Notice of Meeting and Agenda

Notice of meeting and agenda

The City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body (Panel 2) 10.00am, Wednesday 31 October 2018 Dean of Guild Court Room, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh This is a public meeting and members of the public are welcome to attend.

Contact Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Tel: 0131 529 4085 / 0131 529 3009

1. Appointment of Convener

1.1 The Local Review Body is invited to appoint a Convener from its membership. 2. Order of business

2.1 Including any notices of motion and any other items of business submitted as urgent for consideration at the meeting. 3. Declaration of interests

3.1 Members should declare any financial and non-financial interests they have in the items of business for consideration, identifying the relevant agenda item and the nature of their interest. 4. Minutes

4.1 Minute of the Local Review Body (Panel 2) – 19 September 2018 (circulated) – submitted for approval as a correct record 5. Local Review Body – Procedure

5.1 Note of the outline procedure for consideration of all Requests for Review (circulated) 6. Requests for Review

6.1 3 Canon Lane, Edinburgh – Erection of two mews style dwelling houses on site of existing car park – application no 18/00133/FUL (a) Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Original Representations (circulated) (b) Notice of Review and Supporting Documents (circulated) Note: The applicant has requested that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents only. 6.2 555 Castlehill, Edinburgh – Proposed external plant enclosure on land to the rear of the building – application 18/02255/FUL (a) Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Original Representations (circulated) (b) Notice of Review and Supporting Documents (circulated) (c) Further Representation (circulated) Note: The applicant has requested that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents and a site inspection. 6.3 555 Castlehill, Edinburgh – To construct a new entrance into the building from Ramsay Lane – application no 18/02429/FUL (a) Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Original Representation (circulated)

The City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 31 October 2018 Page 2 of 5

(b) Notice of Review and Supporting Documents (circulated) Note: The applicant has requested that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents and a site inspection. 6.4 153 Gilberstoun (at Land 17 Metres East of), Edinburgh – Planning permission in principle to build one three bedroom detached villa with a driveway and landscaped garden. – application no 18/00812/PPP (a) Decision Notice and Report of Handling (circulated) (b) Notice of Review and Supporting Documents (circulated) Note: The applicant has requested that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents and a site inspection. 6.5 12 Mary’s Place, Edinburgh – Partial change of use from flatted dwelling to ancillary storage for bar / restaurant on ground floor – application no 18/01516/FUL (a) Decision Notice and Report of Handling (circulated) (b) Notice of Review and Supporting Documents (circulated) (c) Further Representations (circulated) Note: The applicant has requested that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents and a site inspection. 6.6 227 Portobello High Street (at Land 22 Metres South of), Edinburgh – The erection of two new houses – application no 17/02373/FUL (a) Decision Notice and Report of Handling (circulated) (b) Notice of Review and Supporting Documents (circulated) Note: The applicant has requested that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents only.

7. Extracts of Relevant Policies from the Edinburgh Local Development Plan

7.1 Extracts of Relevant Policies from the Edinburgh Local Development Plan for the above review cases (circulated) Local Development Plan Online Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy DES 1 (Design Quality and Context) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy DES 2 (Co-ordinated Development) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy DES 3 (Development Design – Incorporating and Enhancing Existing and Potential Features) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy DES 4 (Development Design – Impact on Setting)

The City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 31 October 2018 Page 3 of 5

Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy DES 5 (Development Design – Amenity) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy ENV 3 (Listed Buildings - Setting) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy ENV 4 (Listed Buildings – Alterations and Extensions) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy ENV 6 (Conservation Areas - Development) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy ENV 7 (Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy ENV 18 (Open Space Protection) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy ENV 20 (Open Space in New Development) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy HOU 1 (Housing Development) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy HOU 3 (Private Green Space in Housing Development) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy HOU 7 (Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy TRA 2 (Private Car Parking) Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy TRA 3 (Private Cycle Parking)

7.2 Non-Statutory Guidance (a) Edinburgh Design Guidance (b) Guidance for Businesses (c) Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Guidance (d) The New Town Conservation Area Character Appraisal (e) The Old Town Conservation Area Character Appraisal (f) The Portobello Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Note: The above policy background papers are available to view on the Council’s website www.edinburgh.gov.uk under Planning and Building Standards/local and strategic development plans/planning guidelines/conservation areas, or follow the links as above.

Laurence Rockey Head of Strategy and Insight

The City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 31 October 2018 Page 4 of 5

Membership Panel

Councillors Booth, Child, Dixon, McLellan and Osler.

Information about the City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body

The City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body (LRB) has been established by the Council in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008. The LRB’s remit is to determine any request for a review of a decision on a planning application submitted in terms of the Regulations. The LRB comprises a panel of five Councillors drawn from the eleven members of the Planning Committee. The LRB usually meets every two weeks, with the members rotating in two panels of five Councillors. It usually meets in the Dean of Guild Court Room in the City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh. There is a seated public gallery and the meeting is open to all members of the public. Further information

Members of the LRB may appoint a substitute from the pool of trained members of the Planning Committee. No other member of the Council may substitute for a substantive member. Members appointing a substitute are asked to notify Committee Services (as detailed below) as soon as possible. If you have any questions about the agenda or meeting arrangements, please contact Blair Ritchie or Sarah Stirling on 0131 529 4085, [email protected] / 0131 529 3009, [email protected].

Committee Services, Strategy and Insight, City of Edinburgh Council, Business Centre 2:1, Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh EH8 8BG. A copy of the agenda and papers for this meeting will be available for inspection prior to the meeting at the main reception office, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh. The agenda, minutes and public reports for this meeting and all the main Council committees can be viewed online by going to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/cpol. Unless otherwise indicated on the agenda, no elected members of the Council, applicant, agent or other member of the public may address the meeting.

The City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 31 October 2018 Page 5 of 5

Minutes The City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body (Panel 2) 10.00am, Wednesday 19 September 2018 Present: Councillors Booth, Child, Dixon, McLellan and Osler. 1. Appointment of Convener

Councillor Osler was appointed as Convener. 2. Minutes

To approve the minute of the Local Review Body (LRB Panel 2) of 8 August 2018 as a correct record. 3. Planning Local Review Body Procedure

Decision To note the outline procedure for consideration of reviews. (Reference – Local Review Body Procedure, submitted) 4. Request for Review – 11 Clerwood Park, Edinburgh

Details were submitted of a request for a review for the refusal of planning permission to build two storey extension to front and side of house, single storey extension to side of house both with facing brick base-course. Extend existing attic conversion by building dormer to the front of the house. Roughcast and roof tiles to match existing, dormer haffits to be white uPVC cladding at 11 Clerwood Park, Edinburgh. Application no 18/00138/FUL. The above request for review was continued from the meeting of 16 May 2018 for a site visit. It had not been possible to arrange a site visit due to a change in membership and two of the members at the previous meeting being substitute members. The request was considered by the City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body (LRB) at a meeting on Wednesday 19 September 2018. The Local Review Body was required to decide how they wish to proceed in this case. Assessment At the meeting on 19 September 2018, the LRB had been provided with copies of the notice of review, including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents only. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling submitted by the Chief Planning Officer.

The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development and responded to further questions. The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-05 of Scheme 1 being the drawings shown under the application reference number 18/00138/FUL on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The LRB, having considered these documents, felt that they had sufficient information before it, there was no need for a site visit, and agreed to determine the review using the information circulated. The LRB in their further deliberations on the matter considered the following: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan: Policy Des 12 (Alterations and Extensions) 2) Non-Statutory Guidelines ‘Guidance for Householders’ 3) The procedure used to determine the application. 4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward in the request for a review. The LRB carefully considered all the arguments put before it in respect of the proposed planning application and discussion took place in relation to the following issues:  Whether this was the front or rear elevation.  Whether it was contrary to planning policy for the front elevation to look onto the path.  Whether the proposed extension projected beyond the building line.  That there had been no objections to the application and no loss of privacy.  Whether there were special circumstances to be considered.  Whether the proposals were contrary to Policy Des 12.  Whether the proposals were detrimental to the character of the area. Conclusion The members considered the application, there was some sympathy for the proposals and some of the members thought that the proposals would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the house and the surrounding area, therefore, the proposals were not contrary to Policy Des 12. However, having taken all the above matters into consideration, the LRB was of the opinion that no material considerations had been presented in the request for a review which would lead it to overturn the determination by the Chief Planning Officer. Motion To uphold the decision by the Chief Planning Officer to refuse planning permission. Reasons for Refusal:

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 19 September 2018 Page 2 of 10 The proposed two storey front extension by reason of its scale, design and positioning would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the house and the surrounding area contrary to policy Des 12 of the adopted Edinburgh Local Development Plan and Non-statutory 'Guidance for Householders'. - moved by Councillor Booth, seconded by Councillor Osler. Amendment To not uphold the decision by the Chief Planning Officer and to grant planning permission for the reason that the proposed extension would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the house and the surrounding area and was not contrary to policy Des 12 of the adopted Edinburgh Local Development Plan. - moved by Councillor McLellan, seconded by Councillor Dixon. Voting For the motion - 3 votes For the amendment - 2 votes (For the motion – Councillors Child, Booth and Osler. For the amendment – Councillors McLellan and Dixon.) Decision To uphold the decision by the Chief Planning Officer to refuse planning permission. Reasons for Refusal: The proposed two storey front extension by reason of its scale, design and positioning would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the house and the surrounding area contrary to policy Des 12 of the adopted Edinburgh Local Development Plan and Non-statutory 'Guidance for Householders'. (References – The City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body 16 May 2018 (item 4); Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted) 5. Request for Review – 33 Dryden Gardens, Edinburgh

Details were submitted of a request for a review for the refusal of planning permission for extending existing ridge at roof to form new gable end, new velux rooflight to front elevation and dormer to rear, at 33 Dryden Gardens, Edinburgh. Application no 18/00424/FUL. Assessment At the meeting on 19 September 2018, the LRB had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents only. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development and responded to further questions.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 19 September 2018 Page 3 of 10 The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-09, Scheme 1, being the drawings shown under the application reference number 18/00424/FUL on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The LRB in their deliberations on the matter considered the following: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy DES 12 (Alterations and Extensions) 2) Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines. ‘Guidance for Householders’ Pilrig Conservation Area Character Appraisal 3) The procedure used to determine the application. 4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward in the request for a review. Conclusion The LRB considered all the arguments put before it in respect of the proposed planning application and discussion took place in relation to the following issues:  Whether the proposed extension was an improvement to the existing property.  Whether it was contrary to Policy Des 12. Although there was some sympathy for the proposals and one of the members did not believe that the proposals contravened Policy Des 12 or Non-Statutory Guidance for Householders. However, having taken all the above matters into consideration, the LRB was of the opinion that no material considerations had been presented in the request for a review which would lead it to overturn the determination by the Chief Planning Officer. Decision To uphold the decision by the Chief Planning Officer to refuse planning permission. Reasons for Refusal: The proposal would not be of an acceptable scale, form or design, would be detrimental to neighbourhood character and neighbouring amenity and did not comply with statutory policy or non-statutory guidance. (Reference – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted) 6. Request for Review – 36 Gracemount Square, Edinburgh

Details were submitted of a request for a review submitted for the refusal of planning permission for the proposed porch to front of dwelling house at 36 Gracemount Square, Edinburgh. Application no 18/02044/FUL.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 19 September 2018 Page 4 of 10 Assessment At the meeting on 19 September 2018, the LRB had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents only. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development and responded to further questions. The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-03, Scheme 1 being the drawings shown under the application reference number 18/02044/FUL on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The LRB in their deliberations on the matter considered the following: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Des 12 (Alterations and Extensions) 2) Non-Statutory Guidelines on: ‘Guidance for Householders ’ 3) The procedure used to determine the application. 4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward in the request for a review. Conclusion The LRB carefully considered all the arguments put before it in respect of the proposed planning application and discussion took place in relation to the following issues:  Whether this was a modest porch that did not contravene household guidelines.  Whether there were special circumstances that allowed the porch to be built.  Whether the building line was acceptable.  Whether the proposed works were detrimental to the character of the area. Having taken all these matters into consideration, the LRB determined that proposed porch was of a modest nature and was sufficiently set back from the road. Consequently, the LRB determined that the proposals were in accordance with LDP policy Des 12 in that the alterations would not have an unacceptable impact on the building and character of the surrounding area. It therefore overturned the decision of the Chief Planning Officer and granted planning permission Decision To not uphold the decision by the Chief Planning Officer and to grant planning permission subject to: The following informatives:

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 19 September 2018 Page 5 of 10 1. The development hereby permitted should be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent. 2. No development should take place on the site until a ‘Notice of Initiation of Development’ had been submitted to the Council stating the intended date on which the development is to commence. Failure to do so constituted 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. (Reference – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted) 7. Request for Review – 21 (2f1) Plewlands Terrace, Edinburgh

Details were submitted of a request for a review submitted for the refusal of planning permission for replacement of timber sash and case windows with white UPVC vertical sliding sash windows at 21 (2f1) Plewlands Terrace, Edinburgh. Application number 18/00802/FUL. Assessment At the meeting on 19 September 2018, the LRB had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents and a site inspection. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development and responded to further questions. The plans used to determine the application were numbered 01-05, Scheme 1, being the drawings shown under the application reference number 18/00802/FUL on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The LRB in their deliberations on the matter considered the following: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy ENV 6 (Conservation Areas - Development) 2) Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines. ‘Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas’ 3) The procedure used to determine the application. 4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward in the request for a review. Conclusion The LRB considered all the arguments put before it in respect of the proposed planning application and discussion took place in relation to the following issues:

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 19 September 2018 Page 6 of 10  Whether the UPVC windows would be detrimental to the character of the conservation area.  That there were other UPVC windows in the area.  Whether it was possible to use timber as an alternative to UPVC.  That the windows should be in keeping with the character of the area. Although there was some sympathy for the proposals and one of the members did not believe that the proposals contravened Policy Env 6. However, having taken all the above matters into consideration, the LRB was of the opinion that no material considerations had been presented in the request for a review which would lead it to overturn the determination by the Chief Planning Officer. Decision To uphold the decision by the Chief Planning Officer to refuse planning permission. Reasons for Refusal: The proposal was contrary to Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Env 6 in respect of Conservation Areas - Development and contrary to non-statutory guidance "Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas", as the replacement windows introduced a non-traditional and uncharacteristic material which would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area. (Reference – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted) 8. Request for Review – 51 Restalrig Road, Edinburgh

Details were submitted of a request for review for the refusal of planning permission for alterations and change of use of existing vacant shop premises to form studio flat at 51 Restalrig Road, Edinburgh. Application no 18/00944/FUL Assessment At the meeting on 19 September 2018, the LRB had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents only. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling. The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development and responded to further questions. The plans used to determine the application was number 01, Scheme 1, being the drawings shown under the application reference number 18/00944/FUL on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The LRB in their deliberations on the matter considered the following: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development) Policy Hou 3 (Private Green Space in Housing Development)

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 19 September 2018 Page 7 of 10 Policy Hou 5 (Conversion to Housing) Policy Ret 10 (Alternative Use of Shop Units in Other Locations) 2) Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines. ‘Edinburgh Design Guidance’ ‘Guidance for Businesses’ 3) The procedure used to determine the application. 4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward in the request for a review. Conclusion The LRB considered all the arguments put before it in respect of the proposed planning application and discussion took place in relation to the following issues:  Whether there was need to provide clarification on the size of the site.  Whether all three grounds for refusal were applicable. Having taken all the above matters into consideration, the LRB was of the opinion that no material considerations had been presented in the request for a review which would lead it to overturn the determination by the Chief Planning Officer. Decision To uphold the decision by the Chief Planning Officer to refuse planning permission. Reasons for Refusal: 1. The proposal was contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Hou 5 in respect of Conversion to Housing, as it failed to provide a satisfactory residential environment in terms of living space. 2. The proposal was contrary to policy RET10 in that it would result in the loss of a commercial unit suitable for small business use. 3. The proposal was contrary to the Edinburgh Design Guidance in that it did not meet minimum space standards to provide a satisfactory residential environment and there was no provision for secured cycle storage. (Reference – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted). 9. Request for Review – 22 Woodside Terrace, Edinburgh

Details were submitted of a request for a review for the refusal of planning permission for an attic conversion and new gable extension at 22 Woodside Terrace, Edinburgh. Application no 18/00974/FUL. Assessment At the meeting on 19 September 2018, the LRB had been provided with copies of the notice of review submitted including a request that the review proceed on the basis of an assessment of the review documents only. The LRB had also been provided with copies of the decision notice and the report of handling.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 19 September 2018 Page 8 of 10 The LRB heard from the Planning Adviser who summarised the issues raised and presented the drawings of the development and responded to further questions. The plans used to determine the application was number 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06a, Scheme 2, being the drawings shown under the application reference number 18/00974/FUL on the Council’s Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The LRB in their deliberations on the matter considered the following: 1) The development plan, including the relevant policies of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Des 12 (Alterations and Extensions) 2) Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines. ‘Guidance for Householders’ 3) The procedure used to determine the application. 4) The reasons for refusal and the arguments put forward in the request for a review. Conclusion The LRB considered all the arguments put before it in respect of the proposed planning application and discussion took place in relation to the following issues:  That there was an issue with the change in the roof line.  Whether the extension would enhance the property.  Whether the extension would be in keeping with the area.  Whether the roofline would be detrimental to the overall character of the area.  That there was a number of variations to housing in the area. Although there was some concern about the change in the roof-line, having taken all these matters into consideration, the LRB determined that the proposed gable-end extension would not create a top-heavy roofline and would not represent an incongruous addition to the surrounding area. Consequently, the LRB determined that the proposals were in accordance with LDP policy Des 12 in that the alterations would not have an unacceptable impact on the building and character of the surrounding area. It therefore overturned the decision of the Chief Planning Officer and granted planning permission Decision To not uphold the decision by the Chief Planning Officer and to grant planning permission subject to: The following informatives: 1. The development hereby permitted should be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of the consent.

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 19 September 2018 Page 9 of 10 2. No development should take place on the site until a ‘Notice of Initiation of Development’ had been submitted to the Council stating the intended date on which the development was to commence. Failure to do so constituted 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. (Reference – Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Notice of Review, submitted)

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body – 19 September 2018 Page 10 of 10 Item 5.1

City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body (the LRB)

General 1. Each meeting of the LRB shall appoint a Convener. A quorum of a meeting of the LRB will be three members. 2. The Clerk will introduce and deal with statutory items (Order of Business and Declarations of Interest) and will introduce each request for review. 3. The LRB will normally invite the planning adviser to highlight the issues raised in the review. 4. The LRB will only accept new information where there are exceptional circumstances as to why it was not available at the time of the planning application. The LRB will formally decide whether this new information should be taken into account in the review. The LRB may at any time ask questions of the planning adviser, the Clerk, or the legal adviser, if present. 5. Having considered the applicant’s preference for the procedure to be used, and other information before it, the LRB shall decide how to proceed with the review. 6. If the LRB decides that it has sufficient information before it, it may proceed to consider the review using only the information circulated to it. The LRB may decide it has insufficient information at any stage prior to the formal decision being taken. 7. If the LRB decides that it does not have sufficient information before it, it will decide which one of, or combination of, the following procedures will be used: • further written submissions; • the holding of one or more hearing sessions; and/or • an accompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land to which the review relates. 8. Whichever option the LRB selects, it shall comply with legislation set out in the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 (the Regulations). The LRB may hold a pre-examination meeting to decide upon the manner in which the review, or any part of it, is to be conducted. If the LRB decides to seek further information, it will specify what further information is required in a written notice to be issued to the applicant, Chief Planning Officer and any interested parties. The content of any further submissions must be restricted to the matters specified in the written notice. In determining the outcome of the review, the LRB will have regard to the requirements of paragraphs 11 and 12 below. 9. The LRB may adjourn any meeting to such time and date as it may then or later decide. Considering the Request for Review 10. Unless material considerations indicate otherwise, the LRB’s determination must be made in accordance with the development plan that is legally in force. Any un-adopted development plan does not have the same weight but will be a material consideration. The LRB is making a new decision on the application and must take the ‘de novo’ approach. 11. The LRB will: • Identify the relevant policies of the Development Plan and interpret any provisions relating to the proposal, for and against, and decide whether the proposal accords with the Development Plan; • identify all other material planning considerations relevant to the proposal and assess the weight to be given to these, for and against, and whether there are considerations of such weight as to indicate that the Development Plan should not be given priority; • take into account only those issues which are relevant planning considerations; • ensure that the relevant provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 are assessed when the review relates to a listed building and/or conservation area; and • in coming to a determination, only review the information presented in the Notice of Review or that from further procedure. 12. The LRB will then determine the review. It may: • uphold the officer’s determination; • uphold the officer’s determination subject to amendments or additions to the reasons for refusal; • grant planning permission, in full or in part; • impose conditions, or vary conditions imposed in the original determination; • determine the review in cases of non-determination. Procedure after determination 13. The Clerk will record the LRB’s decision. 14. In every case, the LRB must give notice of the decision (“a decision notice”) to the applicant. Every person who has made, and has not withdrawn, representations in respect of the review, will be notified of the location where a copy of the decision notice is available for inspection. Depending on the decision, the planning adviser may provide assistance with the framing of conditions of consent or with amended reasons for refusal. 15. The Decision Notice will comply with the requirements of regulation 22. 16. The decision of the LRB is final, subject to the right of the applicant to question the validity of the decision by making an application to the Court of Session. Such application must be made within 6 weeks of the date of the decision. The applicant will be advised of these and other rights by means of a Notice as specified in Schedule 2 to the regulations.

DECISION NOTICE AND REPORT OF HANDLING

Application address - 3 Canon Lane Edinburgh EH3 5HD

Application Ref. No - 18/00133/FUL

Review Ref No - 18/00160/REVREF

Review Lodged Date 16.08.2018

Johnston-Harris Architects. Burnarvie Ltd. Fao Jamie Anderson 31 Shore 31 The Shore Edinburgh Edinburgh EH6 6QN EH6 6QN

Date: 22 June 2018,

Your ref:

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACTS

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013

Erect 2no. mews style dwelling houses on site of existing car park.

At 3 Canon Lane Edinburgh EH3 5HD

Application No: 18/00133/FUL

DECISION NOTICE

With reference to your application for Planning Permission registered on 12 January 2018, this has been decided by Local Delegated Decision. The Council in exercise of its powers under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts and regulations, now determines the application as Refused in accordance with the particulars given in the application.

Any condition(s) attached to this consent, with reasons for imposing them, or reasons for refusal, are shown below;

Conditions:-

Reasons:-

1. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Env 6 in respect of Conservation Areas - Development, as the proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the conservation area.

2. The proposals are contrary to non-statutory guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas as the proposals do not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Please see the guidance notes on our decision page for further information, including how to appeal or review your decision.

Drawings 1-5, represent the determined scheme. Full details of the application can be found on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services

The reason why the Council made this decision is as follows:

The proposal for residential use is acceptable in this location. The proposals are of an appropriate scale, however, their design will not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. There is no unreasonable loss of neighbouring amenity and the proposal will result in an acceptable amenity for the future occupier. There are no implications for road safety. There are no other material considerations which outweigh this decision.

This determination does not carry with it any necessary consent or approval for the proposed development under other statutory enactments.

Should you have a specific enquiry regarding this decision please contact Jennifer Zochowska directly on 0131 529 3793.

David R. Leslie Chief Planning Officer PLACE The City of Edinburgh Council

NOTES

1. If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision to refuse permission for or approval required by a condition in respect of the proposed development, or to grant permission or approval subject to conditions, the applicant may require the planning authority to review the case under section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 within three months beginning with the date of this notice. The Notice of Review can be made online at www.eplanning.scot or forms can be downloaded from that website. Paper forms should be addressed to the City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body, G.2, Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG. For enquiries about the Local Review Body, please email [email protected].

2. If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions and the owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state and cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, the owner of the land may serve on the planning authority a purchase notice requiring the purchase of the owner of the land's interest in the land accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Report of Handling

Application for Planning Permission 18/00133/FUL

At 3 Canon Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 5HD Erect 2no. mews style dwelling houses on site of existing car park.

Item Local Delegated Decision Application number 18/00133/FUL Wards B05 - Inverleith

Summary

Links

Policies and guidance for LDPP, LDES01, LDES04, LDES05, LEN06,

this application LHOU01, NSG, NSGD02, NSLBCA, OTH, CRPNEW,

Report of handling

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below..

Background

2.1 Site description

The site lies on the south side of Canon Lane and relates to a car parking area of surrounding residential properties. It is bounded by residential properties.

This application site is located within the New Town Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

There is no relevant planning history for this site.

Main report 3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The proposal is to continue the pattern of residential development along Canon Lane with the erection of two mews style dwelling houses.

