Executive Summary Application For

Notice of meeting and agenda

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 10.00 am Wednesday 23 October 2013 (or at the conclusion of the Planning Committee whichever is the later)

Dean of Guild Room, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh This is a public meeting and members of the public are welcome to attend.

Contact: email: [email protected] Tel: 0131 529 4261

1. Order of business

1.1 Including any notices of motion and any other items of business submitted as urgent for consideration at the meeting.

1.2 Any member of the Council can request a Hearing if an item raises a local issue affecting their ward. Members of the Sub-Committee can request a presentation on any item in part 4 of the agenda. Members must advise Committee Services of their request by no later than 9.00am on the Tuesday preceding the meeting (see contact details in the further information section at the end of this agenda).

2. Declaration of interests

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

3. Hearing Requests from Ward Councillors

If a member of the Council has submitted a written request for a hearing to be held on an application that raises a local issue affecting their ward, the Development Management Sub-Committee will decide at this point in the meeting whether or not to hold a hearing based on the information submitted. All requests for hearings will be notified to members prior to the meeting

4. General applications and miscellaneous business

The recommendations by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards or other Chief Officers detailed in their reports will be approved without debate unless the Clerk to the meeting indicates otherwise during “Order of Business” at item 1 above.

4.1 Agilent Technologies, Scotstoun Avenue, South Queensferry – Modification or discharge of planning obligations – Application no. 13/03502/OBL – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated).

It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

4.2 37 - 41 Broomhall Drive, Edinburgh – Installation of ATM to shop front – Application no. 13/03447/FUL – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated).

It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 23 October 2013 Page 2 of 8

4.3 376 Calder Road, Edinburgh (Site 94 Metres North Of) – Application for renewal of consent 10/00953/PPP - Planning Permission in Principle for redevelopment of site for affordable housing and housing for sale with ancillary community facilities and associated landscaping and public realm – Application no. 13/03147/PPP – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated).

It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

4.4 179 Clermiston Road & 7 Fox Covert Grove, Edinburgh – (Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order No 171) – Application no. TPO No. 171 – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated).

It is recommended that the Tree Preservation Order be CONFIRMED.

4.5 7 Dryden Place Edinburgh – Formation of new dormer window to rear elevation; installation of new roof windows into existing pitched roof; replacement of existing bituminous felt flat roof with new warm roof construction – Application no. 13/03003/FUL – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated).

It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

4.6 1 Freelands Farm, Freelands Road, Ratho (Land 48 Metres Southwest Of) – Erection of two semi-detached dwellings. – Application no. 13/03476/FUL – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated).

It is recommended that this application be REFUSED.

4.7 302A Gilmerton Road, Edinburgh – Remove sloping slated roofs and stepped flat roofs and replace with a new sloped slated roof, including dormer window, skylight, projecting balcony and set back french windows. – Application no. 13/02453/FUL – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated). It is recommended that this application be a MIXED DECISION.

4.8 112 Greenbank Road, Edinburgh – Extend house to side and rear, re-instate original chimney and erect flue. – Application no. 13/03150/FUL – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated). It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

4.9 Flat 3, 2 Greenhill Place, Edinburgh – New timber sash and case windows, double glazed slimlite low E units to rear dormers and slimlite double glazed units in existing window frame to the front windows. – Application no. 13/02657/LBC – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated). It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 23 October 2013 Page 3 of 8

4.10 95 Harvesters Way, Edinburgh (Land 90 Metres West Of) – Proposed redevelopment of longstanding brownfield site with 183 new flatted and housing units – Application no. 13/02640/FUL – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated). It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

4.11 39 High Street, South Queensferry – To allow the use of a public parking area as a community market with the erection of twelve gazebos on selected days in August, September and December 2013 and monthly through May to September 2014 (as amended) – Application no. (13/02603/FUL) – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated). It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

4.12 10 Learmonth Gardens Mews, Edinburgh (Land 26 Metres South West Of) – Erection of detached house with integral garage – Application no. (13/02997/FUL) – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated). It is recommended that this application be REFUSED.

4.13 21 Moredun Park Street, Edinburgh (Site 60 Metres East Of) – Development of 54 no. new dwellings along with associated access roads, car parking and areas of both hard and soft landscaping – Application no. (13/02248/FUL) – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated). It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

4.14 68 North Street, Ratho – Alter and change the use of existing office to residential and change of use of public green space to garden ground – Application no. (13/01160/FUL) – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated). It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 4.15 45 Queen Margaret Close, Edinburgh – Certificate of lawfulness for a proposed use or development to remove garage door and build up opening in facing brick to match existing walls and new projecting window – Application no. (13/03317/CLP) – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated). It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 23 October 2013 Page 4 of 8

5. Returning Applications

These applications have been discussed previously by the Sub- Committee. The Sub-Committee instructed the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards to report on detailed reasons for refusal or on the conditions to be attached to approval.

5.1 103 Newcraighall Road, Edinburgh (Land 335 Metres Southwest Of) – Development including new housing, potential mixed-use facilities, open space, access and services infrastructure – Application no. (10/03449/PPP) – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated). Note: The Sub-Committee, on 18 January 2012 indicated they were minded to GRANT the application.

5.2 104 Newcraighall Road, Edinburgh (Land 263 Metres South Of) – Planning permission in principle for new housing, local mixed use facilities together with open space, access and services, infrastructure, landscape and footpath/cycle provision – Application no. (10/03506/PPP) – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated). It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. Note: The Sub-Committee, on 18 January 2012 indicated they were minded to GRANT the application. 6. Application for Hearing

The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards has identified the following applications as meeting the criteria for Hearings. The protocol note by the Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance sets out the procedure. 6.1 69A Kinnaird Park, Fort Kinnaird Retail Park, Edinburgh (Site 90 Metres North of) – Protocol Note by the Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance (circulated)

6.2 69A Kinnaird Park, Fort Kinnaird Retail Park, (Site 90 Metres North Of), Edinburgh – Erection of retail unit incorporating 5,612 square metres (gross internal retail floorspace) – Application no. 13/02381/FUL - Protocol Note and report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated).

It is recommended that this application be REFUSED.

6.3 1-77 Kinnaird Park, 1-33 Lawhouse Toll, Edinburgh – Application for the modification or discharge of Planning Obligations – Application no. 13/03450/OBL – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated).

It is recommended that this application be REFUSED.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 23 October 2013 Page 5 of 8

6.4 1-77 Kinnaird Park, 1-33 Lawhouse Toll, Edinburgh – Application for the modification or discharge of Planning Obligations – 13/03451/OBL - report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated).

It is recommended that this application be REFUSED.

7. Pre-Application Reports

No decisions will be taken on these applications at this meeting. Following a presentation by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, members will have the opportunity to ask questions and indicate key issues they would like the applicants to consider in their eventual application/s. Members will not express a view on the merits of the proposal/s.

7.1 A8 West Edinburgh (Land North of) – report on forthcoming application by IBG Stakeholders (New Ingliston Ltd, Murray Estates Lothian Ltd, FSH Airport (Edinburgh) Services Ltd) – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated).

7.2 59 and 60 Belford Road, Edinburgh (Land at) – report on forthcoming application by AMA (New Town) Ltd. for detail proposals for demolition and redevelopment of site for residential and office development – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated).

7.3 Cliftonhall Road, Newbridge – report on forthcoming application by Roxhill Developments Ltd for planning permission for erection of a distribution warehouse – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated).

7.4 Saughton Prison, Stenhouse Road, Edinburgh – report on forthcoming application by Scottish Prison Service for a new Women’s Regional Unit, associated parking and alterations to the existing prison estate – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated). 8. Returning Applications Following Site Visit

These applications have been discussed at a previous meeting of the Sub- Committee and were continued to allow members to visit the sites.

None.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 23 October 2013 Page 6 of 8 9. Applications for Detailed Presentation The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards has identified the following applications for detailed presentation to the Sub-Committee. A decision to grant, refuse or continue consideration will be made following the presentation and discussion on each item.

9.1(a) 7 Shrub Place, Edinburgh (Site 69 Metres West Of) – Proposed Mixed Use Development including redevelopment of Listed Buildings (Tram Workshops) – Application no. (13/01070/FUL) – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated).

It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

9.1(b) 7 Shrub Place, Edinburgh (Site 69 Metres West Of) – Retain existing chimney, alter existing tram workshops to accommodate residential development, reduce height of existing gable wall to remove requirement for galvanised steel buttresses – Application no. (13/01071/LBC) – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated).

It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

Carol Campbell Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance Committee Members

Councillors Perry (Convener), Howat (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Blacklock, Brock Cairns, Child, Dixon, Heslop, McVey, Milligan, Mowat, Rose, Robson and Ross. Information about the Development Management Sub-Committee

The Development Management Sub-Committee consists of 15 Councillors and usually meets twice a month. The Sub-Committee usually meets in the Dean of Guild Room in the City Chambers on the High Street in Edinburgh. There is a seated public gallery and the meeting is open to all members of the public. Further information

All members of the Council have been notified of the publication of this agenda. Any member can request a Hearing if an item raises a local issue affecting their ward. Members must advise Committee Services, by no later than 9.00am on the Tuesday preceding the meeting if they wish to be heard: Contact Stephen Broughton 0131 529 4261 email: [email protected]

A summary of the recommendations on each planning application is shown on the agenda. Please refer to the circulated reports by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards or other Chief Officers for full details. Online Services - planning applications can be viewed online by going to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning - this includes letters of comments received.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 23 October 2013 Page 7 of 8 Members of the Sub-Committee can request a detailed presentation on the applications in Section 4 of the agenda. The Clerk will advise of any requests received under “Order of Business” and the report will be discussed later in the meeting.

Members of the Council who are not members of the Sub-Committee can make a request for an application to be considered by means of a Hearing, in order to speak on an application if the development is located in their Council ward. The Clerk will report this under “Order of Business” prior to the Sub-Committee considering the request. Otherwise, ward members are not permitted to speak on applications at the meeting.

Only elected members and officers of the Council may speak at the meeting unless the item is shown as a Hearing. For Hearings, the list of individuals and/or organisations invited to speak at the meeting will be detailed in the relevant report. The Development Management Sub-Committee does not hear deputations on planning applications. For the majority of planning applications, the decision rests with the Development Management Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee only makes recommendations to the full Council on national/major planning applications, as defined in legislation. Reports on that type of application which require a “pre-determination hearing” will explain the process.

If you have any questions about the agenda or meeting arrangements, please contact Stephen Broughton, Committee Services, City of Edinburgh Council, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh EH1 1YJ, 0131 529 4261 email: [email protected]

A copy of the agenda and papers for this meeting will be available for inspection prior to the meeting at the main reception office, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh. The agenda, minutes and public reports for this meeting and all the main Council committees can be viewed online by going to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/cpol.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 23 October 2013 Page 8 of 8 Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 23 October 2013

Application for Planning Obligation 13/03502/OBL At Agilent Technologies, Scotstoun Avenue, South Queensferry Modification or discharge of planning obligations.

Item number Report number Wards A01 - Almond

Links

Policies and guidance for RWH7, RWH11, RWTRA3, this application

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Ian Williams, Monitoring Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3752

Executive summary

Application for Planning Obligation 13/03502/OBL At Agilent Technologies, Scotstoun Avenue, South Queensferry Modification or discharge of planning obligations.

Summary

It has been accepted by the applicant's agent that the permission to which the agreement is attached has lapsed and consequently this agreement has fallen with it. It is therefore acceptable for the agreement to be discharged. There are no other material planning considerations. Recommendations

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below (in section 3 of the main report). Financial impact

There are no financial implications to the Council. Equalities impact

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

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

Pre-Application Process

A written request was received to discharge the Section 75 agreement attached to application 06/00842/OUT following the lapse of this permission. It was advised that a formal application would have to be made and approved before any discharge could be concluded.

Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

No representations have been received.

