Notice of Meeting and Agenda
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
Wednesday, 24 October 2012 at 10.00 am in the City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh
1 Order of Business
Including any notices of motion and any other items of business submitted as urgent for consideration at the meeting. Any member of the Council can request a hearing if an item raises a local issue affecting their ward and members of the Sub-Committee can request a presentations on any item in Sections 1 or 2 of the Agenda. Members must advise Committee Services by no later 9.00 a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting of their request (See contact details in the “notes” section at the end of this Agenda)
2 Declaration of Interests
Members should declare any financial and non-financial interests they have in the items of business for consideration at the meeting identifying the relevant agenda item and the nature of their interest.
Section 1 - General Applications and Miscellaneous Business
Note: in section 1, the recommendations by the Head of Planning or other Chief Officers detailed in their reports will be approved without debate unless the Clerk to the meeting indicates otherwise during “Order of Business” at Agenda Item 1 above.
3 3 Belhaven Terrace, Edinburgh (land 8 metres NE of) - Install 1 x DSLAM telecoms cabinet measuring 1300mm x 800mm x 450mm. (12/03121/FUL) – report by the Head of Planning and Building Services (circulated)
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.
4 14, 16-18 Bothwell Street, Edinburgh - Demolition of existing warehouse buildings and subsequent residential development with associated car parking and public realm (12/01212/FUL) - report by the Head of Planning and Building Services (circulated)
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.
5 30 Brighton Place, Edinburgh (23 metres SE of) - Install 1 x DSLAM telecoms cabinet measuring 1408mm x 750mm x 407mm (12/03119/FUL) - report by the Head of Planning and Building Services (circulated)
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.
6 135 Comiston Road, Edinburgh - Change of use from shop to tearoom (class 3) (12/03216/FUL) - report by the Head of Planning and Building Services (circulated)
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.
7 44 Dumbryden Drive, Edinburgh - Proposed annex to existing building to create new office space (12/02640/FUL) - report by the Head of Planning and Building Services (circulated)
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.
8 Easter Drylaw Park/Easter Drylaw Drive, Edinburgh - Development of in situ concrete neighbourhood skatepark on the site of the existing BMX track in Easter Drylaw Park for recreational use by skateboarders, in-line skaters and BMX bikers of all ages and abilities (12/03129/FUL) - report by the Head of Planning and Building Services (circulated)
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.
9 16 Greendykes Road, Edinburgh - Relocation of proposed access road to site and amended drainage details (12/02756/FUL) - report by the Head of Planning and Building Services (circulated)
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.
10 Harlaw Reservoir, Balerno - The re-use, re-construction and operation of micro-hydro power generation facilities (12/00001/FUL) - report by the Head of Planning and Building Services (circulated)
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.
11(a) 34 Midmar Drive, Edinburgh - Demolish existing one-and-a-half storey house (12/02858/FUL) - report by the Head of Planning and Building Services (circulated)
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.
11(b) 34 Midmar Drive, Edinburgh - Demolish existing one-and-a-half storey house (12/02859/CON) - report by the Head of Planning and Building Services (circulated)
It is recommended that this application be Minded to GRANT.
12 Fort Primary School, North Fort Street, Edinburgh - Change of use from primary school to office space - nursery to remain as existing (12/02359/FUL) - report by the Head of Planning and Building Services (circulated)
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.
13 3 Pittville Street, Edinburgh (20 metres south of) - Install 1x DSLAM telecoms cabinet measuring 1408mm x 750mm x 407mm. (12/03123/FUL) - report by the Head of Planning and Building Services (circulated)
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.
14 1 Rosefield Avenue, Edinburgh (20 metres north of) - Install 1 x DSLAM telecoms cabinet measuring 1408mm x 750mm x 407mm (12/03120/FUL) - report by the Head of Planning and Building Services (circulated)
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.
15 11 Rosefield Street, Edinburgh - Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling (12/02811/FUL) - report by the Head of Planning and Building Services (circulated)
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.
Section 2 – Returning Applications
16(a) 37 Cammo Road, Edinburgh - Removal of existing buildings for the erection of 2 private residential dwelling houses and associated ancillary accommodation. (12/01746/FUL) – report by the Head of Planning and Building Services, with addendum (circulated)
The Sub-Committee is minded to GRANT planning permission.
16(b) 37 Cammo Road, Edinburgh - Removal of existing buildings at Cammo Home Farm for a new residential development (2 units). (12/01748/LBC) – report by the Head of Planning and Building Services, with addendum (circulated)
The Sub-Committee is minded to GRANT planning permission.
17 454 (Unit 1) Gorgie Road, Edinburgh - Change of use from car showroom to retail including removal of existing forecourt canopies and alterations to external elevations and creation of a vehicular access. (12/00650/FUL) – report by the Head of Planning and Building Services, with addendum (circulated)
The Sub-Committee is minded to GRANT planning permission.
18 156 Saughton Road North, Edinburgh - Change of use from Class 1 Retail to Hot Food Takeaway (12/02227/FUL) – report by the Head of Planning and Building Services, with addendum (circulated)
The Sub-Committee is minded to REFUSE planing permission.
Section 3 - Applications for Hearing
Note: The Head of Planning has identified the following application/s as meeting the criteria for Hearings.
(None)
Section 4 - Pre-Application Report
19 4 Seafield Street, Edinburgh (former Eastern General Hospital site) – Forthcoming application by Hillcrest Housing Association Ltd for residential development – protocol note and report by the Head of Planning and Buildng Services (circulated)
Section 5 – Returning Applications following Site Visit
Note: These applications have been discussed at a previous meeting of the Sub-Committee and were continued to allow members to visit the sites.
(None )
Section 6 - Applications for Detailed Presentation –
Note: The Head of Planning has identified the following applications for detailed presentation to the Sub-Committee. A decision to grant, to refuse or to continue consideration will be made following the presentation and discussion on each item.
20 Greendykes Road, Edinburgh - Residential development including detailed site layout plan showing position of buildings, roads, footpaths, parking areas, cycle parking, walls, fences, landscaping, details of existing and finished levels, flood attenuation details (matters listed in conditions 3, 5(i), (iii), (v) of planning consent 07/01644/OUT) (Application no. 12/01109/AMC) - report by the Head of Planning and Building Services (circulated)
It is recommended that this application be GRANTED
Carol Campbell Acting Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance
Membership Councillor Perry (Convener) Councillor Griffiths Councillor Howat (Vice-Convener) Councillor Heslop Councillor Bagshaw Councillor McVey Councillor Blacklock Councillor Milligan Councillor Brock Councillor Mowat Councillor Cairns Councillor Rose Councillor Child Councillor Ross Councillor Dixon
Notes: General- 1 All members of the Council have been notified of the publication of this agenda. Any member can request a hearing if an item raises a local issue affecting their ward. Members must advise Committee Services, by no later than 9 am on the Tuesday preceding the meeting if they wish to be heard (Committee Services: D Emerson 0131 529 4230 e-mail [email protected]).
2 A summary of the recommendations on each planning application is shown on the agenda. Please refer to the circulated reports by the Head of Planning or other Chief Officers for full details.
3 Online Services - Planning applications can be viewed online by going to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning . This includes letters of comments received on the above applications, and other information about the plans - available to view under ‘Planning and Building Services online services’ (then under the specific planning application reference number). The undernoted link can be followed to access the web-page: https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa- web/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application
4 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.
5 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/meetings . Elected members and officers of the Council can also view them by going to the Orb and selecting Council Papers Online.
6 If you have any questions about the agenda or meeting arrangements, please contact D Emerson 0131 529 4230, e-mail [email protected] , Committee Services, City of Edinburgh Council, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh EH1 1YJ;
The following notes are intended as a guide for members of the public
7 Members of the Sub-Committee can ask for an item in Sections 1, 2 and 5 of the Agenda to be presented more fully to the meeting in Section 6. The Clerk will report this under “Order of Business” and the report will be discussed later in the meeting. 8 Members of the Council who are not members of the Sub-Committee can make a request for an application to be considered by means of a ‘hearing’, in order to speak on an application if the development is located in their Council ward. The Clerk will report this under “Order of Business” prior to the Sub-Committee considering the request. Otherwise, ward members are not permitted to speak on applications at the meeting.
9 Only elected members and officers of the Council may speak at the meeting unless the item is shown as a Hearing. For Hearings, the list of individuals and/or organisations invited to speak at the meeting will be detailed in the relevant report. The Development Management Sub- Committee does not hear deputations on planning applications.
10 For the majority of planning applications, the decision rests with the Development Management Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee only makes recommendations to the full Council on national/major planning applications, as defined in legislation. Reports on that type of application, which require a “pre-determination hearing”, will explain the process.
Item no 3 Report no
Planning Permission 12/03121/FUL at Telecomms Apparatus 8 Metres North East Of 3 Belhaven Terrace Edinburgh
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/03121/FUL, submitted by Openreach.. The application is for: Install 1 x DSLAM Telecoms Cabinet measuring 1300mm x 800mm x 450mm.
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The application site is to the rear of a public footpath on Belhaven Terrace immediately adjacent to the junction with Balcarres Street. The proposed cabinet is set against a hedge of approximately 3m in height. The width of the footpath at this location is approximately 3.07m and an existing telecommunications box, PCP number 025, is located approximately 17.9m to the east.
This property is located within the Plewlands Conservation Area.
Site History
None.
1 Pre-Application Process
Pre-application discussions were undertaken.
Description Of The Proposal
It is proposed to install a freestanding green coloured telecommunications cabinet 800mm wide by 450mm deep by 1300mm high. The cabinet is required as part of an upgrade that will be used to provide high speed broadband services to residents and businesses in the area. The cabinet requires to be connected to existing telecommunications apparatus including an underground junction box.
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of permission.
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
a) the proposal will adversely affect the character or appearance of the conservation area; and b) the proposal has implications for road/public safety.
a) The Plewlands Conservation Area is mainly comprised of two storey residential terraced development. The predominant height is two storeys with a small number of flatted elements of mainly three and four storeys. The buildings are complemented by mature trees, extensive garden settings, shallow stone boundary walls and spacious roads.
The proposed cabinet will be approximately 17.9m from an existing telecommunications box and will be set against a hedge of approximately 3m in height. In the context of its surroundings the proposed cabinet will not constitute an incongruous feature, as various forms of street furniture are
2 located close by, and will therefore not adversely affect the character or appearance of the conservation area. b) Transport Planning has been consulted and has no objections to the proposal. There are no implications for pedestrian or road safety.
In conclusion, the proposal complies with the development plan and relevant non-statutory guidelines. The proposal preserves the character and appearance of the conservation area, and would not prejudice road/public safety. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
As the proposal does not involve the erection of an electronic communications antenna there is no requirement for the developer to make a declaration under the provisions of the radio frequency public exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection [ICNIRP].
As the Council is the land owner, it has an interest in the application and a Committee decision is required.
It is recommended that the Committee approves this application subject to a condition on the removal of the cabinet should it become obsolete.
3 REASON FOR DECISION
The proposal complies with the development plan and relevant non-statutory guidelines. The proposal preserves the character and appearance of the conservation area, and would not prejudice road/public safety. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel Colin Bryans on 0131 529 4279 Ward affected A10 - Meadows/Morningside Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan Statutory Urban Area Development Plan Provision Date registered 31 August 2012
Drawing numbers/ 01-04 Scheme Scheme 1
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal: www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Paul Devaney, 0131 529 3911, [email protected]
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
4 Appendix A
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Telecomms Apparatus 8 Metres North East Of 3 Belhaven Terrace Edinburgh
Proposal: Install 1 x DSLAM Telecoms Cabinet measuring 1300mm x 800mm x 450mm. Reference No: 12/03121/FUL
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Transport Planning
No objections.
Representations
The application was advertised on 14 September 2012.
One letter of objection was received from a neighbouring resident on the grounds of a potential detrimental impact on neighbourhood character and appearance, and a potential detrimental impact on pedestrian safety.
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
The proposal site is located in an urban area and within the Plewlands Conservation Area, as designated by the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development ) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas. Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines Non-statutory guidelines on "RADIO TELECOMMUNICATIONS" set out detailed guidance for the siting and design of masts, antennas, cabins and
5 equipment in all locations, with special reference to listed buildings and other sensitive situations The Plewlands Conservation Area is mainly comprised of two storey residential terraced development. The predominant height is two storeys with a small number of flatted elements of mainly three and four storeys. The buildings are complemented by mature trees, extensive garden settings, shallow stone boundary walls and spacious roads. Policy Inf 5 (Telecommunications) sets criteria for assessing telecommunication developments.
6 Appendix B
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Telecomms Apparatus 8 Metres North East Of 3 Belhaven Terrace Edinburgh
Proposal: Install 1 x DSLAM Telecoms Cabinet measuring 1300mm x 800mm x 450mm. Reference No: 12/03121/FUL
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives stated below.
Conditions:-
1. In the event that equipment becomes obsolete or redundant it must be removed and the site reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within 3 months from that date.
Reasons:-
1. To minimise the level of visual intrusion, and ensure the reinstatement of the site to a satisfactory standard.
Informatives
It should be noted that:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than t he expiration of three years from the date of this consent.
2. 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.
3. 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.
End
7 Appendix C
Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: Install 1 x DSLAM Telecoms Cabinet measuring 1300mm x 800mm x 450mm. Reference No: 12/03121/FUL
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
8
Item no 4 Report no
Planning Permission 12/01212/FUL at 14, 16-18 Bothwell Street Edinburgh EH7 5PS
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/01212/FUL, submitted by Derom Property Investments, JMI Associates. The application is for: Demolition of existing warehouse buildings at 14 - 18 B othwell Street, Edinburgh, and subsequent residential development with associated car parking and public realm.
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The site extends to approximately 0.5 ha and slopes from Bothwell Street towards the rear boundary of the site to the south. Access to the site is currently from Bothwell Street. A second access from Sunnyside exists, under Bothwell Street, but is currently gated off.
The site contains three industrial buildings and an area of open space. The main industrial building is vacant. The two smaller buildings are tenanted by a commercial garage and comprise an office and workshop.
The existing small residential amenity space (0.085ha) is Council owned and has been assessed to be of a low quality in the Open Space Audit 2010.
1 The site is surrounded on three sides by housing; four and five storey tenement buildings on Bothwell Street, a two storey former printing works on Edina Place and two storey housing at Norton Park. The former printing works is a category B listed building (LB reference 30271, dated 15.11.1991).
The site also shares a boundary with disused railway land to the east. This land is part of housing allocation HSG 4 (the Lochend Butterfly housing site) in the ECLP and contains a Transport Safeguard (for a footpath/cycleway or public transport service) immediately adjacent to the site.
Site History
7 January 1998 - planning permissions were granted for the change of use of the smaller units from workshop yard to self drive hire units (application numbers 97/02287/FUL and 97/12287FUL)
Pre-Application Process
Pre-application discussions took place on the proposals and advice was given on the principle of development, design, transport issues and required supporting information.
In accordance with the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, a Proposal of Application Notice was submitted and registered on 15 September 2011. Copies of the notice were also issued to:
- Leith Central Community Council - Craigentinny and Meadowbank Community Council - Leith Neighbourhood Partnership - Craigentinny and Duddingston Neighbourhood Partnership
Three consultation events were held on the site on Saturday 29 October 2011 (10am - 2pm), Monday 31 October 2011 (4pm - 8pm) and Saturday 3 December 2011 (2pm - 4pm).
Full details can be found in the Pre-Application Consultation report, which sets out the findings from community consultation. This is available to view on the Planning and Building Standards online service.
Description Of The Proposal
The proposal is for a residential development of 71 apartments, of which 15 are three bedroom and 56 are two bedroom.
The proposal extends the massing and building line of the existing tenement on the south of Bothwell Street into the site. The building then runs adjacent to the perimeter of the site boundary before terminating with a slim tower element next to the dismantled railway line.
2 The building is predominantly six storeys in height and incorporates tall windows and stair towers as a continuation of the existing Bothwell Street tenement. Further into the site, the proposal incorporates open access balconies on the northern elevation. The proposals include a raised landscaped deck to screen the proposed undercroft parking at the eastern part of the site.
Light brown brick is the primary material proposed. Other materials incorporated within the scheme are metal cladding for the roof and some panel elements and timber battens to screen the exposed stairway. Ventilation grills with photovoltaic panels will also be utilised.
The existing area of open space on the site is to be realigned to enable shared surface access to the site, whilst a communal drying green is proposed on the southern part of the site.
Access to the site is taken from Bothwell Street through the aforementioned realigned open space, which will lead into a lower courtyard area. A second existing access from Sunnyside, which runs under Bothwell Street, is also proposed to be opened up.
A total of 58 car parking spaces are to be provided; this includes two city car club spaces and three accessible spaces. The three accessible spaces, the two city car club spaces and nine spaces parking spaces are 'on-street' within the development site. Twenty-seven spaces are provided in an undercroft area accessible through a security gate with a further 17 spaces provided at the south of the site (accessible through the undercroft area).
Three sheltered motorbike stores are to be provided and 71 sheltered secure bicycle storage points. The proposal also provides a link to the proposed cycle path on the former railway line.
A communal bin store consisting of twenty 1,280 ltr eurobins accessed from the lower court area is proposed.
The applicant has submitted a design and access statement, a sustainability appraisal, bat survey, tree survey, an air quality impact assessment and a stage 1 quality audit including a parking statement. These documents can be viewed on the Planning and Building Standards Online Service.
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals preserve the adjacent listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses? If not, there is a presumption against the granting of consent. For the purposes of this issue, preserve, in relation to the building, means preserve it either in its
3 existing state or subject only to such alterations or extensions as can be carried out without serious detriment to its character.
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
(a) the principle of residential development is acceptable on this site;
(b) design, scale and massing is appropriate to the site;
(c) the proposals preserve the setting of the nearby listed building;
(d) adequate open space has been provided within the scheme and there is an acceptable level of amenity;
(e) the housing mix is appropriate and an adequate level of affordable housing has been provided;
(f) there are any transport and parking issues; and
(g) any other material considerations.
(a) Principle The site is within the Urban Area, as shown on the Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP) Proposals Map, where general housing and employment policies apply. The site also contains an area of designated open space.
Policy Hou 1 states that housing development will be permitted on suitable sites within the urban area, provided proposals are compatible with other policies in the Plan. Any loss or development of the open space needs to be assessed against policy Os 1 Open Space Protection. Likewise, as the site is currently in employment use the proposals need to be assessed against policy Emp 4 Employment Sites and Premises.
Open Space The current small area of open space (classed as residential amenity) within the site boundary (under council ownership) was assessed to be of a low quality in the Open Space Audit 2010. The Leith Neighbourhood Partnership
4 Open Space Action Plan includes two alternative actions for the open space. The first is to improve the quality of the open space to meet the local greenspace standard and reduce the deficiency in the area. However, the action plan notes that this deficiency could also be resolved through the strategic action for the Powderhall railway line. The second is to redevelop the site for other uses and make improvements to other greenspaces in the area.
The proposed site layout results in the existing area of open space being altered to provide a useable area of public open space and a shared surface route to the development. This enables the building line of the existing tenement to be maintained.
Although there is a presumption against the loss of open space, Policy Os 1 sets out criteria for assessing when the loss of open space may be acceptable. These relate to the impact on the character of the area, whether the open space is part of a larger area, the current provision of open space in an area, biodiversity value, potential benefits by improving open space elsewhere and also consideration if the development will benefit the community.
As indicated in the open space audit, the area is of low quality and is currently in a neglected state. The proposal would result in the area of open space being reduced (850 sqm to 500 sqm). This is a relatively small area and the proposals would involve environmental improvements resulting in useable open space which would enhance the character of the area. The proposal also provides a potential link to the proposed strategic action for the Powderhall railway line. The proposal accords with Policy Os 1 and the relevant open space action plan.
Employment policy Policy Emp 4 seeks to ensure that proposals for redevelopment of sites which are or were last in employment use contribute to the city's stock of flexible small business premises. The site is located in an area that consists of primarily residential properties and due to the constraints of the site, it is considered it would be inappropriate to try and add the flexible work space that would be desirable for small businesses in this location. It would be possible to include office space, but this would not provide floor space suitable for a range of business users. Therefore an exception in this case can be made and employment space is not required to form part of this proposal.
Residential use is acceptable in principle at this location.
(b) Design, scale and massing The site is within an area that is predominately characterised by existing tenements to the north with a mix of buildings to the south including the B listed former print works on Edina Place.
It is an irregular shaped site and the proposed development makes an efficient use of the land. The drop in levels allows the development to extend
5 up to six storeys without building higher than the tenements on Bothwell Street resulting in a positive relationship with neighbouring buildings.
The building proposed is a wide v-shape that continues the line of the existing tenements on the south side of Bothwell Street then turning to run parallel with the site boundary to the south east. This layout enables the existing area of open space to be retained (although at a reduced scale), it provides potential access to the dismantled railway line and allows views onto the new building from the Easter Road end of Bothwell Street.
The western section of the building contains vertically proportioned windows which references the existing tenement, whilst the use of timber cladding panelling at the stair wells breaks up the elevations and helps to maintain the rhythm of the existing tenement. A set back at the rooftop level adds visual interest.
Further into the site the elevations become more modern in appearance with the residential units accessed via a balcony with a raised landscape deck screening the undercroft car parking. The scheme incorporates a tower element at the western end of the site which successfully terminates the building.
Comments have been received in relation to the proposed roofscape and how this will be viewed from Calton Hill. Due to the topography of the site the development will nestle into the existing wider roofscape sitting below the existing roofline of 26-36 Bothwell Street and adjacent to the more visible recent development on Albion Gardens.
The proposed flat roof is suitable for the modern design of the building and altering the design to incorporate a pitched roof would be an inappropriate response. The development would have limited impact on the views from Carlton Hill.
There are protected key views near to the site. Most of the view cones do not cover the site, whilst the development will not be visible in the key view (reference N5a) from Pilrig Park to Arthur's Seat.
The primary material proposed is a light brown coloured brick, metal effect cladding for the set back on the rooftop level, and timber boarding. The simple palette of materials proposed and the use of brick is appropriate in this context. It is important that the brick and the mortar are specified to harmonise with the surrounding stone buildings, consequently, conditions are recommended to ensure the materials and workmanship are of a sufficient quality.
The design, massing and layout of the proposed building are acceptable subject to conditions in relation to materials.
6 (c) Listed building In terms of any impact on the adjacent B listed building on Edina Place, planning policy states that development should not be detrimental to the appearance or character of a listed building or to its setting.
The listed building is a flat roofed red brick building and although originally a printing works it has the appearance of a residential building. The principle frontage of the listed building is to the south onto Edina Place and this is unaffected.
The rear of the building, which is adjacent to the application site, mainly consists of hardstanding used for car parking. The application site currently contains a mix of industrial sheds of little merit within a relatively unkempt environment. The proposed development will run parallel to the listed building and although higher, will have a positive impact on the immediate surroundings. The listed building will no longer be as visible from Bothwell Street, though historically there was a tenement along Bothwell Street which would have blocked any views. As stated above this is also not the primary outlook of the building.
The proposed development will not negatively impact on the listed building or its setting.
(d) Amenity and open space Objections have been received in relation to the residential amenity of existing residents in the vicinity of the site. Concerns have been put forward in relation to loss of views, infringement of privacy and impact on daylighting.
Views Private views are not a material consideration in assessing this planning application. The matter of public key view points has been considered in section b) above and there are no infringements.
Privacy The Council's standards for privacy are a window to window distance of 18 metres. The majority of the block exceeds this standard by some distance with the building on Edina Place being at least 28 metres way, whilst 9-13 Bothwell Street is at a distance of 23 metres at its nearest point. Further east into the site the nearest part of the development to the existing tenement at 26-36 Bothwell Street is the eastern tower element. Small bathroom windows of 30cm in width are proposed in this elevation and there is a distance of approximately 18 metres from the existing tenement.
To the south/east of the site are the flatted two storey properties at Norton Park. The proposed building is pulled back away from the site boundary by 10 metres, double that of the existing industrial unit. Number 15 has a blank gable and the building does not look into the site. Number 16 does face into the site but is orientated in such a way which avoids direct overlooking and is
7 also 18 metres away when measured directly from the northern elevation of 16 Norton Park. The proposals are acceptable in relation to privacy.
Daylighting The applicant has submitted information in relation to daylighting. The diagram indicates that the window on the existing ground floor flat at 26-36 Bothwell Street does not comply with the 25 degree method. In such circumstances, and in historical areas, the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) of relevant windows should pass the test to achieve a VSC of at least 27%. The VSC has been demonstrated to be 27.25% and therefore the amount of daylight reaching windows on the existing tenement is not adversely affected.
Single aspect flats The proposal includes 12 single aspect flats split across the first to fourth floors. The flats are all south facing, have a positive outlook and there are no daylighting or privacy concerns. The single aspect flats are acceptable in this instance.
Open space and landscaping. Landscaping details, including a tree survey, have been provided. These show the arrangement of both the private and public areas of open space.
The tree survey provides details of the current 12 trees on site, which are all within the current residential amenity space. It is proposed that all the current trees are to be removed. Five of the trees to be removed are of poor health, whilst the remaining seven will conflict with construction or removal will aid in providing a more cohesive reinstatement plan. The trees are not protected by a Tree Preservation Order and the site is not within a conservation area.
The main visual impact of the current trees is the line along Bothwell Street. The proposed replacement trees will provide a similar line delineating the open space. A total of 35 trees are proposed within the overall site.
The reshaped area of open space will be upgraded with the establishment of new trees, a perimeter of hedging and new railings, the inclusion of benches and new planting. The upgrades will improve the standard of open space whilst being of a size that will meet the local greenspace standard in this area as set out in the open space strategy.
For the proposed development itself the design provides 797sqm (602sqm drying green, including fruit trees, and 195sqm deck area) of shared open space to provide for the 38 units which do not have access to a private balcony. Further to this is also a 275 sqm roof terrace accessible from the fifth floor.
There are also a number of planting and small grassed areas, incorporating an area for permaculture, proposed within the site which equate to a further 626sqm.
8 Overall, not including the balconies, roof terrace or reconfigured open space, 31% of the total redline boundary site area is covered by greenspace. The proposals accord with policy ECLP policy Hou 3.
The landscaping has been considered as part of the application and the general layout and planting indicated is satisfactory, subject to conditions in relation to a detailed planting specification and a maintenance and management plan.
Overall the proposed development will provide an acceptable level of amenity for both existing and future residents.
(e) Housing mix ECLP Policy Hou 2 seeks a mix of housing types and sizes on suitable sites. To comply with this policy at least 20% of the units should consist of larger units of three or more bedrooms. Fifteen of the 71 units have three bedrooms which equates to 21%. All communal and apartment entrances have level threshold access and all parts of the building are wheelchair accessible by elevator.
The proposed 71 units results in a minimum requirement of 17 affordable housing units to be consistent with local plan policy Hou 7. It is proposed that 61 units are to be delivered as approved affordable tenures from the start of the development. At least 12 of the affordable homes will be retained in perpetuity by the Registered Social Landlord, which is in line with the core aspirations of the affordable housing policy, and the remainder will be sold off in time. This would need to be secured through an appropriate legal agreement.
The proposed mix and affordable housing provision are acceptable.
(f) Transport The site is currently accessed from Bothwell Street with a secondary access available from Sunnyside, though this is currently gated off. The existing area of open space is to be re-aligned to provide a new access into the site whilst Sunnyside will be used as a secondary access. Consideration has been given to providing adequate turning facilities for refuse and emergency vehicles.
A Stage 1 Quality Audit has been provided. This sets out the approach taken to road design. Transport has raised no objections to the suitability of the access to the site and the arrangements are acceptable.
The site is on the edge of the Controlled Parking Zone and comments have been made in relation to the suitability of the proposed car parking serving the development. A Parking Statement has been provided setting out the applicant's approach to car parking.
The Council's parking standards require a total of 76 parking spaces. This is based on one space per unit for the 59 units to be sold/leased by a private
9 developer, three spaces for the remaining 12 units to be held in perpetuity by a Registered Social Landlord and a requirement for 14 visitor spaces.
The development proposes a total of 58 spaces, which includes three accessible spaces and two city car club spaces. Two city car club spaces are taken to be the equivalent of 10 spaces.
Forty-four of the spaces are for residents only and accessed via the undercroft car parking. The remaining 12 spaces (excluding the two city car club spaces) will be 'on-street' and cannot be allocated to an individual property; these will also serve as visitor parking.
Transport has assessed the application and consider that the proposed level of parking is acceptable, based on the inclusion of city car club spaces, the constraints of the site and the requirement to provide open space.
Furthermore, the site is in an accessible location close to Easter Road and London Road which have good bus services. It is within walking distance of the city centre and Waverley Train Station. The proposals also include a future link to the adjacent railway line which is safeguarded for a cycle / footpath link. The applicant has agreed to provide a travel plan for future residents with the intention of providing a financial contribution to public transport promotion measures such as public transport tickets. This will aid in embedding public transport habitats from when occupation of the development first takes place. The travel plan will be secured through a legal agreement.
The provision for the motorcycle and cycle storage within the undercroft area and stairwells are acceptable. A condition is recommended in relation to the type of cycle racks provided.
An Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) has been provided due to the proximity of the site to an area of existing poor air quality on Easter Road. Environmental Assessment has considered the AQIA and accepts that the proposed development will have negligible impact. They note that mitigation measures include the use of City Car Club spaces with a view for future residents to consider more sustainable methods of travel. An informative is also recommended in relation to the provision of electric charging points. The baseline used in the assessment is considered acceptable given that the large unit on the site has only been vacant for a relatively short period of time and could reopen for industrial / business use without reference to planning.
Drainage proposals for the site have been submitted. Flood Prevention has confirmed that as far as flood issues are concerned the proposals are adequate and conform to requirements. Transport has requested a condition in relation to SUDs and an informative in relation to maintenance.
Overall, the site is in a highly accessible location and the proposed parking meets the Council’s standards. The proposed transport arrangements are
10 acceptable subject to a legal agreement in relation to city car club, a travel plan and any traffic regulation orders associated with the development.
(g) Other material considerations
Procedural Issues Comments have been received in relation to both the pre-application consultation process and the neighbour notification process.
Pre-application consultation is undertaken by the applicant. The developers have exceeded the minimum statutory requirements in relation to this process. For the planning application, the Council has notified neighbours within 20 metres of the site. There was an initial issue due to a mapping error but once this was resolved further neighbour notification was undertaken to include the extra properties which fell into the extended 20m buffer.
The requirements for the necessary publicity and notification have been met in this instance.
Waste Management The proposal includes a communal bin store accessed from the lower court area of the site. This is next to the undercroft car parking and cycling area. This provides room for twenty 1,280 ltr eurobins to meet the needs of future residents.
Waste Management has verbally indicated that the proposals have been agreed with the applicant and there are no concerns over the proposal.
Archaeology The City Archaeologist has identified the site as being within the historic Maryfield Estate with the potential for remains of 19th century industry. The site is likely to be of low-moderate archaeological impact and there are no objections on archaeological grounds subject to a condition requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological work prior to development.
Sustainability The applicant has submitted a sustainability statement in support of the application. The proposal complies with the requirements of Part A of the Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Buildings.
The proposal has been classed as a major development and has been assessed against Part B of the standards. The points achieved against the essential criteria are set out in the table below:
Essential Criteria Available Achieved Section 1: Energy Needs 20 20 Section 2: Water conservation 10 10 Section 3: Surface water run off 10 10 Section 4: Recycling 10 10
11 Section 5: Materials 30 30 Total points 80 80
The proposal meets the essential criteria. In addition the applicants have provided a commitment to further sustainability measures as set out in the desirable elements. Additional measures include the orientation of the building to achieve a high level of passive solar gain, the provision of city car club spaces, the provision of a local communal recycling point and a commitment to using sustainable timber.
Bats A bat survey has been provided and confirms that there is no presence of bats using the current buildings on the site and that the surrounding area does not provide good bat foraging habitat. Bats are not considered to be an issue.
Community Council Comments Leith Central Community Council objected to the proposals. Concerns have been raised in relation to the roofline, level of green space and the size of the proposed flats (i.e. suitability for families). Full details can be found in Appendix A.
Conclusion In conclusion, the proposals comply with the development plan and the relevant non-statutory guidelines, are of a high quality of design, will not negatively impact on the listed building and would not prejudice residential amenity or road safety.
There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion. It is recommended that the Committee approves this application, subject to conditions relating to materials, archaeology and parking and a section 75 agreement.
12 REASON FOR DECISION
The proposals comply with the development plan and the relevant non- statutory guidelines. The proposals are of a high quality of design, will not negatively impact on the listed building and would not prejudice residential amenity or road safety.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel Kenneth Bowes on 0131 529 6724 Ward affected A12 - Leith Walk Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan Statutory Urban Area, Open Space Development Plan Provision Date registered 2 April 2012
Drawing numbers/ 01, 02C, 03, 04A, 05A, 06, 07A-09A, 10-14 Scheme
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal: www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Linda Hamilton, 0131 529 3146, [email protected]
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
13 Appendix A
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: 14, 16-18 Bothwell Street Edinburgh EH7 5PS
Proposal: Demolition of existing warehouse buildings at 14 - 18 Bothwell Street, Edinburgh, and subsequent residential development with associated car parking and public realm. Reference No: 12/01212/FUL
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Affordable Housing comment 16/05/2012
Services for Communities has worked with Planning to develop a methodology for assessing housing requirements by tenure, which supports an Affordable Housing Policy (AHP) for the city.
- The AHP makes the provision of affordable housing a planning condition for sites over a particular size. The proportion of affordable housing required is set at 25% (of total units) for all proposals of 12 units or more. - This is consistent with Policy Hou 7 Affordable Housing in the Finalised Edinburgh City Local Plan.
This application is for a total 71 residential units to be built by a private developer in conjunction with a registered social landlord. As such, AHP will apply and 17 AHP units would be required. The applicant has proposed an above-policy level of affordable housing with 61 of the 71 homes to be delivered as approved affordable tenures from the start, which is welcomed by this department. At least 12 of the affordable homes will be retained in perpetuity by the RSL, which is in line with the core aspirations of the policy, and the remainder will be sold off in time. This will assist with achieving the core aim of the affordable housing policy, the development of mixed, sustainable communities.
The delivery model being proposed has proved effective in other areas of the city and the developer and RSL are satisfied it will also work on this development. The affordable housing-led delivery model being proposed has been developed partly in response to the current difficult economic situation, where a lack of mortgage finance favours the delivery of rental tenures over market sale homes, and it is partly due to the considerable levels of affordable housing need that exist in Edinburgh.
14 The department is very supportive of this approach, which has helped to deliver a record number of affordable homes in Edinburgh over the past two years. That process has many wider benefits for the city in terms of job retention and supporting economic activity, as well as delivering much needed affordable housing across the city.
Services for Communities is therefore very supportive of this application.
This affordable housing requirement will be secured through a Section 75 Legal Agreement. The Department would ask that the following details are added to the Informatives section of the report to Development Management Sub-Committee:
- A minimum of 25% of the homes will be of approved affordable housing tenures - These will be secured through a Section 75 Legal Agreement
The Department would be happy to assist with any queries around the affordable housing requirement for this development.
Archaeology comment 24/04/2012
The site lies within the historic Maryfield Estate. Historic maps indicate that the site and surrounding area remained largely farmland until the spread of industry and railway into the area in the mid 19th century. The 1850's first Edition OS map of the site shows the site as open ground with a burn (leading to Lochend Loch) forming the southern boundary of the site and the then new railway forming the eastern edge. Significantly directly adjacent to the southern boundary is depicted a large glass works.
Accordingly this site has been identified as occurring within an area of archaeological potential in particular relating to 19th century industry. This application must be considered therefore under terms the Scottish Government Historic Environment Policy (SHEP), Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), PAN 02/2011 and also Edinburgh City Local Plan (2010) policy ENV9. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.
Having assessed the probable impact of this proposed development, it is considered that on current information such a proposal would be regarded as having a low-moderate archaeological impact. Ground-breaking works associated with the demolition of the current warehouses and the construction of the new development could disturb significant remains associated with the 19th century industrial development of this area.
Accordingly it is recommended that the following condition be attached consent, if granted, to ensure that a programme of archaeological works is undertaken prior to/during demolition and construction in order to excavate,
15 record and analysis any significant archaeological deposits that may be uncovered.
'No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (excavation, analysis & reporting, publication) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'
The work would be carried out by a professional archaeological organisation, either working to a brief prepared by CECAS or through a written scheme of investigation submitted to and agreed by CECAS for the site. Responsibility for the execution and resourcing of the programme of archaeological works and for the archiving and appropriate level of publication of the results lies with the applicant.
Children and Families comment 09/05/2012
We refer to your memo dated 16 April 2012 requesting comments on educational provision for the above noted planning application. Our comments are based on a residential development of 71 units which we have treated as flatted development.
This site is located within the catchment areas of:
- Leith Walk Primary School; - St Mary's RC Primary School; - Drummond High School; and - St Thomas of Aquin's RC High School.
There is current capacity at Leith Walk Primary School and at Drummond High School for the proposed development. In respect of RC provision it is envisaged that priority will be given to baptised RC pupils and that where necessary intake limits will be applied to protect the capacity of the school.
On the basis of the above, we have no objections to the proposed development.
Environmental Assessment comment 01/06/2012
The application proposes the demolition of 14 -18 Bothwell Street existing Warehouses in order to erect a residential development of 71 units. The site is located off Leith Walk with surrounding residential properties. The Abbey Hill Railway line is approximately 190-200 metres away from the proposed development.
The Scottish Government is committed to low emission vehicles with regards to sustainable transport for the future. City of Edinburgh Council's parking standards now state that developers should incorporate a provision to
16 encourage electric vehicle charging infrastructure throughout all types of development. In an attempt to address the air quality impacts the applicant should investigate the introduction of electric vehicle charging points to a number of parking spaces for the proposed residential development, as such an informative shall be recommended.
Air Quality
The forthcoming application for the residential development has undergone preplanning discussions in relation to air quality. As a result an Air Quality Impact Assessment was submitted in support of the application on April 2012.Ref JM1.001-04-02. The report was requested by the City of Edinburgh Council due to the proximity of the proposed development to an area of existing poor air quality on Easter Road.
Mitigation Measures
The plans for the proposed development included a number of mitigation measures to minimise emissions to air.: Environmental Statements have been submitted by contractors to reduce emissions of particulate and dust. There are 2 designated parking spaces for City Car Club cars only. The scheme is designed to minimise car ownership in urban areas by having vehicles available for rent. People therefore consider more sustainable methods of travel and vehicles comply with strict emission limits.
Conclusions
The conclusions drawn from the assessment with reference to guidance document Development Control: Planning For Air Quality (2010) are the following:
1. The effect of the proposed development does not lead to a breach of any Air Quality Standards or significant worsening of an already poor quality area on Easter Road.
2. The effect of the proposed development does not introduce new receptors into the Air Quality Management Area.
3. Overall, the results of the DRMB (Design Manual For Roads and Bridges) screening method of assessment show that the air quality impact due to the proposed residential development is negligible.
Transportation
There have been discussions with Network Rail and Transport Department regarding the extension plans for the Abbeyhill Railway line, there are no current proposals to extend the line further than on the plans submitted with the application. Therefore, this department are of the opinion the railway line is at a far enough distance from the proposed development and does not
17 require protection of bedroom and living room windows against rail traffic noise in the form of acoustic glazing.
Therefore, Environmental Assessment has no objections to this proposed development subject to the following condition and recommended informative:
Site In General
1. Prior to the commencement of construction works on site:
(a) A site survey (including intrusive investigation where necessary) must be carried out to establish to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning , either that the level of risk posed to human health and the wider environment by contaminants in, on or under the land is acceptable, or that remedial and/or protective measures could be undertaken to bring the risks to an acceptable level in relation to the development; and
(b) Where necessary, a detailed schedule of any remedial and/or protective measures, including their programming, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning.
Any required remedial and/or protective measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved schedule and documentary evidence to certify those works shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning.
Informative
The developer shall investigate the installation of electric vehicle charging points with reference to Making the Connection - The Plug-in Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy, Office for Low Emission Vehicles (June 2011).
Addendum
As stated above, Environmental Assessment has no objections to the approval of the application subject to the recommended conditions being attached to any consent.
NB. However, should all of the above conditions not be applied to any consent, Environmental Assessment will require to review the recommendation. In such event, it is imperative that this is notified immediately to the Environmental Assessment case officer.
Flood Prevention 30/08/2012
I have gone through the drawings and side notes and as far as flood issues are concerned the proposal are adequate and conforms to requirements. Can you please ensure a copy of the letter from Scottish water accepting the discharge into their sewer is provided. Can you please clarify what are the duties of the parties to the section 7 agreement and what department in the council will be responsible for the maintenance of the attenuation feature.
18
Leith Central Community Council comment 11/05/2012
We wish to object but also endorse the objections of the The Cockburn Association as outlined in their letter of 4 May. We share their concerns regarding the roofline. The applicant has clearly shown on their drawings the neighbouring varied roofline and given the prominent location of the proposal, this is a lost opportunity to contribute positively to the City's roofscape.
The Community Council are keen to make our area family friendly. The re- opening of Bonnington PS to serve at the City's GME school and the available capacity at Leith Walk PS demonstrates the potential of the area for families. The provision of private outdoor space by way of balconies and the establishment of two or more bedroom, main door ground floor flats with private garden space will enhance the amenity and make them more attractive to families.
Finally, we also support increasing the "green space" by decking over the parking. We would kindly request that the Applicant take on board these concerns prior to the Committee granting Consent.
Network Rail comment 11/05/2012
Whilst Network Rail has no objections in principle to the proposal the following matter must be noted:
Parts of the submitted application site encroach onto land in Network Rail's ownership. Please see the attached Title Plan MID132241 which shows Network Rail's ownership adjacent to the application site. This land has been identified as a possible location for a new turnback siding as part of the ongoing Edinburgh to Glasgow Improvement Programme (EGIP) works. We wish to point out that the applicant has not certified that Network Rail own land within the application site and we can confirm that we have not received notification as owners. We will be happy to receive your comments on this and to keep us informed when the application has been altered to reflect the application sites correct ownership.
