tollcross Town Centre – Draft for Consultation
What is a change of use? Introduction This document comprises Supplementary Guidance (SG) under Section 22 of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 and once adopted will form part of the Most properties are classified under categories known as development plan. The SG was prepared in accordance with Edinburgh Proposed ‘Use Classes’. Common uses in town centres include: Local Development Plan Policy Ret 8 Alternative Use of Shop Units in Defined • Class 1 Shops Centres. It applies to all shop units within the defined Tollcross Town Centre. • Class 2 Financial, professional and other services
• Class 3 Food and Drink Other relevant policies in the Local Development Plan include: • Ret 2 Town Centres – generally supports shop uses in town centres. Some uses fall outwith these categories and are defined as • Ret 10 Food and Drink Establishments – considers the impact on residential ‘sui generis’, meaning ‘of its own kind’. Examples of sui amenity. generis uses include pubs and hot food takeaways. This is o Guidance for Businesses December 2012 set out in The Use Classes (Scotland) Order 1997 (Amended in 1998).
Purpose The purpose of this SG is to guide the balance of shop uses with other related Moving to a different use class is known as a change of use appropriate town centre services to meet the needs of those who live, work and and may require planning permission, although some changes between use classes are allowed without planning shop here. It takes into account Tollcross’s individual characteristics and responds permission. Planning permission is not required when both to initial public engagement. the present and proposed uses fall within the same ‘class’ unless there are specific restrictions imposed by the Council. Scope The Scottish Government Circular 1/1998 contains guidance The extent of the area covered by this SG is illustrated in the attached maps. on use classes.
Preparation ‘Non-shop’ uses are those defined as uses not covered by This draft SG has been prepared by: Class 1. • Survey work – analysis of shop unit history, current shop uses and the street environment. • Community engagement – initial views and reactions from stakeholders informed the analysis map.
Further consultation on this draft SG will take place before it is finalised. It is intended to frequently review the SG (potentially every 2 years). What is a shop unit? Premises opening directly onto the street and designed primarily for shop use. In some locations the shop unit can be above street level or at basement level but still have direct access and visible from the street.
Supplementary Guidance: Tollcross Town Centre – Draft for Consultation
Policies
Policy TC1: The change of use of a shop unit to classes 2 (Financial, professional or other services) and 3 (Food and Drink) uses or other appropriate commercial or community use will be allowed within the defined boundary of Tollcross, unless subject to TC2 or TC3 below.
Policy TC2: The change of use of the shop units on 120 – 148 Lothian Road and 2 – 48 Earl Grey Street will not be permitted, with the exception of the corner units where Class 3 uses are considered appropriate.
Policy TC3: The change of use of a shop unit on 1-11 Earl Grey Street to a pub or bar use will be allowed as an exception to the identified area of sensitivity (Council’s Guidance for Businesses).
Explanatory Notes • In order to enhance the vitality of Tollcross and encourage footfall, the change of use of shop units to Class 4 Business Use and residential use will not be allowed. • The larger shop units at 120 – 148 Lothian Road and 2 – 48 Earl Grey Street benefit from better loading options than elsewhere in Tollcross Town Centre. Keeping these units in shop use help ensure Tollcross retains a range of unit sizes in shop use. • The corner units identified as appropriate for Class 3 use in TC2 are visually prominent and food and drink uses could help draw more activity to these junctions. • The Council’s Guidance for Businesses identifies Tollcross as an area of sensitivity with regards to pubs and hot food take- aways. In order to prevent an excessive concentration, no new hot food shops, pubs and bars will be allowed, with the exception of the units identified in TC 3. Additional flexibility of uses is considered appropriate to encourage activity along this frontage, where there are no residential properties above. • Any change of use proposals will only be permitted if they are for an appropriate commercial or community use.
Supplementary Guidance: Tollcross Town Centre – Draft for Consultation
Other Relevant Information:
• This policy deals with the principles of changes of use for planning purposes. Food and drink uses will often require other consents and are subject to separate controls by licensing for alcohol, hours of operation and outdoor pavement seating. . For more information on these see the Council’s website on the One Door Approach to development consents, the Council’s Guidance for Businesses December 2012 or contact the Business Gateway.
Planning Committee
16 May 2013
Supplementary Guidance: Edinburgh
BioQuarter and South East Wedge Parkland – draft for consultation
Item number Report number Wards Ward 16 – Liberton / Gilmerton Ward 17 – Portobello / Craigmillar
L inks Links
Coalition pledges P8, P15, P17, P18 Council outcomes CO7, CO8, CO16, CO18, CO19, CO22, CO23 Single Outcome Agreement SO1, SO2, SO3, SO4
Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities
Contact: Kate Hopper, Planning Officer
E-mail: kate,[email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 6232
Executive summary
Supplementary Guidance: Edinburgh BioQuarter and South East Wedge Parkland – draft for consultation
Summary
The purpose of this report is to seek the Committee’s approval of draft Supplementary Guidance (SG) for the Edinburgh BioQuarter and the South East Wedge Parkland (Appendix 1) for consultation. The SG aims to realise the full life sciences potential of the EBQ in a mixed use urban quarter which protects and enhances the landscape setting of the city.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the Committee approves the draft Supplementary Guidance for the Edinburgh BioQuarter and South East Wedge Parkland (Appendix 1) for consultation.
Measures of success
The full life sciences potential of the Edinburgh BioQuarter is realised in a mixed use urban quarter, which protects and enhances the landscape setting of the city.
Financial impact
There are no direct financial impacts arising from this report. The costs of printing and publishing the SG will be met from existing budgets.
Equalities impact
The impacts of this report in relation to the Public Sector Equalities Duty and the key areas of rights have been considered. The report has no significant direct impact on the delivery of the Council’s three equality duties. The SG has the potential to impact positively to reduce socio-economic disadvantage by promoting accessibility, growth of the economy, provision of open space and affordable housing.
In terms of rights, it finds that the SG should have a positive impact on rights. The process of the preparation of the Supplementary Guidance enhances the rights to participation, influence and voice by allowing people to participate in the formulation of policy. Development principles within the SG promote accessibility, access to the
Page 2 of 8 green network, protection of the environment, and growth of the economy which have the potential to enhance the rights to health, physical security and standard of living.
Sustainability impact
The impacts of the draft guidance in relation to the three elements of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 Public Bodies Duties have been considered, and the outcomes are summarised below. Relevant Council sustainable development policies have been taken into account.
• The SG will form part of the statutory development plan. The SG provides additional guidance on policies and proposals within the Proposed LDP.
• The Proposed Local Development Plan (LDP) includes policies which require new development to reduce its carbon emissions, increase the city’s resilience to climate change impacts, manage flood risk and require new development to incorporate adaptations to the impact of climate change. The SG specifically requires new buildings within the EBQ to achieve the highest level of sustainable design, reduce carbon and greenhouse gas emissions and make efficient use of energy, resources and land.
• The proposals in this report will help achieve a sustainable Edinburgh. One of the stated aims of the Proposed LDP is to help create strong, sustainable communities, enabling all residents to enjoy a high quality of life. The principles set out within the SG support this aim.
• The proposals in this report will help achieve a sustainable Edinburgh because it is one of the stated aims of the Proposed LDP to support the growth of the city economy. The SG specifically supports the development of one of the LDP’s identified ‘Special Economic Areas’.
• The proposals in this report will help achieve a sustainable Edinburgh because the Proposed LDP includes policies which require new development to reduce resource use, protect and enhance biodiversity and which support the national Zero Waste Plan’s objectives.
The finalised SG will be the subject of a statutory Strategic Environmental Assessment process.
Consultation and engagement
The draft SG has been prepared in consultation with the Edinburgh BioQuarter partners: Scottish Enterprise, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh University and a development partner.
The draft SG will be published for a period in which interested parties can make representations either supporting it or seeking change. That period will run for eight weeks from 17 June 2013.
Page 3 of 8 Background reading / external references
Supporting documents to be published with the draft SG for the EBQ and SEW Parkland: • Equalities and Rights Impact Assessment
Previous reports and other background reading:
• Report to Planning Committee, Local Development Plan – Proposed Plan and Development Plan Scheme (19 March 2013)
• Report to Planning Committee, Annual Review of Guidance (28 February 2013)
• Edinburgh Local Development Plan Main Issues Report (October 2011)
• Summary of Responses to the Main Issues Report (April 2012)
• Proposed Strategic Development Plan for South East Scotland (November 2011)
• Planning Circular 1/20: Development Planning
Page 4 of 8 R e p o r t Report
Supplementary Guidance: Edinburgh BioQuarter and South East Wedge Parkland – draft for consultation
1. Background
1.1 The Proposed Local Development Plan (LDP) was approved on the 19 March 2013. It requires Supplementary Guidance (SG) to be prepared for the Edinburgh BioQuarter (EBQ) and town centres. This new approach also explained in the report on the Annual Review of Guidance to Planning Committee on 28 February 2013. The first set of guidance on town centres is the subject of a separate report.
1.2 The SG provides further guidance in relation to LDP Policy Emp 2: Edinburgh BioQuarter and adjoining Proposal GS 4: South East Wedge Parkland. The extent of the area covered by this SG is illustrated in Map 1, with development principles illustrated on Maps 2 and 3.
1.3 The SG is prepared under Section 22 of the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 and, once adopted, will form part of the development plan. Once the SG is finalised it can become a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. It is intended to review this guidance in step with reviews of the LDP (i.e. every five years).
2. Main report
The Edinburgh BioQuarter (EBQ)
2.1 The Edinburgh BioQuarter (EBQ) aims to become a top 10 global centre of excellence for life sciences offering opportunities for academic, commercial and clinical research and development with health care, teaching facilities and appropriate support services and facilities. The LDP identifies the EBQ as a ‘Special Economic Area’ as it offers a unique opportunity to establish a commercial life science centre in Edinburgh of a scale comparable with others globally.
2.2 The Edinburgh BioQuarter is partly implemented and focuses on the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and associated medical school. Additional land has been allocated to create the potential for further Life Sciences development offering
Page 5 of 8 opportunities for academic, commercial and clinical research with health care, teaching facilities and appropriate ancillary services and facilities.
The South East Wedge Parkland (SEW Parkland)
2.3 The SEW Parkland is to be developed as a significant new strategic park linking with parallel developments in Midlothian. The context for the SEW Parkland was first established with the approval of the Craigmillar Urban Design Framework (CUDF) in 2005. There is an opportunity within the SEW Parkland to create a new landscape that provides a setting for the EBQ and local communities such as Moredun and Craigmillar. The SEW Parkland is identified as Green Space Proposal GS 4 in the LDP.
Aims
2.4 The SG aims to realise the full life sciences potential of the EBQ in a mixed use urban quarter which protects and enhances the landscape setting of the city.
Development Principles
2.5 The SG supports the development of the EBQ for life sciences research and directly related commercial developments. Proposals within the EBQ will be assessed against the BioQuarter Development Principles set out in Part 1, Section 5 of the LDP and the more detailed principles set out within the SG.
2.6 The proposed LDP requires that proposals for development within the EBQ will be permitted which adhere to the following principles:
1. A higher density, more urban form of development than previously planned, with less land taken up by surface car parking is required to realise the BioQuarter’s potential. A compact urban approach is also more likely to foster a sense of place, attractive to workers and visitors.
2. Ancillary uses are supported to promote place making and provide local services and evening and weekend activity. However the type and quantity of ancillary uses must support, not jeopardise, the overall life science purpose of the BioQuarter.
3. Development at the BioQuarter must respect the site’s sensitive location within the wider landscape setting of the city. The extent of development and building heights, particularly on the upper slopes, must be carefully managed.
4. The BioQuarter should front onto and connect with the adjacent South East Wedge Parkland (Proposal GS 4), a key element of the Plan’s Spatial Strategy.
Page 6 of 8 2.7 The SG develops these principles and provides further guidance in respect of Buildings and Layout, Heights, Uses / Floorspace, Vehicular, Pedestrian and Cycle Access / Parking, and frontages.
2.8 The EBQ and SEW Parkland boundaries are as defined on the LDP Proposals Map and maps 1-3 contained within the guidance. Proposals within the EBQ will also be assessed against other relevant local plan policies, for example on matters such as design, accessibility, landscaping, biodiversity and relationship with the neighbouring green belt.
2.9 The SG also sets out development principles for the SEW Parkland, and four sub areas – The North Meadows, The South Woods, The Edmonstone Estate and The Niddrie Burn.
Publicity and Engagement
2.10 The SG has been prepared in consultation with the Edinburgh BioQuarter partners, which include Scottish Enterprise, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh University and a development partner.
2.11 Before adopting SG, authorities must first publicise it, giving a date before which representations to the SG may be made. That period is due to start on the 17 June 2013 following the end of the period of representations to the LDP. The consultation period will run for 8 weeks until the 16 August 2013.
2.12 The following groups and organisations will be consulted: the EBQ Partners and neighbouring developers, neighbouring authorities, the Key Agencies, universities, health care providers, city-wide amenity bodies, and local communities including Moredun and Craigmillar.
Next Steps
2.12 Following the period for representations, the authority must consider any comments received. The SG will be then finalised and sent to Scottish Ministers for approval with a statement setting out the publicity measures undertaken, the comments they received, and an explanation of how these comments were taken into account. This stage will be the subject of a further report to Committee. The SG will be adopted following the adoption of the LDP.
3. Recommendations
It is recommended that the Committee approves the draft Supplementary Guidance for the Edinburgh BioQuarter and South East Wedge Parkland (Appendix 1) for consultation purposes.
Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities
Page 7 of 8
Links
Coalition pledges P8 Make sure the city’s people are well-housed, including encouraging developers to built residential communities, starting with brownfield sites P15 Work with public organisations, the private sector and social enterprise to promote Edinburgh to investors P17 Continue efforts to develop the city’s gap sites and encourage regeneration P18 Complete the tram project in accordance with current plans Council outcomes CO7 Edinburgh draws in new investment in development and regeneration CO8 Edinburgh’s economy creates and sustains job opportunities CO16 Well-housed – People live in a good quality home that is affordable and meets their needs in a well-managed neighbourhood CO18 Green – We reduce the local environmental impact of our consumption and production CO19 Attractive Places and Well Maintained – Edinburgh remains an attractive city through the development of high quality buildings and places and the delivery of high standards and maintenance of infrastructure and public realm CO22 Moving efficiently – Edinburgh has transport system that improves connectivity and is green, healthy and accessible CO23 Well engaged and well informed – Communities and individuals are empowered and supported to improve local outcomes and foster a sense of community Single Outcome SO1 Edinburgh’s economy delivers increased investment, jobs Agreement and opportunities for all SO2 Edinburgh’s citizens experience improved health and wellbeing, with reduced inequalities in health SO3 Edinburgh’s children and young people enjoy their childhood and fulfil their potential SO4 Edinburgh’s communities are safer and have improved physical and social fabric Appendices Appendix 1: Supplementary Guidance: Edinburgh BioQuarter * and South East Wedge Parkland Supplementary Guidance: draft for consultation.
Page 8 of 8
APPENDIX 1 Edinburgh BioQuarter and South East Wedge Parkland Supplementary Guidance – draft for consultation
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Background
3.0 Aim
4.0 Edinburgh BioQuarter Development Principles
5.0 South East Wedge Parkland Development Principles
6.0 Implementation and Delivery
Maps
Map 1 – Boundary
Map 2 – Development Principles
Map 3 – Sensitive Area
Page 1 of 8 Edinburgh BioQuarter and South East Wedge Parkland – Supplementary Guidance – draft for consultation
Edinburgh BioQuarter and South East Wedge Parkland Supplementary Guidance – draft for consultation
1.0 Introduction
1.1 This document comprises Supplementary Guidance under Section 22 of the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 and, once adopted, will form part of the development plan. This Supplementary Guidance covers the Edinburgh BioQuarter (the EBQ) the South East Wedge Parkland (the Parkland), surrounding land and the Edmonstone Estate.
1.2 This Supplementary Guidance supports the development of the EBQ for life sciences research and directly related commercial developments. Proposals within the EBQ will be assessed against the BioQuarter Development Principles set out in Part 1, Section 5 of the LDP, Policy Emp 2 Edinburgh BioQuarter, this Supplementary Guidance and other relevant local plan policies. This SG also sets out principles to support the development of the South East Wedge Parkland (Proposal GS4) in the LDP.
1.3 The extent of the area covered by this Supplementary Guidance is illustrated in Map 1, with development principles illustrated on Maps 2 and 3. It is intended to review this guidance in step with reviews of the LDP (i.e. every 5 years).
2.0 Background
2.1 The Edinburgh BioQuarter (EBQ) aims to become a top 10 global centre of excellence for life sciences offering opportunities for academic, commercial and clinical research and development with health care, teaching facilities and appropriate support services and facilities. In January 2012, the Scottish Government designated the EBQ as an Enterprise Area due to its potential for national economic benefit, its ability to stimulate improved and sustained business and job creation and its deliverability.
2.2 The EBQ is identified as a Special Economic Area in the LDP. Special Economic Areas are areas of strategic economic importance, providing or with the potential to provide a significant number of jobs. The growth of these areas, through new businesses and the expansion of existing businesses will make a significant contribution towards meeting the plan’s economic development objectives.
2.3 The context for the South East Wedge Parkland was first established with the approval of the Craigmillar Urban Design Framework (CUDF) in 2005. The CUDF set out that the area should be developed as a significant new strategic park linking with parallel developments in Midlothian. There is an opportunity within the Parkland to create a new landscape that provides a setting for the EBQ and local communities such as Moredun and Craigmillar.
3.0 Aim
3.1 The aim of this Supplementary Guidance is to realise the full life sciences potential of the Edinburgh BioQuarter; in a mixed use, urban quarter, which protects and enhances the landscape setting of the city.
Page 2 of 8 Edinburgh BioQuarter and South East Wedge Parkland – Supplementary Guidance – draft for consultation
4.0 Edinburgh BioQuarter Development Principles
4.1 Proposals for development within the EBQ will be supported which adhere to the following principles:
1. A higher density, more urban form of development than previously planned, with less land taken up by surface car parking is required to realise the EBQ’s potential. A compact urban approach is also more likely to foster a sense of place, attractive to workers and visitors.
Buildings and Layout
a. Buildings should achieve the highest level of sustainable design, reduce carbon and greenhouse gas emissions and make efficient use of energy, resources and land.
b. Effective and innovative Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), waste management and recycling measures should be provided.
c. SUDS should be provided using the existing ponds in the Parkland, up to their design capacity, in order to ensure delivery of useable green space within the Parkland. Beyond the capacity of the existing SUDS ponds, all other drainage and treatment should be provided within the EBQ site.
Vehicular, Pedestrian and Cycle Access
d. Vehicular access to the EBQ site is to be taken from Old Dalkeith Road and Little France Drive only. An additional access point from Old Dalkeith Road is supported and defined on Map 2 as Access Point 3. No vehicular access to the EBQ site should be taken from The Wisp due to the traffic impact and the visual impact on the greenbelt and the SEW Parkland.
e. Pedestrian and cycle linkages should be provided within the EBQ site and from the EBQ and Craigmillar to the SEW Parkland. These are to be created as part of development proposals. Pedestrian and cycle routes should connect to long range strategic cycle paths as identified on Map 2.
Parking
f. In order to achieve the overall density of the new urban quarter, a number of multi- storey car parking structures will form an integral part of the development.
Frontages
g. Buildings should have active ground floor frontages addressing key vehicular, pedestrian and cycle routes and spaces to allow visual contact and pedestrian movement between inside and out.
h. The building line along Little France Drive should be brought forward to allow building entrances to address the street. Sufficient space for pedestrian and cycle functions and the safeguarded off-road tram route should be retained.
i. Building frontages should address the SEW Parkland and be integrated into the landscape, taking advantage of the parkland setting.
Page 3 of 8 Edinburgh BioQuarter and South East Wedge Parkland – Supplementary Guidance – draft for consultation
j. The existing landscape along the Edmonstone Estate boundary should be retained and strengthened in accordance with the approved Estate Management Strategy.
k. The existing woodland belt adjoining Old Dalkeith Road is important in terms of the wider setting and the majority should be retained as illustrated on Map 2. Beyond Access Point 3 buildings should address the street, with parts of the existing boundary removed to facilitate this.
Public Open Space
l. Whilst the SEW Parkland will provide a significant new park for the EBQ and surrounding area, publicly accessible open space should be provided throughout the EBQ site including pocket parks, gardens and public squares.
2. Ancillary uses are supported to promote place making and provide local services and evening and weekend activity. However the type and quantity of ancillary uses must support, not jeopardise, the overall life science purpose of the EBQ.
Floorspace
a. Floorspace within the EBQ should be predominantly specialist buildings for life sciences research and development, teaching, health care and clinical uses as well as directly related commercial life sciences developments.
b. A basic assessment of floorspace capacity across the EBQ site has been undertaken based on the more urban approach set out in Principle 1 above. The maximum floorspace capacity of the site south of Little France Drive has been calculated to be 295,000 sq m gross. The target for life sciences floorspace is 245,000 sq m gross.
c. Up to 50,000 sq m gross of ancillary uses will be supported in addition to the target level of life science use. These numbers are to be monitored at regular intervals by CEC and the EBQ partners, in line with the ongoing review of the SG, to demonstrate that the target life sciences capacity can still be achieved. There will only be spare land capacity for such uses if car parking is provided in multi-storey form.
Uses
d. Appropriate ancillary uses are: retail (class 1), professional services (class 2) food and drink (class 3), business (class 4) hotel (class 7) and residential and student accommodation (class 9).
e. The scale of retail proposals will be assessed using LDP Policy Ret 5 (out of centre development). That policy recognises that there are benefits in providing small scale, convenience stores (up to 250 sq m gross floorspace) within the BioQuarter to provide local shopping facilities. The scale of new general office development will be assessed using LDP Policy Emp 1 criterion c.
f. Student accommodation will be supported within the EBQ due to its proximity to university teaching and research facilities and in terms of access to public transport.
Page 4 of 8 Edinburgh BioQuarter and South East Wedge Parkland – Supplementary Guidance – draft for consultation
g. Residential accommodation is seen as being appropriate to help to develop the “mixed use, urban quarter”, an aim of the SG as articulated in Principle 1 above. Any residential development should contribute to the overall aims for density, mixed uses and urban form and should not take place on isolated sites.
3. Development at the BioQuarter must respect the site’s sensitive location within the wider landscape setting of the city. The extent of development and building heights, particularly on the upper slopes, must be carefully managed.
Heights
a. To accommodate life sciences uses, maximum heights across the site are expected to be 20 metres (including plant). There may be scope for buildings taller than 20m and if these are proposed they will require to be assessed by a further landscape character and visual impact assessment (LCVA).
Sensitive Area
b. The Edmonstone ridge is an important part of the landscape setting of the city. Development on the upper slopes of the EBQ site will have an adverse effect on this. In order to mitigate this impact, part of the site has been identified as sensitive. The Sensitive Area is illustrated on Plan 3.
c. Within the Sensitive Area, building heights up to the OSD heights shown on plan 3 will be supported.
d. To allow for plant for life science uses, building heights 5 metres above these levels will be supported provided they that they have regard to the positioning, scale, form, and detailing in respect of their impact on significant views and the sensitive Edmonstone ridge. Such proposals will be required to comply with a design code to be prepared for the site.
Page 5 of 8 Edinburgh BioQuarter and South East Wedge Parkland – Supplementary Guidance – draft for consultation
5.0 South East Wedge Parkland Development Principles
5.1 The following development principles apply to the South East Wedge Parkland.
4. The BioQuarter should front onto and connect with the adjacent South East Wedge Parkland (Proposal GS 4), a key element of the Plan’s Spatial Strategy.
The Parkland as a whole will:
a. have a strong, flexible landscape structure which is designed with future use and low maintenance in mind,
b. be a visually stimulating environment which provides a unified and strong boundary between the urban area and Edinburgh’s rural hinterland,
c. use a limited palette of parkland furniture including benches, signage and footpath surfacing – exceptions to this should be high quality public art,
d. through its design, walkways and planting, protect views to Craigmillar Castle, Arthur’s Seat and Edinburgh Castle,
e. maximise biodiversity throughout the design and provide areas for target species and habitats,
f. promote the interpretation and conservation of the area’s important archaeological and historic sites and monuments, including the remains of the Edmonstone Estate, Niddrie Marischal and the scheduled ancient monument located in South Woods; and,
g. protect the function of the public transport link, the safeguarded tram route, and complete strategic footpath and cycleway networks.
The North Meadows should:
a. create an attractive setting for the new adjacent buildings at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and housing at Greendykes South,
b. accommodate flood water storage, and,
c. enhance the setting of Craigmillar Castle and its Designed Landscape.
The South Woods should:
a. create a robust and defensible edge to the housing at New Greendykes, the EBQ and the edge of the built up area,
b. frame views of Craigmillar Castle, Edinburgh Castle and Arthur’s Seat from Edmonstone Ridge,
c. recognise and highlight the Scheduled Ancient Monument (Prehistoric Domestic and Defensive NE of Home Farm) by use of careful interpretation and a maintenance regime, and
d. recognise and protect the Edmonstone estate boundary and remains of Home Farm.
Page 6 of 8 Edinburgh BioQuarter and South East Wedge Parkland – Supplementary Guidance – draft for consultation The Edmonstone Estate should:
a. enhance, repair and maintain the surviving elements of Edmonstone and Niddrie Marischal (e.g. stone boundary walls, landscape framework) and,
b. implement the approved Estate Management Plan
The Niddrie Burn Corridor should:
a. provide space for the Niddrie Burn to flood safely,
b. create a safe and informal recreational space for the local community, allowing those on both sides of the river to interact,
c. create a highly valuable wildlife corridor with a variety of habitats, ensuring that the surveyed otter population and potential water vole population can move freely along the watercourse, and,
d. conserve, interpret and enhance historic elements of the burn.
Page 7 of 8 Edinburgh BioQuarter and South East Wedge Parkland – Supplementary Guidance – draft for consultation
6.0 Implementation and Delivery
6.1 This document sets out Supplementary Guidance in connection with Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Emp 2: Edinburgh BioQuarter and Proposal GS4: South East Wedge Parkland. In order to comply with the development plan, development proposals are required to adhere to the principles set out within this guidance. In addition, Local Development Plan policies also apply, in particular those relating to developer contributions and urban design, landscape and open space in new development.
6.2 This Supplementary Guidance will be accompanied by a non-statutory masterplan and a landscape and visual impact assessment prepared by the EBQ Partners in conjunction with CEC. A design code for the Sensitive Area will be prepared for the site. This Supplementary Guidance will also supported by a Strategic Environmental Assessment.
6.3 The Supplementary Guidance is also supported by an area specific protocol agreement which sets out how the Council, Edinburgh BioQuarter Partnership (EBQP) and subsequent developers can work together to ensure a speedy, responsive and efficient planning delivery. The protocol agreement relates to the stages subsequent to the approval of the LDP, the supplementary guidance and the EBQ Masterplan, In particular it relates to the submission of planning applications within the overall EBQ site.
Page 8 of 8 EBQ & SWEP SG Map 1 Niddrie Burn Corridor
North Meadows
South East Wedge RIE Parkland
South Woods
EBQ
SG Boundary EBQ Boundary Edmonstone Estate SEW Parkland Greenbelt Tram Route Safeguard EBQ & SWEP SG Map 2 Niddrie Burn Corridor
North Meadows Housing 1000 units
South East Wedge RIE Parkland
South Woods
SG Boundary EBQ EBQ Boundary SEW Parkland Greenbelt Sensitive Area Retained Landscape
Pedestrian/Cycle Access Edmonstone Vehicular Access Estate Indicative Road Layout Tram Route Safeguard Key Building Frontage EBQ & SWEP SG Map 3
ERI South Woods
EBQ 94OD
95OD SG Boundary EBQ Boundary 98OD SEW Parkland 99OD Greenbelt Sensitive Area 100OD Retained Landscape Tram Route Safeguard Edmonstone Ordnance Datum Heights 100OD Estate Planning Committee
10.00am, Thursday 16 May 2013
Edinburgh Design Guidance
Item number Report number Wards All wards
L inks Links
Coalition pledges N/A Council outcomes CO8 CO16 CO 19 Single Outcome Agreement SO1 SO2 SO4
Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities
Contact: David Givan, Planning Officer
Emma Rigg, Planning Officer
E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 3679
Executive summary
Edinburgh Design Guidance
S um m a ry Summary
The purpose of this report is to seek the Committee’s approval of the consolidated Edinburgh Design Guidance following public consultation.
This guideline is intended for all new buildings. It aims to provide guidance on how to comply with the design related policies in the local plans, explain the key ideas which need to be considered during the design process, and give examples of good quality design.
The report sets out the main changes that have been made to the draft guidance, as shaped by the consultation comments received.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the Committee: 1. Notes the consultation responses to the draft Edinburgh Design Guidance; and 2. Approves the finalised Edinburgh Design Guidance, subject to minor editing.
Measures of success
Planning guidance is more accessible for applicants and other stakeholders in the planning process.
Financial impact
There are no financial implications arising from this report.
Equalities impact
An Equality and Rights Impact Assessment was carried out on 19 March 2013. It was found that The Edinburgh Design Guidance aims to raise the quality of the built environment in Edinburgh by enhancing accessibility and promoting the protection of the built and natural environment for future generations.
The guidance helps to enhance rights to health by supporting the creation of attractive urban environments with access to good quality private and public green space, and sustainable modes of transport. The guidance helps to enhance rights to a good standard of living, including rights to individual, family and social life through supporting
Page 2 of 7 the creation of attractive mixed use urban environments with a mix of housing types that are well designed and have reasonable levels of daylight and sunlight.
The guidance is primarily concerned with the physical environment. In this regard, the protected characteristics which are most impacted by the guidance are Age and Disability. It has the potential to impact positively on these protected characteristics by promoting adaptable housing and tenures to meet their varying needs. The guidance has the potential to impact positively to reduce socio-economic disadvantage by promoting accessibility, provision of open space and affordable housing. The guidance helps to reduce living costs through reduced energy demands. The guidance also aims to improve personal security by ensuring natural surveillance in all new developments.