The houses will each have three bedrooms and a dedicated garage. The internal floor area for house no 1 measures 140 square metres with private open space measuring 24 square metres and the second property has an internal floor area of 121 square metres with a open space area measuring 15 square metres.

The new building would be 2 storeys in height

The existing brick wall is to be incorporated into the design of the houses. The proposed materials are aluminium cladding.

3.2 Determining Issues

Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states - Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

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?

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, it needs to be considered whether:

a) the principal of residential use is acceptable in this location; b) the proposals are of an appropriate scale, design and materials and will preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area; c) the proposals will result in an unreasonable loss of neighbouring amenity; d) the proposal will result in an acceptable amenity for the future occupier; e) the proposals raise any implications for road safety; f)) the proposal are acceptable in terms of flooding:

g) any impacts on equalities or human rights are acceptable; and h) comments raised have been addressed.

a) Principle of Development

LDP Policy Hou 1 encourages new housing on suitable sites provided the proposals accord with all other relevant policies. The principle of residential use is acceptable in this location subject to compliance with the other policies in the plan.

b) Scale, Design and Materials and Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

The site lies within the New Town Conservation Area where the conservation area character appraisal states that the area is typified by the formal plan layout, spacious stone built terraces, broad streets and an overall classical elegance. The buildings are of a generally consistent three storey and basement scale, with some four storey corner and central pavilions.

The buildings' form and proportions are acceptable exhibiting the scale and elevational detailing expected of a 'mews' development. The existing brick finish has been retained and whilst not a material normally expected within this conservation area has been incorporated within the design providing continuity with the neighbouring properties that also have brick front facades. The height and form of the new built will compliment the street scene to the benefit of the character and appearance of the surrounding New Town Conservation Area.

The detailing and proportions of the new windows, however, is out of character with the proportions of the windows of the adjoining properties. Whilst there are examples of other conversions in the New Town with modern window proportions these tend to be individual buildings and not part of a continuous terrace where the style of windows are the same.

The proposed design does not comply with LDP Policy Env 6.

c)Loss of Residential Amenity

The proposed houses have windows at upper floor level which lie 21 metres from existing residential properties on Brandon Terrace to the north and lie 14 metres to the rear. The windows on the rear are velux roof lights to provide additional lights to bedrooms and have been designed to avoid direct overlooking. The window distances comply with the requirements in Council's Edinburgh Design Guidance.

The proposal complies with LDP Des 5.

d)Amenity for the Future Occupier

The houses have dual aspect. Edinburgh Design Guidance recommends minimum floor areas to ensure satisfactory amenity. The new houses comply with these standards.

Both the properties provide an area of open space appropriate to the site characteristics and its location.

The proposal will result in an acceptable amenity for the future occupier.

e)Road Safety and Car Parking

The houses have garages at ground floor level which complies with the standards set out in Edinburgh Design Guidance. The site is well served by public transport.

f)Flooding

Despite there being no self-certification provided, Flooding have no specific concerns over this development and as such are happy for it to progress to determination.

g) Equalities and human rights

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. No impact was identified.

h)Public Comment

Material Considerations

•loss of privacy - assessed in section 3.3c and found that the proposal complies with the distances set out in Edinburgh Design Guidance

•lack of parking - assessed in section 3.3 e and found that each house includes a garage which complies with the standards set out in Edinburgh Design Guidance.

Non- Material Considerations

•guttering and drainage issues during construction

Conclusion

It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Reasons:-

2. The proposals are contrary to non-statutory guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas as the proposals do not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

4.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low.

Equalities impact

5.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights.

Consultation and engagement

6.1 Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

6.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 2 February 2018 and one objection was received and another making comments.

Material Considerations

• loss of privacy

• lack of parking

Non- Material Considerations

• guttering and drainage issues during construction

Background reading / external references

 To view details of the application go to  Planning and Building Standards online services

David R. Leslie Statutory Development Plan Provision The site lies within the urban area of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan where it is designated as within New Town Conservation Area.

Date registered 12 January 2018

Drawing numbers/Scheme 1-5

Scheme 1

Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Jennifer Zochowska, Senior Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3793

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Local Development Plan.

LDP Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated.

LDP Policy Des 4 (Development Design - Impact on Setting) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development design against its setting.

LDP Policy Des 5 (Development Design - Amenity) sets criteria for assessing amenity.

LDP Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas - Development) sets out criteria for assessing development in a conservation area.

LDP Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development) sets criteria for assessing the principle of housing proposals.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

Non-Statutory guidelines Edinburgh Design Guidance supports development of the highest design quality and that integrates well with the existing city. It sets out the Council's expectations for the design of new development, including buildings, parking, streets and landscape, in Edinburgh.

Non-statutory guidelines 'LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

Other Relevant policy guidance

The New Town Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that the area is typified by the formal plan layout, spacious stone built terraces, broad streets and an overall classical elegance. The buildings are of a generally consistent three storey and basement scale, with some four storey corner and central pavilions.

Appendix 1

Consultations

Archaeology

Further to your consultation request I would like to make the following comments and recommendations concerning this application for the erection of 2 mews style dwelling houses on site of existing car park.

The site is located within the historic core of Canon Mills first mentioned in the foundation charter for Holyrood Abbey in 1128, when the mills at this site were gifted to the Abbey. This important milling complex continued in operation continued in operation into the 20th century and by the 18th/19th century contained a range of industries as evident from early maps. Ainslie's 1804 map suggests that the site overlies the northern range of a large building later identified in Kirkwood's 1817 map as probably forming part of Mr Eyre's Brewery, who is shown as occupying Canon Mill House former located to the SW of the current site.

Accordingly, this site has been identified as occurring within an area of archaeological significance. This application must be considered therefore under terms the Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement (HESPS) 2016, Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), PAN 02/2011 and Edinburgh Local Development Plan (2016) Policies ENV9.

The proposed scheme will require ground-breaking works relating to construction of the new dwellings and associated works (services). Such works may therefore disturb significant archaeological remains associated with the 18th/19th century former Mr Eyre's Brewery and potentially remains associated with the earlier Canon Mills, dating back to the 12th century. It is therefore recommended that a suitable programme of archaeological work is undertaken prior to development in order to record and excavate any significant archaeological deposits and remains which may survive.

It is recommended that the following condition is attached in order fully record these important industrial buildings but also any associated buried remains as follows;

'No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (excavation, recording 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.

Please contact me if you require any further information.

END

Business Centre G.2 Waverley Court 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG Tel: 0131 529 3550 Fax: 0131 529 6206 Email: [email protected]

Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid.

Thank you for completing this application form:

ONLINE REFERENCE 100080565-003

The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application.

Applicant or Agent Details

Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application)  Applicant Agent Agent Details

Please enter Agent details

Johnston - Harris Architects Company/Organisation:

Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Jamie First Name: * Building Name:

Anderson 31 Last Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 The Shore Telephone Number: * 0131 554 1151 (Street): *

Extension Number: Address 2:

Edinburgh Mobile Number: Town/City: *

Scotland Fax Number: Country: *

EH6 6QN Postcode: *

Email Address: * [email protected]

Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? *

 Individual  Organisation/Corporate entity

Page 1 of 5 Applicant Details

Please enter Applicant details

Other Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Other Title: Building Name:

31 First Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Shore Last Name: * (Street): *

Burnarvie Ltd. Company/Organisation Address 2:

Edinburgh Telephone Number: * Town/City: *

Scotland Extension Number: Country: *

EH6 6QN Mobile Number: Postcode: *

Fax Number:

Email Address: *

Site Address Details

Planning Authority: City of Edinburgh Council

Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available):

3 CANON LANE Address 1:

Address 2:

Address 3:

Address 4:

Address 5:

Town/City/Settlement: EDINBURGH

EH3 5HD Post Code:

Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites

674980 325204 Northing Easting

Page 2 of 5 Description of Proposal

Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters)

Erect 2no. mews style dwelling houses on site of existing car park.

Type of Application

What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? *

 Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals).  Application for planning permission in principle.  Further application.  Application for approval of matters specified in conditions.

What does your review relate to? *

 Refusal Notice.  Grant of permission with Conditions imposed.  No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal.

Statement of reasons for seeking review

You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters)

Note: you are unlikely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account.

You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances.

Please see Appeal & Review Statement in supporting documentation.

Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the  Yes  No Determination on your application was made? *

If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters)

Page 3 of 5 Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters)

It is the intended that the original application documents are used along with the Appeal & Review Statement submitted in the supporting documentation section.

Application Details

Please provide details of the application and decision.

What is the application reference number? * 18/00133/FUL

What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * 11/01/2018

What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * 22/06/2018

Review Procedure

The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case.

Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. *  Yes  No

In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion:

Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? *  Yes  No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? *  Yes  No

Checklist – Application for Notice of Review

Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid.

Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. *  Yes  No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this  Yes  No review? *

If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name  Yes  No  N/A and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the review should be sent to you or the applicant? * Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what  Yes  No procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? *

Note: You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. You may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on  Yes  No (e.g. plans and Drawings) which are now the subject of this review *

Note: Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice (if any) from the earlier consent.

Page 4 of 5 Declare – Notice of Review

I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated.

Declaration Name: Mr Jamie Anderson

Declaration Date: 16/08/2018

Page 5 of 5 APPEAL & REVIEW STATEMENT Planning Application no.18/00133/FUL

J O H N S T O N H A R RIS A R C H IT E C T S 31 SHORE | EDINBURGH | EH6 6QN | 0131 554 1151

CANON MEWS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTCANO.204 .180112OF TWO MEWS HOUSES VIEW FROM CANON LANE at 3 CANON LANE, EDINBURGH, EH4 2DR

JOHNSTON HARRIS ARCHITECTS 31 SHORE | EDINBURGH | EH6 6EP | 0131 554 1151 1. SUMMARY

1.1. The following Appeal & Review Statement outlines the reasons why it is considered that the Local Review Body (LRB) should not uphold the case ofﬁcer’s decision to refuse planning application no. 18/00133/FUL at 3 Canon Lane, Edinburgh and instead grant permission. 1.2. In summary, the basis for refusal is the ‘detail and proportioning of the proposed windows’ which are determined to be ‘out of character with the proportions of the adjoining properties’. This appeal document concludes that: 1.2.1. The proposal is intended as a contemporary yet sensitive addition to the conservation area and the inclusion of traditionally detailed windows would compromise its credibility as a high quality development with minimal detailing. 1.2.2. The adjoining properties in question are not of any architectural or historical signiﬁcance (the latest being constructed in 2014) and the repeated imitation of a ‘traditional’ style should not be encouraged on this basis. 1.2.3. In line with the recommendations of the New Town Conservation Area Character Appraisal (NTCACA), the planning department should encourage the inclusion of imaginative, high quality design that respects its context. It is not a requirement that earlier styles are directly imitated.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. The existing site is an untidy, disused car park on the edge of the New Town Conservation Area. Johnston- Harris Architects was appointed to submit an application for planning permission for the provision of 2no. 3bed mews houses on behalf of Burnarvie Ltd. 2.2. The proposals are for high quality housing that would enhance the existing street by bringing the unkept site to use and respect the conservation area through the sensitive articulation of its form, scale and materiality. 2.3. The Application Process: 2.3.1. Pre-application advice was sought in October 2017, the proposal was deemed not large enough. 2.3.2. The Planning Application was submitted and validated by CEC on 12th January 2018 with a target date for decision of 9th March 2018. 2.3.3. Only 2no. public comments were received, these were assessed in the Report of Handling and the scheme determined to comply with Edinburgh Design Guidance. 2.3.4. On 10th April 2018, the agent received a ﬁrst correspondence suggesting that ‘consideration be given in replacing the proposed windows with fenestration having proportions and detailing more in keeping with the neighbouring properties on Canon Lane.’ 2.3.5. Further clariﬁcations of the design decisions was given by the agent on 11th April, with an invite to open a dialogue in order to clarify the area of concern and reach a more acceptable solution. 2.3.6. Without any further dialogue, the application was refused on 22nd June 2018.

JOHNSTON HARRIS ARCHITECTS 31 SHORE | EDINBURGH | EH6 6EP | 0131 554 1151 3. BASIS OF REFUSAL

3.1. When addressing the determining issues, the case ofﬁcer’s Report of Handling deemed the proposal to be acceptable in all relevant policies of the Local Development Plan (LDP) except for LDP Policy ENV 6. 3.2. When considering LDP Policy ENV 6, the Report of Handling suggests that the height, form, proportions and materiality of the proposal are all acceptable and would compliment and/or preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. 3.3. However, the report goes on to state: “The detailing and proportions of the new windows, however, is out of character with the proportions of the windows of the adjoining properties” 3.4. Consequently, the basis for refusal is the detail and proportions of the 2no. windows and 1no. rooﬂight to the street elevation. 3.5. The following section will address this determination, evidencing compliance with relevant guidance and outlining why the window detailing should be deemed to comply with LDP Policy ENV 6.

4. WINDOW DETAIL & PROPORTIONS

4.1. The fenestration, and the proposal generally, is designed as a high quality, contemporary design that respects and enhances the character of the surrounding area. It is not a requirement to directly imitate adjacent buildings. This is in line with LDP ENV 6 and encouraged in the New Town Conservation Area Character Appraisal (NTCACA):

“The development of new buildings in the Conservation Area should be a stimulus to imaginative, high quality design, and seen as an opportunity to enhance the area. What is important is not that new buildings should directly imitate earlier styles, rather that they should be designed with respect for their context, as part of a larger whole which has a well-established character and appearance of its own.” !- New Town Conservation Area Character Appraisal, Pg 51

4.2. The window detailing and proportions of the adjoining properties date from 1993-2014 and are not of any historical or architectural signiﬁcance. 4.2.1. The 4no. properties at 2A - 2D Canon Lane date from 1999 and use UPVC windows with no glazing bars and contemporary proportions (see Fig. 1.3 & Fig. 2.0) 4.2.2. The 3no. adjoining properties to the west date from 1993-2014. • 4 Canon Lane • Permission granted 2001 to build dwelling above existing garage (01/00567/FUL) • 5 Canon Lane • Permission granted 2012 to build dwelling above existing garage (12/01286/FUL) • 6 Canon Lane • Application to alter dwelling house to include mansard roof and dormers submitted 1990. Completion certiﬁcate issued 1993. (Warrant no. 90/487) 4.2.3. The adjacent properties to the west adopt an imitation of a ‘traditional’ style, timber sash and case window with Georgian pattern glazing bars. Given that the NTCACA states the Conservation Area should be seen as a ‘stimulus to imaginative, high quality design’, it would be regretful for the continued imitation of pastiche sash and case windows to be enforced in this instance.

JOHNSTON HARRIS ARCHITECTS 31 SHORE | EDINBURGH | EH6 6EP | 0131 554 1151 Fig 1.1 - 1.3 - The below diagrams clarify the dates of adjacent properties and their relationship to the site.

Proposal 2011 2014 1993

3b 3a 3a

5 PO Shelter 1 to BRANDON 12 TERRACE

10 to 6

2 Garages

Proposal 2A - 2D Canon Lane. Permission granted 1999 for 4no. dwellings (99/01241/FUL)

6 3 to 2a 4 Canon Lane. Permission granted 2001 to build dwelling above garage. (01/00567/FUL) 2d LANE 5 Canon Lane. CANON Permission granted 2012 to build dwelling above garage. (12/01286/FUL)

15 6 Canon Lane. 14 Mansard roof and dormers completed 1993 (Warrant no. 90/487) 13 EYRE CRESCENT

2a-2d Canon Lane. Garages. Site 4-6 Canon Lane Render, brick, reconstituted Timber and brick stone & timber elevations with contemporary proportioned, UPVC windows.

JOHNSTON HARRIS ARCHITECTS 31 SHORE | EDINBURGH | EH6 6EP | 0131 554 1151 4.3. Using traditionally detailed windows as suggested would compromise the merits of the proposal as a high quality design with simple detailing and minimal material palette. 4.3.1. The scale, height, form and materials that are deemed acceptable are decidedly contemporary yet respectful to the conservation area. The use of traditionally detailed windows on a brick and zinc facade would appear at odds to the contemporary nature of the scheme and negatively impact the appearance of the conservation area. 4.3.2. The Edinburgh Design Guidance states that applicants should ‘keep the number of materials on new development to a minimum’ (pg65). The inclusion of traditionally detailed windows would introduce an additional material and conﬂicting style to the proposal.

4.4. While the 3no. properties on Canon Lane may reasonably be considered as a ‘terrace’ the plot in question is unique in its shape, size, position and frontage width. 4.4.1. As such, using windows with proportions similar to the adjacent properties would sit uncomfortably on the elevation as the spacing would either be far greater or far less than the existing rhythm of windows. 4.4.2. The windows in question comprise two windows to the street, the third window is a velux which allows the form of the proposal to blend in to the existing gable at 4 Canon Lane. 4.4.3. To the east of the site is a row of garages and a lane leading to 2a-2d Canon Lane. As such, the proposal will remain unique in its size and situation as the end terrace (see Fig.2.0 below) 4.4.4. Historically, end terrace houses have been known to be unique and the form and proportions of the proposal have been designed with the longitudinal view of the terrace in mind.

Fig.2.0 - Shows the site in its unique situation as the end terrace. The development at 2A-2D Canon Lane can also be seen with contemporary proportioned white UPVC windows.

JOHNSTON HARRIS ARCHITECTS 31 SHORE | EDINBURGH | EH6 6EP | 0131 554 1151 4.5. The proposal draws upon other examples of successful contemporary mews developments in the wider context of the New Town Conservation Area. 4.5.1. Without historical or architecturally signiﬁcant references within its immediate context, the proposal takes in to account the greater context of the conservation area and draws upon other examples of successful contemporary mews developments in the New Town Conservation Area when considering the window detailing and proportions. 4.5.2. These have been outlined in the design statement and substantiated in Appendix 1. 4.5.3. The Report of Handling addresses that other contemporary mews houses use modern window proportions stating “Whilst there are examples of other conversions in the New Town with modern window proportions these tend to be individual buildings and not part of a continuous terrace where the style of windows are the same.” The examples in Appendix 1 show contemporary window detailing as part of a terrace of mews houses in the New Town Conservation Area.

5. CONCLUSION

5.1. In conclusion, the basis for refusal of this application is the detail and proportions of the windows not being in keeping with adjacent properties. We have substantiated our decision making process in this regard and evidenced compliance with the relevant guidance. 5.2. As conﬁrmed in the handling report, the proposal respects and enhances the streetscape in respect of scale, height, proportion and materiality. When considering the window details, it was deemed inappropriate in the context of the NTCA to continue the imitation of a generic ‘traditional’ style that was historically not found within the immediate context and have no architectural or historical signiﬁcance. 5.3. Accordingly, we posit that the window detailing and proportions of the proposal are appropriate and that therefore the proposal complies with LDP ENV 6. As such, we respectfully request that the LRB does not uphold the decision to refuse this application and that Planning Permission is granted.

We hope this document has been helpful in considering the above appeal and look forward to your assessment.

JOHNSTON HARRIS ARCHITECTS 31 SHORE | EDINBURGH | EH6 6EP | 0131 554 1151 6. Appendix

The following examples show contemporary mews developments with contemporary window detailing on various terraces within Edinburgh Conservation areas: 1. Dublin Street Lane South - Zone Architects 2. Circus Lane - Richard Murphy Architects

JOHNSTON HARRIS ARCHITECTS 31 SHORE | EDINBURGH | EH6 6EP | 0131 554 1151 3. Dean Park Mews - Zone Architects 4. Northumberland Place Lane - Lorn MacNeal Architects

18/00133/FUL 3 Canon Lane!!11/04/18

Northumberland Place Lane JOHNSTON HARRIS ARCHITECTS 31 SHORE | EDINBURGH | EH6 6EP | 0131 554 1151

DECISION NOTICE AND REPORT OF HANDLING

Application address - 555 Castlehill Edinburgh EH1 2ND

Application Ref. No - 18/02255/FUL

Review Ref No - 18/00158/REVREF

Review Lodged Date 10.08.2018

EKJN Architects. Mr Lully Gold Bryerton House 555 Castlehill 129 High Street Edinburgh Linlithgow Scotland EH49 7AQ EH1 2nd

Date: 8 August 2018,

Your ref:

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACTS

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013

Proposed external plant enclosure on land to the rear of the building.

At 555 Castlehill Edinburgh EH1 2ND

Application No: 18/02255/FUL

DECISION NOTICE

With reference to your application for Planning Permission registered on 21 May 2018, this has been decided by Local Delegated Decision. The Council in exercise of its powers under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts and regulations, now determines the application as Refused in accordance with the particulars given in the application.

Any condition(s) attached to this consent, with reasons for imposing them, or reasons for refusal, are shown below;

Conditions:-

Reason for Refusal:-

1. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Old Town Conservation Area and a detrimental impact on the character of a historic garden and designated landscape. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the setting and unique architectural and historical character of the listed building; and the amenity of neighbouring residents. The proposal is contrary to policies Env 3, Env 4, Env 6, Env 7 and Des 5 of the adopted Edinburgh Local Development Plan and the Council's Non-Statutory Guidance for Businesses.

Please see the guidance notes on our decision page for further information, including how to appeal or review your decision.

Drawings 01 - 03, represent the determined scheme. Full details of the application can be found on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services

The reason why the Council made this decision is as follows:

The proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Old Town Conservation Area and a detrimental impact on the character of a historic garden and designated landscape. The proposal would be contrary to the condition applied to planning permission A 01406 94 which restricts permanent development within the garden area, would have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed building and its unique architectural and historical character; and would adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring residents. The proposal is contrary to policies Env 3, Env 4, Env 6, Env 7 and Des 5 of the adopted Edinburgh Local Development Plan and the Council's Non-Statutory Guidance for Businesses.

This determination does not carry with it any necessary consent or approval for the proposed development under other statutory enactments.

Should you have a specific enquiry regarding this decision please contact James Allanson directly on 0131 529 3946.

David R. Leslie Chief Planning Officer PLACE The City of Edinburgh Council

NOTES

Report of Handling

Application for Planning Permission 18/02255/FUL

At 555 Castlehill, Edinburgh, EH1 2ND Proposed external plant enclosure on land to the rear of the building.

Item Local Delegated Decision Application number 18/02255/FUL Wards B11 - City Centre

Summary

Links

Policies and guidance for LDPP, LEN03, LEN04, LEN06, LEN07, LDES05,

this application NSG, NSBUS, CRPOLD,

Report of handling

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below..

Background

2.1 Site description

The site is the former reservoir originally constructed between 1849-1850 and situated adjacent to the main Edinburgh Castle Esplanade entrance. The building was converted into a tartan weaving centre and exhibition in the 1990's. The surrounding area has a mixed residential/commercial character consisting of retail units, restaurants, bars and tenement flats.

The building is category B listed, (listing date 13.08.1987, listing reference: LB27962).

The site is located in the UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The site is designated by Historic Environment Scotland as being part of the New Town Gardens Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape.

This application site is located within the Old Town Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

16 November 1994 - Planning permission granted for a change of use (only) from water reservoir to weaving centre, exhibition space, museum space, weaving production, restaurant and shop (application number A 01406 94).

29 November 1995 - Mixed decision to convert existing building to a weaving centre (including alterations) (application number 95/01683). Rooftop canopy projection refused.

25 February 2014 - Planning permission refused and appeal dismissed for the creation of a new additional entrance doorway to alleviate pedestrian congestion. New doorway to match the materiality, detailing and character of the adjacent openings on the facade (application number 14/00155/FUL).

25 February 2014 - Listed building consent refused and appeal dismissed for the creation of a new additional entrance doorway to alleviate pedestrian congestion. New doorway to match the materiality, detailing and character of the adjacent openings on the facade (application number 14/00124/LBC).

18 January 2016 - Planning permission not required to infill floor to void at level 4 (entrance), remove existing Handrails, relocate steel staircase; relocate internal doors (application number 16/00071/FUL).

14 March 2016 - Listed building consent granted for Part infill floor to void at level 4 (entrance), remove existing Handrails, relocate steel staircase; relocate internal doors (as amended) (application number 16/00071/LBC).

07 June 2016 - Listed building consent granted to Increase floor area to Level 3 to provide additional retail space (application number 16/02199/LBC).

6 February 2017 - Planning permission granted to enhance two existing external fire escape doors and introduce new internal fire stair enclosure (application number 16/06069/FUL).

17 February 2017 - Listed building consent granted to increase the size of an existing entrance doorway and create new access platt. (application number 16/05554/LBC).

16 February 2017 - Planning permission granted to Increase size of existing entrance doorway and create new access platt (application number 16/05553/FUL).

15 May 2018 - Applications for listed building consent and planning permission for new plant machinery withdrawn (application numbers: 18/01817/FUL and 178/01816/LBC).