The following matters should also be taken into account, and if necessary and appropriate included as conditions or advisory notes, if granting the application:
The railway can be a dangerous environment. Suitable barriers must be put in place by the applicant to prevent undue interaction between site occupiers and the railway
If not already in place, the applicant must provide a suitable trespass proof fence of at least 1.8 metres in height adjacent to Network Rail's boundary and provision for the fence's future maintenance and renewal should be made. We recommend a 1.8 metre high 'rivetless palisade' or 'expanded mesh'
19 fence. Network Rail's existing boundary measure must not be removed without prior permission.
Buildings should be situated at least 2 metres from Network Rail's boundary. The applicant must ensure that the construction and subsequent maintenance of proposed buildings can be carried out without adversely affecting the safety of, or encroaching upon, Network Rail's adjacent land.
The proximity and type of planting proposed are important when considering a landscaping scheme. Leaf fall in particular can greatly impact upon the reliability of the railway in certain seasons. Network Rail can provide details of planting recommendations for neighbours.
Where trees/shrubs are to be planted adjacent to the railway boundary these should be positioned at a minimum distance from the boundary which is greater than their predicted mature height. Certain broad leaf deciduous species should not be planted adjacent to the railway boundary.
Any demolition or refurbishment works must not be carried out on the development site that may endanger the safe operation of the railway, or the stability of the adjoining Network Rail structures. The demolition of buildings or other structures near to operational railway infrastructure must be carried out in accordance with an agreed method statement. Approval of the method statement must be obtained from Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer before development can commence.
Any lighting associated with the development (including vehicle lights) must not interfere with the sighting of signalling apparatus and/or train drivers vision on approaching trains.
The location and colour of lights must not give rise to the potential for confusion with the signalling arrangements on the railway. The applicants should obtain Network Rail's approval of their detailed lighting proposals. Following occupation of the development, if within three months Network Rail or a Train Operating Company has identified that lighting from the development is interfering with driver's vision and/or signal sighting, alteration/mitigation will be required to remove the conflict at the applicant's expense.
Construction works must be undertaken in a safe manner which does not disturb the operation of the neighbouring railway. Applicants must be aware of any embankments and supporting structures which are in close proximity to their development.
Details of all changes in ground levels, laying of foundations, and operation of mechanical plant in proximity to the rail line must be submitted to Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer for approval prior to works commencing on site. Where any works cannot be carried out in a 'fail-safe' manner, it will be necessary to restrict those works to periods when the railway is closed to rail traffic i.e. by a 'possession' which must be booked via Network Rail's Asset
20 Protection Engineer and are subject to a minimum prior notice period for booking of 20 weeks.
Transport comment 24/09/2012
Transport has no objection to the proposed application subject to the following being included as conditions or informatives as appropriate:
1. The developer will require to secure agreement with the Council and Scottish Water regarding maintenance of the cellular water storage; 2. All accesses must be open for use by the public in terms of the statutory definition of 'road' and require to be the subject of applications for road construction consent. The developer should note that: a. Public utility provision should be located so as not to potentially obstruct access by pedestrians, vehicles and emergency service vehicles; b. Swept path analysis will be required to demonstrate sufficient space for refuse vehicles to turn; c. Confirmation that all of the proposed carriageway and parking spaces are to be included in the separate application for road construction consent and brought within the controlled parking zone will be required; 3. Consent should not be issued until the applicant has entered into a suitable legal agreement to provide the sum of £11,500 towards car club provision; 4. The design and specification of the proposed road, particularly the crossfalls and drainage, to be finalised as part of the road construction consent process; 5. The Disabled Persons Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009 places a duty on the local authority to promote the proper use of parking places that are designated or provided for use only by disabled persons' vehicles. The applicant should therefore advise the Head of Transport if the disabled persons' parking places are to be enforced under this legislation. In order for these parking places to be enforced by the local authority, the signs and markings must comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 Regulations. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide ongoing maintenance of the signs and markings to ensure disabled persons parking places can be enforced by the local authority. The applicant will be expected to cover the costs of introducing the order to control these spaces (estimated £2,500).
Note: 1. Current parking standards require provision of 1 space per residential unit, 0.2 spaces affordable unit and 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors. It is understood that at least 12 units will be retained as affordable units. Therefore a total of 76 spaces should be provided. However, the constraints of the site, the requirement to provide open space and the provision of 2 car club spaces mean that a reduced provision of 63 spaces is considered acceptable;
21 2. The applicant must be informed that the proposed on-road spaces within the site cannot be allocated to an individual property, nor can they be the subject of sale or rent. The spaces will be available to all road users. Private enforcement is illegal and only the Council as roads authority has the legal right to control on-road parking spaces, whether the road has been adopted or not. The developer will be expected to make this clear to prospective residents and tenants.
Representations
Nineteen letters of representation, including one from the Cockburn Association and one from the Royal Park Terrace and Spring Gardens Resident's Association, have been received raising the following matters:
Issues of principle, taken account of in assessment (a); - Development should not include commercial space.
Design issues, taken account of in assessment (b); - Proposed block is too high and should be reduced. - Number of units seems excessive. - Roofscape from Carlton Hill is an important consideration. The roof s hould not be flat. - Concern over the appropriateness of metal cladding. - Site is within an area of protected key views in Edinburgh.
Residential amenity and open space issues, taken account of in assessment (d); - The proposal will block natural light into adjacent residential properties and impact on overlooking / privacy. - Single aspect flats should be avoided. - The only accessible area of green space in Bothwell Street is being reconfigured to enable development. This will result in less greenspace per population in the area especially given proposed new increase in residents and potential number of children. - Unclear if existing trees are being retained and what the general improvements to the park will be. - Open space should be re-landscaped and fenced off (used as area for away fans accessing Hibs FC to congregate). - Support plans to upgrade open space and measures should be put in place for future maintenance. - Efforts should be made to retain as many trees as possible in the area proposed for cycle parking. Consideration should be given to the time needed for replacement trees to mature. - There should be more green space within the development.
Transport and air quality issues, taken account of in assessment (f); - The area is heavily congested and has parking problems, which can lead to issues with access for emergency vehicles. The proposal will exacerbate this. - Access is from Bothwell Street which is too narrow.
22 - Development should be accessed via Sunnyside and / or Bothwell Street and included in the neighbouring Controlled Parking Zone. - Proposed parking is inadequate. - Impact on traffic safety in an area of high footfall, poor footpaths and generally poor environment. - Development fails to adequately provide links with existing development to the south (Edina Place or Norton Park). - Air Quality Impact Assessment traffic figures are flawed, baseline should be revised. - Flats are being proposed in an area likely to become an Air Quality Management Area and this should be taken into consideration.
Waste management issues, taken account of in assessment (g); - New flats should have their own waste bins.
Sustainability issues, taken account of in assessment (g); - Design should meet sustainable building standards.
Procedural issues, taken account of in assessment (g); - Issues relating to neighbour notification and pre-application process.
Non-material - Proposal will block current views from properties. - Proposal will devalue property. - Impact during the construction phase. - Site should be developed for alternative uses such as a medical centre or sheltered housing. - Lack of infrastructure e.g. health centres.
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
The site is within the Urban Area, as shown on the Edinburgh City Local Plan Proposals Map, and general housing and employment policies apply. The site also contains an area of designated open space, which is referred to in the Leith Neighbourhood Partnership Open Space Action Plan.
Relevant Policies:
Policy Des 9 (Waterside Development) sets criteria for assessing development on sites on the coastal edge or adjoining a watercourse. Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated.
23 Policy Des 2 (Co-ordinated Development) establishes a presumption against proposals which might compromise the effective development of adjacent land or the wider area. Policy Des 3 (Development Design) sets criteria for assessing development design. Policy Des 4 (Layout Design) sets criteria for assessing layout design. Policy Des 5 (External Spaces) sets criteria for assessing landscape design and external space elements of development. Policy Des 6 (Sustainable Design & Construction) sets criteria for assessing the sustainable design and construction elements of development. Policy Env 3 (Listed Buildings - Setting) identifies the circumstances in which development within the curtilage or affecting the setting of a listed building will be permitted. Policy Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance) sets out the circumstances in which development affecting sites of known or suspected archaeological significance will be permitted. Policy Env 12 (Trees) sets out tree protection requirements for new development. Policy Env 17 (Flood Protection) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on flood protection. Policy Env 18 (Air, Water and Soil Quality) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on air, water and soil quality. Policy Os 1 (Open Space Protection) sets criteria for assessing the loss of open space. Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development) supports housing on appropriate sites in the urban area, and on specific sites identified in the Plan. Policy Hou 2 (Housing Mix) requires the provision of a mix of house types and sizes in new housing developments. Policy Hou 3 (Private Open Space) sets out the requirements for the provision of private open space in housing development. Policy Hou 4 (Density) sets out the factors to be taken into account in assessing density levels in new development. Policy Hou 7 (Affordable Housing) requires 25% affordable housing provision in residential development of twelve or more units. Policy Emp 4 (Employment Sites and Premises) sets out criteria for development proposals affecting business & industry sites and premises. Policy Tra 1 (Major Travel Generating Development) supports major travel generating development in the Central Area, and sets criteria for assessing major travel generating development elsewhere. Policy Tra 2 (Planning Conditions and Agreements) requires, where appropriate, transport related conditions and/or planning agreements for major development likely to give rise to additional journeys. Policy Tra 4 (Private Car Parking) requires private car parking provision to comply with the parking levels set out in supplementary planning guidance, and sets criteria for assessing lower provision. Policy Tra 5 (Private Cycle Parking) requires cycle parking provision in accordance with levels set out in supplementary guidance. Policy Tra 6 (Design of Off-Street Car and Cycle Parking) sets criteria for assessing design of off-street car and cycle parking.
24 Policy Tra 13 (Cycle and Footpath Network) prevents development which would prevent implementation of, prejudice or obstruct the current or potential cycle and footpath network. Policy Inf 6 (Water & Drainage) sets a presumption against development where the water supply and sewerage is inadequate. Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines NSESBA - Non-statutory guidelines Part A of 'The Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Building' requires new development in Edinburgh to reduce their carbon emissions in line with the current Building Regulations NSESBB Non-statutory guidelines Part B of 'The Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Building' sets principles to assess the sustainability of major planning applications in Edinburgh Non-statutory guidelines on Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing gives guidance on the situations where developers will be required to provide affordable housing and/or will be required to make financial or other contributions towards the cost of, providing new facilities for schools, transport improvements, the tram project, public realm improvements and open space. Non-statutory guidelines 'The Edinburgh Standards for Housing' sets out principles and guidance whose aim is to achieve high quality, successful and sustainable residential developments.
Non-statutory guidelines on the 'SETTING OF LISTED BUILDINGS' supplement local plan conservation and design policies, providing guidance for the protection and enhancement of the setting of listed buildings. The Open Space Strategy and the audit and action plans which support it are used to interpret local plan policies on the loss of open space and the provision or improvement of open space through new development. Non-statutory guidelines on 'MOVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT' establish design criteria for road and parking layouts. Non-statutory guidelines on 'PARKING STANDARDS' set the requirements for parking provision in developments. Non-statutory guidelines on 'QUALITY OF LANDSCAPES IN DEVELOPMENT' sets detailed design principles for hard and soft landscaping, including the retention of existing features, and relates these principles to different types of development. Non-statutory guidelines The Protection of Key Views guideline aims to safeguard public views to those features which define Edinburgh's character. In order to achieve this, a number of key views have been specifically identified for protection. View cones for each key view have been separately defined. The impact of any proposed development on a key view will be assessed in terms of its effect on the view. While there will be a presumption in favour of protecting the views, it is recognised that the Edinburgh skyline has been formed by generations adding to and evolving the skyline. Positive additions to the skyline tend to be elegant and slender - spires and towers. Non-statutory guidelines 'DAYLIGHTING, PRIVACY AND SUNLIGHT' set criteria for assessing proposals in relation to these issues.
25 Appendix B
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: 14, 16-18 Bothwell Street Edinburgh EH7 5PS
Proposal: Demolition of existing warehouse buildings at 14 - 18 Bothwell Street, Edinburgh, and subsequent residential development with associated car parking and public realm. Reference No: 12/01212/FUL
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives stated below.
Conditions:-
1. Prior to the commencement of work on site, specification and detail drawings of adequate scale, indicating the arrangement of material junctions on external elevations, shall be submitted for written approval by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.
2. Prior to the commencement of works on site, sample panels, to be no less than 1.5m x 1.5m, shall be produced, demonstrating each proposed external material and accurately indicating the quality and consistency of future workmanship, and submitted for written approval by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.
3. Prior to the commencement of development, specification and architectural details at a 1:5 or 1:10 scale of the proposed timber cladding shall be submitted for written approval by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. These details should set out the thickness of the timber which should not be less than 19mm finished size; the types of fixings, which should be specified to ensure no staining of the timber; and how the ends of the timber will be protected to ensure that moisture absorption is prevented.
4. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (excavation, analysis and reporting, publication) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.
5. i) Prior to the commencement of construction works on site: a) A site survey (including intrusive investigation where necessary) must be carried out to establish to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning
26 and Building Standards, either that the level of risk posed to human health and the wider environment by contaminants in, on or under the land is acceptable, or that remedial and/or protective measures could be undertaken to bring the risks to an acceptable level in relation to the development; and b) Where necessary, a detailed schedule of any required remedial and /or protective measures, including their programming, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. ii) Any required remedial and/or protective measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved schedule and documentary evidence to certify those works shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning and Building Standards.
6. The design, installation and operation of the lift shall be such that any associated noise complies with NR20 when measured within any nearby living apartment, and no structure borne vibration is perceptible within any nearby living apartment.
7. Prior to the commencement of development, full working details of the method of treatment of surface water and attenuation of flow from the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.
This shall be in accordance with best practice Sustainable Urban Drainage (SuDS)/Sustainable Drainage principles. The development shall not be occupied/brought into use before the approved drainage system has been provided in its entirety.
8. Before the development hereby permitted starts, a full planting species specification, landscaping management and maintenance scheme in respect of the landscaping scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. It shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of the landscaped amenity areas, including the park area.
9. The landscaping details, approved under the terms of condition (8) above shall be fully implemented within six months of the completion of the development, and thereafter shall be maintained by the applicants and/or their successors to the entire satisfaction of the planning authority; maintenance shall include the replacement of plant stock which fails to survive, for whatever reason, as often as is required to ensure the establishment of the approved landscaping scheme.
Reasons:-
1. In order to ensure the adequacy of external building materials.
27 2. In order to ensure the adequacy of external building materials.
3. In order to demonstrate that the proposed timber cladding will be durable and retain a high visual quality.
4. In order to safeguard the interests of archaeological heritage.
5. In order to ensure that the site is suitable for redevelopment, given the nature of previous uses/processes on the site.
6. In order to protect the amenity of the occupiers of the development.
7. To ensure the site is adequately drained and to prevent pollution of watercourses.
8. In order to ensure that a high standard of landscaping is achieved, appropriate to the location of the site.
9. In order to ensure that the approved landscaping works are properly established on site.
Informatives
It should be noted that:
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. For the duration of development, between the commencement of development on the site until its completion, a notice shall be: displayed in a prominent place at or in the vicinity of the site of the development; readily visible to the public; and printed on durable material.
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.
5. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the measures identified in the approved Sustainability Statement Form. The applicant
28 should submit a Self Declaration Form to the Head of Planning and Building Standards on completion and prior to occupation unless otherwise agreed.
6. The developer shall investigate the installation of electric vehicle charging points with reference to Making the Connection - The Plug-in Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy, Office for Low Emission Vehicles (June 2011).
7. All accesses must be open for use by the public in terms of the statutory definition of 'road' and require to be the subject of applications for road construction consent. The developer should note that: i) Public utility provision should be located so as not to potentially obstruct access by pedestrians, vehicles and emergency service vehicles; ii) Swept path analysis will be required to demonstrate sufficient space for refuse vehicles to turn; and iii) Confirmation that all of the proposed carriageway and parking spaces are to be included in the separate application for road construction consent and brought within the controlled parking zone will be required.
8. The design and specification of the proposed road, particularly the crossfalls and drainage, to be finalised as part of the road construction consent process.
9. The developer will be required to secure agreement with the Council and Scottish Water regarding maintenance of the cellular water storage.
10. The Disabled Persons Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009 places a duty on the local authority to promote the proper use of parking places that are designated or provided for use only by disabled persons' vehicles. The applicant should therefore advise the Head of Transport if the disabled persons' parking places are to be enforced under this legislation. In order for these parking places to be enforced by the local authority, the signs and markings must comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 Regulations. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide ongoing maintenance of the signs and markings to ensure disabled persons parking places can be enforced by the local authority. The applicant will be expected to cover the costs of introducing the order to control these spaces (estimated £2,500).
11. The applicant must be informed that the proposed on-road spaces within the site cannot be allocated to an individual property, nor can they be the subject of sale or rent. The spaces will be available to all road users. Private enforcement is illegal and only the Council as roads authority has the legal right to control on-road parking spaces, whether the road has been adopted or not. The developer will be expected to make this clear to prospective residents and tenants.
29
12. The applicant will be required to enter into a suitable legal agreement in respect of the following: i) Affordable housing provision; ii) City Car Club contribution of £11,500; iii) Any associated traffic regulation orders; and iv) A draft travel plan will be required prior to first occupation and a final travel plan within 12 months of that date. The travel plan to be produced, updated and maintained.
End
30 Appendix C
Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: Demolition of existing warehouse buildings at 14 - 18 Bothwell Street, Edinburgh, and subsequent residential development with associated car parking and public realm. Reference No: 12/01212/FUL
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
31
Item no 5 Report no
Planning Permission 12/03119/FUL at Telecomms Apparatus 23 Metres South East Of 30 Brighton Place Edinburgh
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/03119/FUL, submitted by Openreach.. The application is for: Install 1 x DSLAM Telecoms Cabinet measuring 1408mm x 750mm x 407mm.
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The application site is to the rear of a public footpath on Brighton Place approximately 20m northeast of the junction with Rosefield Place. The proposed cabinet is set against a stone wall of approximately 0.75m in height and a hedge of approximately 2m in height. The width of the footpath at this location is approximately 2.65m and an existing telecommunications box, PCP number 035, is located approximately 24m to the southwest.
This property is located within the Portobello Conservation Area.
1 Site History
None.
Pre-Application Process
Pre-application discussions were undertaken.
Description Of The Proposal
It is proposed to install a freestanding green coloured telecommunications cabinet 750mm wide by 407mm deep by 1408mm high. The cabinet is required as part of an upgrade that will be used to provide high speed broadband services to residents and businesses in the area. The cabinet requires to be connected to existing telecommunications apparatus including an underground junction box.
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of permission.
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
a) the proposal will adversely affect the character or appearance of the conservation area; and b) the proposal has implications for road/public safety.
a) The Portobello Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the village/small town character of the area, the importance of the long sea-front promenade, the high quality architecture, and the predominant use of traditional building materials.
2 The proposed cabinet will be approximately 24m from an existing telecommunications box and will be set against a stone wall approximately 0.75m in height and a hedge of approximately 2m in height. In the context of its surroundings the proposed cabinet will not constitute an incongruous feature and will therefore not adversely affect the character or appearance of the conservation area. b) Transport Planning has been consulted and has no objections to the proposal. There are no implications for pedestrian or road safety.
In conclusion, the proposal complies with the development plan and relevant non-statutory guidelines. The proposal preserves the character and appearance of the conservation area, and would not prejudice road/public safety. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
As the proposal does not involve the erection of an electronic communications antenna there is no requirement for the developer to make a declaration under the provisions of the radio frequency public exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection [ICNIRP].
As the Council is the land owner, it has an interest in the application and a Committee decision is required.
It is recommended that the Committee approves this application subject to a condition on the removal of the cabinet should it become obsolete.
REASON FOR DECISION
The proposal complies with the development plan and relevant non-statutory guidelines. The proposal preserves the character and appearance of the conservation area, and would not prejudice road/public safety. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel Colin Bryans on 0131 529 4279 Ward affected A17 - Portobello/Craigmillar Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan Statutory Urban Area Development Plan Provision Date registered 31 August 2012
Drawing numbers/ 01-04 Scheme Scheme 1
3
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal : www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Paul Devaney, 0131 529 3911, [email protected]
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
4 Appendix A
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Telecomms Apparatus 23 Metres South East Of 30 Brighton Place Edinburgh
Proposal: Install 1 x DSLAM Telecoms Cabinet measuring 1408mm x 750mm x 407mm. Reference No: 12/03119/FUL
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Transport Planning
No objections.
Representations
The application was advertised on 14 September 2012 and no letters of representation have been received.
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
The proposal site is located in an urban area and within the Portobello Conservation Area, as designated by the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development ) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas. Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines Non-statutory guidelines on "RADIO TELECOMMUNICATIONS" set out detailed guidance for the siting and design of masts, antennas, cabins and equipment in all locations, with special reference to listed buildings and other sensitive situations The Portobello Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the village/small town character of the area, the importance of the long sea-front
5 promenade, the high quality architecture, and the predominant use of traditional building materials Policy Inf 5 (Telecommunications) sets criteria for assessing telecommunication developments.
6 Appendix B
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Telecomms Apparatus 23 Metres South East Of 30 Brighton Place Edinburgh
Proposal: Install 1 x DSLAM Telecoms Cabinet measuring 1408mm x 750mm x 407mm. Reference No: 12/03119/FUL
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives stated below.
Conditions:-
1. In the event that equipment becomes obsolete or redundant it must be removed and the site reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within 3 months from that date.
Reasons:-
1. To minimise the level of visual intrusion, and ensure the reinstatement of the site to a satisfactory standard.
Informatives
It should be noted that:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.
2. 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.
3. 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.
End
7 Appendix C
Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: Install 1 x DSLAM Telecoms Cabinet measuring 1408mm x 750mm x 407mm. Reference No: 12/03119/FUL
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
8
Item no 6 Report no
Planning Permission 12/03216/FUL at 135 Comiston Road Edinburgh EH10 6AQ
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/03216/FUL, submitted by Earl Grey Tearoom. The application is for: Change of use from shop to tearoom (class 3).
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The application site comprises a ground floor unit within a four-storey tenement block located on the eastern side of Comiston Road (A702), a main arterial route into the city. It is located within a terrace of buildings where all of the ground floor units are in commercial retail use with residential flatted dwellings on the three floors above.
The terrace is situated between the junctions with Comiston Terrace, to the north, and Braid Crescent, to the south. It comprises the ground floor units between Nos 109 and 137 Comiston Road, a total of 11 retail units; of which 4 are presently vacant.
The existing premises are being operated as a Pet Shop 'Paws Here', a Class 1 retail use for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997.
1 This property is located within the Morningside Conservation Area.
Site History
There is no relevant planning history for this site.
Pre-Application Process
There is no pre-application process history.
Description Of The Proposal
The application proposes to change the use of the property from a retail shop, Class 1, to a 'Tearoom', Class 3 (for the sale of food or drink for consumption on the premises).
As part of the development the applicant proposes to install a flexible stainless steel duct lining into the existing chimney so as to facilitate a ventilation extraction system from the kitchen to chimney head level of the building.
There are no proposed alterations to the exterior of the building.
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of permission.
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
(a) the principle of a cafe or restaurant use is acceptable in this location;
(b) the scale and design of the proposals are appropriate to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area;
(c) there are any implications for road safety; and
(d) there will be any loss of residential amenity as a result of the proposals.
2 a) The proposal site is located within the defined 'Urban Area' of the city but is not located within any defined retail centre. It is, however, contained within a terrace where there are existing commercial retail frontages at road level and therefore subject to consideration against the relevant retail policy.
Policy Ret 11 seeks to control alternative uses of shop units, in those locations outwith defined retail centres. In this regard the property is located within a terrace of commercial properties. The proposed use is specifically identified with the development plan as being one appropriate to a retail centre. As such the proposed change of use would not result in the loss of the premises for small business use. Consequently, the proposal meets the relevant requirements of the policy in this instance.
Accordingly, the proposed use is acceptable in principle. However, the proposal also requires to be assessed against other relevant policy provisions relating to the wider potential impact of the proposed use within its proposed location. b) Morningside Conservation Area Character Statement states that the area is a predominantly residential, characterised by Victorian and Edwardian villas with pockets of tenemental development at Comiston Road. South of the railway the streets of villas were laid out on the Braid Estate by R Rowand Anderson, the 'feuing architect'. Morningside Road and Comiston Road form the main through route, a place of activity in terms of social and commercial activity, containing a full range of shops and services. Comiston Road has less activity with levels falling off along the road towards the south.
The proposal seeks to make no alteration or change to the existing exterior of the building from that as existing.
Accordingly, the proposal would preserve the existing character and appearance of both the building as a whole and this part of the Morningside Conservation Area. c) The premises front onto a main arterial route into the city centre with good public transport links and limited on-street car parking.
Given the size of the proposed premises the intended use, as a 'Tearoom', is unlikely to result in any greater traffic generation than that of the existing use of the premises as a retail shop.
Transport has raised no objections to the proposal on road safety grounds. d) The applicant proposes to provide a suitable of ventilation system to the premises.
This should ensure that the impact of odours to the neighbouring residential properties are maintained at suitable and acceptable levels. Along with such
3 a system it is reasonable to seek to limit the noise from any equipment associated with it.
Accordingly, a condition is required to ensure that such a ventilation system is installed prior to the first use of the premises as a restaurant/cafe use and to control noise from the associated equipment.
Otherwise, the proposal will not have a detrimental impact upon the existing levels of residential amenity presently enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring properties.
In planning terms the relevant assessment is whether the premises are acceptable for the type of use applied for, not one that considers whether there are adequate numbers of similar uses within a particular area. National planning policy makes it clear that it is for the commercial market to determine whether the numbers of such uses can be economically sustained within a particular area.
Matters of hygiene and waste are subject to other regulatory procedures and are not material to a planning land use assessment of the proposal.
Fire risk issues are equally subject to other regulatory procedures, principally controlled by Building Standards.
In conclusion, the proposals comply with the development plan and the relevant non-statutory guidelines, preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and would not prejudice nature conservation, residential amenity or road safety. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
It is recommended that the Committee approves this application, subject to the conditions requiring the installation of a suitable ventilation system at the premises prior to its first occupation for the proposed use.
4 REASON FOR DECISION
The proposals comply with the development plan and non-statutory guidelines and maintain the character of the conservation area and have no adverse effect upon neighbouring amenity or road safety. A condition is attached to ensure control an adequate means of ventilation prior to first use of the premises.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel John Maciver on 0131 529 3918 Ward affected A10 - Meadows/Morningside Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan Statutory Conservation Area and Urban Area Development Plan Provision Date registered 10 September 2012
Drawing numbers/ 01 Scheme Scheme 1
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal: www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Paul Devaney, 0131 529 3911, [email protected]
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
5 Appendix A
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: 135 Comiston Road Edinburgh EH10 6AQ
Proposal: Change of use from shop to tearoom (class 3) . Reference No: 12/03216/FUL
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Environmental Assessment
No comments have been received.
Transport
Has no objections to the proposed application.
Representations
The application was advertised on 14 September 2012 and attracted eight letters of representation from neighbours objecting to the proposal.
The material points of objection/concern are: a. Residential amenity issues, taken account of in assessment (d): - odour and general disturbance.
Other points raised; such as, insect or vermin infestation, increased fire risk and associated building insurance increases, reduction in property values and the existence of other such uses within close proximity of the application premises, are not material.
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
Edinburgh City Local Plan - Urban Area and designated Conservation Area.
6 Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development ) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas.
Policy Hou 8 (Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas) establishes a presumption against development which would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of nearby residents.
Policy Ret 11 (Alternative Use of Shop Units in Other Locations) sets out the factors to be taken into account in assessing the change of use of a shop unit outwith defined centres.
Policy Ret 12 (Food and Drink Establishments) sets criteria for assessing the change of use to a food & drink establishment.
Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines
Non-statutory guidelines 'FOOD AND DRINK ESTABLISHMENTS' provide guidance on the location of such uses and set out conditions to control their impact.
Other Relevant policy guidance The Morningside Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises that the architectural character of the conservation area is largely composed of Victorian and Edwardian villas and terraces which form boundaries to extensive blocks of private open space. The villa streets are complemented by the profusion of mature trees, extensive garden settings, stone boundary walls and spacious roads. The villas which are in variety of architectural styles are unified by the use of local building materials.
7 Appendix B
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: 135 Comiston Road Edinburgh EH10 6AQ
Proposal: Change of use from shop to tearoom (class 3) . Reference No: 12/03216/FUL
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives stated below.
Conditions:-
1. No development shall take place at the premises until such time as a ventilation system, to the cooking area, has been implemented in full and made operational to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning. That ventilation system shall be designed and installed so as to be capable of achieving that cooking effluvia shall be ducted to roof level to ensure that no cooking odours escape or are exhausted into any neighbouring premises.
2. The design and installation of any plant, machinery or equipment shall be such that any associated noise complies with NR25 when measured within any nearby living apartment, and no structure borne vibration is perceptible within any nearby living apartment.
Reasons:-
1. In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and other occupiers.
2. In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and other occupiers.
Informatives
It should be noted that:
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
8 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. For the duration of development, between the commencement of development on the site until its completion, a notice shall be: displayed in a prominent place at or in the vicinity of the site of the development; readily visible to the public; and printed on durable material.
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.
End
9 Appendix C
Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: Change of use from shop to tearoom (class 3) . Reference No: 12/03216/FUL
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
10
Item no 7 Report no
Planning Permission 12/02640/FUL at 44 Dumbryden Drive Edinburgh EH14 2QR
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/02640/FUL, submitted by Pyramid Youth Agency. The application is for: Proposed annex to existi ng building to create new office space.
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The application site is the Pyramid Youth Centre located on the west side of Dumbryden Road approximately 60.0m north-west of Wester Hailes Police Station and to the east of the playing fields of Dumbryden Primary School. A public footpath runs parallel to the southern boundary.
The building is roughly square in plan form with a profiled metal pyramidal roof with central cupola, beige coloured facing brick for the walls with blue coloured fascia board, guttering and downpipes.
The building has an existing parking courtyard to the front, and grassed areas to its north, west and south. A detached single garage is located to the east of
1 the building. The land to the south rises significantly from the building to its southern boundary.
Site History
There is no relevant planning history for this site.
Pre-Application Process
Pre-application advice given in relation to the principle of the proposal.
Description Of The Proposal
It is proposed to erect a single storey extension with a mono-pitch roof to the south side of the existing building. The intended use of the extension is for administration offices for the youth agency.
The extension will be approximately 5.8m deep and is 21.3m wide. The extension will protrude beyond the east side of the youth agency by approximately 6.1m. The height of the extension at the existing building is 2.9m above ground level. The ground level rises from this point southwards and the building is 3.7m above ground level at its most southern point.
The proposed materials include profiled metal cladding to the roof, coloured render (purple) and uPVC windows.
Notwithstanding the proposal for the existing building shown on the drawings and indicated on the application form to paint the existing facing brick finish of the existing building white, the applicant has agreed to keep the facing brick finish, but proposes to paint the fascia board, downpipes, guttering etc purple.
An existing detached garage located to the south-east corner of the building will be removed to facilitate the proposed development.
The proposal will retain the existing six parking spaces on the site.
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
2 ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
a) the proposal will have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the building or street; b) the proposal will have any adverse effect on neighbouring residential amenity; and c) the proposal meets sustainability standards.
a) The proposal is for a single storey extension to the existing single storey pyramidal type roof building. The proposed extension is subservient to the existing building and the design and use of colour add visual interest to the building. The revised proposal for the existing building, whilst contrasting with the proposed building, the painting of the fascia board, downpipes, gutters etc will provide a visual connection between the buildings. Notwithstanding this, a condition requiring a specification of the materials and colours is proposed.
The proposal respects the existing building lines as the extension does not protrude beyond the eastern and southern edges of the existing garage that is to be removed.
The proposal will not therefore adversely affect the character and appearance of the building or street. b) The proposal raises no daylighting or sunlight issues.
In respect of privacy, windows are located to the south and west side of the extension. The windows are within nine metres of their respective boundaries. However, no privacy concerns arise due to the neighbouring uses being a footpath with a parking area beyond to the south and the playing fields of Dumbryden Primary School to the west. The western boundary of the site is also well screened by trees.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on neighbouring residential amenity. c) The applicant has submitted a sustainability statement in support of the application. The proposal complies with the requirements of Part A of the Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Buildings.
As the Council is land owner, a Committee decision is required.
3 In conclusion, the proposal complies with the development plan, meets sustainability standards and does not prejudice residential amenity. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
It is recommended that the Committee approves this application, subject to a condition relating to materials.
REASON FOR DECISION
The proposal complies with the development plan and whilst it does not fully comply with non-statutory guidance, the proposal will not adversely affect neighbouring residential amenity.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel Brian Fleming on 0131 529 3518 Ward affected A07 - Sighthill/Gorgie Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan Statutory Urban Area Development Plan Provision Date registered 30 August 2012
Drawing numbers/ 01-11 Scheme Scheme 1
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal : www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Helen Martin, [email protected], 0131 529 3517
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
4 Appendix A
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: 44 Dumbryden Drive Edinburgh EH14 2QR
Proposal: Proposed annex to existing building to create new office space. Reference No: 12/02640/FUL
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
No consultations undertaken.
Representations
Neighbours have been notified of the application. No letters of representation have been received.
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
The application property is an unlisted building in an Urban Area in the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy Des 11 (Alterations and Extensions) sets criteria for assessing alterations and extensions to existing buildings. Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines Non-statutory guidelines 'DAYLIGHTING, PRIVACY AND SUNLIGHT' set criteria for assessing proposals in relation to these issues.
5 Appendix B
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: 44 Dumbryden Drive Edinburgh EH14 2QR
Proposal: Proposed annex to existing building to create new office space. Reference No: 12/02640/FUL
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives stated below.
Conditions:-
1. A detailed specification, including trade names where appropriate, of all the proposed external materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards before work is commenced on site; Note: samples of the materials may be required.
Reasons:-
1. In order to enable the planning authority to consider this/these matter/s in detail.
Informatives
It should be noted that:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.
End
6 Appendix C
Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: Proposed annex to existing building to create new office space. Reference No: 12/02640/FUL
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
7
Item no 8 Report no
Planning Permission 12/03129/FUL at Easter Drylaw Park Easter Drylaw Drive Edinburgh
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/03129/FUL, submitted by Drylaw/Telford CC & Drylaw Neighbourhood Centre.. The application is for: Development of an insitu concrete neighbourhood skatepark on the site of the existing BMX track in Easter Drylaw Park for recreational use by skateboarders, inline skaters and BMX bikers of all ages and abilities.
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The application site is in Easter Drylaw Park on its west side of Easter Drylaw Park at the location of the current bike/BMX track.
Easter Drylaw Park lies in a mainly residential area between Easter Drylaw Drive, Telford Drive, Telford Road and Groathill Loan. It slopes downwards towards Telford Drive. Rowanfield Special School lies to the west and a care home to the north. Telford Drive consists of three storey blocks of flats which back on to Easter Drylaw Park. The houses to the north on Easter Drylaw Drive are two storey in a mix of terraced and semi-detached. A pedestrian bridge is located to the north east and a cycle track runs along the south east,
1 parallel to the rear of the Telford Road properties. The cycle track is bordered by trees and shrubs on both sides and is a Local Nature Conservation Site. It is also a Tram Route Safeguard with proposed stop (at foot bridge).
The park includes a children's play park which is fenced and two climbing rocks. There is some seating and tree planting. The park is mainly a large grass area. A footpath runs through it linking Telford Road to Easter Drylaw Drive.
Site History
There is no planning history for the site.
Pre-Application Process
Pre-application advice was given.
Description Of The Proposal
The proposal is for a skate park in the location of an existing blaize BMX bike track. Bikes will also be able to be use the proposed skate park.
Mounding will be created around the skate park and will link in to the existing mounding to the north. It will rise to a maximum height of 2.4 metres above existing ground level. The mounding will be hard up against the boundary with Rowanfield School and consist of stepped earth to include spectator viewing areas. The area surrounded by the mound will include a mini ramp, a bowl, an open area and rhythm sections. These will be constructed of concrete. A stepped ramp will provide the entrance access and will be made of non skate material such as Grasscrete or similar.
A Design Statement and a Noise Assessment were submitted with the application. The Design Statement states "The proposals are in full accordance with the Council play, planning and open space policies and will provide a much needed opportunity for sports activity within the Drylaw area. They have been developed in close collaboration with local skaters and BMX bikers, facilitated through Drylaw Neighbourhood Centre, and have received support from local councillors, council officials and other community groups including Drylaw/Telford Community Council and The Edinburgh and Lothians Greenspace Trust".
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
2
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
a) the proposal is acceptable in this location; b) the proposal is of an appropriate scale, form and design; c) the proposal will result in an unreasonable loss to neighbouring amenity; d) the proposal raises any security issues; and e) the proposal raises any transport or road safety issues. a) The proposal will occupy a small area of Easter Drylaw Park on an area that is currently given over to a blaize bike track. The proposed skate park will be a small part of the larger park and will benefit the local community by enhancing the facilities provided in the park. There will be no significant impact on the quality or character of the local environment nor on the wider network of open space or on the nearby local nature conservation corridor. The proposal satisfies the criteria set out in Policy Os 1 - Open Space Protection - of Edinburgh City Local Plan - and is acceptable.
The proposal is acceptable in this location. b) The proposed skate park will occupy a marginally larger area than that occupied by the bike track. The mound will extend all the way around the facility rather than just being to the north, as it is for the bike track, and will merge with the existing mound. Against the backdrop of mature trees, which form the boundary with the school, the proposal, although higher than the existing bike track, will not appear overbearing. A condition shall be attached to this permission to ensure trees are planted in the gap in the trees on the western boundary in order to improve the western landscape and context of the proposal and give additional screening to the school. The mounding and ramps will be lower than the height of the trees.
The skate park will slope southwards reflecting the gradient and contours of Easter Drylaw Park. The proposal will occupy a small area of the park and will not result in being a dominant feature. It will be near the children's playground and the climbing rocks. All these facilities will be concentrated together in the park leaving a large area of open space for informal pursuits and to maintain the green aesthetic and amenity value that the park provides.
The proposal is of an appropriate scale, form and design.
3 c) A Noise Assessment has been provided and considered by Environmental Assessment. Skate parks in close proximity to residential properties can be a source of obtrusive noise from the impact of skateboard wheels on the concrete surface or on an in-built obstacle. The skate park will not be lit and, therefore, likely to only be used in daylight hours. The noise impact assessment outlines two scenarios which have been considered for the site. Scenario 1 includes a sunken concrete bowl with two 3 metre high acoustic bunds to the north and south of the bowl. Scenario 2 includes the same noise attenuating features as Scenario 1 plus an additional acoustic screening to protect the school at the west of the site. Environmental Assessment is of the opinion that this will also provide some extra protection from noise for the existing residential properties on Groathill Loan.
The Noise Assessment indicates that the existing background levels at the nearby residential properties were unlikely to be significantly raised by the activities at the skate park when designed and built to Scenario 2.
The addition of a skate park is likely to increase the frequency of notable impact noise events and will also have noise from audible voices. Impact noise can be the most annoying factor associated with skateboarding activities. The impact noise levels will likely be less than at Saughton Park and the noise impact assessment of the existing background levels at Easter Drylaw Park indicate impact noise levels are already in the region of 71- 79 dB (A).
Voice noise from users will be less easily contained in the bowl and by the mounding, particularly given the proposed spectators area. However, the proposal will be located near other elements of the park which currently generate voice noise, such as the children's play park and the climbing rocks. Noise from shouting may increase due to the proposal but such noise already takes place within the park.
Environmental Assessment is of the opinion that sporadic noise from skateboarding activities is likely to be audible within surrounding residential properties and could on occasion be deemed annoying. The park and site itself already has some noisy activities occurring so occasional noisy intrusions above background levels are already likely to be occurring albeit at a lesser frequency. Environmental Assessment recommends that should the application be approved then the upgraded Scenario 2 skate park which includes the additional mitigation measures be chosen for the site.
The proposal will not result in an unreasonable loss of neighbouring amenity with the use of a condition requiring Scenario 2 to be implemented in order to protect neighbouring amenity. d) The Architectural Liaison Officer of Lothian and Borders Police, although supportive of the upgrading of facilities, has raised concerns regarding personal safety allied to the chosen location. It is anticipated that most of the users will walk or cycle to the facility and the Architectural Liaison Officer suggests an enhanced safety level for those using the facility could be
4 provided. Other modes of transportation to the site have a number of potential considerations with the three key pedestrian entry/exit points being: Easter Drylaw Drive; Telford Road; and bridge linking to Telford Drive. A direct route from the skate park to Groathill Road North would provide a greater opportunity for natural surveillance.
Designated routes to and from the facility would preferably be well lit, with CCTV surveillance. The supporting information provided states that CCTV is not currently proposed but could be installed at a later date. The Officer states that CCTV cover of the skate park and all entry/exit routes until persons reach areas that have natural surveillance from residential properties or vehicular traffic would benefit users in terms of personal safety and an ability to monitor members of the public and users. Ferry Road already has some public space CCTV and consideration should be given to installing public space CCTV on Telford Road.
The "excavated" facility will limit natural surveillance from people and properties in the area. The Architectural Liaison Officer recommends that the skate park be completely surrounded by a gated 2.4 metre weld mesh fence which offers no climbing points between the new installation and any point adjoining the Rowanfield School fence. The skate park should operate during specific times and the gates locked at other times.