Background reading / external references

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

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 3 of 8

Report

Application for Planning Obligation 13/03502/OBL At Agilent Technologies, Scotstoun Avenue, South Queensferry Modification or discharge of planning obligations. 1. Background

1.1 Site description

The site is bounded by Queensferry High School to the north and the main east coast railway line is found close to the east. Residential developments are found to the south and west and land formally occupied by the Agilent campus is found to the south and east.

The site used to contain an array of office premises and factory buildings that have now been demolished. Vehicular access to the site is via Ashburnham Loan to the north and Scotstoun Avenue to the west.

1.2 Site History

April 2008 - outline permission was granted with an attached section 75 agreement for a residential development (Reference:- 06/00842/OUT).

May 2012 - planning permission in principle was granted with an attached Section 75 agreement for redevelopment to a residential and mixed use development including retail units (class 1), business use (class 4), financial and professional services (class 2), food and drink (class 3), non residential institution (e.g. creche) (class 10) and associated access, parking and landscaping (Reference: 11/00995/PPP).

September 2013 - an application to vary conditions of the 06/00842/OUT permission to allow a further 3 years to make an application for reserved matters and a further 3 years within which to commence the approved development was withdrawn (Reference:- 11/01162/FUL)

August 2013 - an application for approval of matters specified in conditions to the 11/00995/PPP permission was received and is currently under consideration (Reference:- 13/03310/AMC). 2. Main report

2.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application seeks to discharge the legal agreement relating to planning permission reference 06/00842/OUT. The agreement requires the proprietor (Agilent Technologies UK Limited) and their successors in title to make 25% of the total number of housing units available as affordable units. It also requires the proprietor, prior to the first occupation of any new residential unit, to upgrade the Ferrymuir pedestrian crossing to

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 4 of 8 the Council's satisfaction and to make financial contributions towards the Council's safer routes to school programme and for the purpose of resurfacing four synthetic 7 a side football pitches in the vicinity of the development.

Supporting Statement

The applicant's solicitor has submitted a letter, a copy of a plan of the site and a copy of the agreement concluded and last signed on the 8 April 2008.

The documents are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards online services.

2.2 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?

2.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether: a) the discharge of the agreement as proposed results in any unacceptable impacts; b) there are any equalities issues or human rights impact to be addressed. a) The application seeks to discharge the legal agreement tied to the 06/00842/OUT planning permission.

The permission was granted on the 10 April 2008. Condition 1 a) required an application for the approval of the stipulated reserved matters to be made before the expiration of three years from the date of the grant of the outline permission. No such application was made within this period. The 11/01162/FUL application was made to seek permission for a three year extension to the time period under this condition. This application has been withdrawn and consequently the 06/00842/OUT outline planning permission has lapsed.

Demolition of original buildings on the site has been undertaken with Building Standards' approval. A "material operation" in terms of section 27 (4) (b) of the Act has taken place. Such works can only be undertaken under one planning permission. The agent's letter of the 23 August confirmed both the withdrawal of the 11/01162/FUL application and the understanding that with this, the original 06/00842/OUT permission had expired. In so doing, the agents also indicated that they did not consider the demolition works to have been connected with this 06/00842/OUT permission.

A fresh agreement was concluded on the 3 May 2012 and is tied to the current 11/00995/PPP permission for the site.

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 5 of 8

b) There are no equalities issues to be considered.

In conclusion, it has been accepted by the applicant's agent that the permission to which the agreement is attached has lapsed and consequently this agreement has fallen with it. It is therefore acceptable for the agreement to be discharged. There are no other material planning considerations.

3. Recommendations

3.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. Please submit an engrossed Discharge or Minute of Variation (as appropriate) in accordance with the terms of this Decision Notice for execution and registration by the City of Edinburgh Council along with the required registration forms and registration fee. Submissions should be sent to The City of Edinburgh Council, Legal Services, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG.

Statutory Development Plan Provision The application site is identified in the adopted Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan as an existing business area.

Date registered 30 August 2013

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01,

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 6 of 8

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Policy H7 states that planning permission for residential development, including conversions, consisting of 12 or more units, should include provision for affordable housing amounting to 25% of the total number of units proposed.

Policy H11 states that the Council will support the retention of existing community facilities where there is a proven need and no suitable replacement facilities are available

Policy TRA3 says that a transport assessment will normally be required for significant development proposals

Appendix 1

Consultations

No consultations undertaken.

Location Plan

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 8 of 8 Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 23 October 2013

Application for Planning Permission 13/03447/FUL At 37 - 41 Broomhall Drive, Edinburgh, EH12 7QL Installation of ATM to shop front.

Item number Report number Wards A06 - Corstorphine/Murrayfield

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITD12, NSG, NSBUS, this application

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Rihards Sobols, Student Planner E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131529 3543

Executive summary

Application for Planning Permission 13/03447/FUL At 37 - 41 Broomhall Drive, Edinburgh, EH12 7QL Installation of ATM to shop front.

Summary

The proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the building or street, residential amenity or road safety. The proposal complies with the Edinburgh City Local Plan and non statutory guidance. There are no other material planning considerations. Recommendations

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below (in section 3 of the main report). Financial impact

There are no financial implications to the Council. Equalities impact

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

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

Seven letters of objection were received. The following material considerations have been raised: • transport issues in the area; • residential amenity.

Non material comments raised relate to security issues, an increase in footfall in the area and consumption of alcohol next to the unit.

A full assessment of the representations can be found in the main report in the Assessment section. Background reading / external references

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

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 3 of 8 Report

Application for Planning Permission 13/03447/FUL At 37 - 41 Broomhall Drive, Edinburgh, EH12 7QL Installation of ATM to shop front. 1. Background

1.1 Site description

The property is a ground floor retail unit within a 2 storey building, located on the east side of Broomhall Drive off the main road, Meadow Place Road. The property is part of a row of 3 shops with residential flats above. The surrounding area is predominately residential. The facade of the building at ground floor consists of shop windows with tiling at lower levels. The first floor is finished in dry dash render.

1.2 Site History

22 August 2000 - planning permission was granted for alterations to shopfront (Reference: 00/02358/FUL).

12 July 2001 - planning permission was granted for unification of two retail units to form a single unit with alterations to the shopfront (Reference: 01/00588/FUL).

5 January 2008 - planning permission was refused for a partial change of use to a hot food takeaway (Reference: 08/03854/FUL).

6 May 2009 - planning permission was granted for a partial change of use to a coffee shop (Reference: 09/00463/FUL) . 10 September 2010 - planning permission was granted for an installation of a multideck display case and an external condenser unit (Reference: 10/02329/FUL).

23 September 2013 - advertisement consent was granted for signage associated with this application (Reference: 13/03447/ADV). 2. Main report

2.1 Description Of The Proposal

The proposal is to install an ATM to a shop front, replacing one of the shop windows. The proposed ATM will be framed in black with signage above and below.

2.2 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?

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 4 of 8 If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them?

2.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether: a) the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the building or shopping street; b) the proposal is detrimental to the amenity of neighbours; c) the proposal affects road safety; d) the proposal has any equalities or human rights impacts; and e) representations raise issues to be addressed. a) Impact on Character and Appearance

The proposed ATM will replace one of the eight shop windows in a building of no significant architectural interest and it is considered that the proposed development will not impact the appearance of the building or street. b) Impact on Residential Amenity

The location of the development within a mixed use area within an existing commercial frontage. The scale of the proposal is considered to be appropriate and would not have any effect on the amenity of the neighbouring residents. c) Road Safety

Transport has been consulted on the application. It has no objections in regards to the application. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal will not have any impact on pedestrian or road safety. d) Equalities and Human Rights Impacts

There is no impact in terms of equalities or human rights. e) Public Comments

Material Considerations

• Transport - addressed in point c) of the assessment.

• Amenity - addressed in point b) of the assessment.

Non-material Representations - security issues, increased footfall and consumption of alcohol around the unit. These are not material planning considerations

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposal complies with the development plan. It will not have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the building or street, residential amenity or road safety. The proposal complies with the Edinburgh City Local Plan and non

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 5 of 8 statutory guidance. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

3. Recommendations

3.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below

3.2 Conditions/reasons Conditions:-

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

2. The City of Edinburgh Council acting as Roads Authority reserve the right under Section 93 of The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 to adjust the intensity of any non adopted lighting applicable to the application address.

Statutory Development Plan Provision The area within which the site is located has been defined as Urban Area within the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Date registered 28 August 2013

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01-05,

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 6 of 8

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

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

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.

Appendix 1

Consultations

Transport Planning

I have no objections to the application subject to the following applicant being advised if the following informative.

INFORMATIVE

The City of Edinburgh Council acting as Roads Authority reserve the right under Section 93 of The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 to adjust the intensity of any non adopted lighting applicable to the application address.

Location Plan

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 8 of 8 Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 23 October 2013

Application for Planning Permission in Principle 13/03147/PPP At Site 94 Metres North Of 376, Calder Road, Edinburgh Application for renewal of consent 10/00953/PPP - Planning Permission in Principle for redevelopment of site for affordable housing and housing for sale with ancillary community facilities and associated landscaping and public realm.

Item number Report number Wards A07 - Sighthill/Gorgie

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITD1, CITD2, CITD3, CITD4, CITD5, CITD6, this application CITE9, CITE16, CITE17, CITE18, CITOS1, CITOS3, CITH1, CITH2, CITH3, CITH4, CITH7, CITCO1, CITCO2, CITT1, CITT2, CITT3, CITT4, CITT5, CITT6, OTH, NSGD02, NSDCAH, NSP, NSMDV,

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: David Givan, Planning Design Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel: 0131 529 3679

Executive summary

Summary

The proposed master plan of housing with ancillary community facilities, landscaping and public realm complies with the development plan. A condition for approval of matters ensures that a suitable level of design quality will be achieved. Other conditions ensure that the quantity of retail floor space will not have an adverse impact on local centres and that risk to human health from contaminants is made acceptable. Recommendations

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below (in section 3 of the main report). Financial impact

The financial impacts for the project as a whole will be reported separately to the Health, Wellbeing and Housing Committee. Equalities impact

The application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. The impacts are identified in the Assessment section of the main report. It is concluded that the impacts are acceptable. Sustainability impact

This application meets the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

Consultation and engagement

Pre-Application Process

For the original proposal (planning permission in principle reference 10/00953/PPP), the applicant carried out extensive public consultation between October 2009 and February 2010. This consultation informed the development of the design which forms the basis of this current application.

For this application, a proposal of application notice (reference 13/01820/PAN) was received on 13 May 2013.

The PAN was issued to: - Sighthill, Broomhouse and Parkhead Community Council - Ward Councillors - Edinburgh Tenants Federation - The Neighbourhood Partnership

A public exhibition was held between 10 and 14 June at Gate 55, Sighthill Road.

There were presentations given to the North Sighthill Development Group and the North Sighthill Residents Association in June and July respectively.

A pre-application report on the proposals was presented to the Committee on 26 June 2013. Committee noted the key issues. These are assessed in this report.

The proposal was subject of review by the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel on 24 February 2010. In summary the Panel supported the direction that was taken with the design of the masterplan for what is considered clearly a challenging site and brief. It particularly wanted the issues of the design of streets and integration of car parking to be explored as the design developed.

Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

Neighbours were notified on 15 August 2013. No representations were received.

Sighthill, Broomhouse and Parkhead Community Council set out a number of concerns about the proposals. These are detailed in the assessment and include:

• Provision of health care in the area; • Traffic management arrangements; • The community centre.

A full assessment of the representations can be found in the main report in the assessment section. Background reading / external references

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

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 3 of 30

Report

1.1 Site description

The site area is 4.4 hectares. It is located to the north of Calder Road (A71), a main arterial route into the city centre and wraps around Sighthill Medical Centre and a fire station. The site is bounded to the east by Broomhouse Road (B701), to the west by Sighthill Court which provides access to Napier University buildings further to the west, and to the north by Sighthill Park.

The site was previously developed for housing with three 17 storey tower blocks, a slab block and 4 storey flats. There was a single storey community centre, library and small retail parade. All these buildings are now demolished and the site is fenced off.

There is a fall across the site from north to south of approximately 6.5 metres.

