Itemno 108 • EDINBVRGH. Report no THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL Planning Permission 11/03170/FUL at 222 Easter Road Edinburgh EH68LE

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee

1 Purpose of report

To consider application 11/03170/FUL, submitted by Mr Ronald Graham .. The application is for: Change of use from basement stores to residential

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

2 The Site and the Proposal

Site description

The application site comprises the basement area to an existing ground floor shop unit within a four storey tenement with residential properties above. The unit lies directly below the existing shop and extends north under the adjoining ground floor residential dwelling unit at No 224 Easter Road. The unit gains access from the existing internal access stairs within the tenement. The existing ground floor shop unit forms the basis of a separate planning application for residential conversion with separate access directly from the Easter Road frontage. The frontage is currently traditional in form. The shop window is presently boarded up but it is understood that the traditional shop window remains in place underneath. There is a recessed stallriser below the shop window sill. The stone work and window surrounds are painted a dark blue colour, in contrast to the lighter blue of the corner unit.

The property is located within a predominantly residential area with commercial uses restricted to the ground floors of the tenement buildings located at the corner properties at road junctions along this part of Easter Road.

There is restricted car parking on the roads immediately fronting the site and in the general surroundings.

At the end of Drum Terrace is Lochend Eastern Cemetery.

Site History

1 December 2004 - Planning permission was granted for alterations to the existing windows of existing shop frontage (Ref 04/03830/FUL).

11 June 2007 - Planning permission was refused for a change of use from office premises to form two flatted dwellings, one on the ground floor and one within the basement area. This was refused due to inadequate daylighting, privacy, loss of traditional shopfront and stallriser, uncharacteristic pavement level window and lack of cycle storage (Ref 07101165/FUL).

20 January 2010 - Planning permission was refused for a change of use from office to form two flatted dwellings. This was refused due to single aspect property, insufficient daylighting, the loss of a commercial property and loss of a traditional shopfront with inappropriate replacement windows (Ref 09/02913/FUL).

3 February 2011 - Planning permission was refused for a change of use from office to form a two-apartment flatted dwelling within the ground floor of the premises. This was refused due to insufficient habitable space with inadequate daylighting, the loss of a commercial property and the loss of traditional shopfront with inappropriate replacement windows and increased demand for on-street parking (Ref 10103643/FUL).

3 February 2011 - Planning permission was refused for a change of use from office to form a studio apartment flatted dwelling within the basement level of the premises. This was refused due to insufficient habitable space with inadequate daylighting, loss of commercial property, loss of traditional shopfront with inappropriate replacement windows and increased demand for on-street parking (Ref 10103651/FUL).

28 September 2011 - A planning application was received for the conversion of the ground floor area to form a two-apartment flatted property, approximately 38 square metres of overall floor area (Ref 11/03161/FUL).

2 Pre-Application Process

The proposal was the subject of informal pre-application discussions prior to submission.

In those negotiations it has been indicated that conversion of the premises to a single f1atted dwelling, incorporating both the ground floor and the basement level, may be considered more favourably against the policies and guidelines.

Description Of The Proposal

The application seeks to convert the presently unused basement floor area, approximately 41 square metres of overall floor area, to provide a studio apartment flatted property.

The external alterations seek to provide a replacement window with the insertion of a timber framed, six light windows with central mullion and mid­ level transome. The replacement shopfront window extends from the fascia to the pavement level, 1.9 by 3.7 metres, and an area of 7.0 square metres.

Internally the proposal forms a basement floor flat of 41.2 square metres floor space with a lounge/bedroom (14.0 square metres) separated from the kitchen (7.6 square metres) by a dividing screen, comprised of glass blocks above 1.1 metres from the floor level. There is a separate bathroom to the rear.

The proposal also details the raising of the existing floor 0.8 metres from its present level primarily to reduce the ceiling height so as to improve the internal daylighting to the premises. This is assisted by a similar raised floor in the ground floor above (subject of a separate planning application for conversion to a two apartment flatted dwelling) so as to maximise light from the fully glazed frontage.

The flat takes access from the existing internal stairwell to the tenement block. The proposed windows in the altered frontage will provide the only natural light to divided room which is 7.1 metres deep, overall.

A Supporting Statement has been submitted with the application. This considers matters of: the planning history; planning policy; non-statutory guidelines; daylighting; residential amenity; parking; reuse of the building and the replacement shopfront. This is available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Portal.