Representations have raised the issue of lighting of the paths in the park. Paths within the Easter Drylaw Park are out-with the proposed skate park site and do not form part of this application. Therefore, this issue is not required to be assessed and can be pursued separately with the relevant Council department. Lighting for the skate park itself is opposed as it would allow its use at night and the Architectural Liaison Officer has advised that lighting footpaths through the park may provide sufficient ambient lighting for those wishing to use the park in hours of darkness. If lighting is to be provided at the skate park at a later date, it is suggested that advice should be sought from the Architectural Liaison Officer.
The comments of the Architectural Liaison Officer are noted. The Council will take on the responsibility of maintaining the skate park and if CCTV, lighting or fencing are found to be required then these could be put in at a later date. The application implies that the proposed skate park will be self-policing. Personal security is not something which Planning can control and other legislation can be used to deal with events, for example anti-social behaviour, if necessary.
The proposal does not raise any security matters. e) Transport has no objections to the proposal. The Architectural Liaison Officer has offered some comments on transport and parking issues (see above paragraph d). However, Transport has not objected to the proposal and has not made any recommendations regarding road safety. The Council as roads authority can consider and provide where necessary additional crossing
5 points or road safety improvements and the comments of the Architectural Liaison Officer have been noted in this instance.
The proposal does not raise any transport or road safety issues.
The Council has an interest in the land as it is the land owner and, therefore, the application needs to be considered by Committee.
In conclusion, the proposal complies with the development plan and the non statutory guidelines. It is acceptable in this location and is of an appropriate scale, form and design. A landscaping condition will be attached to obtain additional tree planting next to the school boundary in the current gap between the trees to improve the boundary. A condition shall also be attached to ensure that the noise mitigation measures referred to as "Scenario 2" are put in place so that the proposal will not result in an unreasonable loss to neighbouring amenity. The proposal does not raise any security or transport or road safety issues. There are no other material considerations that outweigh this conclusion.
It is recommended that the Committee approves this application subject to the conditions attached relating to tree planting and noise mitigation.
REASON FOR DECISION
The proposal complies with the development plan and the non statutory guidelines. It is acceptable in this location and is of an appropriate scale, form and design. A landscaping condition will be attached to obtain additional tree planting next to the school boundary in the current gap between the trees to improve the boundary. A condition shall also be attached to ensure that the noise mitigation measures referred to as "Scenario 2" are put in place so that the proposal will not result in an unreasonable loss to neighbouring amenity. The proposal does not raise any security or transport or road safety issues.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel Jackie McInnes on 0131 469 3731 Ward affected A05 - Inverleith Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan Statutory Open Space, Urban Area Development Plan Provision
6 Date registered 5 September 2012
Drawing numbers/ 01 - 07. Scheme Scheme 1
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal : www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Paul Devaney, 0131 529 3911, [email protected]
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
7 Appendix A
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Easter Drylaw Park Easter Drylaw Drive Edinburgh
Proposal: Development of an insitu concrete neighbourhood skatepark on the site of the existing BMX track in Easter Drylaw Park for recreational use by skateboarders, inline skaters and BMX bikers of all ages and abilities. Reference No: 12/03129/FUL
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Architectural Liaison Officer - Lothian and Borders Police
Planning Application for Skatepark, Easter Drylaw Park, Edinburgh
The police fully support any upgrade in amenities or facilities for users, this support is balanced with personal safety considerations allied to the chosen location.
The points noted below relate to potential considerations, which if implemented may provide an enhanced level of safety for those using the facility.
(ariel view/map)
The outline included, is from the details submitted by the applicant. I have highlighted three areas, which are the key pedestrian entry/exit points from the park and the proposed skatepark facility.
It is anticipated that the majority of users will walk or cycle to the site, however, other modes of transportation to the site have a number of potential considerations.
The entry/exit onto Telford Road is the only exit leading directly onto a bus route, but on arrival or departure, if using this mode of transport users would have to cross the road, the nearest pedestrian crossing is at the Groathill Road South junction. On south-east side of the site is a pathway into Telford Drive from the walkway, which also leads to Telford Road.
Ferry Road has the greater choice of Lothian Transport buses, would mean exiting the park on the north-east or north side.
8
If there was a direct route from Groathill Road North and the park this would have been a better option for people using the skatepark, as there would be a greater opportunity for natural surveillance of those entering and leaving the area, even if people alight at a bus stop in Groathill Road North, they could walk through Groathill Loan, onto Easter Drylaw Drive and entering at the northern entrance.
The Drylaw Young People's Unit is situated at the north entrance to the park.
For others who choose to come to the skatepark facility using a vehicle, they may face problems parking their vehicle as this is a residential area with limited parking.
Designated routes to and from the facility would preferably be well lit, with CCTV surveillance.
Skatepark
The proposed skatepark, is to be an `excavated' facility, which limits natural surveillance from people in the area or the residential properties located nearby and potentially would mitigate possible noise concerns.
The park has to be completely surrounded by a gated 2.4 metre weld mesh fence, which offers no climbing points between the new installation and any point adjoining the Rowanfield School fence. Either funding or an agreement has to be established so that the skatepark operates during specific times and the gates are locked at all other times. It is noted that this proposal is not going to enclose the site.
All lighting must comply with BS 5489-1 2003 and A2 2008, white light sources offering good colour recognition which is important and entry/exit routes all have to be lit to the same standard. All lumieres and lamp posts must also be robustly designed to deter acts of vandalism.
It is also noted that the site is not going to be lit, this eradicates the problem that has occurred at the Saughton Skate Park, where the light controls have been accessed to over-ride the timers, if this option is pursued, then footpaths through the park should not be illuminated as it may provide sufficient ambient light for those who wish to use the park during the hours of darkness.
CCTV cover the of the skatepark and all entry/exit routes until persons reach areas that have natural surveillance from residential properties or vehicular traffic would benefit users in terms of personal safety and an ability to monitor members of the public and users. Ferry Road already has some public space CCTV, but consideration may have to be given to installing public space CCTV on Telford Road.
9 Environmental Assessment
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 Development of an Insitu Concrete Neighbourhood Skate Park on the Site of the Existing BMX Track in Easter Drylaw Park for Recreational Use by Skateboarders, Inline Skaters and BMX Bikers of All Ages and Abilities at Easter Drylaw Park, Easter Drylaw Drive. (12/03129/FUL)
The application proposes a new skate park within an existing public park. A school is situated around 66 metres to the west with a hostel around 100 metres to the north. Residential properties surround the site to the north-west, north, north-east, and south west. The nearest residential properties to the application site are situated around 88 metres to the north-west on Groathill Loan. A cycle path bounds the park to the south-east with a substation across the cycle path to the south. Three story blocks of residential flats are situated to the south east across the cycle path on Telford Drive. The first and second floor flats on Telford Drive are topographically lower than the park and screened by two banks of trees and foliage either side of the cycle path. The top floor of flats is likely to have a line of sight to the skate park but at the time of site visit was found to be visually obstructed by the dense foliage. An existing BMX track is situated on the area of proposed skate park with a children's swing park situated adjacent to the east.
Skate parks in close proximity to residential properties can be a source of obtrusive noise. The main source of such noise is from the impact of skateboard wheels on the concrete surface of the park or on an in-built obstacle. Therefore, a noise impact assessment has been provided in support of the application which has considered all surrounding residential properties and the school.
The skate park will not be lit and therefore likely to only be used in daylight hours. The noise impact assessment outlines two scenarios which have been considered for the site. Scheme one includes a sunken concrete bowl with two 3 metre high acoustic bunds to the north and south of the bowl. Scheme two includes the same noise attenuating features as scheme one plus an additional acoustic screening to protect the school to the west of the site. This additional screening is also likely to provide some extra protection from noise for the existing residential properties on Groathill Loan.
The noise impact assessment mainly considers the LAeq noise levels likely to affect the surrounding properties and concludes that they will be within World Health Organisation guideline levels at the residential property facades. The background noise levels associated with the park would be deemed to be quite low for an urban park. Therefore in addition, the LAeq noise levels were compared with the existing background noise levels. The comparisons indicated that the existing background levels at the nearby residential properties were unlikely to be significantly raised by the activities at the skate park when designed and built to scheme two. Scheme one was less conclusive indicating that the skate park noise may be more noticeable above background noise levels at Groathill Loan. However, the report does not
10 assess LAmax (impact noise) levels which in the opinion of this Department, can be the most annoying factor associated with skateboarding activities. Further discussions with the acoustic consultant indicate that the LAmax levels could be at around 68 - 71 dB(A) at the nearest receptors. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health advises for noise of a similar nature that the threshold for human annoyance is less likely to occur below 55 dB LAmax with 65 dB LAmax stated as the level where annoyance is considered highly likely to occur. However, the acoustic consultant has advised that the assessment is based on noise measurement levels taken from Edinburgh’s Saughton Park skate park whilst in full operation. Saughton Park skate park is a significantly larger site, is not enclosed with acoustic bunds and includes static in built obstacles which can be a source of some of the higher impact noise levels. Such static obstacles (e.g. surrounding metal fences) are not proposed for inclusion within this application. Therefore, the LAmax levels stemming from the proposed site are likely to be less than those found at Saughton Park and will mainly be from audible voices and skateboard impact noise. In addition, the noise impact assessment of the existing background levels at Easter Drylaw Park indicate LAmax levels already to be to be in the region of 71-79 dB(A). However, the addition of a skateboard park is likely to increase the frequency of such noticeable noise events.
The skateboard impact noise will be partially enveloped by the concrete bowl and bunds and the proposed design should considerably reduce such impact noise to lower levels at the nearby residential receptors. However, voice noise from users of the skate park may be less easily contained by the concrete bowl and bunds if it occurs at or close to the height of the acoustic screening (e.g. where spectators may congregate). The proposed skate park is situated within an existing play park and is adjacent to a large children¿s swing, climbing and play area. In addition, the application proposes to site the skate park on part of an existing BMX track. The existing park is already affected by children shouting and playing and the new skate park will reduce the size of the BMX track available for use. It is therefore the opinion of this Department that noise from shouting may increase from the introduction of the proposed skate park but such noise does already occur to a certain extent within the park as a whole.
The nearest sensitive receptor is the school situated around 66 metres to the west of the proposed site. The noise impact assessment considers the latest non statutory design guidance for schools which recommends appropriate upper limit boundary noise levels and appropriate WHO LAeq levels. The report advises that scheme one is likely to cause the school grounds to be affected by noise levels higher than those recommended in the design guidance. The report does advise that scheme two, with the three metre high bund to the west of the site, is likely to ensure that the school is adequately protected from noise. However, once again, the report does not consider the more annoying impact noise affecting the school. Using the data measured at the more intensive and disturbing Saughton Park, the noise is likely to be noticeable within the school grounds. However, the school grounds are already likely to be affected by high voices and children playing.
11
The existing Saughton Park skate park is a well used site especially within the summer months. The Saughton Park skate park is around 65 metres from the nearest residential property which is around the same distance as the proposed skate park is from Rowanfield school. Additionally, Saughton Park skate park has no acoustic screening features in place. The Council has received one noise complaint which was from music and not from activities or sources which could be deemed to be normally or regularly occurring on site. No noise complaints have been received by the Council from shouting, skateboard rolling noise or crashes from the skateboard hitting the concrete.
In conclusion, this Department is of the opinion that sporadic noise from skateboarding activities is likely to be audible within surrounding residential properties and could on occasion be deemed to be annoying. The park is well shielded by the surrounding residential properties from the road and therefore the background noise is likely to be reasonably low in the morning and evening hours of the day in particular. However, the park and site itself already has some noisy activities occurring so occasional noisy intrusions above the background levels are already likely to be occurring albeit at a lesser frequency. Two schemes have been put forward with differing levels of noise mitigation measures proposed. Therefore, Environmental Assessment recommends that should the application be approved then the upgraded scheme two skate park which includes the additional proposed noise mitigation measures should be chosen for the site.
Transport
Transport has no objections to the proposed application.
Representations
The application was advertised, as a bad neighbour, on 14 September 2012. Six letters of representation were received: one objection; two with comments and three with supporting comments. One letter of support was from the consultant involved in the project expressing his personal view. The representations raised the following issues:
General support for local (youth) facilities (addressed in section a and d of the assessment): - good quality local services; good quality area for young people to use; local kids - something productive to do; - good community facility - exercising, making friends and having fun;
Concerns (addressed in sections c and d of the assessment):
- noise - security - CCTV; lighting; fencing; locked - youths congregating
12
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
The application site is designated as an area of open space in Edinburgh City Local Plan. It is also in the Urban Area of Edinburgh City Local Plan.
Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy Os 1 (Open Space Protection) sets criteria for assessing the loss of open space. Policy Hou 8 (Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas) establishes a presumption against development which would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of nearby residents. Policy Env 15 (Sites of Local Importance) identifies the circumstances in which development likely to affect Sites of Local Importance will be permitted. Policy Tra 7 (Tram) prevents development which would prejudice tram safeguards or identified tram routes. Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated. Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines The Open Space Strategy and the audit and action plans which support it are used to interpret local plan policies on the loss of open space and the provision or improvement of open space through new development. Non-statutory guidelines on 'QUALITY OF LANDSCAPES IN DEVELOPMENT' sets detailed design principles for hard and soft landscaping, including the retention of existing features, and relates these principles to different types of development. Non-statutory guidelines on "Trees and Development" provides guidance on the information required to support planning applications in respect of tree protection, the retention of trees of landscape, biodiversity or amenity significance, and encourages new tree planting where appropriate. Non-statutory guidelines The Protection of Key Views guideline aims to safeguard public views to those features which define Edinburgh's character. In order to achieve this, a number of key views have been specifically identified for protection. View cones for each key view have been separately defined. The impact of any proposed development on a key view will be assessed in terms of its effect on the view. While there will be a presumption in favour of protecting the views, it is recognised that the Edinburgh skyline has been formed by generations adding to and evolving the skyline. Positive additions to the skyline tend to be elegant and slender - spires and towers. Non-statutory guidelines on 'PARKING STANDARDS' set the requirements for parking provision in developments.
13 Non-statutory guidelines on 'MOVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT' establish design criteria for road and parking layouts. Other Relevant policy guidance
14 Appendix B
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Easter Drylaw Park Easter Drylaw Drive Edinburgh
Proposal: Development of an insitu concrete neighbourhood skatepark on the site of the existing BMX track in Easter Drylaw Park for recreational use by skateboarders, inline skaters and BMX bikers of all ages and abilities. Reference No: 12/03129/FUL
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives stated below.
Conditions:-
1. A fully detailed tree planting plan, showing clearly the tree planting on the boundary with Rowanfield Special School in the gap between the existing tree line on the proposed skate park's west boundary, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards before work is commenced on site. The trees shall be planted within 1 planting season and maintained for 10 years.
2. The noise mitigation measures referred to as "Scenario 2" detailed in Figure 3.2 in the submitted noise assessment report by The Airshed Ref AS 0278, i.e. 3 metre high bunds to north and south and 3 metres high acoustic fence to the west shall be installed before the skate park is open/available for use.
Reasons:-
1. In order to ensure that a high standard of tree planting along the boundary and landscaping is achieved, appropriate to the location of the site.
2. In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents.
15 Informatives
It should be noted that:
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.
End
16 Appendix C
Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: Development of an insitu concrete neighbourhood skatepark on the site of the existing BMX track in Easter Drylaw Park for recreational use by skateboarders, inline skaters and BMX bikers of all ages and abilities. Reference No: 12/03129/FUL
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
17
18
Item no 9 Report no
Planning Permission 12/02756/FUL at Land 38 Metres Northeast Of 16 Greendykes Road Edinburgh
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/02756/FUL, submitted by City Of Edinburgh Council. The application is for: Relocation of proposed access road to site and amended drainage details
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The proposal site is an area of land designated as Open Space which lies approximately 38m north east of Wauchope House, 16 Greendykes Road. The route of the proposed access road runs from the approved district heating system, located on land previously used as a playground, in a north/south direction and meets Niddrie House Avenue approximately 25 metres east of its junction with Greendykes Road.
Site History
20 July 2011 - Application granted for the erection of a single storey building with brick/block metal profiled roof (all insulated) to provide a secure enclosure for a district heating system (11/01233/FUL).
1 05 September 2011 - Non-material variation granted to amend route taken by access road (11/01233/VARY).
Pre-Application Process
Pre-application discussions were undertaken.
Description Of The Proposal
The proposal is to amend the route of the access road to the approved district heating system, forming a permanent road with a kerb to kerb width of 4800mm and a 1200mm wide pavement. The proposed road will create a new junction onto Niddrie House Avenue and run for approximately 38m to the energy centre building to the south. It will be made up of well compacted layers of Type 1 Hardcore to a depth of approximately 350mm and laid on a layer of Geotextile, to Road Construction Consent standards.
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether: a) the proposal is acceptable in principle; b) the proposal will have a detrimental impact on pedestrian or road safety; and c) the proposal will have an adverse impact on archaeological remains. a) The proposal will occupy a small part of a larger area which is designated as Open Space. The loss of this area of open space would have no significant impact on the character of the local environment or on local amenity. It constitutes a small portion of the open space serving the neighbourhood. Furthermore, the development will have no detrimental impact on biodiversity. No tree removal is proposed and it is for an access road to a development with a community purpose, the benefits of which will outweigh the loss of open space.
2 In these circumstances, given the nature and scale of the development proposal, a local alternative equivalent provision or improvement to an existing public park or open space is not necessary.
The proposal is acceptable in principle provided that it is in accordance with other relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. b) A consultation response from Transport Planning raised no concerns regarding pedestrian or road safety. The proposal will not have a detrimental impact on pedestrian or road safety. c) The Council's Archaeological Officer has indicated that the site is an area of archaeological importance. It is therefore recommended that if approved the works should be subject to the following condition: 'No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (protection, excavation, reporting and analysis & publication) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'
Subject to the recommended condition there will be no detrimental impact on archaeological remains.
In conclusion, the proposal complies with the development plan. The loss of the Open Space is acceptable in this instance as the site forms a small portion of a large area of open space, and because the proposal is in connection with a development with a community purpose, the benefits of which will outweigh the loss of open space. The proposal will not have a detrimental impact on pedestrian or road safety.
As the Council is the land owner, it has an interest in the application and a Committee decision is required.
It is recommended that the Committee approves this application subject to the recommended archaeological condition.
3 REASON FOR DECISION
The proposal is in accordance with the Edinburgh City Local Plan. The loss of the Open Space is acceptable in this instance as the site forms a small portion of a large area of open space, and because the proposal is in connection with a development with a community purpose, the benefits of which will outweigh the loss of open space. The proposal will not have a detrimental impact on pedestrian or road safety, or on archaeological remains subject to a condition which will safeguard any archaeological interest.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel Colin Bryans on 0131 529 4279 Ward affected A17 - Portobello/Craigmillar Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan Statutory Urban Area Development Plan Provision Date registered 13 August 2012
Drawing numbers/ 01,02,03,04A Scheme Scheme 2
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal : www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Paul Devaney, 0131 529 3911, [email protected]
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
4 Appendix A
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Land 38 Metres Northeast Of 16 Greendykes Road Edinburgh
Proposal: Relocation of proposed access road to site and amended drainage details Reference No: 12/02756/FUL
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Transport Planning
No objections.
Archaeology
It is recommended that the above programmes of archaeological work are secured using the following condition;
'No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (protection, excavation, reporting and analysis & publication) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'
Representations
None.
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
The proposal site is located in an urban area and within an area of open space, as designated by the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
5 Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy Tra 12 (New Roads) safeguards identified routes for new roads at Leith Docks and Newcraighall and identifies the circumstances in which new road space will be permitted elsewhere. Policy Os 1 (Open Space Protection) sets criteria for assessing the loss of open space. Policy Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance) sets out the circumstances in which development affecting sites of known or suspected archaeological significance will be permitted. Policy Inf 4 (Renewable Energy) sets criteria for assessing proposals for environmentally sustainable forms of energy gerneration.
6 Appendix B
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Land 38 Metres Northeast Of 16 Greendykes Road Edinburgh
Proposal: Relocation of proposed access road to site and amended drainage details Reference No: 12/02756/FUL
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives stated below.
Conditions:-
1. No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (protection, excavation, reporting and analysis & publication) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.
Reasons:-
1. In order to safeguard the interests of archaeological heritage.
Informatives
It should be noted that:
1. 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.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.
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.
End
7 Appendix C
Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: Relocation of proposed access road to site and amended drainage details Reference No: 12/02756/FUL
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
8
Item no 10 Report no
Planning Permission 12/00001/FUL at Harlaw Reservoir Harlaw Road Balerno
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/00001/FUL, submitted by Balerno Village Trust - Mr Simon Dormer. The application is for: The reuse, reconstruction and operation of Micro-Hydro Power Generation facilities.
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The site forms part of the area to the north and including the dam of the Harlaw reservoir. This lies to the west of Pentland Hills Ranger Centre around 2 miles south of Balerno. There are a number of disused former hydro electric generating structures within the site and the area is mostly wooded on steep slopes with natural undergrowth. There is a small rough path down to the base of the dam from the Pentland Hills Ranger Centre. There are three discharge channels associated with the reservoir of differing sizes and locations. The Harlaw reservoir forms an important part of the City of Edinburgh Council’s Flood Prevention scheme.
1 Site History
There is no relevant planning history for this site.
Pre-Application Process
Pre application advice indicated that the proposal may be acceptable subject to environmental impacts being acceptable.
Description Of The Proposal
The proposal is to utilise 2 water outflows from the Harlaw reservoir to generate hydro electric power. One outflow located high on the dam would be connected to approximately 70 metres of 0.6 metre diameter black polyetheline pipe which would be laid within the existing stone outflow channel to a point located high above the base of the dam. The pipe would then descend down a steep slope supported above ground on concrete blocks at approximately 10 metre centres, across the lower water course to a proposed reconstructed former turbine house. The former turbine house is a common brick structure with a flat concrete roof and it is proposed to replace this with a more traditionally designed building finished in wet dash render, stone corner detailing and a curved metal roof. The new turbine house would measure approximately 6.5 metres long by 4.5 metres wide by 3.3 metres high. Two trees are proposed for removal along with an area of vegetation immediately around the turbine house.
The second outflow connection is at the base of the dam and would be connected to a pipe approximately 10 metres long leading to the new turbine building.
The operation of the scheme to generate electricity would depend upon the water levels in the Harlaw reservoir and flows from it which are managed by the City of Edinburgh Council Flood Prevention Scheme. This ensures the maintenance of a water supply for habitat purposes within the Bavelaw Burn. It is estimated that the scheme will generate approximately 261MWh of electricity which is equivalent to the power consumed by around 60 typical residential properties. The electricity generated would be connected to the existing 11kV grid pole adjacent to the Pentland Hills Ranger Station. No details of how this connection would be achieved have been submitted. An access track between the top of the dam near the Pentland Hills Ranger Station down to the turbine house is proposed for construction and maintenance purposes; no details of this access track have been submitted.
Supporting Documents
Planning Application Supporting Statement.
This document describes the development and provides technical information relating to the proposal.
2
Ecological Walkover Assessment
This document describes ecological issues and relates them to the site highlighting the likely impacts upon the natural environment.
These documents are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services.
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
a) the principle of the development is acceptable b) the proposal is sustainable c) the design of the development is acceptable within this countryside location and area of outstanding landscape quality d) the proposal adversely affects the natural environment e) the proposal adversely affects residential amenity a) The locational requirements of this type development are specific to sites where there is a large body of water providing a head sufficient to generate electricity by means of hydro turbines. Such reservoir sites are normally only located within countryside areas and providing the proposal complies with other policy requirements, the principle of the proposal is acceptable within this countryside policy area. b) If the impact of the development on the natural environment is acceptable, the use of the site to generate electricity by means of hydro power is a sustainable approach which is welcomed. The impact of the development upon the natural environment is assessed later in this report. c) The new turbine house is of a traditional design which copies the style of the original structures associated with the dam. The removal of the redundant
3 brick building is welcomed. The new pipes are to be located on the surface and will be visible within this area of woodland and associated undergrowth. The surface location will reduce the disturbance to roots and enable future maintenance to be carried out without further serious disruption. The visual impact of the pipes will be minimal given their location in association in relation to other existing dam infrastructure. Through natural regeneration the pipes will ultimately become well screened. However appropriate compensatory planting can be required via a condition.
No details of the access path have been provided but the applicants are keen to minimise damage to the environment and are also aware of the need not to encourage public access into this area. It is hoped to combine planned repair works to the dam required as part of the Council’s Water of Leith Flood Prevention Scheme with the construction of the proposal. This would enable two sets of engineering works to be carried out utilising the same access track. The detailed specification, location and design of the access path can be conditioned requiring the submission of details following consultation with the Council’s Flood Prevention section and the Pentland Hills Regional Park.
No details of the proposed grid connection from the new turbine house have been provided. However this is a detail which can only be established following discussion with Scottish Power following a planning permission. Various options are possible and the applicant’s aim is to minimise visual and physical damage to the environment. Given the small scale nature of the electricity generating capacity of the site, details of how the grid connection can be achieved can be required via a condition.
The proposal will not adversely affect the landscape character of the area. d) The site is identified as being of importance for nature conservation. Both badgers and otters are known to be present within the vicinity of the site. Providing best practice, as stated in the submitted Ecological Walkover Statement is adopted during construction works, disturbance will be minimal. Best practice in relation to birds would require site preparation and ground clearance to be completed outwith the breeding season. The applicant is reminded about their responsibilities in relation to protected species legislation in an informative. The proposal does not adversely affect the natural environment.
Under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR), the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) require the submission of an application for a CAR Licence. This would allow consideration of the implications of the proposal on the water environment. The applicants have not submitted this licence and details of any subsequent changes to the scheme required following the granting of a CAR licence may require to be approved in writing by the Head of Planning. Similarly the Council’s Flood Prevention section will require to agree to construction details and timings of works. Any material changes to the proposal will require to be the subject of further planning consideration. The applicants are reminded of their responsibilities in relation to making a CAR licence via an informative.
4 e) There are no residential properties within the vicinity of the site whose amenity would be affected by the proposal.
In conclusion, the proposal is acceptable. The proposed use is acceptable in this countryside location and it will not adversely affect the openness or qualities of the area of outstanding landscape value. The development is sustainable and will not adversely affect the natural environment or residential amenity. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
It is recommended that the Committee approves this application subject to conditions requiring details of access, electrical grid connections, replacement planting, tree protection measures, and archaeological investigations. Also conditions relating to the protection of the natural environment.
REASON FOR DECISION
The proposals comply with the Development Plan and non-statutory guidance and are acceptable.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel David McFarlane on 0131 529 3512 Ward affected A02 - Pentland Hills Local Plan Rural West Edinburgh Statutory Countryside Policy Development Plan Provision Date registered 5 January 2012
Drawing numbers/ 1,2a,3-5 Scheme Scheme 1
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal : www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
5 If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner,
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
6 Appendix A
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Harlaw Reservoir Harlaw Road Balerno
Proposal: The reuse, reconstruction and operation of Micro-Hydro Power Generation facilities. Reference No: 12/00001/FUL
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
BAA
The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. We, therefore, have no objection to this proposal.
Services for Communities (Environmental Assessment)
The application proposes to erect micro-hydro power generation facilities within a countryside location adjacent to an existing reservoir to the south. A ranger centre is situated to the east.
Therefore, Environmental Assessment has no objections to this proposed development.
Transport Planning (Development Control)
I have no objections to the application
SEPA
We have no objection to this planning application. Please note the advice provided below.
Advice for the planning authority
1. Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR) 1.1 The proposed scheme will require an authorisation from SEPA under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR) which was put in place to deliver Water Framework Directive objectives relating to the protection and improvement of the water environment. Many
7 hydro proposals will have a significant adverse effect on the water environment and are therefore contrary to the objectives of the Directive. The Directive does however make provision for a derogation (exemption) from Directive objectives where a proposal meets certain strict conditions. However, we have not yet received an application for this scheme and therefore, we cannot determine whether the proposals will be consentable under CAR. 1.2 Local authorities are designated as a ¿responsible authority¿ under the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (WEWS). We therefore remind you that you must carry out your functions in a way that secures compliance with WFD objectives (WEWS 2(2)). As such, we recommend that determination of the planning application is deferred until the corresponding CAR application has been processed to establish whether or not a derogation is required and can be granted. 2. Flood risk 2.1 We have reviewed the information provided and it is noted that the application site lies within the 1 in 200 year (0.5% annual probability) flood envelope of the Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland), and may therefore be at medium to high risk of flooding. Scottish Planning Policy states in paragraph 203, that ¿for planning purposes the functional flood plain will generally have a greater than 0.5% (1:200) probability of flooding in any year. Development on the functional flood plain will not only be at risk itself, but will add to the risk elsewhere.¿ Built development should not therefore take place on the functional flood plain. 2.2 However, we have no objection to the proposed development on flood risk grounds as we consider that the proposed development is considered an exception to the above as noted within SPP paragraph 204. Furthermore from the information we have received we are of the opinion that the proposals are not likely to have a significant effect on flood risk in the area. 2.3 It is recommended that contact is made with your local Flood Prevention Officer who should be able to provide further information regarding flooding in the area and further details on the Water of Leith flood prevention scheme which incorporates Harlaw & Threipmuir Reservoirs. 2.4 Please note that we are reliant on the accuracy and completeness of any information supplied by the applicant in undertaking our review, and can take no responsibility for incorrect data or interpretation made by the authors. 2.5 The advice contained in this letter is supplied to you by SEPA in terms of Section 72 (1) of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 on the basis of information held by SEPA as at the date hereof. It is intended as advice solely to City of Edinburgh Council as Planning Authority in terms of the said Section 72 (1). This advice is given without prejudice to any decision made on elements of the proposal regulated by us, which may take into account factors not considered at the planning stage.
Detailed advice for the applicant
3. Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR)
8 3.1 We recommend that an application is submitted for a CAR licence at the same time as submitting a planning application to the local authority as it allows consideration of common details at the same time and should improve the efficiency of the consenting process. Therefore, as we have not received an application for a CAR licence we are unable to advise on the likely consentability of the scheme. In an attempt to address this issue we have recommended that determination of the planning application is deferred until the CAR application has been progressed. You may wish to discuss this issue with the planning authority. 3.2 If you would prefer the planning authority to go determine the planning application prior to the CAR licence being granted we consider it to be your commercial risk if the CAR licence is later refused. There is the chance that any significant changes required during the regulatory stage may also necessitate a further planning application and/or neighbour notification or advertising. 3.3 The proposal should meet the criteria set out in Part A of the SEPA guidance for developers of run-of-river hydropower schemes. All hydro schemes are also required to incorporate all practicable mitigation measures, as set out in Part B of the guidance, to reduce the impact on the water environment. The Guidance for applicants on supporting information requirements for hydropower applications provides details of the supporting information required with a licence application and includes information on fish and fish habitat. Any CAR licence issued will contain a condition requiring a Construction Method Statement (CMS) to be submitted and agreed with SEPA. Mitigation proposed for the construction of the access tracks, pipeline, impoundment, abstraction and return structures should all be included in the CMS. 3.4 We note that the proposed scheme is sub 0.35 gigawatt hours per year. Therefore, if the scheme satisfies Annex A checklist and incorporates the mitigation set out in Part B of the guidance noted above then it will not be required to go through the derogation procedure. 3.5 The applicant is advised to contact the local regulatory team if they require any further advice and guidance in relation to the CAR licensing process. 4. Flood risk 4.1 We do note that the access track to the site is within the 1 in 200 year flood extent and therefore is at risk of flooding, furthermore the village of Balerno downstream of the proposed site has been subject to flash flooding as recently as July 2011. We therefore support all necessary mitigation measures to reduce flood risk at the proposed site. We also strongly advise that the guidance outlined in Planning Advice Note 69, paragraphs 79 to 85 Water Resistant Materials and Forms of Construction is followed.
Regulatory advice
5. Regulatory requirements 5.1 Details of regulatory requirements and good practice advice for the applicant can be found on our website at www.sepa.org.uk/planning.aspx. If you are unable to find the advice you need for a specific regulatory matter, please contact a member of the regulatory team in your local SEPA office (tel: 0131 449 7296).
9
Culture and Leisure Archaeology Service
The proposed works affect the dam of Harlaw reservoir constructed between 1843 & 1848. Accordingly the site is considered to occur within an area of local archaeological importance. Therefore this application must be considered under terms the Scottish Government Historic Environment Policy (SHEP), Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), PAN 02/2011 and also CEC’s Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan (2003) E30. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.
The proposals will see the demolition of brick former machinery out buildings and structures associate with the dam, an impact which is considered to have a moderate-low archaeological impact. It is considered important therefore that an archaeological programme of works is undertaken to record these structures and any associated remains. This will require the undertaking of a watching brief during construction, a survey and plan of the surviving remains linked to a photographic and written historic building record of the upstanding structures. It is recommended that the following condition is attached if consent is granted to ensure that this programme of archaeological works is undertaken.
'No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (excavation, historic building record, analysis & reporting) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'
The work must be carried out by a professional archaeological organisation, either working to a brief prepared by CECAS or through a written scheme of investigation submitted to and agreed by CECAS for the site. Responsibility for the execution and resourcing of the programme of archaeological works and for the archiving and appropriate level of publication of the results lies with the applicant.
Flood Prevention
The outflow from the reservoir will always be used for operational purposes and as such the flow supply to any hydro turbine cannot and will not be guaranteed.
Edinburgh Council is currently progressing with projects to carry out relining to the outlet pipes and possible replacement of the outlet valves. It should be noted that the hydro scheme will not be able to progress until this work is complete.
10 It is understood that the legal issues relating to this application are being considered separately. The Flood Prevention Team would like to be kept informed of any outcome in relation to any agreements.
It is accepted that an access road down to the worksite will be required during construction (of the works) and the location and detail of this will need to be agreed. Reference has been made to a permanent access road which in this area is not acceptable. Any access taken for construction would need to be reinstated to the current condition on completion.
All proposed details for the works will require to be discussed and agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council, Flood Prevention Team and the Reservoir Supervising or Inspecting Engineer.
It is essential that the position of the outlet discharge from the turbine house is upstream of the existing flow gauge weir.
Access to the upper outlet will be severely restricted. * There are weight restrictions across the dam which would limit the construction traffic. * The steepness of the bywash channel and the adjacent slope may prove prohibitive for access. * No construction traffic would be allowed to access from the bywash channel or through the trees from the upper valve chamber. * The placement of the pipeline within the stone outlet channel would greatly reduce the flow capacity. It would need to be clearly demonstrated that this would not affect the reservoir operations.
There are some errors in the document Planning Application Supporting Statement that should be amended: * The title of this document is not strictly correct; there is no Reuse or Reconstruction as everything relating to the hydro scheme will be new. * Reference to Policy M6 should be M7; * In Location -there is no existing micro hydro electric generating site; -The reference to Nissan style hut should be changed to brick houses to avoid confusion with the existing valve house; * Ownership of the reservoir did not transfer until 2007; * The reservoirs are managed by the Flood Prevention Team, remove references to and River Flow Management.
11 Representations
The proposal was advertised on 20.01.2012 and one letter of representation has been received.
Material points addressed in assessment a)
- policy issues relating to the use within the Pentland Hills Regional Park are highlighted
Non material points raised related to monetary concerns in relation to the Council’s land ownership of the site.
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
The proposal lies within a countryside policy area on the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan. The site also a site of importance for nature conservation and within an area of outstanding landscape quality.
Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan.
Policy E1 seeks to prevent development which would be inconsistent with local plan objectives for sustainable development. Policy E4 states that development proposals should fully take into account the likely effects on the environment and include measures to mitigate any adverse effects. Policy E5 states that in order to protect the landscape quality, rural character and amenity of the Green Belt and countryside areas, development will be restricted. Policy E6 states that where acceptable in principle, development proposals in the Green Belt or countryside must meet the criteria which aim to achieve high standards of design and landscaping. Policy E8 states that development will not be permitted where it would adversely affect the special scenic qualities and integrity of the area of Great Landscape Value or Areas of Outstanding Landscape Quality. These landscape features include: the patterns of woodland, fields, hedgerows and trees; the special qualities of rivers and lochs; and skylines and hill features, including prominant views. Policy E15 seeks to ensure the survival and retention of healthy mature trees as part of development proposals. Where the loss of woodland, trees or hedgerows is unavoidable, the developer will be required to undertake equivalent replacement planting.
12 Policy E18 protects identified sites of local nature conservation interest. Development within or affecting Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation will not be permitted unless there are appropriate mitigation measures to enhance or safeguard the nature conservation interest of the site. Policy E22 says that development proposals which have the potential to harm a protected plant or animal species or its habitat will not be permitted unless the protection of species can be secured through the appropriate design and construction methods. Policy E27 encourages and supports a number of measures for the protection and enhancement of the recreational potential of the River Almond, Water of Leith and their tributaries Policy E41 encourages high standards of design for all development and its careful integration with its surroundings in terms of scale, form, siting, alignment and materials. New development should improve energy effeciency and reduce noise pollution. Policy E42 requires new buildings to make a positive contribution to the overall quality of the environment and the street scene, making provision for high quality landscaping and, where appropriate, new open spaces. Policy R45 says that as a general principle all new residential and business development should be designed to avoid or manage any threat to susceptible properties from a 200 year flood Policy M7 says that proposals for the generation of renewable energy will be permitted unless there would be unacceptable harm to one of the environmental designations listed Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines Non-statutory guidelines on BIODIVERSITY sets objectives for habitat creation and enhancement, lists protected species and how developments can make provision for these, and lists the sites of national and local nature conservation interest. Non-statutory guidelines DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE AND GREEN BELT, provide guidance on development in the Green Belt and Countryside in support of relevant local plan policies. Non-statutory guidelines on 'QUALITY OF LANDSCAPES IN DEVELOPMENT' sets detailed design principles for hard and soft landscaping, including the retention of existing features, and relates these principles to different types of development. Non-statutory guidelines on "Trees and Development" provides guidance on the information required to support planning applications in respect of tree protection, the retention of trees of landscape, biodiversity or amenity significance, and encourages new tree planting where appropriate.
13 Appendix B
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Harlaw Reservoir Harlaw Road Balerno
Proposal: The reuse, reconstruction and operation of Micro-Hydro Power Generation facilities. Reference No: 12/00001/FUL
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives stated below.
Conditions:-
1. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the proposed access between the Pentland Hills Ranger Centre and the new turbine building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning. Those details shall be in the form of a method statement and shall include a detailed specification, location and design of the access path together with the reinstatement of damaged ground. The approved method statement shall be fully implemented prior to the hydro power generating facilities being made operational and thereafter maintained.
2. Prior to the commencement of works on the site, details an electrical grid connection is to be formed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning. The approved details shall be fully implemented prior to the hydro power generating facilities being made operational and thereafter maintained.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development details of compensatory screen planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning. Those approved details shall be fully implemented within one year of the completion of the development.
4. Only the tree/s shown for removal on the approved drawing/s shall be removed, and no work shall be carried out on the remaining trees at any time without the prior written consent of the Head of Planning.
5. Prior to the commencement of any work on the site details of tree protection measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning. These details shall be in accordance with BS5837.2005
14 `Recommendation for Trees in Relation to Construction’ and shall remain during construction.
6. No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (excavation, historic building record, analysis & reporting) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Head of Planning.
Reasons:-
1. In the interests of protecting the environment.
2. In the interests of protecting the environment.
3. In the interests of protecting the environment.
4. In order to safeguard protected trees.
5. In order to safeguard protected trees.
6. In order to safeguard the interests of archaeological heritage.
Informatives
It should be noted that:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.
2. The applicant should note that any changes required to the proposal following the granting of a CAR licence by SEPA and following discussions with the Councils Flood Prevention Section shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning.
3. The applicants should be aware that during the construction of the development, the best practice specified in the submitted document titled ‘Ecological Walkover Assessment for Proposed Small-Scale Hydro Scheme at Harlaw Dam Balerno West Lothian, September 2011’ by Acorna Associates (Ecological and Planning Consultancy) shall require to be fully adhered to.
End
15 Appendix C
Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: The reuse, reconstruction and operation of Micro-Hydro Power Generation facilities. Reference No: 12/00001/FUL
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
16
Item no 11 (a) Report no
Planning Permission 12/02858/FUL at 34 Midmar Drive Edinburgh EH10 6BU
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/02858/FUL, submitted by Mr & Mrs Ian & Schehrezade Davidson.. The application is for: Demolish existing house and erect two-storey house w ith off-street parking and landscaped garden.
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The application site is located on the west side of Midmar Drive at the south end just before the bend into Hermitage Drive. It sits behind a large detached, and extended, Victorian villa fronting Hermitage Drive and next to a one-and a half storey detached house of bungalow appearance. The property is elevated above street level and looks across to Blackford Hill. Next to the two bungalows is a row of two storey, with garage at ground level giving appearance of three storey, detached brick built modern villas.
The property is a modern bungalow set back on the plot. It has stone walls and a slate roof, with dormers. The dwellinghouse was completed in 2003 and
1 is one of two residential units built in the grounds of the former nursing home on the corner of Hermitage Drive and Midmar Drive.
The street and surrounding area are residential in character with a large area of open space on the east side of Midmar Drive, namely Blackford Hill and including allotments. Most of the dwellinghouses in the area are stone Victorian villas although there are examples of modern houses, including a block of flats on Hermitage Drive and the row of brick built houses on Midmar Drive.
The property is not a listed building.
This property is located within the Morningside Conservation Area.
Site History
The relevant site history is:
15 Hermitage Drive:
15 December 1993. Permission granted to erect a matron's residence in the grounds of the existing nursing home (as amended) (Reference: 93/01623/FUL).
10 September 1997. Permission granted for redevelopment and extension to staff accommodation (i.e. demolish existing staff accommodation and erect new staff accommodation building (Reference: 97/00868/FUL).
5 June 2006. Permission granted for change use from nursing home to residential (Reference: 06/01169/FUL).
13 June 2007. Permission granted for formation of 4No flats from existing dwelling including internal and external alterations and the construction of single and two storey extensions (Reference: 06/05340/FUL).