The site is served by the existing bus services on Calder Road and Broomhouse Road. A tram stop for the Edinburgh Tram has been constructed adjacent to Bankhead Drive to the north west of the site.

1.2 Site History

4 October 2007 - The Draft North Sighthill Development Brief was approved for consultation, but has never been finalised.

12 February 2008 – Planning consent was granted for a temporary vehicular access onto Broomhouse Road, reference 07/05201/FUL.

11 December 2009 – A Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) for the redevelopment of the site for affordable housing and housing for sale with ancillary community facilities and associated landscaping and public realm was approved, reference 09/03060/PAN.

23 August 2010 – Planning Permission in Principle was granted for the redevelopment of the site for affordable housing and housing for sale with ancillary community facilities and associated landscaping and public realm. This application seeks to renew this consent. Reference 10/00953/PPP.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 4 of 30

27 May 2013 – A Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) for renewal of planning permission in principal (10/00953/PPP) for redevelopment of site for affordable housing, housing for sale, ancillary community facilities and associated landscaping and public realm was approved, reference 13/01820/PAN. 2. Main report

2.1 Description Of The Proposal

This application is part of the 21st Century Homes for Edinburgh programme. It is for planning permission in principle for the renewal of previous planning consent for the redevelopment of North Sighthill with affordable housing, housing for sale, community facilities and associated landscaping and public realm.

The previous consent was for planning permission in principle for 320 dwellings, community facilities and associated landscaping and public realm. It included the following:

Indicative Housing Mix Private Units • 32 three bedroom houses • 15 four bedroom houses • 25 one bedroom flats • 73 two bedroom flats • 15 three bedroom flats

Affordable Units • 10 three bedroom houses • 12 four bedroom houses • 5 one bedroom flats • 82 two bedroom flats • 51 three bedroom flats

Community Facilities A new community centre, library, shops and other ancillary facilities are proposed. These are to be located next to the western boundary of the site.

Access, Road Layouts and Parking Two principal accesses into the site are proposed. One access is provided from Sighthill Green. This is an existing street that provides access to the rear of the fire station and Health Centre. The other access is on Broomhouse Road. This replaces a previous access to the site from Broomhouse Road that has been stopped up.

The masterplan has east/west pedestrian links with views north towards Sighthill Park and pedestrian links to the south towards public transport provision. A pedestrian/ cycle link is shown which connects the west and east of the site to provide strong connections to the university and college.

Car parking is provided in accordance with the current standards. Cycle parking is indicated within flats or stores generally to the rear of houses.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 5 of 30

Open Space and Landscaping Open space is provided in the form of private gardens, rear courtyards and a central public amenity space. Structural planting is proposed in with hedge planting and avenues of trees. Different species are indicated for the east/west and north/south axes. Double rows of trees would front Calder Road.

Waste Disposal Arrangements A mix of arrangements is proposed, with external bin stores and communal internal stores for the flats, and wheelie bins for the terraced properties. Further details will be required at the detailed design stage.

Drainage Surface water from the site will be treated in accordance with SUDS principles. Foul drainage will utilise the existing public sewer system.

Sustainability It is proposed that as well as meeting the aspirations of the Council’s former Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Building, all buildings on the site are rated as Eco-Homes 'excellent'.

Building Configuration The buildings are generally configured around a series of perimeter blocks. An L- shaped block wraps around the Fire Station boundaries which face into the site. There is a mix of terraced properties with private gardens, and flats with shared rear courtyards. Buildings front onto the central open space.

Heights The heights of the buildings vary across the site. Buildings fronting Calder Road, Broomhouse Road and on the western edge by the university are 4 storeys. Buildings fronting the east/west road and Sighthill Park are generally 3 storeys, whilst the remaining buildings are 2 storeys.

Supporting Information The following information was submitted in support of the original application:

• Planning Statement • Consultation Report • Energy Strategy • EcoHomes Pre Assessment Estimator • Response to the issues raised to the pre-application report • Bat Survey • Transport Assessment and Addendum report • SUDS and Drainage Strategy • Phase 1 Environmental Assessment

These documents are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards On- Line Services.

2.2 Determining Issues

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 6 of 30 If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?

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

2.3 Assessment

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

(a) the proposals comply in principle with the Development Plan and the draft North Sighthill Development Brief;

(b) the traffic and air quality impacts of the development including parking, access and servicing requirements are acceptable;

(c) the proposals provide a development of appropriate scale and design and an acceptable level of amenity for the existing and future residents;

(d) the proposals can proceed without significant environmental impacts in terms of ecology, noise, flooding, contamination, and archaeology;

(e) the proposals are acceptable in terms of education provision and affordable housing;

(f) the proposals are acceptable in relation to sustainability;

(g) the proposals have any equalities or human rights impacts; and

(h) material representations or community council comments raise issues to be addressed. a) The principle of development

The development plan is the South East Scotland Strategic Development Plan – SESPlan and the adopted Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP). Also relevant is the Draft North Sighthill Development Brief prepared in 2007.

The principle of development was previously established through the 10/00953/PPP planning permission in principle which this application seeks to renew.

Policy Hou 1 in the ECLP supports the provision of new housing on suitable sites in the urban area. Further consideration of the density of the development with regards to market needs and parking requirements is considered in sections (b) and (c).

Policy OS 1 in the ECLP requires consideration of the benefits of retaining existing open spaces in terms of amenity and character impacts on the local environment. Though parts of the site are identified as open space in the ECLP, these have subsequently been fenced in and have no current public use. Both new private and public spaces would be created as part of a comprehensive redevelopment of the site which will provide approximately 24% open space. The loss of the existing spaces is therefore acceptable in principle. Matters relating to the location and configuration of the new amenity spaces are considered further in section (c).

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 7 of 30

In terms of environmental impacts the redevelopment will renew the previous housing and deal with any associated contamination issues. Initial survey work has been carried out covering the range of potential environmental impacts and there are no issues of principle. This is considered further in section (d).

The masterplan proposes to replace the community facilities lost through previous demolition along the western boundary. This location accords with the draft development brief, with comments from the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel (EUDP) and also the Police. Although concerns regarding the chosen location have been raised by the Community Council, the design work carried out has demonstrated that this location is the most appropriate. This is due to the practical benefits of promoting safe pedestrian on desire lines from the planned pedestrian crossing on Calder Road, in terms of achieving efficiencies through shared service provision in conjunction with surrounding uses and in terms of the facility being located to serve Sighthill and the surrounding communities. This is acceptable in principle subject to the further consideration of the delivery of the planned pedestrian crossing facilities in section (b).

Overall, subject to the further consideration of wider transport connections and the detail of the submitted master plan, the planned housing and associated community facilities are acceptable in principle. b) Traffic and air quality impacts of the development including parking, access and servicing requirements

Policies Des 3 and Des 4 in the ECLP require that safe and convenient access and servicing is achieved in a manner that encourages walking and cycling and minimises potential conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and motorised traffic. Special regard must be given within the design to the access needs of people with limited mobility or special needs. Policies Tra 4, Tra 5 and Tra 6 in the ECLP require that appropriate provision is made for car and cycle parking in accordance with the Council’s approved Parking Standards. Policy Env 18 requires that air quality issues are assessed and any impacts appropriately mitigated.

In terms of the parking requirements and associated air quality issues, although there will be fewer homes than those demolished, the proposal has a limited number of additional car parking spaces. The parking requirements for the site have been assessed and the levels of parking shown are acceptable for the development subject to further consideration of matters of detail. The location and extent of car club space provision within the site would be agreed at the detailed stage and this may provide an opportunity for a reduction in overall parking numbers. The potential for the provision of electric car charging points shall be further assessed and it is expected that this would form part of the package of sustainability measures along with a Green Travel Plan.

The design of the development is intended to provide a traffic calmed residential environment which promotes reduced traffic speeds. The prevention of through traffic assists with the achievement of these aims.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 8 of 30 The submitted Transport Assessment and the associated Addendum demonstrates that there would be limited transport impacts from the development. The proposed new junction on Broomhouse Road can accommodate the traffic from the east side of the development. The existing junction accessing Calder Road at Sighthill Court can accommodate traffic from the west side. This junction could be improved by signalising it and allowing traffic to access both sides of Calder Road when exiting Sighthill Court. The signalised junction would contain pedestrian crossings over Calder Road.

The new junction has been through a detailed design process, and although the implementation of the planned junction improvement works was initially programmed for completion by the Council, there is currently an expected shortfall in the money secured from the previous developments including from Napier University compared to the estimated costs of implementation.

The Addendum to the Transport Statement indicates that a failure to implement the junction would have consequences for vehicles and for pedestrians. Vehicles seeking to exit onto Calder Road to head west would be delayed by being forced to turn left and go around the existing roundabout. Should the planned upgrading works now not go ahead, the occupants of the new housing and surrounding uses would continue to use the existing junction road junction. While this is inconvenient, it does not impact adversely on the road network and so is acceptable in relation to this development.

The existing pedestrian underpass at the same location however is less than satisfactory, being a barrier to accessible pedestrian movement. The response from the Police response to the 2010 application highlights its poor quality design and welcomes the prospect of its early removal as part of the wider process of renewal. There is a need to improve this.

A contribution to the infilling of the underpass combined with a new pedestrian road crossing is therefore sought by Transport Planning. The developer has agreed to make a suitable contribution towards this, or to the delivery of a signalised junction with pedestrian crossing, subject to further discussion with affected parties regarding the justification, exact amount, form and timing of such a contribution. This is acceptable and an applicant informative is recommended.

Pedestrian and cycle access east-west through the development has been achieved through the provision of a dedicated pedestrian/ cycle link across the central open space. This is acceptable subject to further design work regarding the design of the route as it crosses the central open space.

Swept path drawings have been submitted demonstrating the ability for fire engines to continue to access the rear of the fire station. In terms of remaining requirements for access for emergency vehicles, the design of the central open space which is intended to preclude through access except for pedestrians and cyclists could be adapted through the introduction of collapsible bollards to allow for emergency vehicular access. This issue can be examined further and agreed at the detailed design stage.

Overall subject to matters stated, it is accepted that the master plan provides suitable means of access, parking and servicing for the development.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 9 of 30 c) Design

Policies Des 1 – Des 5 in the ECLP set a requirement for a high quality of design to be achieved which is appropriate in terms of scale, layout, form and materials. It must also be ensured that the development achieves a good level of amenity and does not adversely impact on the amenity of its neighbours.

The master plan for the whole site demonstrates that the scale of development shown, i.e. 320 homes, can be accommodated on the site. Depending on the final design and the provision of car club parking there may be scope for limited increases in housing numbers. It is recommended that the final number of residential units would be agreed at the detailed stage.

As set out in section (a) the community facilities which include library, community centre and retail are correctly positioned to maximise their potential benefit both to the site and to the wider area. However in order to protect the vitality of the existing local centre to the south, a condition is recommended setting an overall limit on the size of the retail units at 250 square metres. This is in accordance with ECLP policy Ret 5.

The design has integrated the affordable housing with the market housing. In line with the Edinburgh Design Guidance, there is a significant emphasis within the design for the provision of larger units with private and shared gardens which are suitable for families with children.

The numbers of storeys proposed of two to four storeys are acceptable. These are appropriate for the area which has the seven storey Napier university building and a range of predominantly two storey housing in Sighthill and at Broomhouse. While the storey numbers are approved, the final building heights would be agreed at the detailed stage. The number of storeys will meet Edinburgh Airport’s requirements for height limits in relation to aircraft safety.

The proposed private and shared garden spaces will be of significant benefit to future residents. The submitted sun and daylight calculations which factor in the site level differences demonstrate that suitable amounts of sun and daylight can be achieved to both to the properties and the associated amenity areas.

Following advice from the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel at the pre application stage for the 2010 application, a clear hierarchy of streets has been developed with differentiation between the north-south and east-west street design in order to emphasise the connection with the park to the north. Reduced traffic levels will be ensured by preventing through routes and through the detailed design which will include raised tables and elements of shared space. All public areas will have good standards of passive surveillance.