21 May 2018 - Applications submitted for listed building consent for the installation of new plant machinery to the north of the building (application number: 18/02254/LBC)

29 May 2018 - Application submitted for planning permission and listed building consent for the formation of a new pedestrian entrance (application number: 18/02429/FUL and 18/02428/LBC)

Main report 3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The proposal seeks planning permission for the installation of five condenser units within the private garden ground situated directly adjacent to the northern elevation of the building. The condensers would be enclosed within a purpose built enclosure consisting of a new ashlar sandstone stone wall and steel gates and railings. The new ashlar sandstone wall would encompass two bronze plaques detailing the history of Ramsay Gardens and the weaving centre.

Supporting Documents

The applicant has submitted the following supporting document which is available to view via planning and building standards online services:

• Design Statement

3.2 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.

In considering whether to grant consent, special regard must be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. 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?

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?

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, it needs to be considered whether:

a) The proposal will preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Old Town Conservation Area and has a detrimental impact on the Historic Garden and Designated Landscape; b) The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the setting of the listed building or its unique architectural and historical character; c) The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents d) Any issues raised by objectors have been addressed, and; e) The proposal raises any issues in respect of equalities and human rights.

a) Character and Appearance of the Old Town Conservation Area and Impact on the Historic Garden and Designated Landscape

Policy Env 6 of the LDP states that development within a conservation area will be permitted which preserves or enhances the special character or appearance of the conservation area and is consistent with the relevant conservation area character appraisal. The Old Town Conservation Area highlights the manner in which secluded private garden areas contribute significantly to the character of the surrounding area, stating:

Many other linked small spaces in the densely urban structure of the Old Town create a strong identity and character. They also create a variety of views at unusual angles that are important in appreciating the buildings and the surrounding landscape. Accessed through archways and closes, their charm lies in their secluded location and their variety of scales and styles.

Policy Env 7 states that in respect of development within a historic garden or designated landscape, development will only be permitted where there is no detrimental impact on the character of a site or adverse effects on its setting.

In addition to the above, when the premises was originally granted planning permission to operate as a weaving centre in December 1994 (reference: A 01406 94), a condition was applied prohibiting development within the garden ground to the north.

Both the reservoir building and Ramsay Gardens form important historical features within the area, combining high quality historical architecture and a unique secluded original private garden area which maintains its original layout. Ramsay Gardens has not been subject to any form of permanent development. The proposal would introduce an incongruous permanent development to this site in the form of both the condenser units and their associated enclosure. While the enclosure has been designed to match the rusticated finish found on the exterior walls of the reservoir, it would still form a notable non-original additional protruding out from the original building line into the garden area. The resultant impact of the development would be to disrupt the undeveloped nature of the garden area with a visibly incongruous non- original addition.

While obscured from view when approaching the site from the south, the enclosure would be visible when approaching the site from the north along Ramsay Lane and Ramsay Gardens; and would have a disruptive impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Old Town Conservation Area and would have a detrimental impact on the character of a historic garden. The proposal is contrary to LDP policies Env 6 and Env 7. The proposal would also involve the contravention of a condition attached to a historic planning permission prohibiting development on this site.

b) Setting of Listed Building and impact on Unique Historical and Architectural Character

LDP Policy Env 3 states that development affecting the setting of a listed building will be permitted only if not detrimental to the architectural character, appearance or historic interest of the building or its setting. In addition, LDP Policy Env 4 states that proposals to alter or extend a listed building will be permitted where those alterations or extensions are justified, will not cause any unnecessary damage to historic structures or diminish its interest and where any additions are in keeping with other parts of the building.

The garden area provides a suitable degree of separation between the reservoir building and the surrounding buildings, and its undeveloped nature is of significant

importance in enabling the northern elevation of the building to be interpreted in its original form. This elevation incorporates a distinctive 3-stage Italianate tower with s balustraded parapet and is of notable architectural and historical interest; the proposal would involve development which would interfere with the interpretation of this elevation, to the detriment of both its setting and its unique architectural and historical character.

The proposal is contrary to LDP policies Env 3 and Env 4.

c) Amenity of Neighbouring Residents

Policy Des 5 states that planning permission will be granted for development where it is demonstrated that the amenity of neighbouring developments is not adversely affected.

The proposal would involve installing condenser units in an open enclosure where residential flatted properties are situated in close proximity. Flatted properties are located within 15 metres of the site to the north and west and the proposal has the potential to generate noise which could cause a disturbance to the amenity of neighbouring residents. While the site is situated within a city centre location, Ramsay Gardens is situated in a relatively quiet location, set back from the Royal Mile; and with the windows facing onto the garden area benefiting from a degree of seclusion. It has not been conclusively demonstrated that the proposed condensers can be operated without causing disturbance to neighbouring residents, and the potential exists for neighbouring amenity to be adversely affected.

The proposal is contrary to LDP policy Des 5.

d) Issues Raised by Objectors

The proposal attracted sixteen letters of objection, including letters on behalf of the Old Town Community Council, the Old Town Association and the Ramsay Gardens Residents Association. The objections raised the following considerations:

Material Considerations

Proposal involves development which would have an adverse impact on a historic garden or designated landscape - addressed in section 3.3 (a).

Proposal would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Old Town Conservation Area - addressed in section 3.3 (a).

Proposal would have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents - addressed in section 3.3 (c).

Proposal would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the listed building - addressed in section 3.3 (b)

Proposal is contrary to condition attached to original change of use consent - addressed in section 3.3 (a)

Non-Material Considerations

Increase in tourist numbers partially associated with the use of the centre.

e) Equalities and Human Rights

The proposal has been assessed and does not raise any issues in respect of equalities and human rights.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Old Town Conservation Area and a detrimental impact on the character of a historic garden and designated landscape. The proposal would be contrary to the condition applied to planning permission A 01406 94 which restricts permanent development within the garden area, would have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed building and its unique architectural and historical character; and would adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring residents. The proposal is contrary to policies Env 3, Env 4, Env 6, Env 7 and Des 5 of the adopted Edinburgh Local Development Plan and the Council's Non-Statutory Guidance for Businesses.

It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Reason for Refusal:-

Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

4.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low.

Equalities impact

5.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights.

Consultation and engagement

6.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

6.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The proposal attracted sixteen letters of objection, including letters on behalf of the Old Town Community Council and the Ramsay Gardens Residents Association. A full summary of the matters raised in these objections can be found in section 3.3 (d) of the main report.

Background reading / external references

 To view details of the application go to  Planning and Building Standards online services

David R. Leslie Statutory Development Plan Provision The site is located in the UNESCO World Heritage Site and the New Town and Dean Historic Garden Designed Landscape in the LDP.

Date registered 21 May 2018

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01 - 03

Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: James Allanson, Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3946

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Local Development Plan.

LDP 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.

LDP Policy Env 4 (Listed Buildings - Alterations and Extensions) identifies the circumstances in which alterations and extensions to listed buildings will be permitted.

LDP Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas - Development) sets out criteria for assessing development in a conservation area.

LDP Policy Env 7 (Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes) protects sites included in the national Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes and other historic landscape features.

LDP Policy Des 5 (Development Design - Amenity) sets criteria for assessing amenity.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

Non-statutory guidelines 'GUIDANCE FOR BUSINESSES' provides guidance for proposals likely to be made on behalf of businesses. It includes food and drink uses, conversion to residential use, changing housing to commercial uses, altering shopfronts and signage and advertisements.

The Old Town Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the survival of the original medieval street pattern; the wealth of important landmark buildings; the survival of an outstanding collection of archaeological remains, medieval buildings, and 17th-century town houses; the consistent and harmonious height and mass of buildings; the importance of stone as a construction material for both buildings and the public realm; the vitality and variety of different uses; and the continuing presence of a residential community

Appendix 1

Consultations

No consultations undertaken.

END

Business Centre G.2 Waverley Court 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG Tel: 0131 529 3550 Fax: 0131 529 6206 Email: [email protected]

Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid.

Thank you for completing this application form:

ONLINE REFERENCE 100094180-003

Applicant or Agent Details

Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application)  Applicant Agent Agent Details

Please enter Agent details

EKJN architects Company/Organisation:

Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Jon Bryerton House First Name: * Building Name:

Newey 129 Last Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 High Street Telephone Number: * 01506 847151 (Street): *

Extension Number: Address 2:

Linlithgow Mobile Number: Town/City: *

Scotland Fax Number: Country: *

EH49 7EJ Postcode: *

Email Address: * [email protected]

Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? *

 Individual  Organisation/Corporate entity

Page 1 of 5 Applicant Details

Please enter Applicant details

Mr Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Other Title: Building Name:

Lully 555 First Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Gold Castlehill Last Name: * (Street): *

G&L Attractions Ltd Company/Organisation Address 2:

Edinburgh Telephone Number: * Town/City: *

Scotland Extension Number: Country: *

EH1 2ND Mobile Number: Postcode: *

Fax Number:

Email Address: *

Site Address Details

Planning Authority: City of Edinburgh Council

Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available):

555 CASTLEHILL Address 1:

Address 2:

Address 3:

Address 4:

Address 5:

Town/City/Settlement: EDINBURGH

EH1 2ND Post Code:

Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites

673541 325396 Northing Easting

Page 2 of 5 Description of Proposal

Proposed external plant enclosure on land to the rear of the building.

Type of Application

What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? *

What does your review relate to? *

Statement of reasons for seeking review

We consider the refusal unreasonable for reasons set out in the Statement of Review which we have uploaded in the supporting documents.

Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the  Yes  No Determination on your application was made? *

Statement of review dated 10 Aug 2018 Drawings 15-038/54a and 55a

Application Details

Please provide details of the application and decision.

What is the application reference number? * 18/02255/FUL

What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * 21/05/2018

What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * 08/08/2018

Review Procedure

Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may select more than one option if you wish the review to be a combination of procedures. Please select a further procedure *

By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates

Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it will deal with? (Max 500 characters) We believe a site inspection is vital for the Review Body to consider whether the proposal is indeed 'significant' and 'prominent' as claimed by the Planning Officer, claims which the applicant refutes.

In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion:

Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? *  Yes  No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? *  Yes  No

If there are reasons why you think the local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here. (Max 500 characters) An unaccompanied inspection is possible, but we are happy to accompany if necessary to help locate the site.

Page 4 of 5 Checklist – Application for Notice of Review

Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. *  Yes  No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this  Yes  No review? *

Declare – Notice of Review

I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated.

Declaration Name: Mr Jon Newey

Declaration Date: 10/08/2018

Page 5 of 5

15-038

555 Castlehill, Edinburgh: Proposed external plant enclosure 10 August 2018

Statement of review

Introduction

This proposal is for the addition of some external plant in a small enclosure at the rear of the Tartan Weaving Centre at 555 Castlehill as shown on EKJN drawings 15- 038/54 and 55

The building at 555 Castlehill was constructed in 1851 as the old town reservoir, originally containing over 1.7 million gallons of fresh water fed from water supplies in Swanston, Comiston and Cawley. When the reservoir became surplus to requirements in the 1980s a design competition was held for ideas for its reuse. The competition was won by Ed Kelly Architects with a proposal to create a visitor attraction centred around Scotland’s tradition of tartan weaving. Planning consent for this conversion was granted in 1994 and the conversion work took place in 1995. The building is listed Grade B, sits within the Edinburgh Old Town conservation area and is within the Edinburgh World Heritage site.

In the 23 years since it opened the Edinburgh Tartan Weaving Centre has proved to be increasingly popular. Visitor numbers are now at a level where the facility needs some significant upgrades and alterations to manage the number of visitors in an effective manner and to keep the building fit for purpose, now and into the foreseeable future. To this end in 2016 the current owners applied for consent to increase the amount of internal floor space within the building, consent ref 16/00071/LBC granted 14 March 2016 and consent ref 16/02199/LBC granted 7 June 2016.

The proposed increase in internal floor space has brought with it the need for some peripheral improvements. Permission was sought and granted for increasing the size of the main entrance ref 16/05553/FUL and 16/05554/LBC granted 17 Feb 2017, and permission was sought and granted for increasing the width of the fire exits at the rear, ref 16/06070/LBC and 16/06069/FUL granted 6 Feb 2017.

This improvement work is all due to commence construction in January 2019.

Applications 18/02254/LBC and 18/02255/FUL

As part of the proposed improvements the owner wishes to improve the heating system in the building. The world has changed a great deal since the conversion of this building originally took place in 1994-5. A quarter of a century ago the carbon footprint of buildings was not always a significant consideration in their design. Today, however, we are very much aware of the way in which our buildings consume energy and the way in which they generate emissions. It is incumbent upon us to address these issues as part of a global imperative.

Edinburgh Architects Ltd T 01506 847151 T/A EKJN architects F 01506 846209 Bryerton House [email protected] 129 High Street www.ekjn.co.uk Linlithgow EH49 7EJ Company No SC529697

The Scottish Government has introduced the Climate Change Bill targeting a 42% reduction in Scotland’s carbon emissions by 2020. It is an ambitious target and a short timescale. We will not be able to achieve it if we have a change-averse mentality.

The heating system currently operating in the Weaving Centre is profligate in its use of energy and we can do much better with modern technology.

The proposal is to install modern air-source heat pumps to manage the thermal environment inside the building to the optimum efficiency, within the limitations of the historic building fabric with which we have to work. Heat pumps use condensers to extract low-grade heat from a building’s surroundings, converting it to high grade heat inside the building. It is the reverse of the way domestic fridges function, on a larger scale. The only energy heat-pumps consume is the electricity needed to drive the pumps and some cooling fans. For a building with such a large internal volume as the Weaving Centre this is the best way to manage the energy demands efficiently.

The condensers that make the system work need to be housed outside the building so that they can interact with the external environment. This brings the need for us to create a small enclosure somewhere outside the building.

Options for the external enclosure

We have examined the option of locating condensers on the Weaving Centre’s roof. There are significant difficulties in this option. First, the proximity of windows in nearby properties renders the proposal “impossible” according to pre-application comments from the Planning Officer, Elaine Campbell. Second, there is a potential impact on the world-renowned Edinburgh skyline, which is a significant aspect of the Old Town conservation area and of the World Heritage site. Third, there are health and safety issues relating to regular maintenance of the condensers that would need to be addressed by the addition of guard rails and walkways on the relevant parts of the roof to the further detriment of the skyline.

For all these reasons we have turned our attention instead to the landscaped area at the rear of the building.

The garden at the rear of the building

The landscaped area at the rear of the building is an attractive garden designed originally by Patrick Geddes when the adjacent Ramsay Gardens development of student flats was created in 1890-3. The west half of the garden belongs communally to the Ramsay Gardens development. The east half of the garden belongs to the Weaving Centre. Our attention is drawn to a small corner of the land owned by the Weaving Centre, tucked in behind the north access tower. This part of the garden is almost invisible from anywhere in the World Heritage site. In this part of the garden there is little valuable landscape, it being a wide area of red gravel chips adjacent to the north-facing wall of the building which gets very little sunlight.

This proposal is to create a small enclosure in this corner of the garden, concealing the external condensers for the new heat-pump system behind the existing tower and behind a new free-standing stone wall.

Significant points about this proposal

• The proposed enclosure will not have any physical connection to the listed building, the condensers and screen wall being free-standing. This means that in future years, if required, the enclosure and condensers could be removed and the gravel chips reinstated, returning the area to its original appearance with ease. • The condensers emit no gasses or fumes. • The condensers will generate a small amount of noise when they are running. The noise will be insignificant within the ambient background noise in this part of Edinburgh, and will be inaudible inside any of the neighbouring properties. The Weaving Centre is not generally operational at night or late into the evening other than during the Edinburgh Tattoo, when the ambient noise level will generally exceed any noise from the condensers. • We propose a solid stone screen wall to conceal the condensers, which will not look out of place in the setting. • The proposal puts the condensers at ground level where they can be maintained without putting maintenance staff at undue risk to their safety, as would be the case if they were on the roof. • The existing building will be enhanced by this proposal because it will allow us to remove some of the ductwork from the roof, installed in 1995. • To further enhance the garden we propose to include two bronze plaques on the new screen wall, one to describe the history of the garden and its relationship to Patrick Geddes, and one to describe the history of the Weaving Centre and the old town reservoir. Information plaques of this kind can greatly enhance the experience of visitors to the Gardens. Prior restrictions We note that the 1994 planning consent for the Weaving Centre included a condition that there should be no development within the garden area. However, many things have changed over the past two decades. The need to reduce the carbon footprint of our historic building stock is a greater priority now than it was in 1994 , and this proposal must be considered in today’s context. The restriction imposed in 1994 has not been repeated on any of the subsequent planning consents.

Refusal of consent and the need to appeal

Edinburgh City Council’s department of Planning has refused consent for both the planning application and the Listed Buildings application for this proposal.

The Planning Officer has stated that

“The proposed enclosure wall and plant machinery would result in the introduction of a prominent non-original feature into the garden area which contributes significantly to the setting of the building” and

“The enclosure would also interfere with the interpretation of the northern elevation to the detriment of the unique architectural and historical character of the building”.

We take issue with both these assertions.

First, the site is all but invisible. The proposal will be invisible from any public space, only visible from a small number of flats in the Ramsay Gardens development, and even then masked by several substantial trees. It will only be only evident to those who take it upon themselves to seek it out. We do not believe that it cannot honestly be described as 'prominent'.

Second, the proposal will not 'significantly' affect the setting of the listed building. No- one will be able to see it, or be aware that it exists unless they go looking for it. We believe its impact on the listed building and on the garden area cannot be honestly described as 'significant'. There will be no physical connection to the Listed building, no loss of historic building fabric, and no loss of historic landscape. The proposed compound could be removed at any time in the future and the red chip gravel reinstated. ‘Significant’ it surely is not.

We're aware that the garden is a Designed Landscape, but the part which we intend to use is not a significant part of the Designed Landscape. It is an unused and unloved patch of red gravel chippings in a hidden recess at the back of the building.

The proposal is so insignificant that Historic Environment Scotland see no reason to object. Their letter dated 7 June 2018 to the Planning Officer states “We have considered the information received and do not have any comments to make on the proposals”. There were insufficient objections from neighbours to trigger the need for either of the applications to be brought before the Planning Committee.

Conclusion

The proposal is unobtrusive, causes no nuisance to neighbours, is located on land the applicant owns, is reversible without detriment to the listed building or gardens, does not trouble Historic Environment Scotland and enhances the existing listed building in several ways, including the removal of unsightly plant from the roof and, more importantly, by minimising the carbon emissions from a busy visitor attraction.

We understand that there has some resistance from neighbours, mostly not considered to be relevant Planning matters, we do not understand the Planning Department’s intransigence and lack of foresight.

We trust that the Review Body will see the value of this proposal in a wider (national and global) context and will thus be able to support it - if for no other reason than to show support the ambition of the Government’s Climate Change initiatives which cannot be delivered without making changes to the way we do things.

Jon Newey IMaPS RIAS Chartered Architect RIAS Accredited Sustainable Building Designer RIAS Accredited Conservation Architect APS registered Principal Designer

EKJN architects Do not scale this drawing. Use figured dimensions only. All dimensions given are in millimetres unless otherwise stated. All levels are in metres. All dimensions, levels shown on this drawing are to be verified by the contractor prior to the commencement of work. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architectural, structural, services drawings and specifications. The copyright of this drawing and all relevant information appearing on this drawing is reserved by EKJN Architects. Use or disclosure to any third party either wholly or in part is prohibited unless expressly authorised by EKJN Architects. Variations and modifications to work shown on this drawing shall not be carried out without prior permission of EKJN Architects, who accept no liability for alterations made to this drawing by any other party.

Notes

0 M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M

01 Plan As Proposed 1:100 @ A2

03 West Elevation As Proposed 1:100 @ A2

02 North Elevation As Proposed 1:100 @ A2

Revisions

Sheet Drawing Category A2 PLANNING

Project Edinburgh Weaving Centre

555 Castlehill Edinburgh

Drawing External heat/cool units As proposed

EKJN Architects Bryerton House : 129 High Street EK JN Linlithgow EH49 7EJ Web www.ekjn.co.uk Tel 01506 847151 ARCHITECTS Fax 01506 846209 Project Managers and CDM Coordinators E [email protected]

Scale Date By 1:100 April 2018 JRN Job no Drawing no Rev 15-038 54 A

0 M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M Do not scale this drawing. Use figured dimensions only. All dimensions given are in millimetres unless otherwise stated. All levels are in metres. All dimensions, levels shown on this drawing are to be verified by the contractor prior to the commencement of work. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architectural, structural, services drawings and specifications. The copyright of this drawing and all relevant information appearing on this drawing is reserved by EKJN Architects. Use or disclosure to any third party either wholly or in part is prohibited unless expressly authorised by EKJN Architects. Variations and modifications to work shown on this drawing shall not be carried out without prior permission of EKJN Architects, who accept no liability for alterations made to this drawing by any other party.

Notes

06 Location Plan 1:1250 @ A2

0 M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M

01 Site Plan As Existing 1:200 @ A2

05 Site As Existing

Revisions

Sheet Drawing Category A2 PLANNING

Project Tartan Weaving Centre

555 Castlehill Edinburgh

Drawing External condenser units 03 Roof vents As Existing back garden as existing

EKJN Architects Bryerton House : 129 High Street EK JN Linlithgow EH49 7EJ Web www.ekjn.co.uk West elevation As Existing Tel 01506 847151 North Elevation As Existing 04 ARCHITECTS Fax 01506 846209 02 1:200 @ A2 Project Managers and CDM Coordinators E [email protected] Scale Date By 1:200 @ A2 1:200 April 2018 JRN Job no Drawing no Rev 15-038 55 A

Local Review Body Support Team City of Edinburgh Planning Local Review Body Waverley Court – Business Unit G2 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh EH8 8BG

WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO THE LOCAL REVIEW BODY in RESPECT OF PLANNING APPLICATION 18/02255/FUL – Mr Lully Gold

Your reference 18/00158/REVREF

This submission to the Local Review Body is presented on behalf of the Ramsay Garden Proprietors Association (The Association).

The Association undertakes its responsibilities in accordance with the Regulations established by Patrick Geddes and recorded in the General Register of Sasines for the County of Edinburgh on 29 May 1897.

Together with other duties, the Association is required to “…to take charge of the gardens, grounds, railings, walls, paths and roadways……………” on behalf of the owners of the 37 individual properties that in total consist of Ramsay Garden.

The overall garden area referred to in this application is jointly owned by G & L Attractions and the Association on behalf of the property owners. The whole area, by mutual agreement, is maintained by the Association.

On 9 June 2018, the Association submitted a Note of Objections to the original Application for Planning Permission. A copy is attached.

Specific points that the Association would seek to highlight to the Local Review Body

The Association understands that its previous presentation to the Council is passed to the Local Review Body.

The purpose of this paper is therefore to draw the attention of the Review Body to some specific issues, as highlighted by the Council when Refusing the Application, together with making comment on parts of the Statement of Review as submitted by the Applicant.

Page 1 of 4

• The Association strongly supports the original decision by the Council to Refuse this Planning Application.

• The Association notes that 16 Comments to this Planning Application were submitted to the Council. All are recorded as Objections. We also note that 14 of these Comments were submitted by adjacent residents. In addition, many Ramsay Garden residents expressed the view that the Association would be the most effective way by which their combined opposition to this Application should be presented to the Council rather than by the submission of a plethora of individual comments that would largely highlight the same points of objection.

This Planning Application has been much talked about within the local community and, as the long-term Secretary, I have yet to have a conversation with anyone who supports this proposed development.

Such a situation reflects the Association’s view that there is significant local opposition to this Application.

The continuing preservation of this historic and important Old Town garden, from any form of commercial development, is seen as a cause that requires the strongest possible support. This, in its entirety, is a significantly important area of garden. The Applicant can argue that the area of land involved is relatively small. However, we would strongly counter that assertion by highlighting that it is nonetheless an important part of the overall landscaping of this historic garden as was created by Patrick Geddes and maintained as such ever since.

• The Applicant was completely aware, when the Tartan Weaving Centre was purchased from its previous owners, that the Council had already placed a restriction on the use of the garden area.

• All, who buy properties within this area of the Old Town, do so in the full knowledge that many planning restrictions exist to protect the importance of its historical nature.

Ramsay Garden alongside everyone else is subject to many planning restrictions. It is therefore only equitable that all property owners comply with the planning restrictions on a level playing basis. This is especially important when the restriction on the use of the Patrick Geddes Garden was in existence prior to the current owners taking possession of the building.

• We cannot overstate the importance of the Patrick Geddes Garden as being the only space providing tranquillity within an area that is otherwise surrounded by an ever-increasing volume of tourists and visitors.

Page 2 of 4

Indeed, we would seriously doubt if there is any part of Edinburgh that experiences such a high level of footfall, noise and disruption. The loss of any part of the Patrick Geddes Garden by the introduction of the condensers, together with their sound emissions, would therefore be an enormous blow to the residents (and others) who greatly value this quiet space. Indeed, no information has been provided by the Applicant as to the level and nature of the sound emissions from the condensers.