Sustainability impact
The Edinburgh Design Guidance aims to raise the quality of the built environment in Edinburgh. This helps make Edinburgh a more sustainable city by creating an environment that can endure. The guidance will help achieve: • A socially sustainable Edinburgh through the inclusion of on-site tenure blind affordable housing • An economically sustainable Edinburgh through supporting the development of the city; and • An environmentally sustainable Edinburgh through supporting energy efficiency, the use of low and zero carbon technologies, reasonable levels of daylight and sunlight, accessibility by sustainable modes of transport, high density in appropriate locations, protection of biodiversity and access to good quality green space.
Consultation and engagement
Consultation on the draft guidance took place between October 2012 and January 2013. The results are discussed in Section 2.
Background reading / external references
Relevant Committee Reports: 1. Annual Review of Guidance, Report to Planning Committee (28 February 2013) 2. Edinburgh Design Guidance, Report to Planning Committee (4 October 2012)
Page 3 of 7 R e p o r t Report
Edinburgh Design Guidance
1. Background
1.1 On 24 February 2011, Committee agreed that the suite of non-statutory planning guidance should be consolidated and targeted at user groups. The first consolidated guideline on developer contributions and affordable housing was published in 2011. On 6 December 2012, Committee approved a further three sets of consolidated planning guidance for householders, businesses, and listed buildings and conservation areas.
1.2 On 4 October 2012, Committee approved the Draft Edinburgh Design Guidance for consultation. The guidance sets out the Council’s expectations for the design of new development and will replace the following individual guidelines, which are hyperlinked for convenience; • Edinburgh Standards for Urban Design • Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Building • Edinburgh Standards for Housing • Protection of Key Views • Building Heights and Roofscape • Daylighting, Sunlight and Privacy • Villa Areas and the Grounds of Villas • Landscape and Development • Gardens and Designed Landscapes • Housing Development in Garden Grounds • Biodiversity • Trees and Development
1.3 The above documents will be removed from use when this guidance document is approved by Planning Committee.
Page 4 of 7
2. Main report
Consultation process 2.1 Between October 2012 and January 2013, consultation on the draft guideline was undertaken. Approximately 500 letters and emails were distributed to a range of individuals, organisations, community and amenity groups, Neighbourhood Partnerships, MSPs, MPs, local councillors and statutory consultees, inviting comments on the draft document. Consultees were also invited to comment via an online survey.
2.2 The consultation was advertised on the Council’s website, postcard flyers and Twitter. An electronic version of the guidance was made available on the website, along with a summary outline of how the new guidance relates to the old. Printed copies of the guidance document were available in all libraries across the city and posted on request.
2.3 Two public consultation events were held at Waverley Court, which included a short presentation explaining the background to the guidance and an opportunity for questions.
2.4 The draft guidance was presented to and discussed with the Edinburgh Access Panel in March 2013.
2.5 Following approval of the consultation draft in October 2012, the document has been treated as a material consideration in the assessment of planning applications. An online survey of Planning Officers was used to analyse whether there has been any issues with its interpretation.
2.6 On 24 January 2013, a workshop was held with Planning Committee members to discuss the content of the design guidance in relation to the design of suburban housing. In response to Committee’s discussion and direction, a number of changes have been made, including more on the suburban development type. Summary of the consultation responses 2.7 10 Council Planning Officers completed the internal survey. Their response to the consolidated guidance was generally very positive, particularly with regard to the usefulness of Chapter 1 and the individual principles contained within the main Chapters. Officers also welcomed the balance of graphics, photos and technical information. The draft guidance was primarily being used during pre- application and internal discussions. One of the key issues related specifically to its relationship with the street design guide, which has subsequently been addressed through the changes to the document. 2.8 Out of the 120 people who started the external online survey, 68 people completed it. Responses to the consolidation of the guidance were very positive,
with recognition of the benefits of condensing the planning guidance. Furthermore, 92.8% of respondents agreed with the structure of the guidance. Feedback from the online survey is presented in Appendix 1. 2.9 There were a further 25 people who provided additional responses in the form of letters and emails. These are contained in Appendix 2. These came from a range of sources including key agencies, community councils, interest groups and individuals. 2.10 Main changes to the guidance that were sought through the consultation process were: • More examples and guidance for housing in a suburban context; • More guidance on villa areas; • More guidance on Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS); • More guidance on street design. 2.11 Appendix 3 contains the proposed finalised guidance. The changes to it are marked in red text with footnotes providing further explanation. Next Steps 2.12 Once approved, final images and examples will be inserted into the guidance and it will be published online and made available for inspection at libraries and at Waverley Court. The relevant existing guidelines will be removed from the website as described in paragraph 1.3 above.
3. Recommendations
3.1 It is recommended that the Committee: 1. notes the consultation responses to the draft Edinburgh Design Guidance; and 2. approves the finalised Edinburgh Design Guidance, subject to minor editing.
Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities
Links
Coalition pledges N/A
Council outcomes CO8 Edinburgh’s economy creates and sustains job opportunities CO16 Well-housed – People live in a good quality home that is affordable and meets their needs in a well managed neighbourhood
Page 6 of 7 CO 19 Attractive Places and Well Maintained – Edinburgh remains an attractive city through the development of high quality buildings and places and the delivery of high standards and maintenance of infrastructure and public realm
Single Outcome Agreement SO1 Edinburgh’s economy delivers increased investment, jobs, and opportunities for all. SO2 Edinburgh’s citizens experience improved health and wellbeing, with reduced inequalities in health. SO4 Edinburgh’s communities are safer and have improved physical and social fabric.
Appendices 1. Edinburgh Design Guidance: Online Survey Summary * 2. Edinburgh Design Guidance: Consultation Summary
3. Edinburgh Design Guidance
Page 7 of 7 Appendix 1
Edinburgh Design Guidance: Online Survey Summary
Planning Committee – 16 May 13 Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 1 – Online Survey Summary
The Council is making its planning guidance simpler and easier to use by reducing Yes No the number of documents and the amount of words. Do you agree with this 112 95.7% 5 4.3% approach? people people
Ref If not, why? Comments 7 It allows too many different interpretations, leading to inconsistent application of the guidelines. 10 It depends what the documents are and what they say. 22 keep it complicted [sic]
Do you use any of the Council's existing planning guidance? Yes No 63 77.8% 18 22.2% people people
Ref If not, why? Comments 11 Our company has not needed to. 15 a mystery to me 18 Use an architect 43 Not needed 57 Too complex 59 Dont know what it is 61 Used it to get a change of use 3 years ago - no need since 64 not really relevant for my business though interested in what's happening 79 It is all very woolly 89 I'm not in that business, I'm just a citizen 99 To review changes I see in my local area and to understand the broader development plans for the authority 107 Never had any need to - am a private citizen with no plans to build anything. However, I do have strong views on urban design.
Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 1 – Online Survey Summary
It is important we know how the guidance will be used. What will you use it for? (77 people responded to this question)
Understanding the Interpreting the In discussions Showing to clients To help write a Helping comment Other (please Council's Council's planning with Planning design statement on / object to a specify) expectations about policies officials planning design application
55 71.4% 57 74% 46 59.7% 32 41.6% 32 41.6% 42 54.5% 8 10.4% people people people people people people people
Ref Results of other (please specify) Comments 11 To ensure public opinions on design & placement are taken into consideration in decision making. This response supports the view that the guidance will be used by a wide range of 15 never used them people with an interest in urban design and 66 dont know what it is the planning process. 74 Advising Ward residents. 79 Probably won't use it. 96 explaining requirements to new residents 102 When considering site for development 108 Highlight airport safeguarding interests We've structured the guidance to reflect the themes of design policies in the local Yes No plan. There are chapters on: Design Quality and Context; Designing Buildings; and, 64 92.8% 5 7.2% Landscape and biodiversity. Do you agree with this approach? people people
Ref If not, why? Comments 11 Have not read the document. Apologies. 77 I think the biodiversity emphasis is generally a red herring in the city area (especially the diversity part of it). Otherwise OK 91 Planners should not tell architects how to design buildings apart from height and impact on neighbours and each proposal should be looked at on merit and design quality 94 I strongly believe the guidance should set out the framework that design quality is measured against but is NOT prescriptive in terms of the design 111 It is hard to say from this question without examples. The approach to categorise the guidance is sound as is pulling it all into one document. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 1 – Online Survey Summary
We've made a distinction between guidance for everyone and technical guidance for Yes No professionals. Main design principles in coloured boxes introduce each section with 66 94.3% 4 5.7% further explanation given as required. Grey pages give technical guidance. Do you people people think this is a good way of setting out the guidance?
Ref If not, do you have an alternative suggestion? Comments 15 patronising 72 everything has to be available to all in layman terms 88 Design guidance is not a technical matter. I can imagine, much like the building regulations, that this will simply elongate the guidance with each item written twice . 94 I foresee that this will create a grey area between a clients expectation and the professionals interpretation of the policies. This will manifest itself in inconsistent decisions from the planning department. I think a single set of guidance notes would avoid this.
Do you have any other comments about the guidance?
Ref Response Comments 5 I thought the document was extremely well laid out and very informative for a general reader (that's me Noted I'm just a plain Edinburgh resident who cares about the city). 7 A lot of fancy words used to try and justify some very unsuitable and unattractive modern buildings, Guidance advocates use of stone generally. sometimes claiming that they are the right height when the pictures clearly illustrate how inappropriate the height actually is, in relation to adjacent buildings, e.g. para. 2.1 I do not accept that brick has any place in Edinburgh, certainly not in the New Town, e. g. Lynedoch Place. We have a stone built city and English bricks have no place here. 22 This is a well designed document which will be of great use when considering Planning and other Noted aspects of City development. The simplified statements make the general concepts easier to grasp and the references to relevant documents will enable us to look in more detail at key aspects of a proposed development and their implications for the community. 31 It should be more easily located on the council website. Particular web page seems to have crashed at This has been passed to the Council’s Web time of writing. Team to consider when making future improvements to the website 33 It appears to increase the burden on householders in listed properties by requiring them to produce a The guidance is not aimed at listed buildings 'design statement' with applications. The recent imposition of VAT on changes to listed buildings by the but is aimed at development across the city Westminster government, and the increasing cost of heating fuel, reduces the appeal of A listed generally. Approved guidance for Listed properties to potential homeowners. Increasing the burden with further regulatory requirements may Buildings and Conservation Areas sets out Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 1 – Online Survey Summary
Do you have any other comments about the guidance?
Ref Response Comments have a negative effect. The New Town is important to the city, but people will shun these buildings if the Council’s requirements for alterations to collective changes in regulation push buyers towards properties that are simpler and cheaper to listed buildings. maintain. Every proposed change needs to produce a 'yes' answer to the question.. 'does this change make a listed property in the world heritage site a more attractive proposition for home buyers'. If the answer is no, then you can expect the overall maintenance of the world heritage site to falter in the coming years. 43 no Noted 45 Very good - concise legible and aspirational Noted 46 No Noted
52 Try to ensure that the application of these quidance notes is appied consistently across all applications. One of the aims of the guidance is to help planning officials and the Development Management Sub-Committee have consistency in their decision making process. 53 Clarity of purpose of guidance as against a definition of adherence for those who would wish to flaunt Introduction changed to state clearly who it planning regulations, may be worthy of inclusion in an introductory paragraph. is for. 56 Keep it simple. The Council Web pages are a nightmare to navigate to get the information you want. This has been passed to the Council’s Web i.e. you get a load of repetitive words/sentences and then try a link, to get more words/sentences. You Team to consider when making future really need to visit the web site a lot to get to understand it. improvements to the website 73 We are pleased to see the detailed guidance set out in Chapter 3, particularly those sections dealing Noted with green networks, publicly accessible open space, biodiversity and trees. It is also useful to see the information required in planning applications set out clearly in the table at the end. 76 The draft guidance is clear and a very useful publication for both design professionals and interetsed Noted members of the public 79 I found it impenetrable. Very vague and woolly. Developers just ignore it anyway. Noted
81 1.It is important that daylighting looked at in detail at masterplanning stage as I have known cases 1 – The draft guidance provides more where the masterplanner's desire for a tight urban form has made it impossible at detailed design stage flexibility for new development to bring to achieve appropriate levels of daylight ( or any sunlight) in ground floor flats. 2.Modern families are buildings closer in relation to the not just father, mother and 2.4 kids - they are not all rich. Single parents on benefit with one child are requirements of previous guidance. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 1 – Online Survey Summary
Do you have any other comments about the guidance?
Ref Response Comments also families. They can't live in three bedroomed houses. They also need play parks etc. In the light of the welfare reforms the number of social tenants who will be able to afford more than one or two 2 – The majority of flatted schemes come bedrooms (so called bedroom tax) means that requirements for larger properties will be severely forward with a very high proportion of 1 and curtailed. Quotas must reflect this. 3.What is the role of community consultation? Are you assuming 2 bedroom dwellings. This aspect of the that if there is good design communities will be happy? Should you not mention consultation and its guidance featured in the Edinburgh role in this document? Standards for Housing (which it will replace). It is not expected that requiring a proportion of larger dwellings will unduly impact on the numbers of 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings that are otherwise being delivered. On this basis, no further action.
3. Consultation happens during the planning process through neighbour notification and a period of 21 days for representations. In addition, on proposals that result in major planning applications, there is a 12 week period of public consultation. On this basis, no further action. I'm really happy with this new guidance. Only thing I strongly object to is in 3.8 Hard landscape, p. 77. Not accepted. The palate of greys has been Why should common areas with significant footfall be covered with grey precast concrete slabs. The established by the Edinburgh Standards for grey colour is depressing, and precast concrete slabs don't age well: they chip and/or break in pieces, Streets and is something that has found to and slab corners become a hazard for pedestrians when slabs break and collapse in the sand be effective in ensuring consistency and underlayer. therefore contributing towards the sense of place in the city. Slabs can break – however where this happens standard grey concrete slabs are readily available and can be replaced relatively easily. 89 Summary of other guidance not within this document could be noted at the end e.g listed building This is on the webpages for the guidance.
Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 1 – Online Survey Summary
Do you have any other comments about the guidance?
Ref Response Comments 94 The guidance should make it clear which part of planning legislation it refers to - national policies and The section at the start of the guidance on local plan - and quote the policy it can be enforced under. I am utterly fed up with planning officers Planning policy and guidance sets out how being the arbiters of taste rather than simply applying the policies. The new design guidance must not the guidance sits into the policy hierarchy. exacerbate this. If there must be design guidance then it cannot restrict original, innovative design in any way - it should encourage it. There are always one or two appropriate design solutions - one The guidance should help provide greater may be clearly the best design solution and not comply with a policy, another a compromised design consistency of decision making through the solution and fully complies with policy. There must be the ability enshrined in the guidance that will planning process. allow the best design solution to be accepted. Where proposals do not comply with policy, these can approved where there are material planning considerations that indicate that they should. 96 Information should be much more available. Residents in conservation areas often have no idea what The process of consolidating planning is permitted and what not allowed eg painting stonework. This could then involve the Planning guidance will make it easier for the public to Enforcement Dept which is a much costlier intervention. understand the Council’s expectations. There is specific guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas which sets out requirements for painting of stonework. 102 The impact of the requirements on the delivery of affordable housing is a concern. The minimum This aspect of the document is not new property sizes are too prescriptive and exceed the minimum standards set as a Housing Association by guidance as it was a feature of the 5 to 10%. The 20% requirement units of over 91m2 should be reconsidered for the following reasons: Edinburgh Standards for Housing (which the The requirement mitigates against using the ground floor in a flatted development for other purposes Edinburgh Design Guidance will replace). such as wheelchair accommodation or commercial use.It is impractical to provide direct access to The issue is approached on a case by case garden areas from first floor upwards ( no level access, slip and trip hazards particularly in icy weather, basis. external lighting, shading to ground floors etc) This one requirement will dictate the built form including the building height. The Edinburgh common housing register demonstrates less than 5% on the waiting list for this size of property. Tenants on Housing benefit will be financially penalized if they occupy a 3 bedroom property with fewer than 6 residents (with some exceptions such as siblings over 12 of opposite sexes) The majority of families prefer to live in houses. Not all locations are suitable for large family living. Not all sites provide an opportunity to mix flats with houses, consider tenement infil sites. The requirement is unaffordable for social housing provision in a time of reducing grant, challenging private finance and welfare reform. Planning should balance the long view of the built environment with the viability of delivery and other ambitions of the City such as housing those in need. An alternative approach is to design in the flexibility to link 2 units to form a larger property. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 1 – Online Survey Summary
Do you have any other comments about the guidance?
Ref Response Comments 105 The following comments from J+F Johnston were submitted by email to David Given and Emma Rigg Comments addressed in the letter that was on 2nd November 2012: 1. It is important for all who use this document to understand that it has submitted by J+F Johnston. been set out for ‘Guidance’ and not ‘Policy’. 2. In making use of photographs and illustrations, the document may require to be regularly updated as other and perhaps more appropriate examples result from on-going development in the City. 3. Edinburgh / The Challenge The document starts by referring to a ‘unique and beautiful city’ and ‘The quality of our environment’. This is not currently the case as maintenance within the city is poor and buildings and roads are continually deteriorating. The City requires a strong maintenance culture if these claims are to be substantiated. As the Property Conservation Service is being re-designed, there may be the opportunity to link the Design Guidance to any new information brochure being proposed by that Department. 4. How Planning Helps Achieve Good Design The modern history of design in the City has often illustrated that mass consultation has introduced a level of interference resulting in reduced quality of design. There has also been timidity in achieving design solutions thereby restricting the possibility of achieving higher design standards. There have been too many developer / contractor led projects where the consented development is not reflected in the ‘as built’ product. Other than for the New Town, Edinburgh does not appear to have the ability to organise architectural competitions. The history of Haymarket is one example of a competition failure spanning decades. 1. Design Quality and Context 1.2 City skyline and views: The waterfront development is generally a disaster proving that Architects and Developers have not been able to handle the responsibility of designing for a waterfront development, nor Planners understanding the challenge. The ‘broken teeth’ and massing of current high rise developments stand as tombstones to this failure. It is now questionable if this situation can be recovered. 1.3 Coordinate development: Development plots have been sold to individual developers without the design references that established the New Town or the Victorian tenements thereby allowing individual developers to work without strict controls. This approach will continue to result in uncoordinated development. 1.4 Density: In commenting on High density development and the general proximity of buildings to areas of public open space has been recognised in Section 3, it is this open space that contributes to community life, particularly during late spring, summer and early autumn. Residents will only walk to a Park in fine weather but will make year round use of immediate open space if that is provided. Playspaces at 1,200 to 2,000 m walking distance continues to illustrate a lack of understanding on the subject of local play provision for children. 2. Designing Buildings 2.4 Materials and Detailing – Timber: While the use of timber has been encouraged in design, there are numerous examples where specification / detailing is incorrect resulting in an unsightly appearance. The traditional role of the Architect has also become restricted by the cost control or lack of understanding detailing by Developers or Design and Build Contractor’s. This has resulted in an appearance problem and one, which could ultimately become a case of the timber rotting. Greater Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 1 – Online Survey Summary
Do you have any other comments about the guidance?
Ref Response Comments control will require to be exerted if timber is to be permitted. 2.4 Materials and Detailing - Brick: Comments addressed in the letter that was Mention should be made of the danger of efflorescence and the resulting unsightly appearance that can submitted by J+F Johnston. last for years. 2.7 Ancillary facilities – Bike Store illustration: ‘off common stairs’ not ‘of common stairs’. 2.9 Housing mix and size: As the issue of affordable housing is currently being reviewed as a result of the current economic downturn, it may be better to simply note that this is a matter for discussion and agreement rather than referring to what may become an out of date policy. This also applies to Section 75 contributions. 3. Landscape and biodiversity 3.3 Private open space – the length of private gardens: The illustration with an almost storey high fence / garden wall should be removed as it illustrates a compound mentality rather than a friendly / neighbourly approach. The overall distance of 24m exceeds the current, and on occasion contentious, distance of 18m between habitable rooms by 6m and is a return to the concept of suburban living. If this distance is mentioned, the 12m distance between habitable and non habitable rooms should also be included.
Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 1 – Online Survey Summary
Do you have any other comments about the guidance?
Ref Response Comments 111 I trust the guidance will make greater remark about the importance of enhancing, encouraging and Cycling: The Edinburgh Design Guidance expanding the use of bicycles in the city - This is by far the most important mode of transport for a will be complemented by Street Design variety of reasons, including, less pollution, good health and well-being and less demand on the already Guidance. This will set out requirements for congested streets. I also trust the guidance shall be more forward looking with regards to city sites cycling more fully. and the types of buildings granted for planning. The age-old requirement of 'yellow sandstone' on the façade is not only dreadfully stuffy but stunts expression in what is be a vibrant and buzzing city. I Materials: It is accepted that load bearing would remind you that we no longer build in stone but rather 'clad' buildings these days and the notion stone is not commonly used to build of a 'sandstone slip' for many bulky and unbecoming building frames is reminiscent of Cinderella's 3 buildings in Edinburgh, however many of ugly sisters putting their cumbersome feet into a glass slipper for the Princes wares! Many inner city completed stone clad buildings (such as the developments seem to take more than they give back and miss opportunities for public space - a Museum of Scotland and the University of striking example of this would be the 'Missoni/Bank of Scotland' building on George IV and Royal Mile - Edinburgh’s Informatics Forum) a fantastic example of lacklustre vision and anodyne architecture on a key site. The notion of wood demonstrate that stone cladding can be cladding on these buildings is short sighted as they are never maintained and fade/blacken to look successfully used. Note added to Museum awful. of Scotland example stating: “Care needs to be taken with any proposal like this, that detailing mitigates adverse weathering and staining.”
The draft guidance sets out requirements for timber cladding which should help to ensure that blackening is limited. In terms of raw timber turning to grey, this is considered acceptable weathering as the colour of the material harmonises with many of Edinburgh’s existing stone buildings. 115 I enjoyed browsing this.....it is very well illustrated. One thing that I couldn't find is guidance on which The S1 form sets out when it should be applications would require an S1 sustainability statement. Will house extensions be exempt? used. It does not apply to house extensions.
Appendix 2
Edinburgh Design Guidance: Consultation Summary
Note:
The responses are listed alphabetically by organisation, followed by individuals.
The changes made to Appendix 3: Edinburgh Design Guidance can be cross referred to the comments and responses by using the reference letters in the left hand column of this document and the footnotes in Appendix 3.
Planning Committee – 16 May 13 Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
A Andrew Rule Barratt East We write to highlight our comments on the draft Edinburgh Design Guidance, 4th October 2012, The appraisal should be done prior to a layout being prepared in order Scotland as follows: that the constraints and opportunities of a site can be fully understood 1. Landscape appraisals are required with the submission. Some layouts alter significantly before the design is commenced. through the planning process and can result in additional design costs. Woodland edge changed. Also, where suitable landscape features do not exist a vague reference is made to a minimum 50m woodland edge which seems excessive.
A Andrew Rule Barratt East 2. We are concerned the document has very little relevance to low rise developments out withAdded more on the expectations for suburbia. Scotland the city centre.
A Andrew Rule Barratt East 3. We are concerned with material proposals highlighting such high quality materials. The Council wants to raise the quality of developments and one area Scotland where there is often inadequate quality is with materials. Therefore Stone, which is expected to be used in areas where the main material of existing neighbouring this is set out. Note however that the guidance does not preclude buildings is sandstone – particularly on facades that are seen from the street. alternatives being used ‐ It sets out requirements for those materials for when they are used. Hard Roofing Materials this refers to high quality materials i.e. slate, pantiles, lead, stainless steel etc.
It is also noted that UPVC should not be used, despite this being a solution.
There needs to be more flexibility in material choices for the Edinburgh areas as the above are not always commercially viable.
A Andrew Rule Barratt East 4. Mix of Uses – if appropriate create mixed uses – this should be flexible and consider market Requirements for higher floor to ceiling heights changed to take Scotland conditions and the area the development is located within. account of this comment. See paragraph about improving internal amenity in technical guidance on housing mix and size section. The 3m floor to ceiling heights suggested to ground floors to create scope for future uses should be re‐assessed and remain flexible. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
A Andrew Rule Barratt East 5. Housing Mix and Size: this requires a minimum provision of family housing (20% for The Council disagrees that there is no demand for family housing. Scotland developments over 12 units) with a minimum 91m2 area. This requirement needs to be re‐ Areas like Marchmont demonstrate that families with children live in assessed as in our experience there is no demand for family accommodation within the city flatted accommodation. Considering the long term social sustainability centre. of development means that there should be a mix of housing in order that a broad mix of people can live there. Irrespective of this, this Direct access is to private gardens should also be re‐assessed as we find the majority of flat requirement is directly taken from the previously consulted on and purchasers do NOT want their own private garden space and would reduce the density of the approved Edinburgh Standards for Housing. site.
Technical Guidance specifies minimum floor areas for dwellings together with minimum storage standards, all of which requires to be flexible to suit location/market conditions!
A Andrew Rule Barratt East 6. The proposal to have developments tenure blind is a concern and needs to remain flexible. Changes made to text on tenure blind requirements to make it less Scotland prescriptive.
A Andrew Rule Barratt East 7. Reference is being made to encourage Designing for Streets and yet recent experience of The Council supports Scottish Government policy of Designing Streets. Scotland applications is hampered by Highways. (Road widths wider than D for S) Sometimes this has to be balanced against other needs ‐ eg those of public transport operators. A Andrew Rule Barratt East 8. Protection of incidental views within section 1 is too vaguely described and could prevent Incidental views should be identified at the site appraisal stage and Scotland development. Whereas the later section referring to incorporating existing views contradicts the agreed with the Council. This will be done on a case by case basis. It is previously noted protection of incidental views. Both these sections need further clarity. not possible to set out all the incidental views that exist in and around the city. A Andrew Rule Barratt East 9. The requirement for houses and flats located within the noted 400/800m walking distance This requirement is from the Council's Open Space Strategy. It has not Scotland could preclude development of brownfield ground being redeveloped within the city centre. precluded any development being developed yet.
A Andrew Rule Barratt East 10. Very onerous proposals are being suggested for landscaping to parking areas. This needs These requirements for structural landscape (in the form of trees and Scotland reviewing with a more sensible approach. other planting) are taken from existing guidance. It is vitally important that landscape is included to mitigate the adverse visual effects of Underground parking is not a viable option within the current market place. The alternatives also surface car parking. add significant expense and maintenance. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
A Andrew Rule Barratt East The current proposals including upfront reports, high quality materials, mixed uses and tenure The Council encourages the sustainable economic development of the Scotland blind developments within the Draft Design Guide will result in Development within the city but it also has a duty to preserve its heritage and create good Edinburgh area grinding to a halt as the industry is still struggling to recover from the recent quality living environments for its residents. The guidance seeks to recession. The Design Guide in its current form does not offer any assistance to Developers, encourage development while setting out clearly the Council's which has a knock on effect on land values and general development within the city. expectations for quality.
Developers are being faced with constantly increasing costs at a time when the market is extremely volatile. Recently 2010 and future 2013 Building Regulation changes together with the Planning sustainability requirements, affordable housing/Education/transport contributions within section 75 costs and public realm costs are all adding to increase the overall costs of Development which in turn lowers land values and restricts the supply of new sites coming forward as viable opportunities.
Taking the above into account we would recommend the Guide is reviewed with a mind to encourage development whilst upholding good design practice where appropriate.
B Euan Leitch Cockburn Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the consolidation of the supplementary planning Noted. Association guidance. In appraising the document we have also looked at the final versions of the Guidance for Business, Householders and Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas and there are some omissions that give us cause for concern. B Euan Leitch Cockburn The existing detailed guidance on Mews developments has been reduced to one illustrated The guidance on building heights, scale and proportions, materials and Association comment in the draft urban design guidance (p37) on matching eaves and ridge heights, omitting detailing all applies to mews developments ‐ even though this is not guidance on skews, depth, dormers etc. The existing guidance was well used in ensuring explicitly stated in some instances. This guidance will be kept under harmonious development of the lanes in the New Town and preventing development where it review in relation to this issue to ensure that forthcoming mews would be inappropriate (eg Rothesay Mews). Unless Mews guidance remains a standalone developments meet up to (or exceed) the standard that is currently document some of the detail of the guidance must be incorporated in this design guidance. being consented.
B Euan Leitch Cockburn Across the new documents advice on the treatment of existing boundary walls seems to have Added example of boundary wall in section on Incorporate existing Association been omitted and breaches can have significant impact within conservation areas. Guidance on built features Incorporate existing buildings and boundary. this should be incorporated in the urban design guidance. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
B Euan Leitch Cockburn We note the comments from the Grange & Prestonfield Community Council on development New development will have to integrate with the spatial pattern of an Association within the gardens of villas and would suggest that the new guidance could result in the area (where this is of good quality). This therefore protects corner degradation of corner plots which are more generous than the prevailing feu pattern. plots ‐ where these are a feature.
B Euan Leitch Cockburn The Association welcomes the advice on density including the caveat that “it is important to Noted. Association remember that density should be a product of design, rather than a determinant of design”.
B Euan Leitch Cockburn Further comments on detailed aspects of the guidance: Conservation area webpage linked in section on Landscape and Association Planning policy and guidance Townscape Appraisals. P8 Include a link to the CEC webpage on Conservation Areas along with the links to Area Development Frameworks and Development Brief pages as a the character appraisals should hold the same status and be referred to as early as possible by developers.
B Euan Leitch Cockburn 1.3 Coordinate development While this is recognised, Planning has only a limited potential control Association P23 The Granton masterplan is an example of how even a good masterplan can fail. Poor phasing over phasing. Development at Granton / around Waterfront Avenue has left the residents of Upper Strand marooned in a brownfield site, exacerbated by the has largely stalled due to the recession. recession’s impact on housing development. The knock‐on effect is a poorly performing local supermarket and a failed local retail unit. Therefore we would prefer to see phasing discussed within the context of masterplanning and suggest that development of large sites should start from the edge in. Similar problems can be seen at Western Harbour whereas the phasing at Craigmillar has been better coordinated.