During the design process, alternative locations for the centrally located public open space were considered, including assessing the potential for the space to be located adjacent to the planned community facilities. The central location chosen appears to be the most practical to serve the housing in a safe and convenient manner that is well overlooked by the surrounding housing. The use of appropriate materials for the space including associated lighting and street furniture would be agreed at the detailed design stage.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 10 of 30 The submitted soft and hard landscaping plans demonstrate the general principles to be applied to the site. These are: the incorporation of shared space, lines of trees to Calder Road and to Broomhouse Road, the use of permeable paving, and the use of avenues of trees to break up parking areas and to connect the site with Sighthill Park. These principles are acceptable subject to a more detailed consideration of materials, soft landscaping details and construction details.

There is a need to ensure that there is sufficient space for plants to grow where directly adjacent to driveways. Defensive planting (i.e. prickly bushes) to separate housing from the adjacent pedestrian and cycle routes may also be needed in some locations. Details of walls, railings, fences and hedges have been submitted but may need further adjustment to achieve secure by design criteria and to ensure adequate definition of private garden spaces. Accordingly the submitted drawings showing hard and soft landscaping details and boundary treatments are for the purpose of information only and should not be approved.

Edinburgh Airport sought conditions in relation to aircraft safety and landscape. The proposed restriction on the height of trees of trees is unnecessary since trees within the development would not exceed the height limit the Airport Sought. An informative is recommended on the details of landscape in relation to bird hazards and aircraft safety.

Subject to the proposed conditions, the master plan demonstrates that an appropriate scale and design and suitable standards of amenity will be achieved for both existing and future residents. d) Environmental impacts: ecology, noise, flooding, contamination, and archaeology

There will be road noise from Calder Road and Broomhouse Road. Details of glazing and its acoustic capabilities for the new properties are required to be agreed at the detailed stage.

Due to the extent of recent development on the site there are no archaeological issues arising from the development. Similarly, there are no ecological issues resulting from the proposal.

The site is separated from existing water courses and due to the site gradients is considered to be at a low risk of flooding from over land flow. Subject to the further consideration of sustainable urban drainage (SUDS) and the detailed agreement of finished levels, there are no flood risk issues.

Comments submitted by SEPA indicate that two levels of SUDS are required for all hard standing areas including roads. An exception is run-off from roofs which only requires a single level of treatment. Further design work is required to agree the full package of SUDS measures which would be acceptable to SEPA. Details of the drainage will be required at approval of matters specified in condition stage.

From the site investigation details submitted with the application, there is unlikely to be on site contamination from uses in the wider area. Any likely contamination may relate to the previous mixed uses and from asbestos being used in the construction of the remaining buildings. A standard condition is recommended requiring further assessment work to be carried out and suitable mitigation measures to be implemented as part of the development.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 11 of 30 For the planned community uses, the same conditions as applied to the 10/00953/PPP permission were sought by Environmental Assessment. These were standard conditions that are now not being used as they are now considered unnecessary or unenforceable. These conditions are not therefore recommended.

Subject to the recommended conditions, the development is acceptable in terms of environmental impacts. e) Education and Affordable Housing

Based on the intended form of development, as submitted, there is sufficient capacity in existing schools to accommodate the development.

In terms of affordable housing, the provision of 50% new affordable units within the site more than meets the 25% standard required by current policy. Although there would be an overall reduction in the amount of social rented units that were provided within the site, the planned replacement units represent a significantly improved provision that is designed to address the housing needs of the area including that for new social rented and mid-rent properties and for low cost home ownership. From the details submitted with the application the affordable housing provision broadly reflects the proposed mix of sizes of market housing in the redevelopment. The units will be built to high standards of energy efficiency thereby reducing the potential for fuel poverty for future residents.

Overall the proposal is acceptable in terms of education, and suitable provision for affordable housing has been shown. f) Sustainability

This application is for a renewal of a previous consent which exceeded the planning guidance requirements for sustainability at that time. The proposal will meet the requirements of the Building Standards which have become more onerous in relation to energy efficiency since the 2010 application was submitted.

Sustainability details would be a matter to be agreed at the detailed application stage. g) Equalities and human rights impacts

The development will improve the local environment and introduce a new mix of housing into the area which will provide for a wide range of people with the full range of protected characteristics.

Part of the proposal potentially impacts on disabled people or those with reduced mobility as some of the proposed dwellings are flats that will have to be accessed via stairs. Ten percent of the affordable dwellings (five percent of the total number of dwellings) will be designed to be accessible. As well as this enhance provision for accessibility, the other dwellings within the development will be required to meet the Building (Scotland) Regulations which have requirements for accessibility.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 12 of 30 The layout of the development helps pedestrian movement, making it easier for occupants to access services. As set out in section b) the existing pedestrian underpass at Calder Road is unsatisfactory for all users. It is more difficult to use than a pedestrian road crossing for disabled people. The contribution that the developer has agreed to make will help the delivery of a new at grade pedestrian crossing that will be easier to use.

In relation to rights, any adverse impacts to human health resulting from contamination and from noise pollution shall be removed via the recommended conditions. The layout of the development will allow AMC applications to provide reasonable levels of sunlight and daylight to properties – natural light being important to health.

Physical security is promoted through making streets and spaces overlooked by houses. Privacy in the dwellings and their gardens will help promote individual, family and social life.

The development therefore helps protect and enhance human rights and equality. h)Representations and Community Council.

Material representations Neighbours were notified on 15 August 2013. There were no representations from members of the public.

Community Council Sighthill, Broomhouse and Parkhead Community Council commented on the application (see Appendix 1). It raised concerns about health and education provision along with traffic management arrangements and the provision of the community centre.

The Community Council states that Sighthill Health Centre is currently working close to capacity and is refusing to register any new patients. The provision of health care is a matter for Lothian NHS Board.

In relation to comments about the over subscription of schools, Children and Families has confirmed that there is currently spare capacity at catchment schools. Children and Families have no objection to the proposal and do not require any developer contributions. This is set out in section e).

The Community Council is concerned about the junction with Calder Road and the effects on traffic and pedestrians. This is assessed in detail in section b).

The Community Council does not agree with the location of community facilities, preferring them to be located near to the junction of Broomhouse / Calder Road. The potential for this was explored in detail during the development of the design and assessed in considerable detail in the report on the 10/00953/PPP application to the Development Management Sub Committee. The conclusion at that time was that the proposed location at the western boundary of the site was appropriate. There are no reasons to form a different conclusion in relation to the current application. This issue is set out in detail in section a).

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 13 of 30 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the proposals comply with the development plan and the relevant non- statutory guidelines. There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion. The recommendation is subject to conditions relating to the submission of approval of matters, site investigation and maximum retail floor area. Various informatives are also proposed including those in relation to the potential for a contribution to the planned junction provision.

To provide planning continuity over the 21st Century Homes for Edinburgh development programme for North Sighthill, which is expected to be phased over a number of years, it is recommended that it is directed that the duration of the consent be ten years.

3. Recommendations

3.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below

3.2 Conditions/reasons

1. Prior to the commencement of works on site, details of the under-noted matters shall be submitted and approved by the planning authority, in the form of a detailed layout of that phase of the site and include detailed plans, sections and elevations of the buildings and all other structures.

Approval of Matters:

(a) Siting, design and height of development, including design of all external features and glazing specifications (including acoustic capabilities)

(b) Design and configuration of public and open spaces, all external materials and finishes

(c) Car parking including the number and location of City Car Club spaces to be provided, cycle parking, access, road layouts and alignment, classification of streets, servicing areas and electric charging points

(d) the precise number of residential units to be developed within the site

(e) Waste management and recycling facilities

(f) Sustainability details

(g) Footpaths and cycle routes

(h) Surface water and drainage arrangements

(i) Hard and soft landscaping details, including:

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 14 of 30 (i) Walls, fences, gates and any other boundary treatments;

(ii) The location of new trees, shrubs and hedges;

(iii) A schedule of plants to comprise species, plant size and proposed number/density;

(iv) Programme of completion and subsequent maintenance;

(v) Existing and proposed services such as cables, pipelines, substations;

(vi) Other artefacts and structures such as street furniture, including lighting columns and fittings, and play equipment;

(vii) Details of phasing of these works.

(k) Existing and finished ground levels in relation to Ordnance Datum.

2. The total amount of net (trading) retail floor space to be developed shall be restricted to a maximum of 250 sq m. This area shall be delineated on plan as part of any further approval of matters. Thereafter no additional internal floor space or mezzanine shall be created unless authorised by a grant of planning permission.

3. Prior to the commencement of construction works on site:

(a) A site survey (including intrusive investigation where necessary) must be carried out to establish to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning and Building Standards, either that the level of risk posed to human health and the wider environment by contaminants in, on or under the land is acceptable, or that remedial and/or protective measures could be undertaken to bring the risks to an acceptable level in relation to the development; and

(b) Where necessary, a detailed schedule of any remedial and/or protective measures, including their programming, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards

Any required remedial and/or protective measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved schedule and documentary evidence to certify those works shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Reasons:-

1. In order to accord with the statutory requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts.

2. To ensure that the vitality and viability of the existing local shopping centre is not prejudiced by the development.

3. In order to protect the amenity of the occupiers of the development.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 15 of 30 Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. It is directed that: a) Application for the approval of matters specified in conditions must be made before the expiration of ten years from the date of the grant of planning permission in principle, unless an earlier application for such an approval has been refused or an appeal against such a refusal has been dismissed, in which case application for approval of all outstanding matters specified in conditions must be made within 6 months of the date of such refusal or dismissal. b) The approved development must be commenced not later than the expiration of ten years from the date of the grant of planning permission in principle or from the date of expiry of the time period for final approval of matters specified in condition, whichever is later.

2. Subject to the outcome of discussions with relevant parties which are being facilitated by CEC Transport regarding the delivery of the planned Sighthill Court/ Calder Road signalised junction or of a pedestrian crossing over Calder Road at the same location, the applicant has agreed to make a suitable contribution towards the delivery of the planned improvement works. The exact amount, form and timing of the contribution shall be confirmed and agreed in writing with the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

3. For the avoidance of doubt, although the master plan and accompanying building use and building height drawings are approved, further improvements to the master plan shall be sought at the approval of matters stage. The accompanying drawings relating to circulation and parking, refuse, hard and soft landscaping, boundary treatment, drainage and suds, and major utilities routes are not approved and are considered for the purposes of information at this stage.

4. Given the nature of the proposed development it is possible that a crane may be required during its construction. We would, therefore, draw the applicant’s attention to the requirement within the British Standard Code of Practice for the safe use of Cranes, for crane operators to consult the aerodrome before erecting a crane in close proximity to an aerodrome. This is explained further in Advice Note 4 ’Cranes and Other Construction Issues’.

5. The site layout to be submitted as part of the AMC application required under condition 1 above shall include full details of the location and design of the surface water drainage scheme to be installed within the application site and for the avoidance of doubt the scheme shall comply with the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency's (SEPA) principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS).

6. In relation to the glazing specification and its acoustic capabilities as required by in condition 1 a) this is required to ensure that occupiers of the development are protected from road traffic noise from the A71 Calder Road and Broomhouse Road.

It is expected the development will be designed in accordance with BS8233:1999 'Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings - Code of Practice' to attain the following internal noise levels:

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 16 of 30 Bedrooms - 30dB LAeq, T and 45dB LAfmax Living Rooms - 30 dB LAeq, D

T - Night-time 8 hours between 2300 - 0700 D - Daytime 16 hours between 0700 - 2300

7. Details of building design and landscape required by condition 1 must comply with Advice Note 3 ‘Potential Bird Hazards from Amenity Landscaping & Building Design’ (available at www.aoa.org.uk/publications/safeguarding.asp ).

Statutory Development Plan Provision The development plan is the South East Scotland Strategic Development Plan - SESPlan and the adopted Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP). Also relevant is the Draft North Sighthill Development Brief prepared in 2007.

Date registered 12 August 2013

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01, 04A, 07 and 08,

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 17 of 30

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

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

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

Policy Des 3 (Development Design) sets criteria for assessing development design.

Policy Des 4 (Layout Design) sets criteria for assessing layout design.