• The Applicant has suggested that members of the Review Body might make a site visit. We would strongly support such a proposal. However, if such a visit is to take place with a representative of the Applicant being present, the Association would also seek to be present to ensure a fair balance between conflicting opinions

• The following statement made by the Applicant on Page 4 of the Statement of Review is grossly inaccurate and misleading.

“We're aware that the garden is a Designed Landscape, but the part which we intend to use is not a significant part of the Designed Landscape. It is an unused and unloved patch of red gravel chippings in a hidden recess at the back of the building.”

The Patrick Geddes Garden in its entirety has been maintained by contract gardeners who attend on a weekly basis. The area is maintained to the highest level possible for a north facing and shaded area. Photographs to substantiate this point have already been submitted.

In addition, a Garden Committee works closely (and actively) with the contract gardeners to ensure that the area is always maintained to a high standard – litter and rubbish are removed on a daily basis.

To state that the area is ‘unused and unloved’ is utterly ridiculous. This area is extensively used by the Applicant’s own staff on a daily basis, as they enjoy the tranquillity to eat their lunch or just chill out.

The area is equally enjoyed by the residents, senior members of the Tattoo staff and many visitors to Ramsay Garden. It is a stunning setting that is extensively photographed by many – but it is also a much needed space to escape from the manic activity taking place on Castlehill and surrounds.

• The Applicant on page 4 of its Statement of Review quotes from the response from Historic & Environment Scotland which reads as follows.

“We have considered the information received and do not have any comments to make on the proposals. Our decision not to provide comments should not be taken as our support for the proposals. This application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy on listed building consent, together with related policy guidance.”

Page 3 of 4

This response was submitted as part of the consultative process in respect of the application for Listed Building Consent (18/02254/LBC) and therefore forms no part of this Review.

Nonetheless, HES has not indicated support and has simply stated that the Application should be determined in accordance with National and Local Policy which is exactly what has taken place.

• And finally. As we understand the position the reason for this application is to facilitate an increase in the retail space within the Applicant’s premises for commercial gain.

The Applicant already has a considerable presence of retail outlets within a very close proximity of the Tartan Weaving Centre. It therefore seems quite extraordinary that, as part of the business and social life of this significantly historic part of Edinburgh, the Applicant should even consider that personal gain should be placed as more important than preserving a part of the legacy of Patrick Geddes.

Our Association and its predecessors have continuously maintained and conserved this garden area for over 120 years. It should never be threatened by the desire of an individual to place commercial gain ahead of the very legitimate planning restrictions, thoughtfully established over many years, to protect this historic part of the city against developments of this nature.

Conclusion

We would earnestly seek the support of the Local Review Body to uphold the decision taken by the Planning Department to Refuse this Planning Application.

Simon Bolam Secretary Ramsay Garden Proprietors Association 30 August 2018

Contact details – 3F1 14 Ramsay Garden, Edinburgh EH1 2NA

Page 4 of 4

Sarah Forsyth

From: Tim Williams < > Sent: 31 August 2018 09:41 To: Local Review Body Subject: Planning application 18/02255/FUL

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Categories: Red Category

Dear Sir/Madam,

I understand that you are carrying out a review of a planning application to which I objected, i.e. 18/02255/FUL submitted on behalf of G&L Attractions in connection with the Tartan Weaving Centre.

I understand that my original objection which I submitted to the Council has been forwarded to you and will be considered by the Review Body. I would like to emphasise that I stand by my original objection.

I am a resident in Ramsay Garden and so in addition to my original objection I would like to wholeheartedly endorse the additional submission to the Review Body made by the Ramsay Garden Proprietors Assocation (RGPA) on behalf of all the residents.

As the RGPA response makes clear the following statement made by the Applicant on Page 4 of the Statement of Review is entirely inaccurate and misleading.

We, the residents of Ramsay Garden, use the garden area constantly and for many years have paid for contract gardeners to maintain the garden. The applicant may regard it as unloved as it is out of sight behind their building, but it is the centre of our courtyard and is overlooked by almost every property in Ramsay Garden.

Please do not allow this rampant commercialisation to further erode the character of this part of the Old Town which is already suffering hugely under the influx of very large numbers of tourists. We recognise the economic benefit that the tourists bring to the City and by and large we are prepared to put up with the significant disruption that it causes. But, if granted, this application will permanently degrade the peaceful nature of the garden, which contrary to the applicants assertion is regularly used and much loved by the residents of Ramsay Garden.

Regards

Tim Williams

11/1 Ramsay Garden, Edinburgh, EH1 2NA

DECISION NOTICE AND REPORT OF HANDLING

Application address - 555 Castlehill Edinburgh EH1 2ND

Application Ref. No - 18/02429/FUL

Review Ref No - 18/00159/REVREF

Review Lodged Date 10.08.2018

EKJN Architects. G&L Attractions Ltd. Bryerton House FAO: Mr Lully Gold 129 High Street 555 Castlehill Linlithgow Edinburgh EH49 7AQ Scotland EH1 2ND

Date: 27 July 2018,

Your ref:

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACTS

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013

Construct new entrance into the building from Ramsay lane.

At 555 Castlehill Edinburgh EH1 2ND

Application No: 18/02429/FUL

DECISION NOTICE

With reference to your application for Planning Permission registered on 29 May 2018, this has been decided by Local Delegated Decision. The Council in exercise of its powers under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts and regulations, now determines the application as Refused in accordance with the particulars given in the application.

Any condition(s) attached to this consent, with reasons for imposing them, or reasons for refusal, are shown below;

Conditions:-

Reason for Refusal:-

1. The proposal would not preserve the character and appearance of the Old Town Conservation Area; and which would have an adverse impact on the unique architectural and historical character of the listed building. The proposal is contrary to policies Env 4 and Env 6 of the adopted Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP) and the Council's Non-Statutory Guidance for Businesses.

Please see the guidance notes on our decision page for further information, including how to appeal or review your decision.

Drawings 01 - 03, represent the determined scheme. Full details of the application can be found on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services

The reason why the Council made this decision is as follows:

The proposal would form a significant non-original intervention to the building which would not preserve the character and appearance of the Old Town Conservation

Area; and which would have an adverse impact on the unique architectural and historical character of the listed building. The proposal is contrary to policies Env 4 and Env 6 of the adopted Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP) and the Council's Non-Statutory Guidance for Businesses.

This determination does not carry with it any necessary consent or approval for the proposed development under other statutory enactments.

Should you have a specific enquiry regarding this decision please contact James Allanson directly on 0131 529 3946.

David R. Leslie Chief Planning Officer PLACE The City of Edinburgh Council

NOTES

Report of Handling

Application for Planning Permission 18/02429/FUL

At 555 Castlehill, Edinburgh, EH1 2ND Construct new entrance into the building from Ramsay lane.

Item Local Delegated Decision Application number 18/02429/FUL Wards B11 - City Centre

Summary

The proposal would form a significant non-original intervention to the building which would not preserve the character and appearance of the Old Town Conservation Area; and which would have an adverse impact on the unique architectural and historical character of the listed building. The proposal is contrary to policies Env 4 and Env 6 of the adopted Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP) and the Council's Non-Statutory Guidance for Businesses.

Links

Policies and guidance for LDPP, LEN04, LEN06, NSG, NSBUS, CRPOLD,

this application

Report of handling

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below..

Background

2.1 Site description

The building is category B listed, (listing date 13.08.1987, listing reference: LB27962).

The site is located in the UNESCO World Heritage Site.

This application site is located within the Old Town Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

29 November 1995 - Mixed decision to convert existing building to a weaving centre (including alterations) (application number 95/01683). Rooftop canopy projection refused.

25 February 2014 - Planning permission refused and appeal dismissed for the creation of a new additional entrance doorway to alleviate pedestrian congestion. New doorway to match the materiality detailing and character of the adjacent openings on the facade (application number 14/00155/FUL).

25 February 2014 - Listed building consent refused and appeal dismissed for the creation of a new additional entrance doorway to alleviate pedestrian congestion. New doorway to match the materiality detailing and character of the adjacent openings on the facade (application number 14/00124/LBC).

07 June 2016 - Listed building consent granted to Increase floor area to Level 3 to provide additional retail space (application number 16/02199/LBC).

6 February 2017 - Planning permission granted to enhance two existing external fire escape doors and introduce new internal fire stair enclosure (application number 16/06069/FUL).

17 February 2017 - Listed building consent granted to increase the size of an existing entrance doorway and create new access platt (application number 16/05554/LBC).

16 February 2017 - Planning permission granted to Increase size of existing entrance doorway and create new access platt (application number 16/05553/FUL).

15 May 2018 - Applications for listed building consent and planning permission for new plant machinery withdrawn (application numbers: 18/01817/FUL and 178/01816/LBC).

21 May 2018 - Applications submitted for planning permission and listed building consent for the installation of new plant machinery to the north of the building (application numbers: 18/02254/LBC 18/02255/FUL).

29 May 2018 - Application submitted for listed building consent for the formation of a new pedestrian entrance (application number 18/02254/LBC).

Main report 3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The proposal seeks planning permission for the formation of a new access door to be formed on the eastern elevation of the building. The access would be situated close to the south eastern corner of the building and would consist of sliding folding timber doors with a steel lintel painted black.

Supporting Document

The applicant has submitted the following supporting document which can be viewed via planning and building standards online services:

• Design Statement

3.2 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.

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?

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, it needs to be considered whether:

a) Character and Appearance of the Old Town Conservation Area

Policy Env 6 of the LDP states that development within a conservation area will be permitted which preserves or enhances the special character or appearance of the conservation area and is consistent with the relevant conservation area character appraisal. The Old Town Conservation Area highlights the manner in which Castlehill forms a key part of the area's historical character stating:

The alignment of the Royal Mile is also subject to the underlying natural topography and is not straight. Its gentle twists reflect the setting and the work involved in its original creation. It also varies considerably in width, the narrow uppermost stretch along Castlehill being more typical of a medieval Street before widening out on to the Lawnmarket and High Street sections.

The premises forms an important historical building which is sited in an important location close to the Castle esplanade. The proposal would involve the insertion of a non-original feature within a highly visible location on the building, close to the junction between Ramsay Lane and Castlehill. This would result in a significant disruption to the original fabric of the building, in particular the channelled stone rustication which runs along the external elevations of the lower levels of the building and which provides a strong sense of visual definition contributing to the character of the streetscape. A larger vehicle entrance is already located further to the north along this elevation, and the creation of an additional entrance would severely compromise the historic character of the building as whole, to the detriment of the character of the wider area.

The proposal would not preserve the character and appearance of the Old Town Conservation Area and is contrary to LDP Env 6.

b) Unique Architectural and Historical Character of the Listed Building

Policy Env 4 of the adopted Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP) states that proposals to alter or extend a listed building will be permitted where those alterations or extensions are justified, will not cause any unnecessary damage to historic structures or diminish its interest and where any additions are in keeping with other parts of the building.

As highlighted in section a) of the main report, the proposal would result in the loss of a section of original historical fabric in a prominent location which provides a strong sense of visual definition to the building. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the unique architectural and historical character of the building and is contrary to LDP Env 4.

c) Issues Raised in Representations

One letter of objection to the proposal was received. However, this letter did not raise any issues which are material to the determination of this application.

d) Equalities and Human Rights

The proposal has been assessed and does not raise any issues in respect of equalities and human rights.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposal would form a significant non-original intervention to the building which would not preserve the character and appearance of the Old Town Conservation Area; and which would have an adverse impact on the unique architectural and historical character of the listed building. The proposal is contrary to policies Env 4 and Env 6 of the adopted Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP) and the Council's Non-Statutory Guidance for Businesses.

It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Reason for Refusal:-

Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

4.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low.

Equalities impact

5.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights.

Consultation and engagement

6.1 Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

6.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

One letter of objection was received from a member of the public.

Background reading / external references

 To view details of the application go to  Planning and Building Standards online services

David R. Leslie Statutory Development Plan Provision The site is located in the UNESCO World Heritage Site in the LDP.

Date registered 29 May 2018

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01 - 03

Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: James Allanson, Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3946

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Local Development Plan.

LDP Policy Env 4 (Listed Buildings - Alterations and Extensions) identifies the circumstances in which alterations and extensions to listed buildings will be permitted.

LDP Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas - Development) sets out criteria for assessing development in a conservation area.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

Appendix 1

Consultations

No consultations undertaken.

END

Business Centre G.2 Waverley Court 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG Tel: 0131 529 3550 Fax: 0131 529 6206 Email: [email protected]

Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid.

Thank you for completing this application form:

ONLINE REFERENCE 100113949-003

Applicant or Agent Details

Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application)  Applicant Agent Agent Details

Please enter Agent details

EKJN architects Company/Organisation:

Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Jon Bryerton House First Name: * Building Name:

Newey 129 Last Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 High Street Telephone Number: * 01506 847151 (Street): *

Extension Number: Address 2:

Linlithgow Mobile Number: Town/City: *

Scotland Fax Number: Country: *

EH49 7EJ Postcode: *

Email Address: * [email protected]

Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? *

 Individual  Organisation/Corporate entity

Page 1 of 5 Applicant Details

Please enter Applicant details

Mr Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Other Title: Building Name:

Lully 555 First Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Gold Castlehill Last Name: * (Street): *

G&L attractions Company/Organisation Address 2:

Edinburgh Telephone Number: * Town/City: *

Scotland Extension Number: Country: *

EH1 2ND Mobile Number: Postcode: *

Fax Number:

Email Address: *

Site Address Details

Planning Authority: City of Edinburgh Council

Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available):

555 CASTLEHILL Address 1:

Address 2:

Address 3:

Address 4:

Address 5:

Town/City/Settlement: EDINBURGH

EH1 2ND Post Code:

Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites

673541 325396 Northing Easting

Page 2 of 5 Description of Proposal

Construct new entrance into the building from Ramsay lane. At 555 Castlehill Edinburgh EH1 2ND

Type of Application

What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? *

What does your review relate to? *

Statement of reasons for seeking review

The Planning Authority have made this decision under delegated powers but we do not consider they have given adequate consideration of the proposal. When we sough permission last year for changes to the main entrance on Castlehill the Planners entered into significant dialogue with us, but not this time. Other buildings in Edinburgh such as the Museum of Scotland have been allowed to create new entrances through the rusticated stone base walls, so it seems unjustified to refuse consent here.

Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the  Yes  No Determination on your application was made? *

Design statement Drawings 15-033/20a, 21a and 22a

Application Details

Please provide details of the application and decision.

What is the application reference number? * 18/02429/FUL

What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * 29/05/2018

What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * 27/07/2018

Review Procedure

By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates

Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it will deal with? (Max 500 characters) We consider a site inspection to be vital so that the Review Body can familiarise themselves with the site constraints and fully understand the context of the proposals.

In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion:

Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? *  Yes  No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? *  Yes  No

Page 4 of 5 Checklist – Application for Notice of Review

Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. *  Yes  No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this  Yes  No review? *

Declare – Notice of Review

I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated.

Declaration Name: Mr Jon Newey

Declaration Date: 10/08/2018

Page 5 of 5

15-033

555 Castlehill, Edinburgh: Proposed entrance from Ramsay Lane 26 May 2018

Design Statement

Introduction

This proposal is for a new entrance into the Tartan Weaving Centre at 555 Castlehill, entering from Ramsay Lane into Level 3 of the building, as shown on EKJN drawings 15-033/10 and 11

The building at 555 Castlehill was constructed in 1851 as the old town reservoir, originally containing over 1.7 million gallons of fresh water fed from water supplies in Swanston, Comiston and Cawley. When the reservoir became surplus to requirements in the 1980’s a design competition was held for ideas for its reuse. The competition was won by Ed Kelly Architects with a proposal to create a visitor attraction centred around Scotland’s tradition of tartan weaving. Planning consent for this conversion was granted in 1994 and the conversion work took place in 1995. The building is listed Grade B, sits within the Edinburgh Old Town conservation area and is within the Edinburgh World Heritage site.

Recent planning applications

The proposed increase in internal floor space has brought with it the need for some peripheral improvements. Permission was sought and granted for increasing the size of the main entrance ref 16/05553/FUL and 16/05554/LBC granted 17 Feb 2017 (constructed January 2018) and permission was sought and granted for increasing the width of the fire exits at the rear, ref 16/06070/LBC and 16/06069/FUL granted 6 Feb 2017.

This new proposal is related to these prior consents. It acknowledges that the location of the existing entrance to the building at the top of the Royal Mile can cause some pedestrian congestion in the region of the approach to the castle esplanade. The intention is to ease some of the congestion of pedestrians on the Royal Mile by encouraging some visitors to use a new entrance from Ramsay Lane, leading directly into the lower levels of the Weaving Centre.

Edinburgh Architects Ltd T 01506 847151 T/A EKJN architects F 01506 846209 Bryerton House [email protected] 129 High Street www.ekjn.co.uk Linlithgow EH49 7EJ Company No SC529697

Significant points about this proposal

• The proposed new entrance will be created within the rusticated podium of the east elevation of the building, leaving the more ornate piano nobile elements of this elevation unaffected. There is some precedent for this approach, e.g. the new entrance to the National Museum of Scotland from Chambers Street and the rear access into the Lloyds Bank HQ from Market Street. • The main elevation of the building facing the Royal Mile is unaffected by these proposals. • The exact location of the new entrance within the East elevation is set by the relative levels of Ramsay Lane vs the floor level of Level 3 within the building and the need to create barrier-free access. • The detailing of the new entrance will include an exposed steel lintel and folding iroko doors, similar in design to the new main entrance which was granted consent in February 2017 and constructed in January 2018. • The new entrance will sit in the same elevation as the service access which was created on the Ramsay Lane elevation in the original 1994 proposals.

Conclusion

The proposal causes no detriment to any neighbouring property.

The design follows precedents previously set on this building and on other buildings elsewhere in Edinburgh.

The design minimises the loss of important architectural features on the listed building.

The proposal enhances the existing listed building by improving the flow of visitors into/around the building.

Whilst the enlarged main entrance into the Weaving Centre from Castlehill has helped to ease some of the pedestrian congestion at the approach to the castle esplanade, this new entrance into the Weaving Centre from Ramsay Lane will further ease the flow of visitors in/around this part of the World Heritage site, to the benefit of the Weaving Centre but also to the general benefit of this busy part of the Old Town.

Jon Newey IMaPS RIAS Chartered Architect RIAS Accredited Sustainable Building Designer RIAS Accredited Conservation Architect APS registered Principal Designer

EKJN architects

555 Castlehill, Edinburgh. 01 – as existing May 2018

555 Castlehill, Edinburgh. 02– as proposed May 2018

A JRN By Rev WARRANT 20 EKJN Architects Bryerton House 129 High Street Linlithgow EH49 7EJ Web www.ekjn.co.uk Tel 01506 847151 Fax 01506 846209 E [email protected] June 2018 Date Drawing no JN : liability for alterations made to this drawing by any other party. liability for alterations made to this drawing by Drawing Category 555 Castlehill, Edinburgh Proposed new entrance from Ramsay Lane into level 3 Location Plan Block plan 1:100@A1 15-033 Project Managers and Principal Designers drawing shall not be carried out without prior permission of EKJN Architects, who accept no drawing shall not be carried out without prior ARCHITECTS expressly authorised by EKJN Architects. Variations and modifications to work shown on this expressly authorised by EKJN Architects. Variations EK copyright of this drawing and all relevant information appearing on this drawing is reserved by and all relevant information appearing on this copyright of this drawing conjunction with all relevant architectural, structural, services drawings and specifications. The architectural, structural, services drawings conjunction with all relevant Do not scale this drawing. Use figured dimensions only. All dimensions given are in millimetres Use figured dimensions only. All dimensions Do not scale this drawing. A1 EKJN Architects. Use or disclosure to any third party either wholly or in part is prohibited unless disclosure to any third party either wholly or EKJN Architects. Use or to be verified by the contractor prior to the commencement of work. This drawing is to be read in prior to the commencement of work. to be verified by the contractor Notes Revisions unless otherwise stated. All levels are in metres. All dimensions, levels shown on this drawing are All levels are in metres. All dimensions, levels unless otherwise stated. Project Drawing Sheet Scale Job no

0 M 5 M 10M 15M 20M Location Block Plan 1:1250 @ A1 1:100 @ A1 01 02 Do not scale this drawing. Use figured dimensions only. All dimensions given are in millimetres unless otherwise stated. All levels are in metres. All dimensions, levels shown on this drawing are to be verified by the contractor prior to the commencement of work. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architectural, structural, services drawings and specifications. The copyright of this drawing and all relevant information appearing on this drawing is reserved by EKJN Architects. Use or disclosure to any third party either wholly or in part is prohibited unless expressly authorised by EKJN Architects. Variations and modifications to work shown on this drawing shall not be carried out without prior permission of EKJN Architects, who accept no liability for alterations made to this drawing by any other party.

Notes

01 Plan on Level 3 1:50 @ A1

02 Elevation 1:50 @ A1

Revisions

Sheet Drawing Category A1 WARRANT

Project 555 Castlehill, Edinburgh Proposed new entrance from Ramsay Lane into Level 3

Drawing Plan and elevation as existing

EKJN Architects Bryerton House : 129 High Street EK JN Linlithgow EH49 7EJ Web www.ekjn.co.uk Tel 01506 847151 ARCHITECTS Fax 01506 846209 Project Managers and Principal Designers E [email protected] 0 M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M Scale Date By 1:50@A1 June 2018 JRN Job no Drawing no Rev 15-033 21 A Do not scale this drawing. Use figured dimensions only. All dimensions given are in millimetres unless otherwise stated. All levels are in metres. All dimensions, levels shown on this drawing are to be verified by the contractor prior to the commencement of work. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architectural, structural, services drawings and specifications. The copyright of this drawing and all relevant information appearing on this drawing is reserved by EKJN Architects. Use or disclosure to any third party either wholly or in part is prohibited unless expressly authorised by EKJN Architects. Variations and modifications to work shown on this drawing shall not be carried out without prior permission of EKJN Architects, who accept no liability for alterations made to this drawing by any other party.

Notes

Existing Construction

Where existing construction is shown on this drawing the details of the existing construction are indicative unless stated otherwise

WORKMANSHIP

Insulation generally: Fill all voids as specified. Leave no gaps. Do not compress insulation Leave no cold spots.

Vapour Barriers generally: Vapour barriers are to be un-damaged. Repair any holes or tears with proprietary foil tape. Seal all service penetrations, cables, pipes etc. Seal all junctions between adjacent vapour barriers to make an airtight installation.

Leadwork: Comply with Lead Development Association guidelines for all leadwork. include all necessary lead wedges, clips and non-ferrous fixings. Ensure the completed installation is robust and weathertight.

Damp-proof membranes/courses: Ensure all damp-proof membranes are un-damaged. Repair any holes or tears. Seal all joints between sheets with proprietary tape. Seal all pipe penetrations, sleeved with dpm material for full depth of floor slab. Turn dpm up at slab edges and seal to dpc. Damp proof courses are to be continuous, lapped and sealed. Ensure a robust, damp proof construction at all junctions. Use proprietary pre-formed corners and angles wherever possible.

British Standards: All construction work is co comply generally with BS8000: Workmanship on Building Sites. BS8000:Part 1: Excavation and Filling BS8000 part 2: Concrete BS8000 part 3: Masonry BS8000 part 4: Waterproofing BS8000 part 5: Joinery 01 Plan on Level 3 BS8000 part 6: Slating and tiling 1:50 @ A1 BS8000 part 7: Glazing BS8000 part 8: Plasterboard BS8000 part 9: Screeds BS8000 part 10: Plastering and rendering BS8000 part 11: Tiling BS8000 part 12: Decorator work (also BS 6150) BS8000 part 13: Sanitaryware and drains BS8000 part 14: Underground drains BS8000 part 15: Plumbing (also BS 6700) BS8000 part 16: Sealants

Electrical installations are to comply with BS7671:2008

02 Elevation 1:50 @ A1

A B

Revisions

Sheet Drawing Category A1 WARRANT

Project 555 Castlehill, Edinburgh Proposed new entrance from Ramsay Lane into Level 3

Drawing Plan and elevation as proposed

A B EKJN Architects Bryerton House : 129 High Street EK JN Linlithgow EH49 7EJ Web www.ekjn.co.uk Tel 01506 847151 ARCHITECTS Fax 01506 846209 Project Managers and Principal Designers E [email protected] 0 M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M Scale Date By 1:50@A1 June 2018 JRN Job no Drawing no Rev 15-033 22 A

DECISION NOTICE AND REPORT OF HANDLING

Application address - Land 17 Metres East Of 153 Gilberstoun Edinburgh

Application Ref. No - 18/00812/PPP

Review Ref No - 18/00161/REVREF

Review Lodged Date 12.08.2018

Planning Solutions Edinburgh (Roslin). Mr Philip Hepburn Fao Nicholas Morris 12A Magdalene Avenue Midlothian Innovation Centre Edinburgh Pentlandfield Business Park EH15 3BH Roslin Midlothian EH25 9RE

Date: 16 May 2018,

Your ref:

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACTS

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013

Planning permission in principle to build one three bedroom detached villa with a driveway and landscaped garden.