32 Midmar Drive:
9 September 2005. Permission granted for change of use from matron's house (nursing home) to residential (Reference: 05/02396/FUL).
1 July 2010. Permission granted to remove, replace and add new windows, door sets and skylights to north and south elevation (Reference: 10/01223/FUL).
2 Other relevant planning applications:
34 Midmar Drive
20.August 2012. Application pending consideration to demolish existing one and a half storey house (Reference: 12/02859/CON).
Pre-Application Process
Pre-application advice was given by the Council as planning authority on the acceptability of the design and on the impact on neighbouring privacy.
Description Of The Proposal
The proposal is for a two storey flat roofed modern detached house.
The proposal will be angled, at approximately 15 degrees, on the site facing out towards Blackford Hill and the Edinburgh skyline, including the Castle and Leith, beyond. It will be constructed right up to the side (north and south) boundaries of the site. The ground floor will extend further forward into the garden than the first floor and be at an angle facing north-north eastward. The first floor will be perpendicular to the side boundaries on the front elevation. Both floors will be angled on the rear elevations.
The front elevations will consist of glazing and larch cladding on the ground floor with the same on the first floor plus a section of zinc clad wall. Dark stained timber fascia boards will bound the top of the first floor elevation and flat roof.
The rear elevation will also contain windows and have larch cladding and zinc clad walls. Two sections of larch timber screens will be installed from ground floor to roof height covering windows. The southern part of the rear elevation will be smooth render with no windows.
A garage at street level is also proposed. It will be accessed directly from the heel of the pavement and have timber boarded gates. A vehicle turntable will be installed inside the garage. Steps immediately adjacent to the garage will lead up to the garden and will also be accessed directly from the pavement through a timber boarded gate. Both gates will be higher than the existing stone wall and the pedestrian access gate will continue the timber northwards to the boundary.
A smooth render section of wall will be erected above the stone wall and sit between the gates and between the vehicular gate and the southern boundary. A section of wooden fence will be erected at the southern end of the boundary fronting Midmar Drive and a glass balustrade next to it running to just before the proposed pedestrian access gate.
The proposed house will replace an existing one and a half storey bungalow.
3 3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of permission.
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
a) the proposal is acceptable in this location; b) the proposal is of an appropriate scale, form and design; c) the proposal will preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area; d) the proposal will result in an unreasonable loss to neighbouring amenity; e) the proposal will provide an acceptable level of amenity for future occupiers; and f) the proposal will have any traffic or road safety issues. a) The use of the application site for a dwellinghouse is established in this location. The proposal will retain residential use on the plot within a residential street and in a residential area. Proposals for the demolition of unlisted buildings within conservation areas will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where they do not make a positive contribution to the character of the area. The existing property falls within this scenario. It is important that any replacement building meets the statutory test to preserve or enhance the character of the area. The Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) on unlisted buildings requires that planning authorities take into account the importance of the building to the character or appearance of any part of the conservation area when assessing applications for conservation area consent. The demolition, to enable the replacement building to be erected, is considered in a separate report on planning application 12/02859/CON.
The proposal is acceptable in this location. b) The ground floor will occupy approximately 33% more than the footprint of the existing building's ground floor footprint. The proposed first floor area is smaller than the ground floor and approximately 4% smaller than the ground floor footprint of the existing building. Being angled and being built up to the
4 boundaries will retain the close relationship with the neighbouring properties. Historically there was a link between the neighbouring property at 15 Hermitage Drive and staff accommodation on the plot where the bungalow at number 34 Midmar Drive now sits. The proposal will leave a sufficient amount of private outdoor amenity space. In this context the increase in the area of the footprint of the proposed building is acceptable.
The proposal will sit forward of the existing bungalow's position on the plot and behind the building line of the neighbouring buildings on either side. With the flat roof, the resultant building will be marginally higher than the existing dwellinghouse. It will sit comfortably between its neighbours and provide a gradual step down from the grand Victorian villa, on the corner of Hermitage Drive and Midmar Drive, to the bungalow at number 32 Midmar Drive.
A mixture of traditional and modern materials will be used. The door frames and some of the window frames will be timber and the front elevation will consist mainly of timber cladding with a small area of zinc. Zinc will be used in more parts of the rear elevation which will also include timber louvred screens. The palette of materials works well with the modern design of the building and maintains a reference to traditional materials.
The proposed additional boundary treatment, of smooth render and opaque glass and a timber fence, with the street will contrast with the original stone boundary wall. An existing wooden fence sits above the stone wall and its replacement by a mixture of timber fencing, opaque glazing and render is acceptable.
The proposal is of an appropriate scale, form and design. c) Morningside Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that, the southern boundary is formed by the rear gardens of Hermitage Drive which overlook the woodland park of Hermitage of Braid. The eastern boundary is formed by Midmar Drive which is a single sided street overlooking extensive allotments, which in turn are overlooked by the mass of Blackford Hill lying to the east. There are two recent developments, one being a brick built terrace on Midmar Drive and the other being an extensive block of flats turning the corner of Braid Avenue and Hermitage Drive.
The Character Appraisal also states under "Opportunities for Enhancement" that. The scale, design and materials of new developments should reinforce and protect those features that give the conservation area its spatial character. Any development should take into consideration the spatial pattern, scale, proportions and design of traditional properties.
Traditional materials should be used in repair and new build. Modern substitutes generally fail to respect the character of the area. The stone boundary walls and railings are a key feature within the conservation area, and they should be repaired and reinstated where appropriate. Original architectural features should be preserved wherever possible.
5 The proposed house will replace an existing house and, therefore, the principle of a building on this site, a former garden area to the villa at 15 Hermitage Drive, has been established. The use of the former garden of the original villa for a building has already been conceded. Therefore, it is not appropriate to apply the "Infill development in villa areas and the grounds of villas" non statutory guideline or to assess overdevelopment of the plot. The detached properties in Midmar Drive are set closer together than that found elsewhere in the immediate part of the conservation area and the proposed house respects the spatial pattern of Midmar Drive.
The existing building is set back from the public street and is at a higher level than the street.The proposed new house will only be marginally higher than the existing house and will still be positioned between the neighbouring properties. It will not be readily seen from the street and it will not be prominent within the street scene. Part of the ground floor may be seen from some views from the street. The property will be seen from Blackford Hill and will sit comfortably within the row of houses on Midmar Drive, particularly given the row of modern brick built houses which form a main part of this section.
The bungalow to be replaced is not a Victorian villa or dwellinghouse. It was built in 2003. The design policies of Edinburgh City Local Plan encourage high quality modern design and the proposal satisfies this policy. The proposal is of a contemporary design and will use high quality materials. The immediate surrounding area, particularly the eastern part of Hermitage Drive and most of Midmar Drive, contains other examples of individually designed dwellinghouses.
The proposed boundary treatment on the front bounding Midmar Drive will retain the stone boundary wall. The two cuttings proposed to install timber gates to the garage and pedestrian access are acceptable. The wall does not continue all along the street and, with the exception of number 32 Midmar Drive, all the other properties have driveways and openings in the boundary walls. There is a mixture of materials used, with examples of brick boundary walls in Midmar Drive. The proposal, therefore, will not detract from the prevailing character of the street scene.
The character of the conservation area, predominantly residential, will be retained.
The proposal will preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. d) The front windows will overlook the public street and onto Blackford Hill. There is an element of existing overlooking of number 32 Midmar Drive's windows and front garden due to its proximity to number 34 and the boundary treatment between the properties. The angle of the proposed house will look more towards number 32 than the existing building to be demolished. In this context, no new overlooking will be created.
6 The ground floor windows at the rear will look onto an existing stone boundary wall which has a fence attached increasing the height of the existing screening of the neighbouring property. There are existing windows on the rear elevation and there is no new overlooking created by the proposal at ground floor level.
On the first floor, a bathroom window will be installed in the north gable and be translucent glazing. Two bathroom windows will be installed on the first floor on the rear elevation and will be translucent glazing. They will both be within the minimum distance of 9 metres required to protect neighbouring privacy. The bedroom window in the set back part of the gable towards the rear of the proposed house will overlook the tennis court and will not be opposite any neighbouring windows.
The rear first floor elevation of the proposed house will also include bedroom windows between 4.9 metres and 6.1 metres from the boundary. The windows on the proposed house will not be directly opposite neighbouring windows and will be more than 16 metres away from the windows on the neighbouring property in Hermitage Drive and angled. The minor infringement of the non statutory guideline is acceptable and is so minor that refusal would not be justified. However, due to the angle of the proposed new house there may be a perception that the windows would overlook the neighbouring windows and garden. Currently there is sufficient screening in the form of deciduous trees but in the winter months, without the leaves, there would be overlooking. A condition, therefore, shall be attached to ensure that sufficient screening be provided in order to protect neighbouring amenity.
The proposed house will sit in a gable to gable situation which is generally exempt from the guidance on Daylighting Sunlight and Privacy. However, the neighbouring property to the south has its rear elevation next to the gable of the proposed house. The applicant has demonstrated that there will be no adverse overshadowing or loss of daylighting to neighbouring windows.
The proposal, with the use of a condition regarding screening, will not result in an unreasonable loss to neighbouring amenity. e) The proposal will provide a sufficient amount of living accommodation for any future occupiers and will also provide an appropriate amount of private outdoor amenity space. The proposed house will also benefit from the extensive open space opposite. It satisfies the criteria in the Edinburgh Standards for Housing and is acceptable.
The proposal will provide an acceptable level of amenity for future occupiers. f) Transport has been consulted and has no objections to the application. It has requested that the gates open inward to protect pedestrian and road safety. The representations raised the issue of the proposed vehicle entrance being on a corner and that this would create a road safety hazard. The issue of the impact on traffic of manoeuvring of vehicles in and out of the proposed garage was also raised. The proposed garage will be more than 15 metres
7 from the junction, which is the minimum distance required at junctions in the interests of road safety. Vehicles park on this part of Midmar Drive and the introduction of a garage entrance will have no more impact on traffic than the parked vehicles. The garage will incorporate a turntable and the vehicles will be able to exit in a forward position.
The proposal does not raise any traffic or road safety issues.
In conclusion, the proposal complies with the development plan and the infringement, regarding privacy, of the non statutory guideline is justified in this case. The proposal is acceptable in this location and is of an appropriate scale, form and design. The character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved and enhanced. With the use of a condition relating to privacy screening, it will not result in an unreasonable loss to neighbouring amenity and an acceptable level of amenity will be afforded to future occupiers. The proposal will not result in any traffic or road safety issues. There are no other material considerations which outweigh this conclusion and approval is recommended. The demolition of the existing house is considered in a separate report on planning application 12/02859/CON.
It is recommended that Committee approves this application subject to conditions relating to the privacy screens and materials.
REASON FOR DECISION
The proposal complies with the development plan and the infringement, regarding privacy, of the non statutory guideline is justified in this case. The proposal is acceptable in this location and is of an appropriate scale, form and design. The character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved and enhanced. With the use of a condition relating to privacy screening, it will not result in an unreasonable loss to neighbouring amenity and an acceptable level of amenity will be afforded to future occupiers. The proposal will not result in any traffic or road safety issues. There are no other material considerations which outweigh this conclusion and approval is recommended.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel Jackie McInnes on 0131 469 3731 Ward affected A10 - Meadows/Morningside Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan Statutory Conservation Area Urban Area Development Plan Provision Date registered 28 August 2012
Drawing numbers/ 01 - 19.
8 Scheme Scheme 1
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal : www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Paul Devaney, 0131 529 3911, [email protected]
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
9 Appendix A
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: 34 Midmar Drive Edinburgh EH10 6BU
Proposal: Demolish existing house and erect two-storey house with off- street parking and landscaped garden. Reference No: 12/02858/FUL
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Transport
Transport has no objections to the proposed application subject to the following being included as conditions or informatives as appropriate:
1. A length of 2 metres nearest the road should be paved in a solid material to prevent deleterious material (e.g. loose chippings) being carried on to the road; 2. Any gate or gates must open inwards onto the property; 3. The works to form the footway crossing should be carried out in accordance with "Development Roads - Guidelines and Specification" and under cover of a Minor Roadworks consent.
Note: the proposed vehicle access is outwith 15m of the junction of Midmar Drive / Hermitage Drive.
Representations
The application was advertised on 7 September 2012 and nine letters of objection were received. These included comments from The Cockburn Association, Morningside Community Council and The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland. The letters of representation raised the following issues:
Principle of demolition (addressed in part a of the assessment):
Design (addressed in part b of the assessment): - overdevelopment; relationship with original villa, design of elevations; impact on wider townscape; topography; and boundary wall conservation (addressed in part c of the assessment): - special importance of Conservation Area; materials; design concept; architectural contribution to character and appearance, impact of proposals on enhancement criterion
10
Parking, garaging and street scene (addressed in parts b and f of the assessment): - road safety concerns.
Amenity (addressed in part d of the assessment): - overlooking and loss of privacy, loss of light, proximity.
Note: This application relates to an associated planning application (Reference: 12/02859/CON) which seeks the demolition of the existing building. Representations, including those made above, have been received relating to this parallel application and will be considered in the report on planning application 12/02859/CON.
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
The application property is in Morningside Conservation Area and in the Urban Area of Edinburgh City Local Plan.
Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated. Policy Des 3 (Development Design) sets criteria for assessing development design. Policy Env 5 (Conservation Areas ¿ Demolition of Buildings) sets outs criteria for assessing proposals involving demolition of buildings in conservation areas. Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development ) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas. Policy Tra 4 (Private Car Parking) requires private car parking provision to comply with the parking levels set out in supplementary planning guidance, and sets criteria for assessing lower provision. Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines Non-statutory guidelines 'DAYLIGHTING, PRIVACY AND SUNLIGHT' set criteria for assessing proposals in relation to these issues. Non-statutory guidelines on 'MOVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT' establish design criteria for road and parking layouts. Non-statutory guidelines on 'PARKING STANDARDS' set the requirements for parking provision in developments. Other Relevant policy guidance The Morningside Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises that the architectural character of the conservation area is largely composed of Victorian and Edwardian villas and terraces which form boundaries to
11 extensive blocks of private open space. The villa streets are complemented by the profusion of mature trees, extensive garden settings, stone boundary walls and spacious roads. The villas which are in variety of architectural styles are unified by the use of local building materials.
12 Appendix B
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: 34 Midmar Drive Edinburgh EH10 6BU
Proposal: Demolish existing house and erect two-storey house with off- street parking and landscaped garden. Reference No: 12/02858/FUL
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives stated below.
Conditions:-
1. Details of the screening of the rear first floor windows shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards before occupation of the proposed house. The screening shall be erected prior to the first occupation of the dwellinghouse hereby approved.
2. A detailed specification, including trade names where appropriate, of all the proposed external materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards before work is commenced on site; Note: samples of the materials may be required.
Reasons:-
1. In order to protect the privacy of adjoining neighbours.
2. In order to enable the Head of Planning & Building Standards to consider this/these matter/s in detail.
Informatives
It should be noted that:
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
13 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. The garage and pedestrian gates are to open inwards in the interests of pedestrian and road safety.
5. A length of 2 metres nearest the road should be paved in a solid material to prevent deleterious material (e.g. loose chippings) being carried on to the road;
6. The works to form the footway crossing should be carried out in accordance with "Development Roads - Guidelines and Specification " and under cover of a Minor Roadworks consent.
End
14 Appendix C
Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: Demolish existing house and erect two-storey house with off- street parking and landscaped garden. Reference No: 12/02858/FUL
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
15
Item no 11(b) Report no
Conservation Area Consent 12/02859/CON at 34 Midmar Drive Edinburgh EH10 6BU
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/02859/CON, submitted by Mr & Mrs Ian & Schehrezade Davidson. The application is for: Demolish existing one-and-a- half storey house.
It is recommended that this application be Minded to Grant by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The application site is located on the west side of Midmar Drive at the south end just before the bend into Hermitage Drive. It sits behind a large detached extended Victorian villa fronting Hermitage Drive and next to a one-and a half storey detached bungalow. The property is elevated above street level and looks across to Blackford Hill. Next to the two bungalows is a row of two storey detached brick built modern villas with garages at ground level giving a three storey appearance.
The property is a modern bungalow set back on the plot. It has stone walls and a slate roof, with dormers. The dwellinghouse was completed in 2003 and is one of two residential units built in the grounds of the former nursing home on the corner of Hermitage Drive and Midmar Drive.
1 The street and surrounding area are residential in nature with a large area of open space on the east side of Midmar Drive, consisting of Blackford Hill, open space and allotments. Most of the dwellinghouses in the area are stone Victorian villas although there are examples of modern houses, including a block of flats on Hermitage Drive and the row of brick built houses on Midmar Drive.
The property is not a listed building.
This property is located within the Morningside Conservation Area.
Site History
The relevant site history is:
15 Hermitage Drive:
15 December 1993. Permission granted to erect a matrons residence in the grounds of the existing nursing home (as amended) (Reference: 93/01623/FUL).
10 September 1997. Permission granted for redevelopment and extension to staff accommodation (i.e. demolish existing staff accommodation and erect new staff accommodation building (Reference: 97/00868/FUL).
5 June 2006. Permission granted for change use from nursing home to residential (Reference: 06/01169/FUL).
13 June 2007. Permission granted for formation of 4No flats from existing dwelling including internal and external alterations and the construction of single and two storey extensions (Reference: 06/05340/FUL).
32 Midmar Drive:
9 September 2005. Permission granted 32 Midmar Drive Edinburgh EH10 6BU Change of use from matron's house (nursing home) to residential (Reference: 05/02396/FUL).
1 July 2010. Permission granted to remove, replace and add new, windows, door sets and skylights to north and south elevation (Reference: 10/01223/FUL).
Other relevant planning applications:
28.08.2012. Application pending consideration to demolish existing house and erect two-storey house with off-street parking and landscaped garden (Reference: 12/02858/FUL).
2 Pre-Application Process
Pre-application advice was given by the Council as planning authority.
Description Of The Proposal
The application seeks conservation area consent to demolish the existing modern built bungalow and replace it with a two storey flat roofed detached house of a modern design and using modern materials.
A parallel application for redevelopment of the site to form a new house is being considered in a separate report (Reference: 12/02858/FUL).
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of consent.
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether the demolition will harm the special character of the conservation area.
Proposals for the demolition of unlisted buildings within conservation areas will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where they make a positive contribution to the character of the area. The Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) on unlisted buildings requires that planning authorities should take account of the importance of the building to the character or appearance of any part of the conservation area and of proposals for the future of the cleared site. Demolition may be acceptable where a building is of little townscape value, its structural condition rules out its retention at reasonable cost, or if its form or location makes its re-use extremely difficult. The existing building does not contribute to the character of the conservation area that does not therefore fall within the SHEP Criteria.
The Morningside Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that, the Essential characteristics of Morningside Conservation Area include:
- The principle feature of the urban fabric is a subtle Victorian grid structure responding to the topography by setting up views to the castle and dividing the area into unequally sized rectangular perimeter blocks.
- Northern views along streets to Blackford Hill and the Braids and southern views back to the City skyline are important.
- high quality stone built architecture of restricted height, generous scale and fine proportions
3 - Significant degree of unity resulting from the predominant use of traditional building materials: local sandstone for buildings and boundary walls and Scots slate for roofs.
- Peaceful Victorian environment of high quality and high amenity residential uses.
Midmar Drive is on the eastern edge of Morningside Conservation Area and Hermitage Drive forms the southern boundary of the Conservation Area.
The existing dwellinghouse was built at the turn of the millennium and is not a Victorian villa nor an original outhouse. It is a modern house built with reconstituted stone. The building is elevated above street level, behind a stone wall with timber fence on top. It is not readily seen from the public street, although it can be seen from Blackford Hill and the open space opposite.
The bungalow is not on a prominent site or position within the conservation area and is not a major contributor to the character and appearance of the conservation area. As such its value to the character of the conservation area is not significant enough to require its retention providing that the replacement development is acceptable and the character and appearance of the conservation can be protected. The building's loss will not harm the essential character of the conservation area.
The existing building does not make a positive contribution to the street scene or to the conservation area. It is not of local importance and does not play a key role in contributing to the special character of the conservation area.
It is recommended that the Committee approves this application subject to conditions requiring referral to Ministers and no demolition taking place until a contract for development is let.
4 REASON FOR DECISION
The value of the contribution of the existing bungalow to the character of the conservation area is not significant enough to require its retention providing that the replacement development is acceptable and the character and appearance of the conservation can be protected. The building's loss will not harm the essential character of the conservation area.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel Jackie McInnes on 0131 469 3731 Ward affected A10 - Meadows/Morningside Local Plan Edinburgh City Statutory Conservation Area. Urban Area. Development Plan Provision Date registered 20 August 2012
Drawing numbers/ 01 - 19. Scheme Scheme 1
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal: www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Paul Devaney, 0131 529 3911, [email protected]
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
5 Appendix A
Application Type Conservation Area Consent Application Address: 34 Midmar Drive Edinburgh EH10 6BU
Proposal: Demolish existing one-and-a-half storey house. Reference No: 12/02859/CON
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
No consultations undertaken.
Representations
The application was advertised on 31 August 2012 and three letters of objection were received. One from The Cockburn Association, one (both in letter and an e-mail form making the same comments) from Morningside Community Council and one form The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland. They raised the following issues:
Principle of demolition (addressed in part a of the assessment):
Design (addressed in part b of the assessment): - overdevelopment; relationship with original villa, design of elevations; impact on wider townscape; topography; and boundary wall
conservation (addressed in part c of the assessment): - special importance of Conservation Area; materials; design concept; architectural contribution to character and appearance, impact of proposals on enhancement criterion
Parking, garaging and street scene (addressed in parts b and f of the assessment):- road safety concerns.
Amenity - overlooking and loss of privacy, loss of light, proximity.(addressed in part e of the assessment):
Note: This application relates to an associated planning application (Reference: 12/02858/FUL) which seeks the demolition of the existing building and erection of a new dwelling. Representations, including those made above, have been received relating to this parallel application and will be considered in the report on planning application 12/02858/FUL.
6 Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
The application property is in Morningside Conservation Area and in the Urban Area of Edinburgh City Local Plan.
Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy Env 5 (Conservation Areas ¿ Demolition of Buildings) sets outs criteria for assessing proposals involving demolition of buildings in conservation areas. Other Relevant policy guidance The Morningside Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises that the architectural character of the conservation area is largely composed of Victorian and Edwardian villas and terraces which form boundaries to extensive blocks of private open space. The villa streets are complemented by the profusion of mature trees, extensive garden settings, stone boundary walls and spacious roads. The villas which are in variety of architectural styles are unified by the use of local building materials. Policy ENV1C states that local plans should include policies for protecting and enhancing International and National Historic or Built Environment Designations.
7 Appendix B
Application Type Conservation Area Consent Application Address: 34 Midmar Drive Edinburgh EH10 6BU
Proposal: Demolish existing one-and-a-half storey house. Reference No: 12/02859/CON
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Minded to Grant by Committee, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives stated below.
Conditions:-
1. The application shall be notified to the Scottish Ministers prior to determination.
2. No demolition shall take place until the contract for the new development has been let, and written evidence of this has been made available to and accepted in writing by the Head of Planning.
Reasons:-
1. In order to accord with the statutory requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts.
2. In order to safeguard the character of the conservation area.
End
8 Appendix C
Application Type Conservation Area Consent Proposal: Demolish existing one-and-a-half storey house. Reference No: 12/02859/CON
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
9
Item no 12 Report no
Planning Permission 12/02359/FUL at Fort Primary School 25 North Fort Street Edinburgh EH6 4HF
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/02359/FUL, submitted by The City Of Edinburgh Council. The application is for: Change of use from primar y school t o office space - nursery to remain as existing.
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The application site comprises the southern half of the school buildings located on the western side of North Fort Street. The site is bounded by Lapicide Place to the south and Hawthornbank Place to the north. The western boundary of the site is shared with the rear garden boundary of the properties fronting Dudley Avenue and formed of a high boundary wall.
The overall site comprises an area of 1.3 hectares and presently comprises the Kaimes Primary School, Fort Community Wing and a Children's day nursery. The school was built in 1967-68.
The building is predominantly single storey with a flat roof. There is a two- storey element located centrally along the North Fort Street elevation, also with a flat roof. A more modern, single-storey pitched roof, building stands
1 detached from the main building, also centrally on the North Fort Street side, and outwith the application site.
This application relates solely to the southern half of the buildings, a footprint of some 1,887 square metres, with a clear division between the Primary School building and the buildings of other users within the wider site.
The buildings stand centrally within the whole site with a vehicular access from Lapicide Place leading to a hard surfaced area, on the Dudley Avenue side of the building, which incorporates existing car parking facilities. The majority of the site is laid out to grass.
There are residential properties both to the south, west and north of the site. These are four-storey flatted dwellings to Lapicide Place; two-storey terraced dwellings to Dudley Avenue and two-storey, colony properties to Hawthornbank Place. The six-storey residential flatted buildings, to the east, are condemned for demolition. Those flats stand behind a high stone boundary wall that is located hard up against the pedestrian footway.
The high stone boundary wall, situated at the foot of the pedestrian footway on the eastern side of North Fort Street, is a category 'B' listed building. It is a remaining part of the former military barracks associated with Leith Fort.
There are a small number of commercial shops at the ground floor level in the vicinity, located at the street corners, both to the north and south of the site.
The site is bounded by open, vertical, metal railing fencing, coloured blue, on all sides except for the west where there is a stone boundary wall.
North Fort Street is a no-through road with access from Ferry Road to the south. The section opposite the application site is heavily altered with a number of traffic-calming measures in place.
The property stands outwith any conservation area. However, the western boundary of the site (with Dudley Avenue) forms the eastern boundary of the Victoria Park Conservation Area and the sites south eastern boundary abuts the western boundary of the Leith Conservation Area.
Site History
There is no relevant planning history for this site.
Pre-Application Process
There is no pre-application process history.
2 Description Of The Proposal
The application is for a proposed change of use of part of the property from a Primary School use to form office accommodation, including associated internal alterations to the building.
The application is made on behalf of the City of Edinburgh Council and is intended for office use by Council Social Work (Children's Services) staff. It will provide some 1,347 square metres of floor space accommodating some 114 staff. These will be relocating from other offices across the city where there is presently little or no off-street car parking provision.
There are no proposed alterations to the exterior of the building. The existing vehicular access from Lapicide Place and car parking area is intended to be used. There are presently 19 car parking spaces on the site, of which 4 are dedicated spaces for disable persons' vehicles, and 36 cycle spaces.
A Transport Statement has been submitted in support of this application.
The boundary of the application site was revised to more accurately reflect the extent of the property the subject of the application.
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
(a) the principle of office use is acceptable in this location;
(b) the scale and design of the proposals are appropriate to the character and appearance of the surrounding area;
(c) there are any implications for road safety; and
(d) there will be any loss of residential amenity as a result of the proposals.
3 a) The property operates as a school, community facility and children's day nursery all of which uses fall within Class 10, 'Non-residential Institutions', of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997.
The proposal seeks to use that part of the site and the buildings, presently the school, for the purposes of office accommodation, a use falling within Class 4, 'Business', of the Order.
By definition of the Order a Class 4 use is one; "which can be carried on in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit.".
Accordingly, given that the area is defined as an 'Urban Area' such a use is acceptable, in principle, in terms of the development plan policies. However, it also requires to be the subject of a detailed assessment against other relevant policy provisions relating to the wider potential impact of the proposal. b) The application has been made solely with regard to the proposed use of the building and its associated grounds. Whilst there are proposed internal alterations to the building there are none to the exterior that would materially affect the appearance of the building as a whole.
Accordingly, the proposal would have no impact on the character and appearance of either the building itself or on this part of the surrounding area.
In terms of the scale and design the proposal is acceptable. c) Having considered the provisions of Transport Statement and the existing vehicular access, off-street car parking and bicycle storage spaces, Transport has raised no objections to the proposal in road safety terms.
Accordingly, the proposed level of traffic generation by the proposed office use will not result in detrimental implications for road safety over those of the existing use of the application site. d) Environmental Assessment has raised no objection to the proposed use of the premises. They have suggested a condition relating to the control of noise associated with the design, installation and operation of any plant, machinery or equipment.
However, the application makes no reference to the installation or operation of any plant or machinery as part of the use of the premises. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to impose a condition based solely on the premise that such plant or machinery may be installed in the future. Planning cannot seek to control possible future issues and any such matters would need to be suitably addressed, if they arise, at that time.
4 It should be noted that the existing lawful use of the site, as a school, is not subject to such conditions and the proposed use would not introduce any significant new planning issues in this regard.
There is, therefore, no planning justification for the imposition of the suggested condition in this specific instance.
Accordingly, the proposal would not result in any detrimental impact on the existing levels of residential amenity presently enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring residential premises to the site.
As this application has been submitted by the Council, it requires to be determined by Committee.
In conclusion, the proposals comply with the development plan and the relevant non-statutory guidelines, preserve the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would not prejudice residential amenity or road safety. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
It is recommended that the Committee approves this application.
5 REASON FOR DECISION
The proposals comply with the development plan and non-statutory guidelines and maintain the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area and have no adverse effect upon neighbouring amenity or road safety.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel John Maciver on 0131 529 3918 Ward affected A13 - Leith Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan Statutory Urban Area Development Plan Provision Date registered 10 July 2012
Drawing numbers/ 02+03 Scheme Scheme 2
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal: www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Paul Devaney, 0131 529 3911, [email protected]
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
6 Appendix A
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Fort Primary School 25 North Fort Street Edinburgh EH6 4HF
Proposal: Change of use from primary school to office space - nursery to remain as existing Reference No: 12/02359/FUL
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Environmental Assessment
The application proposes the change of use of a primary school to office space. A nursery is situated to the north-west and a school building to the south-east. Residential properties are situated to the west and east.
Environmental Assessment has no objections to this proposed development subject to the following condition:
1. The design, installation and operation of any plant, machinery or equipment shall be such that any associated noise complies with NR25 when measured within any nearby living apartment.
Transport
Requested that the application be continued.
Reason: A Transport Statement is required to assess the impact of the proposed development on the local area.
The Transport Statement should include the following information:
Existing Site Accessibility
- Walking - Cycling - Public Transport - Local Road Network
Travel Plan Framework
7 - Travel Pack - Development Proposals Proposed Development - Accessibility Traffic Impact Assessment
- Existing Trip Generation - Proposed Development Trip Generation.
Transport - Comments on Transport Statement
Further to previous comments of 23 July 2012, confirm that Transport has no objections to the proposed application.
Representations
The application was advertised on 12 July 2012 and attracted three letters of representation. Two letters from Councillor Booth and a neighbour are objections. The third letter was received outwith the consultation period and made only comments on the application.
The material points of objection/concern are: a. Transport issues, taken account of in assessment (c): - parking problems and road safety.
Other points raised, including the use of a shared access to the offices and existing nursery/community use, are not material.
Concern was also raised regarding the correct neighbour notification procedure and the extent of that coverage for this application.
As a result of a revision of the boundary of the application site and an investigation into the original Neighbour Notification procedure it was identified that the correct procedure had been followed in this regard and that all properties within 20 metres of the application boundary had been notified, in full compliance with the provisions of Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008.
It should be noted that this included a number of properties which presently stand empty awaiting demolition.
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
Edinburgh City Local Plan - Urban Area.
8 Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy Hou 8 (Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas) establishes a presumption against development which would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of nearby residents. Policy Tra 4 (Private Car Parking) requires private car parking provision to comply with the parking levels set out in supplementary planning guidance, and sets criteria for assessing lower provision.
9 Appendix B
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Fort Primary School 25 North Fort Street Edinburgh EH6 4HF
Proposal: Change of use from primary school to office space - nursery to remain as existing Reference No: 12/02359/FUL
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives stated below. ‘ Conditions:-
Informatives
It should be noted that:
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.
End
10 Appendix C
Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: Change of use from primary school to office space - nursery to remain as existing Reference No: 12/02359/FUL
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
11
Item no 13 Report no
Planning Permission 12/03123/FUL at Telecomms Apparatus 20 Metres South East Of 3 Pittville Street Edinburgh
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/03123/FUL, submitted by Openreach. The application is for: Install 1x DSLAM Telecoms Cabinet measuring 1408mm x 750mm x 407mm.
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The application site is to the rear of a public footpath on Pittville Street approximately 7m north of the junction with Abercorn Terrace. The proposed cabinet is set against a hedge of approximately 2m in height. The width of the footpath at this location is approximately 2.04m and an existing telecommunications box, PCP number 001, is located approximately 5.7m to the south.
This property is located within the Portobello Conservation Area.
Site History
None.
1 Pre-Application Process
Pre-application discussions were undertaken.
Description Of The Proposal
It is proposed to install a freestanding green coloured telecommunications cabinet 750mm wide by 407mm deep by 1408mm high. The cabinet is required as part of an upgrade that will be used to provide high speed broadband services to residents and businesses in the area. The cabinet requires to be connected to existing telecommunications apparatus including an underground junction box.
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of permission.
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
a) the proposal will adversely affect the character or appearance of the conservation area; and b) the proposal has implications for road/public safety.
a) The Portobello Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the village/small town character of the area, the importance of the long sea-front promenade, the high quality architecture, and the predominant use of traditional building materials.
The proposed cabinet will be approximately 5.7m from an existing telecommunications box and will be set against a hedge of approximately 2m in height. In the context of its surroundings the proposed cabinet will not constitute an incongruous feature and will therefore not adversely affect the character or appearance of the conservation area.
2 b) Transport Planning has been consulted and has no objections to the proposal. There are no implications for pedestrian or road safety.
In conclusion, the proposal complies with the development plan and relevant non-statutory guidelines. The proposal preserves the character and appearance of the conservation area, and would not prejudice road/public safety. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
As the proposal does not involve the erection of an electronic communications antenna there is no requirement for the developer to make a declaration under the provisions of the radio frequency public exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection [ICNIRP].
As the Council is the land owner, it has an interest in the application and a Committee decision is required.
It is recommended that the Committee approves this application subject to a condition on the removal of the cabinet should it become obsolete.
3
REASON FOR DECISION
The proposal complies with the development plan and relevant non-statutory guidelines. The proposal preserves the character and appearance of the conservation area, and would not prejudice road/public safety. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel Colin Bryans on 0131 529 4279 Ward affected A17 - Portobello/Craigmillar Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan Statutory Urban Area Development Plan Provision Date registered 31 August 2012
Drawing numbers/ 01-04 Scheme Scheme 1
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal: www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Paul Devaney, 0131 529 3911, [email protected]
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
4 Appendix A
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Telecomms Apparatus 20 Metres South East Of 3 Pittville Street Edinburgh
Proposal: Install 1x DSLAM Telecoms Cabinet measuring 1408mm x 750mm x 407mm. Reference No: 12/03123/FUL
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Transport Planning
No objections.
Representations
The application was advertised on 14 September 2012 and no letters of representation have been received.
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
The proposal site is located in an urban area and within the Portobello Conservation Area, as designated by the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development ) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas. Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines Non-statutory guidelines on "RADIO TELECOMMUNICATIONS" set out detailed guidance for the siting and design of masts, antennas, cabins and equipment in all locations, with special reference to listed buildings and other sensitive situations The Portobello Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the village/small town character of the area, the importance of the long sea-front promenade, the high quality architecture, and the predominant use of traditional building materials
5 Policy Inf 5 (Telecommunications) sets criteria for assessing telecommunication developments.
6 Appendix B
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Telecomms Apparatus 20 Metres South East Of 3 Pittville Street Edinburgh
Proposal: Install 1x DSLAM Telecoms Cabinet measuring 1408mm x 750mm x 407mm. Reference No: 12/03123/FUL
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives stated below.
Conditions:-
1. In the event that equipment becomes obsolete or redundant it must be removed and the site reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within 3 months from that date.
Reasons:-
1. To minimise the level of visual intrusion, and ensure the reinstatement of the site to a satisfactory standard.
Informatives
It should be noted that:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.
2. 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.
3. 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.
End
7 Appendix C
Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: Install 1x DSLAM Telecoms Cabinet measuring 1408mm x 750mm x 407mm. Reference No: 12/03123/FUL
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
8
Item no 14 Report no
Planning Permission 12/03120/FUL at Telecomms Apparatus 12 Metres North Of 1 Rosefield Avenue Edinburgh
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/03120/FUL, submitted by Openreach. The application is for: Install 1 x DSLAM Telecoms Cabinet measuring 1408mm x 750mm x 407mm.
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The application site is to the rear of a public footpath on Rosefield Avenue approximately 5m southwest of the junction with Portobello High Street. The proposed cabinet is set against a hedge of approximately 1.5m in height. The width of the footpath at this location is approximately 2.96m and an existing telecommunications box, PCP number 032, is located approximately 5.6m to the east.
This property is located within the Portobello Conservation Area.
Site History
None.
1 Pre-Application Process
Pre-application discussions were undertaken.
Description Of The Proposal
It is proposed to install a freestanding green coloured telecommunications cabinet 750mm wide by 407mm deep by 1408mm high. The cabinet is required as part of an upgrade that will be used to provide high speed broadband services to residents and businesses in the area. The cabinet requires to be connected to existing telecommunications apparatus including an underground junction box.
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of permission.
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
a) the proposal will adversely affect the character or appearance of the conservation area; and b) the proposal has implications for road/public safety.
a) The Portobello Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the village/small town character of the area, the importance of the long sea-front promenade, the high quality architecture, and the predominant use of traditional building materials.
The proposed cabinet will be approximately 5.6m from an existing telecommunications box and will be set against a hedge of approximately 1.5m in height. In the context of its surroundings the proposed cabinet will not constitute an incongruous feature and will therefore not adversely affect the character or appearance of the conservation area.
2 b) Transport Planning has been consulted and has no objections to the proposal. There are no implications for pedestrian or road safety.
In conclusion, the proposal complies with the development plan and relevant non-statutory guidelines. The proposal preserves the character and appearance of the conservation area, and would not prejudice road/public safety. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
As the proposal does not involve the erection of an electronic communications antenna there is no requirement for the developer to make a declaration under the provisions of the radio frequency public exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection [ICNIRP].
As the Council is the land owner, it has an interest in the application and a Committee decision is required.
It is recommended that the Committee approves this application subject to a condition on the removal of the cabinet should it become obsolete.
3 REASON FOR DECISION
The proposal complies with the development plan and relevant non-statutory guidelines. The proposal preserves the character and appearance of the conservation area, and would not prejudice road/public safety. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel Colin Bryans on 0131 529 4279 Ward affected A17 - Portobello/Craigmillar Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan Statutory Urban Area Development Plan Provision Date registered 31 August 2012
Drawing numbers/ 01-04 Scheme Scheme 1
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal: www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Paul Devaney, 0131 529 3911, [email protected]
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
4 Appendix A
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Telecomms Apparatus 12 Metres North Of 1 Rosefield Avenue Edinburgh
Proposal: Install 1 x DSLAM Telecoms Cabinet measuring 1408mm x 750mm x 407mm. Reference No: 12/03120/FUL
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Transport Planning
No objections.
Representations
The application was advertised on 14 September 2012 and no letters of representation have been received.
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
The proposal site is located in an urban area and within the Portobello Conservation Area, as designated by the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development ) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas.
Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines
Non-statutory guidelines on "RADIO TELECOMMUNICATIONS" set out detailed guidance for the siting and design of masts, antennas, cabins and equipment in all locations, with special reference to listed buildings and other sensitive situations
5 The Portobello Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the village/small town character of the area, the importance of the long sea-front promenade, the high quality architecture, and the predominant use of traditional building materials Policy Inf 5 (Telecommunications) sets criteria for assessing telecommunication developments.
6 Appendix B
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Telecomms Apparatus 12 Metres North Of 1 Rosefield Avenue Edinburgh
Proposal: Install 1 x DSLAM Telecoms Cabinet measuring 1408mm x 750mm x 407mm. Reference No: 12/03120/FUL
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives stated below.
Conditions:-
1. In the event that equipment becomes obsolete or redundant it must be removed and the site reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within 3 months from that date.
Reasons:-
1. To minimise the level of visual intrusion, and ensure the reinstatement of the site to a satisfactory standard.
Informatives
It should be noted that:
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.
7 Appendix C
Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: Install 1 x DSLAM Telecoms Cabinet measuring 1408mm x 750mm x 407mm. Reference No: 12/03120/FUL
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
8
Item no 15 Report no
Planning Permission 12/02811/FUL at 11 Rosefield Street Edinburgh EH15 1AY
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/02811/FUL, submitted by Mr Thomson + Ms Cairns.. The application is for: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling.
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The proposal site is an existing one and a half storey dwellinghouse with single storey flat roofed rear and side extensions, which is located at the end of Rosefield Street. The site constitutes the end of Rosefield Street cul-de-sac with taller two storey flatted dwellings on the north side of the street and lower one storey terraced dwellings on the south side. To the rear of the site lies the Figgate Burn beyond which are the rear gardens of terraced dwellinghouses on Adelphi Place.
The proposal site lies within an area of mixed use with a predominantly residential nature.
This property is located within the Portobello Conservation Area.
1
Site History
16 August 2011 Application for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling withdrawn (11/01828/FUL).
22 August 2012 - Application for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling withdrawn (11/03909/FUL).
Pre-Application Process
Extensive pre-application discussions were undertaken concerning both the principle of demolition and the proposed design.
Description Of The Proposal
It is proposed to demolish the existing one and a half storey dwellinghouse with single storey flat roofed rear and side extensions, and to replace it with a one and a half storey dwellinghouse with a single storey flat roofed element to the side and rear. The height of the proposed house will be 7m, matching that of the existing, and the overall area will be 174.26 sq m. The materials proposed are render walls with features in natural stone, timber framed double glazed sash and case windows, and a natural slate roof with a zinc ridge and lead flashings.
The applicant has submitted a design statement, a conditional assessment, a letter confirming inability to gain insurance, a letter confirming inability to obtain mortgage, and a bat survey, all of which are available to view via the Planning and Building Standards Online Services.