Policy Des 5 (External Spaces) sets criteria for assessing landscape design and external space elements of development.

Policy Des 6 (Sustainable Design & Construction) sets criteria for assessing the sustainable design and construction elements of development.

Policy Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance) sets out the circumstances in which development affecting sites of known or suspected archaeological significance will be permitted.

Policy Env 16 (Species) sets out species protection requirements for new development.

Policy Env 17 (Flood Protection) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on flood protection.

Policy Env 18 (Air, Water and Soil Quality) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on air, water and soil quality.

Policy Os 1 (Open Space Protection) sets criteria for assessing the loss of open space.

Policy Os 3 (Open Space in New Development) sets out requirements for the provision of open space in new development.

Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development) supports housing on appropriate sites in the urban area, and on specific sites identified in the Plan.

Policy Hou 2 (Housing Mix) requires the provision of a mix of house types and sizes in new housing developments.

Policy Hou 3 (Private Open Space) sets out the requirements for the provision of private open space in housing development.

Policy Hou 4 (Density) sets out the factors to be taken into account in assessing density levels in new development.

Policy Hou 7 (Affordable Housing) requires 25% affordable housing provision in residential development of twelve or more units.

Policy Com1 (Community Facilities) sets requirements for the provision of community facilities associated with large scale residential development, and the protection of existing community facilities.

Policy Com2 (School Contributions) sets the requirements for school contributions associated with new housing development.

Policy Tra 1 (Major Travel Generating Development) supports major travel generating development in the Central Area, and sets criteria for assessing major travel generating development elsewhere.

Policy Tra 2 (Planning Conditions and Agreements) requires, where appropriate, transport related conditions and/or planning agreements for major development likely to give rise to additional journeys.

Policy Tra 3m (Tram Contributions) requires contributions from developers towards the cost of tram works where the proposed tram network will help address the transport impacts of a development.

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

Policy Tra 5 (Private Cycle Parking) requires cycle parking provision in accordance with levels set out in supplementary guidance.

Policy Tra 6 (Design of Off-Street Car and Cycle Parking) sets criteria for assessing design of off-street car and cycle parking.

Other Relevant policy guidance

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 and landscape, in Edinburgh.

Non-statutory guidelines on Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing gives guidance on the situations where developers will be required to provide affordable housing and/or will be required to make financial or other contributions towards the cost of, providing new facilities for schools, transport improvements, the tram project, public realm improvements and open space.

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

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 19 of 30 Non-statutory guidelines on 'MOVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT' establish design criteria for road and parking layouts.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 20 of 30 Appendix 1

Consultations

Edinburgh Urban Design Panel 24/02/2010

1 Introduction

1.1 This report relates to a masterplan for housing at North Sighthill.

1.2 The brief, which is part of a wider Council project to deliver 1300 new homes in 3 sites across the city for the project envisages 300 new dwellings at North Sighthill. Half of the new homes will be affordable and the other half for market sale. It is intended that both the affordable and market housing will deliver 40% family housing. The project objective is to secure planning permission in principle for a residential masterplan with associated community facilities.

1.3 This is the first time that the proposals have been reviewed.

1.4 No declarations of interest were made by any panel members in relation to this scheme.

1.5 This report should be read in conjunction with the pre meeting papers which provide an overview, context, concept, plans, sections and 3D visualisations of the scheme.

1.6 This report is the view of the Panel and is not attributable to any one individual. The report does not prejudice any of the organisations who are represented at the panel forming a differing view about the proposals at a later stage.

2 The Panel’s views on the proposals

2.1 The panel welcomes the approach taken to the design of the masterplan thus far. In making the masterplan a success there are a number of matters which should be further considered.

2.2 The relationship between the housing and Calder Road needs to be such that that the dwellings are not unduly affected by the noise and pollution from the road. The position of the buildings and the built form may have an effect on this. The design should ensure that an attractive frontage to Calder Road is possible. There may be visual advantages to additional tree and shrub planting. The implications for the relationship of building lines to similar distributor roads within the city may be also worthy of consideration.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 21 of 30 2.3 The masterplan should seek to create a clear hierarchy of streets and spaces. The North / South streets are likely to benefit from dramatic views and in maximising these views, the streets may benefit from having different proportions and planting than the street running East / West for example. The Panel is concerned that with regard to the design of streets, the master planners are unable to explore the possibility of home- zones.

2.4 It is recognised that the recommendation to create a hierarchy of streets and spaces is made difficult by the requirement for car parking. This is having the effect of creating relatively wide streets which will have similar proportions throughout the site. The numbers of car parking spaces appear over generous and are damaging to the potential character of the development. If it was possible to reduce the requirement it may be possible to more easily achieve a hierarchy and a sense of place. The Panel is supportive of a reconsideration of the Parking Standards for this site particularly given the proximity of the bus route.

2.5 The success of a public space within the scheme will be dependent on the uses within and around it, its location and the buildings which spatially define it. In determining whether the central square as currently envisaged is the most suitable location it would be useful to look at other options – for example positioning it adjacent to the health centre. The advantages of alternative approaches could then be compared against those of its current location.

2.6 In doing this, the potential for introducing some use or uses in and or around it should be examined. If positioned next to the health centre it may be possible to locate community facilities in the buildings adjacent to it. The feasibility of different uses needs to be taken into account. While the in the central location a small shop may seem appropriate from an urban design perspective, the likely level of patronage may not be sufficient to sustain it commercially. The possibility of a house unit designed to be converted, in whole or in part, to retail within the main square in the event that there is demand eventually should be explored. Initially it is suggest that any small scale retail should be on the Western edge of the site. If a play area for young children is proposed, it will be very important to create a high degree of passive surveillance to mitigate any potential problems with antisocial behaviour.

2.7 If it is decided that the square’s current location has the greatest benefits then further spatial enclosure of it should be considered in order to more clearly define it and support the hierarchy of streets and spaces that is recommended.

2.8 The design should ensure that courtyard spaces and gardens benefit from sunshine.

2.9 The management of public spaces, courtyards and gardens needs to be considered to ensure that the quality of the spaces can be maintained.

2.10 The impact of users of neighbouring buildings (such as Napier) using the car parking provided within the site should be considered in the masterplan.

2.11 It was noted that the design of perpendicular car parking has advantages in reducing vehicular crime in comparison with parallel parking.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 22 of 30 2.12 It is important that the affordable housing is as far as possible made indistinguishable from the market housing. The Drum in Bo’ness is an example which appears “tenure blind”.

2.13 The masterplan should take account of the potential for change in the area. For example the masterplan should allow for the redevelopment and integration of the fire station or health centre sites if these were to be moved elsewhere. Similarly, Napier University’s estate’s strategy for North Sighthill should be taken cognisance of.

2.14 In summary the Panel supports the direction that has been taken with the design of the masterplan for what is clearly a challenging site and brief. It will be important to address the issues raised in this report – particularly those relating to the design of streets and car parking.

3 Other matters

3.1 It is recommended that the Council considers the scope of briefs for developments of this nature. It should attempt where possible to take account of opportunities in adjacent sites to ensure that future development of the wider can happen in a cohesive manner.

3.2 The Panel suggests that the urban design impact of the parking standards and the moratorium on home-zones should be reviewed by the Council.

3.3 The Panel requests an opportunity to find out about the Council’s affordable housing policy, to discuss it, understand what effect it might be having on the fabric of the city and consider whether it may be appropriate for the Panel to input into any process of refinement.

Sighthill, Broomhouse + Parkhead Community Council comment 15/08/2013

We have concerns regarding health and education provision along with traffic management arrangements and the provision of a community centre.

Sighthill Health Centre is currently working at close to capacity and Whin Park is refusing to register any new patients. There is also a lot of upheaval with the opening of the new Health Centre at Wester Hailes along with the relocation of a lot of different services with the associated closure of Springwell House. How the addition of the residents of these planned properties is as yet unknown and careful consideration of how this development will impact on the health needs for those moving into the properties as well as those already receiving these services needs to be identified and appropriate plans put into place to deal with it.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 23 of 30 Murrayburn Primary school is once again this year oversubscribed, with catchment children even having difficulty in securing a place. There has also just been planning permission granted for 80+ homes at the Oaklands site in Broomhouse which will also have an impact on school numbers. We have also been advised of a large housing development around Kirkliston, as well as the recent large development around Ratho which both come under the catchment area for Catholic provision of St Josephs and St Augustine’s, both of which are full and, with the recent changes to housing benefit (the so called 'bedroom tax'), family sized homes will now really have to mean family homes, and we are concerned regarding education provision and capacity, so we require an updated report from Children & Families on what impact the redevelopment of North Sighthill will have and what their contingency plans will be to deal with it.

With regard to traffic, we still have no junction installed on Calder Road at Sighthill Bank, despite the Council already having some funds secured from Napier University from a S75 agreement. This junction is vital for traffic accessing and regressing from the new development, particularly as the plans remove the current through route to Broomhouse Road. We were previously informed that a S75 agreement was not possible for this as it would be one Council department securing funds from another, but a legally binding agreement was secured for recovering the tram contribution which is between Council departments therefore, if it’s possible for the tram contribution then it is certainly possible to secure funding for installing the new junction, with the main benefit being the introduction of a surface crossing on Calder Road, something which the community, the local Councillors, the local MSP and the Council have all recognised is needed, more so with the new occupants of the redevelopment needing to cross Calder Road to access shops, buses, etc. Given the number of vehicle movements that will be required to build the proposed development, we would ask the this new junction is created BEFORE work starts on the development, as its completion would mean shorter journeys from vehicles accessing and egressing Sighthill Bank as well as providing a safe crossing point for pedestrians trying to cross Sighthill Bank with the increase in traffic due to the development.

Finally, we still wish to register of objection to the siting of the Community Centre. We firmly believe that this should be sited as close to the centre of the Community it will serve as possible, which is as close to the junction of Broomhouse Road/Calder Rd as possible and therefore we require this to be reconsidered.

We would also like state that while we still support the principle of redeveloping the site, there have been a number of factors which have changed since planning permission was first granted, and just giving an automatic renewal of that permission would, we suggest, be irresponsible and that looking at the surrounding changes and how that will impact on the community along with the redevelopment would be the prudent and sensible approach and it would allow us to be reassured that traffic/transport needs as well as education provision were known to the relevant departments and that solutions to deal with these issues were being progressed alongside the redevelopment, so we don't have a situation where North Sighthill is completed, issues surrounding school places becomes apparent and only then are solutions sought. Much better to do this as the building works are on-going, not once they are finished.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 24 of 30 As a community council, we have seen occasions over the years were the Council allows something to happen without looking at the ancillary effects that this will have. When these effects are realised, plans to deal with them are then put in place to resolve them but it means that the community is left affected until these new measures are implemented. It is surely much better for everyone concerned to adopt a more holistic approach where the potential effects of a development on a number of factors within the local community should be taken so that the completion of the development complements the community in which it now resides.

Edinburgh Airport comment 16/08/2013

We have no objection to this proposal provided that the comments in our previous consultation response (dated 20/05/10) will apply to any future consent.

Archaeology comment 17/08/2013

The proposed site has been severely affected by modern developed and it is considered unlikely that significant sub surface archaeological remains will survive. Accordingly I have concluded that there are no known archaeological implications upon this development.

Environmental Assessment comment 19/08/2013

The proposal is to redevelop an area of council housing estate into a new site for affordable housing and a mixed use community centre. There are a number of areas which this department wish to comment on and recommend conditions to ensure that the new layout and design of buildings adequately protects residential amenity. The road traffic noise from the A71 Calder Road and Broomhouse Road should be taken into account when designing the residential apartments. Therefore, an assessment will be required at the detailed stage of the application to ensure that internal noise levels within the proposed residential properties comply with the BS8233 (good levels).