3 3. Officer's Assessment and Recommendation

Determining Issues

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?

If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?

ASSESSMENT

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether:

(a) the principle of residential use is acceptable in this location;

(b) the proposal will adversely affect the character and appearance of the existing building or the surrounding area;

(c) there are any implications for road safety; and

(d) there will be any loss of residential amenity as a result of the proposals. a) Policy Ret 11 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan provides that changes of use from retail would not be acceptable in circumstances where there is a clear neighbourhood need to retain the retail use of the premises. Although not in retail use, the basement provides a storage area integral to the ground floor retail premises.

There are other retail premises at this location and the defined Easter Road Shopping Centre stands in close proximity to the south of the site. It is therefore accepted that there is no neighbourhood need for the retention of these premises in retail use.

Policy Ret 11 states that regard should be had to whether the change of use would result in the loss of premises suitable for small business use.

The Council commissioned an independent 'Small Business Study' which has identified a general concern over the loss of such commercial premises across the city. Policy EMP 4 recognises that there is a potential role for vacant shop units in providing such opportunities for small business units to fill this gap. However, within the Leith and North Edinburgh area there is sufficient existing supply to meet the present and projected market needs.

4 The property has been unsuccessfully marketed for the past three years which further supports this position.

The premises have been vacant for the past seven years and visually detract from the appearance within the street scene affecting the character and appearance of the area. However, planning permission should not be granted solely as a means of improving the appearance of a property where the proposal is otherwise unacceptable. It is necessary to examine the wider planning merits of the proposal.

As such the principle of the loss of these commercial premises would not be contrary to the provisions of the development plan. b) The Easter Road elevation of the premises presently comprises a shop frontage with a large display window and a low stall riser to the left hand side of a timber door with fanlight above. This reflects the adjoining shop frontage to the corner premises at 220 Easter Road (albeit the neighbouring property has retained the central mullion). The pilasters and fascia have been painted dark blue has have the window surrounds, door and stall riser. The shop front glazing has been removed and the opening boarded over for security.

The applicant refers to a previous grant of planning permission (Ref 04/03830/FUL) for a replacement shop window. However, there is no evidence that this permission was implemented.

Since that grant of consent, in 2004, the Council Non-statutory guidance on Commercial Frontages has been updated include a requirement for replacement shop fronts to reflect to the form, character and materials that reflect the existing and neighbouring commercial premises. As such planning permission would be unlikely to be approved now for that lapsed consent and little weight can now be attached to it as a material consideration.

The proposed replacement incorporates various fixed and opening lights with tilt-and-turn mechanism, a second transom division at a higher level and central mullion. Given the proposed subdivisions and opening mechanism with an opening of such size, the resultant form bears little relationship to either the recently existing simple shop front or to any of the adjoining premises in this location.

Other examples in the area either predate the revised Commercial Frontages Guideline or relate to circumstances that differ significantly where the former stall riser is retained with glazing above with no requirement for lighting to the basement area.

The proposal would result in a loss of a traditional shop frontage. The proposed material and form of framing would appear heavy and cumbersome; especially the large horizontal transom to accommodate the new position of the raised floor, out of character with the neighbouring commercial and residential properties and represent an unacceptable and inappropriate form of replacement shop front to these premises.

5 c) The proposal provides no off-street car parking space for the development. A parking survey of on-street parking levels in the area indicates that the demand for parking is high and at a premium.

Observations have shown that current parking practices include: double parking, parking adjacent to communal refuse containers (denying collection of waste) and parking on junction radii, all of which is detrimental to road safety.

The applicant suggests that the proposed use of the building as a whole would result in less parking requirements than the existing use. He states that the parking for the two flats would represent a net reduction in parking requirements.

The parking standards require one off-street space per flatted property whereas the existing use would generate the need for one space. Therefore, the two applications together exceed the guideline requirement.

In summary, the proposal would result in an increased demand for on-street car parking within the vicinity of the application site to the detriment of road safety for other road users. d) The floor residential unit provides a combined lounge/bedroom separated from the kitchen by a dividing screen, comprised of glass blocks above 1.1 metres from the floor level. Those habitable rooms equate to 21.6 square metres floor space. The lounge/bedroom and kitchen takes shared natural light from a pair of windows forming part of the wider replacement shop frontage, set at pavement level and fronting Easter Road. These two areas are separated by a dividing screen; so that the kitchen benefits from very little natural light.