B Euan Leitch Cockburn 1.6 Incorporate and use natural features Topography noted in section on Landscape and Townscape Appraisal. Association P31‐32 The illustrations emphasize trees and it would seem appropriate to illustrate other natural features, such as topography, that should be incorporated within new development. The Union Canal is not a natural feature.
B Euan Leitch Cockburn 2.4 Materials & detailing Noted. (Building materials are often subject to approval prior to Association The use of appropriate materials across the city remains a thorny issue. The use of wafer thin construction commencing in order to ensure a appropriate quality is sandstone cladding fails to make up for poor elevations on a number of buildings and sandstone realised.) of very poor quality has also become a feature within some conservation areas (see recent developments on Lauder Road for example). The choice of sandstone, even on small projects, should therefore be subject to planning conditions. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
B Euan Leitch Cockburn There has been an increased use of laminates as cladding, particularly grey panels for top floors, Noted. Association which neither replicate the tone nor visual recession of slated pitched‐roofs (see Lauder Road for an example) and advice against this use would be welcomed. We welcome the advice against prints that emulate timber. B Euan Leitch Cockburn P41 The new red sandstone of the Dewar Place substation was recently highlighted in a lecture Example removed. Association by a Building Materials Analyst from the Scottish Lime Centre Trust as an example of inappropriate detailing that will result in poor weathering and material failure. If this is the case it would be unfortunate if it were replicated elsewhere.
B Euan Leitch Cockburn The use of Clashach stone of the National Museum of Scotland is laudable however the staining Note added which states "Care needs to be taken with any proposal like Association and algal growth suggests that the detailing is inadequate and reference to this should be made. this, that the detailing mitigates adverse weathering and staining."
B Euan Leitch Cockburn Where sandstone should be sought: There is some inconsistency in the choice of images in this The guidance applies whether in a conservation area or not. Association section. The example on Angle Park Terrace is not a conservation area and although the neighbouring buildings are sandstone only that to the north is category C‐listed whereas on the following page Primark is between sandstone category A and B‐listed buildings, in a conservation area and world heritage site yet concrete was deemed appropriate.
B Euan Leitch Cockburn P43 While the Dovecot is a good building the zinc cladding is poorly detailed. Not accepted. The zinc cladding has a positive appearance ‐ and Association contrasts well with the historic stonework.
B Euan Leitch Cockburn P46 Render has been put to interesting use in the Old town and there is historic evidence of Note added which states "Where render would make a building stand Association colour being applied, however the use of render on elevations visible across the Waverley Valley out in longer views, this should generally be avoided." should be avoided (see new development on Advocate’s Close)
B Euan Leitch Cockburn P47 sp Ballachuilish Typo corrected. Association Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
B Euan Leitch Cockburn 3.8 Hard Landscape Restoration changed to "re‐design" Association P76 The treatment of the quad of Old College is not technically a restoration project but a traditional interpretation of what Robert Adam/WH Playfair may have intended.
C Anthony Colliers OPEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT EDINBURGH DESIGN GUIDANCE Noted Aitken International Generally we consider this to be a positive document that pulls together various strands of national and local guidance in one location.
C Anthony Colliers However, in Sections 2 and 3 we consider that the document extends beyond the realms of This document is planning guidance. If developers / architects etc can Aitken International guidance to fixing a number of prescriptive parameters for development that are at a level of find alternative ways of achieving the quality sought ‐ that would be detail beyond what is appropriate. We believe the above is particularly prevalent in chapter 2 accepted. The reason there is a high proportion of technical text on the Building Design Technical Guidance sections in both relation to Materials and Detailing and section on materials is that the quality of recent developments has in Housing Mix and Size some instances fallen short of the Council's expectations through being inadequately specified and detailed.
C Anthony Colliers We are particularly concerned about the prescriptive minimum sizing given in the latter topic for The sizes of dwellings were taken directly from the Edinburgh Aitken International types of dwellings within the housing mix. In the current development climate the appropriate Standards for Housing which was previously consulted on. size, mix and type of units and their scale should be able to be influenced and prescribed by a developer with appropriate market testing and analysis. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
C Anthony Colliers Finally on Page 31‐32 of the document the following is stated: Noted. The Council supports substantial framework planting that seeks Aitken International “The design of the urban edge should form a clear transition between the urban area and to integrate and connect multi functional green infrastructure features surrounding countryside. The retention, enhancement and integration of existing trees, as guided by site specifics and local landscape character. shelterbelts and hedgerows helps integrate development with the character of the surrounding countryside and provide opportunities to extend habitat networks. Master plans will require adequate space for large growing native tree Where suitable landscape features do not exist it may be necessary to create a substantial species to achieve maturity and form woodland habitat, provide a woodland edge. These should be a minimum of 50m wide, providing the necessary space for secure setting to multi‐user paths, cater for active travel, a variety native woodland habitat to achieve maturity and accommodate multi‐user paths and links to the recreational uses within open space, incorporate SUDS, whilst allowing wider countryside.” integration with the street layout and built form. In urban edge We strongly agree that it is of importance to define the urban edge and form an appropriate situations, a landscape edge will also be required to integrate buffer and transition in certain locations. However a 50 metre band of woodland is extremely development with the surrounding countryside and landscape setting excessive and well beyond what would normally be required. Forestry Commission Scotland of the city. define woodland as land under a stand of trees with, or the potential to achieve, tree canopy cover of 20% or more. The minimum size of woodland Forestry Commission Scotland can grant‐a These provisions can vary in width depending on the development We would consider this recognised with of 15m, which would qualify for grant aiding a more real scenario but for some major developments spatial parameters of 30‐50 m may be necessary to accommodate a full range of green infrastructure functions.
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park We support the aim of consolidating existing guidance, which over time has certainly become Not accepted. The website will continue to show how the new Association unwieldy, but the draft Edinburgh Design Guidance document does not list the existing guidance guidance relates to the old as well as showing what guidance is being which it will replace. Although this is set out in the Report to the Planning Committee of 4 replaced. In order to keep the document short ‐ it has been decided no October most people will not know this. During the consultation a new webpage was issued to include this within it. showing how the new guidance relates to the old and this was helpful although still not listing all that will be replaced. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park Commenting comprehensively on the new guidance as a whole has been severely constrained by The concern about the consultation is noted. Association having to deal with 3 documents in advance of the draft Edinburgh Design Guidance and before knowing what will be in the Guidance on Streets. For instance we were disappointed that the It is not the intention that conservation areas are in any way diminished now approved Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas seems to diminish the by the new guidance. Conservation Area Character Appraisals and significance and distinction of Conservation Areas and this is not redressed in the draft Design Local Plan policies still apply. Like other pieces of guidance the Council Guidance on design context and townscape character, so any prospect of rebalancing the has sought to consolidate and reduce the amount of guidance to ensure emphasis on Conservation Areas has now gone. This unfortunate requirement to comment its message is clearer. piecemeal on all the new guidance has we think diminished the effectiveness of consultation and our ability to influence the finalised versions. The suite of Edinburgh Planning Guidance will continue to be reviewed yearly. It is anticipated that this will identify updates to individual pieces of guidance on a relatively frequent basis.
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park Visually the draft Design Guidance creates a favourable impression, but the text is platitudinous Various changes to document made in response to these comments Association and often imprecise. A “pick & mix” approach is encouraged which may allow applicants to ignore requirements which do not suit their aims. (Page 3, 5thpara.) The vague wording and rather passive phrasing such as “may indicate” (p.26 5thpara. last sentence), “the council encourages” (p.26 last sentence), “consideration should be given” (p.54) and “It is expected that” (p.76)can create an impression that what follows is not firmly material. In many ways the text of the new guidance does not compare well with that of the Edinburgh Standards for Urban Design, which it is to replace, where for instance the words “should” and “must” have greater prominence.
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park The emphasis throughout the new draft guidance is on larger comprehensive developments, but Added more examples of smaller developments. Association local developments and small details can have a great impact on visual and other amenities in the immediate vicinity and so we urge that this balance be redressed.
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park Significant changes are being introduced in the new guidance compared with what it will replace The suite of Edinburgh Planning Guidance will continue to be reviewed Association where existing policies and requirements are not carried into the new and over time the changes yearly. It is anticipated that this will identify updates to individual introduced by omission could have a considerable impact on the built environment of the City. pieces of guidance on a relatively frequent basis. The policies of the There may be a case for changes to existing guidance but it would be better that this is local plan upon which all proposals are assessed remain. The guidance considered openly and not introduced by omission through what is stated to be just interprets these. The consolidation process allows the Council to get its consolidation. Therefore we ask that an impact assessment be carried out to consider the likely message across more succinctly and does not seek to omit any effect of changes by omission before this guidance is finalised. substantive aspects of the guidance it replaces. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park Page 8 Planning Policy & Guidance: Add in the last paragraph a reference to “Conservation Area This section has been changed. Conservation Areas are noted where Association Character Appraisals”. relevant elsewhere in the guidance. D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park 1.1 Page 14& 1.4 Page 26: We welcome the reference to Conservation Area Character Appraisals Conservation Areas have non statutory guidance in addition to policy Association in the 6th paragraph on page 14 and ask that this be given authority by including on page 26 a and the character appraisals. No further Action. reference to the Local Plan requirement that development must be consistent with the relevant character appraisal.
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park 1.4 Pages 26& 27: The conjunction of what is said in the 4th and 5th paragraphs is we think Changes made to guidance to strengthen notion that development has Association unfortunate. The 4th paragraph and the accompanying map on page 27 refer to access to good to be contextually appropriate. public transport whereas the 5th paragraph deals with density of housing which together with the definition of density under the map on page 27 create an impression that new housing density will be approved if it complies with the map. There are no counterbalancing requirements about the character of the existing surroundings, “gateway” approaches to the city or the pattern of traditional urban feus with visually prominent corner sites as are currently included in the Guidance on Villa areas and the Grounds of Villas (“Villa Policy”).
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park We think that the implied linkage in the new draft guidance between accessibility to existing Not accepted. Having good levels of public transport is one of the Association public transport and what will be the acceptable density of any new development should be factors that can make higher density living better. Higher levels of broken by recasting the text on pages 26 and 27. Cross‐references should then be included to public transport means there is less need for private transport and those relevant parts of the Villa Policy and other appropriate guidance so as to set what is said in therefore increases the potential sustainability of development. In context, particularly in conservation areas. (See also the comments on 2.1 & 2.2) relation to this issue, the guidance seeks to balance higher density development with the need to protect neighbouring amenity. It states increased density can be achieved ... provided... the increased density would not have adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park 1.7 Page33:The well‐chosen examples on this page illustrate what has already been stated that Noted. Association small details and local developments do matter. (See 2.4 below.) Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park 2.1 & 2.2 Pages 36‐38: We are pleased to see on pages 36 & 38 requirements about the Aspects of the villa guidance that relate to house extensions are Association relationship of new development to existing on integration, height, scale and visual mismatch. outwith the scope of this guidance. This is of special concern in Villa Areas and in October 2008 the Planning Committee approved a clarification of this Policy based on experience and the test of time. We note the helpful inclusion of some of the Villa Policy in the finalized Guidance for Householders, but ask that all its provisions be incorporated in Section 2 of the Design Guidance because of its importance to many parts of Edinburgh and this is also where villa areas are defined and the villa timeline established.
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park 2.3 Page 39:We are very concerned about the example chosen on infill development in a villa Changed "should" to "must". Do not accept that diagram will result in Association area. We think that the diagram illustrates a rather rare example where a large garden has a backland development. convenient rear street access to allow an idealized infilling. We think that this diagram will be fully exploited to justify other backland infilling by the provision of side accesses etc to the detriment of the character of a neighbourhood. We do not think that the last sentence on page 39 is of sufficient strength to withstand this possible onslaught and at the very least the word “must” ought to replace “should” and the diagram be replaced or omitted.
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park 2.4 Pages 40‐47 Materials & Detailing: We support the emphasison sandstone cladding and slate Added section about stone walls being retained. Changes made to Association roofing as characterizing much of the city’s build heritage and the inclusion of the Villa Policy paragraphs about cladding.. referred to above would help to strengthen this context. However we are concerned that there is no reference to the disastrous effect on the streetscape which the loss of or breaches in traditional stone boundary walls and railings can have and we ask that this be redressed in the finalized version. Referring to cladding on page 43, architects of distinction may be able to detai metal cladding successfully in an historic environment but there are many instances where the outcome has been mediocre. We therefore ask that the first two paragraphs on this page be very heavily qualified or changed to emphasise also other attributes such as a harmonious approach. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park We do not support the use of modern cladding materials in a Villa Area or their introduction in Changes made to section on caldding and note added about villa areas. Association traditional terraces, but well designed modern extensions or additions to traditional dwellings can enhance these if subservient and sympathetic to the original form. On the use of timber for Text notes that green roofs should not be regarded as an alternative to cladding on page 44 we note the first sentence on this page and suggest also that the selection of open space provision on the ground. timber is crucial to ensure successful weathering. We would rather the use of timber cladding is down‐played as there are so many examples in the city where what is now an architectural cliché Consider text adequately states need for integration of ancillary looks good when new and becomes very tired after only two or three seasons. On page 47 also facilities into the design of new development. green roofs should not be considered a substitute for open space in any development. Small details matter and sometimes what looks good to residents looking out from a window can look ghastly to passers by. Perhaps including a sentence in this Sectionor 2.7 would help on the lines: “Remember it may look good to you but it may not to those passing by.”
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park 2.7 Page 50 Ancillary Facilities: These are important not just in large new developments but in Added paragraph in to stress the importance of this in villa areas. Association small local developments or house extensions where bin or cycle stores can be quite dominant Therefore no further action. and have an adverse visual impact especially in Conservation Areas and so we would like this emphasized and a specific cross‐reference to the Guidance on Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas included in this Section.
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park 2.8 Pages 51‐53 Daylight, Sunlight, Privacy & Outlook: Comprehensive new Guidance on Added section about stone walls being retained. Changes made to Association Daylighting, Sunlight and Privacy was approved as recently as 2010 and it is unclear that what is introductory paragraphs. in the draft guidance provides the same coverage as what it will replace. In particular the text on page 53 under the heading “Privacy and Outlook” gives less protection than what is in the 2010 Guidance under the same heading on page 26 and we ask that the 2010 wording replace that in the draft guidance. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park 3.3 Pages 64‐65 Private Open Spaces: The caption on page 65 is the only mention of the size of Added paragraph in to stress the importance of this in villa areas. Association garden, where there then seems to be an encouragement to extend dwellings by 4m regardless Therefore no further action. of circumstances or the effect on neighbours. There should be a requirement included about the minimum expected size of garden, with cross‐referencing to the Sections on Density and Privacy. There should be an addition to the 3rd paragraph on page 65 so that infilling development in a villa area where there is a traditional pattern of feuing with prominent corner sites should not be justified by the inclusion of balconies or roof terraces to substitute for private garden ground.
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park 3.9 Page 78 Car Parking: This relates only to the standards for car parking in new developments Not accepted. The guidance on privacy needs to be balanced against Association and in view of the impact on streetscapes and the built environment which the growth of car the need to create a good quality townscape. This means buildings can parking in front gardens has already had we ask that the Section on Access and Parking in the be both farther apart and nearer than 18m that was set in the previous Guidance for Householders be cross‐referenced to this Section in the draft Design Guidance . guidance. An important point here is the notion that the pattern of Also included should be the further provisions in the 2009 Guideline on Vehicle Parking in Front development in an area will help to define appropriate distances Gardens on where parking in front gardens will not usually be permitted. between buildings and consequentially privacy distances. The expectation will be for greater separation in Villa Areas than is typical in other areas of the city.
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park Information Required Pages 82‐84: We suggest that a bar scale should be on all drawings as they The requirement for a scale bar has been included in the other Association are now seldom examined at full size and this would aid scaling where dimensions are not stated.information section.
D Tony Harris Craigmillar Park Final Comment: By consolidating everything in one document the draft Design Guidance gives anNot accepted. The online survey established that there is broad Association uneven impression with great detail in places and elsewhere a broad brush approach. We support for consolidation. A major advantage is that many of the suggest that, without compromising the aim of consolidation, many of the detailed provisions significant planning expectations that will influence design are set out such as on sustainability, key views, biodiversity, villa policy, daylighting, SUDS etc could be hived in one document and so, less likely to be missed. off into subsidiary documents so that the Design Guidance itself would become much shorter and simpler. Many of the provisions in what would then become subservient documents are technical and likely to be subject to rapid change and so when necessary these documents could be amended without affecting the Design Guidance itself. Page 3 of the draft under Planning Policy and Guidance already lists the numerous documents which have to consulted so a few more we suggest would make little difference. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
E Kevin Murphy Edinburgh Airport Seek further reference to aerodrome safeguarding in order to ensure that this is addressed, Text added to table in design statement section. where required, from the outset. This will provide more assurance for developers and ensure a smoother application process. E Kevin Murphy Edinburgh Airport We welcome the reference to aerodrome safeguarding within the technical guidance section for Text added to section 3.6. 3.6 Planting. It may however also be useful to refer readers to the safeguarding advice note relating to landscaping, copy enclosed, which like all advice notes is available via the following link: http://www.aoa.org.uk/policy‐safeguarding.htm E Kevin Murphy Edinburgh Airport Further reference to aerodrome safeguarding would also be beneficial within sections 2.1 Height Text added to section 2.1 and section 2.4. and form, 2.4 Materials and detailing, 3.7 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and under the Other information section. The latter offers an opportunity to refer to Bird Hazard Management Plans, however we do accept that the list within this section is non exhaustive.
E Kevin Murphy Edinburgh Airport There are examples of development around the airport where the height and form of the Noted. development has been influenced by the proximity of the airport. Edinburgh Park and the on‐ going development of Axis Business Park in Newbridge are examples of this. E Kevin Murphy Edinburgh Airport Reference is made within section 2.4 to the use of grass roofs. Whilst we recognise that these canAdded section on aerodrome safety in the section about roofs. have many benefits we would also be grateful if it could be highlighted that they are not appropriate from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective. E Kevin Murphy Edinburgh Airport In the fourth bullet point in the technical guidance section relating to SUDS it refers to Current text notes that SUDS options may be limited ‐ one of the factors considering drainage for the outset. We agree with this but would like reference to the fact that being aircraft safely. No further action. not all SUDS schemes are appropriate near aerodromes. F Judy Conn Fettes Row The direct impact of the draft guidance on design lies in its relevance to the possible future Noted Association development of the land to the north of Royal Crescent currently used by the RBS as a car park.
F Judy Conn Fettes Row The guidance contains much that we welcome. Noted Association F Judy Conn Fettes Row Height and Form – given the diversity of heights in the buildings on this until relatively recently Noted Association undeveloped northern boundary of the Edinburgh World Heritage Site, we welcome the advice that new buildings should sit with the form set by the ridge of neighbouring buildings, by inference not by the height of the chimneys. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
F Judy Conn Fettes Row Materials and detailing – in the context of the New Town we welcome the recommendation that Added more on the early stages of design ‐ eg design and access Association sandstone should be the default material used for external surfaces but given that the potential statements section and more on landscape and townscape appraisal. Royal Crescent development site lies between a street and a park (the King George V Park), we These highlight the range of issues that need to be considered early. would hope that a further recommendation could be added that all aspects of a building should be taken into account at the initial design stage – not merely the elevation which faces the street.
F Judy Conn Fettes Row Ancillary facilities – We are pleased to note the recommendation that all facilities for refuse Noted. Association collection, recycling plant etc should be integrated into any building. F Judy Conn Fettes Row Daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook: We support the positive reference to trees. Noted. Association F Judy Conn Fettes Row Green Infrastructure, trees – While we support the contention that “an assessment…should be The guidance supports the retention of existing trees where possible. Association carried out by an arboriculturalist before any design is started” and while it is clear that sickly or No further action. inappropriately sized trees could usefully be removed, we hope that the precedent set by the presence of existing trees of whatever kind or degree of health should be regarded as a basic element to be incorporated in the design of any development. Along its length Royal Crescent is currently lined with trees which create a solidly green northern boundary. We would be the first to admit that many of the trees are poor and inappropriate speciments – e.g. self seeded sycamore – but we would like to see the Draft Guidance admit that the prior existence of any green border should be respected in a development and preserved and enhanced both for aesthetic reasons and those of boosting wildlife and general civic wellbeing.
F Judy Conn Fettes Row Car parking – Given the acknowledgement that large expanses of car parking can be visually Underground car parking is supported by the Council but at this time Association intrusive and detrimental to character, we would like to see a stronger recommendation that many development sites across the city are unlikely to support underground car parking should always receive consideration at the initial design stage, underground car parking from a financial perspective. Consider that especially in densely occupied areas of the city such as ours, where land use should be used to the guidance strikes the right balance in advocating it. Therefore, no maximum public benefit. further action.
G John Graham Grange The Association has seen the extensive comments submitted by the Grange/ Prestonfield Noted. Association Community Council and strongly endorses what they say Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
G John Graham Grange The main source of guidance on such applications is currently in the specific villa policies, and the Added more on villa areas throughout the document. Association Association’s recollection is that a lot of careful effort was put into the crafting of the villa policies not that long ago. In response to representations the Council has inserted some of the existing villa policies into the householder guidance (although not in the design section of that guidance), but as far as we can see 4 valuable provisions seem to have been lost. As noted below we would like to see these restored in the new design guidance.
G John Graham Grange The draft document is attractive and appears user‐friendly with pictures and examples. It does, More on suburban developments added ‐ including some in Association however, take a very broad brush approach and is very short on detail. We think more emphasis conservation areas. should be put on the importance of the suburban conservation areas. In these areas, in particular, it is the small details (such as breaches in the boundary walls) that gradually accumulate and threaten the character of the area. We are unclear whether the main source of guidance on design for house extensions and new houses in villa areas is now to be the new householder guidance or the new design guidance. The draft design guidance tends to concentrate on large developments and ignore smaller schemes. In conservation areas house extensions can have an important effect on the area’s character. Design is as important here as in large new developments.
G John Graham Grange The guidance is rather vague using terms such as “it is expected that”, “the Council encourages” Made changes throughout the document which set out the Council's Association and “consideration should be given”. The draft document should be made more robust so that expectations more forcefully. developers know what is expected. H Tony Harris Grange/ In each of the 3 Guidance documents already consulted upon (Householders, Listed Buildings & A webpage has been added which sets out what aspects of existing Prestonfield Conservation Areas and Businesses) a list was given setting out the existing guidance which they guidance are to be replaced by the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Community will replace. This is not done in the case of the draft Edinburgh Design Guidance and it would be Council very helpful if those documents which the new guidance is intended could be listed. I look forward to hearing from you.
H Tony Harris Grange/ General Overview Not accepted. The website will continue to show how the new Prestonfield We support the aim of consolidating existing guidance, which over time has certainly become guidance relates to the old as well as showing what guidance is being Community unwieldy. replaced. In order to keep the document short ‐ it has been decided no Council However the draft Edinburgh Design Guidance document does not list existing guidance which it to include this within it. will replace. Although this is set out in the Report to the Planning Committee of 4 October most people will not know this. During the consultation a new webpage was issued showing how the new guidance relates to the old and this was helpful although still not listing all that will be replaced. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
H Tony Harris Grange/ Commenting comprehensively on the new guidance as a whole has been severely constrained by The concern about the consultation is noted. Prestonfield having to deal with 3 documents in advance of the draft Edinburgh Design Guidance and before Community knowing what will be in the Guidance in Streets. We were disappointed that the now approved It is not the intention that conservation areas are in any way diminished Council Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas seems to diminish the significance and by the new guidance. Conservation Area Character Appraisals and distinction of Conservation Areas and this is not redressed in the draft Design Guidance on designLocal Plan policies still apply. Like other pieces of guidance the Council context and townscape character, so any prospect of rebalancing the emphasis on Conservation has sought to consolidate and reduce the amount of guidance to ensure Areas has now gone. This unfortunate requirement to comment piecemeal on all the new its message is clearer. guidance has we think diminished the effectiveness of consultation and our ability to influence the finalised versions. The suite of Edinburgh Planning Guidance will continue to be reviewed yearly. It is anticipated that this will identify updates to individual pieces of guidance on a relatively frequent basis.
H Tony Harris Grange/ Visually the draft Design Guidance creates a favourable impression, but the text is platitudinous Various changes to document made in response to these comments Prestonfield and often imprecise. A “pick & mix” approach is encouraged which may allow applicants to Community ignore requirements which do not suit their aims. (Page 3, 5thpara.) The vague wording and Council rather passive phrasing such as “may indicate” (p.26 5thpara. last sentence), “the council encourages” (p.26 last sentence), “consideration should be given” (p.54) and “It is expected that” (p.76)can create an impression that what follows is not firmly material. In many ways the text of the new guidance does not compare well with that of the Edinburgh Standards for Urban Design, which it is to replace, where for instance the words “should” and “must” have greater prominence.
H Tony Harris Grange/ The emphasis throughout the new draft guidance is on larger comprehensive developments, but Added more examples of smaller developments. Prestonfield local developments and small details can have a great impact on visual and other amenities in Community the immediate vicinity and so we urge that this balance be redressed. Council Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
H Tony Harris Grange/ Significant changes are being introduced in the new guidance compared with what it will replace The suite of Edinburgh Planning Guidance will continue to be reviewed Prestonfield where existing policies and requirements are not carried into the new and over time the changes yearly. It is anticipated that this will identify updates to individual Community introduced by omission could have a considerable impact on the built environment of the City. pieces of guidance on a relatively frequent basis. The policies of the Council There may be a case for changes to existing guidance but it would be better that this is local plan upon which all proposals are assessed remain. The guidance considered openly and not introduced by omission through what is stated to be just interprets these. The consolidation process allows the Council to get its consolidation. Therefore we ask that an impact assessment be carried out to consider the likely message across more succinctly and does not seek to omit any effect of changes by omission before this guidance is finalised. substantive aspects of the guidance it replaces.
H Tony Harris Grange/ Page 8 Planning Policy & Guidance: Add in the last paragraph a reference to “Conservation Area This section has been changed. Conservation Areas are noted where Prestonfield Character Appraisals”. relevant elsewhere in the guidance. Community Council
H Tony Harris Grange/ 1.1 Page 14& 1.4 Page 26: We welcome the reference to Conservation Area Character Appraisals Conservation Areas have non statutory guidance in addition to policy Prestonfield in the 6th paragraph on page 14 and ask that this be given authority by including on page 26 a and the character appraisals. No further Action. Community reference to the Local Plan requirement that development must be consistent with the relevant Council character appraisal.
H Tony Harris Grange/ 1.4 Pages 26& 27: The conjunction of what is said in the 4th and 5th paragraphs is we think Changes made to guidance to strengthen notion that development has Prestonfield unfortunate. The 4th paragraph and the accompanying map on page 27 refer to access to good to be contextually appropriate. Community public transport whereas the 5th paragraph deals with density of housing which together with Council the definition of density under the map on page 27 create an impression that new housing density will be approved if it complies with the map. There are no counterbalancing requirements about the character of the existing surroundings, “gateway” approaches to the city or the pattern of traditional urban feus with visually prominent corner sites as are currently included in the Guidance on Villa areas and the Grounds of Villas (“Villa Policy”). Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
H Tony Harris Grange/ We think that the implied linkage in the new draft guidance between accessibility to existing Not accepted. Having good levels of public transport is one of the Prestonfield public transport and what will be the acceptable density of any new development should be factors that can make higher density living better. Higher levels of Community broken by recasting the text on pages 26 and 27. Cross‐references should then be included to public transport means there is less need for private transport and Council those relevant parts of the Villa Policy and other appropriate guidance so as to set what is said in therefore increases the potential sustainability of development. In context, particularly in conservation areas. (See also the comments on 2.1 & 2.2) relation to this issue, the guidance seeks to balance higher density development with the need to protect neighbouring amenity. It states increased density can be achieved ... provided... the increased density would not have adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.
H Tony Harris Grange/ 1.7 Page33:The well‐chosen examples on this page illustrate what has already been stated that Noted. Prestonfield small details and local developments do matter. (See 2.4 below.) Community H Tony Harris Grange/ 2.1 & 2.2 Pages 36‐38: We are pleased to see on pages 36 & 38 requirements about the Aspects of the villa guidance that relate to house extensions are Prestonfield relationship of new development to existing on integration, height, scale and visual mismatch. outwith the scope of this guidance. Community This is of special concern in Villa Areas and in October 2008 the Planning Committee approved a Council clarification of this Policy based on experience and the test of time. We note the helpful inclusion of some of the Villa Policy in the finalized Guidance for Householders, but ask that all its provisions be incorporated in Section 2 of the Design Guidance, because of its importance to many parts of Edinburgh and this is also where a villa area is defined and a villa timeline set down.
H Tony Harris Grange/ 2.3 Page 39:We are very concerned about the example chosen on infill development in a villa Changed "should" to "must". Do not accept that diagram will result in Prestonfield area and we note that villa areas are not defined in the draft guidance. We think that the backland development. Community diagram illustrates a rather rare example where a large garden has a convenient rear street Council access to allow an idealized infilling. We think that this diagram will be fully exploited to justify other backland infilling by the provision of side accesses etc to the detriment of the character of a neighbourhood. We do not think that the last sentence on page 39 is of sufficient strength to withstand this possible onslaught and at the very least the word “must” ought to replace “should” and the diagram be replaced or omitted. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
H Tony Harris Grange/ 2.4 Pages 40‐47 Materials & Detailing: We support the emphasis on sandstone cladding and Added section about stone walls being retained. Changes made to Prestonfield slate roofing as characterizing much of the city’s build heritage and the inclusion of the Villa paragraphs about cladding. Community Policy referred to above would help to strengthen this context. However we are concerned that Council there is no reference to the disastrous effect on the streetscape which the loss of or breaches in traditional stone boundary walls and railings can have and we ask that this be redressed in the finalized version. Referring to cladding on page 43, architects of distinction may be able to detai metal cladding successfully in an historic environment but there are many instances where the outcome has been mediocre. We therefore ask that the first two paragraphs on this page be very heavily qualified or changed to emphasise also other attributes such as a harmonious approach.