The outline plans show a proposed mixed use retail area at the west edge of the development site. Although this mixed use unit may not be constructed until later in the development timetable it is recommended that conditions are attached to ensure that noise from plant and deliveries does not affect nearby residential amenity. The exact details shall be resolved at the approval of matters in conditions (AMC) stage. Furthermore as the development site is to be cleared of the existing buildings and demolition work is required, a contaminated land report was provided by the developer. This report has been reviewed by a member of the Environmental Assessment team and all necessary remediation work can be undertaken as required. Therefore the standard contaminated land condition is recommended.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 25 of 30 Environmental Assessment also suggests that the developer considers implementing measures to help mitigate against possible air quality impacts associated with the development. Although the total number of housing units will decrease from what is presently on the site (451 down to around 300) the new type of housing proposed will add a limited number of additional car parking spaces. In order to encourage residents to use zero emission electric vehicles, and therefore help improve air quality throughout Edinburgh, the provision of electric vehicle charging points should be considered by the council. This could be provided by a weather proof plug point at each driveway or internally within a garage if provided so that occupiers can recharge an electric car at their property. Furthermore the development of a “Green Travel Plan” to help promote the sustainable personal transport needs of residents living on this development would be supported by this department.

Therefore Environmental Assessment has no objections to this proposed development subject to the following conditions:

1) Prior to the commencement of construction works on site:

(b) Where necessary, a detailed schedule of any remedial and/or protective measures, including their programming, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning.

2) Development shall not commence until a scheme for protecting the occupiers of the residential units hereby consented from A71 Calder Road and Broomhouse Road noise has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning; all works which form part of the approved scheme shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning, before any part of the development is occupied.

Mixed Use Community Centre

3) The design and installation of any plant machinery or equipment shall be such that any associated noise complies with NR25 when measured within any nearby living apartment, and no structure borne vibration is perceptible within any nearby living apartment.

4) The sound insulation properties or sound transmission characteristics of the structures and finishes shall be such that no impact or airborne noise from the normal operations within the application premises is audible in any neighbouring living apartment.

5) Deliveries and collections, including waste collections, to be restricted to 07.00 – 19.00 hours, Monday to Sunday.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 26 of 30 Other Issues

6) The design, installation and operation of any proposed substations shall be such that any associated noise complies with NR20 when measured within any nearby living apartment with the windows open.

Should you wish to discuss the above, please do not hesitate to contact me on 0131 469 5739.

Addendum

As stated above, Environmental Assessment has no objections to the approval of the application subject to the recommended conditions being attached to any consent.

NB. However, should all of the above conditions not be applied to any consent, Environmental Assessment will require to review the recommendation. In such event, it is imperative that this is notified immediately to the Environmental Assessment case officer.

SEPA comment 28/08/2013

We have no objection to this planning application. Please note the advice provided below.

Advice for the planning authority

1. Previous advice.

1.1 We provided advice on the original application (your reference 10/00953/PPP, our reference PCS/107259) on 7 May 2007 with comments on Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR) and Sustainable Urban Drainage.

1.2 If the drainage arrangements are the same as those for the 2010 application we have nothing further to add.

Bridges + Flood Prevention comment 30/08/2013

Surface Water Management Plan

The surface water management plan should deal with flood risk from surface water, ensuring that flood risk elsewhere is not made worse by runoff from the development. The main elements of the surface water management plan should be analysed up to the 1;200yr (0.5%AEP) event with an allowance for climate change and include as follows:

Discharge Point

1. Discharge point(s) for the drainage system must be identified, and the approval in principle from the owner, or Scottish Water in the case of a sewer, for the discharge to that point must be demonstrated.

2. If the drainage system discharges to a watercourse, directly or indirectly, it must be served by SUDS in accordance with the SUDS manual, and SUDS for roads where

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 27 of 30 applicable. The treatment methods must be approved by SEPA. Maximum discharge rates should not exceed 4.5l/s/ha or the 2yr greenfield rate, whichever is the lower. Attenuation volume must be designed for the full capacity of the drainage system. Flow Paths

1. Surface water should be dealt with by analysing the existing and proposed flow paths and depths for surface water runoff. This should include runoff from outwith the site, from unpaved areas within the site, and from paved areas in events which exceed the capacity of the drainage system.

2. New buildings in the development must not be at risk of flooding as a result of these flow paths and depths

3. Where runoff from the site could increase flood risk elsewhere, the increased runoff from paved surfaces, relative to greenfield runoff, (up to the 1;200yr event) should be attenuated on site.

4. If the development alters existing flow paths in a way which increases flood risk to existing property, additional attenuation or other measures may be required.

SUDS Maintenance

1. Details of the organisation taking on the responsibility of the proposed SUDS (including underground attenuation tanks), the size of SUDS retention ponds along with GIS co-ordinates is required.

It is recognised that small, restricted sites may require some relaxation in respect of attenuation volumes on site.

Information should be supplied in a report detailing proposed mitigation measures with supporting and appropriate drawings and calculations. Print outs from InfoWorks solely is not considered as a sufficient report.

Drainage issues cannot be left as a condition on an FUL or AMC application, since it can have significant impacts on finished floor levels, property locations, location of paths and other hard landscaping aspects. This information is required prior to this department’s determination.

Affordable Housing comment 04/09/2013

The original application for planning permission in principle (Ref: 10/00953/PPP) proposed to replace existing properties and the previously demolished multi-storey blocks with a mixed size, mixed tenure development with a range of house types and sizes. The policy requirement of 25% affordable housing provision was exceeded, with a commitment to around 30% comprising social rented homes and a further 20% comprising a mix of other approved affordable tenures.

Therefore, this department maintains its position in terms of supporting this application which will provide affordable housing in excess of policy requirements.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 28 of 30 Children + Families comment 11/09/2013

We refer to your e-mail dated 11 September 2013 requesting comments on educational provision for the above noted development. This seeks renewal of an earlier planning application (10/00953/PPP) on which we provided comments in June 2010.

We advised that the proposed development of 320 dwellings will replace a former development of over 450 dwellings and in assessing the proposal it is net change that taken into account when considering the need for developer contributions. The reduction in numbers is partly offset by part provision of houses with potentially higher pupil generation but the overall change is expected to low.

This site is located within the catchment areas of:

• Broomhouse Primary School; • St Joseph’s RC Primary School; • Forrester High School; and • St Augustine’s RC High School.

There is currently spare capacity at the affected catchment schools, although with the publication of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan it is proposed that extra capacity is provided at Forrester High School to cope with longer term housing development. Work is ongoing looking at possible funding arrangement but at the current time the existing developer contributions policy still applies. On this basis, and given that proposal is essentially a replacement of former housing, we have no objection to the proposal.

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 29 of 30

Location Plan

Development Management Sub Committee – Wednesday 23 October 2013 Page 30 of 30 Development Management Sub- Committee of the Planning Committee name

Wednesday, 23rd October 2013

Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order No. 171. (179 Clermiston Road & 7 Fox Covert Grove.

Edinburgh)

Item number Report number Wards Drum Brae/Gyle

Links

Coalition pledges Council outcomes CO19 Single Outcome Agreement SO2 SO4

David Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Steven Milne, Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 3531

Executive summary

Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order No. 171. (179 Clermiston Road & 7 Fox Covert Grove, Edinburgh) Summary

 Tree Preservation Order No. 171 (179 Clermiston Road & 7 Fox Covert Grove, Edinburgh) was made under delegated powers on 02 May 2013  The order protected three oak trees but one tree was felled just before the order could be made  The two remaining trees are a prominent landscape feature, contribute to character and attractiveness of the locality and are of cultural and historic interest  The tree preservation order provides temporary protection to the trees in question but the order needs to be confirmed by the Committee to become permanent Recommendations

It is recommended that the Planning Committee:  confirm Tree Preservation Order No 171 as modified to exclude the one tree which was felled Financial impact

There are no financial implications for the Council. Equalities impact

The Tree Preservation Order Confirmation has no impact in terms of equalities or human rights. Sustainability impact

The Tree Preservation Order Confirmation is not subject to the Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Buildings.

Committee name – Date 23 October 2013 Page 2 of 6 Consultation and engagement

When the tree preservation order was made it was advertised in accordance with Regulation in the Scotsman newspaper which provided 28 days in which to make representations. No representation were received

Background reading / external references

None

Committee name – Date 23 October 2013 Page 3 of 6 port

Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order No. 171. (179 Clermiston Road & 7 Fox Covert Grove, Edinburgh)

1. Background

1.1 The trees in question consisted of two mature oak trees in the garden of 179 Clermiston Road and one mature oak tree in the garden of 7 Fox Covert Grove. The TPO map is included at Appendix 1. The trees are locally prominent and contribute to character and attractiveness of the locality. The trees are also of historic and cultural value as they are the remnants of an avenue of oak trees which led down Oak Lane to Buttercup Farm.

1.2 A request for the making of a tree preservation order was received from two local residents on the basis that they considered the trees might be under threat from development for a house extension.

1.3 The trees were assessed and in view of their value, a tree preservation order to protect the trees in question was made by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards under delegated powers on 2nd May 2013.

2. Main report

2.1 A number of requests for the Council to make a tree preservation order were received by telephone and in writing from occupiers of properties neighbouring the trees in question. This included a request from the owner of one of the trees. The concern expressed by the neighbours was that the they had been notified by the owner of two of the trees that they would be removed in order to extend the house under permitted development rights.

2.2 One request was accompanied by information on the trees’ historic and cultural interest as the trees formed the remnants of an historic avenue of oak trees on the driveway to the Clermiston Mains farm which along with the trees date from prior to 1850. The farm was latterly part of The Buttercup Dairy Company.

2.3 An officer visited the site and was spoken to by a number of local residents who indicated support for the retention of the trees. The trees were seen to be of considerable age and contributed to the character and attractiveness of the locality. In addition the cultural and historic value of the trees and their association with the grouping of original buildings and entrance gate to the farm is noted.

Committee name – Date 23 October 2013 Page 4 of 6 2.4 It was not possible to quantify the level of threat to the trees. However, in view of the recognised value of the trees and the local interest in the trees it was considered expedient to make a tree preservation order to prohibit carrying out of tree work trees except with the consent of the Council as planning authority. This allows the Council an opportunity to assess the impact of proposed tree work on amenity.

2.5 A tree preservation order was made by the Head of Planning and Building Standards on 2 May 2013 and was served on all interested parties that day. However, when officers arrived to serve the order it was noted that one of the two trees at 179 Clermiston Road had been felled that day.

2.6 The tree preservation order provides 6 months protection to the trees. Under new Regulations introduced in 2011, the order will expire after 6 months unless confirmed within this period (i.e. before 2 November 2013). Confirmation of the order is required to retain the tree preservation order and provide long term protection to the trees.

2.7 On the making of the tree preservation order and in accordance with regulations, copies of the order were served on all those with an interest in the land, a notice placed in The Scotsman newspaper and a copy of the order left at the local library. Any person then has 28 days to object to the order or make any other representation. No objections or representations have been received.

2.8 The order has been modified to remove the tree which was felled prior to its service.

3. Recommendations

3.1 It is recommended that the Committee confirm Tree Preservation Order No 171 (179 Clermiston Road & 7 Fox Covert Grove, Edinburgh) as modified.

David R Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Committee name – Date 23 October 2013 Page 5 of 6

Committee name – Date 23 October 2013 Page 6 of 6 Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 23 October 2013

Application for Planning Permission 13/03003/FUL At 7 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP Formation of new dormer window to rear elevation; installation of new roof windows into existing pitched roof; replacement of existing bituminous felt flat roof with new warm roof construction.

Item number Report number Wards A15 - Southside/Newington

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITE6, CITD3, CITD11, OTH, CRPBLA, this application

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Lynsey Townsend, Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3905

Executive summary

Summary

The proposal is an acceptable scale, form and design that is compatible with the character and appearance of the existing building and the conservation area. The proposal will not result in a harmful loss to neighbouring amenity and will not be detrimental to neighbourhood character. The minor infringement regarding the distance of the dormer from the ridge does not justify refusing planning permission. The proposal accords with planning policy and there are no other material considerations to justify refusal. Recommendations

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below (in section 3 of the main report). Financial impact

There are no financial implications to the Council. Equalities impact

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

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 9 August 2013 and a total of nineteen letters of representation were received. Seventeen of these were from neighbouring residents, one was from the Blacket Association all objecting and one was a letter of support.