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of permission.
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
2 a) the principle of demolition is acceptable; b) the proposal is acceptable in design terms and will maintain or enhance the character of the conservation area; c) the proposal will result in an unreasonable loss of privacy or natural light to neighbouring properties; and d) the proposal will provide adequate amenity to meet the needs of future residents. e) the proposal will have increase the risk of flooding or be at risk of flooding itself. a) The demolition of an unlisted building within a conservation area, in accordance with policy Env 5, will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. The proposal must be considered under policy Env 2 in conjunction with Env 5, essentially meaning that it must be assessed in the same manner as the demolition of a listed building. The Scottish Historic Environment Policy (2011) sets out that such applications for demolition will be assessed against;
a) the importance of the building; b) the condition of the building; c) the economic viability of reusing the building; and d) the wider public benefits.
To obtain consent for demolition the proposal will need to meet at least one of the above tests. It is considered that the existing dwellinghouse makes a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area and demolition is proposed is on the grounds that the condition of the building is such that to repair is not economically viable. In support of the view that the repair of the building is not economically viable the applicant has submitted supporting information including a conditional assessment conducted by certified civil and structural engineers, confirmation on the inability to obtain a mortgage provided by a mortgage advice service, and a letter from an insurance brokers confirming the inability to gain insurance on the property. The evidence submitted demonstrates that the building is in poor structural condition. The aforementioned conditional assessment concludes that the measures required to repair the existing building are tantamount to demolition and rebuild, and that it would be more cost effective to demolish the existing structure and build a new one off more suitable foundations.
An engineer from within the Council reviewed the conditional assessment and the conclusions made, and concurred with this assessment. Therefore, based on a review of the evidence submitted, it is concluded that demolition of the existing building is justified on the grounds that the repair of the building is not economically viable.
3 Where there is a suspicion of the presence of a protected species, such as bats, it is necessary to assess the issue form the outset. It is not appropriate to deal with such issues through the use of planning conditions. A bat survey conducted by an ecological consultant was submitted by the applicant. This survey concluded that as no evidence of bats roosting within the existing building was found there is no reason for the proposed works to take any account of bats.
The demolition of the existing building is acceptable in principle provided that the proposed replacement is deemed acceptable.
b) The Portobello Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the village/small town character of the area, the importance of the long sea-front promenade, the high quality architecture, and the predominant use of traditional building materials.
The proposed dwellinghouse closely resembles the existing in terms of design size and massing, with the bulk of the property taking the form of a one and a half storey dwelling, with a single storey flat roofed element to the side and rear. The gross floor area of the proposed building, at approximately 174 sq m, is only a marginal increase on the 157 sq m of the existing, and constitutes a total increase in site coverage of 7%. The height of the proposed, at 7m, matches that of the existing and the eaves height of 4.65m is only a marginal increase on the 4.43m of the existing. The overall height and massing of the proposed dwellinghouse will provide a visual link between the taller flatted dwellings on the north side of the street and the lower terraced dwellings on the south side, in much the same way that the existing does. The size and mass of the proposal is only a minor increase on the existing and does not constitute over-development of the site.
The fenestration, detailing and roof design largely resembles the existing, with relatively minor changes to the roof pitch and eaves height, and as such the proposal will not appear incongruous within the streetscape. The lack of chimneys is deemed acceptable given that the proposal is a contemporary dwellinghouse and as a pastiche development is not desirable. In terms of the materials proposed, a roof of natural slate with a zinc ridge and flashings in lead is in keeping with the local character, as are the double glazed timber framed sash and case windows. The use of a high quality render, with features in natural stone, is deemed acceptable in this case and is indeed an improvement on the pebble-dashed existing building. The proposed stone detailing will provide a visual link with the adjoining stone built properties. The use of natural stone in the entire front elevation would be excessive. A condition requiring samples of materials is recommended in order to ensure that the materials used befit the conservation area status of the site and its surroundings. The materials proposed are deemed acceptable subject to a condition stating that detailed specification of all the proposed external materials shall be submitted and approved before work is commenced on site.
4 The existing dwelling does not provide any off-street parking and as the proposal closely matches the existing in terms of size no additional off-street parking is required.
The quality of the proposal in terms of design and form, choice of materials and positioning is such that the character and appearance of the conservation area will be maintained.
c) The proposal will not result in an unreasonable loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. The ground floor windows on the rear elevation of the proposed are further from the rear garden boundaries of the properties on Adelphi Place than those of the existing, and visual screening will be provided by the proposed rear boundary fence. With regards to the proposed windows at first floor level, none will fall within the minimum 18m window to window distance stipulated within the non-statutory guidelines. Only a relatively small area of the rear garden of 37 Adelphi Place will fall within the 9m window to boundary distance stipulated by the guidelines as to when additional screening may be needed. At the closest point the rear boundary of 37 Adelphi Place is approximately 7.5m from a proposed first floor window. Any loss of privacy associated with this is deemed marginal, given that the garden in question is already overlooked by the existing first floor dormer at 35 Adelphi Place. Furthermore, given that the properties in question are located within a built up urban environment any marginal loss of privacy within the rear garden area which will occur is deemed not to be unreasonable. The relevant non-statutory guidelines state that privacy standards may be relaxed where the pattern of the townscape indicates that buildings should be positioned closer together.
The minimal increase in height and change of roof pitch of the proposed dwelling from that of the existing will not result in any unreasonable loss of natural light to neighbouring properties. d) With a gross internal floor area of 174.26 sq m and a rear garden of approximately 86 sq m the proposal falls comfortably above the minimum requirements for a house of this size, set out in the Edinburgh Standards for Housing. The proposal will provide adequate amenity levels to meet the needs of future residents. e) Given that the proposal is to replace an existing dwellinghouse with a new one of comparable size and positioning it is not felt that there will be any significant implications with regards to flooding.
In conclusion, the proposal complies with the development plan and the relevant non-statutory guidelines. The proposal is acceptable in principle, will maintain the character and appearance of the conservation area, will not result in an unreasonable loss of privacy or natural light to neighbouring properties, and will provide adequate amenity levels to meet the needs of future residents. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
5
As more than six material letters of objection have been received and the recommendation is for approval a Committee decision is required.
It is recommended that the committee approves this application subject to the recommended conditions.
REASON FOR DECISION
The proposal is in accordance with the Edinburgh City Local Plan and the Councils Non-Statutory Guidelines. The proposal is acceptable in principle, will maintain the character and appearance of the conservation area, will not result in an unreasonable loss of privacy or natural light to neighbouring properties, and will provide adequate amenity levels to meet the needs of future residents. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel Colin Bryans on 0131 529 4279 Ward affected A17 - Portobello/Craigmillar Local Plan Statutory Development Plan Provision Date registered 15 August 2012
Drawing numbers/ 01-10 Scheme Scheme 1
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal : www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Paul Devaney, 0131 529 3911, [email protected]
6 If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
7 Appendix A
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: 11 Rosefield Street Edinburgh EH15 1AY
Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling. Reference No: 12/02811/FUL
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
None.
Representations
The application was advertised on 24 August 2012. Nine representations were received, seven objecting to the proposal and two making general comments. General comments were received from the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland and the Cockburn Association. Three objections were received from neighbouring residents, and one each from the Portobello Community Council, the Portobello Amenity Society, the Brightons and Rosefield Residents’ Association, and a local MP. The material reasons for objecting concerned the principle of demolition (addressed in section a), design issues chiefly materials, the lack of chimneys and potential overdevelopment of the site (addressed in section b), a potential unreasonable loss of privacy to neighbouring residents (addressed in section c), and the possibility that bats may roost within the existing building (addressed in section a).
Matters raised concerning the control of demolition and construction traffic are not material planning considerations and cannot be controlled through the use of planning conditions.
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
The proposal site is located in an urban area and within the Portobello Conservation Area, as designated by the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
8 Policy Env 5 (Conservation Areas Demolition of Buildings) sets outs criteria for assessing proposals involving demolition of buildings in conservation areas. Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development ) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas. Policy Des 3 (Development Design) sets criteria for assessing development design. Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines Non-statutory guidelines 'DAYLIGHTING, PRIVACY AND SUNLIGHT' set criteria for assessing proposals in relation to these issues. The Portobello Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the village/small town character of the area, the importance of the long sea-front promenade, the high quality architecture, and the predominant use of traditional building materials Policy Env 2 (Listed Buildings - Demolition) identifies the circumstances in which the demolition of listed buildings will be permitted. Non-statutory guidelines 'The Edinburgh Standards for Housing' sets out principles and guidance whose aim is to achieve high quality, successful and sustainable residential developments.
Policy Env 16 (Species) sets out species protection requirements for new development. Policy Env 17 (Flood Protection) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on flood protection. Policy ENV1C states that local plans should include policies for protecting and enhancing International and National Historic or Built Environment Designations.
9 Appendix B
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: 11 Rosefield Street Edinburgh EH15 1AY
Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling. Reference No: 12/02811/FUL
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives stated below.
Conditions:-
1. A detailed specification, including trade names where appropriate, of all the proposed external materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards before work is commenced on site; Note: samples of the materials may be required.
Reasons:-
1. In order to enable the planning authority to consider this/these matter/s in detail.
Informatives
It should be noted that:
1. This consent is for planning permission only. Work must not begin until other necessary consents, eg listed conservation area consent, have been obtained.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.
3. 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.
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. End
10
Appendix C
Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling. Reference No: 12/02811/FUL
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
11
Item no 16(b) Report no
Planning Permission 12/01746/FUL at 37 Cammo Road Edinburgh EH4 8AW
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
Previous Committee This application was previously considered by Committee on 10.10.2012
Outcome of previous Committee
Conditions of Approval - This application was recommended for refusal. The Committee decided to approve the application and it is returning to Committee to agree the conditions of consent as set out in the addendum at the end of section 3 of the report.
DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The development proposed by this application is a departure from the development plan:
The demolition of the buildings and replacement by two houses and garages not connected with agriculture, horticulture or uses appropriate to the countryside is contrary to Green Belt policy and does not comply with the requirements of Policy E5 of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan. In addition, the demolition of the listed building does not accord with the Scottish Historic Environment Policy and an exception to the Development Plan cannot therefore be justified.
1
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/01746/FUL, submitted by CALA Management Ltd.. The application is for: Removal of existing buildi ngs for the er ection of 2 private residential d welling houses and associated ancilla ry accommodation.
It is recommended that this application be Refused by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The site which covers 0.361Ha (0.89 acre) stands on the north edge of the Cammo Estate.The building on it was designed by Bailey Scott Murphy and David Morton Kinross, in 1908, and built circa 1910. It is C(S) listed and designated as such on 24 February 1997 ref: 43935. It is an a-symmetrical, L- plan half-timbered building in the Arts and Crafts style and was originally built for Cramond Brig Golf Club.
The site is in the Green Belt, is part of a Designed Landscape, and a Site of Nature Conservation Interest.
The site is covered by a Tree Preservation Order 90 (no.4 - 1976 Cammo Estate) and the buildings contain a summer roost for bats.
Site History
The golf club building was converted to farmhouse circa 1952/3. The farmhouse and surrounding outbuildings were operated as Cammo Home Farm which served the adjacent agricultural land within the Cammo Estate. The whole estate was acquired by the Council in 1980 from the National Trust for Scotland (NTS), subject to various title conditions. As part of the conversion, the west end of the building (the former locker rooms) was converted to a milking parlour with several windows taken out and replaced by louvres.
The buildings and land are owned by the Council. A previous conditional sale approved by the Finance and Resources Committee on 27 January 2009 fell through due to the purchaser's funding problems. The property has been re- advertised for sale on the open market and this application is submitted by the preferred bidder. The Finance and Resources Committee agreed this sale on 17 January 2012.
The building was tenanted for a short while, but has been unoccupied for in excess of 10 years and is in poor condition.
2 May 2012 - applications were submitted to convert the building to residential use (planning references 12/01875/FUL and 12/01886/LBC).
Pre-Application Process
Pre-application discussion took place with Property Management and Cala Management Ltd. during which the Green Belt issues, proposed design and Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) test requirements for demolition were raised.
Description Of The Proposal
The application is for demolition of the main farm building together with outbuildings (657.7 square metres) and replacement with two five bedroom houses of two storeys, each with a free standing double garage with ancillary accommodation above (502 square metres). Materials proposed are natural clay tile roofs, cream coloured wet dash render and cast stone detailing. A full landscaping scheme is proposed including a tree belt to the rear, new front courtyard treatment and repairs to the front stone boundary wall.
Supporting Statements:
The applicant has prepared supporting statements in the form of Appendices 1-14, which include Cammo Estate Management 2011-2012 Plan; Sales particulars appendix 2; further Sales details Appendix 5; Structural Survey Appendix 6; Asbestos Survey Report Appendix 7; Bat Hibernacular survey; Bat Survey; Design and Access Statement (revised); The Buffer Planting Specification; Tree Survey; Heritage Statement (SHEP tests); Boundary Wall Dilapidation Survey Report; Sustainability Statement Form; National Trust For Scotland letter May 2012; Historic Scotland Statutory List description Appendix 14.
A letter dated 20 August 2012 from the developer has also been submitted in support of the application.
The above are available to view on Planning and Building Standards Online Services.
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals preserve the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses? If not, there is a presumption against the granting of consent. For the purposes of this issue, preserve, in relation to the building, means preserve it either in its existing state or subject only to such alterations or extensions as can be carried out without serious detriment to its character.
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
3
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether: a) Replacement dwellings are acceptable in this Green Belt location and within the Designed Landscape; b) Dwellings are appropriate in the Site of Nature Conservation Interest and Tree Preservation Order designation; c) Demolition of the C(S) listed building is justified - (SHEP tests); d) The design and materials are appropriate to the area; e) There are any traffic or highway issues; and f) There are any archaeological constraints on development of the site. a) The proposal does not accord with Policy E5 of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan as it is not necessary for agriculture, horticulture, forestry or another use appropriate to the rural character of the area. In addition, it does not involve keeping the existing buildings so criteria which may support compliance on this basis are not applicable.
The non-statutory guideline on Development in the Countryside and Green Belt additionally sets out cases where new build houses and replacement buildings may be permitted but the detailed criteria are not met in this proposal. No evidence has been provided that the development would assist in the restoration of the Designed landscape.
If it could be argued that the demolition of the listed building was acceptable, then an exception to policy could be justified on the basis that the previous use was residential, albeit connected with agricultural use; there would be no unacceptable intensification of the use; and there would be no demonstrable harm to the openness of the area or its landscape character. However, as detailed in section c) such justification for demolition has not been provided and so there is no basis for an exception to Policy E5 and the replacement dwellings are not acceptable in principle. b) The building is used as a roost by bats. A survey has been completed and it has been determined that the bats have not been hibernating at this location. Therefore under biodiversity legislation, moving the bats to a new
4 roosting location is a valid mitigating measure where a building containing bats is to be removed. In this case, the report recommends the establishment of bat boxes in the adjacent trees. This complies with Policy E18.
The site is covered by a Tree Preservation Order. The tree survey indicates that all the major trees on the site will be unaffected by the development. A new, informally arranged tree belt will be planted along the south boundary of the site facing into the Cammo estate. This complies with Policy E15.
The development is appropriate to the Site of Nature Conservation Interest and the Tree Preservation Order. c) Scottish Historic Environment Policy tests (SHEP tests)
There are four SHEP tests to apply when considering any application for the demolition of a listed building of any category. The emphasis is to demonstrate clearly that every effort has been made to retain a building before such approval can be given. The four tests are: i) the building is not of special interest; or ii) the building is incapable of repair; or iii) the demolition of the building is essential to delivering significant benefits to economic growth or the wider community; iv) the repair of the building is not economically viable and that it has been marketed at a price reflecting its location and condition to potential restoring purchasers for a reasonable period.
A summary for the case for the demolition of the building is provided in the supporting statements.
Under test i) to establish whether the building is not of special interest, the building is of special interest, being a substantial building of Arts and Crafts style golf club design by well known Edinburgh architects of the Edwardian period, Murphy and Kinross, who specialised in large suburban villas in and around Edinburgh. It is a fairly rare example of a club house of this period.The applicant disputes its special interest on the basis of its physical condition by saying "It should be considered that there are many other better maintained examples of arts and crafts styled buildings throughout Edinburgh, including others by Murphy and Kinross, erected between 1840 and 1945. If greater selectivity were to be applied, the very poor condition of the building may reduce the justification for its listing."
The conclusion is that the building is of special architectural and historic interest and this is recognised by its inclusion on the statutory list of such buildings. The building is category C(S) listed and Cammo Home farm represents a good example of a building in the Arts and Craft style and, although much altered internally, retains many of its original features,
5 especially externally. It is therefore worthy of retention contrary to the applicant’s statement that its condition detracts from its special interest. Every effort should be made to retain the building and there is a lack of evidence to support this. Scottish Historic Environment Policy indicates that only where all efforts have been exhausted will consent be given to demolish.
Under test ii) to establish whether the building is incapable of repair, advice from two surveyors suggests that the building is repairable but at a significant cost (around £1m). According to the applicant, this would make the building uneconomic to restore set against its current marketable value, £900,000 for a cleared site. However, it could still be restored given sufficient funds by a restoring purchaser. Despite the information submitted by the applicant, there is no justification for the loss of the building just because of its poor condition.
Under test iii) whether the demolition of the building is essential to deliver significant benefits to economic growth or the wider community, the package for redevelopment of the site following demolition of the building and its outhouses by Cala, includes a sum of money resulting from the potential sale of the building and land, to be invested in the upkeep and running of the Cammo Estate. This is part of a current Conservation Agreement between the Council and the National Trust, as previous owner. However, much as this is to be welcomed, it amounts to a benefit only to the local community and does not represent the significant benefits to economic growth or benefits for the wider community that are required by the SHEP test iii). On this basis, the proposal fails.
Under test iv) to establish whether the building has been marketed at a price reflecting its location and condition to potential restoring purchasers for a reasonable period, the applicant's condition survey indicates that there is evidence of decay and subsidence within the ground floor walls and the roof is in poor condition with water ingress apparent in places illustrated by rotting timbers. The applicant deduces it would be uneconomic to repair the building and quote a figure of just short of £1m to restore the building. In addition, the applicant's supporting statement says: "The property was marketed nationally in Autumn 2008 (applicant appendix 2) with eight offers received by the closing date of 26th November 2008. The preferred bidder proposed to refurbish the property (applicant appendix 3). However, after a year of protracted negotiation it became clear that the proposal was not viable and the offer was withdrawn with the preferred bidder citing'funding issues'."
"Thereafter, the City of Edinburgh Council undertook a feasibility exercise in 2010 in order to assess the viability of restoring the former dairy farm to an sustainable alternative use. In this regard the reinstatement costs for Cammo Home Farm were assessed to be in the region of £980,000 (applicant appendix 4), set against an assessed value in the region of £900,000. Consequently, at that stage, it became clear that finding a genuine restoring purchaser would be problematic."
"Given that an economically viable alternative use appeared unlikely and that the remainder of the proceeds from the sale of the site were for the beneficial
6 management of the wider estate, Property Development moved to a position that a case for the replacement of the derelict building by a new high quality development could be viewed favourably."
"Cammo Home Farm was remarketed in February 2011 (applicant appendix 5). Cala submitted an open market bid for the property in March 2011 based on the demolition of all buildings on the site and their replacement with two detached dwelling houses." Six offers were submitted in total, of which three proposed restoration. Two of the potential restoring purchasers were discounted as they did not provide sufficient detail within the information submitted with their offer to enable a full assessment of the deliverability of their restoration proposal. This included lack of evidence of having sought professional advice, lack of detail surrounding the likely costs, no information regarding access to sufficient finances to complete the restoration and in general a lack of detail demonstrating evidence of consultation with planning regarding surveys etc, which would be required to enable a proper planning assessment of any application which might be submitted. A third proposal did provide a more detailed response, but on further analysis the offer appeared to underestimate the level of repairs required to the property. No details were provided on funding availability in order for the party to fully restore the building, nor was there any demonstration of having sought professional advice to assist the party in delivering on its proposals. However, this must be considered as the SHEP test presumes against demolition where there is a potential restoring purchaser. Historic Scotland advises that 'only when there is no credible bid to restore the building can the test (iv) be met.'
Whilst the bidding process history is clear, and the cost of restoration is clear; estimated by both the Council (£976,000 in June 2010 and Cala in excess of £1m in 2011), the fact that restoring purchasers were present in the bidding process is sufficient to mean SHEP test iv) and therefore the application to demolish the Cammo Home Farm fails, specifically against this criteria, as a restoring purchaser was available in principle, regardless of any bidding failure or financial shortfall that there might be. This is further backed up by the alternative current applications to keep the building and convert it to a house.
Historic Scotland state that the second part of the test (iv) has been partly met by the marketing process outlined in the selection of preferred bidders report. This shows that the initial aim was to follow restoring purchasers, and their bids were investigated. Your Council should be satisfied that this investigation was appropriate and that the original bidders were not credible 'restoring purchasers' - in practice this has been taken to mean preserving purchasers, but reuse is clearly intended.
Since the marketing closing date there has been a bid by a fourth party. The report notes that the fourth party would have no legal position within the sale process. Even this being the case, it will be dififcult to argue that 'every effort has been made to retain' the building (the SHEP wording) if their is an alternative offer (albeit one outwith the closing date, and especially as this offer is accompanied by a listed building consent application for restoration of
7 the building. This approach would tend to follow recent Reporters decisions where the marketing of a building (in demolition cases) is seen as a fluid and ongoing process, rather than a rigidly sealed process. This would strongly suggest the fourth, or any later bid, cannot be easily dismissed as part of the 'effort to retain the building.'
The conclusion is that the proposal fails to comply with the SHEP tests because a fourth restoring purchaser is available and that not every effort has been made to retain the building, as required by the SHEP. d) Design and materials - the design of the dwellings is not unlike the massing of the existing building and replicates the spirit of the large gables and hips of the existing farm building and its footprint. Clay tiles on the roof are a direct replication of the clay tiles of the existing building, as is the proposed rendered elevations. The quality of the materials is enhanced by the use of cast stone detailing. The design of the garages has been amended to orientate them north-south rather than east west. This will visually reduce their appearance from the road and from wider views within the Cammo estate.
The design and materials are appropriate to the Green Belt location. e) Transport Planning has no objections to the proposals as the two new driveways can accommodate several vehicles each and have off-road turning areas, do not conflict with traffic calming humps on Cammo Road and the road capacity is capable of accommodating the vehicle generation without compromising road safety. A contribution of £1000 to safer Routes for Schools would be required through legal agreement if the application were to be granted. f) Archaeology - the site has been identified as of local/regional archaeological importance in terms of its association and links to the history of the Cammo Estate. As such demolition of the farmhouse is considered to be significant. Demolition on archaeological grounds would be acceptable provided that the buildings are recorded prior/during demolition works.
In conclusion, the proposal to demolish this listed building is not acceptable as not every effort has been made to retain the building and restore it as required by the SHEP tests. The replacement buildings are contrary to policy E5 and would be a non-conforming use in the Green Belt. There are no justified exceptions in this case.
There are no other material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
It is recommended that the committee refuses this application for the reasons stated.
8
Addendum
The Committee was minded to approve consent for demolition at the hearing on 10 October 2012, on the basis that the proposals did meet SHEP test d). The building was not considered to be capable of economic repair and during the extensive marketing of the building and the subsequent period, it was not convinced that any prospective restoring purchaser was able to preserve the listed building.
Consequently, it is recommended that the following conditions are attached to the consent:-
Materials - A detailed specification, including trade names where appropriate, of all the proposed external materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards before work is commenced on site; Note: samples of the materials may be required.
Tree Protection - The trees on the site shall be protected during the construction period by the erection of fencing, in accordance with clause 2 of BS5837: 2005 " Trees in relation to construction", or similar as approved in writing by the Head of Planning, at the limit of the canopy spread of the trees; no materials, equipment or buildings shall be stored or located within the protected area, nor shall there be any access through it. The fencing shall be maintained in a secure and upright condition to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning and Building Standards.
Trenches - No trenches shall be dug within five metres of the trunk of any tree on the site.
Tree Belt - Further details/specification of the tree planting belt between (to the rear of) the site and the Cammo Estate shall be submitted and approved in writing prior to the development commencing.
Bats - Provision of three Swegler 2F bat boxes and three Improved Cavity bat boxes be erected as alternative roosting sites, in the adjacent woodlands prior to any demolitions taking place on the site. No development shall take place until a licence has been issued by SNH.
Archaeology - No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards, having first been agreed by the City Archaeologist.
INFORMATIVE: Prior to the issuing of consent the applicant shall enter into a suitable legal agreement to make provision for the following:
9 Contribute the sum of £1000 towards Safer Routes to School . Reason: the Council seeks to encourage walking/cycling to school and is currently upgrading cycle/walking routes to primary schools. The contribution is payable on commencement of site works.
REASON FOR DECISION
The proposal meets Test d) of the Scottish Historic Environment Policy on the demolition of listed buildings, as the building was not considered to be capable of economic repair and that any prospective purchaser would be unable to preserve the listed building. The proposal therefore complies with the development plan and the non-statutory guidelines and will result in the listed building being replaced by a suitable development.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel Duncan Robertson on 0131 529 3560 Ward affected A01 - Almond Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan Statutory Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Landscape Value Development Plan Provision Date registered 18 May 2012
Drawing numbers/ 01; 02A-04A; 05; 06A; 07; 08 Scheme Scheme 2
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal : www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Anna Grant, 0131 529 3521, [email protected]
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
10 Appendix A
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: 37 Cammo Road Edinburgh EH4 8AW
Proposal: Removal of existing buildings for the erection of 2 private residential dwelling houses and associated ancillary accommodation. Reference No: 12/01746/FUL
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Transport
No objections subject to the following conditions being applied:
Prior to the issuing of consent, the applicant to enter into a suitable legal agreement to make provision for the following: Contribute the sum of £1000 towards the departments Safer Routes to School budget. (Reason: The Department seeks to encourage walking/cycling to school and is currently upgrading cycle/walking routes to primary schools. This contribution will augment the Council budget). Contribution payable on commencement of site works. INFORMATIVE: The new driveways are clear of the speed tables.
Archaeology
Cammo Home Farm comprises a series of 20th century buildings centred upon the C (s) listed Home Farm building originally built in 1908 as the Cramond Brig Golf Clubhouse. This Arts and Crafts building designed by Bailey Scott Murphy and David Morton Kinross was converted into Cammo Estates Home Farm c. 1953. The site is also bounded by the early estate boundary walls dating to the early 18th century.
Accordingly the site and surviving buildings are considered to be of local/regional archaeological importance in terms of their association and links to the history of the Cammo Estate. Therefore this application must be considered under terms of the Scottish Government’s Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) and also CEC’s Rural West Edinburgh Local plan policy E30. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.
11 The proposed scheme will see demolition of all buildings on site including the listed 1908 Home Farm. Such an impact is considered significant. However, it is considered that the loss of these buildings although regrettable would be acceptable provided that they are recorded prior/during demolition works. This will require the undertaking of a level 2/3 historic building survey of both the interior and exterior of the structures (annotated plans, photographic and written report) linked to an appropriate level of documentary research. Further more given the sites location within the limits of the historic estate archaeological remains associated with the estates development and possible prehistoric occupation may be encountered. Accordingly in addition to the above archaeological historic building survey work an appropriate programme of archaeological works must be undertaken during ground breaking works. This is in order to excavate record and analyse any significant surviving archaeological remains that may be disturbed.
It is recommended that these programme of works be secured using a condition based upon the model condition stated in PAN 42 Planning and Archaeology (Para 34), as follows;
¿No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (historic building survey, excavation, reporting and analysis) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.¿
The work must be carried out by a professional archaeological organisation, either working to a brief prepared by CECAS or through a written scheme of investigation submitted to and agreed by CECAS for the site. Responsibility for the execution and resourcing of the programme of archaeological works and for the archiving and appropriate level of publication of the results lies with the applicant
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)
Summary The application is for the demolition of some derelict buildings in order to build two new homes. a small summer non-breeding bat roost has been established as present in one of the buildings. Our advice is therefore that if you approve this application, even with the mitigation/compensation set out in the report, a licence from SNH will be required by the applicant before thay can proceed with the demolition and development.
Background An initial survey in autumn last year established that there were signs of bats within one of the buildings, suspected as a maternity roost. A further survey took place in May this year which established the roost as a summer non- breeding roost site. After the initial survey, the applicant sought further advice on EPS licensing and the 3 tests that require to be fulfilled, in order to submit the required information with their application after the second survey was
12 completed. The Council also sought pre-application advice on their interpretation of the 3 tests and the information submitted by the applicant.
Appraisal of impacts Bats are a European Protected Species. This means that if the Council is minded to approve this application, it must satisfy itself, inline with its statutory duties under the Habitat Regulations 1994 (as amended), that the licensing tests set out in those regulations are likely to be met before approving the application. If not, it could risk the applicant being unable to make practical use of the planning permission or committing an offence.
Information on the 3 tests and how to apply for an EPS licence can be found on our website: http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B876258.pdf http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/species- licensing/european-species-licencing/
The Council consulted SNH for advice on their interpretation of the 3 tests at pre-application stage, after the initial bat survey. This was mainly in relation to test 1 and test 2 as the applicant had already submitted information in support of this. Test 3 could not be fully discussed until the subsequent survey to identify type of roost present and species/numbers of bat. Our advice at this stage was that the application was strong in meeting tests 1 and 2, although this was dependent on the resulting roost type and number of bats, and that further survey was required in order to inform test 1 and 2 more fully and to inform test 3. This advice was given based on the initial bat survey and structural report only.
The second survey in May established that the roost is not a maternity roost but a small summer non-breeding roost site, used by a handful of male or female bats. This is of less conservation concern than a maternity roost. A method statement and delivery report has been prepared by the applicant/surveyor which recommends procedures to be followed during demolition and proposed mitigation/compensation to be provided. This is a clear, concise document and we would recommend that the Council ensure that this report is adhered to. The provision of three Schwegler 2F bat boxes and three Improved Cavity Bat boxes, as alternative roost sites, in the woodland close to the roost site is proposed. Given the type of roost and the numbers of bats present, then this is adequate mitigation. Given the results of the second survey and proposed mitigation, our advice is that test 3 is likely to be met.
Therefore, given that the recent survey has revealed that the building is inhabited by a small non-breeding summer roost, it is likely that all three tests will be met and that a licence would be granted. Please note however that this advice is given without prejudice to any later consideration by SNH of an application for a licence.
13 Historic Scotland
The attachment report (Selection of preferred bidders (closing date 16 March 2011) is useful in explaining the detailed process. We have also looked over the Heritage Statement received last week (25 July) from CALA which includes the appendices.
Following on from our letter of 4 July 2012 we would like to make the following comments. We have taken account of our guidance on Demolition in the Managing change in the historic environment document published in 2010. This document assists in the detailed application of policies contained within the SHEP.
The applicant has justified the demolition of the building by using SEHP test d)., although it is also suggested that SHEP test c). (substantial public benefits) could be met as the ring-fenced funds from sale could be used for improvements to the Cammo Estate. Regarding test c). we assume improvements to the Cammo Estate could equally be met from the proceeds of a restoration project, and as this test can only be met when (substantial) benefits are dependent on the loss of the asset we consider this justification unlikely to succeed.
As we noted in our letter in July, SHEP test d). is a two part test. The first part of the test must prove that the building is uneconomic to repair, i.e. that it is capable of being repaired but that is repair/reuse would not be viable. Our Demolition guidance would suggest that in order to do this successfully, especially where this test is the principal justification, there should be:
1.( A valuation of the existing building and site (a valuation that should not allow any ¿hope value¿ for demolition); 2.) A survey of repairs and costs should be submitted, (there have already been two produced with figures either side of £1m. 3.) An estimate of the value of the repaired building.
In order to succeed there should be a deficit between the figures for repair/reuse and final estimate. Grant aid should also be investigated, although with a C(S) listed building it is most unlikely in this case. If the value of the repaired building were more than the £1m for repair then it is arguable that this part of the test could not be met.
The second part of the test involves marketing the building at a price reflecting its condition to potential restoring purchasers for a reasonable period. Again, the valuation should be for the listed building and site as it stands with no hope value for demolition of the historic Asset. Often the market it left to find this figure, and as it assumes the use of the site is uneconomic with the building in-situ, it may not always be a high figure. The normal period of marketing is taken at six months.
Looking at the first part of the test, although two figures for the costs of restoration have been produced, there does not appear to have been a
14 valuation of the site as it stands (only offers invited). There also does not appear to be an estimated valuation for a restored building. The reports simply state that the cost of repairs is in the region of £1M, and thus the building is uneconomic to repair. Your Council should be satisfied with the figures for repair costs, and then whether a restored building would be worth more than £1M.
The second part of the test has partly been met by the marketing process outlined in the selection of preferred bidders report. This shows that the initial aim was to follow restoring purchasers, and their bids were investigated. Your Council should be satisfied that this investigation was appropriate and that the original bidders were not credible ¿restoring purchasers¿ in practice this has been taken to mean preserving purchasers, but reuse is clearly intended. Also, it is not clear whether the period of marketing meets the expected six months.
Since the marketing closing date there has been a bid by a fourth party. The report notes that the fourth party would have no legal position within the sale process. Even this being the case, it will be difficult to argue that ¿every effort has been made to retain¿ the building (the SHEP wording) if there is an alternative offer (albeit one outwith the closing date), and especially as this offer is accompanied by a listed building consent application for restoration of the building. This would clearly indicate that the offer is a serious alternative to demolition, although your Council may wish to receive further assurances on credibility if necessary. This approach would tend to follow recent Reporters’ decisions where the marketing of a building (in demolition cases) is seen as a fluid and ongoing process, rather than a rigidly sealed process. This would strongly suggest the fourth, or any later bid, cannot be easily dismissed as part of the effort to retain the building.
In conclusion, your Council should be satisfied that the original bids have been fully investigated, that the marketing period was appropriate, and that the later bid for the building is not credible before agreeing to the loss of the listed building.
If your Council would find it beneficial to discuss the case further we would be happy to meet to do so.
Notwithstanding our comments above, we confirm that your Council should proceed to determine the application without further reference to us.
Representations
The application was advertised on 1 June 2012. One letter of objection has been received from a concurrent applicant for the building's restoration, on the grounds that the SHEP tests have not been met. The fourth test is in two parts. First, the building must be found to be economically unviable and secondly, it must be marketed for a reasonable period. The objector believes the test cannot be met and objects owing to;
15 - the demolition of the building; - replacement development of inferior merit; - Area of Outstanding Landscape Quality which it would affect; - Green Belt; - Site of Importance for Nature Conservation - Contrary to Planning Policy
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
The site is allocated a part of the Edinburgh Green Belt, and a Designed Landscape as part of the Cammo Estate. It is also part of an Area of Outstanding Landscape Quality, and a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. The site is covered by a Tree Preservation Order 90 (no.4 - 1976 Cammo Estate).
National Policy Guidance
The Scottish Historic Environment Policy sets out the Government's policy on built heritage.
Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan Policy ENV1C states that local plans should include policies for protecting and enhancing International and National Historic or Built Environment Designations. Relevant policies of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan.
Policy E5 states that in order to protect the landscape quality, rural character and amenity of the Green Belt and countryside areas, development will be restricted. Policy E6 states that where acceptable in principle, development proposals in the Green Belt or countryside must meet the criteria which aim to achieve high standards of design and landscaping. Policy E14 says that proposed development which would adversely affect Designed Landscapes or their setting will only be permitted where it assists restoration and would not adversely affect other landscape features Policy E18 protects identified sites of local nature conservation interest. Development within or affecting Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation will not be permitted unless there are appropriate mitigation measures to enhance or safeguard the nature conservation interest of the site. Policy E32 seeks to ensure that proposals affecting a listed building will be considered for their effect on the character of the building. The restoration of architectural character will be an overriding consideration. Alterations will only be permitted where they respect the architectural integrity of the building.
16 Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines Non-statutory guidelines DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE AND GREEN BELT, provide guidance on development in the Green Belt and Countryside in support of relevant local plan policies. Non-statutory guidelines on 'PARKING STANDARDS' set the requirements for parking provision in developments. Non-statutory guidelines on 'MOVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT' establish design criteria for road and parking layouts. Non-statutory guidelines on BIODIVERSITY sets objectives for habitat creation and enhancement, lists protected species and how developments can make provision for these, and lists the sites of national and local nature conservation interest. Non-statutory guidelines on 'QUALITY OF LANDSCAPES IN DEVELOPMENT' sets detailed design principles for hard and soft landscaping, including the retention of existing features, and relates these principles to different types of development. Non-statutory guidelines on "Trees and Development" provides guidance on the information required to support planning applications in respect of tree protection, the retention of trees of landscape, biodiversity or amenity significance, and encourages new tree planting where appropriate.
17 Appendix B
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: 37 Cammo Road Edinburgh EH4 8AW
Proposal: Removal of existing buildings for the erection of 2 private residential dwelling houses and associated ancillary accommodation. Reference No: 12/01746/FUL
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Refused by Committee, for the reasons below.
Conditions:-
Reasons:-
1. The proposals are contrary to policy ENV 1C of the Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan 2015, as demolition would result in the loss of a designated listed building and its characteristic features which justify its designation.
2. The proposal fails to meet the demolition tests set out in the Scottish Historic Environment Policy and so the proposals do not preserve the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
3. The demolition of the buildings and replacement by two houses and garages not connected with agriculture, horticulture or uses appropriate to the countryside is contrary to Green Belt policy and does not comply with the requirements of Policy E5 of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan.
End
18 Appendix C
Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: Removal of existing buildings for the erection of 2 private residential dwelling houses and associated ancillary accommodation. Reference No: 12/01746/FUL
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
19
Item no 16(b) Report no
Listed Building Consent 12/01748/LBC at 37 Cammo Road Edinburgh EH4 8AW
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
Previous Committee This application was previously considered by Committee on 10.10.2012
Outcome of previous Committee
Conditions of Approval - This application was recommended for refusal. The Committee decided to approve the application and it is returning to Committee to agree the conditions of consent as set out in the addendum at the end of section 3 of the report.
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/01748/LBC, submitted by CALA Management Ltd.. The application is for: Removal of existing buildings at Cammo Home Farm for a new residential development (2 units).
It is recommended that this application be Refused by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The site which covers 0.361Ha (0.89 acre) stands on the north edge of the Cammo Estate.The building on it was designed by Bailey Scott Murphy and
1 David Morton Kinross, in 1908, and built circa 1910. It is C(S) listed and designated as such on 24 February 1997 ref: 43935. It is an a-symmetrical, L- plan half-timbered building in the Arts and Crafts style and was originally built for Cramond Brig Golf Club.
The site is in the Green Belt, is part of a Designed Landscape, and a Site of Nature Conservation Interest.
The site is covered by a Tree Preservation Order 90 (no.4 - 1976 Cammo Estate) and the buildings contain a summer roost for bats.
Site History
The golf club building was converted to farmhouse circa 1952/3. The farmhouse and surrounding outbuildings were operated as Cammo Home Farm which served the adjacent agricultural land within the Cammo Estate. The whole estate was acquired by the Council in 1980 from the National Trust for Scotland (NTS), subject to various title conditions. As part of the conversion, the west end of the building (the former locker rooms) was converted to a milking parlour with several windows taken out and replaced by louvres.
The buildings and land are owned by the Council. A previous conditional sale approved by the Finance and Resources Committee on 27 January 2009 fell through due to the purchaser's funding problems. The property has been re- advertised for sale on the open market and this application is submitted by the preferred bidder. The Finance and Resources Committee agreed this sale on 17 January 2012.
The building was tenanted for a short while, but has been unoccupied for in excess of 10 years and is in poor condition.
May 2012 - applications were submitted to convert the building to residential use (planning references 12/01875/FUL and 12/01886/LBC).
Pre-Application Process
Pre-application discussion took place with Property Management and Cala Management Ltd. during which the Green Belt issues, proposed design and Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) test requirements for demolition were raised.
Description Of The Proposal
The application is for demolition of the main farm building together with outbuildings (657.7 square metres) and replacement with two five bedroom houses of two storeys, each with a free standing double garage with ancillary accommodation above (502 square metres). Materials proposed are natural clay tile roofs, cream coloured wet dash render and cast stone detailing. A full
2 landscaping scheme is proposed including a tree belt to the rear, new front courtyard treatment and repairs the front stone boundary wall.
Supporting Statements:
The applicant has prepared supporting statements in the form of Appendices 1-14, which include Cammo Estate Management 2011-2012 Plan; Sales particulars appendix 2; Further Sales details Appendix 5; Structural Survey Appendix 6; Asbestos Survey Report Appendix 7; Bat Hibernacular survey; Bat Survey; Design and Access Statement (revised); The Buffer Planting Specification; Tree Survey; Heritage Statement (SHEP tests); Boundary Wall Dilapidation Survey Report; Sustainability Statement Form; National Trust For Scotland letter May 2012; Historic Scotland Statutory List description Appendix 14.
A letter dated 20 August 2012 from the developer has also been submitted at the last minute in support of the application.
The above are available to view on Planning and Building Standards Online Services.
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals preserve the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses? If not, there is a presumption against the granting of consent. For the purposes of this issue, preserve, in relation to the building, means preserve it either in its existing state or subject only to such alterations or extensions as can be carried out without serious detriment to its character.
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
a) The demolition of the building can only be justified when set against the four tests in the Scottish Historic Environment Policy.
The four tests are: i) the building is not of special interest; or ii) the building is incapable of repair; or ii) the demolition of the building is essential to delivering significant benefits to economic growth or the wider community; or iv) the repair of the building is not economically viable and that it has been marketed at a price reflecting its location and condition to potential restoring purchasers for a reasonable period.
3
A summary for the case for the demolition of the building is provided in the supporting statements.