At Land 17 Metres East Of 153 Gilberstoun Edinburgh

Application No: 18/00812/PPP

DECISION NOTICE

With reference to your application for Planning Permission in Principle registered on 22 February 2018, this has been decided by Local Delegated Decision. The Council in exercise of its powers under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts and regulations, now determines the application as Refused in accordance with the particulars given in the application.

Any condition(s) attached to this consent, with reasons for imposing them, or reasons for refusal, are shown below;

Conditions:-

Reasons:-

1. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Des 1 in respect of Design Quality and Context, as the proposal does not draw upon the positivecharacteristics of the surrounding area.

2. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Des 3 in respect of Development Design - Incorporating and Enhancing Existing and Potential Features, as existing features worthy of retention have not been given careful consideration.

3. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Env 18 in respect of Open Space Protection, as there will be no local benefit in allowing the development and there is a lack of open space within the area.

4. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Hou 1 in respect of Housing Development, as the proposal is not in line with other policies within the Local Development Plan.

Please see the guidance notes on our decision page for further information, including how to appeal or review your decision.

Drawings 01, represent the determined scheme. Full details of the application can be found on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services

The reason why the Council made this decision is as follows:

The proposal is contrary to the Edinburgh Local Development Plan in that the proposal does not respect the quality and character of the immediate and wider area and does not respect the spatial pattern of the area. There are no material considerations on which to justify granting planning permission.

This determination does not carry with it any necessary consent or approval for the proposed development under other statutory enactments.

Should you have a specific enquiry regarding this decision please contact Sheila Bernard directly on 0131 529 4509.

David R. Leslie Chief Planning Officer PLACE The City of Edinburgh Council

NOTES

Report of Handling

Application for Planning Permission in Principle 18/00812/PPP

At Land 17 Metres East Of 153, Gilberstoun, Edinburgh Planning permission in principle to build one three bedroom detached villa with a driveway and landscaped garden.

Item Local Delegated Decision Application number 18/00812/PPP Wards B17 - Portobello/Craigmillar

Summary

Links

Policies and guidance for LDPP, LDES01, LDES03, LHOU01, LEN18, LEN18,

this application

Report of handling

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below..

Background

2.1 Site description

The application site is a wooded area which is bounded to the north by an area of designated open space which continues south on the opposite side of the road. The surrounding area is predominantly residential.

2.2 Site History

23/12/2016 - An application for planning permission in principle was refused for the clearance of an area approximately 405 square metres of existing woodland and for the erection of a three bedroom house. (16/05499/PPP)

21/02/2017 - A review of the refusal of (16/05449/PPP) was upheld for the refusal for the clearance of an area approximately 405 square metres of existing woodland and for the erection of a three bedroom house. (17/00018/REVREF)

Main report 3.1 Description Of The Proposal

Planning Permission in Principle is sought for the erection of one, three bedroom detached villa with a driveway and landscaped garden.

3.2 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?

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, it needs to be considered whether:

a) The proposal of housing is acceptable in principle on the site; b) Any comments have been addressed.

a) PRINCIPLE

The site is subject to a previous application of the same nature, although this application now has a change in circumstances. The site previously consisted of an area of trees which provided a woodland edge for the more mature trees. However the majority of the woodland edge has now been cleared, leaving a single row along the front of the pedestrian route through Gilberstoun.

Policy HOU01 states that priority will be given to the delivery of housing land supply and the relevant infrastructure as detailed in part 1, section 5 of the plan including on other suitable sites in the urban area, provided proposals are compatible with other policies in the plan.

The proposed site is not a suitable site within the urban area and is contrary to policy HOU01 as it is not compatible with the following policies within the plan:

The proposal is contrary to policy DES1 in that the proposal does not draw upon the positive characteristics of the area, with open space running through the estate and creating a clear division between the listed buildings and the newer properties of the 1990's. The proposal does not respect the quality and character of the immediate and wider environment and therefore will be damaging to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The proposal is also contrary to policy DES3 in respect of features worthy of retention. There has been no consideration given to the trees, the woodland, the landscape character or the biodiversity. The area of open space continues on either side of the road and creates a walking or cycling route through Gilberstoun to either Newcraighall or Brunstane. There has been no consideration given to providing a new habitat to further the conservation of biodiversity.

The proposal is also contrary to policy ENV12 in that the removal of the trees which formed part of a woodland edge has taken away the link between the two areas of open space Namely Newcraighall and Brunstane. This also provides a separation between the 1990's houses to the East of the site with the listed buildings to the west of the site, notably Brunstane Farm House and Brunstane Farm Cottages. If this application were to be granted the proposal would put pressure on the more mature trees within the designated open space.

There can be no determination on whether the proposal would comply with policy ENV16 as no information has been provided as to the impact on species or any mitigating measures.

Policy ENV18 aims to protect all open space, both publicly and privately owned, that contribute to the amenity of the surrounding area that provide or are capable of providing for the recreational needs of residents and visitors. The proposal is contrary to policy ENV18 for open space protection in that there will be no local benefit in allowing the development, it is not for a community purpose that would outweigh the loss of the open space, there is not an over provision of open space within this area and the loss of this open space would result in a detrimental impact on the character of the area.

The proposal is contrary to policies ENV10, ENV12 and ENV18 and is therefore not a suitable site within the urban area for housing development.

b) PUBLIC COMMENTS

Eight objections have been received, matters include:

Material representations: a) Loss of amenity in regards to noise in construction phase b) Loss of trees c) The design of the building is inappropriate d) Pedestrian safety e) Lack of green space for children f) Road safety issues

Non-material representations: a) Loss of view b) Set a precedent for more housing c) Applicant does not maintain land

All material representations have been addressed in the assessment, section 3.3(a)

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Reasons:-

4. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Hou 1 in respect of Housing Development, as the proposal is not in line with other policies within the Local Development Plan.

Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

4.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low.

Equalities impact

5.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights.

Consultation and engagement

6.1 Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

6.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

Eight objections have been received, matters include:

Non-material representations: a) Loss of view b) Set a precedent for more housing c) Applicant does not maintain land

All material representations have been addressed in the assessment, section 3.3(a)

Background reading / external references

 To view details of the application go to  Planning and Building Standards online services

David R. Leslie Statutory Development Plan Provision The application property is in the Urban Area designated in the Edinburgh Local Development Plan. There are no special designations on the site.

Date registered 22 February 2018

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01

Scheme 1

Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Sheila Bernard, Assistant Planner E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 4509

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Local Development Plan.

LDP Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated.

LDP Policy Des 3 (Development Design - Incorporating and Enhancing Existing and Potential Features) supports development where it is demonstrated that existing and potential features have been incorporated into the design.

LDP Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development) sets criteria for assessing the principle of housing proposals.

LDP Policy Env 18 (Open Space Protection) sets criteria for assessing the loss of open space.

Appendix 1

Consultations

ROADS AUTHORITY ISSUES

No objections to the application subject to the following being included as conditions or informatives as appropriate:

1. No access motor vehicle access will be permitted to be taken from the adopted footpath on the east of the proposed development;

2. Parking provision will be required to comply with the Council's parking standards;

3. Any off-street parking space should comply with the Council's Guidance for Householders (see http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/704/guidance_for_householder s) including: a. Off-street parking should be a minimum of 6m deep and a maximum of 3m wide; b. Access to any car parking area is to be by dropped kerb (i.e. not bell mouth); c. 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; d. Any gate or doors must open inwards onto the property; e. Any hard-standing outside should be porous, to comply with 'Guidance for Householders' published in December 2012; f. The works to form a footway crossing must be carried out under permit and in accordance with the specifications. See Road Occupation Permits http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/1263/apply_for_permission_to_create_o r_alter_a_driveway_or_other_access_point

END

Business Centre G.2 Waverley Court 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG Tel: 0131 529 3550 Fax: 0131 529 6206 Email: [email protected]

Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid.

Thank you for completing this application form:

ONLINE REFERENCE 100131362-001

Applicant or Agent Details

Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application)  Applicant Agent Agent Details

Please enter Agent details

Planning Solutions Edinburgh Company/Organisation:

Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Nicholas Midlothian Innovation Centre First Name: * Building Name:

Morris Last Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Pentlandfield Business Park Telephone Number: * 07960020354 (Street): *

Extension Number: Address 2:

Roslin Mobile Number: Town/City: *

Midlothian Fax Number: Country: *

EH25 9RE Postcode: *

Email Address: * [email protected]

Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? *

 Individual  Organisation/Corporate entity

Page 1 of 5 Applicant Details

Please enter Applicant details

Mr Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Other Title: Building Name:

Philip 12A First Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Hepburn Magdaline Avenue Last Name: * (Street): *

Company/Organisation Address 2:

Edinburgh Telephone Number: * Town/City: *

Scotland Extension Number: Country: *

EH15 3DH Mobile Number: Postcode: *

Fax Number:

Email Address: *

Site Address Details

Planning Authority: City of Edinburgh Council

Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available):

Address 1:

Address 2:

Address 3:

Address 4:

Address 5:

Town/City/Settlement:

Post Code:

Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites

Cleared site 17ms east of 153 Gilberstoun

672401 331663 Northing Easting

Page 2 of 5 Description of Proposal

The proposal is to apply for planning permission in principle to build one three bedroom detached villa with a driveway and landscaped garden on a cleared site in Gilberstoun.

Type of Application

What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? *

 Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals).  Application for planning permission in principle.  Further application.  Application for approval of matters specified in conditions.

What does your review relate to? *

Statement of reasons for seeking review

See the attached report outlining the reasons for lodging an appeal.

Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the  Yes  No Determination on your application was made? *

Full detailed report, site plan, location map and photographs of the site and surrounding area.

Application Details

Please provide details of the application and decision.

What is the application reference number? * 18/00812/PPP

What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * 22/02/2018

What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * 17/05/2018

Review Procedure

By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates

Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it will deal with? (Max 500 characters) It is imperative that a site visit is undertaken by the LRB to fully appreciate the context of the proposal.

In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion:

Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? *  Yes  No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? *  Yes  No

Page 4 of 5 Checklist – Application for Notice of Review

Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. *  Yes  No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this  Yes  No review? *

Declare – Notice of Review

I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated.

Declaration Name: Mr Nicholas Morris

Declaration Date: 12/08/2018

Page 5 of 5

REFs 18/00812/PPP Planning permission in principle to build one three bedroom detached villa with a driveway and landscaped garden on land 17 Metres East of 153 Gilberstoun

PLANNING SOLUTIONS EDINBURGH (PSE)

MIDLOTHIAN INNOVATION CENTRE

PENTLANDFIELD

ROSLIN

MIDLOTHIAN

EH25 9RE

EMAIL: [email protected]

TEL: 0131-510-7004

Introduction This report provides the Grounds of Appeal against the decision to refuse planning permission in principle to build a three bedroom detached villa.

Terms of Reference We act for Mr Philip Hepburn

Description The site which is the subject of this appeal is in a recently cleared area of land sitting between two 1990’s villas.

Site History

The site is located in the north-eastern suburb of Brunstane. Most of the surrounding area was originally farmland until it was redeveloped in the 1990s primarily by Barratt Homes and then by Wimpey. The area still retains several listed buildings including Brunstane Farm Cottages, related to its farming history and the impressive Brunstane House. The current site which is the subject of the appeal was originally occupied by the site office and was earmarked for development. However, the site was never developed and much of the area became overgrown with vegetation.

This site has been previously subject to a planning application in principle which was refused on appeal. Since then there has been a material change of circumstances to the original site, which gave rise to a fresh proposal being submitted for consideration.

Having considered the Handling Report, the grounds of appeal provides further written evidence to support the appeal submission beginning with the background to the current proposal.

Background

A planning application to build one 3 bedroom villa, driveway and landscaped garden was submitted by Philip Hepburn. The application number was 18/00812/PPP which was registered on the 22nd February 2018. Refusal notice was issued on the 17th May 2018 The reasons for refusal are outlined in the extract from the Handling Report below:- “The site previously consisted of an area of trees which provided a woodland edge for the more mature trees. However, the trees have now been cleared, leaving a single row along the front of the pedestrian route through Gilberstoun. It was deemed that planning permission would not be granted for the reasons listed below.

The proposed site is not a suitable site within the urban area and is contrary to policy HOU01 as it is not compatible with the following policies within the plan:

There can be no determination on whether the proposal would comply with policy ENV16 as no information has been provided as to the impact on species or any mitigating measures.

The proposal is contrary to policies ENV10, ENV12 and ENV18 and is therefore not a suitable site within the urban area for housing development.”

Grounds for Appeal

Compliance with Des 1 and Des 3 The report states that the application was contrary to policy Des 1 as it does not draw on the characteristics of the area and not respect the quality of the immediate and wider environment. The proposal (although only for planning permission in principle) respects the design and context of the area and therefore would match what already exists in Gilberstoun, in particular the houses immediately north and south of the site which are typical 1990s new

3 build properties. As the development would be in Gilberstoun it is desirable for the style of the villa to match what currently exists and is typical of the area. The report also states that the design doesn’t take into account the context of its surroundings and should be more in keeping with the listed more traditional properties to the east of the site. The area of cleared land which is the subject of the proposal sits between 153 and 155 Gilberstoun and a narrow foot path. The site would ideally accommodate a villa of similar and style to those immediately adjacent to it. This would add some continuity to the street pattern. A property, which more closely resembles the design and choice of materials of Brunstane Farm Cottages would be out of context in the main street and would clash with the styling of the surrounding area, which is predominantly 1990s style housing. As the proposal was only for planning permission in principle it did not go into detail as to the precise design and choice of materials only and that it would be in keeping with what typically exists in the area and therefore draw upon the positive aspects of the surroundings. If full planning permission was applied for in the future the client would provide full front and rear elevations and details of the materials to be used in the construction of the house. The proposal is not in breach of policy Des 3 stated in the report as the site has been cleared in preparation for development and therefore has no trees or vegetation worthy of retention. This assertion was supported by the Forestry Commission and a tree report. Further, the villa has a 66m2 footprint within a 325m2 site, as stated in the application the garden will be landscaped and within the landscaping there is the potential to encourage biodiversity. Furthermore, the walking and cycle route will not be interrupted as there was no intention to block the route between Gilberstoun and Brunstane.

Compliance with ENV 10, ENV12 and ENV 18 The report also states that the proposal is contrary to ENV12 in that the removal of trees has taken away the link between two open spaces. There is no physical connection between the green corridor and the proposal as what was once a green corridor connecting the two areas has subsequently been blocked off by building two new houses. The report also states that the trees provides natural separation between Brunstane Farm Cottages and the 1990s houses. Brunstane Farm Cottages are set back from the proposal and would not be negatively impacted by the new house as there would still be adequate tree cover and would not be directly visible. The report also states that there would be undue pressure on the remaining trees within the wooded area. The trees on the site were removed 18 months ago after the client sought advice from the forestry commission and only after a detailed tree survey was commissioned. To date there has not been any adverse effect on the health of any of the remaining trees adjacent to the site, despite many weeks of adverse weather during the winter. The report goes on to say that the proposal is contrary to ENV18 which aims to protect open space. The site is not part of any green space provision and is described as urban land in Edinburgh Council’s Atlas and in the Local Development Plan and should not be considered as open space and therefore Policy ENV18 does not apply to the proposal. The map extract

4 included in this report, highlights different land uses in and around the north-eastern suburb of Brunstane and the inclusion of the proposal site as urban land (shown in white on the map) is quite distinct from the surrounding open space land shown on the map in green (See Figure 1). The report states the application doesn’t provide any detailed information on the impact on species or mitigating measures and therefore may not comply with ENV16. Before the site was cleared the client sought reassurances from the Forestry Commission that it was lawful to clear the site and there would be no adverse effect on the surrounding environment. Therefore, there wasn’t any requirement to factor in any mitigating measures as part of the new application as the site had already been cleared. The report quotes policy ENV18 which aims to protect open space for the recreational needs of residents and visitors and the proposal is contrary to the policy as the proposal would result in the loss of land defined as open space. The site is not classified as open space in either the Council Atlas or the Local Development Plan and both refer to the site as urban land, therefore the site should not be included as part of any open space provision in Gilberstoun. The application complies with ENV10 as the proposed development is not in the greenbelt. The application also complies with ENV12-Trees as the development site has no trees worthy of retention and adjacent trees would not be damaged as a result of any future development.

Conclusion The application draws upon the positive characteristics of the surroundings and will therefore not be detrimental to the 1990s housing or the listed buildings in the area. The development will not have a negative impact on the green corridor as the corridor has already been built on and therefore blocked off from the site. There are no trees on the site worthy of retention or subject to a Tree Preservation order. The proposal is not in the greenbelt or part of any open space provision and is classified as urban land.

Recommendations As the report has shown the proposal accords with the terms of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan and other material. Considerations, therefore we respectfully recommend that planning permission in principle is granted for this appeal.

Relevant Policies:

Edinburgh Local Development Plan policies

• LDP Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated. • LDP Policy Des 3 (Development Design - Incorporating and Enhancing Existing and Potential Features) supports development where it is demonstrated that existing and potential features have been incorporated into the design. • LDP Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development) sets criteria for assessing the principle of housing proposals. • LDP Policy Env 18 (Open Space Protection) sets criteria for assessing the loss of open space.

Annex 1

Fig 1 Location map. The dark green shaded area north east of the site has now been developed and two houses have been built blocking off the green corridor

Fig. 2 - Site plan

Fig 3- Map extract from LDP which shows the site as urban land. The green corridor is now blocked off by two new houses.

Fig. 4 Proposal site which is now cleared.

Fig.5 Brunstane Farm Cottages

Fig.6 Two new houses forming part of a courtyard which is now built on the green corridor

Fig. 7 A typical row of 1990s houses a few metres from the proposed site

Fig. 8 Footpath adjacent to site and Brunstane Farm cottages. The cottages are set well back from the proposal and the trees provide adequate screening.

DECISION NOTICE AND REPORT OF HANDLING

Application address - 12 Mary's Place Edinburgh EH4 1JH

Application Ref. No - 18/01516/FUL

Review Ref No - 18/00168/REVREF

Review Lodged Date 31.08.2018

Burns Interior Design. The Kitchen Group. Fao Paul McLaughlin 1 Comely Bank Road Carus House Stockbridge 201 Dumbarton Road Edinburgh Clydebank EH4 1DT Glasgow G81 4XJ

Date: 14 June 2018,

Your ref:

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACTS

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013

Partial change of use from flatted dwelling to ancillary storage for bar / restaurant on ground floor.

At 12 Mary's Place Edinburgh EH4 1JH

Application No: 18/01516/FUL

DECISION NOTICE

With reference to your application for Planning Permission registered on 17 April 2018, this has been decided by Local Delegated Decision. The Council in exercise of its powers under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts and regulations, now determines the application as Refused and Enforced in accordance with the particulars given in the application.

Any condition(s) attached to this consent, with reasons for imposing them, or reasons for refusal, are shown below;

Conditions:-

Please see the guidance notes on our decision page for further information, including how to appeal or review your decision.

Drawings 1-3, represent the determined scheme. Full details of the application can be found on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services

The reason why the Council made this decision is as follows:

The proposal creates a potential source of nuisance to neighbouring residents contrary to LDP policy Hou7 - Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas. The application is refused for this reason. As the application appears to be at least partially retrospective Enforcement Action is also necessary.

This determination does not carry with it any necessary consent or approval for the proposed development under other statutory enactments.

Should you have a specific enquiry regarding this decision please contact Stephen Dickson directly on 0131 529 3529.

David R. Leslie Chief Planning Officer PLACE The City of Edinburgh Council

NOTES

Report of Handling

Application for Planning Permission 18/01516/FUL

At 12 Mary's Place, Edinburgh, EH4 1JH Partial change of use from flatted dwelling to ancillary storage for bar / restaurant on ground floor.

Item Local Delegated Decision Application number 18/01516/FUL Wards B05 - Inverleith

Summary

Links

Policies and guidance for LDPP, LHOU07,

this application

Report of handling

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Refused and Enforced subject to the details below..

Background

2.1 Site description

The property is a first floor residential flat accessed from an external stair running on its west side. It lies over a ground floor pub/restaurant which extends from 1 Comely Bank Road (where it is entered), under the said stair, to absorb three former shop units at 9,10,11 Marys Place.

The flat itself (as viewed from the exterior) forms part of an early Georgian tenement. The tenement and the projecting shopfronts (9 to 11) are all listed as one item: 7 to 12 Mary's Place, which was listed category B on 27.10.1965.

This application site is located within the New Town Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

It is noted that no planning history can be found either on this flat or on the converted shop units below.

Main report 3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application seeks a "partial change of use" of a first floor residential flat to create an "ancillary" store serving the bar/restaurant on the ground floor.

The store occupies one of the front rooms of the flat.

The use appears at least partially retrospective as neighbours complain of refuse from the restaurant being stored in the flat.

3.2 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.

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?

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, it needs to be considered whether:

a) the reduction in residential area is acceptable b) the proposed use is acceptable both in relation to the existing flat and neighbouring flats c) comments are addressed

a) The application seeks the partial change of use of a residential flat, affected one front room and an access corridor.

The loss of residential accommodation (either partial or entire) is not in its own right contrary to policy. The impact on the amenity of the remaining first floor flat is discussed further, below.

b) LDP policy Hou7 considers Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas. A change of use which loses or potentially causes the loss of residential amenity should be resisted.

The flat and ground floor bar/restaurant are currently both in the control of the bar/restaurant, but this situation could change. It is noted that the bar/restaurant currently rents the flat in question from a third party.

If it were accepted that the store is an "ancillary" store of the ground floor bar/restaurant this then makes it part of that planning unit. As an ancillary part it could then be put to any other primary or ancillary function within that sui generis use. The location of an ancillary element of the bar within the first floor is wholly inappropriate.

Moreover, the store shares an access with the remaining residential flat. If ownership were ever to split this would create an uncomfortable relationship between the two uses, sharing an entrance stairway and outer lobby. The impact on the amenity of the remaining "flat" is unacceptable.

Even if the remaining residential nature of the flat in question is ignored (and this is to some degree in question), the issue of the juxtaposition of the store and the second floor residence still remains. This flat (accessed through the door at 8 Mary's

Place) lies immediately above the store and legitamately complain of loss of residential amenity due to late night noise from the store below.

The impact on that flat is contrary to policy Hou7.

c) It is agreed that the proposal intensifies the existing use to a degree which causes loss of residential amenity.

The loss of a family flat is not a specific reason for refusal but is not a desirable side effect of the proposal.

Although the building is listed (and the use will change what is seen through the windows) and the proposals will indirectly impact on the character, this impact on character is only indirectly affected by the change. and as such is not in its own right a secondary reason for refusal.

Conclusion

As the proposal appears to be either wholly or partially retrospective the application is both refused as being contrary to policy Hou7 and is also to be enforced.

It is recommended that this application be Refused and Enforced subject to the details below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Reasons:-

1. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Hou 7 in respect of Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas, as the proposed store is inappropriate both within the existing flat and in relation to neighbouring flats.

Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

4.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low.

Equalities impact

5.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights.

Consultation and engagement

6.1 Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

6.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 4 May 2018.

Thirteen objections were received, including comments from Cllr Gavin Barrie and Stockbridge and Inverleith Community Council. Reasons for objection were:

• intensification of non-residential use

• inappropriate use in a residential area/building

• storage of waste materials creates a health and safety risk

• the building is listed

• loss of a family flat

• possible noise nuisance

Background reading / external references

 To view details of the application go to  Planning and Building Standards online services

David R. Leslie Statutory Development Plan Provision Date registered 17 April 2018

Drawing numbers/Scheme 1-3

Scheme 1

Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Stephen Dickson, Senior planning officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3529

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Local Development Plan.

LDP Policy Hou 7 (Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas) establishes a presumption against development which would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of nearby residents.

Appendix 1

Consultations

Environmetal Protection

No response.

END

Business Centre G.2 Waverley Court 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG Tel: 0131 529 3550 Fax: 0131 529 6206 Email: [email protected]

Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid.