H Tony Harris Grange/ We do not support the use of modern cladding materials in a Villa Area or their introduction in Changes made to section on cladding and note added about villa areas. Prestonfield traditional terraces, but well designed modern extensions or additions to traditional dwellings Community can enhance these if subservient and sympathetic to the original form. On the use of timber for Text notes that green roofs should not be regarded as an alternative to Council cladding on page 44 we note the first sentence on this page and suggest also that the selection of open space provision on the ground. timber is crucial to ensure successful weathering. We would rather the use of timber cladding is down‐played as there are so many examples in the city where what is now an architectural cliché Consider text adequately states need for integration of ancillary looks good when new and becomes very tired after only two or three seasons. On page 47 also facilities into the design of new development. green roofs should not be considered a substitute for open space in any development.
H Tony Harris Grange/ Small details matter and sometimes what looks good to residents looking out from a window can Added paragraph in to stress the importance of this in villa areas. Prestonfield look ghastly to passers by. Perhaps including a sentence in this Section or 2.7 would help on the Therefore no further action. Community lines: “Remember it may look good to you but it may not to those passing by.” Council
H Tony Harris Grange/ 2.8 Pages 51‐53 Daylight, Sunlight, Privacy & Outlook: Comprehensive new Guidance on Not accepted. The guidance on privacy needs to be balanced against Prestonfield Daylighting, Sunlight and Privacy was approved as recently as 2010 and it is unclear that what is the need to create a good quality townscape. This means buildings can Community in the draft guidance provides the same coverage as what it will replace. In particular the text on be both farther apart and nearer than 18m that was set in the previous Council page 53 under the heading “Privacy and Outlook” gives less protection than what is in the 2010 guidance. An important point here is the notion that the pattern of Guidance under the same heading on page 26 and we ask that the 2010 wording replace that in development in an area will help to define appropriate distances the draft guidance. between buildings and consequentially privacy distances. The expectation will be for greater separation in Villa Areas than is typical in other areas of the city. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
H Tony Harris Grange/ 3.3 Pages 64‐65 Private Open Spaces: The caption on page 65 is the only mention of the size of Diagram changed. It is unlikely that there will be a problem providing Prestonfield garden, where there then seems to be an encouragement to extend dwellings by 4m regardless adequate ground level garden space in villa areas (since they are Community of circumstances or the effect on neighbours. There should be a requirement included about the inherently spacious). Therefore do not accept that additional Council minimum expected size of garden, with cross‐referencing to the Sections on Density and Privacy. paragraph is needed. There should be an addition to the 3rd paragraph on page 65 so that infilling development in a villa area where there is a traditional pattern of feuing with prominent corner sites should not be justified by the inclusion of balconies or roof terraces to substitute for private garden ground.
H Tony Harris Grange/ 3.9 Page 78 Car Parking: This relates only to the standards for car parking in new developments Requirements for car parking will be set out in more detail in the Prestonfield and in view of the impact on streetscapes and the built environment which the growth of car forthcoming Edinburgh Street Design Guidance. Community parking in front gardens has already had we ask that the Section on Access and Parking in the Council Guidance for Householders be cross‐referenced to this Section in the draft Design Guidance . Also included should be the further provisions in the 2009 Guideline on Vehicle Parking in Front Gardens on where parking in front gardens will not usually be permitted.
H Tony Harris Grange/ Information Required Pages 82‐84: Under Scale we suggest that a bar scale should be on all The requirement for a scale bar has been included in the other Prestonfield drawings as they are now seldom examined at full size and this would aid scaling where information section. Community dimensions are not stated. Council H Tony Harris Grange/ By consolidating everything in one document the draft Design Guidance gives an uneven Not accepted. The online survey established that there is broad Prestonfield impression with great detail in places and elsewhere a broad brush approach. We suggest that, support for consolidation. A major advantage is that many of the Community without compromising the aim of consolidation, many of the detailed provisions such as on significant planning expectations that will influence design are set out Council sustainability, key views, biodiversity, the villa policy, daylighting, SUDS etc could be hived off in one document and so, less likely to be missed. into subsidiary documents so that the Design Guidance itself would become much shorter and simpler. Many of the provisions in what would then become subservient documents are technical and likely to be subject to rapid change and so when necessary these documents could be amended without affecting the Design Guidance itself. Page 3 of the draft under Planning Policy and Guidance already lists the numerous documents which have to be consulted so a few more we suggest would make little difference. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
I Virginia Sharp Historic Scotland I suggest that reference to Historic Scotland’s New Design in Historic Settings guidance A reference to this has been added. (http://www.historic‐scotland.gov.uk/new‐design‐in‐historic‐settings.pdf) could also usefully be included here. Produced in conjunction with Architecture + Design Scotland, this document provides focused advice on the design of high quality new buildings within historic areas.
I Virginia Sharp Historic Scotland Within Section 1.1, Appraising the Landscape and Townscape (page 14), you may wish to include A reference to this has been added. a reference to the value of understanding and considering the setting of listed buildings in the vicinity of a new development. Historic Scotland’s Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Note on Setting provides advice on understanding setting.
I Virginia Sharp Historic Scotland Section 1.2, City Skyline And Views, provides guidance on protecting key views and contains a list Changed structure of appraising landscape and townscape which of key views around the city. There is potential for users of the guidance to confuse the should make this clearer. Also added more on visual appraisal identification, assessment and protection of key cityscape views with the consideration of setting separately from city sky line and views. impacts on designated heritage assets. Whilst there can be varying degrees of overlap between landscape/cityscape views and setting, the guidance should be clear that they require separate consideration.
J John H J+F Johnston It is important for all who use this document to understand that it has been set out for This guidance is guidance ‐ not policy. This is described in the McLaren Limited ‘Guidance’ and not ‘Policy’. introduction, through its title and with the policy references being given at the bottom of the relevant coloured boxes. J John H J+F Johnston In making use of photographs and illustrations, the document may require to be Agreed. McLaren Limited regularly updated as other and perhaps more appropriate examples result from ongoing development in the City. J John H J+F Johnston The document starts by referring to a ‘unique and beautiful city’ and ‘The quality of Not accepted. The World Heritage Site for example is internationally McLaren Limited our environment’. This is not currently the case as maintenance within the city is poor recognised. and buildings and roads are continually deteriorating. The City requires a strong maintenance culture if these claims are to be substantiated. The guidance is for Planning purposes ‐ aiming to explain local plan As the Property Conservation Service is being re‐designed, there may be the policies. As such, this suggestion is outwith the scope of the document. opportunity to link the Design Guidance to any new information brochure being proposed by that Department. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
J John H J+F Johnston City skyline and views: The waterfront development is generally a disaster proving Noted. McLaren Limited that Architects and Developers have not been able to handle the responsibility of designing for a waterfront development, nor Planners understanding the challenge. The ‘broken teeth’ and massing of current high rise developments stand as tombstones to this failure. It is now questionable if this situation can be recovered.
J John H J+F Johnston Coordinate development: Development plots have been sold to individual The section on Coordinated Development seeks to avoid / mitigate McLaren Limited developers without the design references that established the New Town or the against this. Victorian tenements thereby allowing individual developers to work without strict controls. This approach will continue to result in uncoordinated development. J John H J+F Johnston Density: In commenting on High density development and the general proximity Distance and area requirements are set by the Council's Open Space McLaren Limited of buildings to areas of public open space has been recognised in Section 3, it is Strategy. This document reiterates them. this open space that contributes to community life, particularly during late spring, summer and early autumn. Residents will only walk to a Park in fine weather but will make year round use of immediate open space if that is provided. Playspaces at 1,200 to 2,000 m walking distance continues to illustrate a lack of understanding on the subject of local play provision for children.
J John H J+F Johnston Materials and Detailing – Timber: While the use of timber has been encouraged in Agreed that not all timber cladding has been successful ‐ hence McLaren Limited design, there are numerous examples where specification / detailing is incorrect requirements are set out. resulting in an unsightly appearance. The traditional role of the Architect has also become restricted by the cost control or lack of understanding detailing by Developers or Design and Build Contractor’s. This has resulted in an appearance problem and one, which could ultimately become a case of the timber rotting. Greater control will require to be exerted if timber is to be permitted.
J John H J+F Johnston Materials and Detailing ‐ Brick: Mention should be made of the danger of Note added which states: "Care need to be taken with specification and McLaren Limited efflorescence and the resulting unsightly appearance that can last for years. during construction to avoid efflorescence. This is the build up of salts present in the wall construction appearing on the surface of the wall as the mortar cures."
J John H J+F Johnston Ancillary facilities – Bike Store illustration: ‘off common stairs’ not ‘of common Typo corrected. McLaren Limited stairs’. J John H J+F Johnston Housing mix and size: As the issue of affordable housing is currently being reviewed Not accepted. If situation changes, guidance can be updated. McLaren Limited as a result of the current economic downturn, it may be better to simply note that this is a matter for discussion and agreement rather than referring to what may become an out of date policy. This also applies to Section 75 contributions. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
J John H J+F Johnston Private open space – the length of private gardens: The illustration with an almost Diagram changed to show gardens of different lengths. McLaren Limited storey high fence / garden wall should be removed as it illustrates a compound mentality rather than a friendly / neighbourly approach. The overall distance of 24m exceeds the current, and on occasion contentious, distance of 18m between habitable rooms by 6m and is a return to the concept of suburban living. If this distance is mentioned, the 12m distance between habitable and non habitable rooms should also be included.
K James Spence Landscape 1. Design Quality and Context Noted. Contextual information in form of townscape appraisal will help Watson Institute Scotland 1.1 Appraising the Landscape and Townscape : 1.2 City Skyline and Views identify whether existing neighbouring buildings are appropriate or The ‘technical guidance’ illustrations seem basic and would benefit from some three‐dimensional not. 2D illustration considered simplest way to illustrate concept. elements. It would be useful from both the City and Developer point of view if in some areas the City detail could include comment on surrounding buildings, particularly those that do not display the desired attributes and should not be copied. For example a design to match the heigh of an adjacent building may not be an appropriate solution. This is difficult where a developer wishes to extract the most floor space from a site and may be tempted to put forward a justification that the height matches its neighbour even if its neighbour is, under the proposed appraisals, too high. This would also apply to replacement of an existing building as like in terms of bulk and height if it is inappropriate.
K James Spence Landscape Obviously this is a long term policy that in time when buildings pass their lifespan, they are Noted. Watson Institute Scotland replaced by something more appropriate.
K James Spence Landscape Has Edinburgh considered the virtual mapping of the central area onto which new proposals can This is something the Council is in the initial stages of preparing. Watson Institute Scotland be integrated (such as that in Glasgow)?
K James Spence Landscape Additional appraisals that could be carried out, particularly in new area developments could Information set out in Landscape and Townscape Appraisal can be Watson Institute Scotland come under a series of appraisals from the point of view of pedestrians using the area. For augmented as necessary by other information. example a series of surveys/appraisals could be studies under the general headings of, Formal and Spatial Qualities, Personal Orientation and Navigation, Personal Amenity and Convenience and Accommodation and Access
K James Spence Landscape 1.3 Coordinate Development Noted. Watson Institute Scotland The idea of ‘advisory schemes’ for adjacent developments is supported but this is also a function that could be carried out by the City beforehand in order to define more clearly how a proposed development could fit in with other existing and proposed. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
K James Spence Landscape 1.4 Density Consider that densities vary significantly in different areas of city. Eg Watson Institute Scotland There are three main areas where a particular density would apply – central area, similar tenemental form in Gorgie and Marchmont but density in terms neighbourhood centres, and residential areas. This distinction could be enumerated. of dwelling numbers / area is much higher. Therefore consider it needs to be assessed on site by site basis.
K James Spence Landscape A particular problem could occur where a developer in principal wishes permission to demolish a Trees will be protected. Section on Trees sets out requirements. Watson Institute Scotland larger house and build flats. Where this may impact on existing landscape say of trees, then any preliminary application should be accompanied by an advisory scheme to show how the development might fit in. K James Spence Landscape Advisory schemes in general for sites spotted for development are a good idea as they in effect Noted. Watson Institute Scotland define the value of the site. Thus an owner would be aware of the site value and a prospective purchaser would know what he can get out of the site. These advisory schemes will therefore save a great deal of time in terms of argument over design and density and potentially evade Appeals , especially if the developer has paid too much for a site on ‘hope value’
K James Spence Landscape 1.5 Incorporating Existing Views : 1.6 Natural Features : 1.7 Built Features Noted added to reference these sections in landscape and townscape Watson Institute Scotland The comments in 1.1 on a wider menu of appraisals is appropriate for this section, and can be appraisal section. expanded if required. K James Spence Landscape 1.4 2.0 Designing Buildings Noted. Watson Institute Scotland 2.1 Height and Form This is strongly supported and the points made in 1.1 and 1.2 are applicable here. K James Spence Landscape 2.2 Scale and Proportion Note added. Watson Institute Scotland This is supported but the developer should show views from all angles for example elevation, plan where there may be building projections, short and long distance oblique views and a view from ‘the other side of a street’
K James Spence Landscape This type of development also impinges on density and again an advisory scheme, preferably Noted. Watson Institute Scotland before the site is sold, would cut out delay, argument and expense. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
K James Spence Landscape 1.6 Materials and Detailing Noted. Watson Institute Scotland Regarding the use of quality materials in high profile areas, it would be useful to practitioners to be guided by layouts which provide clearly marked zones for public realm in the city. Where is natural material to be used and where may a more standard PC Concrete slab be acceptable. These diagrams could be drawn up in consultation with landscape architects practicing in the City, perhaps through a series of workshops to determine the right material in the right place.
K James Spence Landscape There is a view that it is disheartening to see so many references to ‘grey’ This is directly from thePalate of greys sought to help simplify public realm and give it a more Watson Institute Scotland Edinburgh Designing Streets Guidance , which has been heavily supported by Karen Stevenson of cohesive character across the city. CEC. It is felt that this leads to a bland and unimaginative public realm. While it is understood that the beauty of Craig New Town is to allow the seamless public realm to provide a setting for the buildings and not compete it is felt that there are areas where the streetscape could be warmed up a little with subtle pinks and yellows. Examples are the new road setts laid on the Royal Mile junctions at North Bridge, and Castle Street , where the sett mix does contain pinks and reds which provide a warmth to the streetscape and is very much welcomed.
K James Spence Landscape Can the Guide provide more information on implementing the public realm? This is Edinburgh Street Design Guidance will set out requirements for Watson Institute Scotland recommended and it will hopefully advocate a development plan approach for the key streets – hierarchy of types of streets in more detail. including Rose Street, George Street, Queens Street, Thistle Street and Princes Street for example. Each street should be seen in context in the City and its opportunities and constraints identified with a clear materials strategy to which future proposals adhere. Boundaries should be clear – where the material changes needs to be subtle and well considered.
K James Spence Landscape Homogeny is supported but it is also advised that for example while the New Town streets have There are different requirements for Old Town and New Town Watson Institute Scotland the same palette there should be a clear difference between New Town and Old Town materials, materials in the guidance. as there is in the character of the buildings and urban fabric. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
K James Spence Landscape There should also be a clear definition of areas. In one case Holyrood North public realm has to Note added. Watson Institute Scotland be all natural paving being in the heart of the Unesco World Heritage Site off the Royal Mile. However across Holyrood Road, on the opposite side of the street out with the Unesco designation, the footpaths are to be black top, which is apparently acceptable. Surely a street should read as one and that boundaries for acceptable pavings should not be linear routes such as a road or street but can be a junction along the street where the character of the buildings inform a different response to the public realm.
K James Spence Landscape It would be useful if the City had detail specifications for the types of natural materials expected Edinburgh Street Design Guidance will set out requirements in more Watson Institute Scotland in certain location, this would ensure the material had, in addition to colour, the appropriate detail. texture and weathering qualities of its neighbours where appropriate.
K James Spence Landscape 2.8 Daylight and Sunlight Noted. Watson Institute Scotland These factors have been known for many years but rarely implemented, For example the standard developers layout with identical houses facing each other across a street may not be appropriate when exposure to sunlight over a year is calculated, and may not be optimum to support carbon usage and contribute to sustainability.
K James Spence Landscape Another example is the Scottish Office/Department of Health published booklet on Housing Figures derived from Building Research Establishment ‐ Site Layout Watson Institute Scotland Layout of 1958 which includes a section on sunlight and daylight, standards and diagrams Planning ‐ A Guide to Good Practice. enabling amounts of sunlight in a particular place to be determined. These were based on a site near Cumbernauld, but I assume the figures you are quoting are adjusted for Edinburgh.
K James Spence Landscape Sunlight is now again seen as an important factor in the health of residents. Hour by hour sun path plans are requested. CAD software allows this Watson Institute Scotland It would be useful to illustrate in general how these calculations are made as guidance before theto be done relatively easily and avoids the need for complex complexity of BRE digest is approached. calculations. K James Spence Landscape 3.0 Landscape and Biodiversity. Noted. Watson Institute Scotland In general the emphasis on Landscape and Biodiversity in this chapter is welcomed. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
K James Spence Landscape 3.2 Public Accessible Space : 3.3 Private Open Space Note added. Watson Institute Scotland The simple division between publicly accessible and private open space is not sufficient. Developers should clearly show private space; gardens etc; joint private/ communally owned space but private to the group; joint private/communally owned space regulated and also open to the public; public space. K James Spence Landscape This sets out from the beginning the future management structure of the space, arrangements Note added. Watson Institute Scotland required between joint owners, and those areas that are proposed to be adopted by the City. Thi latter is particularly important as it defines use and storage of replacement materials , and upkeep costs to the City. K James Spence Landscape At the outset the Developer should show a detail design of open space, as this reflects on and This is a requirement of planning applications. Watson Institute Scotland reserves the appropriate costs within the development, and show consultation with the City to ensure the City will adopt those areas allocated to it.
K James Spence Landscape Maintenance Note added. Watson Institute Scotland Maintenance to ensure that each development proposal includes a management and maintenance strategy is welcomed and supported.
K James Spence Landscape 3.5 Trees : 3.6 Planting Noted. Watson Institute Scotland Trees are a valuable asset in the landscape. There is little opportunity for trees in the dense urban form but where there is, all possible ways to ensure a healthy and long term establishment of trees is essential. This includes appropriate quantities of soil, light, water and air, on which a landscape architect on the team can advise K James Spence Landscape Landscape plans including new tree planting should in addition show the eventual height and Note added. Watson Institute Scotland spread of those planted to ensure that the effects on adjacent boundaries such as roads, footpaths and boundary walls are understood. This could in addition avoid the eventual use of the ‘High Hedges’ legislation currently under consideration.
K James Spence Landscape Not all tree planting needs to conform exactly with British Standards. While the botanical and Not accepted. The Council will assess landscape proposals against the Watson Institute Scotland health aspects are of prime importance the shape of the tree as described in BS – evenly spaced relevant British Standard / HTA National Plant Specification to reflect branches etc are appropriate for isolated examples, however some tree planting may be requiredindustry standards for the quality of nursery stock and the assurance to strengthen existing woods or shelter belts where the trees have grown naturally and trees this provides for development quality. with less than standard BS shape and size may be appropriate to fit in with the existing ‘natural’ planting. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
K James Spence Landscape 3.8 Hard Landscape Edinburgh Street Design Guidance is better placed to set out Watson Institute Scotland The important items here are that anyone digging up a street – statutory undertakings or requirements for this. developers to connect a new development, should be required to reinstate as the original. This could entail the City maintaining stocks of suitable replacement materials both for its own use and that of those digging up streets (on repayment) as it is unlikely that a contractor would be able to obtain small quantities of suitable material. Thus it is important that from the outset liaison with the City maintainers should be carried out before a design is approved from the adoption and maintenance point of view.
K James Spence Landscape Generally this is considered to be a good document. Noted Watson Institute Scotland
L Carlyn Lothian and Observations and Comments Noted. Simpson Borders Police In general the document was easy to read, well laid out and the images assisted in highlighting some of the key points. The guidance document emphasises the various constraints and expectations that are placed on new developments to achieve the highest quality of design and to integrate well with the existing city.
L Carlyn Lothian and From a police perspective the following points are submitted for your consideration ‐ Noted. Simpson Borders Police Points 1 ‐ Page 47 states Synthetic versions of these materials should be avoided in conservation areas. The use of synthetic materials will be considered on a case‐by‐case basis in other areas of the city and their appropriateness will be assessed against: • The extent of use; • Their prominence on the building; • The prominence of the building on the setting of the city and setting of the street. And then goes on to say – ‘Synthetic materials have been found to inadequately replicate the characteristics of materials they seek to emulate and as a consequence have a poorer appearance.’ Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
L Carlyn Lothian and Comments ‐ Added note that vulnerability of metal roofing to theft should be noted Simpson Borders Police The first section states that synthetic materials will be considered on a case‐by‐case basis, at the design stage. however the second statement seems to contradict this and discourages builders from using synthetic materials. The theft of metal is an emerging trend, so any measures that can be implemented to reduce the opportunity should be considered. The cost of metal stolen across Scotland in the first six month of 2012 equated to over £2.75 million and this figure does not include the cost of replacement and repair as well as the damage caused to local communities. Would it be possible to remove the second sections so that each individual development can be considered on its own merit?
L Carlyn Lothian and Point 2 ‐ Page 57 Highlighted that SBD does have positive effects. Also given hyperlinks Simpson Borders Police 2.10 Community Safety. to ALO service. Comments ‐ I would ask that you consider changing the title of this section to ‘Community Safety and Crime Prevention’. The police strive to make people feel safe as well as designing out crime in the first instance and this new title would reflect this. It is acknowledged that some of the standards/recommendations for Secured by Design (SBD) accreditation may influence the design of the development. However, the last paragraph focuses on possible issues with SBD and does not highlight the positive impact that involving the police can have on a development. This positive partnership is evident in a number of developments throughout Edinburgh including the 21st Century developments. I have drafted text (see below) for you to consider incorporating into this page. It provides a clearer understanding of the ALO’s role and gives developers advice on how to get further information, should they require it. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
L Carlyn Lothian and Proposed texts – Provided hyperlink to Secured by Design website to allow this Simpson Borders Police The design of any development has a key role to play in community safety. To assist this process information to be read in detail. Police forces throughout Scotland have teams of specialist Architectural Liaison Officers (ALO) who provide advice and guidance on how the built environment can reduce opportunities for criminal activity and anti social behaviour. As well as advising on the location, layout and design of projects, ALOs can provide vital information on the crime profile of an area so that appropriate crime prevention measures can be considered at an early stage. In certain cases, it may also be beneficial to discuss proposals with the Counter Terrorist Security Advisor (CTSA). Developers are encouraged to make early contact with the ALO service.
L Carlyn Lothian and Developers often seek Secured by Design accreditation. This is a UK police initiative designed to Noted Simpson Borders Police help create safer, more secure environments. To be awarded Secured by Design status, developments must meet a set of core principles: • environmental quality and sense of ownership; • active frontage ‐ where the ground floor is designed to allow natural surveillance and pedestrian movement between the internal and external environment. • natural surveillance; • access and footpaths; • lighting; and • open space provision and management. Further information about the initiative, along with details of the core principles and a range of detailed guidelines including play areas, new homes and Park Mark safer car parking can be found at www.securedbydesign.com
L Carlyn Lothian and Point 3 – page 70 Added following note: "Care should be taken to ensure that community Simpson Borders Police Is it possible within the tree section to make reference to the crowning of trees when designing safety is ensured through the specification and maintenance of trees. In the landscape of the development? It is appreciated that this will not be suitable for every routes, streets and spaces that people will use, crowns should allow development but highlights this as something that may be considered. good visibility where possible." Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
L Carlyn Lothian and Other comments Changed text. Simpson Borders Police Point 4 – general Due to Lothian and Borders Police force merging with the other 8 Scottish forces on the 1st April 2013, it is recommended that any reference to Lothian and Borders Police be removed, so that the document is kept current. I would suggest using the term Police.
If you would like to discuss these comments further then please contact me on 0131 311 3628 or by e‐mailing [email protected].
M Malcolm Malcolm Fraser One initial, formal response is to the “Building Heights and Form” diagram on P15: that “join the Changes made to technical guidance on Appraising the landscape and Fraser Architects eaves dots” planning envelope thing may be appropriate in more austere/boring bits of the town townscape in response to this comment. but the Old Town – as most good townscape – has a raggedy vigour which it suppresses; the “vertically orientated windows” thing is a modern straitjacket we put on history: we used to have lots of horizontally‐orientated windows in our older, timber frame buildings and should follow the rules of the past in allowing structural logic and utility to direct such things.
N John Knight New Town and Page 9 – We fully endorse the additional design statement proposed for all WHS applications, Noted. Broughton and not just major schemes (though this does not appear in the draft application form appendix). Community Mention is seldom made of the WHS in planning applications and so a useful reminder that all Council work should seek to enhance or improve the WHS, and not diminish it in any way would be more than beneficial. N John Knight New Town and Page 16 – We consider that the CEC’s high buildings policy continues to be weak and cannot More added on key views. Also more added in section on visual Broughton simply rely on “key views”. With Edinburgh’s skyline all views are “key” from somewhere in the assessment. While Edinburgh Quay tower may be seen from Community city or its environs and should not just be guideline purposes to avoid a repetition of the Palmerston Place in views it makes a better contribution to the skyline Council expensive Haymarket hotel fiasco, or indeed the unfortunate siting as a repetition of the than the example given from Canning Street. expensive Haymarket hotel fiasco, or indeed the unfortunate siting as built of the Edinburgh Quay tower block – despite the praise given to it on page 37 – as seen on the axis of Palmerston Place. It is fully accepted however that Edinburgh must grow upwards – it will not be like it is today in a hundred years time – so this needs to be planned for and controlled on an incremental basis with high rise blocks clustered and not just popping up, as is now occurring in Liverpool and Manchester etc.
N John Knight New Town and Page 54 – We readily support the provision of a quota of affordable housing in new housing Noted. Broughton schemes – preferably on site rather than as a quid pro quo donation to housing associations – Community and especially schemes built on brownfield sites, but accept that this is more a policy than design Council consideration. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
N John Knight New Town and Page 56 – The CEC policy of waste containerisation has proved largely detrimental to the The guidance promotes the integration of waste in new developments. Broughton ambience of city streets especially in heritage areas, with only the seagull problem being It is not written with existing developments in mind. Community effectively tackled. Far too much edible food is still being dumped in wheelie bins due to the Council sheer ease of doing so. More bespoke solutions to separating and collecting waste must be found.
N John Knight New Town and Page 50 – We are curious that there is no specific mention of the Green Belt in this section which There is no need to mention the green belt in this section. Policies on Broughton would lead to one to assume that it is quietly being abandoned despite the official line to the the green belt are set out in the local development plan. Community contrary. Green ‘wedges’ are all too easily nibbled away and in fact become meaningless if not Council linked on a radial basis. N John Knight New Town and Page 62 – Toddlers’ play spaces should be mandatory in all housing schemes catering for families,The guidance reiterates requirements of the Council's Open Space Broughton and located where they can be easily supervised. Strategy. No further action. Community Council N John Knight New Town and Page 72 – Essentially a more formal consent procedure is required for Trees – ideally with some The Council's procedures for trees operate within the statutory Broughton form of neighbour notification – to prevent the unauthorised removal of trees and their non‐ requirements for tree protection. The guidance seeks to ensure new Community replacement. The present system is just too ad hoc. Newly planted trees in city streets must be street trees have adequate conditions to ensure their survival and Council given tree grilles to allow adequate water penetration to roots which it should be possible to growth. design complying with Health and Safety requirements to be hazard‐free for pedestrians (page 77).
N John Knight New Town and Page 78 – Car parking. The requirement to provide compensatory soft landscaping to car parking Noted. Broughton is strongly supported. Linked to this is the need for residents’ permit schemes to be seen to be Community free of abuse by office workers to ensure a fair quota of spaces for residents within reasonable Council walking distance of their homes, though we accept that this is not a design consideration.
O David Burrup Port of Leith Can I just clarify – the questionnaire appears to be more relating to the format of the design There will not be a further consultation on the guidance ‐ though it will guide rather than its content, as we were expecting. Is there to be a further consultation which be periodically reviewed to assess its effectiveness. goes in to greater depth regarding the detail of the design guide rather than its presentation?
P Stuart Scottish In general we support an approach to reduce the number of documents and the amount of word Noted. Watson Government that potential applicants have to refer to. Your document is highly visual and well illustrated and the three section structure reads well as: (1) wider context; (2) built form/architecture; and, (3) landscape and biodiversity. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
P Stuart Scottish Our primary comment is that while the guide explicitly deals with buildings and their wider Noted. Watson Government context (skyline, views, density etc.) plus landscape and green areas, the council has decided to largely cover the public spaces that buildings address directly, i.e. the city streets, in a separate ‘Edinburgh Standards for Streets’. It is encouraging that your introduction recognises the importance of streets to the city’s DNA (page 6: ‘where streets align with the city’s landmark features their sense of belonging to Edinburgh is amplified’). The document goes on to say (p22) ‘it is expected that proposals will comply with the principles established in Designing Streets…’ suggesting your emerging work will supplement the national policy. Alignment of street design with other design guidance is important because streets are the main publicly accessible urban open spaces. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
P Stuart Scottish When viewed particularly in relation to our Designing Streets (DS) policy document, the links to Noted. This reinforces that the guidance is consistent with the Scottish Watson Government the key considerations in DS can be summarized. Government's Designing Streets document.
CONTEXT Appraise the surroundings. Character assessment. Create a masterplan then see it through.