Under test i) to establish whether the building is not of special interest, the building is of special interest, being a substantial building of Arts and Crafts style golf club design by well known Edinburgh architects of the Edwardian period, Murphy and Kinross, who specialised in large suburban villas in and around Edinburgh. It is a fairly rare example of a club house of this period. The applicant disputes its special interest on the basis of its physical condition by saying "It should be considered that there are many other better maintained examples of arts and crafts styled buildings throughout Edinburgh, including others by Murphy and Kinross, erected between 1840 and 1945. If greater selectivity were to be applied, the very poor condition of the building may reduce the justification for its listing."
The conclusion is that the building is of special architectural and historic interest and this is recognised by its inclusion on the statutory list of such buildings. The building is category C(S) listed and Cammo Home farm represents a good example of a building in the Arts and Craft style and, although much altered internally, retains many of its original features, especially externally. It is therefore worthy of retention contrary to the applicant's statement that its condition detracts from its special interest. Every effort should be made to retain the building and there is a lack of evidence to support this. Scottish Historic Environment Policy guidance indicates that only where all efforts have been exhausted will consent be given to demolish.
Under test ii) to establish whether the building is incapable of repair, advice from two surveyors suggests that the building is repairable but at a significant cost (around £1m). According to the applicant, this would make the building uneconomic to restore set against its current marketable value, £900,000 for a cleared site. However, it could still be restored given sufficient funds by a restoring purchaser. Despite the information submitted by the applicant, there is no justification for the loss of the building just because of its poor condition.
Under test iii) whether the demolition of the building is essential to deliver significant benefits to economic growth or the wider community, the package for redevelopment of the site following demolition of the building and its outhouses by Cala, includes a sum of money resulting from the potential sale of the building and land, to be invested in the upkeep and running of the Cammo Estate. This is part of a current Conservation Agreement between the Council and the National Trust, as previous owner. However, much as this is to be welcomed, it amounts to a benefit only to the local community and does not represent the significant benefits to economic growth or benefits for the wider community that are required by the SHEP test iii). On this basis, the proposal fails.
Under test iv) to establish whether the building has been marketed at a price reflecting its location and condition to potential restoring purchasers for a reasonable period, the applicant's condition survey indicates that there is
4 evidence of decay and subsidence within the ground floor walls and the roof is in poor condition with water ingress apparent in places illustrated by rotting timbers. The applicant deduces it would be uneconomic to repair the building and quote a figure of just short of £1m to restore the building. In addition, the applicant's supporting statement says: "The property was marketed nationally in Autumn 2008 (applicant appendix 2) with eight offers received by the closing date of 26th November 2008. The preferred bidder proposed to refurbish the property (applicant appendix 3). However, after a year of protracted negotiation it became clear that the proposal was not viable and the offer was withdrawn with the preferred bidder citing 'funding issues'."
"Thereafter, the City of Edinburgh Council undertook a feasibility exercise in 2010 in order to assess the viability of restoring the former dairy farm to an sustainable alternative use. In this regard the reinstatement costs for Cammo Home Farm were assessed to be in the region of £980,000 (applicant appendix 4), set against an assessed value in the region of £900,000. Consequently, at that stage, it became clear that finding a genuine restoring purchaser would be problematic."
"Given that an economically viable alternative use appeared unlikely and that the remainder of the proceeds from the sale of the site were for the beneficial management of the wider estate, Property Development moved to a position that a case for the replacement of the derelict building by a new high quality development could be viewed favourably."
"Cammo Home Farm was remarketed in February 2011 (applicant appendix 5). Cala submitted an open market bid for the property in March 2011 based on the demolition of all buildings on the site and their replacement with two detached dwelling houses." Six offers were submitted in total, of which three proposed restoration. Two of the potential restoring purchasers were discounted as they did not provide sufficient detail within the information submitted with their offer to enable a full assessment of the deliverability of their restoration proposal. This included lack of evidence of having sought professional advice, lack of detail surrounding the likely costs, no information regarding access to sufficient finances to complete the restoration and in general a lack of detail demonstrating evidence of consultation with planning regarding surveys etc, which would be required to enable a proper planning assessment of any application which might be submitted. However, this must be considered as the SHEP test presumes against demolition where there is a potential restoring purchaser.
Historic Scotland state that the second part of the test (iv) has been partly met by the marketing process outlined in the selection of preferred bidders report. This shows that the initial aim was to follow restoring purchasers, and their bids were investigated. Your Council should be satisfied that this investigation was appropriate and that the original bidders were not credible 'restoring purchasers' - in practice this has been taken to mean preserving purchasers, but reuse is clearly intended.
5 Whilst the bidding process history is clear, and the cost of restoration is clear; estimated by both the Council (£976,000 in June 2010 and Cala in excess of £1m in 2011), the fact that restoring purchasers were present in the bidding process is sufficient to mean SHEP test iv) and therefore the application to demolish the Cammo Home Farm fails, specifically against this criteria, as a restoring purchaser was available in principle, regardless of any bidding failure or financial shortfall that there might be. This is further backed up by the current applications to keep the building and convert it to a house.
Historic Scotland state that the second part of the test (iv) has been partly met by the marketing process outlined in the selection of preferred bidders report. This shows that the initial aim was to follow restoring purchasers, and their bids were investigated. Your Council should be satisfied that this investigation was appropriate and that the original bidders were not credible 'restoring purchasers' - in practice this has been taken to mean preserving purchasers, but reuse is clearly intended.
Since the marketing closing date there has been a bid by a fourth party. The report notes that the fourth party would have no legal position within the sale process. Even this being the case, it will be difficult to argue that 'every effort has been made to retain' the building (the SHEP wording) if their is an alternative offer (albeit one outwith the closing date, and especially as this offer is accompanied by a listed building consent application for restoration of the building. This approach would tend to follow recent Reporters decisions where the marketing of a building (in demolition cases) is seen as a fluid and ongoing process, rather than a rigidly sealed process. This would strongly suggest the fourth, or any later bid, cannot be easily dismissed as part of the 'effort to retain the building.'
The conclusion is that the proposal fails to comply with the SHEP tests because a fourth restoring purchaser is available and that not every effort has been made to retain the building, as required by the SHEP, and will result in the loss of a listed building of special interest. Historic Scotland state that the second part of the test (iv) has been partly met by the marketing process outlined in the selection of preferred bidders report. This shows that the initial aim was to follow restoring purchasers, and their bids were investigated. Your Council should be satisfied that this investigation was appropriate and that the original bidders were not credible 'restoring purchasers' - in practice this has been taken to mean preserving purchasers, but reuse is clearly intended.
There are no other materials considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
It is recommended that the Committee refuses this application for the reasons stated.
6
Addendum
The Committee was minded to approve consent for demolition at the hearing on 10 October 2012, on the basis that the proposals did meet SHEP test d). The building was not considered to be capable of economic repair and during the extensive marketing of the building and the subsequent period, it was not convinced that any prospective restoring purchaser was able to preserve the listed building. Consequently, the application must be notified to Historic Scotland for its decision.
A condition is therefore recommended. The application shall be referred to the Scottish Ministers prior to determination. Reason: In order to accord with the statutory requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts.
REASON FOR DECISION
The proposal meets Test d) of the Scottish Historic Environment Policy on the demolition of listed buildings, as the building was not considered to be capable of economic repair and that any prospective purchaser would be unable to preserve the listed building. The proposal therefore complies with the development plan and the non-statutory guidelines and will result in the listed building being replaced by a suitable development.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel Duncan Robertson on 0131 529 3560 Ward affected A01 - Almond Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan Statutory Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Landscape Value, Development Plan Designed Landscape Provision Date registered 18 May 2012
Drawing numbers/ 01; 02A-04A; 05; 06A; 07 Scheme Scheme 2
7
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal : www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Anna Grant, 0131 529 3521, [email protected]
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
8 Appendix A
Application Type Listed Building Consent Application Address: 37 Cammo Road Edinburgh EH4 8AW
Proposal: Removal of existing buildings at Cammo Home Farm for a new residential development (2 units). Reference No: 12/01748/LBC
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Archaeology
Cammo Home Farm comprises a series of 20th century buildings centred upon the C (s) listed Home Farm building originally built in 1908 as the Cramond Brig Golf Clubhouse. This Arts and Crafts building designed by Bailey Scott Murphy and David Morton Kinross was converted into Cammo Estates Home Farm c. 1953. The site is also bounded by the early estate boundary walls dating to the early 18th century.
Accordingly the site and surviving buildings are considered to be of local/regional archaeological importance in terms of their association and links to the history of the Cammo Estate. Therefore this application must be considered under terms of the Scottish Government’s Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) and also CEC’s Rural West Edinburgh Local plan policy E30. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.
The proposed scheme will see demolition of all buildings on site including the listed 1908 Home Farm. Such an impact is considered significant. However, it is considered that the loss of these buildings although regrettable would be acceptable provided that they are recorded prior/during demolition works. This will require the undertaking of a level 2/3 historic building survey of both the interior and exterior of the structures (annotated plans, photographic and written report) linked to an appropriate level of documentary research. Further more given the sites location within the limits of the historic estate archaeological remains associated with the estates development and possible prehistoric occupation may be encountered. Accordingly in addition to the above archaeological historic building survey work an appropriate programme of archaeological works must be undertaken during ground breaking works. This is in order to excavate record and analyse any significant surviving archaeological remains that may be disturbed.
9
It is recommended that these programme of works be secured using a condition based upon the model condition stated in PAN 42 Planning and Archaeology (Para 34), as follows;
¿No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (historic building survey, excavation, reporting and analysis) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.
The work must be carried out by a professional archaeological organisation, either working to a brief prepared by CECAS or through a written scheme of investigation submitted to and agreed by CECAS for the site. Responsibility for the execution and resourcing of the programme of archaeological works and for the archiving and appropriate level of publication of the results lies with the applicant
Historic Scotland
The attachment report (Selection of preferred bidders ¿ closing date 16 March 2011) is useful in explaining the detailed process. We have also looked over the Heritage Statement received last week (25 July) from CALA which includes the appendices.
Following on from our letter of 4 July 2012 we would like to make the following comments. We have taken account of our guidance on Demolition in the Managing change in the historic environment document published in 2010. This document assists in the detailed application of policies contained within the SHEP.
The applicant has justified the demolition of the building by using SEHP test d), although it is also suggested that SHEP test c). (substantial public benefits) could be met as the ring-fenced funds from sale could be used for improvements to the Cammo Estate. Regarding test c). we assume improvements to the Cammo Estate could equally be met from the proceeds of a restoration project, and as this test can only be met when (substantial) benefits are dependent on the loss of the asset we consider this justification unlikely to succeed.
As we noted in our letter in July, SHEP test d). is a two part test. The first part of the test must prove that the building is uneconomic to repair, i.e. that it is capable of being repaired but that is repair/reuse would not be viable. Our Demolition guidance would suggest that in order to do this successfully, especially where this test is the principal justification, there should be:
1.) A valuation of the existing building and site (a valuation that should not allow any 'hope value' for demolition); 2.) A survey of repairs and costs should be submitted, (there have already been two produced with figures either side of £1m.)
10 3.) An estimate of the value of the repaired building.
In order to succeed there should be a deficit between the figures for repair/reuse and final estimate. Grant aid should also be investigated, although with a C(S) listed building it is most unlikely in this case. If the value of the repaired building were more than the £1m for repair then it is arguable that this part of the test could not be met.
The second part of the test involves marketing the building at a price reflecting its condition to potential restoring purchasers for a reasonable period. Again, the valuation should be for the listed building and site as it stands with no hope value for demolition of the historic Asset. Often the market it left to find this figure, and as it assumes the use of the site is uneconomic with the building in-situ, it may not always be a high figure. The normal period of marketing is taken at six months.
Looking at the first part of the test, although two figures for the costs of restoration have been produced, there does not appear to have been a valuation of the site as it stands (only offers invited). There also does not appear to be an estimated valuation for a restored building. The reports simply state that the cost of repairs is in the region of £1M, and thus the building is uneconomic to repair. Your Council should be satisfied with the figures for repair costs, and then whether a restored building would be worth more than £1M.
The second part of the test has partly been met by the marketing process outlined in the selection of preferred bidders report. This shows that the initial aim was to follow restoring purchasers, and their bids were investigated. Your Council should be satisfied that this investigation was appropriate and that the original bidders were not credible ¿restoring purchasers¿. In practice this has been taken to mean preserving purchasers, but reuse is clearly intended. Also, it is not clear whether the period of marketing meets the expected six months.
Since the marketing closing date there has been a bid by a fourth party. The report notes that the fourth party would have no legal position within the sale process. Even this being the case, it will be difficult to argue that ¿every effort has been made to retain¿ the building (the SHEP wording) if there is an alternative offer (albeit one outwith the closing date), and especially as this offer is accompanied by a listed building consent application for restoration of the building. This would clearly indicate that the offer is a serious alternative to demolition, although your Council may wish to receive further assurances on credibility if necessary. This approach would tend to follow recent Reporters’ decisions where the marketing of a building (in demolition cases) is seen as a fluid and ongoing process, rather than a rigidly sealed process. This would strongly suggest the fourth, or any later bid, cannot be easily dismissed as part of the effort to retain the building.
In conclusion, your Council should be satisfied that the original bids have been fully investigated, that the marketing period was appropriate, and that
11 the later bid for the building is not credible before agreeing to the loss of the listed building.
If your Council would find it beneficial to discuss the case further we would be happy to meet to do so.
Notwithstanding our comments above, we confirm that your Council should proceed to determine the application without further reference to us.
Representations
The application was advertised on 1 June 2012. Three letters have been received, including that from the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland and RCAHMS.
The Architectural Heritage strongly objects to the demolition of the building because it is of high quality and well-detailed and that the economic benefits of funding the Cammo Estate through the sale of the site should not outweigh this consideration.
Other objections and comments include: - Should not be demolished where an application exists to restore. - RCHAMS indicate the building should be fully recorded before demolition, under current legislation.
The above comments are addressed in the SHEP test analyses in the Assessment section of this report.
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
The site is allocated a part of the Edinburgh Green Belt, and a Designed Landscape as part of the Cammo Estate. It is also part of an Area of Outstanding Landscape Quality, and a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. The site is covered by a Tree Preservation Order, 90 (No.4 - 1976 Cammo Estate).
National Policy Guidance
The Scottish Historic Environment Policy sets out the Government's policy on built heritage.
12 Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan.
Policy E32 seeks to ensure that proposals affecting a listed building will be considered for their effect on the character of the building. The restoration of architectural character will be an overriding consideration. Alterations will only be permitted where they respect the architectural integrity of the building. Non-statutory guidelines 'ALTERATIONS TO LISTED BUILDINGS' provide general guidance for assessing proposals for both internal and external alterations, including alarm boxes and access stairs on listed buildings.
13 Appendix B
Application Type Listed Building Consent Application Address: 37 Cammo Road Edinburgh EH4 8AW
Proposal: Removal of existing buildings at Cammo Home Farm for a new residential development (2 units). Reference No: 12/01748/LBC
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Refused by Committee, for the reasons below.
Conditions:-
Reasons:-
1. The application fails to meet the criteria set down in the Scottish Historic Environment Policy tests for demolition of listed buildings and not all efforts to seek a restoring purchaser have been exhausted.
2. The proposal is contrary to Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan Policy E32 in respect of listed buildings, as failure to restore the building is contrary to the retention of its character as an early 20th century golf club design
3. The proposals would result in the loss of a building of special architectural interest which was designed by the renowned Edinburgh Architects Murphy and Kinross in the arts and crafts style in 1910.
End
14 Appendix C
Application Type Listed Building Consent Proposal: Removal of existing buildings at Cammo Home Farm for a new residential development (2 units). Reference No: 12/01748/LBC
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
15
Item no 17 Report no
Planning Permission 12/00650/FUL at Unit 1 454 Gorgie Road Edinburgh EH11 2RN
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
Previous Committee This application was previously considered by Committee on 26.09.2012
Outcome of previous Committee
Conditions of Approval - This application was recommended for refusal. The Committee decided to approve the application and it is returning to Committee to agree the conditions of consent as set out in the addendum at the end of section 3 of the report.
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/00650/FUL, submitted by B & M Retail Ltd. The application is for: Change of use from car show room to retail including removal of existing forecourt canopies and alterations to exter nal elevations and creation of a vehicular access.
It is recommended that this application be Refused by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
1 The site is an existing car showroom which has approximately 2000 square metres of floor space set within a site area of 4,770 square metres. The site is located on the north side of Gorgie Road and lies to the south of an adult day centre. It lies to the west of a site which has recently received consent for student housing, 366 square metres of retail space and 162 square metres of office space.
To the west of the site and to the south across the road are residential properties. The site has two vehicular access points with the main one being on the western side. This access is shared with the adult training centre to the rear and also provides access to a large car storage area to the north west which does not form part of this site.
Site History
No recent history
Site History on Adjacent Site to the East.
On 7 March 2012 planning permission was granted by Committee for the demolition of all existing buildings and the erection of 318 bedroom student accommodation development incorporating 366 square metres of retail space and 162 square metres of office space (as amended) (11/02827/FUL). The decision has not been issued pending a legal agreement being entered into.
Pre-Application Process
Pre application advice was not supportive.
Description Of The Proposal
The proposal is to change the use of the premises to a 2000 square metre retail unit. The building would be retained and internally refurbished. A large front canopy would be removed. A new vehicular access is proposed at the eastern end of the site, this would lead to a public car park for 27 cars, one which is to be accessible. The proposal also includes 2 motor cycle spaces and 4 cycle spaces. Servicing of the site would be via the retained western shared access.
Supporting Documents
Transport Statement
Planning Statement
Addendum to Planning Statement
Economic and Employment Benefit Statement
2
These documents are available to view at the Council’s Planning and Buildings Standards On-Line Services.
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
a) whether the proposal will adversely affect the commercial viability and vitality of existing shopping areas b) whether the proposal will adversely affect residential amenity; c) whether the design of the development is acceptable; and d) whether the proposal will adversely affect transport infrastructure.
a) The application is an out of centre development as it is not physically adjacent to an existing centre nor is it located within an existing centre. It lies approximately 155 metres to the west of the Gorgie-Dalry town centre and approximately 121 metres to the east of the local centre at the junction of Gorgie Road and Balgreen Road. The proposal therefore requires to be assessed against Policy RET5 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
It should be noted that the Council is minded to grant consent on an adjacent site to the east for a mixed use development (11/02827/FUL). This proposal contains 366 square metres of retail space and it was considered to be edge of centre and of a scale which reflected the more traditionally sized tenement shop units that characterise the Gorgie-Dalry town centre. This site was therefore assessed against Policy RET 2 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan and found to comply.
3 With regard to part (a) of Policy RET 5, the applicants have demonstrated that in terms of the size of unit they require all potential sites have been assessed.
With regard to part (b) of Policy RET 5, the Council’s town centre regeneration studies identified Gorgie / Dalry as one of Edinburgh’s weakest performing town centres when compared against other centres which are also under tenement property alongside arterial traffic routes. A 2010 Council survey of all shops across the City revealed a vacancy rate of 12% in the Gorgie/Dalry town centre. Similar previous surveys show that the rate of decline in Gorgie/Dalry is faster than any other town centre apart from the centre of Leith. The figures show that there has been a 17% reduction in shop units since 1996 which is three times the average change across the city (5.5%). The Gorgie/Dalry town centre is therefore known to be more vulnerable to retail impacts from outwith the centre, not only in terms of trade diversion but also potentially in terms of undermining investment in improvements. This out of centre proposal will have an adverse impact upon that centre and reduce its vitality and viability. Therefore the proposal does not comply with Policy RET5 (b) of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
The site is located on an arterial route into the city and is well served by public transport. The proposal adheres to part (c) of Policy RET 5.
The applicants have not demonstrated a need for the proposal in terms of filling a gap in the type of goods proposed for sale. These include those already offered by a wide range of retailers (mainly comparison), the only difference appearing to be the price being offered is lower than average. It is accepted that the population is expanding in this area, but not at a rate sufficient to justify considering that this proposal will fill a gap in provision when the Gorgie/Dalry town centre is known to be a weak performer. It also has to be remembered that recently consented retail developments at Longstone, Chesser and the new local shopping centre at Fountainbridge will outweigh population growth demand in the area and these supermarkets will have a significant component of non food sales which would overlap substantially with this proposal. The residential population around the site does not have a quantitative or qualitative deficiency of provision as there is good access to the existing centres. The proposal fails to comply with parts (b) and (d) of Policy RET 5 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
Although the applicant has pointed to employment gains at the application site, evidence from Edinburgh and elsewhere indicates that large retail developments tend to displace jobs rather than create new jobs. Draft data from Government employment surveys show that retail employment is lower in 2010 than 2000 both in Edinburgh and the wider Lothian area, despite a substantial amount of new retail space coming on stream in this period. The proposal would adversely impact upon the viability of the existing local and town centres economy and reduce employment levels in these locations. The site is within the urban area and other uses are possible on such sites which do not conflict with retail policies.
4 In addition, there is no evidence that there has been a growth in retail jobs in Edinburgh over the last decade despite many large food stores opening. The jobs in one store are essentially displaced from other businesses and locations. b) The proposal will not adversely affect the current privacy of neighbouring residents. The proposal will not generate any overshadowing or contribute to loss of daylight. The proposal will not reduce the amenity of neighbours subject to conditions limiting noise, waste collections and deliveries if other aspects of the proposal are acceptable. c) The physical changes to the building are minimal and retention of the silver and glass frontage is considered acceptable. The reduction in the number of cars from the frontage will be a visual improvement, though no details of how the area directly in front of the entrance is to be finished have been supplied. If other aspects of the development are acceptable, this matter could be the subject of a condition requiring details of the frontage. Any signage associated with the development would require the submission of an application for advert consent. The proposal will not adversely affect the character of this area of mixed building form and design. d) The proposed car park is located to the side of the frontage and the layout is acceptable for both the service yard and the public car park. The access onto Gorgie Road for both access points is also acceptable. Cycle and motor cycle provision complies with the Council’s guidelines. A former area of car display to the front of the site is left open for pedestrian access and details would have been required by condition had other aspects of the development been acceptable. The proposal is well located in relation to public transport provision and there will be no adverse impact upon transport infrastructure and road safety. If other aspects of the development were to be considered acceptable conditions could be attached.
In conclusion, the proposal is contrary to the Development Plan and will adversely affect the vitality and viability of the Gorgie/Dalry Town Centre. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
It is recommended that the Committee refuses this application for the reasons stated.
Addendum
The application was considered at the Development Management Sub- Committee on 26 September 2012.
Committee were minded to grant, as they considered the proposal was more appropriately within the scope of Policy Ret2 (edge of centre development, within comfortable walking distance of existing shops) rather than Policy Ret5 (out of centre retail development)
5
Suggested conditions are:
1) No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (excavation, reporting and analysis, publication) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.
2) The design, installation and operation of any plant, machinery or equipment shall be such that any associated noise complies with NR25 when measured within any nearby living apartment, and no structure borne vibration is perceptible within any nearby living apartment.
Suggested informatives are:
1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.
2) Prior to the issuing of consent, an agreement under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 will be concluded between the applicant and the Council to secure the following:
Provide KEEP CLEAR markings on Gorgie Road west bound traffic lane at the developments general parking access point, all at no cost to the council with markings in place prior to opening of the store to the public. Contribute the sum of £10,000 for improvements to the local road network. (Reason: the development COU proposals will increase vehicular movements on Gorgie Road and this development along with others recently approved feeding additional traffic onto Gorgie Road has identified the need for improved road infrastructure to ease the flow of traffic along this busy corridor. The contribution will be utilised to improve the Gorgie Road/Westfield Road signalised junction .The contribution payable on commencement of development and will utilised within 5 years of receipt.
3) All music and vocals, amplified or otherwise shall be so controlled as to be inaudible within any neighbouring premises.
4) Deliveries and collections, including waste collections, to be restricted to 0700-1900 hours Monday to Saturday.
REASON FOR DECISION
The proposals do not comply with the Development Plan as they would adversely affect Gorgie/Dalry Town Centre contrary to retail policy.
6
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel David McFarlane on 0131 529 3512 Ward affected A07 - Sighthill/Gorgie Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan Statutory Urban Area Development Plan Provision Date registered 29 February 2012
Drawing numbers/ 1,2,3,4a,5 Scheme Scheme 1
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal: www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Helen Martin, [email protected], 0131 529 3517
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
7 Appendix A
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Unit 1 454 Gorgie Road Edinburgh EH11 2RN
Proposal: Change of use from car showroom to retail including removal of existing forecourt canopies and alterations to external elevations and creation of a vehicular access. Reference No: 12/00650/FUL
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Transport Planning (Development Control)
I would be pleased if the application could be continued.
Further discussions required with the applicants agent with respect to: Access arrangements for both customers and servicing Parking arrangements Right Turn Access to and from site
A meeting has been arranged to discuss the above and submitted transport statement.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
I have no objections to the application having considered the updated parking and access arrangements as per Drawing No21222A (PL) 04C
Prior to the issuing of consent the applicant to enter into a suitable legal agreement to make provision for the following:
Provide KEEP CLEAR markings on Gorgie Road west bound traffic lane at the developments general parking access point All at no cost to the council with markings in place prior to opening of the store to the public.
Contribute the sum of £10,000 for improvements to the local road network. (Reason: the development COU proposals will increase vehicular movements on Gorgie Road and this development along with others recently approved feeding additional traffic onto Gorgie Road has identified the need for improved road infrastructure to ease the flow of traffic along this busy corridor. The contribution will be utilised to improve the Gorgie Road/Westfield Road
8 signalised junction .The contribution payable on commencement of development and will utilised within 5 years of receipt.
Culture and Leisure Archaeology Service
Further to your consultation request I would like to make the following comments and recommendations concerning this application for the change of use from car show room to retail including removal of existing forecourt canopies and alterations to external alterations and creation of vehicular access.
The 1853 1st Edition OS map of the site shows that the eastern half of the proposed development overlies part of the historic Gorgie Mills, principally one of two mill lades, with the remaining part of the site forming part of Orchards associated with the former 15th century Gorgie House which stood on the same site as the mills.
The remains associated with Gorgie Mills and House should be recognised as being of regional importance and as such this application must be considered under terms of the Scottish Government’s Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), PAN2/2011 and Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) and also CEC’s Edinburgh City Local Plan (adopted 2010) policies ENV8 & ENV9. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.
Although the majority of the development will have no archaeological impact ground breaking works such as the new access roads & removal of forecourt canopies must be considered as having a moderate-low archaeological impact. It is therefore recommended that a condition be attached to consent, if granted, to ensure that a programme of archaeological works is undertaken prior to/during development in order to excavate, record and analysis any significant archaeological deposits that may be disturbed.
It is recommended that the above programme of works be secured using the following condition;
'No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (excavation, reporting and analysis, publication) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'
The above work must be carried out by a professional archaeological organisation, either working to a brief prepared by CECAS or through a written scheme of investigation submitted to and agreed by CECAS for the site. Responsibility for the execution and resourcing of the programme of
9 archaeological works and for the archiving and appropriate level of publication of the results lies with the applicant.
Environmental Assessment
The application proposes a change of use of car showroom to retail (class 1) at the former Volkswagen dealership. There are residential properties situated nearby the garage which may be affected by any noise associated with the operation of the business.
Environmental Assessment has no objections to this proposed development subject to the following conditions:
1. The design, installation and operation of any plant, machinery or equipment shall be such that any associated noise complies with NR25 when measured within any nearby living apartment, and no structure borne vibration is perceptible within any nearby living apartment.
2 All music and vocals, amplified or otherwise shall be so controlled as to be inaudible within any neighbouring premises.
3 Deliveries and collections, including waste collections, to be restricted 0700-1900 hours Monday to Saturday
Should you wish to discuss the above, please do not hesitate to contact me on 0131 469 5491.
Addendum
As stated above, Environmental Assessment has no objections to the approval of the application subject to the recommended conditions being attached to any consent.
NB. However, should all of the above conditions not be applied to any consent, Environmental Assessment will require to review the recommendation. In such event, it is imperative that this is notified immediately to the Environmental Assessment case officer
Representations
No representations have been received within the consultation period.
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
10 Planning Policy
The proposal lies within an area mainly allocated as being within the urban area on the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy Des 3 (Development Design) sets criteria for assessing development design. Policy Ret 5 (Out of Centre Retail Development) identifies the circumstances in which out-of-centre retail development will be permitted. Policy Tra 4 (Private Car Parking) requires private car parking provision to comply with the parking levels set out in supplementary planning guidance, and sets criteria for assessing lower provision. Policy Tra 6 (Design of Off-Street Car and Cycle Parking) sets criteria for assessing design of off-street car and cycle parking.
11 Appendix B
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: Unit 1 454 Gorgie Road Edinburgh EH11 2RN
Proposal: Change of use from car showroom to retail including removal of existing forecourt canopies and alterations to external elevations and creation of a vehicular access. Reference No: 12/00650/FUL
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Refused by Committee, for the reasons below.
Reasons:-
1. The proposal will adversely affect the vitality and viability of the Gorgie/Dalry Town Centre contrary to Policy RET5 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
End
12 Appendix C
Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: Change of use from car showroom to retail including removal of existing forecourt canopies and alterations to external elevations and creation of a vehicular access. Reference No: 12/00650/FUL
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
13
Item no 18 Report no
Planning Permission 12/02227/FUL at 156 Saughton Road North Edinburgh EH12 7DS
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
Previous Committee This application was previously considered by Committee on 10.10.2012
Outcome of previous Committee
Reasons for Refusal - This application was recommended for approval. The Committee decided to refuse the application and it is returning to Committee to agree the reasons for refusal as set out in the addendum at the end of section 3 of the report.
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/02227/FUL, submitted by Mr Hao Zheng. The application is for: Change of use from Class 1 Retail to Hot Food Takeaway
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description
The site is a vacant ground floor shop unit on the east side of Saughton Road North. The site is on the ground floor of a two storey terraced building which
1 has residential property above commercial units at ground floor level. To the rear are gardens that serve the first floor residential units. There are residential dwellings opposite the proposal site.
Site History
There is no relevant planning history for this site.
Pre-Application Process
Pre-application discussions took place on the proposals and advice was given on the principle of the development.
Description Of The Proposal
The proposal is to change the use of a Class 1 retail unit to a hot food take- away.
The proposed opening hours for the unit are:
- 4.30pm to 11pm - Sunday to Thursday; and - 4.30pm to 11.30pm Friday and Saturday.
No exterior alterations are proposed as part of this application.
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
a) there are any adverse impacts upon residential amenity; b) there are any adverse impacts on the vitality and viability of the local shopping centre; c) the proposal will have an adverse impact on transport infrastructure and road safety; and
2 a) The site lies within a block of 9 commercial units at ground floor level, which have various uses and opening times. The mixture of residential and commercial uses on the street makes up the area¿s character.
The proposal will not have an adverse impact upon residential amenity subject to the conditions controlling odours, vibration and hours of operation.
The application of conditions to restrict the transmission of vocals and music is considered unreasonable, as where there is an impact on neighbouring properties, there are other more appropriate remedies through the statutory nuisance provisions contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The proposal complies with Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Hou 8 and Policy Ret 12. Representations were raised in relation to anti-social behaviour, the Police were consulted but did not provide a comment in relation to the application. b) The proposal site is not within a defined shopping centre, the proposed use of the unit is compatible with the character of the area and there is no clear justification to retain the unit for retail use to meet local needs. It is not in an area of restriction for hot food shops as set out in the Edinburgh Planning Guidance on Food and Drink Establishments. The proposal complies with Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Ret 11. c) The proposal is unlikely to adversely affect transport infrastructure, road safety or parking. Transport Planning have no objections.
In conclusion, the proposals comply with the Development Plan and supplementary planning guidance. The site is suitable for the use as a hot food take-away use. The proposal will not have an adverse impact on residential amenity, road safety and infrastructure or the vitality and viability of the shopping centre.
There are no material considerations that outweigh this conclusion.
It is recommended that the Committee approves this application subject to conditions on odours, vibration, and hours of operation.
Addendum
The application was considered at the Development Management Sub- Committee on 10 October 2012. Committee was concerned that the proposal would introduce noise and disturbance into a predominantly residential area to the detriment of residential amenity.
3 Committee indicated it was minded to refuse the application and continued the application for reasons to be drafted.
The suggested reason for refusal is:
The proposal would have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of increased noise and disturbance and is contrary to Policies Hou 8 and Ret 12 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan and non-statutory guidelines on Food and Drink Establishments.
REASON FOR DECISION
The proposals would have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel Alex Candlish on 0131 529 4468 Ward affected A06 - Corstorphine/Murrayfield Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan Statutory Urban Area Development Plan Provision Date registered 26 June 2012
Drawing numbers/ 01 Scheme Scheme 1
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal : www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Helen Martin, [email protected], 0131 529 3517
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
4 Appendix A
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: 156 Saughton Road North Edinburgh EH12 7DS
Proposal: Change of use from Class 1 Retail to Hot Food Takeaway Reference No: 12/02227/FUL
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Transport
Have no objections to the application.
Environmental Assessment
The application proposes the change of use of a retail premises to a hot food take-away. Residential properties are situated above with retail premises situated on either side to the north-west and south-east.
The agent for the application has provided confirmation that the kitchen ventilation will attain a minimum of 30 air changes per hour and be ducted to chimney pot level, all to the satisfaction of this Department. A condition will be recommended by this Department which ensures that odours are not allowed to escape or be exhausted into any neighbouring premises.
Residential properties are situated above the application premises and thus there is the potential for these premises to be affected by the internal take- away operations by way of noise unless the application premises are appropriately conditioned. This Department will recommend conditions to control noise from within the application premises to ensure that the residential property above is protected from noise. In addition, this Department will recommend a condition to restrict the hours of deliveries to within appropriate times which is designed to reduce residential amenity impacts from noise.
Regarding hours of operation, the applicant has advised that they wish to operate from 4.30pm to 11pm daily. Hot food take-away premises can cause external noise and disturbance to affect surrounding residential properties associated with patrons visiting, leaving and congregating at the premises. The area is a reasonably well trafficked area during the day but quietens throughout the evening and night. In addition, no similar premises currently operate within the immediate local vicinity into the evening hours. Therefore, this Department will recommend a condition which restricts the opening hours
5 of the premises to 11pm to ensure that any associated noise and disturbance associated with the premises is restricted to that time.
Therefore, Environmental Assessment has no objections to this proposed development subject to the following conditions:
1. (i)The kitchen shall be ventilated by a system capable of achieving 30 air changes per hour and ducted to chimney pot level to ensure that no cooking odours escape or are exhausted into any neighbouring premises. (ii) The ventilation system shall be installed, tested and operational prior to the use hereby approved being taken up.
2. The design, installation and operation of any plant, machinery or equipment shall be such that any associated noise complies with NR25 when measured within any nearby living apartment, and no structure borne vibration is perceptible within any nearby living apartment.
3. The sound insulation properties or sound transmission characteristics of the structures and finishes shall be such that no impact or airborne noise from the normal operations within the application premises is audible in any neighbouring living apartment.
4. Hours of operation to be restricted to between 0700 to 2300 hours Monday to Saturday and 0900 to 2300 hours on Sundays.
5. All music and vocals, amplified or otherwise, shall be so controlled as to be inaudible within any neighbouring premises.
6 Deliveries and collections, including waste collections, to be restricted to 0700 to 1900 hours Monday to Saturday
Representations
The application was advertised, 13 representations were received during this time, of which 13 were objections. material points addressed in assessment a)
- noise; - anti-social behaviour; - odours; and - litter. material points addressed in assessment b)
- over provision of hot food take-aways in the area. material points addressed in assessment c)
- parking;
6 - traffic generation; and - road safety.
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
Planning Policy
The proposal site lies within the designated 'Urban Area' of the adopted Edinburgh City Local Plan.
Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy Hou 8 (Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas) establishes a presumption against development which would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of nearby residents. Policy Ret 11 (Alternative Use of Shop Units in Other Locations) sets out the factors to be taken into account in assessing the change of use of a shop unit outwith defined centres. Policy Ret 12 (Food and Drink Establishments) sets criteria for assessing the change of use to a food & drink establishment. Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines Non-statutory guidelines 'FOOD AND DRINK ESTABLISHMENTS' provide guidance on the location of such uses and set out conditions to control their impact.
7 Appendix B
Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: 156 Saughton Road North Edinburgh EH12 7DS
Proposal: Change of use from Class 1 Retail to Hot Food Takeaway Reference No: 12/02227/FUL
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Granted by Committee, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives stated below.
Conditions:-
1. (i)The kitchen shall be ventilated by a system capable of achieving 30 air changes per hour and ducted to chimney pot level to ensure that no cooking odours escape or are exhausted into any neighbouring premises and (ii) The ventilation system shall be installed, tested and operational prior to the use hereby approved being taken up.
2. The design, installation and operation of any plant, machinery or equipment shall be such that any associated noise complies with NR25 when measured within any nearby living apartment, and no structure borne vibration is perceptible within any nearby living apartment.
3. Hours of operation to be restricted to between 0700 to 2300 hours Monday to Saturday and 0900 to 2300 hours on Sundays.
Reasons:-
1. In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and other occupiers.
2. In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and other occupiers.
3. In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and other occupiers.
8
End Appendix C
Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: Change of use from Class 1 Retail to Hot Food Takeaway Reference No: 12/02227/FUL
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
9 Item no 19 Report no
REPORT ON FORTHCOMING APPLICATION by Hillcrest Housing Association Ltd for residential development at 4 Seafield Street, Edinburgh.
Development Management Sub-Committee
1. Purpose of the Report
To inform the Development Management Sub-Committee of a forthcoming planning application in respect of a major development on land at 4 Seafield Street, Edinburgh.
Pre-application reports give the Committee an opportunity to raise issues which it would like to see addressed in the planning application.
2. Summary
This report advises members of a forthcoming planning application for a residential development at a site at 4 Seafield Street. The site is within the Urban Area and designated as a site suitable for Housing as shown on the Edinburgh City Local Plan Proposals Map.
In accordance with the provisions of Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, the applicants submitted a Proposal of Application Notice on 4 September 2012.
3. The Site and the Proposal
Site Description
The site comprises the former Eastern General Hospital complex, extending to approximately 2.46 hectares in size.
All but three of the previous buildings have been demolished. The remaining buildings are listed including the chapel (C(s)), the matron’s house (C(s)), and the administration block (B). A large proportion of the administration building has been demolished following fire damage. The foundations of this building remain with some of the stonework retained in containers on site.
The site is separated from an existing residential area by embankments and a public walkway along a former railway line to the north. To the west lie a number of residential properties, recently constructed and forming part of Fleming Place. To the
1
north east sits Findlay House Care Home and to the south east Craigentinny Golf Course.
Dense vegetation borders the site to the north and south.
Site History
12 April 2007 – Consent granted for outline consent to erect residential units, a residential and daycare facility and a new vehicular access from Findlay Gardens. The application was subject to a legal agreement and conditions reserving matters such as siting, design, external appearance, parking and access, cycle parking, density and waste management. Reference 05/02728/OUT.
13 June 2007 – Planning Committee approved an addendum to 05/02728/OUT which sought approval for the discharge of Condition 1 attached to the consent relating to a design framework master plan.
4 September 2008 – Reserved matters approved for the erection of 60 flatted units in 7 blocks, 4 reprovision houses and a dementia care unit. Reference 08/00458/REM.
26 September 2008 – Planning permission granted for the erection of a 60 bed residential care home, located on adjoining land to the south. Reference 08/02624/REM.
1 October 2008 – Listed building consent granted for the part demolition of the front façade of the administration building and full demolition of the remainder of the building following fire damage. Reference 08/01753/LBC.
Description of the Proposal
Detailed permission will be sought for residential development. At this stage only indicative proposals have been prepared consisting of approximately 154 residential units set out in flatted blocks with associated surface car parking and open space.
It is envisaged that the existing access from the Seafield Street will be utilised, with a further link provided from Fleming Place.
Committee should note that draft proposals for the site were presented to and considered by the Urban Design Panel on 22 August 2012. A brief summary of the Panels comments has been passed to the applicant.
Community Consultation
The Proposal of Application Notice (ref 12/03177/PAN) outlined an open exhibition to be held at the Seagrove Centre on 9 October 2012 and 10 October 2012 between 16.30 and 19.30.
The results of the community consultation will be submitted with the application as part of the Report on Community Consultation.
2
4. Issues
The key considerations against which the eventual application will be assessed include whether: a) the development w ould be acceptable in principle having regard to the development plan;
The site is allocated within the Edinburgh City Local Plan as a site for Housing. The capacity within the Local Plan is estimated at 274 residential units, with 64 of those units currently accommodated in the adjoining site.
The site is not located within a designated area within the Local Plan but is bound to the north by a Local Nature Conservation Site.
Policy Hou 1 – Housing Development, considers that housing development will be permitted on sites listed in Table 6.1 and shown on the Proposals Map contained within the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
Proposals should comply with Policy Hou 4 – Density and Hou 3 – Private Open Space to ensure that an attractive residential environment is created, safeguarding the living conditions of prospective and nearby occupiers. b) the design, layout are acceptable within the character of the area;
The application is likely to come forward as an application for Planning Permission in principle. At this stage there have been some indicative details on the layout of the proposals for information but not for assessment. The applicant will be required to submit details of the design and layout of the development taking into account the topography of the site, scale, access and the surrounding uses.
The applicant is required to submit a Design and Access Statement with the application. c) access arrangements are acceptable in terms of road saf ety and p ublic transport accessibility;
The applicants have indicated that the preference is for a main access into the site from Seafield Street with a secondary access being explored from Fleming Place. If two accesses are brought forward it is not expected that a through route will be permitted. Pedestrian access to the site will need to be considered.