The accommodation would have an average daylight factor of less than 2%. The guidelines identify that below 2% natural daylighting would not be effective in illuminating the environment and that artificial lighting would be operational for the majority of the day. However, the Council's Non-Statutory guidance indicates that in historic environments such as this the average daylight factor can be reduced to 1.5% for living rooms and 1% for bedrooms.

The lounge/bedroom would have an average daylight factor of 1.38%. That figure is lower than those as submitted by the applicant of 1.5%. This is because the correction factor forming part of the calculation, for dirt on windows and for privacy interventions such as net curtains, blinds and the like, has not been applied by the applicant. Given that Easter Road is a busy/heavily trafficked street and because the windows are to be situated at pavement level, it is anticipated that they would accumulate dirt relatively quickly. Therefore, it is reasonable to incorporate this adjustment to the calculation in this instance.

6 No information has been provided on how the proposal would provide adequate privacy arrangements given that the windows are located a pavement level. Any blinds or curtains to the windows would further reduce the average daylight factor of the room.

As such the proposal fails to meet the minimum level of natural daylighting in this instance. Therefore, the proposal does not meet with the guidance requirements for the minimum standards for habitable accommodation. The proposed two-apartment flat would therefore result in an unacceptable size and form of residential accommodation.

The basement provides only 'single aspect' living accommodation with living accommodation below the 30 square metre threshold necessary to ensure a minimum level of amenity to future occupants, as specified by the Non­ Statutory Guidance. As such, this would result in the formation of a property with an unacceptable level of residential amenity to the detriment of the future occupants of that premises.

In conclusion, the proposals do not comply with development plan policy and there are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

It is recommended that the Committee refuses this application, for the reasons stated.

REASON FOR DECISION

The proposals do not comply with the development plan and non-statutory guidelines and would adversely affect the character and appearance of the property, result in inappropriate level of residential accommodation, and result in increased demand for on-street parking to the detriment of road safety.

7 John Bury Head of Planning

I Contact/tel I John Maciver on 0131 5293918 I \ I i I I Ward affected I A12 - Leith Walk -l I

I i Local Plan I Edinburgh City Local Plan I i Statutory I Urban Area Development Plan Provision Date registered 14 October 2011

Drawing numbersl 01 Scheme Scheme 1

Advice to Committee Members and Ward Councillors

The full details of the application are available for viewing on the Planning and Building Control Portal: www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning.

If you require further information about this application you should contact the following Principal Planner, Paul Devaney on 0131 5293519. Email: [email protected].

If this application is not identified on the agenda for presentation and you wish to request one at the Committee meeting, you must contact Committee Services by 9.00a.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting. Contact details can be found in the Committee agenda papers.

8 Appendix A ·EDINBVRGH· THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL

CITY DEVELOPMENT Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: 222 Easter Road Edinburgh EH6 alE

Proposal: Change of use from basement stores to residential Reference No: 11/03170/FUl

Consultations, Representations and Planning Policy

Consultations

Services for Communities (Environmental Assessment)

The application proposes the change of use of basement stores to a basement flat. A shop/office is situated above which is presently under application for planning consent (Ref 11/03161/FUL). A number of commercial premises surround the site and Easter Road is a busy main thoroughfare with considerable traffic noise.

The application proposes a bedroom to the west of the property fronting onto Easter Road. In addition, a window from Easter Road is proposed to allow for day-lighting and ventilation. Easter Road is a very busy street with heavy vehicle and pedestrian use. This Department is concerned that in order to provide adequate levels of comfort ventilation within the basement flat, the window to the street would require to be opened. However, this would lead to considerable noise intrusion from the street.

Additionally, the application proposes to site a residential property below an existing retail premises/office. An application exists for the change of use of the ground floor property above to a residential flat but there is no guarantee that this change of use will occur. Thus, there is the potential that the basement flat will be affected by considerable levels of airborne and impact noise from the commercial property above.

Therefore, Environmental Assessment cannot support this application on the grounds of impacts on residential amenity.

9 Transport

Request that the application be refused.

This change of use is not providing off street parking in line with the current parking standards.