Direct links to DS content: Context and Character Connections outwith… Connections within… Block structure Public transport
BUILT FORM ‘Setting’ ‐ The built form composes the street scene. Make a mix of uses, creating places that can adapt over time.
Direct links to DS content: Streets for people Landmarks Materials (durability, construction detailing) Waste/ service vehicles
LANDSCAPE AND BIODIVERSITY Design to work at all scales ‐ relevant to a Green Networks.
Direct links to DS content: Drainage/ SUDS Integrating Car Parking Planting Materials (place‐specific local technical guidance e.g. paving surfaces) Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
P Stuart Scottish (P9) ‘How planning helps achieve good design’. Would be clearer if linked with the ‘information’ This section has been changed. Added columns at end to show when Watson Government section at the end of the draft with diagrams showing a staged approach from concept through information is needed. pre‐app discussion to final submitted proposals.
P Stuart Scottish Section 1.4 (p27‐ density). Public transport accessibility levels – good idea to link but note also Have shown more examples in section on density. Watson Government that large developments can proactively increase local public transport accessibility. (p28‐29). The annotated examples of built form are useful. We suggest expanding to show more mixed‐ tenure established city neighbourhoods, for example areas created during the (early half of?) 20th century that sustain as a popular mix of flats and houses. Illustrating well‐regarded suburban areas (perhaps in the style of your mini ‘Measuring Edinburgh’ guide) that contain elements of home, street and neighbourhood design still relevant for developers today could present good local precedents to aim for.
P Stuart Scottish Section 2 (p37 on ‐ Designing Buildings). Having clear bad and good images side‐by‐side can be a Noted. Watson Government direct method of illustrating what’s acceptable or not.
P Stuart Scottish Section 2.4 (p 47 ‐ Materials etc). A photo of an Edinburgh green roof would be useful to convey Added green roof (from Botanics). Watson Government the potential benefits. The Scottish Green Roof Forum has recently published information and guidance, so suggest add the following: Further information and guidance on green roofs can be found at: www.centralscotlandgreennetwork.org/Latest‐News/scottish‐green‐roof‐forum‐ guidance.html Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
P Stuart Scottish Section 2.5 (p48 – Energy). You may wish to qualify saying applicants should meet energy Made changes to reflect comments on energy section. Watson Government standards within building regs applicable at the time they apply for planning because if standards change during the period between planning and building warrant, revised standards will have to be met. ‐ Reference to Building Standards Regulations should read Building Regulations. ‐ As well as non‐mandatory environmental assessment tool BREEAM, include reference to sustainability labelling – Section 7 in Scottish Building Regulations.
P Stuart Scottish Although Edinburgh Guidance will not fully align to criteria in labelling system, some of it will be Noted Watson Government 'on the way' to meeting upper levels of sustainability and should be referenced in broad terms. For example: o Sections 2.6 (p49 ‐ adaptability and mixed uses) and 2.7 (p50 ‐ ancillary spaces) address similar issues to those in sustainability labelling (our section 7, aspect 6 ‘Flexibility and Adaptability’) and criteria which includes bicycle storage and sufficient space for changing needs (in minimum building standards). o Section 2.8 (p51‐53 ‐ daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook) has similar provisions to natural daylighting and access to private outdoor space in sustainability labelling (our section 7, aspect 7 ‘well‐being and security’). There are also parallels between aspects of sustainability labelling with regards to solid waste recycling (Material use and waste), internal storage (your section 2.9 ‐ housing mix and size), and security (your section 2.10 – community safety in mention of Secured by Design). o the CO2 aspect can assist in meeting low carbon generation/renewables obligations with regard
P Stuart Scottish Section 3.2 (p62 ‐ publicly accessible open space) Refer to streets as they are the primary publicly Clarified that element that is not counted is the part that deals with up Watson Government accessible open space in cities (see covering email). The contribution of green or hard‐surfaced to 1:30 year events. This is because the body that adopts it constrains accessible amenity within streets should recognized. Also: the design in a way that limits its usability. ‐ why can SUDS not be counted as accessible open space provision if multi‐functionality is achieved in the SUDS design? ‐ How is quality rated as good or fair? Are local peoples’ views used in assessment method? ‐ Prescriptive standards including firm numbers are better treated as guidelines. Inflexibility can run counter to a neighbourhood‐specific, design‐led approach. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
P Stuart Scottish Section 3.7 (p74&75 ‐ SUDS). Good to see this covered but place greater emphasis on SUDS being Added note at table in Appraising Townscape and Landscape which Watson Government an integral part of the design process at the outset, and that the potential for well designed SUDS highlights SUDS. can improve overall design quality.
P Stuart Scottish Section 3.8 (p76 ‐ hard landscaping). Consider promoting the use of source control, including Will be covered in Edinburgh Street Design Guidance. Watson Government permeable (porous) paving and other surfaces. For example, Edinburgh City Council adopted permeable paving as part of the Craigmillar SSCI development. Perhaps this will be covered in the street guidance? P Stuart Scottish Finally the tables information required tables at the end could be enhanced with a timeline that Timeline added in columns. Watson Government shows sequencing and hierarchy of design information against stages of development.
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural This is a comprehensive guidance document and we welcome the recognition given to the Noted. Heritage natural, as well as the cultural heritage in what makes Edinburgh special. We particularly welcome the focus given to landscape in providing a setting for the city, for its views, vistas and topography, with mention of natural features such as the Firth of Forth, the Pentlands Hills and other hills as contributing to a sense of place. Overall, we support the guidance contained in this document. We would also support increasing its status to statutory rather than its current non statutory status to assist in delivering quality development for the future. Some specific comments are given below:
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural Introduction etc Detailed references to Special Protection Areas are set out in the Heritage On page 9 there is mention of design constraints and designations under Planning policies and section on biodiversity. Not possible to include reference to all possible guidance. A list of designations are given but there is no mention of natural heritage designations upfront. designations, in particular the Special Protection Areas (SPAs), which may also pose significant design constraints. The emphasis on provision of design & access statements is to be commended as they form an essential part in understanding an application.
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural Chapter 1 Design Quality and context Noted. Heritage We commend the emphasis on sense of place and with this the importance of the landscape character, skyline and key views, as well as the incorporation of natural features, in the aims. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural In 1.1 Appraising the landscape, appraisal of the ‘wider context’ and ‘wider city’ is discussed and Added reference to green networks in section 1.4 ‐ Coordinated Heritage how elements create a ‘sense of place’. There is an opportunity to make specific reference here development. to green networks which will help link to later chapters.
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural There is good focus on visual assessments in 1.2 City skyline and views and the listing of the key Noted. Heritage views is a useful reference source.
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural In 1.3 Co‐ordinate development, the examples given are not very ‘green’, in that many hard Added reference to green networks. Heritage landscapes are featured. Given the focus of the document on the importance of landscape and green networks, it may be more beneficial to show an example of an area which has incorporated these elements. Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural 1.6 Incorporate and use natural features – we welcome the reference to habitat networks and Consider that text adequately covers this issue. Heritage their accessibility within this section. However, we would suggest rewording one of the main objectives in the purple column to ‘Retain and incorporate other existing natural features….. and optimise amenity and biodiversity., since natural features and green networks are partly to deliver this, as discussed within the text of this section.
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural Is it worth raising the incorporation of natural flood plains in this section, if there are any left in There is a dedicated section on sustainable urban drainage systems in Heritage Edinburgh? Or perhaps make reference to the recent moves towards adaptation techniques the landscape chapter. along watercourses? Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural We query the idea of a 50m woodland edge as a standard for the urban/ rural interface. In Requirements updated to provide more flexibility Heritage general, we would support a requirement for substantial framework planting that seeks to integrate and connect multi‐functional green infrastructure features, as guided by site specifics and local landscape character. For example, combining a range of features including woodland planting, hedgerows, SUDS, paths, active travel routes, open spaces.
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural The approach for the design of the urban/ rural edge must also recognise the potential for the Noted. Heritage city to grow. Therefore getting such green infrastructure in the right place is key, as is communicating the positive role that long term green infrastructure/ green networks can play in guiding future sustainable growth of the city. For example, the design and location of planting and green infrastructure should connect or build outwards with each phase of city growth. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural A 50m requirement may work to help guide the above but we would suggest the requirement is Requirements updated to provide more flexibility Heritage more general to accommodate a greater range of green infrastructure to fulfil objectives such as maintaining landscape character and guiding city growth. Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural Chapter 2: Designing buildings Noted. Heritage No comment Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural Chapter 3: Landscape and Biodiversity The terminology used is consistent with the Council’s Open Space Heritage There is a good focus given to biodiversity, landscape character, habitat protection and Strategy, national policy and guidance, as explained on page 72. enhancement and open space requirements. We particularly welcome the early references, and aims, to green infrastructure and green networks. Whilst we support the general guidance in Section 3.1, it also refers to greenspaces and perhaps this may confuse the reader with too many terms. We suggest that there may be benefit in limiting terms used in this section to “multifunctional green infrastructure” and “green networks”.
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural Key to promoting the successful role of green infrastructure in planning is communication that Diagrams are to be enhanced to fully reflect a wide range of green Heritage efficient use of land, higher levels of sustainability and improved outcomes for places can be infrastructure scenarios. SUDS section developed. achieved if spaces are designed for multi‐functionality. While welcoming reference to this concept we consider that this core concept should be more fully illustrated to encourage better project delivery. The Scottish Government Green Infrastructure Place‐making document (page 17) sets out the benefits of delivering multiple functions within single spaces and raises the further benefits that can be gained by linking such spaces to form wider networks. From our perspective, this sums up well the need for development practice to move on from traditional single function solutions to SUDS and open space design and sets a positive agenda for better delivery of sustainable developments. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural Although supporting the intentions of the cross sectional illustrations on page 61 we query their Diagrams are to be enhanced to fully reflect a wide range of green Heritage effectiveness in guiding development in a range of city development contexts, as the examples infrastructure scenarios. suggest generous space standards that might apply in a more suburban context. As a suggestion, useful messages about the role of green infrastructure at different spatial scales, is discussed on page 1 of the Scottish Government Green Infrastructure document and these principles could be developed here to meet a range of city development scenarios. Alternatively the South Lanarkshire Green Network Quality Design Guide is a useful reference in this subject area. For example, it discussed some important principles of connectivity within places (streets and neighbourhoods to green networks) as well as important guidance on designing open space appropriately in terms of long term and sustainable management.
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural Protection of soils on development sites is an important issue that relates to the future success ofSection 3.5 – Trees, identifies that ground proposed for new tree Heritage establishing planting but also to matters of drainage and biodiversity. A short paragraph planting should be protected from compaction during construction. highlighting soil retention in situ (where possible) as well as appropriate storage and re‐use would be valuable. The British Standards may be relevant further guidance as would DEFRA guidance “Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites” http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13298‐code‐of‐practice‐090910.pdf
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural The advice in 3.4 Biodiversity is comprehensive but there are some areas which could be clearer. Changes to made to Biodiversity section. Heritage It is mentioned that if the planning authority thinks it’s likely that European Protected Species (EPS) will be affected by development then the developer will be asked to identify impacts. It could be made more implicit that this includes survey work where such species may exist. This would also help lead into subsequent paragraphs on site assessment and survey requirements as this link is not very apparent.
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural The process of SNH issuing a licence and the planning authority granting consent do not run in Changes to made to Biodiversity section. Heritage parallel as such, as licenses are not processed and granted until planning consent is gained. However you are correct in saying that the authority needs to address the 3 tests and be fairly certain that it will meet licensing requirements (and therefore gain a license) before granting consent.
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural Species surveys are discussed under Protected species but we would suggest also making Changes to made to Biodiversity section. Heritage reference to surveys under Protected sites, particularly relating to SPAs, as often long periods of surveys may be required to inform the ‘strict policy tests’ and Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA). Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural The technical guidance on survey periods/timings is useful, as this is often overlooked until late inTable updated Heritage the application process. However, we would suggest reviewing the Great Crested Newt (GCN) survey timings, as the GCN Conservation Handbook lists some optimal/sub‐optimal survey techniques which can be undertaken in February, July, August or September.
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural 3.6 Planting – we commend the emphasis on trees as a positive contribution to the urban and Noted. Heritage rural landscape and the provision of technical guidance detailing landscape strategy requirements at different planning stages, including management and maintenance, as this is an element that is often left until later in the process.
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural We also welcome the emphasis on SUDs, in the document, as a landscape and wildlife feature, Noted. Heritage contributing to green networks and open space. Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural Landscape and Open Space Management Noted. Heritage We recommend that the role of long term management and the Council requirements should be raised within this document. Unlike the built environment, the design and success of open spaces and new planting relies on the quality of maintenance and management. Many a well intentioned landscape design fails at the post construction stage.
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural Appropriate landscape design should also be considered at the application stage in terms of the Noted. Heritage long term implications of maintenance and management. This is particularly relevant in relation to likely financial costs and future carbon emissions arising from the individual design solution that is proposed. In our opinion the South Lanarkshire Green Network Quality Design Guide covers these issues well and the key principles it highlights may be of interest.
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural Links to Local Development Plan (LDP) policy The revised guidance includes reference to Local Development Plan Heritage This Design Guidance is a non‐statutory document, although expected to be referred to in policies. development. It accompanies five other recent non‐statutory guidance documents. As such, many of the good practice elements may not be realised in practice despite intentions. In order to ensure better delivery, we believe there should be a clear link between a policy on conserving and enhancing biodiversity or landscape etc within the LDP and the design guidance. Likewise a broad policy statement in the LDP on delivering green networks should link through to the design guidance. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
Q Carolyn Clark Scottish Natural Graphics Graphics amended to make text clearer. Heritage It is difficult to read the text on some of the diagrams in the document, for example those on page 15. These diagrams would benefit from more contrast between the text and the backgrounds to allow easier reading. I hope these comments are useful. Should you require any further information then do not hesitate to contact me at the address below.
R Dave du Feu Spokes Spokes is very concerned about the rules relating to bike storage in private properties, especially The guidance of householders covers sheds in front gardens. There front gardens. I'm rather confused about what documents the council is proposing, and where have been recent discussions with Spokes about how this relates to this fits. bike storage.
S Sandy Spokes We welcome the opportunity to comment on the above named document. Noted. Scotland
S Sandy Spokes We see the Edinburgh Design Guide as having an important part to play in helping to move the Noted. Scotland city from a state of car dependency to one where walking and cycling play a much more central role in the life of the city.
S Sandy Spokes We are very keen to see the document provide all the appropriate support to meet the national Noted. Scotland and Council commitments to increase cycle use from the current 2% of all city trips to the Scottish Government’s Cycling Action Plan target of 10 % by 2020 and the more ambitious 15% Council’s Charter of Brussels commitment. To do this the Document needs to be bold and make more demands on developers.
S Sandy Spokes We note that the draft document says a lot of the right things about cycling: that undercover and Paragraph added about expectations for cycle parking in section on Scotland secure cycle parking should be planned into developments, that developments should integrate Ancillary Facilities. with existing facilities and that those of a sufficient scale should involve developing new walking and cycle facilities. However our experience tells us that on their own, fine words and good intentions do not always result in facilities that are fit for purpose, even though they may be costly. In making this submission we hope that the guidance and implementation systems supporting the planning function can be developed to deliver more and better cycling facilities. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
S Sandy Spokes Cycle Paths Noted. Scotland Page 23 of the draft document talks about the benefits of creating a masterplan and sticking to it That is correct, but it does not always happen, and implementation often leaves a lot to be desired. S Sandy Spokes An early example was the area between the canal and West End, where the original master plan Noted. Scotland appeared to provide excellent cycling connections. Sadly, despite the masterplan, the stage‐by‐ stage development of the area has resulted in a now nearly complete cycling solution which is hugely disappointing, tortuous and prone to pedestrian/ cycle conflict.
S Sandy Spokes More recently, we refer to the example of the former industrial land at Granton waterfront, Noted. (This example reduced in prominence in this version of the Scotland which is referenced in the document. Sadly the benefits of masterplanning have not reached guidance.) cyclists at this location despite significant resourcing. A planned shared use path was created parallel to Waterfront Avenue but because it is crossed by so many side roads its value as a usefu cycleway is massively diminished. Any walker or cyclist using the path constantly has to give way to traffic using the minor roads that cross it, and so for cyclists with a choice, the obvious decision is to use the Waterfront Avenue roadway.
S Sandy Spokes Scottish Planning Policy states that pedestrian and cyclist needs should be prioritised over Added sentence in section on Coordinate Development "Opportunities Scotland motorised traffic (paragraph 169 of Scottish Planning Policy). The design of this path clearly for travel violates that policy. should be prioritised in the following order: walking, cycling, public transport then car." S Sandy Spokes The document must boldly say that in relation to residential and commercial developments in theSee above. Scotland city, priority will be given to pedestrians and cyclists when integrating the development with existing pavements, paths, cycleways and roadways. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
S Sandy Spokes The Design Guidance should include a published table that links the scale of developments to Beyond the scope of this guidance to set out developer contributions Scotland developers contributions for walking and cycling infrastructure, over and above what they may requirements. Any requirements for cycle infrastructure will be set out do on‐site. Even small developments should contribute. For example, a table such as below (the in the Local Development Plan ‐ Proposed Action Programme ‐ specific contributions and floorspace thresholds in the table are purely illustrative) – Appendix 2 of Planning Committee Papers on Local Development Plan Development floorspace (sq mtrs) Contribution (£) (19 March 13). 100 or less £1,000 101 ‐ 300 £10,000 301 ‐ 500 £15,000 501 ‐ 800 £20,000 800 and over £25,000
Revisions to a finalised table might be needed from time to time to reflect general economic conditions (high charges in boom times and lower charges when activity is more depressed). The funds made available from the contributions would be utilised for the development of active travel initiatives in the City.
If there is to be an opportunity for Spokes to feed these ideas on contributions into a future consultation on a Developers Contributions and Affordable Housing we accept that they need not be considered as part of the design guidance consultation. However at the time of writing, it is no
S Sandy Spokes Cycle Access Noted. Scotland We recognise that much good work is done in relation to cycling infrastructure within the city. However many opportunities are missed where developers could and should have done more.
S Sandy Spokes As a small example, page 12 shows another example where a quality development has been St Vincent Place does have sloping access to the side of the steps (see Scotland created without taking proper account of cycling – St Vincent’s Place. Despite high quality extreme left of the photograph.) finishes of the building exterior and related paving, there is no drop kerb to allow wheel chair and cycle access through St Vincent’s Place when approaching from Fettes Row. Such a measure would have been at no cost in the construction phase. Unless the developer can be persuaded to address this retrospectively, an opportunity has been missed.
S Sandy Spokes On a larger scale, many developments are accompanied by inadequate cycle access and parking Noted. Scotland provision. A recent case is Wickes on Stevenson Road. Indeed, most if not all the big retail centres in the city such as Hermiston Gate and Fort Kinnaird have poor cycle access and/or parking facilities. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
S Sandy Spokes Opportunities are missed too in relation to the permeability of developments. Opportunities for Council seeking to improve this ‐ see Coordinate Development section Scotland walking and cycling connections through sites should always be looked for and seized, especially in particular. when they offer real benefits such as shortening a journey or cutting out steps or slopes.
S Sandy Spokes Signage needs to be prominent. In a recent case a development allows walking and cycling accessSignage would be a detail matter that would be set out in the Scotland between Fountainbridge and West Tollcross but there is no public indication of this. The Edinburgh Street Design Guidance. document should make clear that planned cut‐throughs must be signed in an appropriate way that enables them to be identified and used by the public.
S Sandy Spokes To help guarantee greater awareness of integrating cycling into development, and that Cycle groups are able to comment on major developments prior to Scotland opportunities are not missed, the Design Guidance should require (or, at the least, urge) application through the proposal of application notice process. This developers to seek input from cycle groups and similar stakeholder groups. can be done via the Edinburgh Planning and Building Standards On‐Line Services (Planning Portal) and doing an advanced search for application type and selecting "Proposal of Application Notice".
S Sandy Spokes Finally, in our view the planning function as it relates to transport planning and to the proper Noted. Scotland consideration of cycling matters in developments has not been adequately resourced.. We ask that this submission is passed to the Head of the Planning Service for consideration of this issue.
S Sandy Spokes Cycle Parking and Storage Noted. Scotland The document rightly points out that cycle parking in new developments should be integrated into the design and should be undercover and secure.
S Sandy Spokes The document should also clearly state that cycle parking is required for all commercial and This will be set out in the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance. Scotland private developments both for visitors and employees. Other existing guidance goes into detail on minimum requirements and these should be included in the document, in the part currently headed Car Parking (which should be entitled either Parking or Car and Cycle Parking). Cycle Parking should be given as much prominence in the section as car parking.
S Sandy Spokes In the case of housing developments, overnight secure storage may be available as part of garageRequirements set out in section on Ancillary Facilities on requirements Scotland space, etc, but submitted plans should always be required to show how occupants can make use for flats. of the property to effect secure cycle storage. Clearly there are particular difficulties and special needs in certain types of accommodation such as flats, or terraced housing. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
S Sandy Spokes Where overnight parking or storage is an issue as with residential cycle parking, the word Requirements set out more clearly. Scotland “secure” must mean more than that bikes can be locked to an immovable object. A case in point is the recently completed Sugarhouse Close building for Edinburgh University postgraduate students. The building and communal outdoor spaces have quality finishes and cycling access has been considered with ramps provided at outdoor stairs. However, although the cycle parking is undercover and looks good the lack of security appears to be a fundamental flaw, and the facilities may be poorly used because of the security concerns of potential users.
S Sandy Spokes The document must make a clear statement of what secure means in the context of shared Requirements set out more clearly in section on Ancillary Facilities. Scotland overnight cycle storage. This should ideally comprise three levels of security: 1. The cycle parking should not be accessible to the public. Ideally it should be located within an area that can only be accessed by residents (requiring a key or other security to access communa space within the property). 2. The cycle parking area should have its own level of security with ideally a keypad combination changed regularly and only made known to those actively using the facilities. 3. Finally the facilities should allow users to secure their bike to an immovable object within the bike store, using their own lock.
S Sandy Spokes Conclusion Note added to section on Coordinate Development that Walking and Scotland The final Design Guidance document should make clear that Edinburgh (in line with its Active Cycling should be priorities over car use. Travel Action Plan and Charter of Brussels signature) is on its way to becoming a city where everyday cycling is massively increased and developers play their part in accommodating and fostering that change. To achieve this the following steps are essential... • walking and cycling to be prioritised over motor transport in the design of new developments • all developments to contribute financially to active travel initiatives • a greater level of expert active travel input to be made to transport design in new developments • clearer definition of what constitutes acceptable secure overnight cycle storage design Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
T Alan Sneddon Stewart Milne The document itself is very clear, concise and sets out the character of Edinburgh really well Noted. whilst promoting new Architecture within the City. We believe the document will become a great tool in achieving the aspirations of the Council for their vision of the City. We do however feel Added more on suburban development throughout the document ‐ and that the content of the document is very focused on City Centre development and does not focus in particular in the sections positioning of buildings. on the finer detailing of suburban housing in order to raise the standards within this sector. We are not clear whether a separate document will be issued which focuses on the wider Local Authority catchment area or whether suburban housing will be required to meet all of the guidance within the document, some of which will simply not be achievable.
T Alan Sneddon Stewart Milne Page 26‐29 Section 1.4 Density – This sections starts to talk about densities and is the first of few Added note about how higher densities can be achieved in suburbia by references to suburban housing design. Whilst we acknowledge the content of the guidance including terraces, mews, 4 in a block etc. within section 1.4, it would be beneficial to include some diagrams or examples of how you see this being achieved, including reference to street hierarchy, frontage and landscape.
T Alan Sneddon Stewart Milne Page 31‐32 Section 1.6 Incorporating and use natural features – the specification of a 50m wide Requirements for 50m width changed to provide more flexibility woodland edge is extremely onerous and should not be the guidance for all developments to achieve. Focus on the quality of woodland edge with the views both in and out of the development rather than a generalised 50m woodland belt should be encouraged.
T Alan Sneddon Stewart Milne Page 54‐56 Section 2.9 Housing Mix – We have concern over the minimum space standards for This aspect of the guidance was taken from the Edinburgh Standards growing families and the requirement of 20% of the site being in excess of 91m2 in size. This will for Housing. No change proposed since the Council considers it is not reflect the aspirations of all developments and could potentially just lead to higher prices for important to achieve a housing mix to help with social sustainability. 3 bed units that may remain unoccupied if inappropriately plotted within a development. This standard should be considered against the location and local market conditions. We believe the Change made to ceiling height section. minimum standards for a two bedroom dwelling at 66m2 is too excessive. Stewart Milne have a very successful product at 55m2 which is extremely popular with clients who aspire to owning a dwelling rather than an apartment. We would be happy to supply examples of this product and how it has been successfully integrated into developments. The reference to a minimum ground floor ceiling height of apartments being 3m should also be site specific, this is more relevant to a City Centre Development and would not be beneficial in suburban housing. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
T Alan Sneddon Stewart Milne Page 62‐63 Section 3.2 Publicly Accessible Open Space – We are strong believers that well This aspect of the guidance is taken from the Council's Open Space situated integrated open space can provide the lifeblood to developments, however we are Strategy. No change is proposed to this. concerned how the guidance within this section can be achieved with suburban development. The sketch showing distances to green space is easily achievable within the City Centre where large parks are located but this is not always the case in greenfield sites, and again believe this should have further clarity on site specific developments. Also, a clearer definition is required between good play, very good and excellent play value.
T Alan Sneddon Stewart Milne Page 64‐65 Section 3.3 Private Open Space – We believe the aspirations of having deeper rear Diagram and text changed. gardens (increasing from 9m to 12m) contradicts the aspirations of Section 1.4 in achieving good densities to support local amenities and we would not welcome this within our developments. Increased focus on site design, informal road patterns with integrated open space and landscape should be encouraged. A variety of house type designs meeting the client’s needs should also be encouraged.
T Alan Sneddon Stewart Milne Page 76‐77 Section 3.8 Hard Landscape – We do not believe the stipulation that no more than Palate of greys sought to help simplify public realm and give it a more two colours (both of which must be shades of grey) of mono‐blocking can be used, particularly in cohesive character across the city. suburban housing. Again, we would be happy to send you some examples of successful hard landscaping within our developments. T Alan Sneddon Stewart Milne Page 78‐79 Section 3.9 Car Parking – We are extremely concerned with the specification of These requirements for structural landscape (in the form of trees and planting associated with car parking. Again, where development is within City Centre we can other planting) are taken from existing guidance. It is vitally important understand but we are concerned that this document is for the whole Local Authority catchment that landscape is included to mitigate the adverse visual effects of area and therefore covers suburban housing. Once the required landscaping around car parking surface car parking. is combined with Formal and Amenity Open Space within the development, it will be very difficult to achieve the densities required in these areas and will impact on the viability of developments.
T Alan Sneddon Stewart Milne Overall we think the guidance is a very good document in a well laid out manner but believe Noted. more detail and/or separate guidance is required with regards to the Design of Suburban Housing. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
U Ian Carter West Blacket The West Blacket Association & other organisations expressed concerns during consultation on Noted. Association the earlier planning guidance documents that some revised wording was not robust enough to ensure the continuation of policies previously adopted by the Council. The same argument can be applied to significant parts of this Design document, contrary to the Councils’ declared intention for these documents to consolidate existing policies in a more readable and understandable form.
U Ian Carter West Blacket This proposed Design Guidance document is attractively presented but, as one of a suite of Overall, this version of the guidance has fewer pages and more Association documents, there is inevitable duplication and an expanded rather than reduced volume of illustrations than the guidance it replaces. documentation. More importantly there is an inconsistency of approach and variation in precision, in some cases unacceptably reversing the precision of existing guidance. A good feature in the draft is the excellent summary on pages 82 to 84 listing what is required with a planning application, but there is nothing new about this and it could already be in use. Accessing existing policy guidelines has always been difficult on the Council website until very recently, but that could have been resolved by better listing and a checklist similar to what is proposed.
U Ian Carter West Blacket Accepting that the process has progressed too far to be reversed now, it is essential to ensure The existing guidelines will be removed from the website ‐ though Association that what is produced does perpetuate existing policy. That requires avoiding opportunities for would be made available on request if requested. The reason for this is developers to promote new interpretations, or uncertainty for planners themselves. While to avoid confusion. acknowledging that some of the revised wording is effectively identical there are also areas which are over‐simplified, weakened or even omitted. One simple solution we suggest, which would reinforce the ‘consolidation’ principle, would be to retain all the present policy guidelines on record as background papers. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
U Ian Carter West Blacket The simplification of wording may seem a commendable principle but some of the existing Changes made throughout the guidance to add more on villa area. Association planning guidance is complex and has taken considerable time and effort to reach the present refinement. In particular it is unacceptable that ‘Villa Areas & the grounds of Villas’ has only superficial mention in a drawing in paragraph 2.3. This is a particularly sensitive matter in south Edinburgh and is a glaring omission which must be remedied.
U Ian Carter West Blacket We also suggest there to be a need to place greater emphasis to Conservation Area Character Conservation area character appraisals and conservation areas Association Appraisals which identify the particular features and factors distinguishing these special areas generally highlighted throughout the document. across the city. The impact of development proposals within their local context must be given prominence and we propose that Character Appraisals be listed under Policy References for most paragraphs throughout the document. U Ian Carter West Blacket We assume that there is an expectation that greater understanding, along with proper adherenceNoted. Association to guidance, will lead to a better planning process. Past experience however indicates that planning enforcement remains the weak point. It is therefore essential that the Council recognise this and emphasise in adopting new guidance that it will be applied rigorously and consistently.
U Ian Carter West Blacket In submitting these objections we also commend and support the many detailed issues raised in Noted. Association the Grange Prestonfield Community Council submission on this matter. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
V Isabel Thom West End The West End Community Council submits the following observations and suggestions. Noted Community Survey Monkey responses: Council Reducing and combining the documentation will make it simpler and easier to use. The guidance will be used to interpret policies and help prepare comments and objections to planning applications. The general thematic approach makes for clarity. The separation of technical advice is helpful. Paper copies are easier to digest at this consultation phase when making notes, but onscreen viewing might be adequate thereafter. Community Councils should be provided with a paper copy.