The main grounds of objection are as follows:-

- the rooflights are out of keeping with the rest of the street;

- proposal will alter the external appearance of the property;

- proposal will deteriorate the character and appearance of the area;

-increase in height of the roof is detrimental to the appearance of the property;

- loss of privacy.

One letter supported the development stating that the proposal will have a minimal affect on the area as it is located to the rear of the building.

A full assessment of the representations can be found in the main report in the Assessment section. Background reading / external references

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

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 3 of 9 Report

1.1 Site description

The application site is located on the east side of Dryden Place close to the junction with Blacket Avenue. The application property is a large stone built semi-detached villa set within a row of similar properties. The area is residential in nature.

This property is located within the Blacket Conservation Area.

1.2 Site History

There is no relevant planning history for this site. 2. Main report

2.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application is for the conversion of the attic into living accommodation by the formation of a dormer on the rear elevation and one conservation rooflight to the front and two conservation rooflights on the side elevation. The proposal also involves replacing the cupola rooflight which will match the existing.

The dormer to the rear will measure 1.6 metres wide by 1.4 metres high and will sit 0.1 metres below the ridge of the roof. It will be flat roofed and will have two traditional timber sash and case windows. Materials proposed will be zinc or lead cladding.

The rooflight on the front elevation will measure 1.3 metres by 0.9 metres and the two on the side elevation will measure 0.5 metres by 0.7 metres and 1.3 metres by 0.9 metres. They will be a conservation style.

The existing felt flat roof will be replaced with a new warm roof construction.

2.2 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?

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 4 of 9 If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them?

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

2.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether: a) the proposals preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area; b) the proposed scale, design and materials are acceptable; c) the proposal is detrimental to the amenity of neighbours; d) any impacts on equalities or human rights are acceptable; and e) comments raised have been addressed. a) The Blacket Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that Blacket is an early suburb of detached and semi-detached classically styled Georgian and Victorian villas now enhanced by the maturity of garden and street planting. The gardens, abundant mature planting within private gardens and in communal areas which make a significant contribution to the character of the area.

The area is characterised by similar villas with a number of the properties within the street having added dormers to the front elevations. The appropriate local plan policies and non- statutory guideline encourages development that preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the conservation area. This proposal does not dominate the roof and reflects similar alterations undertaken within the wider area. It is not considered that the proposal will have a detrimental effect on the character or appearance of the conservation area.

The alterations to the existing flat roof which will result in new insulation board being built up and refinished in a bituminous felt system would not constitute development as defined by section 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and is therefore not a consideration in the assessment of this planning application. a) Scale, design and materials

The non-statutory Guidance for Householders outlines that generally dormers should be of a size that they do not dominate the form of the roof. A single dormer should not exceed one third of the average roof length and should be a minimum of 500mm clear of the ridge, hip and eaves and 1 metre from the gable. Although the size of the rear dormer complies with the Guideline as it occupies approximately 26% of the roof length, it does not achieve the minimum of 500mm clear of the ridge. However, given the proposed dormer is located on the rear elevation, sits comfortably within the roof plane and is not be highly visible from the public street, it is considered the proposal will not be detrimental to the appearance of the property and a relaxation to the guideline is justified in this instance.

The rooflights are of a conservation style and are of an appropriate size. The only rooflight visible from the street will be that on the front elevation. The size and positioning of this rooflight will sit comfortably within the roofplane and will not detract from the character of the conservation area.

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 5 of 9

The dormer window will achieve in excess of 9 metres to the rear boundary. This row of properties already has an element of overlooking at the upper level and the introduction of a dormer window will not exacerbate this overlooking. No privacy issues arise from the velux windows. c) Equalities and human rights

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. No impact was identified. d) Public comments

The material points raised were;

- Velux windows are out of keeping with the rest of the street - addressed in section (a)

- Proposal will alter the external appearance of the property - addressed in section (a)

- Increase in height of the roof is detrimental to the appearance of the property - addressed in section (a)

- Loss of privacy - addressed in section (c)

- Proposal will deteriorate the character and appearance of the area - addressed in section (a)

3. Recommendations

3.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

2. No development shall take place on the site until a 'Notice of Initiation of Development' has been submitted to the Council stating the intended date on which the development is to commence. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of planning control, under Section 123(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 6 of 9 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.

Statutory Development Plan Provision Edinburgh City Local Plan - Urban Area.

Date registered 31 July 2013

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01-02,

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 7 of 9

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development ) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas.

Policy Des 3 (Development Design) sets criteria for assessing development design.

Policy Des 11 (Alterations and Extensions) sets criteria for assessing alterations and extensions to existing buildings.

Other Relevant policy guidance

The Blacket Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the mix of substantial villas and terraces, the unified architectural form and materials, the sense of spaciousness derived from the generously proportioned gardens and large mature trees, and the predominance of residential uses.

Appendix 1

Consultations

No consultations undertaken.

Location Plan

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 9 of 9 Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 23 October 2013

Application for Planning Permission 13/03476/FUL At Land 48 Metres Southwest Of 1 Freelands Farm, Freelands Road, Ratho Erection of two semi-detached dwellings.

Item number Report number Wards A02 - Pentland Hills

Links

Policies and guidance for LPRW, RWE5, RWE6, RWE41, RWE42, RWH3, NSG, this application NSGCGB, NSGD02,

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Ruth Bradford, Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3464

Executive summary

Application for Planning Permission 13/03476/FUL At Land 48 Metres Southwest Of 1 Freelands Farm, Freelands Road, Ratho Erection of two semi-detached dwellings.

Summary

The proposals do not comply with the development plan and relevant non-statutory guidelines. Recommendations

It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below (in section 3 of the main report). Financial impact

There are no financial implications to the Council. Equalities impact

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. The impacts are identified in the Assessment section of the main report. Sustainability impact

Consultation and engagement

Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 13 September. Seven representations were received, which made comments in support of the application.

The letters of representation raised the following material issues:

- the land should be considered a brownfield site. - the proposal is an appropriate scale, location and design for the setting - the footprint of the original farm steading would not be increased - there is a requirement for housing in the area.

A full assessment of the representations can be found in the main report in the Assessment section. Background reading / external references

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

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 3 of 12 Report

Application for Planning Permission 13/03476/FUL At Land 48 Metres Southwest Of 1 Freelands Farm, Freelands Road, Ratho Erection of two semi-detached dwellings. 1. Background

1.1 Site description

Freelands Farm is located within the Green Belt, to the north east of the settlement boundary of Ratho.

The application site lies on the southern part of the farm yard. The site originally had a stone building on it. Most recently it was covered by an agricultural shed constructed of concrete block and corrugated metal sheeting. This has now been removed and the site has the remains of one wall and concrete floor of the original building.

There are old steading buildings approximately 10 metres to the north which have been converted into residential units.

All of these buildings are located west of the existing farmhouse.

1.2 Site History

13 November 2002 planning permission granted to convert existing Farm Steading at Freelands Farm into five dwellings (Reference:- 02/03018/FUL). 24 June 2004 planning permission refused to build two houses (semi-detached) (Reference:- 04/01107/FUL). 21 December 2012 planning permission refused for the erection of two semi detached dwellings (Reference:- 12/03870/FUL). 2. Main report

2.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application is to erect two single storey, two bedroomed semi-detached dwellings on the footprint of the agricultural shed, which has now been removed, apart from a low stone wall which formed part of the original building. The properties would have a garage each located between the two dwellinghouses.

The proposed materials are stone with wet-dash render walls, red pantiles and timber windows and rooflights.

Access to the dwellings would be via an existing access off Freelands Road.

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 4 of 12 Supporting Statement:

A planning statement was included with the application. This statement covers:

- the site - the development - national policy - the development plan - a discussion

This document is available to view on the Planning and Building Standards online services.

2.2 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?

2.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether: a) the principle of development is acceptable; b) the proposal adversely affects the open rural character of the area and its landscape quality; c) neighbouring residential amenity is safeguarded; d) there is any impact on parking or road safety; e) the proposal will have any detrimental impact on equalities and human rights; and f) the representations raise issues to be addressed.

a) Principle of Development

The application is outwith the settlement boundary of Ratho and is located within the green belt. Therefore the principle of the development must be established.

The most recent building on the site has been removed. It was a relatively modern construction consisting of concrete block and corrugated metal sheeting and was built over the footprint of the original stone shed. The only remaining part of the original building is a stone section of the southern wall of the building. The remains of the original building are not substantially intact and cannot be considered to be of any architectural merit or historic value that would support or justify its retention through development into residential use. As only one wall of the original building remains, the application is considered as seeking new residential development in the green belt.

The Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan and the emerging Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy set out policies for the protection of the green belt. In general, new development is only considered acceptable where it has an operational requirement for

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 5 of 12 a location within the countryside. Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan policy E5 (Development in Green Belt and Countryside Areas) and non-statutory guidance on countryside and green belt development, do make an allowance for appropriate new development where it is demonstrated that development is necessary for the purposes of an accepted rural purpose or where a countryside location is essential.

The applicant has not submitted any supporting information to suggest that the dwellings are required for a use which is appropriate to the rural character of the area or require a countryside location as set out within the policies of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan. The granting of planning permission to convert the existing steading buildings to the north of the application site to residential use does not provide justification for this new build residential development within the green belt.

Very little weight can be given to the proposed Edinburgh Local Development Plan as the plan has not been adopted; the representations are still in the process of being analysed and the proposed policies have not been finalised. However, under the current proposed policy ENV10 (Development in the Greenbelt and Countryside) (c) of the emerging local plan, the proposal is not considered to be related to an existing use as the site was last in use as an agricultural shed. The proposal does not involve the replacement of an existing building in the same use.

The proposal therefore does not comply with Policy Env10 of the proposed Edinburgh Local Development Plan.

The previous buildings were for an agricultural use and there is no historic reason to grant planning permission for a residential use in the same location as the agricultural buildings.

Overall, the development is contrary to policy E5 on development in the green belt and countryside areas. The principle of new residential development is not acceptable. b) Character and Landscape Quality

Policy E6 (Design and amenity Criteria for a development in the Green Belt and Countryside) provides design criteria for developments in the green belt where the proposal is acceptable in principle. Although the proposed housing is of a relatively minimal height and is generally of an acceptable design, this does not provide justification for an exception to a development which conflicts with Policy E5 of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan.

Similarly, the argument that new housing is required does not provide sufficient justification for two new dwellinghouses in the green belt. Current and emerging local plans identify the objectives of the green belt and direct where development should take place, i.e. within the settlement boundary, where there is land allocated for new residential development.

Representations have argued that the proposed new dwellinghouses would constitute an improvement to the steading. However, they would be an addition to the existing steading which encroaches into the green belt. There would be an adverse visual impact, which would erode the open character of the landscape, contrary to the Council's non-statutory guideline on Development in the countryside and greenbelt. c) Residential Amenity

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 6 of 12

The north facing kitchen/living room windows of the proposed western dwelling would result in a window to window distance of less than 18 metres with the steading to the immediate north.

However, given the tight built character of the steading development, it is unlikely that privacy of the neighbouring properties will be affected. d) Parking and Road Safety

Transport have requested a meeting with the developer to establish whether the application, if approved, would be subject to RCC consideration However, as the proposal is not acceptable in principle, this has not been pursued. e) Equalities and Human Rights

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. No impact was identified. f) Public Comments

Material representations -

 The land should be considered a brownfield site - this has been addressed in section 2.3a) there is no historic reason to grant planning permission for new housing on the site of an agricultural shed in the green belt;  The proposal is an appropriate scale, location and design for the setting - this has been addressed in section 2.3b);  The foot print of the original farm steading would not be increased - this has been addressed in section 2.3a);  There is a requirement for housing in the area - this has been addressed in section 2.3b).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the proposals are not acceptable in principle as the proposal is for new residential development in the green belt which is not associated with a countryside use. The proposed development does not constitute an extension or alteration of an existing building. The proposals do not comply with the development plan or relevant non-statutory guidelines.

The proposals are not acceptable.