A parking survey of current on street parking levels in the area of the development has been undertaken indicating that the demand for parking is high and at a premium. Observations have also shown that current parking practises include double parking, parking adjacent to communal refuse containers denying collection of waste and parking on junction radii all of which is detrimental to road safety.

Representations

Neighbour notification was carried out on 18 October 2011 and attracted 12 letters of representation. Two letters, from Leith Central Community Council and the Cockburn Association are objections and 10 letters, from the local MSP and nine residential properties, are in support of the application.

The material points of objection/concern are: a. Issues of principle, taken account of in assessment (a):

The use is contrary to the local plan. b. Design issues, taken account of in assessment (b):

oss of traditional shop frontage. c. Transport issues, taken account of in assessment (c):

parking problems and road safety. d. Residential amenity issues, taken account of in assessment (d):

insufficient amenity provided for future occupants.

The letters of support refer to the benefits of the physical improvement to the exterior of the premises, the provision of needed residential accommodation and to vitality of this part of Easter Road.

Full copies of the representations made in respect of this application are available in Group Rooms or can be requested for viewing at the Main Reception, City Chambers, High Street.

10 Planning Policy

Edinburgh City Local Plan - Urban Area.

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Policy Des 12 (Shopfronts) sets criteria for assessing shopfront alterations and/or advertising proposals.

Policy Hou 5 (Conversion to Housing) sets criteria for assessing the change of use to residential.

Policy Emp 4 (Employment Sites and Premises) sets out criteria for development proposals affecting business & industry sites and premises. Policy Ret 11 (Alternative Use of Shop Units in Other Locations) sets out the factors to be taken into account in assessing the change of use of a shop unit outwith defined centres.

Policy Tra 4 (Private Car Parking) requires private car parking provision to comply with the parking levels set out in supplementary planning guidance, and sets criteria for assessing lower provision.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

Non-statutory guidelines on Commercial Frontages supplement Local Plan Polices by providing guidance on shop frontages, shop front security, adverts and signs and blinds and canopies.

Non-statutory guidelines 'DAYLlGHTING, PRIVACY AND SUNLIGHT' set criteria for assessing proposals in relation to these issues.

Non-statutory guidelines 'The Edinburgh Standards for Housing' sets out principles and guidance whose aim is to achieve high quality, successful and sustainable residential developments.

Non-statutory guidelines on 'SHOPS - CONVERSION TO RESI DENTIAL USE' provide guidance for assessing such proposals.

Non-statutory guidelines on 'PARKING STANDARDS' set the requirements for parking provision in developments.

11 Appendix B ·EDINBVRGH· THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL

CITY DEVELOPMENT Application Type Planning Permission Application Address: 222 Easter Road Edinburgh EH68lE

Proposal: Change of use from basement stores to residential Reference No: 11/03170/FUl

Conditions/Reasons associated with the Recommendation

Recommendation

It is recommended that this application be REFUSED

Reasons

1. The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City local Plan Policy Hou 5 in respect of Conversion to Housing, and to Non Statutory Guidelines, as the basement flat provides only 'single aspect' living accommodation with inadequate floor space and average daylight factor within those habitable rooms resulting in an inadequate level of residential accommodation to the detriment of the residential amenities of future occupants of that property.

2. The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City local Plan Policy Des 12 in respect of Shopfronts, and to Non Statutory Guidelines in respect of Commercial Frontages, as the proposal would result in a loss of a traditional shop frontage to the detriment of the character of the property, and its replacement by an inappropriate form and size of glazing, that would appear heavy and cumbersome, extending down almost the pavement level, resulting in an inappropriate form of replacement shop front to the detriment of, and out of character with, the neighbouring properties and this part of the street scene.

3. The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City local Plan Policy Tra 4 in respect of Private Car Parking, and to Non Statutory Guidelines in respect of Parking Standards, as the present demand for parking is high and at a premium and the proposal would result in an increased demand for on-street car parking within the vicinity of the application site to the detriment of road safety for other road users.

End

12 Appendix C

·€DINBVRGH· THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL

CITY DEVELOPMENT Application Type Planning Permission Proposal: Change of use from basement stores to residential Reference No: 11/03170/FUL

DRUM.TERRACE • LB

po· •• .....'" ... PH • j o)!tl~

Location Plan Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number 100023420 The City of Edinburgh Council 2005.

13