V Isabel Thom West End Comments on Format: Noted Community 1 Pictorial examples are effective, e.g. particularly pp15,19, 20. Council 2 Policy references at the beginning of each chapter are useful. V Isabel Thom West End Introduction This is information has been put on the Council's website about the Community p3: List the 13 pieces of guidance being replaced guidance. Council V Isabel Thom West End p8: Give ADF and Development Brief examples, e.g. HUDF, Canal Strategy, Kings Stables Hyperlinks within the guidance take users to the full list of Area Community Development Frameworks and Development Briefs. Council
V Isabel Thom West End p9: col.1 Include Area Character Appraisals, WHS Management Plan Page 9 changed ‐ however both these are given in section about Community Appraising the landscape and townscape with hyperlinks. Council
V Isabel Thom West End p9: col.2 Why are “B” listed buildings omitted? This is a Scottish Government requirement as set out in the Community Development Management Regulations. Council Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
V Isabel Thom West End p9: col.3 Give the composition of the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel, e.g. does it have external The composition of the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel is on its Community specialist advisers? webpage: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/206/planning‐ Council advice_and_guidance/985/edinburgh_urban_design_panel/2
V Isabel Thom West End p14: col.1 line 13 ”significant” is open to challenge. Can this be elaborated on? The need for a design statement over and above the requirements set Community out by the Scottish Government would be agreed with applicants at the Council pre application stage. V Isabel Thom West End p14: col.1 line 14 What does page 84 refer to? Typo ‐ corrected. Community Council V Isabel Thom West End p14: col.3 line 29 Should this read (pp16‐21) or map on p20? It is the whole section that is to be read so page number refers to start Community of it. Council V Isabel Thom West End p15: line 4 Vocabulary error ‐ “next to” Typo ‐ corrected. Community Council V Isabel Thom West End p17: line 11 “...built features” Add “including monuments and statues ...”? Text added Community Council V Isabel Thom West End p17: para. 3 “Vantage points” Add bridges. Is this a point at which examples of the Dean Bridge, Key views were consulted. No new views added. View from Belford Community Belford Bridge and the Water of Leith Valley could be cited? Bridge would be assessed through visual analysis. Council V Isabel Thom West End p17: Fill the empty space with an illustration of how bulk/ mass affects a view Pictures moved to different section. Community Council V Isabel Thom West End p18: last para. “kept under review” is an important issue Noted. Community Council V Isabel Thom West End p19: Key Views: Add Belford Bridge towards Dean Bridge and along the Water of Leith Valley See comments above Community Council Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
V Isabel Thom West End Designing Buildings Typo corrected. Community p36: col.1 Page reference 15 is wrong Council V Isabel Thom West End p36: WECC appreciates the important points made re perception of height and precedences. Can The document adequetatly provides guidance while achieving the aim Community some illustrations from the Colvin and Moggridge studies be incorporated? These are important of being concise. There are hyperlinks to all the individual key views Council safeguards for the World Heritage Site since no buffer zone has been set up. that were identified by the study.
V Isabel Thom West End p39: photograph This building is undergoing re‐development as a hotel. The comment on scale Example replaced Community and position still apply, although the re‐cladding gives a different feel to the façades. Would a Council different example be better? V Isabel Thom West End p40: 2.4 WECC appreciates the level of technical guidance given under Materials and detailing Noted. Community Council V Isabel Thom West End p40: Should mews development come under 1.4 density as well? Added reference to mews housing. Community Council V Isabel Thom West End p51: 2.8 Daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook: There is concern that the description The word reasonable can be subject to debate in relation to this issue. Community “reasonable levels...” can be contested. Can this advice be strengthened? The BRE guide will be used to where there are differences of opinion Council between the Council and applicants. V Isabel Thom West End p53: col.3, para.5 “... should be avoided” WECC considers this to be a weak position to adopt. A There may be some circumstances where the balance of achieving a Community good example of the damage to living‐room light and privacy in a traditional tenement would be good quality townscape means that the immediate outlook of a Council the 143‐5 Morrison Street office block (Ref. 09/01524/FUL) currently under construction. dwelling will be compromised. This scenario is relatively rare and is considered on a case by case basis. V Isabel Thom West End Other points Designing Streets is available from the websites that this guidance Community 1 It would have been helpful to have Designing Streets available at the same time, in order to hyperlinks to. Council identify any omissions, e.g. promotion of pedestrian and cyclist safety and access.
V Isabel Thom West End 2 Water of Leith corridor protection could be strengthened. The Water of Leith corridor is protected by designations and policies of Community the local plans. Council V Isabel Thom West End 3 Helium balloon floating is a practice that merits encouraging. It is an effective way of Taken section of previous guidance on key views and added it back in. Community demonstrating/clarifying the true height of a proposed building and provides a good This makes reference to helium balloon testing. Council understanding of impact. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
W Jim Orr Like Dave from Spokes, I've also been confused about the situation around regulations and Website states that guidance for streets is being prepared. Note that guidance and so I would be grateful if the report could clearly cover the relevant policies and any local development plan is currently going through representation reviews that are ongoing or planned (such as Guidance on Streets). period. X John Rosser The draft guide is a further tool in securing design quality throughout the city area. It Noted. demonstrates extensive and careful consideration to both the principles and details involved in design. It is well organised, imaginative and useful. Such a comprehensive approach reflects a range of contributions (and negotiations!) in preparing the contents. So many of the following comments may already have been considered in this process but are a personal view and intended as constructive in offering ways the document might be strengthened. There are also though a few areas of concern particularly relating to standards and amenity in residential development.
X John Rosser To strengthen the guide (and it does recognise different categories of user) there are items whichAdded note about SUDS to section on appraising landscape and might be reinforced, for example by an earlier mention in the Introduction that design is a townscape. material consideration; the role of development plans in deciding firstly whether development proposals are appropriate in principle; central government backing for design and access statements; the importance of ‘sense of place’ and ‘place making’ both at city wide and local levels (perhaps Chapter 1 could be re‐titled ‘Place Making: Context and Design Quality’); the breadth of spectrum of the urban design toolkit in its use for analysis and responsive design; the importance of SUDS and the need to consider this at an earlier stage if the sort of land take it means (e.g. see Ardler, Dundee) is considered right from the start; and suggestions for some more examples of Edinburgh related strategic frameworks.
X John Rosser Little appears about how the guide applies in commercial and industrial development proposals; The guide applies to all types of development (except house more townscape issues might be considered (street character, roofscapes); on flagging up that extensions). So the principles illustrated in an example which includes the access requirements that need to be addressed seem only to be contained within the Other one building type, can be applied to another building type. Information chapter; the importance of impacts of wide but small scale design quality (as well as the contribution individual householder applications might make) and the role of the Development Quality Handbook and the former Edinburgh Standards of Urban Design (ESUD). The draft contains a clearer expectation of how the sort of principles contained in the ESUD might be demonstrated but those principles still seem relevant – or is the intention to withdraw it and the DQ handbook? The latter contains a lot of good and detailed advice. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
X John Rosser There are areas which probably reflect changes in policy over recent years and some of these are The guidance promote dual aspect flats. It has been found that strict very positive, for example requirements regarding mix of house types; safeguards regarding floor interpretation of previous guidance on single aspect flats meant that areas; incorporation of practical ways to enable recycling; and the various considerations to development forms that are alien to Edinburgh were being proposed ‐ landscape and biodiversity. There are other policy developments that do not seem to represent eg point blocks. By allowing single aspect flats efficiencies in internal change for the better, for example the potential for single aspect to constitute up to 50% of circulation spaces (for stairs and lifts) can be made as fewer of these housing proposals; with an ageing spaces can be provided to serve more flats. population the lack of support for lifetime house design (or is this now covered in the Building Regulations?); the intrusive impact on residential amenity of development up to 4 metres in Note added which states: "Note that these heights do not indicate height (even if to the north) on the boundary; the distance to and size of a local green space and whether a development will be acceptable when assessed against other some misgivings about the use of brick, especially in city centre projects. considerations"
X John Rosser Page 3 ‐ Should consideration be given to a new short second paragraph by bringing further References to local plan policies are included in the individual sections. forward the statement about development proposals will need to comply with Structure and (See base of coloured boxes on the left hand of relevant pages.) More Local Development Plan policies and proposals. Can it be worded not to be negative but in a way added on the requirements for design and access statements that warns the principle of development must conform with these plans before an expensive or extensive design statement is undertaken and that the preparation of same will not necessarily mean that the proposal will be considered where development plan policy is to the contrary. It could go on to remind general readers and applicants alike here that design is a material consideration and that this guidance requires a design and access statement in all major (define) development projects in a range of circumstances (see page 9). Would it be good to show Government backing through Circular 4/2009 here too – there may be a range of readers from clients to professionals who might read more or less of the te [sic]
Under bullet points could an extra bullet point be added to reinforce the role of the guidance ‘ To Added section on Design and Access Statements. set out the Council’s requirements for a design and access statement (or similar) which demonstrates and explains how these key ideas are addressed in the design of individual proposals’. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
X John Rosser Page 5/6 ‐ ‘sense of place’ and place making – though I quite like the term DNA I think it is still Changes made to page in response to these comments. important to reinforce the need to identify the characteristics and responses that go towards place making at city, neighbourhood and local scales. Perhaps a statement to this effect could be added at the end of the last paragraph on page 6 or in the paragraph about the importance of the public realm as the element that is the ‘glue’ that binds places together.
X John Rosser Page 7 ‐ The Challenge – it does seem a bit of a pity that more modern examples of success are The guidance has numerous modern examples from Edinburgh. not cited. Examples might include the Holyrood North Site (Overall Development Quality Award Winner 2004), the Granton masterplan, Craigmillar redevelopment, the listing of modern buildings?
X John Rosser Page 8 ‐ The formatting of the ‘Development Plan’ section as a first item in the second column is This page has been re‐arranged to make it clearer. Info about the WHS not clear (understand the idea to separate the illustrations) and needs to go in the first column? is contained elsewhere in the document. Should it also include reference to the World Heritage Site plans? Do the boxes need some explanation – are these to be topics for other supplementary guidance?
X John Rosser Could the ‘Relationship to other Guidance’ start with the phrase ‘if in accordance with Given prominence to Design Statements in guidance by consolidating it development policy’ then go Natural Environment (retaining good features); Historic (or existing into one section. Urban Design Toolkit does not appear to be built) Environment (mention Conservation Area Character Appraisals with their chapter on description commonly used by practitioners. Therefore decided to ‘opportunities for enhancement’); Movement (seems light on references to public transport)and omit. Public Realm & Street Design (by the way and with due respect is it up to Designing Streets to establish the character of streets? Surely an interdisciplinary task?) ; then particular topics like Student Housing (and others as may be required). Could the last paragraph go in a new section called ‘Using the Urban Design Toolkit’ – it might be necessary to remind applicants (it is in the text under an illustration I think) that they might be working in an area where an Area Framework, a master plan or development brief has been agreed, or flag up section 1.3. Character Appraisals could also go in here as part of the toolkit. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
X John Rosser Page 9 ‐ Could the first bullet point read ‘carry out a thorough site analysis and appraisal of local Provided more guidance in this section which should help to emphasise context’. The issue of context is raised in the next paragraph but I seem to remember it always its importance. needed reinforcing. It could refer on to the next chapter. Could Planning Policies also refer to listed buildings? Perhaps reference could be made in the ‘discuss early’ section to the skills on hand in the department to help with these issues? Is there guidance on Community Consultation that developers might find useful? Perhaps this section should go before ‘Design Review’
X John Rosser P 13 CHAPTER 1 Design Quality and Context This is fleshed out in more detail in the section about density. Given the contents of this chapter could the title be ‘Place Making: Context and Design Quality’ Could the fourth bullet point be more explicit ‘Provide appropriate densities relating to their loca area characteristics’.
X John Rosser Page 14 ‐ Link to page 84 seems on my machine to go to page 85 Link changed. A new sentence might be considered at the end of third paragraph. ‘Key natural and built characteristics and features should be retained to help shape a sense of place’. These aspects have been taken from Scottish Government guidance Very much support the Landscape and Conservation Area Character Appraisal, WH Management and requirements. Taken requirements from end of guidance and Plan references. Townscape (3 dimensional) and spatial structure (layout) are separate items embedded them into sections about Design Statements and Appraising which require equal billing and each of which have their own broad range of constituents. Landscape and Townscape. Perhaps semi colons as in ‘Key townscape principles...... scale; spatial structure; architectural design and use of materials are all considered in the Designing Buildings chapter’. (Townscape and spatial structure are broader than designing buildings – does this sentence need to be reworded to say something more along the lines that ‘the implications of the townscape and spatial structure analysis helps to shape the layout and design of buildings and this is considered in the next chapter’.
X John Rosser Reading between the lines it would appear that the ESUD, and I was never sure about the use of The requirements for design statements and design and access the word standards when it comes to principles of design, is now considered to be too detailed statements should helpt to draw together consideration of form, space, and prescriptive – though that was not the intention. Perhaps being highly illustrated it design etc. suggested physical solutions rather than principles to be interpreted but was a product of its time. I still think that more is needed to draw together consideration of form, space, design and activity in applications). Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
X John Rosser Page 16 ‐ First paragraph last sentence ‘The landmark features, and the views to and from them, Essentially, this section of the guidance is about protection view to which are to be protected include:’ landmark features so it would not be appropriate here to add from them. Notwithstanding this comment, there is an augmented section on Visual Analysis in the section on Appraising Landscape and Townscape which should cover this point.
X John Rosser Page 22 ‐ Coordinate development – could this be used to also refer to mixed uses, community Not accepted. Mix use has its own section later in the document. facilities, access to public transport, cycle ways, green corridors etc. and developer contributions
X John Rosser Page 26 ‐ Add a reminder that high density (define?) does not mean high rise. Villa areas mentioned in section on Density ‐ stressing the importance Reference to villa areas – does the Villa Policy still exist? A key element in addition to position, of getting the density right. form and heights, if memory serves me right, was that 60% of the plot should remain green to protect spatial structure / landscape quality. At end of last paragraph ‘ a mix of house types, sizes and tenures’. Very much support the use of the house type/density diagrams.
X John Rosser Page 31 ‐ Incorporate Natural Features – could this section also include requirements and an Have added in note about SUDS in section on Appraising Landscape and example for SUDS – with a reference to more detailed consideration on page 74. If not built in Townscape. Augmented the dedicated section on Sustainable Urban from a very early stage it does not happen, viz Craigmillar Drainage Systems to make clearer the importance the Council gives to this issue. X John Rosser Page 33 ‐ Other good examples of extensive reuse are at the Holyrood North Site, almost two Avoided using examples where buildings were clearly listed. thirds of the projects(?)
X John Rosser Page 35 ‐ Support the principles – perhaps under the last bullet, ‘address the street in a positive "sense of place" added to text. way to create or help reinforce the sense of place, urban vitality and community safety’.
X John Rosser Page 36 ‐ Height and form – add a point about also respecting ground floor ceiling heights when Example of building that is too low illustrates this concept. adjacent to existing tenements? (it comes somewhere later but...). Very much support the regular references to restraining heights to be in keeping with surroundings – its not just views but skyline that is so evocative of Edinburgh’s sense of place and needs to be protected (unapologetic about this – good design does not mean height and it would appear London is beginning to rue its recent fascination with tall buildings) Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
X John Rosser Page 4 ‐ The mews conversion example given does not come across well in the photograph, Comments about photo not accepted. especially when viewed against the qualities of the existing further along ‐ is it possible to get a General emphasis of this section is for use of stone where the better picture of the Regent / Royal Terrace mews example. surrounding context is stone. Other materials will be considered on a Some misgivings about brick, especially in city centre / prevalent stone built surroundings – case by case basis. thinking particularly of Morrison Crescent / Fountainbridge More emphasis to importance of roofscapes (avoiding unplanned plant, large areas of flat roof, long ridge lines as well as materials) especially as so many high vantage points. Good to see Sustainability principles, support for energy efficiency, even if more now the preserve of the Building Regulations, and use of S1 Form still in use – a link to it?
X John Rosser Page 53 ‐ Sunlight to existing gardens – it may be true that sunlight may not come from the north Added note to make clear that compliance with this aspect of the or northerly aspects (though in summer in Scotland sunlight might come from very near to these guidance does not necessarily mean that the proposal will satisfy other aspects) but the prospect of a 4 metre and intervening heights of obstruction on the boundary to aspects of it. a residential garden seems excessive and obtrusive and completely contrary to amenity. If a householder, not concerned by overshadowing on their own garden, wanted to put up a 4m high wall outwith the gable to gable ‘zone’ on their own south boundary, the neighbours north boundary, what is there to stop them? It would seem to be completely contrary to the requirements in the following section on outlook. I would earnestly request this be reviewed back to a 45 degree angle at a 2 metre height on all boundaries.
X John Rosser Privacy – again it seems that privacy is to be achieved through more artificial solutions by In relation to 18m, this strict adherence to this was leading to arrangements of windows rather than offering at least some basic privacy by distance and there developments of unimaginative townscape ‐ therefore it has been is no mention of an 18 metre base line. Yet later on page 64 a 24 metre distance is ‘encouraged’ decided to omit it. and whilst this is welcomed X John Rosser the 18 metre minimum should be reinstated with arrangements of windows being the exception See comments about single aspect above. and not the norm which the draft would seem to imply. Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
X John Rosser Page 56 ‐ Waste Storage – for communal waste facilities should there also be a maximum There is no maximum distance set by the Council. Generally, however distance from main house doors? developers wish to keep bin stores reasonably close to residents front doors. No further action.
X John Rosser Page 57 ‐ Community Safety – could this section be called ‘Access and Community Safety ’? There Added section on Design and Access Statements. should be something that flags up access in the body of the text as it forms part of the statement title rather than just being set out in Other Information. Preferably it should also identify or refer to more positive principles and standards that will ensure all types of development are accessible and that the Council will require this – as the DQ Handbook set out (?) There must also be Counci Equality Policies that should be reinforced in the design of the environment. Is an Access Statement in itself a legal requirement under equalities legislation? This may not be the right place but with an ageing population might consideration also be given to supporting ‘Lifetime Homes – 16 Standards’ by Habinteg Housing Association (see the former Standards for Sustainable Building)
X John Rosser Page 61 ‐ Corridors – could these diagrams be backed up with the examples of the Waters of Water of Leith shown as an example. Leith Walkway, the canal strategy, the coastal Boardwalk proposals – connecting to the Central Scotland walkway system? Edinburgh Design Guidance Appendix 2 ‐ Consultation Summary
Ref Name Organisation Comment Response
X John Rosser Page 62 ‐ It may be too late to comment on this but some perspective might be offered ‐ the These requirements are established by the Edinburgh Open Space 500m2 local green space is the equivalent of two tennis courts set right next to each other and Strategy. should be within 400metres. The report ‘Towards an Urban Renaissance’ showed a whole hierarchy of open spaces within a 500 metre walking distance. Given the health issues surrounding young people these standards would seem to suggest some review of at least the local green space and access distances should be considered; at very least it should be made clear that this is a minimum standard and in these interests better provision should be aimed at. Whilst most of the illustrations are very good the sketch showing these distances, understandably diagrammatic, could perhaps be used to justify rather rigid forms of development – the urban renaissance diagram would seem to be realistic (see p 18 ESUD and we did get authority to use it). Can a way be found to incentivise open space in commercial and industrial development – for example it is a shame that the open space and tree planting set out in the Sighthill industrial estate brief seems to be increasingly eroded.
X John Rosser Page 66 ‐ Good to see the space given to biodiversity (and landscape). An additional resource Noted. that might be helpful identified in the sustainable building standards is the guide ‘Biodiversity by Design’ by the TCPA . I also don’t see a reference to the Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan.
X John Rosser Page 78 ‐ Need to make a positive statement to avoid ‘dead’ ground floor frontages due to car Consider text adequately covers this issue. parking?
Y Richard Many thanks for forwarding the new draft Design Guidance; this will take some digesting but Noted. Seligman from what I have read so far is encouraging. Appendix 3
Edinburgh Design Guidance
Download a copy of Appendix 3 - Edinburgh Design Guidance here.
Note:
New text is highlighted in red
Footnotes explain why changes have been made. These can be cross referred to Appendix 3: Consultation Responses.
Planning Committee – 16 May 13 Planning Committee
10am Thursday 16 May 2013
Tram Developer Contributions: Application of Policy and Guidance
Item number - Report number - Wards Almond (1), Drumbrae/Gyle (3), Forth (4), Inverleith (5), Corstorphine/Murrayfield (6), Sighthill/Gorgie (7), Fountainbridge / Craiglockhart (9), City Centre (11),
Leith Walk (12) and Leith (13) L inks Links
Coalition pledges P8, P17, P18 Council outcomes CO7, CO19, CO22 and CO23 Single Outcome Agreement S01 and SO4
Mark Turley Director, Services for Communities
Contact: David Cooper, Principal Planner
E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 6233
Executive summary
Tram Developer Contributions: Application of Policy and Guidance
S um m a ry Summary
The purpose of this report is to seek the Committee’s approval to revise the approach currently being taken in relation to developer contributions being sought towards the tram project. The policy and related guidance was originally developed to cover the full extent of the tram route (Lines 1 and 2) as approved by the Scottish Parliament. At the current time the Council is only delivering the section of the system between Edinburgh Airport and York Place in the city centre.
A full review of the overall approach to developer contributions, in light of the proposed Local Development Plan, is programmed for a Committee later this year.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the Committee agrees to continue the application of the tram contributions policy and guidance to development sites connected with the section of the route that is currently being delivered and the proposed section between York Place and Newhaven Road, and to cease their application to other development sites.
Measures of success
A measure of success is an efficient and effective approach to land use planning, which ensures that new developments are suitably served by supporting infrastructure, while ensuring that they are not burdened by overly onerous requirements that may prohibit development taking place.
Financial impact
The contributions that have been received by the Council through the application of these policies and the guidance have been recorded in connection with the sections of the route to which they relate. To date a total of £7,178,432 have been received in relation to the tram works that have, and are, currently taken place. This relates to both the Airport to York Place section of the route and the York Place to Newhaven Road section of the route. Further contributions have been received in relation to the Haymarket to Granton Square section (£631,742) and the Kirkliston to Airport section (£30,000). No contributions have been received in relation to the Granton Square to Newhaven Road section.
The funding strategy for the tram project was reported to the Council on 30 June 2011. That report noted that the amount contributed (at that time) was £6.9 million and that the target for developer contributions would remain at £26.6 million. However, it was accepted that the reduced tram route would have implications for this funding stream, and closed off this issue on the basis that developer contributions would be used to offset borrowing costs wherever possible.
The recommendations in this report are in line with the position reported to Council on the 30 June 2011. Accordingly, there are no new financial implications for the Council arising from this report.
Equalities impact
An Equalities and Rights Impact Assessment has been carried out. There are no equalities impacts arising from this report.
Sustainability impact
The impacts of this report in relation to the three elements of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 Public Bodies Duties have been considered, and the outcomes are summarised below.
• The proposals in this report will have no impact on carbon emissions because the report deals with the application of policy in relation to developer contributions connected with the tram project. This follows from decisions about the extent of the tram project to be delivered rather than influencing those decisions.
• The proposals in this report will have no effect on the city’s resilience to climate change impacts because the report deals with the application of policy in relation to developer contributions connected with the tram project. This follows from decisions about the extent of the tram project to be delivered rather than influencing those decisions.
• The proposals in this report will help achieve a sustainable Edinburgh because it will ensure that the policy approach adopted by the Council is proportionate and fair, and will not have an unacceptable impact on areas where there is no reasonable prospect of the tram being delivered in the near future.
Consultation and engagement
Consultation will be undertaken in relation to the planned review of the Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing Guidance (within which the guidance on tram contributions is contained). This report is concerned with the application of the guidance in certain areas of the city and not with any changes to policy itself. It is not considered necessary to undertake any consultation exercise at this time.
Background reading / external references
Circular 3/2012 – Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements
Edinburgh City Local Plan – Policy 3, Tram Contributions
Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan (as altered) – Policy Imp 2 Planning Agreements (read in conjunction with Schedule 2 of the Action Plan)
Edinburgh Planning Guidance – Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing, May 2011
Report to Planning Committee – Development Management Guideline – Tram Developer Contributions, 4 October 2007
Report to City of Edinburgh Council – Edinburgh Tram Project, 30 June 2011
Report to City of Edinburgh Council – Edinburgh Tram Project, 25 August 2011
Economic Resilience Action Plan
Report
Tram Developer Contributions: Application of Policy and Guidance
1. Background
1.1 It was agreed by Committee on 27 November 2003 that the corridors of Tram Lines 1 and 2, as defined by the limits of deviation in the parliamentary plans, be safeguarded from any conflicting development which could prevent the realisation of the Tram project. The report to Committee on this matter also recognised that development along the tram corridor would place demands on the tram system and gain significant benefits from this high quality transport facility.
1.2 The Edinburgh City Local Plan and the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan both reflect this safeguarding position, and include policy provisions regarding developer contributions towards the construction of Lines 1 and 2.
1.3 On 8 September 2004, a guideline on Tram Developer Contributions was approved by Planning Committee. It has been applied by the Council in the determination of planning applications in the vicinity of Lines 1 and 2 since that time. The guidance has been revised on a number of occasions, the most recent being on 19 May 2011 when the planning guidelines were consolidated. However, the revisions have been minor in nature and it has provided a framework for agreeing contributions and ensured a transparent and consistent approach to the negotiation process.
2. Main report
Legislative and Policy Framework
2.1 The Council as Planning Authority is entitled to enter into agreements under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) for the purpose of restricting or regulating the use or development of land. Such agreements can include financial provisions where appropriate.
2.2 The Council has through the policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan and the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan, along with supporting guidance, provided an appropriate policy basis for seeking contributions to the tram system. However, the application of the policies and the guidance needs to be reviewed with regard to the extent of the tram system currently being constructed and the likely prospect of other sections being delivered in due course. Government policy in the form of Circular 3/2012: Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements is of relevance.
2.3 Circular 3/2012 sets out a number of tests to be met by local authorities in using their powers under Section 75 of the Act. The ‘Relationship to proposed development test’ and the ‘Reasonableness test’ are of particular relevance. These tests respectively require there to be a clear relationship between a development and the infrastructure in question, and, that any financial payments will contribute to the cost of providing necessary facilities in connection with the development in the near future. These are the tests that need to be considered in relation to each of the sections of the tram route set out below.
Edinburgh Airport to York Place
2.4 This section of the tram system is currently under construction. There is a clear relationship between new developments located along this section of the route and the tram system. Any financial contributions will be used to help fund the delivery of the tram project. In October 2007, the Council took the decision to borrow against future contributions that are likely to come from new development taking place after the tram has been constructed. The working assumption is that the Council will continue to seek contributions until 2020 although this will be kept under review. Accordingly, it is appropriate to continue to apply the tram policy and related guidance along this section of the route.
2.5 There are a number of sites along this section of the route that have stalled as a result of the difficult economic conditions in recent years. In 2008, the Council prepared an Economic Resilience Action Plan which, amongst other things, deals with the issue of developer contributions in relation to project viability. Planning applications will continue to be considered on their own merits with consideration given to the Economic Resilience Action Plan, where necessary.
Kirkliston to Edinburgh Airport
2.6 Parliamentary approval was obtained to build the tram system in this area, but the Council has not at any time entered into a contract to construct the tram beyond the Airport to Kirkliston. There is little or no prospect of this section of the route being delivered in the near future, and as such, it is not considered appropriate to continue applying the tram policy and related guidance along this section of the route.
2.7 The agreements concluded and contributions already paid in relation to tram will continue to be monitored and managed in accordance with the agreed terms.
Haymarket to Granton Square 2.8 Parliamentary approval was obtained to build the tram system in this area, and the Council had an option to construct the tram along this section built into the original tram construction contract. Unfortunately the Council was unable to activate this option within the required timescale. There is now little or no prospect of this section of the route being delivered in the near future, and as such, it is not considered appropriate to continue applying the tram policy and related guidance along this section of the route.
2.9 The agreements concluded and contributions already paid in relation to tram will continue to be monitored and managed in accordance with the agreed terms.
Granton Square to Newhaven Road
2.10 Parliamentary approval was obtained to build the tram system in this area, but the Council has not at any time entered into a contract to construct the tram from Granton Square to Newhaven Road. There is little or no prospect of this section of the route being delivered in the near future, and as such, it is not considered appropriate to continue applying the tram policy and related guidance along this section of the route.
York Place to Newhaven Road
2.11 The Council entered into a contract to construct this section of the route and a considerable amount of work was undertaken before the decision to curtail the extent of the tram system was taken. While there is no immediate prospect of the tram being continued down Leith Walk and into Leith, this would be of considerable benefit to the city, and it is likely that this would result in considerable additional patronage and revenue. While such a financial case remains to be made, it is clear that this section of the route would be the next priority, if the system were to be extended. Accordingly, it is considered appropriate to continue to apply the tram policy and related guidance along this section of the route, given that there is a reasonable prospect of the infrastructure being delivered in the short to medium term . However, it should be noted that any decision to extend the tram would require the approval of the Council, and the Planning Committee will need to review this position on a regular basis.
Conclusion
2.12 The basis of the policy and guidance is that tram contributions will be sought where the tram will help to address the transport impacts arising from the proposed development. This remains the case. Therefore, it is not considered reasonable to continue to seek tram contributions in relation to the Kirkliston to Airport, Haymarket to Granton Square, and Granton Square to Newhaven Road sections of the tram system, as there is no reasonable prospect of the tram being delivered in the near future. If the Council decides to construct these sections of the route at some future date the policy could be reactivated.