The application will be supported by a Transport Assessment which will address the impact of the proposals on the local road network. Compliance with the Council’s standards of parking and access will be assessed as part of the proposals. d) there are any other environmental factors that require consideration:
The applicants will be required to submit sufficient information to demonstrate that the site is capable of being developed for the intended use. In order to support the application the following documents will be submitted: 3
transport assessment;
flood risk assessment;
surface water management plan/SUDS
air quality impact assessment;
site investigation (contamination);
tree survey and constraints Plan;
detailed landscape plan and planting schedule;
bat survey;
sustainability statement; and
archaeology survey.
5. Conclusion
This report highlights the main issues that are likely to arise in relation to the various key considerations. This list is not exhaustive and further matters may arise when the new application is received, and consultees and the public have the opportunity to comment.
6. Recommendations
It is recommended that the Committee notes the key issues at this stage and advises of any other issue.
John Bury Head of Planning and Building Standards
Appendices 1. Location Plan
Contact/tel/Email Ross Middleton/ 0131 529 6127 / [email protected]
Wards affected 14 – Craigentinny/Duddingston
Background Papers
4
Appendix 1 PLANNING APPLICATION 2 Address 3 4 Seafield Street 7 Proposal 8 Construction of approximately 160 new build flats and houses, demolition of the gatehouse at 4 Seafield 9 Application 10 12/03177/PAN 11 W 12 A14- 13 THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL 13.1 SERVICES FOR COMMUNITIES – PLANNING & BUILDING STANDARDS
5
Item no Report no
Approval of Matters Specified in Conds 12/01109/AMC at Land At Greendykes Road Edinburgh
Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee
1 Purpose of report
To consider application 12/01109/AMC, submitted by Persimmon Homes Ltd & Taylor Wimpey East Scotland Ltd. The application is for: Residential development including detailed site layout plan showing position of buildings, roads, footpaths, parking areas, cycle parking, walls, fences, landscaping, details of existing and finished levels, flood attenuation details (matters listed in conditions 3, 5(i), (iii), (v) of planning consent 07/01644/OUT).
It is recommended that this application be Approved by Committee.
2 The Site and the Proposal
Site description The site consists of former agricultural land which wraps around the existing urban edge of Craigmillar and Greendykes extending to approximately 22.5 ha. The site is largely undeveloped but there is historical evidence of mining works in southern parts of the site.
The site lies at the intersection between the former medieval estates of Niddrie Marischal to the north east, Edmonstone to the south and east and Craigmillar Castle to the northwest. An edge of the former Edmonstone estate
1 including hedging and low walls lies partially within the southern site boundary. A banked hedge row forming the boundary with Niddrie Marischal estate and the associated Magdelene Burn lie to the north east separating the site from Hunters Hall Park. A tributary of the Magdelene Burn is in culvert under the site. Craigmillar Castle, a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) (Reference No 90129), scheduled on 21 October 1994, is located on Craigmillar Hill approximately 700 metres to the northwest.
The southern and northern edges of the site are between 60 and 65 metres Above Ordinance Datum (AOD). The southern part of the site slopes from northwest to south east with an overall level difference of approximately 12 metres. Beyond the southern boundary the land continues to slope upwards towards Edmonstone ridge which sits at around 105 metres AOD. The Wisp a road which defines the city boundary between Edinburgh and Midlothian lies to the south east.
The northern site slopes from northwest to south east with an overall level difference of approximately eight metres. Hawkhill Wood to the north west forms a backdrop to the northern part of the site and forms part of the Designed Landscape of Craigmillar Castle. An established tree belt is located along the eastern edge of the site with Greendykes Road. The Niddrie Burn flows centrally east - west through the northern part of the development. The burn is in the process of being restored from two separate channels to a single channel in order to acceptably mitigate flood risk and to provide associated environmental and access improvements.
A Public Transport Link (PTL) between Greendykes Road to the north and Little France Drive to the west is currently under construction and will feature a roundabout at the junction with Greendykes Road and a bridge over the Niddrie Burn. A wide reserve along the north side of the PTL has been retained for a future a tram line. The PTL shall be a general traffic road until it crosses an area of future parkland to the west, where it becomes a bus only link with associated cycleway and footpath provision on either side of the road. The future parkland to the south and west separates the site from the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (RIE) and the Edinburgh BioQuarter. Two Public Rights of Way, namely LC90 and LC91, traverse through the site towards Little France Drive to the west.
Greendykes, a former 1960s housing estate lies to the north of the site edged by Greendykes Road. The former low rise housing has been cleared pending redevelopment in accordance with the approved Greendykes North masterplan and a further masterplan to be prepared for Greendykes South. Initial phases of housing have been completed at Greendykes North but large areas of vacant land still remain. Two existing 15 storey tower blocks located at the southern end of Greendykes Road are highly visible elements in the local landscape. Further established housing at Niddrie Marischal lies to the north east of the site separated by Hunters Hall Park and the Niddrie Burn.
2 Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP)
The site is located within the urban area as part of a wider housing site HSG5. A reservation for a new dual stream primary school is located within the site. The Niddrie burn corridor is an area of open space and a local nature site. The future parkland area to the south and west is forms part of the Green Belt and is identified for open space. A tram safeguard is located along northern side of the proposed PTL. A cycle/ footpath route and public transport route runs through southern part of site linking to the Wisp.
Craigmillar Urban Design Framework (CUDF)
The Craigmillar Urban Design Framework (CUDF) sets an overall vision for the regeneration of Craigmillar over the next 10-15 years, including the construction of around 3200 new homes and associated schools, open space and local facilities. The application site is identified in the CUDF as part of the green field expansion area known as New Greendykes which also includes further land to the north east and south east.
Site History
11 August 2011 - Planning Committee agreed to review the Craigmillar Urban Design Framework (CUDF)
23 August 2010 - Consent was granted for the restoration of the Niddrie Burn, involving excavation of the river corridor and associated engineering works on land within and adjoining the site (reference 08/02474/FUL). The works are currently under construction
22 July 2010 - Consent was granted in principle for up to 1000 residential units on the site (reference 07/01644/0UT)
23 March 2006 - Deemed permission was granted for the construction of a Public Transport Link (PTL) and associated roadway through the central part of the site (reference 04/02469/CEC). The road works are currently under construction.
29 September 2005 - Planning Committee approved the CUDF as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG).
Other relevant applications:
6 September 2012 - A detailed application for the formation of a vehicular access road to the Wisp, footpath, cycle path and associated landscaping to facilitate residential development associated with the present planning application reference 12/01109/AMC was submitted on land to the south east of the site (reference 12/03190/FUL). This application is still to be determined.
6 September 2012 - A detailed application for engineering works, re-grading of land and landscaping to facilitate new residential development associated
3 with the present planning application reference 12/01109/AMC was submitted on land to the south west (12/03189/FUL). This application is still to be determined.
2 May 2012 - Public consultation for a residential development (circa 146 units) and vehicular access to the Wisp was approved on a 4.4 hectare site to the south east (12/01330/PAN).
Pre-Application Process
As the application is for Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions no community consultation was required. The masterplan was presented to the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel in August 2011, and the Panel's report is included in the consultation section. Various discussions were held between CEC planning, the developer and consultees to progress the design in context with the ongoing review of the CUDF and with developments on adjoining sites.
Description Of The Proposal
The current submission is to approve a limited number of matters specified in conditions (AMC) attached to the original outline planning consent. The street hierarchy, parking provision, site levels, sustainable urban drainage (SUDS) and hard and soft landscaping details would be agreed as part of this application. The details are also intended to demonstrate the acceptability of the layout and associated levels in terms of flood risk and former coal mine workings and requirements for land re-grading in adjoining land to the south and west.
Further details are provided solely for context within an accompanying design statement/ masterplan. The details indicate the likely number, mix and type of the residential units, building heights, frontages and elevations and location of affordable housing. Following the agreement of the road layout and frontages, the exact numbers, mix, type of units and building heights would be approved via individual applications for particular housing areas.
This approach has been taken to allow developers to agree the detail of individual parts of the site separately under further submissions under AMC.
Key details for approval within site layout plan:
* A grid pattern of primary, secondary and tertiary streets. The individual blocks would generally be around 120x120 metres and be bounded by primary or secondary streets designed for service vehicle access;
* Tertiary streets, designed as lanes, would bisect the blocks providing access to limited housing, parking and amenity areas within the block;
* A hierarchy of street tree and hard and soft landscaping would be used to define the residential character of the streets;
4
* Rear parking courts generally providing 12-16 spaces with tree and hedge planting designed to soften their appearance from the adjacent streets along with limited on street and in curtilage parking;
* Three large SUDS ponds to be formed within the site would be overlooked by surrounding housing and are intended to provide associated landscaped amenity space;
* The layout is designed to be permeable with the street hierarchy and associated pedestrian routes providing opportunities for on and off road cycle routes with strategic and local connections to be provided through the site to the adjacent parkland and to the wider Craigmillar;
* Land is reserved on north side of the PTL for a future tram route, with the exception of a single road crossing and street tree planting.
Street Hierarchy
The primary route through the site, linking towards the Wisp, would be a 7.3 metres width bus route, with an associated three metre off road cycleway and two metre footpath. The street would have a boulevard appearance with larger avenue street trees set within grass verges on either side of the road and accompanying shrub and hedge planting used to define edges. The street trees would integrate with on street parking and swales. A 50 metre section of road adjacent to a key junction with a separate housing site to the north east would be reduced in width to 6 metres with larger buildings used on either side to delineate this area.
As there is no confirmed agreement for buses to use the route, bus stop locations are not currently specified. A bus turning circle is shown indicatively on the adjacent PAN site to the south east. The detail of the access road to the Wisp is considered in a separate application 12/03190/FUL.
The secondary streets would be 5.5 metres in width with localised narrowings. Street trees and associated landscaping would be integrated with the road narrowings and parking lay-bys, with hedging providing an edge to the houses. Small amenity squares would be located at key points of intersection for example with the parkland to the south and elsewhere within the site. The position of the buildings is intended to provide orientation and overlooking for the street and for the squares. The units would be terraced, semi-detached and detached houses with limited flatted housing. Limited on street parking would be provided with the majority of parking located either in curtilage or in separate rear parking courts.
The smaller streets within the housing blocks would be designed as shared surface streets. These would be 4.5 metres in width with localised narrowings created by amenity spaces, landscaping and parking. Smaller street trees in pits would double as bio retention SUDS features. More substantial trees at the junctions with the secondary streets would provide a focal point and a
5 method of screening parking. Short front gardens would be provided with clear edge treatments in the form of low walls and smaller soft landscaping.
Parking
Parking for the development would generally be 100%, including in curtilage and on street provision and provision within limited scale rear parking courts of between 12 and 16 spaces. For the affordable units the provision including on street provision would be around 45%.
Site levels
The levels adjacent to the Niddrie Burn are being adjusted as part of the separate Niddrie Burn works (08/02474/FUL) in order to create platforms for the future housing outwith the 1:200 year flood risk levels. This is intended to be increased further by the housing development to create a 600mm freeboard above predicted flood inundation levels. The area of fill would be extended to provide a suitably graded primary access road. The upper parts of the site and land within a 50m zone of the adjoining parkland would be in cut with levels to be revised down by approximately 1.5 metres. The proposed off site re-grading works form part of a separate application 12/03189/FUL that was submitted in September and is under consideration.
Soft and hard landscaping
Within the larger squares, there would be scope for informal play spaces and seating. For the perimeter squares, the tree planting would be intended to relate with boundary planting along the parkland edge.
The southern and western boundaries with the parkland would generally be formed by a hedge and an avenue of single species trees but where stone walls and existing hedging associated with the former Edmonstone Estate would require to be removed, it is intended that the walls be reinstated on a new alignment. This is covered in the separate re-grading application (12/03189/FUL). Stone gate piers would define the main parkland entrances.
The south eastern boundary would be formed by a structural landscape strip consisting of trees and shrubs. The northern and eastern boundaries with Greendykes Road and Hunters Hall Park would be formed through the retention of the existing tree belts. The northern boundary with the parkland would be formed by new woodland planting designed to reinforce that edge to the development. The development adjoining Niddrie Burn would be designed to integrate with new tree planting and with future pedestrian/ cycle routes along that route.
The single species sessile oak planting along the site edges and in the main streets is currently indicative and may change in the final design and considering the most appropriate species in context with adjacent buildings. Low boundary hedge planting which includes a wildlife mix of hazel, hawthorn, holly, bird cherry, blackthorn is designed to create an attractive and natural
6 edge to the site. The trees would be designed with a high canopy to create inter visibility between the road and the adjoining footpath.
Sustainable Urban Drainage/ diversion of minor watercourse
A detailed SUDS strategy has been developed for the site. Three large SUDS detention basins are proposed in central locations to be overlooked by the surrounding housing. These are to be sized to accommodate surface water flow in a 1:200 year rainfall event but under normal conditions will generally be dry or damp. Each SUDS area has been designed with a different character, with mounding seating, timber decking, equipped play and kick about areas, trees and paths to be provided in a variety of formal and less formal landscape designs around the ponds. Access for maintenance would be provided via the path structure. The basins would ultimately outfall via a pipe to the Niddrie Burn.
Associated SUDS measures would include roadside swales, trees in bio retention pits and permeable paving. A minor water course which forms a tributary to the Magdalene Burn is currently culverted through the site and would be re-aligned as part of the development. Beyond the site boundary it is intended that the watercourse would be an open channel and details have been provided as part of this application and in terms of the separate application 12/03189/FUL.
Contextual information in design statement/ masterplan (not for approval under current AMC)
Key concepts include:
* Houses and flats of two to four storeys, to be provided in a series of informal blocks;
* A significant proportion of the housing to be family housing, the exact provision to be confirmed as part of future application under AMC;
* Larger three and four storey flats would be used to define key routes and spaces including sections of the primary route linking from the PTL to towards the Wisp and areas fronting the PTL and Niddrie Burn;
* Lower density two and 2.5 storey housing would front onto the adjacent parkland to the south and west with the edge of the site to be defined by avenue tree planting and hedging;
* The houses would generally be 18m back to back with rear gardens of a minimum depth of 9 metres, with the flats having semi-private amenity areas to the side and rear;
* Integrated cycle and refuse stores for the flats would form part of the detailed design of those units;
7 Contextual information for housing mix, type and numbers (not for approval under current AMC)
The masterplan sets out how approximately 874 units can be accommodated within 11 separate development areas. Around 657 units would be private (317 terraced and semi-detached houses, 157 detached houses and 183 flats), and 217 would be affordable (170 flats and 47 terraced and semi- detached). The exact size and internal layout of the residential units, window positions, roof and building form is not shown and this would be detailed as part of a further application under AMC. A further 145 units are shown on an adjoining site to the south east (12/01330/PAN).
The affordable provision is concentrated into three areas, two areas (AH2 and AH3) of which would be located centrally either side of the public transport link (PTL). Affordable area AH1 would be located at the north end of the site. The affordable housing provision is intended to cover the requirements for the current master plan site and the separate PAN site.
Private housing: A = 54 houses (mainly detached with some terraced and semi-detached), 36 flats; B = 58 houses (mainly detached with some terraced and semi-detached), 15 flats; E = 45 houses (mainly detached with limited terraced and semi detached), 30 flats; F = 62 houses (mix of detached and terraced with limited semi-detached), 0 flats; G = 65 houses (mainly detached with limited semi-detached and terraced), 30 flats; H = 85 houses (mix of semi-detached and terraced with some detached), 18 flats; I + J = 105 houses (mainly terraced with some semi-detached and detached), 54 flats.
Affordable housing: AH1 = 25 houses (mainly semi-detached and some terraced), 0 flats AH2 = 0 houses, 122 flats AH3 = 22 houses (mainly terraced with some semi-detached), 48 flats
Submission documents
The various plans and submission documents include:
Masterplan
Mining risk assessment
Design statement and associated test area analysis
Landscape Strategy
8
SUDS strategy and Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)
SUDS area landscaping design
Boundary landscape design
Details of existing and finished levels and accompanying sections
Ecology report
These documents are available to view on Planning and Building Standards Online Services.
3. Officer’s Assessment and Recommendation
Determining Issues
Do the proposals comply with the development plan?
If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?
If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?
ASSESSMENT
To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:
(a) there are any issues of principle relating to the development;
(b) the design would be acceptable in terms of road layout, pedestrian and cycle connections, parking provision and tram safeguarding;
(c) there would be any other significant design issues including landscaping, design or amenity issues; and
(d) there are other issues SUDS and flood risk, education, ecology, impacts on adjoining parkland areas, archaeology, mining risk, and issues raised by the Community Council.
(a) Issues of Principle
Review of CUDF
The ongoing review of the CUDF initiated in August 2011, has been prompted by a marked slowdown of the regeneration process within Craigmillar and
9 changes to policy. In particular, falling house sales have resulted in a slowdown in the pace of the regeneration including supporting infrastructure provision and also resulted in fewer than expected private houses being built.
Initial community consultation undertaken in December 2011 has generally reaffirmed the vision in the CUDF. A further level of consultation is currently ongoing looking at the process of achieving the wider aims, including looking at site specific strategic issues. Although there is nothing specific in the ongoing review for New Greendykes, the site was one of the main development areas listed in the Planning Committee report which approved the review in August 2011. It is expected that the wider process of review will report back later in 2012 or by early next year.
The developer has sought to engage in the CUDF review process in order to challenge some of the design assumptions contained in the document which it sees may constrain their ability to successfully progress the development. Their response sought a lesser emphasis on perimeter and linked blocks which require significant initial capital to construct, the inclusion of limited scale rear parking courts to prevent indiscriminate parking in relation to the nearby Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and the provision of a higher number of family houses via the introduction of a wider range of house types including detached and semi-detached houses alongside linked and flatted units.
The matters raised are not being considered directly by the ongoing review and can be considered on a site specific basis based on details supplied with the current submission. The implications of the changes for site density are considered below and in term of wider design issues in section (b).
Overall the review of the CUDF does not constrain the ability for this AMC application to be progressed.
Implications of road layout for site density
Demonstrating that density of the site was appropriate and not too low was an issue raised by the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel. Although the final number of units would be determined by a separate application for AMC, the current road layout alters the perimeter block approach used elsewhere in Craigmillar, allowing for lower density housing within and on the edges of the perimeter block. Prior to approving the road layout it must be considered whether this is concept is appropriate.
The application site is known as New Greendykes, a planned greenbelt housing release forming part of a wider housing allocation HSG5 in the ECLP, including further land to the north east and south east. The site has an indicative allocation figure in the ECLP of 810 units. The CUDF identifies the site for a higher density of development of between 1200-1600 units.
The outline permission (07/0644/OUT) allowed for up to 1000 units on the site subject to conditions and the preparation of a detailed masterplan. The 1000 unit provision was based on an indicative perimeter block layout including a
10 higher proportion of flatted housing units and if delivered in full would have provided around 43 units per hectare. Masterplans prepared for more central sites at Wauchope Square and Greendykes North indicate that those sites are likely to achieve higher densities of between 65-80 units per hectare.
The grid layout shown site layout plan provides a clear hierarchy of routes in line with the principles of Designing Streets. The primary and secondary routes would be designed for service vehicles, with tertiary streets providing traffic calmed shared surfaces integrated with smaller amenity spaces. Squares with associated landscaping would punctuate the layout providing valuable amenity space. Based on the details provided in the accompanying masterplan, around 874 units can be accommodated including houses and flats. Excluding the area given over to Niddrie Burn, site density is approximately 38 units per hectare.
The Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) for the site to the south east (12/01330/PAN) proposes around 145 units at a similar density and layout to the current AMC proposals. In total this would give a capacity of 1028 units on over both sites. When a further housing site to the north east is also considered, giving an overall total of around 1100 units can be expected to be achieved.
Overall the road layout shown in the site layout plan shall deliver an appropriate density of development in context with the peripheral nature of the site compared to the other masterplan housing areas elsewhere in Craigmillar.
Third access to the Wisp and connection to housing site to North East
The Transport Assessment (TA) prepared for the outline planning application (07/01644/OUT) required a total of three accesses to the wider road network, including two from Greendykes Road and a third to the Wisp. The signed section 75 legal agreement and an associated condition require the third access to be completed prior to the occupation of the 501st dwelling unit.
The location and detailed design of the access is currently being considered under a separate detailed application (12/03190/FUL) which would also address any potential issues of rat running. Midlothian Council currently has concerns regarding the impact of the access on the Wisp which is in their control, and dialogue is ongoing to find a solution that satisfies all parties. Given the condition and legal agreement safeguard, it is acceptable to progress the current site layout plan and to seek to resolve the remaining access issues in terms of the separate application.
The development now shows a continuous connection up to the boundary of the separate housing site to the north east allowing for a future road and associated footpath connection to be delivered without the creation of “a ransom strip”. A second pedestrian connection is also shown to the east in association with a proposed SUDS area. As this would require a pedestrian bridge to be formed over the Magdalene Burn which is outwith the site, the pedestrian connection would not be developed at this stage. There is scope
11 for this to be further considered at a later date as part of the development of the separate housing site.
Overall the Wisp connection is not an issue of principle as there are sufficient safeguards in place via the existing consent and opportunities for further discussion in terms of the separate application process. The appropriate access connections to the adjoining site to the north east will be safeguarded as part of the development so as not to create a ransom strip.
Neighbour notification
An issue with neighbour notification relating to one of the cottages on the Wisp who owns a strip of land to the rear has been resolved as part of the processing of the application. This is not an issue affecting the determination of the masterplan.
Conclusion issue (a)
Overall the issues of principle relating to density, the review of the CUDF, and the master plan design in relation to the third access to the Wisp are acceptable subject to the satisfactory resolution of the design in discussion with Midlothian Council.
(b) Road layout and associated pedestrian and cycle connections
The site is designed to be permeable and provides for a series of key pedestrian and cycle connections to the adjoining parkland and the Niddrie Burn to and from the site and the wider Craigmillar. Where the connections meet the parkland, the detail of these connections would be agreed by condition and delivered as part of the development. The width and design of the connection should be appropriate in terms of providing a transition between the road and cycle routes within the parkland.
Along the busier principal routes, a dedicated off road pedestrian/ cycle path would be provided, designed to provide safe and easy movement separate from bus and service vehicle traffic. The pedestrian/ cycle route would be associated with lines of larger street trees designed to form a boulevard. The use of limited road narrowing of the bus route in the centre of the site is acceptable in order to slow traffic speeds and enhance pedestrian movement potential and amenity in that area. Although no bus turning circle is provided within the site there may be scope to accommodate this within the boundary of the separate housing site to the north. This is being considered under the separate application 12/03190/FUL.
A road bridge would be required over the Niddrie Burn and the details of this including footpath provision would be a condition of consent. The detailed design of this feature in context with the wider road design should be such that any associated guard rail would not prevent pedestrian and cycle access links being formed with the adjoining parkland and the Niddrie Burn corridor.
12 Two public rights of way connect through the site from Greendykes in positions north and south of the Niddrie Burn. The developer would be required to take forward the necessary diversion of the connections and facilitate access during the construction phases, this is highlighted in an applicant informative.
Overall the road layout and associated connections are acceptable subject to the stated conditions and informative. The design of the hard and soft landscaping is considered further in section (c).
Parking provision
Initial concerns raised by the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel (EUDF) at the pre-application stage regarding the provision of rear parking courts in respect of safety and security have been further examined through the detailed design process in association with the Police Architectural Liaison Officer.
The rear parking courts are a key design requirement of the developer in order to reducing actual/ potential problems of indiscriminate parking for users of the nearby hospital. The extent of rear parking courts and the number of pedestrian connections into and out of the space have since been reduced and are now more moderate in scale and with appropriate overlooking and landscape containment.
Parking numbers are approximately one space per unit with a reduced figure for the affordable units. Whilst parking numbers are generally acceptable, any significant changes in the final unit numbers and or the tenure of the affordable units would require this to be further considered. This issue is highlighted in an applicant informative. A condition relating to the provision of visitor cycle parking is recommended with secure provision for residents being subject to separate approval under AMC.
Overall parking provision including car parking in limited sized rear parking courts and visitor cycle provision would be acceptable subject to the stated condition and applicant informative.
Tram reservation
The tram safeguard is situated between the affordable housing area AH2 and the public transport link (PTL). Accordingly no buildings are shown within this zone. A minor access road linking from area AH2 and the PTL is shown across the tram reserve. The affordable housing developer requires this access in order to construct the new housing and is seeking this to be kept thereafter as a permanent access to facilitate a better connected housing layout. This is acceptable and the detailed design of the route would be agreed as part of the Road Construction Consent process. To mitigate the large gap created by the reservation a line of street trees adjacent to the PTL have been shown.
13 Overall there is no issue with the proposed design in terms of the tram reservation.
Conclusion issue (b)
Overall the road and parking layout and associated pedestrian and cycle connections are acceptable subject to the recommended conditions and informative.
(c) Design Issues
Building frontages, landscaping and boundary treatment
The site layout plan shall deliver road frontages with overlooking buildings adjacent to the future parkland to the south and west. Along the northern boundary of the development, a woodland belt designed to contain the rear elevations of buildings and to provide a backdrop to the site is within the ownership of the applicant and would be delivered via conditions. Where buildings back onto the Niddrie Burn, for instance the affordable housing site AH2, it would be expected that the flats provide a suitably attractive rear elevation and boundary treatment that present a positive edge to the proposed footpaths along the burn. The edge treatment can be achieved by condition with the elevations being considered further and approved under AMC.
An overall landscape strategy has been provided, with specific additional details provided for key edges, streets, squares and SUDS areas.
The boundary with the future parkland has been amended with a line of trees and associated hedgerows now proposed with shall provide an attractive boundary edge. Where stone walls would be removed these would be reinstated and entrances to the parkland would be highlighted via rubble stone gate piers. Similarly where rear elevations are presented along the Niddrie Burn walls/ railings or soft landscaping would be used rather than timber fencing to provide a more appropriate boundary treatment to this important edge. The detail of these areas would be agreed by condition.
For the three SUDS ponds, the details presented provide an individual design for each area designed to make the area attractive and able to be used for amenity space. Play areas, seating and small kickabout areas would be sited around the edges of the pond. Although the landscaped design has progressed, a further level of discussion involving relevant parties is needed in order to get an overall solution for each SUDS pond that delivers distinctive useable amenity features whilst meeting relevant requirements for SUDS. The details of the SUDS areas will be controlled through conditions.
Elsewhere the approach in providing a hierarchy of street trees and associated landscaping is appropriate and the exact detail of tree planting will be agreed by condition. Hard landscaping in the squares and for the shared surface streets would also be controlled through conditions. The protection of
14 existing trees along the boundary of the site during construction would be agreed as a condition of consent.
Overall the approach to landscaping is generally accepted subject to the recommended conditions.
Further indicative design details contained in masterplan regarding housing mix and type, building heights and detailing
As indicated in section (a), the provision of a higher proportion of family units, in the form of detached, linked and semi-detached houses is acceptable in this location as a minor deviation to the CUDF. This is subject to agreeing the exact detail of those units including the size of dwellings as part of a further application for AMC.
The final percentage of family housing consisting of units of three bedrooms of more is likely to be in excess of the 33% figure in the CUDF and significantly above the 20% minimum figure in the ECLP. The site is also likely to meet the 20% numbers of larger units with floor areas of 91 square metres or above in line with the Edinburgh Standards for Housing and the draft Edinburgh Design Guidance. Meeting or exceeding these requirements is seen to be of benefit for the regeneration in Craigmillar subject to the further consideration of supporting education infrastructure in section (d).
The affordable units are mainly flats with a limited number of linked and semi- detached units in three separate areas within the site. This meets relevant requirements under Council policy and the exact nature of and type of the affordable units will be considered further under a subsequent AMC application. The principle of incorporating the affordable housing requirements for the separate PAN site (12/01330/PAN) within the current master plan site is also acceptable as it provides a more centrally located provision that is more accessible to the wider Craigmillar. The delivery of the additional units will be secured in a legal agreement to be attached to any consent granted for the separate PAN site.
The building heights shown in the masterplan are indicative and will be considered further and approved separately under AMC. However the approach taken with higher three and four storey buildings fronting primary routes and along the Niddrie Burn, and lower two and 2.5 storey units towards the site edges is generally acceptable and in line with the CUDF.
The test area analysis shown in the master plan demonstrates how corner detailing can be used to enliven key elevations, for instance adjacent to the PTL and the Niddrie Burn and this, along with appropriate building height key at gateways and junctions, will be looked at further when those details are submitted for approval under AMC. It will be expected that in the final design the elevations of buildings are tailored to enhance the areas of the site that they overlook and that appropriate material treatment is also used.
15 Other factors such as window to window distances have been factored into the design and would comply with relevant standards. Similarly the site is remote from existing neighbouring properties and there would be no significant amenity issues.
Overall whilst the submitted details remain indicative they provide an appropriate platform to inform future submissions under AMC.
Conclusion issue (c)
Overall the proposed landscape framework and building frontages is also acceptable subject to the detail of the landscape treatment and existing tree protection being agreed by condition. The housing mix, type, building heights and detailing would be considered further and agreed under a subsequent AMC submission but the submitted details provide useful context to guide those further submissions.
(d) Other issues
Flood risk issues and SUDS
Condition 3 attached to the outline consent required details of flood attenuation measures to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. This condition was designed to relate to the Niddrie Burn river restoration works, the flood risk of which has been considered and approved previously. The submitted details now demonstrate that finished levels are sufficient to be outwith the 1:200 year flood risk zone. This condition can now be discharged. A separate condition added to the AMC would deal with the diversion of an off-site minor water course and associated issues of future maintenance.
Condition 4 attached to the outline consent required an integrated SUDS strategy to be agreed to support the masterplan. The submitted strategy which includes a hierarchy of treatment in the form of swales, permeable paving, bio-retention tree pits, and three large SUDS detention basins is generally acceptable subject to surface water flow paths, the finished levels of houses and further volume calculations for the SUDS basins being submitted for further approval. This can be achieved via a condition. The details of final discharge to Niddrie Burn would also be detailed as part of that process.
Whilst SEPA have no objection to the development these matters remain to be fully resolved and approved by the Flood Prevention Officer. Discussion regarding these remaining matters is ongoing and conditions relating to these aspects are therefore recommended.
Overall SUDS and flood risk are acceptable subject to the stated conditions.
16 Education
The scale of new housing within the development and planned replacement housing elsewhere in Craigmillar may eventually generate a requirement to expand primary school provision to serve the new housing. Despite safeguard SCH5 in the ECLP for a new double stream primary school within the housing allocation, it was agreed in discussions regarding the legal agreement that no primary school contribution or land safeguarding would be required from this development.
The Council has secured via the legal agreement a £1.07 million contribution towards improving secondary school provision in South East Edinburgh. The contribution is index linked and is to be paid in four phases over the course of the development.
Overall due to the previous legal agreement there are no education issues which to be addressed by this AMC application.
Ecology
The submitted ecology report highlights that there is no evidence of protected species in the development site. No further mitigation would be required.
Impacts on adjoining future parkland and Hunters Hall Park
The development is separate from Hunters Hall Park and there would be no further loss of sports pitches resulting from this application. Replacement sports pitch provision in the form of money for a new 3G sport pitch, is covered in the existing section 75 agreement.
The finished levels proposed in this application would have an impact on the proposed parkland to the south and west as they would require the adjoining land to be re-graded resulting via removal of material. The detail of these works is being considered in the separate application 12/03189/FUL.
An outline design has been prepared demonstrating boundary walls and landscaping features can be accommodated as part of an amended design for that area. The design would be intended to minimise the loss of existing landscape features in that area which include hedgerow trees and ha ha walls. Whilst this is accepted in principle, formal agreement of the works beyond the site boundary would form part of a separate planning permission. Relevant connections to the parkland and to Hunters Hall Park are secured via the master plan.
Overall subject to agreeing the detail of the re-grading works as part of the separate planning application, the development is acceptable in terms of the adjoining parkland.
17 Archaeology
The new infrastructure proposed in the application and the associated re- grading works on the adjoining parkland area to the south encroach on the remnants of haha walls and or hedges associated with the boundary of the former Edmonstone estate. Within the current site boundary there would be an immediate loss of approximately 70 metres of hedge/ wall, with a minimum of 30 metres additional removal required within the adjoining re-grading site to accommodate the full extent of access road.
The prior recording and analysis of the walls, hedges and other archaeological features of note is covered by the existing archaeology condition attached to the outline planning consent which remains to be discharged in discussion with the City Archaeologist. The removal of the existing features is necessary in order to facilitate the development and it would be practicable to reinstate the walls on an amended alignment along the boundary of the site. The replacement design of the walls would be agreed as part of the separate re- grading application 12/03190/AMC.
Overall subject to the stated conditions, the impacts on archaeology would be acceptable.
Former mine workings
Former coal mine workings have been identified in part of the southern part of the site. A Site Investigation report containing details of proposed mitigation has been prepared and the proposed mitigation has been agreed with the Coal Authority. The mitigation can be controlled via the standard site investigation condition on the outline planning consent which remains to be discharged.
Craigmillar Community Council
The Community Council have determined not to comment specifically on the master plan but will seek to engage with future AMC submissions to agree the detail of the affordable housing and the design of individual buildings. They have also stated that they wish to consider issues relating to traffic impact and the signed section 75 and its use.
The issues raised are addressed in the assessment sections above and where appropriate by conditions related to the master plan. A full copy of their response is provided in the consultation section in Appendix A.
Conclusion issue (d)
Overall subject to the stated conditions the development is acceptable in terms of SUDS and flood risk, education, ecology, impacts on adjoining parkland areas, archaeology, mining risk, and issues raised by the Community Council.
18 In conclusion, the proposals comply with the development plan and with relevant policy and guidance including the CUDF and the Scottish Government policy document Designing Streets. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.
It is recommended that the Committee approves the site layout plan subject to conditions relating to landscaping design and implementation, the design of SUDS basins, flow paths and exact building levels, details of the proposed diverted watercourse, the design of pedestrian/ cycle connections, visitor cycle parking, tree protection, and the design of the road bridge over Niddrie Burn. Applicant informatives would highlight remaining issues relating to parking provision to be addressed under a subsequent AMC submission and the treatment of existing rights of way. The further details relating to building heights, housing mix and type of units are provided for context but do not form part of the current AMC submission and would be approved separately.
REASON FOR DECISION
The road layout and building frontages and levels outlined in the site layout plan represents an appropriate design and layout, housing mix and density and allows for a detailed design for the individual development areas to be prepared based on those details. Issues relating to the third access to the Wisp can be dealt with separately in terms of that application. In line with the Craigmillar Urban Design Framework (CUDF), integration and appropriate boundary definition has been demonstrated with the strategic parkland area to the south and west and with the Niddrie Burn corridor. Minor deviations from the CUDF including the creation of moderate scaled rear parking courts and the use of a wider range of more standard housing units is acceptable in this urban edge location subject to a successful design being presented under Approval of Matters (AMC).
John Bury Head of Planning & Building Standards
Contact/tel Hamish Bell on 0131 529 3143 Ward affected A17 - Portobello/Craigmillar Local Plan Edinburgh City Local Plan Statutory Housing Site HSG4 and Primary School Reservation SCH5. Development Plan Part Open Space and Local Nature Site. Tram safeguard Provision and Cycle Footpath and Public Transport Link To The Wisp. Date registered 26 March 2012
Drawing numbers/ 01A, 02B, 04A - 07A, 8 Scheme Scheme 2
19
Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors
The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Standards Portal: www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.
If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Linda Hamilton, 0131 529 3146, [email protected]
If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.
20 Appendix A
Application Type Approval of Matters Specified in Conds Application Address: Land At Greendykes Road Edinburgh
Proposal: Residential development including detailed site layout plan showing position of buildings, roads, footpaths, parking areas, cycle parking, walls, fences, landscaping, details of existing and finished levels, flood attenuation details (matters listed in conditions 3, 5(i), (iii), (v) of planning consent 07/01644/OUT). Reference No: 12/01109/AMC
Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy
Consultations
Affordable Housing comment 19/04/2012
Services for Communities has worked with Planning to develop a methodology for assessing housing requirements by tenure, which supports an Affordable Housing Policy (AHP) for the city.
- The AHP makes the provision of affordable housing a planning condition for sites over a particular size. The proportion of affordable housing required is set at 25% (of total units) for all proposals of 12 units or more.
- This is consistent with Policy Hou 7 Affordable Housing in the Finalised Edinburgh City Local Plan.
As this application is an AMC application for a maximum of 888 residential units, the AHP will apply. The site lies within the Craigmillar Urban Design Framework, which set an AHP requirement of 20%, even though the citywide level of affordable housing sought is usually 25% of the units to be of approved affordable housing tenures, as those are found in PAN2/2010 and within the Council’s Affordable Housing Policy. In fact, the applicant is to be commended for including 24.5% affordable housing within this application (217 homes in total). This is above the levels required for this application and is warmly welcomed by the Department.
Given the considerable size of the proposed development, the Department requested that the AHP allocation be spread across more than one plot, in order to avoid a concentration of any one tenure, and to assist with the creation of a mixed, sustainable community on this site. The applicant is to be
21 commended for nominating two distinct sites, providing for 3 clearly defined areas for affordable housing, which will increase the likelihood of there being a positive integration with the market housing within this development.
Further, the applicant has indicated that there will be a range of property types within the affordable housing proposed within this development, including apartments, linked and semi-detached housing.
There is therefore much to commend and support within this application from an affordable housing perspective.
However, given that this is an AMC application, there are two pieces of information that the Department would request from the applicant in order to form a fully considered view on the proposals. We would be grateful if the applicant could provide information on (i) the house sizes envisaged for the affordable housing (for the apartments, linked and semi-detached housing) and (ii) the proposed tenure mix, if known.
The reason these two pieces of information are important at this stage of an AMC application are to ensure that the development footprint is sufficient for the number of affordable housing units envisaged on these sites. This is because different parking requirements apply to different affordable housing tenures, which can be a crucial, determining factor affecting the sizes, tenures, design and layout of developments.
We would be grateful if you could seek clarification on those two points from the developer.
Archaeology comment 02/05/2012
The site occupies an important position on the border of two important medieval Estates, Niddrie Marischal to the North and Edmonstone to the South. Significant elements of theses estates survive across the modern landscape including the probable medieval Hedge row forming the northern boundary of this application site which marked the edge of the historic designed landscape associated with Niddrie Marischal House. Of similar historic importance are the stone boundary walls that encroach the sites southern boundary. These 18th century estate walls form part of the formal estates of Edmonstone are extremely unusual in that they incorporate in part elements of what appear to be a ha-ha ditch.
In addition to the archaeology associated with these two estates the area is also know to contain evidence for latter 19th century mining activities. Earlier mining on this site cannot be discounted given the occurrence of c.16/17th century mining activity across Edmonstone Ridge which also contains evidence for significant prehistoric activity in the form of a scheduled ditched enclosure and also an Iron Age Fort.
The site has been identified as occurring within an area of archaeological significance and accordingly this application must be considered under terms
22 of the Scottish Governments Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), PAN2/2011 and Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) and also CEC’s Edinburgh City Local Plan (adopted 2010) policies ENV8 & ENV9. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.
Buried Archaeology
It is clear that this site is an area of archaeological importance in terms of our understanding of the development of the medieval estates of Edmonstone and Niddrie Marischal. Evaluation works undertaken as part of the Niddrie Burn improvement scheme has indicated that archaeological remains do survive although not uniformly. Accordingly ground breaking activities undertaken as part of this development (e.g. construction, landscaping and service works) are considered to have an archaeological impact, however one which is considered to be on the whole moderate.
It is essential therefore that a programme of archaeological works are undertaken both prior to development in order that any archaeological remains encountered are fully excavated and recorded where preservation in situ is not possible. In essence this will see a phased archaeological programme of works, the initial phase being an archaeological evaluation up to a maximum of 10% of the site linked to a programme of metal detecting. The results of which would allow for the production of appropriate more detailed mitigation strategies to be drawn up to ensure the appropriate protection and/or excavation, recording and analysis of any surviving archaeological remains during subsequent phases of development. Furthermore if important discoveries are made during these works (as was demonstrated by the Niddrie Burn works) a programme of public/community engagement (e.g. site open days, viewing points, temporary interpretation boards) will be required to be undertaken, the final scope to be agreed with CECAS.
It is recommended that the above programmes of archaeological work are secured using the following condition;
'No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (excavation, reporting and analysis & publication) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'
The work must be carried out by a professional archaeological organisation, either working to a brief prepared by CECAS or through a written scheme of investigation submitted to and agreed by CECAS for the site. Responsibility for the execution and resourcing of the programme of archaeological works and for the archiving and appropriate level of publication of the results lies with the applicant.
23 Historic Edmonstone Estate Walls
The proposed Masterplan if constructed will see the demolition of a significant section of historic stone walling associated with Edmonstone Estate. The Craigmillar Urban Design Statement recognises the importance of these remains not only in terms of their archaeological merit but also in terms of landscape character (see Section 2.18, Fig 2.6) and importance within any new development (see Design Principles 7.28, 7.36 & 7.44). As such the proposed loss of a significant corner of these estate walls is of concern.
To mitigate against this loss, it is recommended that firstly the scale of loss is reduced to a bare minimum and that a new stone boundary wall is built joining the surviving sections. The design of this new boundary wall must reflect the former and surviving historic Edmonstone boundary walls and reuse the stones demolished section of walling. Accordingly it is recommended that a condition is attached to address this issue.
Bridges and Structures comment 01/06/2012
We refer to the above application, and confirm that the submitted flood risk assessment and drainage statements show an acceptable strategy for the development with respect to flood risk management.
Since these are strategic documents there are statements confirming that full details will be submitted later. We would draw your attention to the following issues:
1. The drainage calculations submitted are insufficient for me to comment on the adequacy of the drainage design. In particular the size and levels of the attenuation basins, which have implications for the housing layout, are not confirmed at this stage.
2. The overland flow paths, and aspects of the management of flows in excess of the capacity of the drainage system, require assessment in greater detail along with details of the proposed ground and floor levels.
3. It is stated that in places the proposed ground levels have only 0.3m freeboard above the flood level in the Niddrie Burn. Further details will be required in these areas with reference to the proposed ground and floor levels.