Thank you for completing this application form:

ONLINE REFERENCE 100091252-003

Applicant or Agent Details

Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application)  Applicant Agent Agent Details

Please enter Agent details

Burns Interior Design Ltd Company/Organisation:

Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Paul Carus House First Name: * Building Name:

McLaughlin 201 Last Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Dumbarton road Telephone Number: * 0141 951 1893 (Street): *

Clydebank Extension Number: Address 2:

Glasgow Mobile Number: Town/City: *

Scotland Fax Number: Country: *

G81 0TB Postcode: *

Email Address: * [email protected]

Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? *

 Individual  Organisation/Corporate entity

Page 1 of 5 Applicant Details

Please enter Applicant details

Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Other Title: Building Name:

1 First Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Comely Bank Road Last Name: * (Street): *

The Kitchen group Stockbridge Company/Organisation Address 2:

Edinburgh Telephone Number: * Town/City: *

Scotland Extension Number: Country: *

EH4 1DT Mobile Number: Postcode: *

Fax Number:

Email Address: *

Site Address Details

Planning Authority: City of Edinburgh Council

Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available):

12 MARY'S PLACE Address 1:

Address 2:

Address 3:

Address 4:

Address 5:

Town/City/Settlement: EDINBURGH

EH4 1JH Post Code:

Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites

674665 324287 Northing Easting

Page 2 of 5 Description of Proposal

Amended at instruction by planning department. We did not agree, but it would not have been registered unless we accepted this description: " Partial Change of use from flatted dwelling to ancillary storage for bar / restaurant on ground floor"

Type of Application

What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? *

What does your review relate to? *

Statement of reasons for seeking review

We do not agree with the reasons for refusal"the proposal is an inappropriate use for the residential area".The flat & ancillary store are above a restaurant. The street is a vibrant mixed use street with bars & eateries. Most residents are there to take advantage of the social scene. Initially the room was used for storage for the flat & over time as the premises got busier the Restaurant had to use the storage area. Without this deliveries will be more frequent & will cause more of a nuisance.

Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the  Yes  No Determination on your application was made? *

Doc 1 - original planning application, UFM2 planning refusal, Photo1 Street view west, photo 2 Street view east, 2329.01PL (A),2329.02PL (A) Existing ground floor and proposed first floor plans, 2329.03PL Design and access statement Doc, 2329.04PL Location plan, 2329.05PL Doc 2 statement of grounds for appeal.

Application Details

Please provide details of the application and decision.

What is the application reference number? * 18/01516/FUL

What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * 09/04/2018

What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * 14/06/2018

Review Procedure

By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates

Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it will deal with? (Max 500 characters) It is necessary to view the site of the planning application to witness it's location in relation to the bar and restaurant and the means of access to the storage on the first floor and how it's arrangement will have little impact on neighbours.

In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion:

Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? *  Yes  No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? *  Yes  No

Page 4 of 5 Checklist – Application for Notice of Review

Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. *  Yes  No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this  Yes  No review? *

Declare – Notice of Review

I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated.

Declaration Name: Mr Paul McLaughlin

Declaration Date: 30/08/2018

Page 5 of 5

Burns Interior Design. The Kitchen Group. Fao Paul McLaughlin 1 Comely Bank Road Carus House Stockbridge 201 Dumbarton Road Edinburgh Clydebank EH4 1DT Glasgow G81 4XJ

Decision date: 14 June 2018

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACTS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013

Partial change of use from flatted dwelling to ancillary storage for bar / restaurant on ground floor. At 12 Mary's Place Edinburgh EH4 1JH

Application No: 18/01516/FUL DECISION NOTICE

Any condition(s) attached to this consent, with reasons for imposing them, or reasons for refusal, are shown below;

Conditions:-

Reasons:-

Stephen Dickson, Senior planning officer, Local Developments and LB East, Place Directorate. Tel 0131 529 3529, Email [email protected], Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG Please see the guidance notes on our decision page for further information, including how to appeal or review your decision.

Drawings 1-3, represent the determined scheme. Full details of the application can be found on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services

The reason why the Council made this decision is as follows:

This determination does not carry with it any necessary consent or approval for the proposed development under other statutory enactments.

Should you have a specific enquiry regarding this decision please contact Stephen Dickson directly on 0131 529 3529. NOTES

650mm R wash up wash ladies toilet ladies 750mm R 750mm gents toilet gents kitchen Bar Bar / dining 0M SCALE BAR SCALE staff kitchen 1M 2M flat no 12 Mary's flat Placeno 12 Mary's first to floor only entrance 3M wash wash glass 4M 5M 6M Cellar KEY Bar Bar / dining bar servery bar of first floor foot print 7M printer on bar printer 8M floor of ground foot print 9M 10M listed building consent building listed license department license this is - a true copy of - the drawing referred to in application the this referred is copy - of - drawing a the true drawing lodged with the following local authority departments local following the with lodged drawing signed SCALE - SCALE 1:50 FIRST FLOOR AS PLAN EXISTING - control ofadverts planning dated bedroom staff lounge accomodation staff date project no. project drawn by drawn 2329 April 18 April flat roof PML bedroom staff w.c and room shower scale drg No. drg 1:50 @ A1&1:100 @ A3 @ A1&1:100 1:50 01PL kitchen room staff dining lobby A rev. client drawing project EH4 1JH edinburgh mary's12 place The ScranThe Scallie & Existing and Firstplans Ground Floor Access flatsto indicated over :REV A : PML 17/04/18 revisions level street & stair to landing external building terrace adjacent

Burns Design Limited : Carus House, 201 Dumbarton Road, Clydebank, Glasgow G81 4XJ. [t] 00 44 141 951 1893. [f] 00 44 141 952 2027. [e] [email protected] no Mary's 12 Place flats over floor and third entrance to second ( NO ) CHANGE - SCALE 1:50 FLOOR GROUND AS PLAN EXISTING toilet accessible

650mm R wash up wash ladies toilet ladies 750mm R 750mm gents toilet gents kitchen Bar Bar / dining 0M SCALE BAR SCALE staff kitchen 1M 2M flat noflat Mary's 12 Place entrance only to first floor 3M wash wash glass 4M 5M 6M Cellar KEY Bar Bar / dining bar servery bar of first floor foot print 7M first floor store on restaurant /bar printer on bar printer 8M floor of ground foot print 9M 10M listed building consent building listed license department license this is - a true copy of - the drawing referred to in application the this referred is copy - of - drawing a the true drawing lodged with the following local authority departments local following the with lodged drawing signed - SCALE - SCALE 1:50 FIRST FLOOR AS PLAN PROPOSED control ofadverts planning dated bedroom staff lounge accomodation staff date project no. project drawn by drawn 2329 April 18 April flat roof locked entrance to flat locked PML locked entrance to store locked bedroom staff w.c and room shower scale drg No. drg 1:50 @ A1&1:100 @ A3 @ A1&1:100 1:50 02PL kitchen resturant for area storage Ancilary lobby A rev. client drawing project EH4 1JH edinburgh mary's12 place The ScranThe Scallie & Existing First plans and Floor Proposed Ground Access to flats over indicatedAccess to flats over PML : 17/04/18 A REV : revisions level street & stair to landing external building terrace adjacent

Burns Design Limited : Carus House, 201 Dumbarton Road, Clydebank, Glasgow G81 4XJ. [t] 00 44 141 951 1893. [f] 00 44 141 952 2027. [e] [email protected]

DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT

PROJECT: 12 Mary’s Place, Stockbridge, Edinburgh, EH4 1JH

PROJECT NO: 2329.03PL

The First floor flat is currently used for staff who are from overseas and under training at the Scran and Scallie bar and restaurant and other premises run bythe Kitchen group. The flat has two bedrooms, a kitchen, bathroom, living room and dining room. The kitchen and dining area are generally not used for meals as the staff take the majority of meals in the Scran and Scallie.

Access:

The entrance to the flat is via an existing staircase / alley that runs up between the two ground floor areas of the Scran and Scallie.

It will not be possible to provide accessible access to the flat as the landing at the bottom and top are too restricted for the provision of a stair lift..

Design by neccessity:

The bar/restaurant is very successful and as a result has an ongoing issue with providing sufficient storage for the kitchen demands. Deliveries are frequent, but these have to take place outwith trading hours to prevent disruption to service and there is only so much that can be stored at a time after a delivery. In peak demand times such as weekends, the Fringe, christmas season, new year and tourist high season trade (75 % of the year) the storeage does not meet the demand of the kitchen and this proposed additional ancillary store will solve this. The Scran and Scallie has still got potential to grow the business and have a greater throughput of covers and as a result additional staff will be required to help service the additional customers.

The bar/restaurant currently lodges staff from overseas in the flat over which is owned by the Scran and Scallie. The staff are in training in the premises below and other premises run by The Kitchen Group. The staff generally take their meals in the bar/restaurant and do not have much need for the dining room or kitchen, albeit the kitchen has been retained and is fully operational and can be used by staff if they require. This is the reasoning to propose the use of the dining room for the much needed additional storage. The flat can also be easily separated from the proposed storage area.

assumptions should not be made. do not scale from this drawing. use written dimensions only. if unsure check revisions confirm all sizes on site prior to manufacture

112

108 104a 1

PORTGOWER\~PLACE 110 106 104b 104 102 16.2m area of flat undergoing change of use 9\~to\~13 1\~to\~7 TCB 16.5m Mary's\~Place

1 8 3 7

5\~to\~9 12 3 12

6\~to\~10

BEDFORD\~STREET

Bedford\~Street

north location plan 1:1250

project no. drg No. rev. client The Scran & Scallie 2329 04 project 12 Mary's place date scale Edinburgh April 2018 1:1250 @ A4 EH4 1JH drawn by drawing PML Location plan Burns Design Limited :201 House, Carus Road, Dumbarton Clydebank, Glasgow 4XJ. 00 G81 [t] 44 00 1893. [f] 951 141 44 952 141 2027. [e] [email protected] 2329.05PL Doc 2 Statement for grounds for appeal for planning refusal Prepared by Burns interior Design ltd. Site : The Scran and Scallie, 12 Mary’s Place, Edinburgh EH4 1JH Date 24/08/18.

Application no. 18/01516/FUL Partial Change of use from flatted dwelling to ancillary storage for bar/restaurant on ground floor.

The application was refused on the following grounds: “ The Proposal creates a potential source of nuisance to neighbouring residents contrary to LDP policy Hou7 – Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas.”

We would refute this for the following reasons:

1) The Flat over the premises is owned by the same owners as the Scran and Scallie and has been utilised as staff accommodation and staff storage. Since the premises opened, Staff continually come and go to the first floor flat throughout their shifts and have been doing so for 5 years. The Bar / Restaurant has become a victim of it’s own success and gradually the need to use the first floor storage are for the restaurant has increased, and it has been utilised for storage for over 4 years without any complaint from neighbours. 2) Planning has been applied for the change of use of this area of the flat as the client has recently been made aware that it is a statutory requirement and they wish to regularise it’s use, hence the application. 3) If this area cannot be utilised as a store, then deliveries would triple for this site to service customer demands which would inevitably cause much more frequent issues with parking and traffic. It may also jeopardise the success of the business. 4) The proposed use is for ancillary storage for the Restaurant on peak days and dates and is not constantly accessed. When it is accessed it is usually at the start and end of each service and is by way of a dedicated staircase between the two wings of the Scran and Scallie premises that are bisected by the said access stair which is the only access to the premises’s staff flat and proposed ancillary storage. This access is mostly obscured from vision and naturally deadens sound transmission. We therefore cannot see how the proposal would adversely affect the neighbours. The flats directly over the Scran and Scallie’s first floor staff flat, can only be accessed from their own dedicated access stair and close, so there is no interaction at anytime between staff of the Scran and Scallie and residents of the flats in the second and third floors . 5) The refusal specifically states with reference to LDP Hou7 policy -“ Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas”- This makes no sense, as the street that the Scran and Scallie is located has a vibrant leisure and social scene with several, restaurants, bars, cafes, beauty parlours and shops for almost a half mile stretch. The proposed use of a first floor room as storage is minor to say the least. Most residents who live in such a location, generally do so out of choice to experience a “village” within a city social lifestyle. 6) LDP Hou7 refers to mixed use residential areas and the need to protect the residential quality of life and specifically refers to the fact that it is there to prevent multiple occupation of a flat or house for 5 or more persons in the one premises. This proposed development neither increases or reduces the number of residents in the property and as the proposed storage area is self contained it cannot affect other residents in any detrimental way.

Business Centre G.2 Waverley Court 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG Tel: 0131 529 3550 Fax: 0131 529 6206 Email: [email protected]

Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid.

Thank you for completing this application form:

ONLINE REFERENCE 100091252-001

Type of Application

What is this application for? Please select one of the following: *

Application for planning permission (including changes of use and surface mineral working). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application, (including renewal of planning permission, modification, variation or removal of a planning condition etc) Application for Approval of Matters specified in conditions.

Description of Proposal

Please describe the proposal including any change of use: * (Max 500 characters)

first floor staff flat . staff diining area changed to ancillary storage for bar / restaurant on ground floor.

Is this a temporary permission? * Yes No

If a change of use is to be included in the proposal has it already taken place? Yes No (Answer ‘No’ if there is no change of use.) *

Has the work already been started and/or completed? *

No Yes – Started Yes - Completed

Applicant or Agent Details

Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent

Page 1 of 8 Agent Details

Please enter Agent details

Burns Interior Design Ltd Company/Organisation:

Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Paul Carus House First Name: * Building Name:

McLaughlin 201 Last Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Dumbarton road Telephone Number: * 0141 951 1893 (Street): *

Clydebank Extension Number: Address 2:

Glasgow Mobile Number: Town/City: *

Scotland Fax Number: Country: *

G81 0TB Postcode: *

Email Address: * [email protected]

Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? *

Individual Organisation/Corporate entity

Applicant Details

Please enter Applicant details

Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Other Title: Building Name:

1 First Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Comely Bank Road Last Name: * (Street): *

The Kitchen group Stockbridge Company/Organisation Address 2:

Edinburgh Telephone Number: * Town/City: *

Scotland Extension Number: Country: *

EH4 1DT Mobile Number: Postcode: *

Fax Number:

Email Address: *

Page 2 of 8 Site Address Details

Planning Authority: City of Edinburgh Council

Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available):

12 MARY'S PLACE Address 1:

Address 2:

Address 3:

Address 4:

Address 5:

Town/City/Settlement: EDINBURGH

EH4 1JH Post Code:

Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites

674665 324287 Northing Easting

Pre-Application Discussion

Have you discussed your proposal with the planning authority? * Yes No Site Area

Please state the site area: 137.00

Please state the measurement type used: Hectares (ha) Square Metres (sq.m)

Existing Use

Please describe the current or most recent use: * (Max 500 characters)

Flat utilised for staff in training accommodation with a staff dining area, that is redundant

Access and Parking

Are you proposing a new altered vehicle access to or from a public road? * Yes No If Yes please describe and show on your drawings the position of any existing. Altered or new access points, highlighting the changes you propose to make. You should also show existing footpaths and note if there will be any impact on these.

Page 3 of 8 Are you proposing any change to public paths, public rights of way or affecting any public right of access? * Yes No

If Yes please show on your drawings the position of any affected areas highlighting the changes you propose to make, including arrangements for continuing or alternative public access.

How many vehicle parking spaces (garaging and open parking) currently exist on the application 0 Site?

How many vehicle parking spaces (garaging and open parking) do you propose on the site (i.e. the 0 Total of existing and any new spaces or a reduced number of spaces)? * Please show on your drawings the position of existing and proposed parking spaces and identify if these are for the use of particular types of vehicles (e.g. parking for disabled people, coaches, HGV vehicles, cycles spaces).

Water Supply and Drainage Arrangements

Will your proposal require new or altered water supply or drainage arrangements? * Yes No

Do your proposals make provision for sustainable drainage of surface water?? * Yes No (e.g. SUDS arrangements) *

Note:-

Please include details of SUDS arrangements on your plans

Selecting ‘No’ to the above question means that you could be in breach of Environmental legislation.

Are you proposing to connect to the public water supply network? *

Yes No, using a private water supply No connection required If No, using a private water supply, please show on plans the supply and all works needed to provide it (on or off site).

Assessment of Flood Risk

Is the site within an area of known risk of flooding? * Yes No Don’t Know

If the site is within an area of known risk of flooding you may need to submit a Flood Risk Assessment before your application can be determined. You may wish to contact your Planning Authority or SEPA for advice on what information may be required.

Do you think your proposal may increase the flood risk elsewhere? * Yes No Don’t Know

Trees

Are there any trees on or adjacent to the application site? * Yes No

If Yes, please mark on your drawings any trees, known protected trees and their canopy spread close to the proposal site and indicate if any are to be cut back or felled.

Waste Storage and Collection

Do the plans incorporate areas to store and aid the collection of waste (including recycling)? * Yes No

Page 4 of 8 If Yes or No, please provide further details: * (Max 500 characters)

Existing provision in place

Residential Units Including Conversion

Does your proposal include new or additional houses and/or flats? * Yes No

All Types of Non Housing Development – Proposed New Floorspace

Does your proposal alter or create non-residential floorspace? * Yes No

All Types of Non Housing Development – Proposed New Floorspace Details For planning permission in principle applications, if you are unaware of the exact proposed floorspace dimensions please provide an estimate where necessary and provide a fuller explanation in the ‘Don’t Know’ text box below. Please state the use type and proposed floorspace (or number of rooms if you are proposing a hotel or residential institution): *

Class 6 Storage or Distribution

Gross (proposed) floorspace (In square meters, sq.m) or number of new (additional) 18 Rooms (If class 7, 8 or 8a): *

If Class 1, please give details of internal floorspace:

Net trading spaces: Non-trading space:

Total:

If Class ‘Not in a use class’ or ‘Don’t know’ is selected, please give more details: (Max 500 characters)

Schedule 3 Development

Does the proposal involve a form of development listed in Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Yes No Don’t Know Planning (Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013 *

If yes, your proposal will additionally have to be advertised in a newspaper circulating in the area of the development. Your planning authority will do this on your behalf but will charge you a fee. Please check the planning authority’s website for advice on the additional fee and add this to your planning fee.

If you are unsure whether your proposal involves a form of development listed in Schedule 3, please check the Help Text and Guidance notes before contacting your planning authority.

Planning Service Employee/Elected Member Interest

Is the applicant, or the applicant’s spouse/partner, either a member of staff within the planning service or an Yes No elected member of the planning authority? *

Page 5 of 8 Certificates and Notices

CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE UNDER REGULATION 15 – TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATION 2013

One Certificate must be completed and submitted along with the application form. This is most usually Certificate A, Form 1, Certificate B, Certificate C or Certificate E.

Are you/the applicant the sole owner of ALL the land? * Yes No

Is any of the land part of an agricultural holding? * Yes No Certificate Required

The following Land Ownership Certificate is required to complete this section of the proposal:

Certificate A Land Ownership Certificate

Certificate and Notice under Regulation 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013

Certificate A

I hereby certify that –

(1) - No person other than myself/the applicant was an owner (Any person who, in respect of any part of the land, is the owner or is the lessee under a lease thereof of which not less than 7 years remain unexpired.) of any part of the land to which the application relates at the beginning of the period of 21 days ending with the date of the accompanying application.

(2) - None of the land to which the application relates constitutes or forms part of an agricultural holding

Signed: Paul McLaughlin

On behalf of: The Kitchen group

Date: 09/04/2018

Please tick here to certify this Certificate. *

Checklist – Application for Planning Permission

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013

Please take a few moments to complete the following checklist in order to ensure that you have provided all the necessary information in support of your application. Failure to submit sufficient information with your application may result in your application being deemed invalid. The planning authority will not start processing your application until it is valid. a) If this is a further application where there is a variation of conditions attached to a previous consent, have you provided a statement to that effect? * Yes No Not applicable to this application b) If this is an application for planning permission or planning permission in principal where there is a crown interest in the land, have you provided a statement to that effect? * Yes No Not applicable to this application c) If this is an application for planning permission, planning permission in principle or a further application and the application is for development belonging to the categories of national or major development (other than one under Section 42 of the planning Act), have you provided a Pre-Application Consultation Report? * Yes No Not applicable to this application

Page 6 of 8 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 d) If this is an application for planning permission and the application relates to development belonging to the categories of national or major developments and you do not benefit from exemption under Regulation 13 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, have you provided a Design and Access Statement? * Yes No Not applicable to this application e) If this is an application for planning permission and relates to development belonging to the category of local developments (subject to regulation 13. (2) and (3) of the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013) have you provided a Design Statement? * Yes No Not applicable to this application f) If your application relates to installation of an antenna to be employed in an electronic communication network, have you provided an ICNIRP Declaration? * Yes No Not applicable to this application g) If this is an application for planning permission, planning permission in principle, an application for approval of matters specified in conditions or an application for mineral development, have you provided any other plans or drawings as necessary:

Site Layout Plan or Block plan. Elevations. Floor plans. Cross sections. Roof plan. Master Plan/Framework Plan. Landscape plan. Photographs and/or photomontages. Other.

If Other, please specify: * (Max 500 characters)

Design and access statement

Provide copies of the following documents if applicable:

A copy of an Environmental Statement. * Yes N/A A Design Statement or Design and Access Statement. * Yes N/A A Flood Risk Assessment. * Yes N/A A Drainage Impact Assessment (including proposals for Sustainable Drainage Systems). * Yes N/A Drainage/SUDS layout. * Yes N/A A Transport Assessment or Travel Plan Yes N/A Contaminated Land Assessment. * Yes N/A Habitat Survey. * Yes N/A A Processing Agreement. * Yes N/A

Other Statements (please specify). (Max 500 characters)

Page 7 of 8 Declare – For Application to Planning Authority

I, the applicant/agent certify that this is an application to the planning authority as described in this form. The accompanying Plans/drawings and additional information are provided as a part of this application.

Declaration Name: Mr Paul McLaughlin

Declaration Date: 09/04/2018

Payment Details

Online payment: Payment date: Created: 09/04/2018 11:30

Page 8 of 8 Sarah Stirling

From: David Stewart < > Sent: 10 September 2018 10:17 To: Local Review Body Subject: WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF REVIEW 18/001168/REVREF THE KITCHEN GROUP 12 MARY'S PLACE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF REVIEW 18/001168/REVREF THE KITCHEN GROUP 12 MARY'S PLACE

To whom it may concern,

My family owns a three bedroom flat at 8 Mary’s Place in Stockbridge; this is my daughter Rosie Stewart’s home which she shares with a flatmate.

For over a year (since July 2017 when Rosie moved in) she has been disturbed from noise emanating from the kitchen of the Scran & Scallie Restaurant and the residential flat directly below her which is owned by them and used as part of their kitchen operation in breach of planning laws.

Noise from this business (part of the Kitchin Group) keeps my daughter up until the early hours of the morning; the stress and lack of sleep are affecting her health and wellbeing. My daughter is regularly kept awake due to banging and excessive noise from this business which continues well after midnight and sometimes until after 2 a.m. and is woken by cleaners every morning as early as 5a.m. (it is common for her to only get 4 hours sleep due to the unreasonable nuisance caused by this business). Rosie has been communicating for months with the Council and the Kitchin Group F&B Manager Philippe Nublat but there seems to be no will or imperative for either party to do anything about the noise. I attended one of these meetings and unfortunately all we got from this company was lip service. There has been no “immediate and appropriate action” taken by Mr Nublat or the Group Chairman Ron Kitchin that has ameliorated the inacceptable levels of noise coming from this business.

The kitchen at the Scran & Scallie should be properly managed and closed‐down at an hour which respects the lives of neighbouring residents. There is no commercial imperative for the business to have people working and banging about their premises in the early hours of the morning. I would like to see the Scran & Scallies Operating Plan restricted so that the premises are vacated no later than 12 midnight every night. Last orders in the restaurant (according to their website) are taken at 10pm. This should allow all customers to have finished their meals by 11.30pm and adequate time for the kitchen to be cleaned down and premises vacated by midnight. I do not accept that there is an operational need for cleaners to open the premises and disturb neighbours with noise in the early morning. Most licensed premises in the city are not opened up before 8 a.m.

My daughter is a young professional woman who has every right to expect a good night’s sleep without constant disruption caused by a business which is operating out with planning law and with no consideration for its neighbours.

My family bought this property in the knowledge that there was a residential flat below us (between our floor and the Scran & Scallie Restaurant). It never occurred 1 to me that my investment and daughter’s well‐being would be in jeopardy due to the operation of a well‐respected restaurant operator two floors below!

Unfortunately throughout this whole process nothing has been done to curtail the noise levels and the working practices which allow staff to be still working/ creating unreasonable noise until the early hours of the morning.

The Scran & Scallie is set in a residential neighbourhood. Noise from this business and specifically from the flat in question (which is used for food, drink and keg storage) is already causing a public nuisance and adversely affecting the lives and health of a number of residents.

I cannot see any justification in changing the planning status of this residential property.