3. Recommendations
3.1 It is recommended that the Committee agrees to continue the application of the tram contributions policy and guidance to development sites connected with the section of the route that is currently being delivered and the proposed section between York Place and Newhaven Road, and to cease their application to other development sites.
Mark Turley
Director, Services for Communities
Links
Coalition pledges P8: Make sure the city’s people are well-housed, including encouraging developers to build residential communities, starting with brownfield sites. P17: Continue efforts to develop the city’s gap sites and encourage regeneration. P18: Complete the tram project in accordance with current plans. Council outcomes CO7: Edinburgh draws new investment in development and regeneration. CO19: Attractive places are well maintained – Edinburgh remains an attractive city through the development of high quality buildings and places and the delivery of high standards and maintenance of infrastructure and public realm. CO22: Moving efficiently – Edinburgh has a transport system that improves connectivity and is green, healthy and accessible. Single Outcome SO1: Edinburgh’s economy delivers increased investment, jobs Agreement and opportunities for all. SO4: Edinburgh’s communities are safer and have improved physical and social fabric. Appendices None *
Planning Committee
10am, Thursday 16 May 2013
Planning and Building Standards Service Plan 2013 - 14
Item number Report number Wards City Wide
L inks Links
Coalition pledges P15, P27, P28, P40 Council outcomes CO7, CO19, CO24, CO25, CO26, CO27 Single Outcome Agreement SO1, SO4
Mark Turley Director – Services for Communities
Contact: Isla Paterson, Business Manager
E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 6123
Executive summary
Planning and Building Standards Service Plan 2013 - 14
S um m a ry Summary
The purpose of the report is to propose a Service Plan for 2013-14 to guide continuous improvement in Planning and Building Standards and to advise Committee of progress in the implementation of the previous Service Improvement Plan and Business Plan for 2012-13.
Recommendations
It is recommended that Committee:
1 notes the progress made in delivery of service improvements in 2012-13; and
2 approve the Planning and Building Standards Service Plan for 2013-14 to guide delivery of improvements under the key output headings of Key Performance Results, Customer Results, Community Results and People Results.
Measures of success
The Service Plan for 2013-14 sets out the actions we aim to deliver for the continuous improvement of our services. Whilst pursuing more effective and efficient systems, the focus is increasingly on outcomes and performance. A key aspect of the Planning and Building Standards Service Plan is to show how we will meet the requirements of the Scottish Government Performance Frameworks for Planning and Building Standards, the Edinburgh Single Outcome Agreement and the Council’s Performance Framework.
Financial impact
There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. The wider financial implications and specific actions can be accommodated within the Planning and Building Standards Service Budgets for 2013-14.
Page 2 of 8
Equalities impact
There is no relationship between the matters described in this report and the public sector general equality duty. A number of projects referred in this report are subject to their own ERIA.
Sustainability impact
This report has no adverse sustainability impacts.
Consultation and engagement
Internal consultation was carried out with Planning and Building Standards staff in preparing the Service Plan for 2013 - 14. In January the monthly team briefing process focused on the Service Plan for 2013-14 and managers were asked to discuss this with teams to get an overview of the main issues that would drive improvements for 2013- 14. A workshop for managers took place at the end of January and through a number of group sessions a “top 10 priorities” was agreed and incorporated into the Service Plan for 2013-14 under the key output headings of Key Performance Results, Customer Results, Community Results and People Results.
External stakeholder information is gathered from ongoing monitoring of feedback, consultation exercises and engagement on specific projects and is incorporated into the proposed Service Plan. This will be discussed and monitored throughout the year using existing representative groups such as the Edinburgh Development Forum and the Edinburgh Civic Forum.
Background reading / external references
There is no further material relating to this report.
Page 3 of 8 R e p o r t Report
Planning & Building Standards Service Plan 2013 - 14
1. Background
1.1 The Scottish Government expects all stakeholders within the Planning system to consider how they can change their ways of working to deliver the key objectives of planning modernisation. It is now a requirement that each of the 34 Scottish Planning authorities produces an annual Planning Performance Framework report which explains progress and sets objectives for further improvement. The key headings in this framework have been used to define Service Plan indicators for the next 12 months.
1.2 As a condition of their re-appointment as sole verifiers of applications for Building Warrants, the 32 Scottish local authorities agreed to adhere to a new nationally derived and implemented performance framework. The purpose of the framework is to drive up quality and customer satisfaction within the Building Standards system operating in Scotland. In embracing the new framework, City of Edinburgh’s Building Standards service has used the reporting structure of the framework as the basis for setting its Service Plan indicators this year.
1.3 The Service Plan for Planning and Building Standards sets out how change in this authority will be delivered in pursuit of a more effective and efficient service.
1.4 The proposed Service Plan 2013-14 links with the Edinburgh Improvement Model themes to demonstrate the Council’s leadership of the change process and includes key indicators by which service improvements will be assessed. The Service Plan 2013-14 can align with the service improvements required from ongoing review of the Single Outcome Agreement and the City of Edinburgh Council Key Edinburgh Outcomes.
Page 4 of 8 2. Main report
2.1 Content - since 2009, as part of its programme of Planning modernisation, the Scottish Government has required planning authorities to produce an annual Service Plan which should reflect the views of stakeholders, elected members and staff. Planning authorities are required to demonstrate a programme for continuous improvement in their service delivery. This should build on past performance, including improvements identified through customer feedback, and incorporate both quantitative and qualitative outputs with the aim of achieving good quality planning outcomes. This is now merged with the parallel requirements for Building Standards. A service improvement plan fulfils the statutory requirements of the duty of Best Value.
2.2 For over ten years, this Council has used its service planning arrangements to set out targets for service improvements. Each year, Planning Committee has reviewed its progress in the previous 12 months and agreed an Operational Plan, and latterly a Service Improvement Plan, for the Planning Service. This has been an effective method of pursuing continuous improvement and the Council’s Planning Service is now one of the top performing in Scotland and an exemplar for innovation in areas such as pre application engagement and project management through processing agreements.
2.3 The Council has implemented the Edinburgh Improvement Model (EIM) as the framework to drive quality and deliver continuous improvement. EIM is an evidence-based self-assessment model that helps services to gauge their performance, identify best practice, areas for improvement and develop effective improvement action plans. The Edinburgh Improvement Model is the local model of the Public Service Improvement Framework (PSIF) which is used across Councils and public services in Scotland.
2.4 In the last two years, the Service Plan has also been used to implement our Edinburgh Improvement Model (EIM) audit results under the themes of Customer Results, People Results, Community Results and Key Performance Results.
Service Plan 2012-13 Outcomes
2.5 The Service Plan 2012-13 took its lead from the Planning and Building Standards One-Page Business Plan which focused on key areas of change at a high level within Development Management and Building Standards, and the main products from Development Planning. The Service Plan articulated these through 36 indicators - 10 for Development Management, two for Development Planning, six for Building Standards, seven for Design Initiative and 11 representing cross-cutting activities. 2012-13 had a two-part structure being the
Page 5 of 8 Business Plan and Service Improvement Plan and the full outcomes are shown in Appendix 2 (Service Improvement Plan) and Appendix 3 (Business Plan).
2.6 A number of key achievements were achieved in 2012-13:
• Enabling sustainable economic development by the delivery of a top performing planning service.
• All performance targets met for householder, non-householder, listed building consent and advert applications.
• All performance targets met for Building Standards, including a very good performance in processing Building Warrant applications.
• Pioneered the use of Processing Agreements for major applications meaning that our target Committee dates meet the 90% target and deliver certainty for the developer.
• Preparing a proposed Local Development Plan for the City of Edinburgh.
• Assisting SESplan with submission of the first Strategic Development Plan to Scottish Ministers.
• Improvement of the customer journey with a joined up approach to customer service by delivery of Phase 1 of the One Door Approach project.
2.7 A more detailed report detailing the Planning Performance Framework outcomes for 2012-13 will be submitted to Planning Committee on 8 August 2013 prior to submission to the Scottish Government.
Proposed Service Plan 2013-14
2.8 The proposed Service Plan builds on the previous year's plan. It takes forward actions arising from preparation to secure Customer Service Excellence, with the next assessment due in November 2013. In preparing the proposed plan, a new integrated format has been adopted to better relate to the Planning Performance Framework and the Building Standards Performance Framework. Customer Feedback was essential to its preparation and customer focus groups and ongoing work progressing Customer Service Excellence also helped to identify areas for improvement. Through workshops and staff briefings, staff across Planning and Building Standards have been involved in service prioritisation and identifying new ways of working and suggestions for improved service delivery. These have been incorporated in the Service Plan.
2.9 The proposed Service Plan for 2013-14 details the initiatives for delivery of improvements under the key output headings of Key Performance Results, Customer Results, Community Results and People Results. The headline initiatives are as follows and the full proposed plan is attached as Appendix 1:
Page 6 of 8 • Key Performance Results – Removal of legacy cases from the system and aiming for a 25% reduction by March 2014 in undetermined cases over 3 years old at April 2013.
• Key Performance Results – Report on representations to the proposed Local Development Plan by December 2013.
• Customer Results – Review of pre application advice service including resources and recording by October 2013 and implement new service by March 2014.
• Customer Results - Deliver an up to date One Door Approach customer charter by October 2013.
• Community Results – Edinburgh Planning Concordat aiming for version two to be completed by October 2013 and launch by December 2013 to embrace Community Councils in a tripartite process.
• Community Results – Develop indicators of environmental quality by preparing a list of measures to inform planning policy and processes by December 2013.
• People Results – Review of the Planning and Building Standards Management Structure and implement new management structure by December 2013.
3. Recommendations
3.1 It is recommended that Committee:
1 notes the progress made in delivery of service improvements in 2012-13; and
2 approve the Planning and Building Standards Service Plan for 2013-14 to guide delivery of improvements under the key output headings of Key Performance Results, Customer Results, Community Results and People Results.
Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities
Page 7 of 8 Links
Coalition pledges P15 - Work with public organisations, the private sector and social enterprise to promote Edinburgh to investors P27 - Seek to work in full partnership with Council staff and their representatives P28 - Further strengthen our links with the business community by developing and implementing strategies to promote and protect the economic well being of the city P40 - Work with Edinburgh World Heritage Trust and other stakeholders to conserve the city's built heritage Council outcomes CO7 - Edinburgh draws new investment in development and regeneration CO19 - Attractive Places and Well Maintained - Edinburgh remains an attractive city through the development of high quality buildings and places and the delivery of high standards and maintenance of infrastructure and public realm CO24 - The Council communicates effectively internally and externally and has an excellent reputation for customer care CO25 - The Council has efficient and effective services that deliver on objectives CO26 - The Council engages with stakeholders and works in partnership to improve services and deliver on agreed objectives CO27 - The Council supports, invest in and develops our people Single Outcome SO1 - Edinburgh's economy delivers increased investment, jobs, Agreement and opportunities for all SO4 - Edinburgh's communities are safer and have improved physical and social fabric Appendices Appendix 1 – Planning and Building Standards Service Plan * 2013 – 14.
Appendix 2 – Planning and Building Standards Service Improvement Plan 2012 – 13.
Appendix 3 – Planning and Building Standards Business Plan 2012 – 13.
Page 8 of 8 Planning & Building Standards Service Plan 2013 / 2014
Contents
Introduction – Page 2
Summary of Key Achievements in 2012 / 2013 – Page 3
Key Performance 2013 / 2014 – Page 4
Customer 2013 / 2014 – Page 6
Community 2013 / 2014 – Page 7
People 2013 / 2014 – Page 8
Introduction
The Planning and Building Standards Service Plan 2013 – 2014 sets out the actions we aim to deliver for the continuous improvement of our services. Whilst pursuing more effective and efficient systems, the focus is increasingly on outcomes and performance. A key aspect of our Service Plan is to show how we will meet the requirements of the Scottish Government Performance Frameworks for Planning and Building Standards, the Edinburgh Single Outcome Agreement and the Council’s Performance Framework.
Planning and Building Standards contributes to all five of the Council’s Strategic Outcome Themes but mostly to ensuring that Edinburgh is an excellent place in which to live, study, work, visit and invest.
The service aligns closely to Strategic Outcome CO19 that Edinburgh remains an attractive city through the development of high quality buildings and places and the delivery of high standards and maintenance of infrastructure and public realm.
The key objectives within this outcome for Planning and Building Standards are:
Protect and enhance the Built and Natural Environment.
Promote high quality and sustainable design and healthy living and working environments.
Deliver a proactive Planning and Place‐Making service.
The service is responsible for fulfilling the Council’s statutory duties as planning authority and verifier of compliance with Scottish Building Standards. The main activities are preparing development plans and strategies, conserving the city’s heritage and processing planning applications and building warrants.
Planning and Building Standards is involved in the enabling of significant amount of development activity. As an example just over £10.6 billion worth of development across the city had either been completed in 2011, was under construction at the year end or was the subject of a current planning consent or application.
Our customers include Residents, Community Groups, Businesses, Visitors, Developers and Agents, Scottish Government key agencies, our partner organisations and other Council services. Customer feedback is sought through a variety of methods including the Edinburgh Residents Survey, Mystery Shopping, Customer Satisfaction Measurement Tools, Planning and Building Standards Survey and ongoing Community Engagement Consultations and Focus Groups.
2 Summary of Key Achievements in 2012 / 2013
Development Management
Enabling sustainable economic development by the delivery of a top performing planning service.
All performance targets met for householder, non‐householder, listed building consent and advert applications.
Pioneered the use of Processing Agreements for major applications meaning that our target Committee dates meet the 80% target and deliver certainty for the developer.
Community Engagement – Close working relationship with Community Councils to improve engagement on planning applications and measure success of this.
Quality on the Ground – Delivery of design guidance to enhance the quality of our environment.
Developer Contributions – Proactive approach to gathering contributions means we have collected £2.8m for public improvements.
External Liaison – Top performance when measured against our benchmarking partners.
The removal of duty to notify Historic Scotland when we intend to grant some listed building consents on Category A listed buildings shows confidence in our decisions on the built heritage and has led to an improvement in our performance.
Development Planning
Assisting SESplan with submission of the first Strategic Development Plan to Scottish Ministers in line with the Development Plan Scheme.
Preparing a proposed Local Development Plan for the City of Edinburgh in line with the Development Plan Scheme.
Consolidating non‐statutory guidance in a more user friendly format.
Completing the 5 year Leith Townscape Heritage Initiative which delivered £3 million of investment.
Reviewing the Edinburgh Colonies to ensure a consistent approach to the protection of the built heritage.
Preparing an Action Plan to enhance the vitality of the Royal Mile.
Building Standards
All performance targets set by Building Standards were achieved in 2012 / 2013, representing a very good performance in processing Building Warrant applications.
Additional services were successfully provided to other Local Authorities earning additional income for Planning and Building Standards.
An effective re‐organisation of the Team Boundaries was undertaken to align with the Services for Communities neighbourhood boundaries and create more efficient management arrangements.
In conjunction with the Scottish Government and other Local Authorities the service contributed to the development of a new National Building Standards Performance Framework. The requirements of the new framework form the basis of the performance targets given in this plan.
Cross Cutting
One Door Approach – Improvement of the customer journey with a joined up approach to customer service. Phase 1 delivered.
Networking – We participate in national working groups such as Heads of Planning Scotland to share and learn. 3 Planning & Building Standards – Service Plan 2013 / 2014
The performance indicators detailed in the tables below are taken from the Performance Framework for Building Standards which is set by the Scottish Government and the Planning Performance Framework, which was jointly prepared by Heads of Planning Scotland and the Scottish Government.
Key Outputs Key Performance Results Customer Results Community Results People Results
Key Performance Results
Key Performance relates to improving the efficiency of the decision making processes for development consents.
* Completed is measured by the first reporting of the proposals to the Development Management Sub‐Committee or by delegated decision.
PERFORMANCE BUILDING PLANNING SERVICE TARGET FRAMEWORK STANDARDS CROSS INDICATOR CUTTING Increased quality The percentage of assessment of Construction and compliance Compliance 95% during the and construction Notification Annual Target of Building process Plans (CCNP) Warrants that must have a CCNP issued with issued with them Building Warrants High Quality Improved quality 80% of approved major Development on of major developments within the year to the Ground developments show added value quality improvements
Financial Submit the Submit Quarterly Governance required financial data (verification costs and revenue) to BSD
4 Efficient and Improved and Decision within 2 months (Link to Effective Decision sustained Added Value Framework) making performance in processing 70% non‐householder planning per quarter applications 70% listed building consent per quarter
Improved and 80% of enforcement notices sustained served within 4 months of performance in receipt of complaint serving enforcement notices
Removal of 25% reduction by March legacy cases from 2014 in undetermined cases the system over 3 years old at April 2013 Development of Submit the Submit the proposed scorecard and adherence to balanced and report on achievement by objectives scorecard on the deadlines imposed by the outlined in an annual basis BSD at the start and close of the balanced for acceptance financial year scorecard by the BSD and thereafter report achievement against the outlined objectives National Headline Age of Report on representations to the Indicators development proposed Local Development plan Plan by December 2013
5 Customer Results
The Customer indicators aim to improve customer satisfaction and to improve our process and outcomes for the various groups of customers.
PERFORMANCE BUILDING PLANNING SERVICE CROSS TARGET FRAMEWORK STANDARDS CUTTING INDICATOR Adherence to Publish the Review Quarterly service Customer commitments of Charter on the a National Council website Customer Charter Increased Time taken to 80% within 15 days Commitment to issue a first 90% within 20 days meeting report for a 97% within 35 days customer Building expectations Warrant (Excluding those with Customer application Agreements) Open for Business Review of pre‐ Review current pre application application service by October 2013 and advice service implement new service by including March 2014 resources and recording Certainty Major Provide a guidance publication applications on the major development service service in Edinburgh by March 2014 Customer Service Deliver an up‐to‐ Completion of One Door date One Door Approach charter by October Approach 2013. customer charter Communication Joint working Implement joint working and Engagement with Building agreements by October 2013. Standards, Economic Development and Corporate Property to ensure linkage of development consents Communications, Demonstrate Report on outcomes by Engagement and how customer September 2013 Customer Service feedback on engagement is used to improve policy and processes Communications, Raise awareness Identify opportunities to involve Engagement and of Planning young people in major projects Customer Service among young by March 2014 people
Communications, Extend the use of Implement two‐way Twitter by Engagement and Social Media as a September 2013 Customer Service communication tool
6 Community Results
The Community indicators relate to improving our community engagement and working towards the Scottish Government Performance Outcome for Planning and Building Standards.
PERFORMANCE BUILDING PLANNING SERVICE TARGET FRAMEWORK STANDARDS CROSS INDICATOR CUTTING High Quality Development of Implement an ‘Added Value Development on the ‘Added Value’ Assessment Framework’ by Ground framework to December 2013 improve quality of planning applications
Communication and Edinburgh Complete version 2 by October Engagement Planning 2013 and launch by December Concordat 2013 to embrace Community Councils in a tripartite process.
Improved Attend Attend all meetings of the partnership working meetings of National Forum. Record underpinned by the National implementation of actions engagement with a Forum and arising. National Forum implement the assigned actions
High Quality Develop Prepare a list of measures to Development on the indicators of inform planning policy and Ground environmental processes by December 2013 quality
High Quality Maintain and Finalise Town Centre guidance Development on the enhance the pilots by December 2013 Ground vitality and viability of Publish 2nd batch in draft by Shopping Centres March 2014 High Quality Improve the Finalise Royal Mile Action Plan Development on the environment of by September 2013 Ground the Royal Mile
High Quality Improve the Contribute to City Centre Vision Development on the environment of initiatives by March 2014 Ground the City Centre
Efficient and Effective Exploit Analyse and disseminate output Decision Making information from by March 2014 the 2011 Census
7 People Results
Planning and Building Standards staff is committed to continuous learning as part of the Council’s Investors in People accreditation. The aim of the people indicators is to address staff issues, highlight our commitment to staff development, training, change management and staff engagement.
PERFORMANCE BUILDING PLANNING SERVICE TARGET FRAMEWORK STANDARDS CROSS INDICATOR CUTTING Effective Review of Review and implement new Management Planning and management structure by Structures Building December 2013. Standards Management Structure Continuous Improved 5 hours IT training per staff Improvement staff training member
31 hours additional training
Continuous Engage staff Action Plan to be approved by Improvement in progressing end of June 2013 organisational improvements Implement Staff Engagement Action Plan by March 2014
8
Planning and Building Standards Service Improvement Plan
2012-13 (end of year)
Generated on: 07 May 2013
Priority Status
1 Key Performance 2012-13
Q1 2012/13 Q2 2012/13 Q3 2012/13 Q4 2012/13 Current 2012/13 Latest Note & improvement AIM INDICATOR Status Target actions Value Value Value Value Value Quarter 1 - 13 applications exclude 2 where legal agreements skewed the figures. 8/11 (72.7%) met date for processing planning applications or 4 months date.
Quarter 2 - 9 applications exclude 2 where legal agreements skewed the figures. 6/7 (85.7%) met date for processing planning applications or 4 month date.
Improve the timescales % of major applications Quarter 3 - 4 applications for processing Planning 72.7% 85.7% 100% 75% 80% 83.4% completed excluded where legal agreements Applications skewed the figures. Amended based on Committee date (100%).
Quarter 4 - 4 applications, 3 met target dates (75%).
% of major applications completed. Performance was based on Committee dates and this represents a high performance in dealing with complex cases - Overall for year
1 Q1 2012/13 Q2 2012/13 Q3 2012/13 Q4 2012/13 Current 2012/13 Latest Note & improvement AIM INDICATOR Status Target actions Value Value Value Value Value 83.4% The target was far exceeded. The removal of duty to notify Historic Improve the timescales % of Listed Building Consent Scotland on some listed building for processing listed applications determined 75.8% 89.8% 83.9% 83.1% 65% 83.2% consent on A listed buildings has Building Consents within 2 months improved efficiency without any impact on quality. Achieve targets for Building Warrant Target met - Marginal processing Building Applications - % first report 87.9% 78% 85% 87.26% 80% 84.54% improvement was achieved over
Warrant applications issued in 15 days last years performance. Building Warrant Achieve targets for Applications - % issued in processing Building 95% 97% 99% 93.97% 80% 96.24% Target significantly exceeded. 10 days after receiving final Warrant applications revised plans Achieve targets for % completion certificate processing completion submissions responded to in 98.6% 91% 94% 91.06% 90% 93.67% Target met certificate submissions 5 days Achieve targets for % notice of acceptance of processing completion completion certificate issued 88.9% 99% 94% 95.32% 80% 94.31% Target met certificate submissions in 5 days Achieve targets for % property inspection processing Property 89.2% 92% 93% 94.2% 90% 92.1% Target met carried out within 10 days Inspection Applications The target was exceeded. % enforcement cases where Enforcement enquiries are dealt Improve processing of statutory action taken notice 100% 92.9% 100% 84.6% 80% 94.4% with quickly and effectively to Enforcement Queries served within 4 months of show public confidence in the receipt of complaint system. Improve timescale for % street numbering Overall figure for the year was processing street applications processed 85% 89% 92.5% 100% 92% 91.6% 91.6 which was just under target. numbering applications within 8 weeks
AIM TARGET Status Latest Note Regularly assess local review bodies and appeals - Training for officers and elected members was carried out over Monitor Planning Appeals Prepare a quarterly action report for Local Review the last year. Level of decisions at Local Review Body being
Bodies and Appeals and an annual action plan by the upheld over the year is 50% compared to 68% at appeal.
2 AIM TARGET Status Latest Note end of the 4th quarter with remedial actions from lessons learned. Quarterly reviews have been carried out for the first 3 quarters. The 4th quarter review and action plan has been delayed but is in progress.
Priority Status
2 Customer 2012-13
AIM TARGET Status Latest Note (a) The figures for 2011 - 12 show that 5 authorities in Scotland had more than 2,000 planning applications. At 78.3% of all applications processed under 2 months, Edinburgh was the top (a) Achieve top quartile ranking of best performing C1: Benchmarking: Widen the Scope of our performer followed by Glasgow at 74.7%. Figures for 2012 - 13 Scottish Local Authorities receiving 2000 benchmarking indicators in line with the have not yet been released. applications/year or more, or (b) Achieve ranking Planning Performance Assessment within top 50% of four cities benchmarking for Framework. (b) A benchmarking meeting took place in November 2012 with comparison of performance and best practice. Dundee, Aberdeen and Glasgow. Edinburgh has achieved top ranking in all categories in 2011 - 12 and the first 2 quarters of 2012 - 13. A meeting of the Business Process Review group was held on 7 (1) Review registration process by June 2012 (2) March 2013. A number of actions were proposed such as Formulate new process by August 2012 (3) C2: Process Efficiency: Streamline planning neighbour notification printing being done as part of the Implement new process by September 2012 to ensure application registration process validation process and this needs to be further developed for 90% of valid online applications are acknowledged implementation. The project will continue with a project plan within 4 working days. being prepared and implemented as part of the new Service Plan. C3: Process Efficiency: Increase percentage (1) Percentage of all applications received 55% of all planning applications and 24.5% of building standards of on-line Planning and Building Standards electronically - 50% (Planning) 12% (Building applications were submitted online over the last year. Target
applications Standards) exceeded. Web pages for One Door Approach project live and revisions and C3: Process Efficiency: Increase percentage (2) Implementation of e-planning and building improvements being considered jointly with Building Standards as of on-line Planning and Building Standards standards service improvements focusing on the a result of user feedback. Upgrading to meet Pendleton applications website. requirements ongoing. Target partially met. In Progress - Project has been affected by slippage of the system C4: GIS improvements - improve GIS Develop, and implement MyProp/In My Area public upgrade stage. This is caused by an external dependency on work
property based information. tool. Complete by end Dec 2012. by a commercial software supplier - Target date has been revised to 30 June 2013. C4: GIS improvements - Enable existing GIS Develop and implement Web Map Services by end Dec Completed in December 2012. Map Systems (ESRI and Smallworld) to work 2012
3 AIM TARGET Status Latest Note together C5: Develop web activities - Optimisation of Work temporarily suspended. Web resources have been smart phone usage for accessing planning Complete pilot by end Dec 2012 centralised within Services for Communities and tasks reallocated. information. Mystery Shopping and Customer Satisfaction Management Tool Questionnaires were completed in March 2013 and results to be C6: Implement Customer Service Action plan analysed and sent out to the Customer Service Excellence Project arising from Customer Service Excellence Implement Action Plan by end March 2013 Group. Customer Service Excellence Project Group still meeting Standard Assessment for Planning and on a monthly basis and now working in the Customer Service Building Standards Excellence Action Plan and ensuring sufficient evidence is in place for next inspection in November 2013.
Priority Status
3 People 2012-13
AIM TARGET Status Latest Note An audit of skills was carried out in parallel with the PRD P1: Develop skilled and flexible workforce Conduct skills audit by end June and analyse results appraisals in Spring 2012 and all the results used by teams but
through the PRD process by end September not analysed at service level. However staff moves were implemented to develop and use appropriate skills. For Planning and Building Standards 68% of staff completed the P2: Develop staff - Through training and 5 days per staff member per year target level of training required (5 days per staff member per development activities year). Induction training programme held May - August for Committee members and new ward members. Nine Committee training events held between October 2012 and March 2013. 1 - Design Quality (24/10/12) 2 - Historic Environment (07/11/12) 3 - Local Development Plan (08/11/12) Deliver an induction programme on Planning issues 4 - Homes for Scotland (21/11/12) for Planning Committee and new elected members P3: Member Training 5 - SNH (05/12/12) and establish a programme of ongoing committee 6 - Design Guidance (24/01/13) training by end June 2012 7 - Affordable Housing (20/02/13) 8 - Chamber of Commerce (06/03/13) 9 - Materials (20/03/13)
In addition to the members training there have also been 2 full day tours relating to Planning Committee.
4 AIM TARGET Status Latest Note 1 - West and South East - 16/08/12 2 - City Centre and Waterfront - 06/09/12 Phase 1 of the One Door Approach was delivered in November Identify key areas for action (by June) 2012 with the new web pages, key contact resource and training P4: Change Management Implement required changes by end March 2013 for staff. The target was achieved and Phase 2 is progressing in the new Service Plan. P5: Staff Engagement Implementation of the In Progress. Draft action plan complete and to be approved by Implement required changes by end of March 2013 staff Action Plan Managers. Actions to be taken forward during 2013 - 14.
Priority Status
4 Community 2012-13
AIM TARGET Status Latest Note Co1: Standards for communication – Implement toolkit by end June and monitor use and On Target. Toolkit completed and being tested through recent Developing a mechanism - Assess use and test results by end March 2013. consultation processes. effectiveness of communication toolkit Co2: Performance Outcomes Develop an On Target - Indicators approved by Committee in June 2012. approach to Quality Indicators that will feed Agree and test Design and Environmental Indicators Public assessments completed. Results of Edinburgh household
into the Scottish Government Planning by June. Assessment by end March 2013 survey included. Will be incorporated into Planning Performance Performance Assessment Framework Framework. In Progress - Work has continued on a number of buildings on the Buildings at Risk Register to bring them back into permanent use. Co3: Heritage: Maintain the condition of the Notable progress has been made with Lauriston Place Church Be the best performing LA in Scotland. city’s heritage asset. which has been neglected for many years. An annual review including benchmarking with other Local Authorities will be published as a Planning Information Bulletin in May. In Progress - A review at the start of the year identified a number of buildings for inclusion on the register. Some have subsequently been removed by positive Council action. Over the course of the Co3: Heritage: Number of buildings for which Percentage of A listed buildings “at risk” in the year a number of other buildings have been removed and the risk the risk level is reduced. Buildings at Risk Register level has been reduced for several others. A detailed report will be set out in the annual review to be published as a Planning Information Bulletin in May.