4. The proposals appear to include the retention of the Magdalene Burn as a watercourse and this is welcomed. However this must not be built over and options for opening it up should be investigated.
5. The maintenance of ditches and small watercourses will be important, especially where there are inlets and debris screens. Full details must be submitted along with proposals for the ownership and maintenance arrangements.
24 6. Further details are required of the proposals for the northern section of the Niddrie Burn which is retained.
7. The principles of the proposed surface water drainage must be agreed in detail with the Council’s Road Construction Consent unit and with Scottish Water.
Coal Authority further comment 01/04/12
The Coal Authority Response: Material Consideration
The Report on Site Investigations (which is dated August 2012) correctly identifies that there are two recorded mine entries within the application site, and that there is potential for unrecorded coal mining to have taken place at shallow depth within parts of the site. The report notes that initial intrusive site investigation works have taken place, but concludes that further programme of probing works is required to confirm the absence of shallow mine workings and also notes the stabilisation of the two mine entries will also be required.
The Coal Authority Recommendation to the LPA
The Coal Authority concurs with the recommendations of the Report on Site Investigations; that coal mining legacy potentially poses a risk to the proposed development and that further intrusive site investigation works, along with the stabilisation of the mine entries, should be undertaken prior to development.
The Coal Authority therefore recommends that the LPA impose a Planning Condition, should planning permission be granted for the proposed development, to require these further investigation and stabilisation works to be undertaken prior to commencement of development.
The condition should also ensure that, in the event that the further site investigations confirm the need for remedial works to treat any areas of shallow mine workings to ensure the safety and stability of the proposed development, these works should also be undertaken prior to commencement of development.
The Coal Authority considers that the content and conclusions of the Report on Site Investigations are sufficient for the purposes of the planning system in demonstrating that the application site is, or can be made, safe and stable for the proposed development.
The Coal Authority is therefore able to withdraw its objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of the above condition.
25 Coal Authority comment 01/04/12
Fundamental Concern
We have reviewed the proposals and confirm that the application site falls within the defined Coal Mining Development Referral Area. The Coal Authority records indicate that within the application site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered in relation to the determination of this planning application; specifically likely historic unrecorded underground coal mining at shallow depth ¿ and the presence of recorded mine entries.
The Coal Authority objects to this planning application, as a Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report has not been submitted as part of the application.
The Coal Authority Recommendation to the LPA
In accordance with the agreed risk-based approach to development management in Coal Mining Development Referral Areas, the applicant should be informed that they need to submit a Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report as part of this application.
Without such an assessment of any risks to the development proposal posed by past coal mining activity, based on up-to-date coal mining information, The Coal Authority does not consider that the LPA has sufficient information to determine this planning application and therefore objects to this proposal.
The Coal Authority would be very pleased to receive for further consultation and comment any subsequent Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report which is submitted in support of this planning application.
Culture + Sport comment 17/04/2012
We are writing in response to your memo about the above planning application. Culture & Sport would like an assurance that the works associated with this development will not result in any loss of grass sports pitches within Hunters Hall Park (Jack Kane Sports Centre). We would also recommend that Parks & Green spaces are consulted on this application.
Environmental Assessment comment 23/04/2012
No objection.
Edinburgh Urban Design Panel 31 August 2011
1 Introduction 1.1 This report relates to the review of the outline design proposals for housing at Greendykes. 1.2 The brief for the project envisages a mix of housing and flats on 56 ha site.
26 1.3 This is the first time that the proposals have been reviewed. 1.4 No declarations of interest were made by any panel members in relation to this scheme. 1.5 This report should be read in conjunction with the pre meeting papers which provide an overview, context, concept, plans and sections of the scheme. 1.6 This report is the view of the Panel and is not attributable to any one individual. The report does not prejudice any of the organisations who are represented at the panel forming a differing view about the proposals at a later stage. 2 The Panel’s views on the principle of development 2.1 The proposal appears to be founded on a reasonably sensible site analysis as set out in the drawings provided. 2.2 While greater proportion of family housing is welcomed, if the density of the proposal is to be lower than previously envisaged, it is essential that this does not result in additional greenfield or undeveloped land to be taken for housing elsewhere in the Craigmillar Framework area or the city in order to meet housing targets. 2.3 Accurate densities should be provided for each part of the site. To enable this to be assessed fully it would be helpful if this could be done with reference to the densities for the previously consented scheme and the South East Wedge density study. 2.4 The agricultural land quality of the site should be clarified. 3 Tenure 3.1 The design should be clear about the intended tenure pattern within the site. 3.2 In order to create mixed communities, it is essential that affordable housing within the site is designed to be tenure blind. 3.3 The tenure of the land should clearly be set out in the design so that it is clear who is responsible for it. Care should be taken to ensure that shared or public land can be managed successfully. This will depend on both its design and its extent. 4 Layout 4.1 The broad structure of streets suggested by the drawings is supported. 4.2 It is understood that the notion of courtyard parking is being driven by a desire to ensure that the site is not used as a ¿park and ride¿ facility for the Infirmary. This may be a perceived rather than likely problem and if this is the case, it is unlikely to provide a compelling justification for the courtyard approach. There are a number of factors which are of concern in relation to this. 4.3 The proposal contradicts the benefits of the perimeter block in creating a clear distinction between the public and private since it will be possible for anyone to walk into the interior of the block. 4.4 The relatively low numbers of people passing through the space will mean that the courtyards do not benefit from the passive supervision that would occur on a street. 4.5 Even with the inclusion of windows in gables, it will be difficult to provide an acceptable level of passive supervision in the pends since any windows would only provide a limited view into these spaces. As a
27 consequence, the spaces could become attractive for antisocial behaviour. 4.6 While it is recognised that the design team is endeavouring to mitigate any negative effects through the detail of the design with features such as low boundary fences / walls there will be a desire from individual occupants to create privacy by erecting higher boundary fences / walls. 4.7 The scale of the spaces will be a factor in determining how effectively they are used and the quality of them. Likewise, the quality of landscape design within them is important. 4.8 On the basis of this assessment and observation it is recommended that the design explores alternative means of dissuading people from using the area as a park and ride. The home-zone type approach as realised at Greendykes North may be appropriate and there may be other approaches that create sufficient ambiguity about whether parking spaces are public or private to deter those unfamiliar with the area to park in them. 5 Landscape 5.1 The success of the development will depend on quality of landscape within and outwith the site. 5.2 Within the site, the landscape design of streets should be fully considered alongside that in the nodal spaces. 5.3 If the proposal is to successfully integrate with the landscape outwith the site, it is important that these strategic green spaces are not only designed and implemented but managed. 6 Movement 6.1 The potential for bus through routes should be fully explored with the bus operators prior to further design development. One scenario might be that bus services currently terminating at the Infirmary are brought into the site. In this case the design should take account of the need for buses to turn around within the site. 6.2 For the cycle route through the site to be successfully used it may need to be segregated. 6.3 If it is the case that the Council will not permit allocated courtyard parking, the Panel suggests that it should review its position on this for the reasons set out above. 7 Sustainability 7.1 There is an opportunity with a development of this scale to think strategically about sustainability. There may be site wide approaches which could provide significant sustainability benefits for the scheme. 8 Summary 8.1 The Panel welcomes the site analysis upon which the design is being developed. 8.2 The Panel will support a reduced density if it can be adequately demonstrated that generates more family housing and does not result in a need for more undeveloped land to be built on. 8.3 With regard to layout, while the broad structure of the street pattern is supported, this appears contradicted by the notion of courtyard parking. The Panel therefore encourages the design to explore alternative means of dissuading people from using the site as parking for the hospital.
28 8.4 The landscape design, sustainability and movement for buses and cycles should all be carefully considered in the development of the design. 8.5 The Panel would welcome the opportunity to carry out a further review of the proposals once the design has been developed to address the matters raised above.
Lothian + Borders Police comment 01/05/2012
Careful consideration needs to be given to the management of the spaces between any blocks of flats to ensure that they are not going to be misused. The houses on the extreme Western corner of the site back onto waste ground which is a security risk. The houses and approach road should be re orientated to mirror the housing plan on the Eastern section of the masterplan.
There is a block of flats indicated next to the SUDS on the Western edge of the site which appears to have been placed onto the plan to fill a gap without any consideration having been given to access or building orientation.
SEPA comment 08/10/2012
Thank you for your consultation letter of 20 September 2012. We have no objection to this planning application.
We would recommend that this response is read in conjunction with SEPA's comments on the related planning application for facilitation works at this site (12/03189/FUL). Please note the advice provided below.
Advice for the planning authority
1. Flood risk 1.1 The Niddrie Burn currently flows through part of the Greendykes housing site. Work is currently being carried out to realign the watercourse in this area as part of the Niddrie Burn Restoration Scheme. It is understood that this work should be completed by the end of 2012. After completion the watercourse will still flow through the housing site. 1.2 Detailed flood risk comments are included under Appendix 1. In summary however, SEPA has no objection to this application on flood risk grounds. Despite this, we would strongly advise that finished ground levels should slope away from the adjacent housing development in order to protect proposed buildings from surface water flow. 1.3 Notwithstanding this we would expect Edinburgh Council to undertake their responsibilities as the Flood Prevention Authority. 2. Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR) 2.1 In correspondence dated 8 May 2012, SEPA highlighted a number of regulatory issues relating to surface water discharges and watercourse engineering works. We would strongly recommend that the applicant
29 contact a member of our local regulatory team to discuss these matters in more detail. Detailed advice for the applicant
3. Content of flood risk information 3.1 The advice contained in this letter is supplied to you by SEPA in terms of Section 72 (1) of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 on the basis of information held by SEPA as at the date hereof. It is intended as advice solely to Edinburgh Council as Planning Authority in terms of the said Section 72 (1). Our briefing note entitled: 'Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009: Flood risk advice to planning authorities' outlines the transitional changes to the basis of our advice inline with the phases of this legislation and can be downloaded from http://www.sepa.org.uk/planning/flood_risk.aspx. Our briefing note entitled: ¿Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009: Flood risk advice to planning authorities¿ outlines the transitional changes to the basis of our advice inline with the phases of this legislation and can be downloaded from www.sepa.org.uk/planning/flood_risk.aspx. Regulatory advice for the applicant
4. Regulatory requirements 4.1 Details of regulatory requirements and good practice advice for the applicant can be found on our website at www.sepa.org.uk/planning.aspx. If you are unable to find the advice you need for a specific regulatory matter, please contact a member of the operations team in your local SEPA office at:Edinburgh Office, Clearwater House, Avenue North, Heriot Watt Research Park, Edinburgh, EH14 4AP. Tel - 0131 449 7296.
Appendix 1 Detailed flood risk comment
In previous correspondence relating to planning application 12/01109/AMC (14 May 2012), SEPA highlighted five issues where which required clarification:
- To understand what is referred to as the 200 year flood levels, particularly downstream of the FMA, it would be useful to have the flows confirmed.
- The site description includes existing ground levels below those previously agreed as suitable development platforms. We would welcome confirmation of proposed finished ground levels in order that these may be related to estimated design flood levels. - We would welcome details on the proposals affecting the northern leg of the existing Niddrie Burn channel: its route, where it discharges back into the new realigned channel or existing channel and does it pick up the historical surface water connections to the watercourse.
30 - The site areas quoted within the FRA and the Drainage Statement differ. There is a need to clarify which figures are correct and review calculations for SUDS design. - It is proposed to intercept surface water runoff from slopes to the north- west and south of the development site. We would welcome calculations to support the design of the ditches required to intercept this runoff and confirm where this water will be conveyed and discharged to.
A letter from Kaya Consulting (20 March 2012) confirms that the revised flows produced by Jacobs were used in the final design of the Niddrie Burn Restoration Project. SEPA is satisfied with these flows.
T.Lawrie & Partners correspondence dated 20 September 2012, confirms that the minimum ground level within the development, adjacent to the realigned Niddrie Burn will be 49.25 mAOD. This is above the previously proposed finished ground level of 48.5 mAOD. The estimated 0.5%AEP (1:200) flood levels, including an allowance for the impact of climate change, presented in the Kaya Consulting flood risk assessment (12 March 2012) range between 44.69 mAOD and 47.71 mAOD. Based on this information, SEPA is satisfied that the minimum development platform will ensure that the proposed development will be above a significant risk of flooding from the Niddrie Burn.
Kaya Consulting has provided additional information about the northern leg of the Niddrie Burn which is to be retained. It is confirmed that this channel will continue to receive surface water runoff from the hospital site and a small catchment to the north of the watercourse. On completion of the Niddire Burn realignment, the northern leg channel will be significantly oversized for the flows it will then be expected to convey. In the unlikely event of a blockage it is confirmed that floodwaters would preferentially spill onto low lying ground to the north which is at a level of around 48 mAOD. This is at least one metre below the proposed minimum development level and as such, we are satisfied that there should be no significant risk to the application site from this channel.
Kaya Consulting has confirmed that the areas of the northern, middle and southern sites identified for the SUDS design are those presented in the flood risk assessment report and not those in the drainage statement which it is assumed will require to be revised.
Kaya Consulting has described in their correspondence how it has determined a design for the ditch to collect surface water runoff from the north-west and south of the proposed development. The ditch to the south forms part of the planning application 12/03189/FUL. SEPA has responded to a consultation on this planning application and has recommended a slight modification of this proposal.
Drawing number 0742/2/B shows an example of a road frontage with green belt sections and planting information. SEPA acknowledges that this is just an indicative drawing however we have concerns that it shows general ground levels sloping down towards the house. The house level is shown to be below the road level. This is a scenario that frequently places houses at risk from
31 pluvial flooding. Road drainage is designed to deal only with low return period rainfall events and as a result surface water can flow overland from the road surface towards houses via driveways, paths etc. SEPA strongly recommends that houses are located on slightly raised ground so that floodwater is directed away from and past buildings and not allowed to pond against external walls. Similarly, where there is no alternative to driveways sloping towards properties, consideration should be given to incorporating humps, similar to sleeping policeman, that are tied into higher ground to try and contain floodwaters within the road carriageway.
SEPA comment 14/05/2012 are now able to advise you of our position in respect of Condition 3 on flood risk.
In summary - we would welcome clarification on a number of points prior to this condition being discharged:
To understand what is referred to as the 200 year flood levels, particularly downstream of the FMA, it would be useful to have the flows confirmed.
The site description includes existing ground levels below those previously agreed as suitable development platforms. We would welcome confirmation of proposed finished ground levels in order that these may be related to estimated design flood levels.
We would welcome details on the proposals affecting the northern leg of the existing Niddrie Burn channel: its route, where it discharges back into the new realigned channel or existing channel and does it pick up the historical surface water connections to the watercourse?.
The site areas quoted within the FRA and the Drainage Statement differ. There is a need to clarify which figures are correct and review calculations for SUDS design.
It is proposed to intercept surface water runoff from slopes to the north-west and south of the development site. We would welcome calculations to support the design of the ditches required to intercept this runoff and confirm where this water will be conveyed and discharged to.
Technical Report 1. There is a current outline planning application to erect approximately 1,000 residential units on a greenfield site at Greendykes, Edinburgh, NGR NT 30088 71051. The site covers an area of approximately 23.5 ha. The Niddrie Burn currently flows through part of the site. Work is currently being carried out to realign t the Niddrie Burn in this area. This channel realignment forms part of the Niddrie Burn Restoration Scheme. It is understood that this work should be completed by the end of 2012. After completion the watercourse will still flow through the development site.
32
2. The proposed development is split into three areas. The northern part of the site is approximately 3.7 ha and located on the north side of the realigned Niddrie Burn has the original channel crossing it. The southern part of the site is approximately 18.5 ha and located on the south side of the new Greendykes Road extension and the realigned Niddrie Burn and the smaller Magdalene Burn flows eastwards along the north boundary of the site. The middle part of the site is approximately 1.3 ha and located between the Greendykes Road extension and the realigned Niddrie Burn.
3. Kaya Consulting has undertaken a flood risk assessment (FRA) to determine the risks to the site and the proposed development. The FRA report (March 2012) considers the risk of flooding from the Niddrie Burn (existing and realigned channels), the Magdalene Burn, the site drainage system and surface water runoff, including an existing drainage channel at the southern edge of the southern site.
4. The FRA report contains a table of bank elevations and estimated 0.5% AEP (1:200) flood levels for the realigned Niddrie Burn. It states that these figures were obtained from Jacobs. Halcrow and WSP carried out many of the studies used to inform the design of the Niddrie Burn Restoration Scheme but Jacobs carried out the final review and revision of the hydrological studies and final design for the scheme which includes the new realigned channel and flood management area (FMA). The FRA report states that there is a minimum of 1.0 metre freeboard allowance between the 0.5% AEP (1:200) flood levels, with and without climate change allowance, and the top of the banks. It also states there will be approximately 0.8 metre of freeboard allowance above water level at the FMA. The WSP reports dated March 2008 and January 2009 had referred to bund crest levels of 48.6 mAOD and 48.8 mAOD around the FMA and new channel design would provide only 300 mm freeboard allowance above the design flood level. SEPA does not have access to the final design and would welcome clarification of these figures. The Niddrie Burn Restoration Scheme was developed with the intention that flows within the channel would be attenuated to a 20% AEP (1:5) flood flow immediately downstream of the FMA. The FMA would provide the necessary storage capacity to attenuate flows in the Niddrie Burn to this reduced flow. It is therefore unclear if the minimum freeboard of 1.0 metre represents an estimated 0.5% AEP (1:200) flow or the attenuated flow of 20% AEP (1:5). SEPA would welcome clarification of what flow the design flood represents in terms of flow in order that it can provide better informed advice.
5. It was understood by SEPA that the proposed development platforms were to be raised. In a SEPA hydrologists report, dated 20 May 2008 for a planning response SEPA has indicated that it is satisfied that a drawing (Drawing D-24) shows the area of land to the east as a platform at a level of 48.8 mAOD to reflect the requirement for future development on this area to be constructed above the estimated 0.5%
33 (1:200) flood level. The FRA indicates that the southern part of the north site varies from 58 mAOD in the north down to 48 mAOD in the south; the middle site varies between 47.3 mAOD and 47.7 mAOD and the southern site ranges from 67 mAOD down to approximately 47 mAOD close to the new channel. The current site levels are therefore lower in the area around the realigned channel than what was previously proposed. SEPA would therefore welcome clarification regarding the proposed minimum finished ground levels for the development.
6. The FRA report states that the northern leg of the existing Niddrie Burn channel is to be retained while the southern leg will be blocked and the main flow directed along the realigned channel. The northern leg will convey some flows including runoff from the hospital car parks. The report notes that the channel currently enters a culvert on the western side of the Greendykes Road within the northern site. It is apparently proposed that the short section of open channel within the site boundaries will be culverted to reduce the risk of flooding to existing buildings and the proposed development should the culvert block. Any floodwaters from this channel may spill into the FMA but no information is provided and we would welcome confirmation of this. The original watercourse is culverted to the east of the site and the FRA report states that there is no risk of flooding expected from this section of the watercourse. There may be a number of existing connections to this culvert which will add to the flows. SEPA would welcome further details on the proposals affecting this northern leg of the existing Niddrie Burn channel.
7. The Magdalene Burn flows eastwards along the north boundary of the southern site. It is understood that it is culverted under part of the site and its actual alignment is unknown. The FRA report states that the Niddrie Burn Restoration Scheme will reduce the risk of flooding from this burn. SEPA would confirm that this should be the case. The Magdalene Burn lies within the natural floodplain of the Niddrie Burn and in significant floods floodwaters from the Niddrie Burn can enter the Magdalene Burn. This flow path should cease upon completion of the Scheme. New built development should not be located over the watercourse therefore it is essential to determine its alignment before considering a site layout. Consideration might also be given to opening up the watercourse to add a green space/landscape feature or green/blue corridor to the overall development. This would also significantly reduce the risk of blockage and aid the essential inspection and maintenance of the watercourse.
8. The FRA report highlights that the development site is greenfield and therefore measures should be put in place to ensure that post development runoff rates are no greater than existing greenfield rates. Runoff calculations have been carried out and are contained within the Drainage Statement (March 2012). SEPA notes that the catchment areas used to determine greenfield runoff rates and determine the
34 storage volume requirements to attenuate runoff rates are different from those used in the FRA report; 4.5ha, 8.45ha and 11.73 ha compared to 1.3ha, 3.7 ha and 18.5 ha. There is a need to clarify the correct site areas to ensure that the runoff rates are adequately attenuated and storage volume needs are met. SEPA would also highlight that the rainfall total used in the calculations for the 90 minute duration 20 year return period rainfall is incorrect.
9. The FRA report highlights that there is high ground to the north-west and south of the site and it is therefore likely that surface water runoff from these slopes could reach the site. The report advises that measures should be put in place to intercept this water and prevent it reaching the site. SUDS design would not take account of any additional flows from outwith the development site. There is an existing drainage channel flowing in a north-westerly direction at the southern edge of the site. The report states that it is intended to relocate this channel along the boundary of the site. It indicates that this channel should continue to intercept surface runoff however there is a need to ensure that drainage channels can be put in place to intercept the surface water runoff along the remaining southern boundary and the northern boundary of the development. It is not clear where this surface water runoff will be discharged. Should it be directed to the Niddrie Burn and/or the Magdalene Burn there may be some risk of backing up which will need to be considered within the overall design.
10. It is proposed to construct three SUDS ponds to treat and attenuate surface water runoff from the three development areas. There is some discrepancy about the size of these areas. These should be reviewed to ensure that adequate space is allowed for the ponds.
11. In earlier discussions it was recommended by consultants that landscape and garden ground should be raised to include a 300 mm freeboard and it was agreed that minimum finished floor levels should include a 600 mm freeboard above design flood levels. The FRA report recommends that properties adjacent to the watercourses should be set at a minimum of 600 mm above the channel bank levels. At detailed stage we would seek clarification of proposed finished ground and floor levels.
12. The FRA report recommends that finished floor levels should be set an appropriate height above surrounding ground levels and finished ground levels should be designed to slope away from the outer walls of buildings too ensure that water does not pond around houses. SEPA supports this recommendation.
13. SEPA would welcome clarification on a number of points.
To understand what is referred to as the 200 year flood levels, particularly downstream of the FMA, it would be useful to have the flows confirmed.
35 The site description includes existing ground levels below those previously agreed as suitable development platforms. We would welcome confirmation of proposed finished ground levels in order that these may be related to estimated design flood levels.
We would welcome details on the proposals affecting the northern leg of the existing Niddrie Burn channel: its route, where it discharges back into the new realigned channel or existing channel and does it pick up the historical surface water connections to the watercourse?.
The site areas quoted within the FRA and the Drainage Statement differ. There is a need to clarify which figures are correct and review calculations for SUDS design.
It is proposed to intercept surface water runoff from slopes to the north-west and south of the development site. We would welcome calculations to support the design of the ditches required to intercept this runoff and confirm where this water will be conveyed and discharged to.
Caveats & Additional Information for Applicant
14. Please note that we are reliant on the accuracy and completeness of any information supplied by the applicant in undertaking our review, and can take no responsibility for incorrect data or interpretation made by the authors.
15. The advice contained in this letter is supplied to you by SEPA in terms of Section 72 (1) of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 on the basis of information held by SEPA as at the date hereof. It is intended as advice solely to Edinburgh Council as Planning Authority in terms of the said Section 72 (1). Our briefing note entitled: ¿Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009: Flood risk advice to planning authorities¿ outlines the transitional changes to the basis of our advice inline with the phases of this legislation and can be downloaded from www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/flood_risk/planning__flooding.aspx.
SEPA comment 08/05/2012
We are concerned that the applicant has not provided enough information to allow Condition 4 to be satisfied. The drainage statement which has been submitted appears to be acceptable (page 5 of the document from T Lawrie & Partners), but the plans which have been provided only show snapshots of surface water drainage arrangements without providing evidence of a fully integrated SUDS strategy (e.g. drawings Sk-20, Sk-21 and Sk-22 show some SUDS details for internal roadways without showing how these join up with the regional detention basins).
The SUDS which they have shown doesn’t include treatment proposals for roof run off for domestic or commercial premises either. We would stress that this aspect should be agreed prior to work commencing.
36 Furthermore, there are likely to be aspects of the development proposal that are subject to licensing requirements under the Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR). The extension to the existing Niddrie Burn culvert will require authorisation. Additionally, there may be a licensing requirement for surface water discharges arising form the development (>1,000 houses) although this is less likely if the discharges to the water environment are made from more than one outfall (three outfalls seem to be shown on their plans).
Finally, we have some concerns regarding the new surface water outfalls which are proposed as these are over-engineered (drawing Sk-26 mentions new headwalls and bed protection at the East end of the development). We would remind the developers that any new outfall should be constructed in line with our guidance document WAT-SG-28: Good Practice Guide to Intakes and Outfalls.
Transport 08/10/2012
Further to my memorandum of 24 May 2012 I confirm that Transport has no objection to the proposed application and would comment as follows in respect of above mentioned Masterplan and Conditions:
1. Transport supports the Masterplan and the general proposals for the road hierarchy subject to the items set out below;
2. Transport has no objection in principle to the elements shown on Dwg.PL(01 Rev.E. However, there are a number of detailed design issues which will need to be addressed as each part of the development is brought forward. Clear identification of areas subject to Road Construction Consent will also be required;
3. The applicant should note that a Quality Audit, as set out in Designing Streets, will be expected in due course;
The following should be included as conditions or informatives as appropriate: 1. All accesses must be open for use by the public in terms of the statutory definition of `road¿ and require to be the subject of applications for road construction consent. The applicant should note that as part of the road construction consent: (a) structural approvals may be required;
(b) public utility provision should be located so as not to obstruct access by pedestrians, vehicles and emergency service vehicles; (c) swept path analysis will be required to demonstrate sufficient space for refuse vehicles etc. to turn;
(d) the extent of adoptable roads to be identified and agreed by the Head of Transport, including bus stops / stances, footways, footpaths, accesses, cycle tracks, verges and service strips along with details of lighting, drainage, signs and markings, SUDs, bioretention, materials, structures, layout, design and specification and proposed
37 improvements works. It is expected that the roads will be submitted for adoption by the Council in due course;
(e) proposed bioretention to be subject to a trial and clear maintenance responsibilities identified in due course;
2. Parking provision is acceptable in relation to the proposed number of units. Any revision to the umber of units or the type of tenure may require an amendment to the proposed number of parking spaces;
3. Traffic orders may be required to control waiting and loading, disabled parking spaces and to stop up or redetermine sections of road at no cost to the Council. An appropriate legal agreement may be required;
4. Cycle and motor cycle parking design, numbers, location and specification to be to the satisfaction of the Head of Transport.
5. A number of issues relating to the SUDS strategy remain to be resolved, particularly detailed design and maintenance responsibility. A Section 7 Agreement may be appropriate;
6. It is noted that it is proposed to construct new roads across the proposed tram line. Detailed design will be required in due course to the satisfaction of the Head of Transport.
Note: 1. The applicant should be aware that new road names will be required for this development and they should be asked to discuss this with the Council’s Street Naming and Numbering Team at an early opportunity. Street naming is likely to influence the progression of traffic regulation orders;
2. The scale of development is likely to mean that phased construction of roads is required. The applicant is asked to discuss the implications for road bonds etc. in due course. It is expected that all roads will require appropriate road bonds to be in place.
3. The proposed link to The Wisp is the subject of ongoing discussions between the applicant and Midlothian Council with regard to the design, specification and layout of the proposed junction (see application 12/03190/FUL).
Transport 24/05/2012
I have no objection to the proposed application and would comment as follows in respect of above mentioned Masterplan and Conditions:
1. Masterplan - I support the Masterplan subject to the items set out below; 2. Condition 2, compliance with the Craigmillar Urban Design Framework ¿ I have no objection to the proposed changes to the CUDF. However, there are
38 a number of detailed design issues which will need to be addressed as each part of the development is brought forward; 3. Condition 3, flood attenuation - I note that SEPA has expressed concern regarding amendments to proposed floor levels and the associated potential for flood risk. This issue is likely to have an impact on proposed road layout and specification and should be resolved as early as possible; 4. Condition 4, SUDS strategy - early resolution of design and responsibility for SUDS features should be sought; 5. Condition 5(i), detailed site plan - I have no objection in principle to the elements shown on Dwg.PL(01 Rev.E. However, there are a number of detailed design issues which will need to be addressed as each part of the development is brought forward. Clear identification of areas subject to Road Construction Consent will also be required; 6. Condition 5(v), existing and finished ground levels - see Items 2 and 3 above; 7. Condition 8, waste management etc. - the presence of refuse collection and recycling vehicles within the site will impact on the layout and dimensions of proposed roads; 8. Condition 9, open space - access to open space will be required including appropriate provision for disabled, pedestrian and cyclist access; 9. Condition 11, number of residential units - no comment; 10. Condition 13, wildlife - the presence of bats may impact on the type, location and specification of lighting.
The following should be included as conditions or informatives as appropriate: 1. All accesses must be open for use by the public in terms of the statutory definition of road and require to be the subject of applications for road construction consent. The applicant should note that as part of the road construction consent: (a) structural approval may be required; (b) public utility provision should be located so as not to obstruct access by pedestrians, vehicles and emergency service vehicles; (c) swept path analysis will be required to demonstrate sufficient space for refuse vehicles etc. to turn; (d) the extent of adoptable roads to be identified and agreed by the Head of Transport, including bus stops / stances, footways, footpaths, accesses, cycle tracks, verges and service strips along with details of lighting, drainage, signs and markings, SUDs, bioretention, materials, structures, layout, design and specification and proposed improvements works. It is expected that the roads will be submitted for adoption by the Council in due course; (e) proposed bioretention to be subject to a trial and clear maintenance responsibilities identified in due course; 2. Parking provision to be agreed with the Head of Planning. Note that current Council parking standards for affordable properties require a ¿legally binding burden to be applied to each dwelling forbidding commercial rental or sale. Where it is intended that any unit could subsequently be made available for private rent or sale, then the parking standards for sale or private rent may apply;
39 3. Traffic orders may be required to control waiting and loading, disabled parking spaces and to stop up or redetermine sections of road at no cost to the Council. An appropriate legal agreement may be required; 4. Cycle and motor cycle parking design, numbers, location and specification to be to the satisfaction of the Head of Transport.
Note: 1. The applicant should be aware that new road names will be required for this development and they should be asked to discuss this with the Council’s Street Naming and Numbering Team at an early opportunity. Street naming is likely to influence the progression of traffic regulation orders; 2. The scale of development is likely to mean that phased construction of roads is required. The applicant is asked to discuss the implications for road bonds etc. in due course.
Representations
Scheme 1 was advertised on 6 April 2012 and attracted four letters of representation including two general comments including from a neighbour and from PARC Craigmillar, one neighbour objection and one supporting comment from CTC Scotland.
Scheme 2 was re-notified on 7 September 2012. This resulted in a further neighbour objection and a further comment from PARC.
The material points of objection/concern are: a. Procedural issues, taken account of in assessment a. - extent of neighbour notification b. Traffic impacts, taken account of in assessment a and b. - traffic implications of wider connections on surrounding routes including creation of a rat run between Greendykes Road and the Wisp; - lack of pedestrian access between Greendykes Road and Royal Infirmary; - need for appropriately design local and strategic pedestrian and cycle connections between the adjoining parkland, the site and the wider Craigmillar; - need for appropriate edge treatment, and consideration of how to deliver further enhancements to parkland; c. Design issues, taken account of in assessment c. - the extent of design amendments are unclear; - the review of the Urban Design Framework is ongoing and it is unclear how the deviations shown in the masterplan should be considered; - need to ensure development maintains overall vision in Urban Design Framework; d. Land remediation issues, taken account of in assessment d. - extent of previous mine workings;
Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.
40 Planning Policy
Designing Streets, Scottish Government 2010
This policy document requires street design to consider place making before movement considerations. The street hierarchy should be inclusive, well connected to surrounding networks and should consider pedestrians first and private motor vehicle last. A distinctive urban form with landmarks that is easy to navigate is encouraged. Continuous building lines are preferred to provide definition to, and enclosure of, the public realm. Level surface/ shared space treatments work best in relatively calm traffic environments. They encourage low vehicle speeds and provide for a pedestrian orientated environment which encourages social interaction.
Craigmillar Urban Design Framework (CUDF), CEC 2005
Five main design principles: 1. Distinctiveness emphasis on character of place through design approach, making most of views and linkages to wider Edinburgh
2. Sociability creation of safe and purposeful public spaces within walking distance that maximise opportunities for movement and social interaction
3. People-friendly development to be of human scale and be pedestrian/ cyclist focussed, maximising opportunities for natural surveillance
4. Sustainability housing to be robust, long lasting, low energy consuming and cater for a wide range of people.
5. Quality focus on design quality at all levels of design
Other key concepts:
* A traditional pattern of streets forming small blocks with the buildings creating a continuous street edge
* Local streets designed to be pedestrian and cycle friendly and allow for vehicular movement
* A range of sizes of housing including flats and terraced houses, with associated gardens and car parking
* Parking generally on street
* Secure private gardens to the rear of blocks with a pattern of smaller public open spaces to be formed adjacent to streets with links to be formed to strategic open spaces
41 * Building heights are intended to be generally 3-4 storey along key routes with scope for landmark buildings in key locations. Elsewhere housing intended to be generally 2-3 storey
* No rear gardens to front the parkland, which should be separated from the building by a local access street
* Front gardens generally 3-5 metres in depth with a restricted palate of boundary materials
Relevant Policies:
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan Policy ENV1F states that development proposals affecting any designated natural heritage site, protected priority habitat or species or other important non-statutory locations will require an appropriate level of environmental and biodiversity assessment. Policy ENV12 states that development, individually and/or cumulatively, that may lead to a significant increase in the risk of flooding, or that may itself be at risk of flooding, should not be permitted. Development proposals for greenfield and brownfield sites should include sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated. Policy Des 2 (Co-ordinated Development) establishes a presumption against proposals which might compromise the effective development of adjacent land or the wider area. Policy Des 3 (Development Design) sets criteria for assessing development design. Policy Des 4 (Layout Design) sets criteria for assessing layout design. Policy Des 5 (External Spaces) sets criteria for assessing landscape design and external space elements of development. Policy Des 6 (Sustainable Design & Construction) sets criteria for assessing the sustainable design and construction elements of development. Policy Des 8 (Urban Edge Development) sets criteria for assessing development on sites at the Green Belt boundary. Policy Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance) sets out the circumstances in which development affecting sites of known or suspected archaeological significance will be permitted. Policy Env 12 (Trees) sets out tree protection requirements for new development. Policy Env 15 (Sites of Local Importance) identifies the circumstances in which development likely to affect Sites of Local Importance will be permitted. Policy Env 17 (Flood Protection) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on flood protection. Policy Os 3 (Open Space in New Development) sets out requirements for the provision of open space in new development. Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development) supports housing on appropriate sites in the urban area, and on specific sites identified in the Plan.
42 Policy Hou 2 (Housing Mix) requires the provision of a mix of house types and sizes in new housing developments. Policy Hou 3 (Private Open Space) sets out the requirements for the provision of private open space in housing development. Policy Hou 4 (Density) sets out the factors to be taken into account in assessing density levels in new development. Policy Hou 7 (Affordable Housing) requires 25% affordable housing provision in residential development of twelve or more units. Policy Tra 4 (Private Car Parking) requires private car parking provision to comply with the parking levels set out in supplementary planning guidance, and sets criteria for assessing lower provision. Policy Tra 5 (Private Cycle Parking) requires cycle parking provision in accordance with levels set out in supplementary guidance. Policy Tra 6 (Design of Off-Street Car and Cycle Parking) sets criteria for assessing design of off-street car and cycle parking. Policy Tra 13 (Cycle and Footpath Network) prevents development which would prevent implementation of, prejudice or obstruct the current or potential cycle and footpath network. Policy Com 3 (School Development) sets criteria for assessing sites for new school development. Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines Non-statutory guidelines 'The Edinburgh Standards for Housing' sets out principles and guidance whose aim is to achieve high quality, successful and sustainable residential developments.
Non-statutory guidelines 'The Craigmillar Urban Design Framework' sets out a vision and principles for development of the Craigmillar area. Non-statutory guidelines 'The Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Building' sets principles to assess the sustainability of major planning applications in Edinburgh. Non-statutory guidelines on 'MOVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT' establish design criteria for road and parking layouts. Non-statutory guidelines FLOODING AND PLANNING Provides guidance on how to ensure that new development does not increase the risk of flooding, and how to minimise the risk of sensitive new developments being flooded themselves. Non-statutory guidelines on "Trees and Development" provides guidance on the information required to support planning applications in respect of tree protection, the retention of trees of landscape, biodiversity or amenity significance, and encourages new tree planting where appropriate. Non-statutory guidelines on Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing gives guidance on the situations where developers will be required to provide affordable housing and/or will be required to make financial or other contributions towards the cost of, providing new facilities for schools, transport improvements, the tram project, public realm improvements and open space. Non-statutory guidelines 'DAYLIGHTING, PRIVACY AND SUNLIGHT' set criteria for assessing proposals in relation to these issues.
43 Appendix B
Application Type Approval of Matters Specified in Conds Application Address: Land At Greendykes Road Edinburgh
Proposal: Residential development including detailed site layout plan showing position of buildings, roads, footpaths, parking areas, cycle parking, walls, fences, landscaping, details of existing and finished levels, flood attenuation details (matters listed in conditions 3, 5(i), (iii), (v) of planning consent 07/01644/OUT). Reference No: 12/01109/AMC
Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation
It is recommended that this application be Approved by Committee, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives stated below.
Conditions:-
1. A fully detailed landscape plan, including details of all hard and soft surface and boundary treatments and all planting, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards before work is commenced on site.
2. The approved landscaping scheme shall be fully implemented within six months of the completion of the development, and thereafter shall be maintained by the applicants and/or their successors to the entire satisfaction of the planning authority; maintenance shall include the replacement of plant stock which fails to survive, for whatever reason, as often as is required to ensure the establishment of the approved landscaping scheme.
3. Prior to the commencement of development, the location and design of visitor cycle spaces to be associated with the flatted blocks shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. The visitor cycle parking provision shall be based on the final number of units agreed for the development and shall be no less than one space per ten flats. Thereafter the approved visitor parking spaces shall be provided prior to the occupation of the residential units to which the parking relates.
4. Prior to the commencement of development the exact details of entrances to the adjoining parkland including details of stone gate piers and any associated bollards or gate treatment designed to permit cycle and pedestrian access and details of connections to the Niddrie Burn
44 river corridor shall be provided for the prior approval of the Head of Planning and Building Standards. Thereafter the entrance details shall be implemented as part of the landscape requirements set out in conditions 1 and 2.
5. Prior to the commencement of development, further details regarding size and calculated volume of the three SUDS ponds in respect of flood risk and accompanying landscaping details shall submitted to and agreed in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. The detailed design of the SUDS areas and associated landscaping shall demonstrate the use of the areas as useable amenity landscaping features. Where associated kick about spaces and play spaces, seating and hard and soft landscaping features are shown these designed as an integrated scheme and thereafter constructed in terms of conditions 1 and 2.
6. Prior to the commencement of development the exact finished levels of buildings, road levels, and associated ground shall be specified relative to Ordinance Datum (OD) and associated surface water flow paths shall be provided for the prior approval of the Head of Planning and Building Standards. Thereafter the development shall be constructed wholly in accordance with the approved details.
7. Prior to the commencement of development the design of the diverted minor water course/ drainage ditch together with pedestrian bridges and associated infrastructure designed to mitigate flood risk to the development and to allow suitable connections into the adjoining parkland shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. Thereafter the diverted minor water course/ drainage ditch shall be completed as part of the development.
8. Prior to the commencement of construction, full construction details of the road bridge over the Niddrie Burn including any associated guard rail shall be submitted for the prior approval of the Head of Planning and Building Standards. Thereafter the road bridge shall be constructed solely in terms of the approved details.
9. Prior to the commencement of development the surveyed position and condition of trees within and along the boundary of the site and an accompanying tree constraints and tree protection plan shall be provided for the prior written approval of the Head of Planning and Building Standards. The details to be supplied shall be in accordance with the BS5837: 2005 "Trees in relation to construction¿ or equivalent standard at the time of construction. Thereafter the development shall be constructed wholly in accordance with the approved details.
45 Reasons:-
1. In order to ensure that a high standard of landscaping is achieved, appropriate to the location of the site.
2. In order to ensure that the approved landscaping works are properly established on site.
3. In order to enable the planning authority to consider this/these matter/s in detail.
4. In order to enable the Head of Planning & Building Standards to consider this/these matter/s in detail.
5. In order to enable the Head of Planning & Building Standards to consider this/these matter/s in detail.
6. In order to enable the Head of Planning & Building Standards to consider this/these matter/s in detail.
7. In order to enable the Head of Planning & Building Standards to consider this/these matter/s in detail.
8. In order to enable the Head of Planning & Building Standards to consider this/these matter/s in detail.
9. In order to safeguard protected trees.
Informatives
It should be noted that:
1. As agreed by Direction, the timescales for the consent shall be limited to the following:
The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of five years from the date of the original planning permission reference 07/01644/OUT dated 22 July 2010 or two years from the final approval of the remaining matters specified in conditions, whichever is later.
2. Two existing Public Rights of Way, namely LC90 and LC91 require to be considered and appropriate temporary and permanent provision made, including applications for diversions where appropriate.
3. Whilst parking provision for the development is generally acceptable as shown, final parking numbers for individual parts of the development will be confirmed once the final residential unit numbers and the type and the tenure of affordable housing is submitted for further approval under AMC. End
46 Appendix C
Application Type Approval of Matters Specified in Conds Proposal: Residential development including detailed site layout plan showing position of buildings, roads, footpaths, parking areas, cycle parking, walls, fences, landscaping, details of existing and finished levels, flood attenuation details (matters listed in conditions 3, 5(i), (iii), (v) of planning consent 07/01644/OUT). Reference No: 12/01109/AMC
Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.
47