Yours faithfully,

David Stewart

David Stewart 9 Murrayfield Gardens Edinburgh EH12 6DG

Mobile Phone 0

DECISION NOTICE AND REPORT OF HANDLING

Application address - Land 22 Metres South Of 227 Portobello High Street Edinburgh

Application Ref. No - 17/02373/FUL

Review Ref No - 18/00167/REVREF

Review Lodged Date 24.08.2018

Whitelaw Associates. Mr Harem Murdochy Fao Tom Whitelaw 227 Portobello High Street Kitleybrig Cottage Edinburgh Kitleyknowe Scotland Carlops EH15 2AN Penicuik EH26 9NJ

Date: 7 August 2018,

Your ref:

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACTS

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013

Erection of two new houses.

At Land 22 Metres South Of 227 Portobello High Street Edinburgh

Application No: 17/02373/FUL

DECISION NOTICE

With reference to your application for Planning Permission registered on 13 June 2018, this has been decided by Local Delegated Decision. The Council in exercise of its powers under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts and regulations, now determines the application as Refused in accordance with the particulars given in the application.

Any condition(s) attached to this consent, with reasons for imposing them, or reasons for refusal, are shown below;

Conditions:-

Reasons:-

2. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Des 2 in respect of Co-ordinated Development, as the proposal would compromise the effective development of adjacent land

3. The quality of the environment and amenity of the proposed houses would be substandard, contrary to LDP policy Des 5 - Development Design - Amenity, and contrary to the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

4. The proposed houses would cause loss of amenity to the house to the east, contrary to LDP policy Des 5 - Development Design - Amenity, and contrary to the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

5. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Des 4 in respect of Development Design - Impact on Setting, as the proposal is inappropriate in terms of its form, design and materials.

Please see the guidance notes on our decision page for further information, including how to appeal or review your decision.

Drawings , represent the determined scheme. Full details of the application can be found on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services

The reason why the Council made this decision is as follows:

The proposals would prejudice the appropriate redevelopment of High Street properties contrary to policy Des 2 - Co-ordinated Development. The houses themselves would be of substandard amenity contrary to policy Des5 Development Design- Amenity and contrary to Edinburgh Design Guidance. Amenity of neighbouring properties would also be reduced, contrary to the same policy and guidelines.

This determination does not carry with it any necessary consent or approval for the proposed development under other statutory enactments.

Should you have a specific enquiry regarding this decision please contact Stephen Dickson directly on 0131 529 3529.

David R. Leslie Chief Planning Officer PLACE The City of Edinburgh Council

NOTES

Report of Handling

Application for Planning Permission 17/02373/FUL

At Land 22 Metres South Of 227, Portobello High Street, Edinburgh Erection of two new houses.

Item Local Delegated Decision Application number 17/02373/FUL Wards B17 - Portobello/Craigmillar

Summary

Links

Policies and guidance for LDPP, LHOU01, LDES01, LDES02, LDES05,

this application LEN06, LEN20, LHOU03, LTRA02, LTRA03, LDES04, NSG, NSLBCA, NSGD02, OTH, CRPPOR,

Report of handling

Recommendations

1.1 It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below..

Background

2.1 Site description

The site is an area of backland ground lying behind shops on Portobello High Street. It extends to 242sqm in area and has been used in the past for cultivation of vegetables, but is neither a garden connecting to any particular property nor a designated allotment. To the south lies a large communal garden area belonging to Council housing on Mount Lodge Place.

To the west a modern development presents a tall blank wall to the site. To the east a flat-roofed two storey building forms a house hidden behind the front row of shops. It presents a blank two storey gable to the site.

This application site is located within the Portobello Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

6.5.1998 - change of use from pub to hot food takeaway on property to front (98/00179/FUL)

11.8.2017 - refusal of planning permission to subdivide hot food takeaway to create an independent flat to the rear (17/02368/FUL)

Main report 3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application proposes erection of two two-storey and attic houses to the rear of an existing fish and chip shop. Each house is two bedroom with a floor area of 80sqm.

They are proposed with white render walls and a slate roof.

3.2 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?

3.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, it needs to be considered whether:

a) the principle of housing is acceptable b) the position of the building fits with the urban grain or prejudices adjacent land in any way c) the scale form and design are appropriate to the character and appearance of the conservation area

d) the amenity of the proposed units would be acceptable e) impact on neighbouring amenity f) parking and access are acceptable

a) Policy Hou1 of the LDP considers sites suitable for housing.

The site lies in an area of mixed uses where residential use is acceptable subject to other criteria being met. However, the site is neither a gap site, nor a brownfield site. It is a piece of backland waste ground which would normally be expected to be garden ground were the developments fronting the High Street in residential use.

b) Policy Des2 - Co-ordinated Development considers impact on the development of adjacent ground.

The site is not recognised as a "development site" in its own right and more logically would be land which would facilitate successful redevelopment of the land immediately adjoining the High Street. In this instance, the acceptance of independently sited housing on this backland site would prejudice the appropriate form of redevelopment of the currently single storey section of the High Street, as additional height (to create an appropriate tenemental form) would be too close to the proposed houses and would obstruct their daylight. That is to stay, development of the rear site currently under consideration would preclude the redevelopment of the front section onto the High Street. The proposal therefore breaches policy Des 2.

c) Policy Env 6 considers the impact of proposals on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Policy Des1 considers Design Quality and Context, and policy Des 4 - Development Design - Impact on Setting considers impact upon the surroundings.

Portobello Conservation Area Character Appraisal mentions the High Street but makes no reference to the long single storey section which fronts the High Street.

It is noted that the south side of the High Street has several examples of single or two storey houses set back from the road, with single storey shops then built in front.

The form therefore does form part of the existing character. However, policy Des1 states that development should "contribute to a sense of place" and should "drawon positive characteristics of the surrounding area". Whilst it is agreed that houses lying screened or unseen behind shops is part of the character, it is not agreed that this is a "positive" characteristic. All existing examples are awkward and uncomfortable in the relationship between front and rear buiildings.

In addition, the design, materials and form do not relate to the wider townscape, being more akin to a modern housing development on greenfield land.

The proposal is contrary to policies Des 1 and Des 4.

d) LDP policy Des5 Development Design - Amenity and Edinburgh Design Guidance consider expected standards for new housing.

The houses would meet minimum space requirements for a two-bedroom house and each would have adequate rear garden.

However, windows and doors to the front sit hard on the site boundary, and this is not an adopted path or road. It is not usual to permit doors and windows on the property boundary.

Also, both upper bedrooms (numbered "2" on plans) are only 1m from side boundaries. Neither of these meet daylight or privacy standards.

Only the west-facing windows meet privacy and daylight standards.

Overall the units created would be substandard in terms of the nature of their relationship to the approach path and to units on the High Street.

It is noted that the western unit would also sit very close to the kitchen of an existing hot food takeaway on the High Street, such that amenity would be likely to be further reduced.

The amenity of the proposed houses is substandard contrary to policy Des5 and Edinburgh Design Guidance.

e) LDP policy Des5 and Edinburgh Design Guidance consider impact on neighbouring amenity.

Side-facing apartment windows would have no impact in relation to the existing status quo, but would prejudice redevelopment of flanking sites should such ever occur.

The misalignment of the proposed block with the house to the east (235 Portobello High Street) causes overshadowing to rear windows and to their garden ground. The privacy of this garden is also compromised by the side-facing first floor window in the proposal.

Edinburgh Design Guidance is breached by the proposals.

f) Although the access is shown through a shared passage from the High Street this passage does not form part of the application boundary and as such the proposal "floats" on its backland site with no guaranteed long-term access. The form itself also changes the nature of this passage: from a short straight passage to a long-dog-leg.

No parking is proposed (nor possible) but current Council philosophies support the reduction of car parking within the urban area.

No cycle parking is proposed but the houses are large enough to accommodate this internally.

The Roads Authority do not object.

Conclusion

The site is not seen as a gap site or development site in its own right. Any development on the site would prejudice the logical and appropriate redevelopment of the single storey element on the frontage contrary to policy Des2. The proposal would prejudice the amenity of neighbouring property and would not provide sufficient amenity for the needs of occupiers of the proposal.

It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below.

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Reasons:-

2. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Des 2 in respect of Co-ordinated Development, as the proposal would compromise the effective development of adjacent land

3. The quality of the environment and amenity of the proposed houses would be substandard, contrary to LDP policy Des 5 - Development Design - Amenity, and contrary to the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

4. The proposed houses would cause loss of amenity to the house to the east, contrary to LDP policy Des 5 - Development Design - Amenity, and contrary to the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

4.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low.

Equalities impact

5.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

The application has been assessed and has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights.

Consultation and engagement

6.1 Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

6.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 29 June 2018.

No representations were received.

Background reading / external references

 To view details of the application go to  Planning and Building Standards online services

David R. Leslie Statutory Development Plan Provision Date registered 13 June 2018

Drawing numbers/Scheme

Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Stephen Dickson, Senior planning officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3529

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Local Development Plan.

LDP Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development) sets criteria for assessing the principle of housing proposals.

LDP Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated.

LDP Policy Des 2 (Co-ordinated Development) establishes a presumption against proposals which might compromise the effect development of adjacent land or the wider area.

LDP Policy Des 5 (Development Design - Amenity) sets criteria for assessing amenity.

LDP Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas - Development) sets out criteria for assessing development in a conservation area.

LDP Policy Env 20 (Open Space in New Development) sets out requirements for the provision of open space in new development.

LDP Policy Hou 3 (Private Green Space in Housing Development) sets out the requirements for the provision of private green space in housing development.

LDP Policy Tra 2 (Private Car Parking) requires private car parking provision to comply with the parking levels set out in Council guidance, and sets criteria for assessing lower provision.

LDP Policy Tra 3 (Private Cycle Parking) requires cycle parking provision in accordance with standards set out in Council guidance.

LDP Policy Des 4 (Development Design - Impact on Setting) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development design against its setting.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

Non-statutory guidelines 'LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS' provides guidance on repairing, altering or extending listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

Other Relevant policy guidance

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

Appendix 1

Consultations

Roads Authority

No objections.

END

Business Centre G.2 Waverley Court 4 East Market Street Edinburgh EH8 8BG Tel: 0131 529 3550 Fax: 0131 529 6206 Email: [email protected]

Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid.

Thank you for completing this application form:

ONLINE REFERENCE 100132376-001

Applicant or Agent Details

Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application)  Applicant Agent Agent Details

Please enter Agent details

Whitelaw Planning and Energy Company/Organisation:

Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Nicolas 46 First Name: * Building Name:

Whitelaw 3 Last Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Hawthornvale Telephone Number: * 07846 836275 (Street): *

Extension Number: Address 2:

Edinburgh Mobile Number: Town/City: *

City of Edinburgh Fax Number: Country: *

EH6 4JW Postcode: *

Email Address: * [email protected]

Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? *

 Individual  Organisation/Corporate entity

Page 1 of 5 Applicant Details

Please enter Applicant details

Mr Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Other Title: Building Name:

Harem 227 First Name: * Building Number:

Address 1 Murdochy Portobello High St Last Name: * (Street): *

Company/Organisation Address 2:

Edinburgh Telephone Number: * Town/City: *

Scotland Extension Number: Country: *

EH15 2AN Mobile Number: Postcode: *

Fax Number:

Email Address: *

Site Address Details

Planning Authority: City of Edinburgh Council

Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available):

227 PORTOBELLO HIGH STREET Address 1:

Address 2:

Address 3:

Address 4:

Address 5:

Town/City/Settlement: EDINBURGH

EH15 2AN Post Code:

Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites

673777 330681 Northing Easting

Page 2 of 5 Description of Proposal

The erection of two new houses.

Type of Application

What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? *

What does your review relate to? *

Statement of reasons for seeking review

See Statement in supporting documents section.

Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the  Yes  No Determination on your application was made? *

Supporting Statement. Building Elevations showing shadowing. Aerial photograph of site and surrounding buildings.

Application Details

Please provide details of the application and decision.

What is the application reference number? * 17/02373/FUL

What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * 25/05/2017

What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * 07/08/2018

Review Procedure

In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion:

Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? *  Yes  No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? *  Yes  No

If there are reasons why you think the local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here. (Max 500 characters) The applicant is more than happy to allow the LRB to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection. The site is secured by a padlocked gate. Access can be obtained by requesting the key from the premises of the nearby St Andrews Fish and Chip shop/restaurant at 280-284 Portobello High Street between the hours of 1100 to 2300.

Page 4 of 5 Checklist – Application for Notice of Review

Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. *  Yes  No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this  Yes  No review? *

Declare – Notice of Review

I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated.

Declaration Name: Mr Nicolas Whitelaw

Declaration Date: 24/08/2018

Page 5 of 5

Request to the Local Review Body (within the terms of (The Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2013))

- in respect of the Local Delegated Decision to refuse the erection of two new houses.

Planning Reference: 17/02373/FUL

Address of property: 227 Portobello High Street, Edinburgh, EH15 2AN

Summary of Appeal:

The planning application was refused on the grounds that:

1. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Des 1 in respect of Design Quality and Context, as the proposal does not contribute to the sense of place and fails to draw on positive qualities of the surrounding area. 2. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Des 2 in respect of Co- ordinated Development, as the proposal would compromise the effective development of adjacent land. 3. The quality of the environment and amenity of the proposed houses would be substandard, contrary to LDP policy Des 5 - Development Design - Amenity, and contrary to the Edinburgh Design Guidance. 4. The proposed houses would cause loss of amenity to the house to the east, contrary to LDP policy Des 5 - Development Design - Amenity, and contrary to the Edinburgh Design Guidance. 5. The proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan Policy Des 4 in respect of Development Design - Impact on Setting, as the proposal is inappropriate in terms of its form, design and materials.

We object to the reason given for refusal in the decision notice on the grounds that we believe:

1. That the design of the properties is of a high contemporary standard which respects the existing orientation of neighbouring properties, utilises materials found in other nearby dwellings and are located in a secluded location. 2. It is unclear how the proposal would affect the development of adjacent land, especially given that the adjacent land is in multiple ownership, and therefore it is highly unlikely to get multi party consensus even in the long term to redevelop the buildings on the high street. 3. The proposed dwellings comply with all the relevant City of Edinburgh Council design criteria in terms of the quality of the environment and amenity in terms of space. The proposal benefits from a open aspect to the south. 4. There would be no loss of amenity to the property immediately to the east. The design is within the prescribed limits of the Councils own overshadowing criteria. 5. The proposed buildings would be modern using modern materials but respect the mass, layout and orientation of neighbouring properties. White render walls and slate roofs are not uncommon in this area.

This Supporting Statement is intended to address the issues that the delegated planning officer raised in the report of handling and decision notice.

Background to application and site history

The proposed application site is located on land to the south of 227 Portobello High Street. It currently consists of unkempt and unused garden space.

There is no relevant planning history for the land, although a planning application (17/02368/FUL) was refused in 2017 to subdivide hot food takeaway to create an independent flat to the rear.

Scottish Planning Policy

We consider the following extracts from the SPP to be relevant to the proposal:

109. NPF3 aims to facilitate new housing development, particularly in areas within our cities network where there is continuing pressure for growth

City of Edinburgh Local Development Plan

The applicable policies in relation to the application and appeal are:

Policy Des 1 Design Quality and Context

Planning permission will be granted for development where it is demonstrated that the proposal will create or contribute towards a sense of place. Design should be based on an overall design concept that draws upon positive characteristics of the surrounding area. Planning permission will not be granted for poor quality or inappropriate design or for proposals that would be damaging to the character or appearance of the area around it, particularly where this has a special importance.

The design is modern, but manages to retain some established local aspects without being overwhelming modern. The planning officer makes reference that the design fails to draw on positive aspects of the area, however there are a wide variety of housing designs in the surrounding area spanning a period of a hundred years or so. The proposal introduces a relatively modern design for modern living within a secluded location which does not prejudice the integrity of the Conservation Area. In fact the proposal would add positively to the locale by introducing a characterful close to the locality, with the white render helping to reflect the light within the close. The proposed dwellings would further establish the strong linear southern perimeter of buildings that are accessed from Portobello High Street such as the the Surgery at 265 and house at 263 – see aerial photograph attached.

Policy Des 2 Co-ordinated Development

Planning permission will be granted for development which will not compromise:

a) the effective development of adjacent land; or b) the comprehensive development and regeneration of a wider area as provided for in a master plan, strategy or development brief approved by the Council.

It is unclear how it can be interpreted that the proposed development could prevent the future development of land bounding the high street and therefore this is purely hypothetical and conjecture. If this logic was applied to ever other infill site it is doubtful they would ever receive planning permission. When would this future development take place? 5 years, 50 years? What is currently clear is that with a multitude of different landowners neighbouring the land, that it is highly unlikely that a will or consensus will be found between these various parties to collectively develop their plots of building/land. Furthermore the current buildings seem to be structural sound and add their own character to the variety of buildings on the high street – the proposal would not jeopardise this. The land subject to this appeal is not blocking access to other neighbouring properties.

Policy Des 4 Development Design – Impact on Setting

Planning permission will be granted for development where it is demonstrated that it will have a positive impact on its surroundings, including the character of the wider townscape and landscape, and impact on existing views, having regard to: a) height and form b) scale and proportions, including the spaces between buildings c) position of buildings and other features on the site d) materials and detailing

The proposed dwellings are located in a relatively small secluded site, but manage to comply with the criteria listed above. Examples of other nearby white rendered properties have been listed in the design statement such as Hope Lane North accompanying the application and the proposal would have slate roofs as this is the most predominant material for pitched dwellings in the local area. Additionally, black UPVC are a common feature of neighbouring properties.

The openings of the property open on to private land owned by the applicant but used as shared access by another party. This servitude right of way is a common occurrence of traditional closes in east seaside coastal towns, such as Portobello, Musselburgh, North Berwick, Newhaven in Edinburgh or even in the Edinburgh Old Town. This factor does not hinder or preclude the proposed development.

Policy Des 5 Development Design – Amenity

Planning permission will be granted for development where it is demonstrated that: a) the amenity of neighbouring developments is not adversely affected and that future occupiers have acceptable levels of amenity in relation to noise, daylight, a) sunlight, privacy or immediate outlook b) the design will facilitate adaptability in the future to the needs of different occupiers, and in appropriate locations will promote opportunities for mixed uses c) community security will be promoted by providing active frontages to more important thoroughfares and designing for natural surveillance over all footpaths and open areas d) a clear distinction is made between public and private spaces, with the latter provided in enclosed or defensible forms e) refuse and recycling facilities, cycle storage, low and zero carbon technology, telecommunications equipment, plant and services have been sensitively integrated into the design

The planning officer indicates in the report of handling that the proposal fails to comply with part a of the above policy, but we respectfully disagree, as the proposal complies with the councils own 45 degree rule contained in the design guidance regarding overshadowing properties and their gardens – see revised plan attached.

Edinburgh Design Guidance

This guidance document was published by the City of Edinburgh Council in October 2017. The planning officer makes reference to the issues of Daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook which are addressed in section 2.10 of the guidance.

In comparing the plans with the specified criteria in the guidance it is clear that the proposal meets all the daylight and privacy standards. The windows have been oriented to avoid overlooking and maintain privacy for neighbouring residents as much as practically possible. There may be an element of overlooking the bottom of 235 rear garden, but this scenario is a very common occurrence where there are adjoining terraced houses, such as the recently redeveloped Leith Fort housing development on North Fort Street, Leith, Edinburgh.

The planning officer indicates in the report of handling that the only elevation where daylight and privacy standards are considered acceptable is the western elevation. This is completely untrue, as there is a distance of approximately 40-50 metres between the south elevation of the proposed dwellings and the existing flats to the south which have boundaries features and vegetation providing considerable screening in between – the view from the ground floor is largely obscured by the southern perimeter wall, but this allows for privacy and seclusion. In addition, there are no south facing openings on the buildings to the north which bound the high street, therefore the issue of privacy is irrelevant.

Precedents

There are numerous examples of similar infill housing development across the city of Edinburgh, including locations within the gardens of New Town properties.

Eight flats were granted permission and are currently being built at 17 Madeira Street, (14/05105/FUL). The City of Edinburgh Council are currently assessing another application at Industry Lane (18/01876/FUL). Whether are not this application is given permission remains to be seen but it is facing fierce opposition from local residents and other organisations, whereas in the case of the subject of this appeal no objections were received by neighbours or any other parties.

Summary

To reiterate, no objections were received by neighbours to the proposed development, nor from any other statutory consultee.

We believe that the planning officer whom this application was delegated to has incorrectly interpreted a number of issues which he highlighted as reasons for refusal.

We do not think that the proposal would prevent the redevelopment of the buildings immediately to the north. This is obviously a matter of interpretation, but we do not think that the planning officer provided sufficient evidence to back up this conclusion. Furthermore, we consider the matter to be irrelevant there is no indication from the owners that they wish to redevelop.

Careful consideration had gone into the design of the dwellings to ensure that the proposal complies with the design criteria contained within the Local Development Plan and Design Guidance. The proposed dwellings will not interfere with the overshadowing of neighbouring properties. Given the proposed buildings position and the orientation of the sun the existing eastern boundary wall casts more of a shadow than the proposed dwellings. Both dwellings benefit from three aspects, with prominent views southwards through the garden. Although the properties would be bounded by a narrow passageway to the north, they would still benefit from the velux rooflights and the natural ambient light.

The main fabric of the proposed dwellings incorporates aspects of buildings found in the area, such as white render walls, and slate roofs.

We therefore hope that the Local Review Body exercise discretion against the other positive material considerations.

Whilst the following is not a material consideration as such it has been included to provide context for the reason behind the proposal. The owner and applicant owns a number of businesses in the area and the proposed dwellings could potentially make ideal accommodation for some of the staff.

The proposal would make a small contribution towards the growing demand for housing in the city and would add to the mix of housing types available.

The proposal is in a sustainable existing residential area, with good links to services and amenities, such as public transport, shops and open space, and the beach and promenade at Portobello.

We disagree that the proposal would create an unsatisfactory residential environment, as it complies with all the detailed design requirements set out in the Edinburgh Local Development Plan and Design Guidance.

Request to Local Review Body:

We ask that the Local Review Body consider the above arguments in light of the current situation, and review the planning application for Alterations and change of use of existing vacant shop premises to form studio flat within the terms of The Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.

Nicolas Whitelaw MRTPI Agent acting on behalf of Mr Harem Murdochy 24th August 2018

line of house to east

obscure glazed bathroom window

bedroom window does not adjoining house overlook neighbour's NB - existing wall casts more garden shadow on neighbours garden line of high boundary wall than would the new houses proposed ﬂat therefore no adverse impact

south to gardens east gable

natural slate roof with zinc ridge grey membrane ﬂat roof Velux rooﬂights black uPVC rainwater goods white rendered walls timber entrance door dark grey aluminium faced timber composite windows & screens

north

2 new houses at 227 PORTOBELLO HIGH STREET EDINBURGH, EH15 2AN elevations scale 1:100 May 2017 drg. 11 west gable Whitelaw Assoc. 01968 660452 rev B 08/18 gen

Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016

2 Design Principles for New Development

150 The Council encourages innovation and well designed developments that relate Objectives sensitively to the existing quality and character of the local and wider environment, a) To ensure that new development is of the highest design quality and respects, generate distinctiveness and a sense of place, and help build stronger communities. safeguards and enhances the special character of the city Policies Des 1–Des 13 will be used to assess planning applications to meet the following objectives. More detailed advice on how to interpret and apply these b) To ensure that the city develops in an integrated and sustainable manner policies can be found in Council guidance including in the Edinburgh Design c) To create new and distinctive places which support and enhance the special Guidance document. character of the city and meet the needs of residents and other users

Policy Des 1 Design Quality and Context

151 This policy applies to all new development, including alterations and extensions. The Council expects new development to be of a high standard of design. The Council’s policies and guidelines are not be used as a template for minimum standards. The purpose of the policy is to encourage innovation in the design and layout of new buildings, streets and spaces, provided that the existing quality and character of the immediate and wider environment are respected and enhanced and local distinctiveness is generated.

Part 2 Section 2 - Design Principles for New Development 93 Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016

Policy Des 2 Co-ordinated Development Policy Des 4 Development Design – Impact on Setting

Planning permission will be granted for development which will not compromise: Planning permission will be granted for development where it is demonstrated that it will have a positive impact on its surroundings, including the character of the wider a) the effective development of adjacent land; or townscape and landscape, and impact on existing views, having regard to: b) the comprehensive development and regeneration of a wider area as provided a) height and form for in a master plan, strategy or development brief approved by the Council. b) scale and proportions, including the spaces between buildings 152 This policy applies to all development involving one or more new buildings. The Council encourages a comprehensive approach to redevelopment and c) position of buildings and other features on the site regeneration wherever possible, and the preparation of development frameworks d) materials and detailing or master plans, to identify the full design potential for creating successful places. Piecemeal development is less likely to lead to the creation of well-defined and 154 This policy applies to all new development of one or more buildings. Where the cohesive networks of streets and spaces. In exceptional cases, it may be necessary built environment is of high quality and has a settled townscape character, new for the Council to use its powers of compulsory purchase to assemble a site for development proposals will be expected to have similar characteristics to the development and enable a satisfactory outcome to be achieved. surrounding buildings and urban grain. Where the surrounding development is fragmented or of poor quality, development proposals should help repair the Policy Des 3 Development Design - urban fabric, establish model forms of development and generate coherence and Incorporating and Enhancing Existingand Potential Features distinctiveness – a sense of place. The siting and design of development should also be guided by views within the wider landscape and an understanding of local Planning permission will be granted for development where it is demonstrated landscape character, including important topographical features, e.g. prominent that existing characteristics and features worthy of retention on the site and in the ridges, valleys and patterns of vegetation. surrounding area, have been identified, incorporated and enhanced through its design.