5 Planning and Building Standards Business Plan 2012-13
Generated on: 25 April 2013
AIM Status
1 Development Management
Status Action Assigned To Due Date Status Latest Note Icon Target is 80% of major applications completed in any extended time period specified in a Planning Processing Agreement, or the statutory 4 months, whichever is the later. "Completed" is measured by the first reporting of the proposals to the Development Management Sub Committee or by delegated decision. This target was raised from 75% in the previous year. 30 major applications were determined within the year and 19 of them had a Processing Agreement (PPA). 16 of these met the target Progress major applications and proposals for 4 strategic growth Stephen 30-Apr-2013 completion date. areas – ongoing Hajducki In total, of the 30 applications processed 22 (69.7%) were completed within the prescribed period, which fails to meet 80% target set for the year, and would also have failed the previous years lower target. The figures have been skewed by legal agreements being signed on historic cases. If the historic applications were discounted, then performance would have risen to 85% comfortably above target. Nancy Protocols are now in place for dealing with planning applications Develop good practice with Scottish Government for development in Jamieson; 30-Apr-2013 and draft supplementary guidance for the Bio Quarter is due to the Enterprise Areas. David Leslie Planning Committee in May 2013. Audit carried out at the beginning of March 2013. 1 minor non Maintain Quality Assurance accreditation ISO90001 for the Planning Isobel 30-Apr-2013 conformity regarding Management Review. Next Inspection booked Process Kenmure in for September 2013. The One Door Approach has bedded in and further training is being Nancy carried out in all service areas. All help desk planners were trained Develop a One door approach to Development Consents and Consult Jamieson; 30-Apr-2013 in February 2013 and work is currently ongoing to survey key with service users contacts, improve communication and develop a One Door David Leslie Approach Charter. meetings have been held with the Business Gateway and improved links are being investigated. Detailed procedures for joint working now being developed. Meeting Implement joint working arrangements for Development Monitoring Derek 30-Apr-2013 with Acting Development Management Manager to agree by Planning and Building Standards officers. Henderson implementation programme scheduled for April 2013. Legal agreements are proactively monitored and over the last year £2.8m was accrued for infrastructure improvements. In addition, 1581 affordable new homes are under construction this year as a result of joint working between Council Services. Continue to develop a proactive approach towards planning Derek 30-Apr-2013 obligations. Henderson The proposed Local Development Plan is now approved and published for representations. it is intended to ask Committee to revise the Tram Developer Contributions Policy in May and then in August to revise the Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing Guideline.
1 Status Action Assigned To Due Date Status Latest Note Icon Nancy A fee rise of 20% came in on 6 April 2013. No restructuring of fees Assess the implications of a new planning fees structure for service Jamieson; 30-Apr-2013 has taken place and the Scottish Government is in the process of resources. David Leslie taking this forward. Permitted Development Rights for Householder Development changed in February 2012. The Government hoped to reduce the amount of householder development applications by around 20% - 25%. In Edinburgh, there has been a drop of around 0.5% Assess the outcomes of legislative change for householder permitted Nancy 30-Apr-2013 comparing the figures with last year. This is largely because the development rights. Jamieson initial proposals were amended as a result of consultation and the requirements are still quite onerous. In addition, Edinburgh has a large amount of conservation areas where the Permitted Development rights do not apply. Bulletins have been produced every 3 months since a review of their frequency in October 2012. Feedback through the Planning and Building Standards Leadership Team and management is Monitoring and Evaluation: (1) Prepare bulletin of major Stephen 30-Apr-2013 generally that the bulletin is well received, and provides a useful development proposals at two monthly intervals. Hajducki snapshot of current major developments within the city. The format and content has been adjusted over time to reflect comments of users. Monitoring and Evaluation: (2) Development Activity bulletin – Graeme 31-May- Completed. The development activity bulletin was published in publish by May Gainey 2012 August 2012. The value of development in 2011 was 10.6 bn.
AIM Status
2 Development Planning
Status Action Assigned To Due Date Status Latest Note Icon Completed. The Strategic Development Plan examination is concluded and the report has been submitted to Scottish Ministers. Statutory Development Plan: (1) Strategic Development Plan The target for a decision is mid August. The report proposes that provide CEC planning input to Strategic Development Plan, to Ken Tippen 30-Apr-2013 SESplan prepares supplementary guidance on strategic housing project plan agreed by SESplan Project Board. land allocations. Local Development Plans would need to conform to this new guidance. Completed. The Local Development Plan was approved by Planning Committee on 19 March 2013. The programme for producing the proposed Local Development Plan and its set of supporting documents was brought forward significantly due to concerns Statutory Development Plan: (2) Local Development Plan Publish Ken Tippen 30-Apr-2013 emerging from the Strategic Development Plan examination. The Proposed LDP, Action Programme & Enviromental Report. period for representations will run during May / June 2013. The plan may subsequently have to be modified to conform to supplementary guidance and / or changes made by Ministers in approving the Strategic Development Plan. Completed. The monitoring report was approved by Planning City Centre: (1) Publish World Heritage Site Monitoring Report by Will Garrett 31-Mar-2013 October. Committee in December 2012. Completed. Enforcement activity is underway in up to 5 shopfronts City Centre: (2) Retail Strategy – progress next stages by March Will Garrett 30-Apr-2013 in the first New Town. Decisions are to be made on enforcement in 2013: Class 3 uses review; shopfront illumination review the Old Town. No action is required to pursue on lighting / illumination. Assessments are being done on class 3 uses.
2 Status Action Assigned To Due Date Status Latest Note Icon On Target. Progress was reported to Planning Committee in February 2013. New action plan approved. Waterfront: Progress around Leith has stalled pending 21st century Port's submission of revised masterplan. Limited progress on Great City Street due to Area Development Frameworks: (1) Progress key outcomes from Will Garrett 30-Apr-2013 other priorities. Southern Arc: Internal discussions are ongoing. Waterfront and Southern Arc by end March 2013. Haymarket - meeting with partners took place - Haymarket Urban Space report to be reviewed. Tollcross / Lothian Road - draft proposals being developed. Chambers Street - Planning permission now in place. Completed. The draft Action Plan was approved by Planning Committee in February 2013. The programme was revised to allow Area Development Frameworks: (2) Royal Mile Plan – Publish draft Will Garrett 30-Apr-2013 for input from members elected in May 2012. Consultation will be Plan by Sept and final by December. concluded by mid May and the finalised Plan will be reported to Planning Committee in August. In Progress. The programme was revised and the consultation document was approved by Planning Committee in December 2012. Area Development Frameworks: (3) Review Craigmillar Urban The consultation is now completed. Responses are being analysed Design framework by July Will Garrett 30-Apr-2013 and a draft Craigmillar Urban Design Framework will be presented to the Neighbourhood Partnership meeting in May and the final version to Planning Committee in August. Completed. The Planning Committee approved the appraisal for consultation in June 2012 and the review was concluded in Heritage: (1) Review of Colonies - Complete review by end June. Will Garrett 31-Mar-2013 February 2013. Eight new conservation areas were designated in March 2013. Heritage: South Side THI Stage 2 submission by end March 2013 Not Applicable - The Council was unsuccessful in its first round (subject to approval) Will Garrett 31-Mar-2013 submission to the Heritage Lottery Fund. In Progress - This work is being led by Transport to a revised Guidance: (1)Design Guidance for Streets – complete Part 1 by end programme. The draft of part 1 now completed. Work progressing April and full document by end March 2013. Will Garrett 30-Apr-2013 on part 2. The revised target is to report to Committees in Autumn 2013. On Target - The strategy was approved in June 2012. Many actions underway and progressing. Work on lighting design plan started with Historic Scotland and Edinburgh World Heritage. Historical Guidance: (2) Lighting strategy – Complete and progress actions (to Will Garrett 30-Apr-2013 lighting inventory progressing well. Reduced levels of lighting being be identified by end May 2012) promoted where appropriate as well as energy reduction measures in new / replacement lighting schemes. Planning is working with applicants to deliver improved lighting schemes. On Target - The parking tariff map is planned to go live on 1 April 2013. Online map use generally is increasing. New maps have been created for Development Management areas and the Proposed Edinburgh Local Development Plan. ArcGIS online / interactive web Optimise, integrate and extend web-based access to spatial/map Ken Tippen 30-Apr-2013 mapping is also increasing. In addition to the presentation seats information internally and externally. pilot, the 2013 shop survey pilot has been completed and work is underway on two park projects. The Government's Open Data initiative has also made much of the Council's spatial data publicly available.
AIM Status
3 Building Standards
3 Status Action Assigned To Due Date Status Latest Note Icon During the 4th quarter, 17 major applications were received. These are presently receiving attention within the performance targets. Progress major applications and proposals for 4 strategic growth George (15 applications lie within the £1m - £10m range with 2 above areas – ongoing Findlay 30-Apr-2013 £10m) Overall this financial year, 62 major applications were received. (58 in the £1m - £10m range and 4 above £10m 4th Quarter - Registered status is being maintained following a Maintain SGS registration for Building Standards George 30-Apr-2013 successful audit of the service by SGS in March 2013. Ongoing Findlay quality checks (5%) are also on target. The latest forms are now in the live environment of Building Ensure that all statutory Building Standards application forms are Muir Standards on-line. They are also available for download as PDF files updated on the Planning and Building Standards Portal Somerville 30-Apr-2013 from the Council website. Hard copies of these forms are also available from the public counter area, Waverley Court. A new Construction Compliance and Notification Plan (CCNP) is now being issued with every Building Warrant as part of the new national Performance framework initiative. A new standard letter In conjunction with SABSM and BSD assist with the introduction of has also been developed to inform applicants of the importance of some of the improvements to the service outlined in the SABSM Muir 30-Apr-2013 the CCNP in relation to compliance of their works. This is now also document ”The Case for the Appointment of Local Authority Somerville being issued along with CCNP with every warrant granted. A Verifiers” date May 2011 national Customer Charter has also been launched incorporating City of Edinburgh's local charter. This has been published on the Council website. The current maximum value of work accepted by the system is £70,000. There were no plans to increase this value during the Review the maximum value of work currently accepted by Planning fourth quarter due to the introduction of Key Performance and Building Standards Portal in relation to Building Warrant Muir 30-Apr-2013 Outcomes and Reasonable Inquiry protocols. During the 4th quarter applications. Somerville the percentage of all applications received electronically was 27.2%, bringing the yearly average to 24.5%. The target of achieving 12% has therfore been exceeded.
AIM Status
4 Design Initiative
Status Action Assigned To Due Date Status Latest Note Icon
Provide corporate design, place-making and whole place advice and Riccardo 30-Apr-2013 Ongoing Input - Fountain Quay master planning about to develop place making and whole place projects – ongoing. Marini recommence, cultural charette output generating interest.
Edinburgh Placemaking Guidance – draft by June and Final by end Riccardo 30-Apr-2013 Place Making guidance being submitted into the LDP - Complete March 2013. Marini
Riccardo Ongoing input to St Crispin special needs school, Boroughmuir High Provide place-making and whole place input to educational facilities 30-Apr-2013 School and Portobello High School major projects being delivered - Marini Been asked to look at youth care facilities.
Work with Housing Investment and RSLs to improve development Riccardo 30-Apr-2013 Advising on the 21c homes project. Tricia Brocklebank now looking quality - ongoing Marini after City Centre so need to confirm current status with this. Awaiting Historic Scotland's comments on legal document. Awaiting Riccardo 3D Urban Model - Finalise partnership arrangements by June 30-Apr-2013 Historic Scotland response as there has been a change in personnel Marini so RM to follow up.
4 Status Action Assigned To Due Date Status Latest Note Icon Historic Scotland arranging dates. Once we have them we can Riccardo continue the organisation of the launch event. Progressing with City Develop business plan for running model by June Launch event tbc Marini 30-Apr-2013 of Edinburgh Council component outcome tied to Historic Scotland response.
Riccardo Completed Scope and review cost recovery mechanism Marini 31-Mar-2013
5 Planning Committee
10am, Thursday, 16 May 2013
SESplan 2013/14 Operating Budget
Item number Report number Wards All
L inks Links
Coalition pledges P30
Council outcomes CO25 Single Outcome Agreement SO1
Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities
Contact: Keith Miller
E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 3665
Executive summary
SESplan 2013/14 Operating Budget
S um m a ry Summary
The purpose of this report is to invite the Committee to ratify SESplan’s 2013/14 operating budget and approve the payment of £49,000 as this Council’s contribution.
The cost of running SESplan is shared equally between the six SESplan councils. The operating cost for financial year 2013/14 is £340,100 which includes a 10% contingency. By offsetting a 2012/13 underspend, this equates to £49,000 per authority for the financial year 2013/14.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the Committee
1. ratifies the SESplan 2013/14 operating budget, as set out in Appendix 1; and
2. notes the payment of £49,000 as this Council’s contribution for the financial year 2013/14.
Measures of success
This report sets out an operational budget for SESplan for the financial year 2013/14. Success at meeting the budget will be assessed by the SESplan Joint Committee at the next review.
Financial impact
The Council is required to make a contribution of £49,000 towards SESplan operating costs. The sum has been paid from the approved revenue budget for 2013/14, to Fife Council, the authority responsible for administering SESplan’s budget.
Page 2 of 6
Equalities impact
An Equality and Rights Impact Assessment was undertaken by SESplan in the preparation of its Strategic Development Plan. There are no equalities impacts associated with the ratification of the SESplan budget for 2013/14.
Sustainability impact
The impacts of this report in relation to the three elements of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 Public Bodies Duties have been considered, and the outcomes are summarised below. Relevant Council sustainable development policies have been taken into account.
• The proposals in this report will have no direct impact on carbon emissions as they relate to the ratification of the SESplan budget.
• The need to build resilience to climate change impacts is not relevant to the proposals in this report because it relates to the ratification of the SESplan budget.
• Social justice, economic wellbeing, and environmental good stewardship are not considered to impact on the proposals in this report because it relates to the ratification of the SESplan budget.
Consultation and engagement
There is no requirement to consult on the annual SESplan budget.
Background reading / external references
Report to Planning Committee, 14 June 2012, item 2: SESplan Governance Review and 2012/13 Operating Budget.
Minutes of meeting of SESplan Joint Committee, 11 March 2013, item 8: Finance
Page 3 of 6
Report
SESplan 2013/14 Operating Budget
1. Background
1.1 SESplan is the Strategic Development Planning Authority for Edinburgh and south east Scotland. It comprises six councils: City of Edinburgh, East Lothian, Fife, Midlothian, Scottish Borders and West Lothian. SESplan operates through a Joint Committee made up of two members from each constituent council and is responsible for preparing a Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for the capital city region. It is funded jointly by the six councils on an equal basis.
2. Main report
2.1 The SESplan Six Month Provisional Out turn for 2012/13 was noted and the operating budget for financial year 2013/14 was approved by the SESplan Joint Committee on 11 March 2013 subject to ratification by the six member councils. The SESplan report and the operating budget are appended to this report (Appendix 1).
2.2 It is estimated that SESplan’s fixed costs – mainly salaries, accommodation and consumables – will be £263,100 for the financial year 2013/14. SESplan has made efforts to reduce its accommodation costs, and the relocation of the team to Claremont House is expected to continue to offer savings. The fixed costs are not expected to rise materially and are estimated to be constant for the foreseeable future.
2.3 Variable costs, specifically technical support, are estimated to be £70,000. These costs are partly associated with the examination of Strategic Development Plan 1 and research work associated with Strategic Development Plan 2. The examination started on 22 October 2012 and therefore is partly met by the 2012/13 operating budget. A 10% contingency has been built into the figure of £77,000. The estimated total costs for the financial year 2012/13 are therefore £340,100, or £56,685 per member authority.
2.4 However, a carried forward 2012/13 underspend of £42,034, supplemented by modest returns from the sale of documents and interest on revenue balances, totals £43,034. This has been used to reduce individual member council 2013/14 contributions to £49,000.
Page 4 of 6
2.5 The total SESplan cost for 2013/14 has risen by £25,300 to £340,100. However, it is still below the SESplan budget agreed by the authorities in 2008 of £360,000. The Individual council contributions have not changed despite the lower amount of underspend carried forward from the previous year. The reducing underspend is likely to continue as the Government’s SDP start-up grant has come to an end. Variable costs, however, are subject to cyclical trends, such as the examination stage. These factors have been taken into account when budget planning and member authority funding is expected to remain constant at £49,000 per authority for the next five years. However, it will be subject to annual review and agreement.
2.6 The Council's approved budget for 2013/14 makes provision for the contribution to SESplan and the payment has already been made to Fife Council, the authority responsible for administering the SESplan budget, by the deadline of 30 April 2013.
3. Recommendations
3.1 It is recommended that the Committee
1. ratifies the SESplan 2013/14 operating budget, as set out in Appendix 1; and
2. notes the payment of £49,000 as this Council’s contribution for the financial year 2013/14.
Mark Turley Director of Services for Communities
Links
Coalition pledges P30. Continue to Maintain a sound financial position including long term financial planning.
Council outcomes CO25. The Council has efficient and effective services that deliver on objectives. Single Outcome SO1. Edinburgh’s economy delivers increased investment, jobs Agreement and opportunities for all. Appendices Appendix 1: Report to SESplan Joint Committee 11 March 2013 *
Page 5 of 6
SESPLAN JOINT COMMITTEE 11 MARCH 2013
For Decision
For Information
ITEM 8 – FINANCE Report by: Ian Angus, SDP Manager
Purpose This Report presents the following items for SESplan Joint Committee consideration;
. 2012 / 2013 Six Month Provisional Out Turn; and . 2013 / 2014 Operating Budget.
Recommendations It is recommended that the SESplan Joint Committee;
1. Notes the 2012 / 2013 Six Month Provisional Out Turn as set out in Appendix A; 2. Notes the 2013 / 2014 Operating Budget as set out in Appendix A; 3. Agrees that member contributions for financial year 2013 / 2014 will be set at £49,000 (excluding VAT) per authority, payable to Fife Council by the 30 April 2013; and 4. Notes that member authorities will be required to ratify the 2012 / 2013 Six Month Provisional Out turn and 2013 / 2014 Operating Budget and to make their required contributions by the due date.
Resource Implications As set out below and in Appendix A.
1
Legal and Risk Implications There are risks to the process if sufficient funding is not available to progress the Strategic Development Plan at a rate which provides up to date strategic planning policy context for the timeous progression of the member authorities’ Local Development Plans, as is required by the relevant legislation.
There is also a risk associated with budgeting for the costs of the formal Examination into representations made on the Strategic Development Plan. Although a reasonable estimate has been included in the Budget, the exact cost cannot be ascertained until the extent of the Examination process is known. The Examination formally commenced on the 22 October 2012. No further details as to whether hearing sessions will be held are known at the present time.
Policy and Impact Assessment No separate impact assessment is required.
1. Background 1.1 The Strategic Development Plan Authority Constitution requires that the spend against agreed Budgets are regularly reported to the SESplan Joint Committee and that Budgets for future years are presented for discussion and approval by the Committee, before ratification by the member authorities.
1.2 This Report presents the six month provisional out turn for 2012 / 2013 as required by the SESplan Constitution, highlighting any savings that have been made against the Current Annual Estimate Budget. This Report also presents the draft SESplan Operating Budget for the financial year 2013 / 2014 highlighting the expected costs of the process for the following year, opportunities for savings against previous budget estimates and outlining the level of member authority contributions.
2
2. Financial Review
Six Month Provisional Out Turn for 2012 / 2013
2.1 Appendix A presents the six month provisional out turn position for financial year 2012 / 2013. As detailed in Appendix A the six month position estimates that around £42,000 will be carried forward to financial year 2013 / 2014. The approved Budget for 2012 / 2013 (approved at Joint Committee on the 5 December 2011) predicted that there would be no carry forward to 2013 / 2014. The reason for these savings is efficiencies that have been brought in around accommodation, the management of the Proposed Plan process and a reduction in staffing costs.
Operating Budget 2013 / 2014
2.2 As is required under the SESplan Constitution and as detailed in Appendix A, a proposed Budget has been prepared for financial year 2013 / 2014.
Fixed Costs
2.3 For the 2013 / 2014 Operating Budget the fixed costs estimate is £263,100. The key elements of this are accommodation and staff.
2.4 Efforts have been made to reduce the accommodation costs in the current financial year and an agreement has been reached with SEStran on a fixed recharge of £48,000 per annum for the next three years. This is a saving of around £13,500 on 2011 / 2012. The relocation of the Core Team to Claremont House is expected to continue to offer savings.
2.5 Around 78% of the fixed costs relate to staff costs associated with the Core Team. The Core Team in 2013 / 2014 would consist of the SDP Manager, Lead Officer (reduced hours), Planner and Temporary Planner (temporary contract until March 2014).
3
2.6 The staffing levels are proportionate to those employed in other Strategic Development Plan Authorities in Scotland taking into consideration the scale of those partnerships, the planning issues arising and the areas involved.
2.7 Looking to the future, the fixed costs are not expected to rise and are estimated to be constant for the foreseeable future. Operating at the current level of staffing still represents a significant challenge due to the expected workload, particularly around the Examination on Strategic Development Plan 1, but also as work commences on the background evidence gathering on Strategic Development Plan 2. However through successful partnership working with the member authorities and key agencies that continues to be developed in the SESplan area it is envisaged that the current complement of staff will accommodate the challenging work programme.
Variable Costs
2.8 Variable costs in 2013 / 2014 will be associated partly with the Examination into Strategic Development Plan 1 and partly with any research work required to support Strategic Development Plan 2. Such research will include work on housing for example Housing Need and Demand Assessment.
2.9 The Examination commenced on the 22 October 2012 and will therefore be partly met by the 2012 / 2013 Operating Budget. Inevitably substantial costs must be set against the Examination as it is an essential part of the Strategic Development Plan process. The cost of the Examination is required to be shared between SESplan and the Scottish Government on a 50:50 share.
2.10 The full cost for the Examination is unknown but SESplan has received invoices relating to the set up of the Examination including advertising. The cost incurred to date is around £15,000.00. However a level of contingency has been added to ensure robustness based on the experiences of Local Authorities in Local Plan Examinations and costs incurred by other Strategic Development Plan Authorities. It is also unknown whether a Hearing will take place at this time, which could incur considerable cost.
4
Member Contributions
2.11 In 2008, the member authorities agreed a SESplan Budget of £360,000 (£60,000 per authority). At the outset and due to staffing levels at that time and the government start up funding, the actual Budget for 2008 / 2009 only required a contribution of £17,000 per authority. This contribution increased to £40,000 per annum per authority over the period 2009 – 2012, due to the Core Team having a full complement of staff and the costs of undertaking the first substantive stages of the Strategic Development Plan process in the form of the Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan. This compares to £60,000 per authority in TAYplan.
2.12 The one off government grant and previous carry forwards have been spent over the last few years and are coming to an end at the point when costs on the Strategic Development Plan are at its greatest. Due to this combination of Budget pressures a modest increase in member authority contributions to £49,000 per authority in financial year 2012 / 2013 was agreed by SESplan Joint Committee at its meeting on the 5 December 2011.
2.13 Each member authority is liable for one sixth of the annual Operating Budget. Appendix A highlights that the overall 2013 / 2014 Operating Budget is estimated at £340,100, equating to £56,685 per member. However to provide certainty to member authorities and to the SESplan Budget, cyclical changes to the variable costs such as the Examination process and the commencement of activity on Strategic Development Plan 2, have been built into the agreed contributions of £49,000 per annum.
2.14 However, this will require to be reviewed on an annual basis through financial reporting and budget setting by each of the member authorities.
2.15 As detailed in Appendix A, member contributions for financial year 2013 / 2014 will be £49,000 per authority payable to Fife Council on or before the 30 April 2013.
5
3. Conclusion 3.1 As with all member authorities, the SESplan Budget is under pressure from the demand to provide a statutory service whilst working within tight financial parameters. Significant efforts have been made to reduce Strategic Development Plan related costs both from the fixed and variable parts of the Budget. This has resulted in greater savings than expected being carried forward into 2013 / 2014.
3.2 The SESplan Financial Rules state that member authority contributions are in place by the end of April each year – within one month of the start of the financial year. It is therefore requested that £49,000 be paid to Fife Council on or before the 30 April 2013. It is requested that all member authorities take steps now in their current budget setting rounds to ensure that contributions will be in place by the start of the next financial year.
Appendices A 2012 / 2013 Provisional Out Turn and 2013 / 2014 Operating Budget
Background Papers SESplan Constitution, approved at SESplan Joint Committee on the 5 December 2011 SESplan Financial Rules, approved at SESplan Joint Committee on the 5 December 2011 Financial Update Report, presented to SESplan Joint Committee on the 5 December 2011
Report Contact Report Agreed By: Ian Angus, SDP Manager Author Name: Alice Miles Author Job Title: Lead Officer
6
2012 / 2013 SIX MONTH PROVISIONAL OUT TURN AND 2013 / 2014 OPERATING BUDGET
2012 / 2013 2012 / 2013 2012 / 2013 Approved Current Cost Per 2013 / 2014 Cost Per Six Month 2012 / 2013 Budget Annual Member Operating Member Provisional Variance December Estimate Authority Budget Authority Out Turn 2011 Budget
FIXED COSTS
Team Salaries and Oncosts 195,000 195,000 177,000 -18,000 29,500 205,000 34,167
Accommodation 40,000 14,000 14,000 0 2,333 14,000 2,333
Administration (including Reception staff) 26,500 26,500 0 4,417 26,500 4,417
IT 10,000 10,000 0 1,667 10,000 1,667
Audit Fee 4,000 4,000 4,000 0 667 4,000 667
Consumables, Travel, Training, Miscellaneous 5,800 3,300 3,500 200 583 3,600 600
TOTAL Fixed Costs 244,800 252,800 235,000 -17,800 39,167 263,100 43,851
VARIABLE COSTS
2012 / 2013 Technical Support 55,000 56,000 56,000 0 9,333 0 0
2013 / 2014 Technical Support 70,000 11,667
Add: 10% contingency 7,000 6,000 6,000 0 1,000 7,000 1,167
TOTAL Variable Costs 62,000 62,000 62,000 0 10,333 77,000 12,834
TOTAL COSTS 306,800 314,800 297,000 -17,800 49,500 340,100 56,685
Balance Carried Forward 22,817 43,534 43,534 0 7,256 42,034 7,006
Sale of Plans 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 167 500 83
Interest on Revenue Balances 500 500 500 0 83 500 83
Funded By:
Partner Contributions 282,483 294,000 294,000 0 49,000 294,000 49,000
TOTAL INCOME 306,800 339,034 339,034 0 56,506 337,034 56,172
Balance Carried Forward to Next Year 0 -24,234 -42,034 -17,800 -7,006 3,066 513
Nb. The fixed costs for accommodation (£14,000), administration (£26,500) and IT (£4,000) in the 2013 / 2014 Operating Budget total £50,500 rather than the £48,000 agreed with SEStran, since the IT costs include an annual charge of £2,500 for Semantise and First Class Licences.
Planning Committee
10 am, Thursday, 16 May 2013
The Leith Programme: Consultation and Design – referral from the Transport and Environment Committee
Item number
Report number
Wards 11 – City Centre 12 – Leith Walk 13 - Leith
Links
Coalition pledges See attached report Council outcomes See attached report Single Outcome Agreement See attached report
Carol Campbell
Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance
Contact: Morris Smith, Senior Committee Officer
E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 4227
Contact: Veronica MacMillan, Committee Officer
E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 4283
Terms of Referral
The Leith Programme: Consultation and Design
Terms of referral
The Transport and Environment Committee on 19 March 2013 considered a report by the Director of Services for Communities outlining the delivery timetable for The Leith Programme, beginning in April 2013.
Motion
1) To agree the longer term vision for the corridor, as outlined in paragraphs 2.27 to 2.32 of the Director’s report, as a proactive step towards achieving sustainable transport targets for Edinburgh.
2) To agree the final design for Constitution Street, which should be implemented from April 2013 onwards.
3) To agree the outline design for Leith Walk between the Foot of the Walk and Pilrig Street, with the final design to be approved through an oversight group of the Convener, Vice-Convener and local councillors and implemented from September 2013.
4) To agree the design principles for the section from Pilrig Street to Picardy Place, as outlined in paragraphs 2.30 and 2.31 of the Director’s report.
5) To instruct officers to pursue third party funding for a more comprehensive urban design solution to the southern section of the route, including enhanced elements for pedestrians and cyclists, and the creation of a signalised junction at London Road, and to note that:
(i) if third party funding is awarded, the final design will be approved through an oversight group of the Convener, Vice-Convener and local councillors:
(ii) if third party funding is not confirmed by the end of 2013, officers will pursue a design for approval through an oversight group of the Convener, Vice-Convener and local councillors for the southern section, based on the preliminary design and amended with consultation feedback, that is deliverable within available budget.
6) To refer the Director’s report to the Planning and Economy Committees for noting.
Planning Committee – 16 May 2013 Page 2 of 4
7) To agree that officers hold discussions with relevant stakeholders on signage and branding, and report back to a future meeting of the Transport and Environment Committee.
8) To thank the officers involved in the preparation of the report and the organisations and individuals who responded to the consultation exercise.
Moved by Councillor Hinds, seconded by Councillor Orr.
Amendment
1) To approve recommendations 3.1.1 to 3.1.6 in the report by the Director of Services for Communities.
2) To agree to consider a report on the feasibility of implementing 20mph zones on part or all of Leith Walk once the pilots already underway within the City of Edinburgh have concluded, and dependent on support from the public being evident in responses to the Local Transport Strategy consultation.
Moved by Councillor Booth, seconded by Councillor Bagshaw.
Voting
For the motion 13 votes
For the amendment 2 votes
Decision
To approve the motion by Councillor Hinds
Declaration of Interest
Councillor Booth declared a non-financial interest in the above item as a Director of Greener Leith.
For decision/action
1. The Transport and Environment Committee has referred the attached report to the Planning Committee for its information.
Background reading / external references
Transport and Environment Committee 19 March 2013
Links
Coalition pledges See attached report
Council outcomes See attached report
Planning Committee – 16 May 2013 Page 3 of 4
Single Outcome See attached report
Agreement Appendices Report by the Director of Services for Communities
Planning Committee – 16 May 2013 Page 4 of 4