153 This policy is relevant for all new development involving one new building or more. Its aim is to ensure that development proposals are informed by a detailed analysis and understanding of the site. The incorporation of existing features including built structures, archaeology, trees and woodland, landscape character, views and biodiversity can enhance a development’s sense of place and contribution to the wider habitat and green network. Where practicable, proposals should provide new habitat to further the conservation of biodiversity.

Part 2 Section 2 - Design Principles for New Development 94 Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016

Policy Des 5 Development Design – Amenity Policy Des 6 Sustainable Buildings

Planning permission will be granted for development where it is demonstrated that: Planning permission will only be granted for new development where it has been demonstrated that: a) the amenity of neighbouring developments is not adversely affected and that future occupiers have acceptable levels of amenity in relation to noise, daylight, a) the current carbon dioxide emissions reduction target has been met, with at sunlight, privacy or immediate outlook least half of this target met through the use of low and zero carbon generating technologies. b) the design will facilitate adaptability in the future to the needs of different occupiers, and in appropriate locations will promote opportunities for mixed b) other features are incorporated that will reduce or minimise environmental uses resource use and impact, for example: c) community security will be promoted by providing active frontages to more i. measures to promote water conservation important thoroughfares and designing for natural surveillance over all ii. sustainable urban drainage measures that will ensure that there will be no footpaths and open areas increase in rate of surface water run-off in peak conditions or detrimental impact on the water environment. This should include green roofs on sites d) a clear distinction is made between public and private spaces, with the latter where measures on the ground are not practical provided in enclosed or defensible forms iii. provision of facilities for the separate collection of dry recyclable waste e) refuse and recycling facilities, cycle storage, low and zero carbon technology, and food waste telecommunications equipment, plant and services have been sensitively iv. maximum use of materials from local and/or sustainable sources integrated into the design v. measures to support and encourage the use of sustainable transport, 155 This policy applies to all new development for one or more new buildings. particularly cycling, including cycle parking and other supporting facilities Buildings must meet the needs of users and occupiers, with consideration given such as showers. to impacts on neighbouring properties to ensure no unreasonable noise impact 156 This policy applies to all development involving one or more new buildings. The or loss of daylight, sunlight or privacy. Buildings should be designed to be flexible purpose of this policy is to help tackle the causes and impacts of climate change, in use and interact closely with the street, providing continuity of urban frontage reduce resource use and moderate the impact of development on the environment. and natural surveillance. Cul-de-sac and single access residential layouts and gated communities should be avoided to help the integration of new development into 157 Buildings account for a substantial proportion of total carbon emissions through the wider neighbourhood. Ancillary facilities must be sensitively integrated into the the energy they consume. Local authorities, through their planning and building design of buildings to avoid impacting upon the surrounding townscape. standards responsibilities have a key role in helping to meet the Scottish Government’s target for nearly zero carbon homes and buildings by 2016. Scottish Building Standards set carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets. At March 2013,

Part 2 Section 2 - Design Principles for New Development 95 Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016

Policy Env 3 Listed Buildings - Setting Proposals for the demolition of any building within a conservation area, whether listed or not, will not normally be permitted unless a detailed planning application is Development within the curtilage or affecting the setting of a listed building will be approved for a replacement building which enhances or preserves the character of permitted only if not detrimental to the architectural character, appearance or historic the area or, if acceptable, for the landscaping of the site. interest of the building, or to its setting. Policy Env 6 Conservation Areas - Development Policy Env 4 Listed Buildings – Alterations and Extensions Development within a conservation area or affecting its setting will be permitted which: Proposals to alter or extend a listed building will be permitted where a) preserves or enhances the special character or appearance of the conservation a) those alterations or extensions are justified; area and is consistent with the relevant conservation area character appraisal b) there will be no unnecessary damage to historic structures or diminution of its b) preserves trees, hedges, boundary walls, railings, paving and other features interest; and which contribute positively to the character of the area and c) where any additions are in keeping with other parts of the building. c) demonstrates high standards of design and utilises materials appropriate to the 173 In determining applications for planning permission or listed building consent, historic environment. the Council is required to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the Planning applications should be submitted in a sufficiently detailed form for the building, its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it effect of the development proposal on the character and appearance of the area to possesses. Applications for the demolition or substantial alteration of a listed building be assessed. must be accompanied by a thorough structural condition report demonstrating that the proposals are necessary or justified. Information must be provided on the 174 The purpose of the above policies is to protect and, where possible, enhance the proposed replacement building; these should be of comparable quality in terms character and appearance of Edinburgh’s many conservation areas. By controlling of construction and design. The loss of a listed building will only be justified in the demolition of buildings and ensuring new development is of appropriate design exceptional circumstances. Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) and Council and quality, their aim is to protect the City’s heritage for future generations. guidance provide further advice for applications relating to Listed Buildings. 175 Applications for demolition will be permitted only where this does not erode the character and appearance of the conservation area. The general presumption will be Policy Env 5 Conservation Areas – Demolition of Buildings in favour of retaining buildings that make a positive contribution to the conservation Proposals for the demolition of an unlisted building within a conservation area but area, particularly where it can be demonstrated that the building is able to support a which is considered to make a positive contribution to the character of the area will new viable use, or might be capable of such in the future. Conservation Area Consent only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and after taking into account the may be subject to conditions or a legal agreement to link demolition works to the considerations set out in Policy Env 2 above.

Part 2 Section 3 - Caring for the Environment 100 Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016

provision of the proposed replacement building or, in exceptional circumstances, to Policy Env 9 Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance require temporary landscaping. Planning permission will be granted for development on sites of known or suspected 176 Design statements are required for new developments in a conservation area. This archaeological significance if it can be concluded from information derived from a statement should include reference to the relevant Conservation Area Character desk-based assessment and, if requested by the Council, a field evaluation, that either: Appraisal and Council guidance on Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings and a) no significant archaeological features are likely to be affected by the show how these have informed the proposed design. development or

Policy Env 7 Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes b) any significant archaeological features will be preserved in situ and, if necessary, in an appropriate setting with provision for public access and interpretation or Development will only be permitted where there is no detrimental impact on the c) the benefits of allowing the proposed development outweigh the importance character of a site recorded in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes, of preserving the remains in situ. The applicant will then be required to make adverse effects on its setting or upon component features which contribute to its provision for archaeological excavation, recording, and analysis, and publication value. Elsewhere, adverse effects on historic landscape features should be minimised. of the results before development starts, all to be in accordance with a Restoration of Inventory sites and other historic landscape features is encouraged. programme of works agreed with the Council. 177 This policy aims to protect sites included in the national Inventory of Gardens 178 The objective of the above policies is to protect and enhance archaeological and Designed Landscapes (shown on the Proposals Map) and other historic remains, where possible by preservation in situ in an appropriate setting. In some landscape features elsewhere across the Council area. An understanding of how cases, depending on the nature of the remains and character of the site, the Council the landscape has evolved can help inform a development proposal. A historical may require provision for public access and interpretation as part of the proposed landscape appraisal may be requested from applicants to allow full assessment of development. When preservation in situ is not possible, recording and/or excavation the implications of development and identify restoration opportunities. followed by analysis and publication of the results will be required.

Policy Env 8 Protection of Important Remains 179 Developers should seek early advice from the Council’s Archaeologist for sites where historic remains are known or thought likely to exist. Where a development Development will not be permitted which would: may affect a scheduled monument or its setting, early contact should be made with a) adversely affect a scheduled monument or other nationally important Historic Environment Scotland. archaeological remains, or the integrity of their setting b) damage or destroy non-designated archaeological remains which the Council considers should be preserved in situ.

Part 2 Section 3 - Caring for the Environment 101 Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016

Countryside Access and Open Space d) there will be a local benefit in allowing the development in terms of either alternative equivalent provision being made or improvement to an existing Policy Env 17 Pentlands Hills Regional Park public park or other open space or

Development which supports the aims of the Pentlands Hills Regional Park will be e) the development is for a community purpose and the benefits to the local permitted provided it has no unacceptable impact on the character and landscape community outweigh the loss. quality of the Park. 194 This policy aims to protect all open spaces, both public and privately owned, that 192 This policy aims to ensure that proposals for outdoor recreation activities, whilst contribute to the amenity of their surroundings and the city, provide or are capable likely to be supported in principle, do not detract from the special rural character of of providing for the recreational needs of residents and visitors or are an integral part the Regional Park. Proposals will also be assessed in terms of other relevant policies of the city’s landscape and townscape character and its biodiversity. The Council such as Env 10 Green Belt and Env 11 Landscape Quality. will only support development on open space in exceptional circumstances, where the loss would not result in detriment to the overall network and to open space Open Space provision in the locality. Such circumstances tend to exist where large areas of residential amenity space have been provided without a clear purpose of sense of 193 The Proposals Map shows the significant areas of open space identified in an audit ownership. The Council’s Open Space Strategy sets the standards to be met for of the city. The criteria in Policy Env 18 will be applied to development proposals open space provision across Edinburgh and will be used to assess whether there affecting all such open spaces citywide. Proposals affecting a playing field will be is an over provision of open space in the immediate area (criterion b). To accord considered against relevant criteria in both Policy Env 18 and Policy Env 19. with criterion d), proposals for alternative provision or improvements to open space should normally address an identified action in the Open Space Strategy. Policy Env 18 Open Space Protection Policy Env 19 Protection of Outdoor Sports Facilities Proposals involving the loss of open space will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that: In addition to the requirements of Policy Env 18, the loss of some or all of a playing field a) there will be no significant impact on the quality or character of the local or sports pitch will be permitted only where one of the following circumstances applies: environment and a) The proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as outdoor b) the open space is a small part of a larger area or of limited amenity or leisure value sports facilities and there is a significant over-provision of open space serving the immediate b) The proposed development involves a minor part of outdoor sports facilities and area and would not adversely affect the use or potential of the remainder for sport and c) the loss would not be detrimental to the wider network including its continuity training or biodiversity value and either c) An alternative outdoor sports facility is to be provided of at least equivalent

Part 2 Section 3 - Caring for the Environment 105 Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016

sporting value in a no less convenient location, or existing provision is to be Protection of Natural Resources significantly improved to compensate for the loss d) The Council is satisfied that there is a clear excess of sports pitches to meet current Policy Env 21 Flood Protection and anticipated future demand in the area, and the site can be developed without Planning permission will not be granted for development that would: detriment to the overall quality of provision. a) increase a flood risk or be at risk of flooding itself 195 Outdoor sports facility provision must be considered as a city-wide resource and in b) impede the flow of flood water or deprive a river system of flood water storage terms of its contribution to local needs. The Council’s assessment of provision in the within the areas shown on the Proposals Map as areas of importance for flood city as a whole has concluded that the amount of pitches, whether or not in public management ownership or publicly accessible, is equivalent to the need. However, there needs to be significant improvements in quality. On this evaluation, the loss of pitches to c) be prejudicial to existing or planned flood defence systems. development cannot be justified in principle. However, the loss might be acceptable 197 This purpose of this policy is to ensure development does not result in increased flood if alternative equivalent provision is to be made in an equally convenient location. risk for the site being developed or elsewhere. Identified areas of importance for flood Development has been allowed where other pitches serving the local community are management are identified on the Proposals Map. It is essential to maintain strict to be equipped with all-weather playing surfaces. The Open Space Strategy identifies control over development in these areas. Proposals will only be favourably considered if the locations where such investment is to be concentrated in multi-pitch venues. accompanied by a flood risk assessment demonstrating how compensating measures are to be carried out, both on and off the site, and that any loss of flood storage capacity Policy Env 20 Open Space in New Development is mitigated to achieve a neutral or better outcome. In some circumstances, sustainable The Council will negotiate the provision of new publicly accessible and useable flood management or mitigation measures may not be achievable. open space in new development when appropriate and justified by the scale of 198 Culverting of watercourses can exacerbate flood risk and have a detrimental effect on development proposed and the needs it will give rise to. In particular, the Council will biodiversity. Any further culverting across the city will be opposed, and the removal of seek the provision of extensions and/or improvements to the green network. existing culverts will be sought when possible.

196 This policy ensures that development proposals (other than housing which is 199 New development can add to flood risk if it leads to an increase in surface water run- covered by Policy Hou 3) include appropriate open space provision and, where the off. It is also at risk from water flowing over land during heavy rainfall. Policy Des 6 states opportunity arises, contribute to Edinburgh’s green network. The term ‘open space’ that these risks should be avoided by the use of sustainable drainage techniques (SUDs). covers green space and civic space.

Part 2 Section 3 - Caring for the Environment 106 Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016

5 Housing and Community Facilities Objectives • To meet the requirement for additional housing in Edinburgh whilst protecting environmental quality in established housing areas 221 Edinburgh needs more housing to provide homes for an increasing population • To promote more sustainable, better balanced communities and support economic growth. More housing increases the need for community facilities such as schools, health care facilities and community centres in easily • To ensure that provision is made for necessary community facilities accessible locations. This plan looks beyond the amount of housing to be provided. It also aims to address issues of quality, affordability, environmental quality in existing Policy Hou 1 Housing Development housing areas and the housing needs of particular groups such as students, gypsies, 1 Priority will be given to the delivery of the housing land supply and the relevant travellers and travelling showpeople. Policies Hou 1 – Hou 10 will be used to assess infrastructure* as detailed in Part 1 Section 5 of the Plan including: planning applications to meet the following objectives a) sites allocated in this plan through tables 3 and 4 and as shown on the proposals map b) as part of business led mixed use proposal at Edinburgh Park/South Gyle c) as part of the mixed use regeneration proposals at Edinburgh Waterfront (Proposals EW1a-EW1c and EW2a-2d and in the City Centre) d) on other suitable sites in the urban area, provided proposals are compatible with other policies in the plan 2 Where a deficit in the maintenance of the five year housing land supply is identified (as evidenced through the housing land audit) greenfield/greenbelt housing proposals may be granted planning permission where: a) The development will be in keeping with the character of the settlement and the local area b) The development will not undermine green belt objectives c) Any additional infrastructure required* as a result of the development and to take account of its cumulative impact, including cross boundary impacts, is either available or can be provided at the appropriate time. d) The site is effective or capable of becoming effective in the relevant timeframe.

Part 2 Section 5 - Housing and Community Facilities 114 Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016

e) The proposal contributes to the principles of sustainable development. a) In flatted or mixed housing/flatted developments where communal provision will be necessary, this will be based on a standard of 10 square metres per flat * This should be addressed in the context of Policy Del 1, Tra 8 and the associated (excluding any units which are to be provided with private gardens). A minimum Supplementary Guidance. of 20% of total site area should be useable greenspace.

222 Policy Hou 1 reflects the emphasis on delivery of the identified land supply. However, b) For housing developments with private gardens, a contribution towards the it also sets out a mechanism through which to bring forward additional land if a 5 greenspace network will be negotiated if appropriate, having regard to the scale year supply is not maintained. The criteria which apply reflect the considerations of development proposed and the opportunities of the site. already established through SESplan (Policy 7) as well as the Scottish Planning Policy presumption in favour of sustainable development. Whilst the green belt is 224 This policy ensures an appropriate level of greenspace provision in new housing established by the plan this should not automatically preclude housing development developments. where the relevant balance of considerations points to approval and the objectives 225 This policy applies to mainstream housing, whether flatted or otherwise. All of the city wide designation of green belt are maintained. mainstream housing should be provided with either individual private gardens or communal areas of greenspace, or a combination of both. In some sites, some Policy Hou 2 Housing Mix of the greenspace provision should be in the form of publicly accessible space The Council will seek the provision of a mix of house types and sizes where practical, to connect with the wider network. The site briefs for the new strategic housing to meet a range of housing needs, including those of families, older people and proposals in West and South East Edinburgh show this type of provision. people with special needs, and having regard to the character of the surrounding 226 The Council expects most housing development to meet these greenspace area and its accessibility. requirements in full within the site. However exceptions may be justifiable if there 223 It is important to achieve a good mix of dwelling types and sizes to avoid the creation are good reasons why this cannot happen, for example where justified by the of large areas of housing with similar characteristics. This approach supports more following policy on density. The Council’s Open Space Strategy sets standards socially diverse and inclusive communities by offering a choice of housing and a for publicly-accessible large and local greenspace and play space and identifies range of house types to meet the needs of different population groups, from single- actions to address any deficiencies or meet other needs. A proposal which does not person households to larger and growing families. meet the full requirements of policy Hou 3 on-site may be supported if appropriate provision or financial contribution is made to implement an identified action in the Policy Hou 3 Private Green Space in Housing Development Open Space Strategy which will address a deficiency in the area.

Planning permission will be granted for development which makes adequate 227 The policy does not apply to housing built for occupation by particular groups such provision for green space to meet the needs of future residents. as students or the elderly. In these circumstances, provision appropriate to their particular needs will be negotiated.

Part 2 Section 5 - Housing and Community Facilities 115 Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016

Policy Hou 6 Affordable Housing Policy Hou 7 Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas

Planning permission for residential development, including conversions, consisting Developments, including changes of use, which would have a materially detrimental of 12 or more units should include provision for affordable housing amounting to effect on the living conditions of nearby residents, will not be permitted. 25% of the total number of units proposed. For proposals of 20 or more dwellings, 234 The intention of the policy is firstly, to preclude the introduction or intensification the provision should normally be on-site. Whenever practical, the affordable housing of non-residential uses incompatible with predominantly residential areas and should be integrated with the market housing. secondly, to prevent any further deterioration in living conditions in more mixed 230 Government policy states that where a shortage of affordable housing has been use areas which nevertheless have important residential functions. This policy identified, this may be a material consideration for planning and should be addressed will be used to assess proposals for the conversion of a house or flat to a House in through local development plans. Multiple Occupation (i.e. for five or more people). Further advice is set out in Council Guidance 231 Affordable housing is defined as housing that is available for rent or for sale to meet the needs of people who cannot afford to buy or rent the housing generally Policy Hou 8 Student Accommodation available on the open market. Affordable housing is important in ensuring that key workers can afford to live in the city as well as helping meet the needs of people on Planning permission will be granted for purpose-built student accommodation low incomes. where:

232 A key aim is that affordable housing should be integrated with market housing on a) The location is appropriate in terms of access to university and college facilities the same site and should address the full range of housing need, including family by walking, cycling or public transport housing where appropriate. Provision on an alternative site may be acceptable where b) The proposal will not result in an excessive concentration of student the housing proposal is for less than 20 units or if there are exceptional circumstances. accommodation (including that in the private rented sector) to an extent that Where planning permission is sought for specialist housing an affordable housing would be detrimental to the maintenance of balanced communities or to the contribution may not always be required depending on the nature of the specialist established character and residential amenity of the locality. housing being proposed and economic viability considerations. 235 It is preferable in principle that student needs are met as far as possible in purpose- 233 Further information on affordable housing requirements is provided in planning built and managed schemes rather than the widespread conversion of family guidance. The details of provision, which will reflect housing need and individual site suitability, will be a matter for agreement between the developer and the Council.

Part 2 Section 5 - Housing and Community Facilities 117 Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016 taken to mitigate any adverse effects on networks and bring accessibility by and use Car and Cycle Parking of non-car modes up to acceptable levels if necessary. Policy Tra 2 Private Car Parking 271 The policy applies to major offices, retail, entertainment, sport and leisure uses and other non-residential developments which generate a large number of journeys Planning permission will be granted for development where proposed car parking by employees and other visitors. These developments should be accessible by a provision complies with and does not exceed the parking levels set out in Council choice of means of transport which offer real alternatives to the car. For this reason, guidance. Lower provision will be pursued subject to consideration of the following a location in the City Centre will normally be preferable. Major travel generating factors: developments will also be encouraged to locate in the identified town centres and a) whether, in the case of non-residential developments, the applicant has employment centres, provided that the scale and nature of the development is such demonstrated through a travel plan that practical measures can be undertaken that it can be reached conveniently by a majority of the population in its catchment to significantly reduce the use of private cars to travel to and from the site area by walking, cycling or frequent public transport services. b) whether there will be any adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring 272 Out-of-centre development will only be acceptable where it can clearly be occupiers, particularly residential occupiers through on-street parking around demonstrated that the location is suitable, and that access by sustainable forms of the site and whether any adverse impacts can be mitigated through control of transport and car parking provision and pricing mean that the development will be on-street parking no more reliant on car use than a town centre location. This means that good public c) the accessibility of the site to public transport stops on routes well served by transport, walking and cycling accessibility will still need to be assured. public transport, and to shops, schools and centres of employment by foot, 273 Applications should be accompanied by travel plans to demonstrate how cycle and public transport development, particularly in out of centre locations, will meet the requirements of d) the availability of existing off-street parking spaces that could adequately cater Policy Tra 1. Travel plans should accord with Scottish Government guidance and for the proposed development will be monitored to assess their impact on reducing demand for car travel and maximising use of existing and new transport infrastructure. Travel plans may also e) whether the characteristics of the proposed use are such that car ownership be relevant when assessing residential applications in terms of Policy Hou 4 Housing and use by potential occupiers will be low, such as purpose-built sheltered or Density or Policy Tra 2 Private Car Parking. student housing and ‘car free’ or ‘car reduced’ housing developments and others providing car sharing arrangements

f) whether complementary measures can be put in place to make it more convenient for residents not to own a car, for example car sharing or pooling arrangements, including access to the city’s car club scheme.

Part 2 Section 7 - Transport 127 Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016

274 The purpose of this policy is to ensure car parking provided as part of development main entrances to buildings should be located as close as practical to the main proposals accords with the Council standards which are tailored to local site entrance circumstances, including location, public transport accessibility and economic b) car parking should preferably be provided at basement level within a building needs, but generally fulfil the wider strategy of encouraging sustainable, non-car and not at ground or street level where this would be at the expense of an active modes. The standards express the maximum amount of car parking that different frontage onto a public street, public space or private open space types of development may provide. c) the design of surface car parks should include structural planting to minimise 275 The policy sets out the circumstances in which a lesser amount of car parking than the visual impact standards require may be appropriate to help reduce car use. This is only likely to be d) the design of surface car parking or entrances to car parking in buildings should acceptable in locations where there are existing or planned on-street parking controls. not compromise pedestrian safety and should assist their safe movement to and 276 At least half the space saved by omitting or reducing car parking should be given from parked cars, for example, by the provision of marked walkways. over to landscape features and additional private open space (see Policy Hou 3), so e) Space should be provided for small-scale community recycling facilities in the that residents will have the amenity benefits of a car-free environment. car parking area in appropriate development, such as large retail developments.

Policy Tra 3 Private Cycle Parking Cycle parking should be provided closer to building entrances than general car parking spaces and be designed in accordance with the standards set out in Council guidance. Planning permission will be granted for development where proposed cycle parking and storage provision complies with the standards set out in Council guidance. 278 This policy sets out important design considerations for car and cycle parking provision including environmental quality, pedestrian safety and security. Poorly 277 The provision of adequate cycle parking and storage facilities is important in located or designed car parking can detract from the visual appearance and vitality meeting the objective of the Local Transport Strategy to increase the proportion of the surrounding area. Car parking in front of supermarkets which widely separates of journeys made by bicycle. The Council’s parking standards set out the required entrances from main roads, is an added discouragement to public transport use and levels of provision of cycle parking and storage facilities in housing developments walking, and detracts from urban vitality and safety. A high standard of design for and a range of non-residential developments. surface car parking will be sought, with landscaping to soften its visual impact, and in larger car parks the provision of marked walkways for ease of pedestrian movement Policy Tra 4 Design of Off-Street Car and Cycle Parking and safety. New off-street car parking provides an opportunity to expand the city’s Where off–street car parking provision is required or considered to be acceptable, the network of small recycling points to complement larger community recycling following design considerations will be taken into account: centres. Provision of well located high quality cycle parking suitable to the type of development and to users is an essential component of the Council’s efforts to a) surface car parks should not be located in front of buildings where the building encourage cycling. would otherwise create an active frontage onto a public space or street, and

Part 2 Section 7 - Transport 128 Edinburgh Local Development Plan November 2016

Part 2 Section 7 - Transport 128