There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 7 of 12 3. Recommendations

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

3.2 Conditions/reasons Conditions:-

Reasons:-

1. The proposal is not acceptable in principle as it has not been demonstrated that the proposed houses are necessary for the purposes of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, countryside recreation or other uses appropriate in the countryside. The site is not of strategic economic importance and does not lie within the settlement area. The proposal is contrary to Policy E5 of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan non-statutory guidance on Development in the countryside and green belt. Other material considerations do not provide a justification for an exception to Policy E5 of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan.

2. The proposal would have an adverse visual impact, which would erode the open character of the landscape to the detriment of the rural character and landscape quality of the green belt contrary to the Council’s non statutory guidelines on Development in the countryside and green belt.

Statutory Development Plan Provision The application site is located within green belt covered by the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan.

Date registered 28 August 2013

Drawing numbers/Scheme 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 8 of 12

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan.

Policy E5 states that in order to protect the landscape quality, rural character and amenity of the Green Belt and countryside areas, development will be restricted.

Policy E6 states that where acceptable in principle, development proposals in the Green Belt or countryside must meet the criteria which aim to achieve high standards of design and landscaping.

Policy E41 encourages high standards of design for all development and its careful integration with its surroundings in terms of scale, form, siting, alignment and materials. New development should improve energy efficiency and reduce noise pollution.

Policy E42 requires new buildings to make a positive contribution to the overall quality of the environment and the street scene, making provision for high quality landscaping and, where appropriate, new open spaces.

Policy H3 supports the development of housing on infill sites within the built-up areas provided it does not lead to the loss of valuable open space or community facilities, conflict with neighbouring uses or is detrimental to the character and amenity of the area.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

Non-statutory guidelines DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE AND GREEN BELT, provide guidance on development in the Green Belt and Countryside in support of relevant local plan policies.

Appendix 1

Consultations

Transport

Transport would be pleased if the application could be continued.

The proposals if approved will increase the development to 7 dwellings. A meeting is requested with the applicants consulting engineer to discuss whether the application if approved will be subject to RCC consideration.

Environmental Assessment

The application proposes to erect two residential properties on the site of a previous barn. Residential properties are situated to the north and north-east. Fields are situated to the south with a garage to the east.

Environmental Assessment has no objections to this proposed development.

Scottish Water

In terms of planning consent, Scottish Water does not object to this planning application. However, please note that any planning approval granted by the Local Authority does not guarantee a connection to our infrastructure. Approval for connection can only be given by Scottish Water when the appropriate application and technical details have been received.

Marchbank Water Treatment Works may have capacity to service this proposed development.

The water network that serves the proposed development may be able to supply the new demand.

The waste water network that serves the proposed development may be able to accommodate the new demand.

Newbridge Wastewater Treatment Works – may have limited capacity to serve this new demand. The Developer should discuss their development directly with Scottish Water.

A totally separate drainage system will be required with the surface water discharging to a suitable outlet. Scottish Water requires a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) as detailed in Sewers for Scotland 2 if the system is to be considered for adoption.

Scottish Water’s current minimum level of service for water pressure is 1.0 bar or 10m head at the customer’s boundary internal outlet. Any property which cannot be

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 10 of 12 adequately serviced from the available pressure may require private pumping arrangements installed, subject to compliance with the current water byelaws. If the developer wishes to enquire about Scottish Water’s procedure for checking the water pressure in the area then they should write to the Customer Connections department at the above address.

Please be advised that the nearest public waste water main appears to be approximately 519m from the proposed site. If the connection to public sewer and/or water main requires to be laid through land out-with public ownership, the developer must provide evidence of formal approval from the affected landowner(s). This should be done through a deed of servitude.

Should the developer require information regarding the location of Scottish Water infrastructure they should contact our Property Searches Department, Bullion House, Dundee, DD2 5BB. Tel – 0845 601 8855.

If the developer requires any further assistance or information on our response, please contact me on the above number or alternatively additional information is available on our website: www.scottishwater.co.uk.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)

To assist with streamlining the planning process, we now focus our site specific advice in development management where we can add best value in terms of enabling good development and protecting Scotland's environment. We have therefore provided standing advice applicable to this type of small-scale local development which is available at www.sepa.org.uk/planning.aspx.

However, if you are seeking comment on some site specific issue, such as flood risk, which is not adequately addressed by our standing advice, we would welcome the opportunity to be re-consulted. The reason for consultation should be clearly indicated in the body of the email or letter.

Guidance on How and when to consult SEPA and our Standing advice for small scale local development is available on our website at www.sepa.org.uk/planning.aspx.

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 11 of 12

Location Plan

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 12 of 12

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 23 October 2013

Application for Planning Permission 13/02453/FUL At 302A Gilmerton Road, Edinburgh, EH17 7PR Remove sloping slated roofs and stepped flat roofs and replace with a new sloped slated roof, including dormer window, skylight, projecting balcony and set back french windows.

Item number Report number Wards A16 - Liberton/Gilmerton

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITD11, NSG, NSHOU, this application

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

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

Executive summary

Summary

The scale, form and design of the front and rear sloping roofs and rear balcony features are acceptable and would not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbours. However, the proposed side dormer does not comply with the development plan or the non- statutory guidance. The dormer does not relate well to the existing building in terms of design, form and positioning, and would appear incongruous when viewed from the street resulting in a detrimental impact on the character of the street. Recommendations

It is recommended that this application be mixed decision to part-approve and part- refuse this application subject to the details below (in section 3 of the main report). Financial impact

There are no financial implications to the Council. Equalities impact

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

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

Fifteen letters of representation has been received from neighbouring properties, 14 objecting to the proposals and 1 supporting the proposals in terms of its design. The letters of representation raised the following issues:

Material considerations • the scale and form of the extension •loss of residential amenity •noise from the balcony •balance the row and mirror the other end

Non-material considerations •neighbour notification •ownership of the roof

A full assessment of the representations can be found in the main report in the Assessment section. Background reading / external references

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

Development Management sub committee – Page 3 of 10

Report

1.1 Site description

The site lies on the west side of Gilmerton Road and relates to an upper residential property within an end terraced two storey stone built property. The terrace starts at the junction with Mount Vernon Road. Immediately to the south lies an access road serving garages to the rear of the houses with residential properties beyond. To the north east lies Liberton Golf Course.

1.2 Site History

There is no relevant planning history for this site. 2. Main report

2.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application proposes to create a loft extension by removing the sloping slated roofs and stepped flat roofs and replacing these with a new sloped slated roof with gable features to the front and rear. French windows are also proposed to the front. A flat roofed dormer window is proposed to the side. To the rear, it is proposed to create a projecting balcony and set back French windows.

The proposed materials are slate for the roof and natural stone for the gables.

2.2 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?

Development Management sub committee – Page 4 of 10

2.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether: a) the proposed scale, design and materials are acceptable; b) the proposal is detrimental to the amenity of neighbours; c) the proposal will provide sufficient amenity for the occupiers of the development; d) the proposals have any equalities or human rights impacts; and e) representations raise issues to be addressed.

a) Scale, form and design

The proposed gable feature to the front and rear of the upper flat mirrors that of the existing gable feature at the other end of the terrace at 282 Gilmerton Road in terms of design and proportions but given the topography it will be at a higher level as the land rises from north to south. The new French windows facing onto Gilmerton Road retain the vertical proportions of the existing windows on the front elevation.

The recessed balcony features to the rear retain the vertical proportions of the windows below. The glazed element is lightweight and therefore the visual impact will not be significant.

The roof form and materials are consistent with the existing property and the surrounding area. Their scale, form and design are acceptable.

The roof on which the dormer is proposed is part of a prominent elevation which form a ' bookend' for this terrace. The dormer is to be located between two existing chimneys and will be highly visible from the street. The visual impact will be significant and the dormer will appear as an uncharacteristic feature in this terrace and the surrounding area.

The dormer does not relate well to the existing building in terms of design, form and positioning as the vertical proportions of the building are an important part of its character and the horizontality of the dormer would appear incongruous when viewed from the street. It is acknowledged that there are dormers on the side roof of 282 Gilmerton Road which are visible from Mount Vernon Road but these are smaller and more in keeping with the proportions and appearance of the property. Whilst there are examples of side dormers located within the neighbourhood, the number of such side dormers is not sufficient as to be a characteristic of the area and as such the proposed dormer would remain incongruous.

The proposed side dormer does not comply with Policy Des 11 as the scale, form and design and positioning is not compatible with the character of the existing building. b) Neighbouring amenity

The front French window will overlook the public road and the rear balcony features will overlook the gardens belonging to the terrace. In terms of residential amenity, the garden ground is currently overlooked by all the properties within the terrace. The proposal will not generate any additional overlooking into neighbouring garden ground.

Development Management sub committee – Page 5 of 10

The proposed side dormer faces onto the private road leading to the playing fields and the garages to the rear. There are existing side windows facing this access road from both properties so the proposal will not generate any additional overlooking.

There is no loss to residential amenity.

Any overshadowing from the proposal is likely to fall on the roof plane of the existing roof or within the applicant’s property. There is no unacceptable overshadowing and loss of daylight.

Residential amenity will be maintained. c) Amenity of occupiers

The existing level of amenity to the occupiers of the house will not be affected by the proposal. d) Equalities or human rights impacts

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. No impact was identified. An Equality and Rights Impact Assessment Summary is available to view on Planning and Building Standards online services. e) Public comments

Material representations •size and design of proposal – this has been addressed in section 2.3(a) •loss of amenity - this had been addressed in section 2.3 (b)

Non-material representations •ownership -residents have raised concerns over the ownership of the roof space. These issues are covered in their title deeds under separate legislation and are not a planning matter so would not prevent the granting of planning permission. The agent has completed the application form confirming that the applicant and adjoining properties are all owners of the roofspace.

•notification -this was undertaken on 28th June 2013 when the application was received. During the validation and the registering of the application, it became apparent that the proposal was wrongly plotted resulting in the incorrect properties being notified of the application. In addition, the correct land owners were informed of the application. The application was re-validated and the neighbours were renotified on 6 August 2013.

•conversion causing disturbance to existing residents - statutory nuisance provisions contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 control construction noise.

Development Management sub committee – Page 6 of 10

3. Recommendations

3.1 It is recommended that this application be mixed decision to part-approve and part-refuse this application subject to the details below

3.2 Conditions/reasons

1. Sample/s of the proposed stone and slate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before work commences on site.

2. This permission relates to new sloping roof, front balcony feature and rear balcony features only.

1. In order to enable the planning authority to consider this/these matter/s in detail.

Reason for Refusal:-

1. This refusal relates to side dormer only.

2. The proposal is contrary to Policy Des 11 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan and the Council's Non-Statutory Guidance for Householders as the dormer does not relate well to the existing building in terms of design, form and positioning and would appear as an obtrusive feature to the property which will adversely affect the character and appearance of this end terraced property and surrounding area.

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

3. As soon as practicable upon the completion of the development of the site, as authorised in the associated grant of permission, a 'Notice of Completion of Development' must be given, in writing to the Council.

4. This application relates to a flatted building. This planning permission does not affect the legal rights of any other parties with an interest in the building. In that respect, the permission does not confer the right to carry out the works without appropriate authority.

Development Management sub committee – Page 7 of 10

Statutory Development Plan Provision The site lies within the urban area of Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Date registered 6 August 2013

Drawing numbers/Scheme 1-5,

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Development Management sub committee – Page 8 of 10

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Policy Des 11 (Alterations and Extensions) sets criteria for assessing alterations and extensions to existing buildings.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

Non-statutory guidelines 'GUIDANCE FOR HOUSEHOLDERS' provides guidance for proposals to alter or extend houses or flats.

Appendix 1

Consultations

No consultations undertaken.

Location Plan

Development Management sub committee – Page 10 of 10 Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 23 October 2013

Application for Planning Permission 13/03150/FUL At 112 Greenbank Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5RL Extend house to side and rear, re-instate original chimney and erect flue.

Item number Report number Wards A10 - Meadows/Morningside

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITD11, NSG, NSHOU, this application

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: David McFarlane, Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3512

Executive summary

Application for Planning Permission 13/03150/FUL At 112 Greenbank Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5RL Extend house to side and rear, re-instate original chimney and erect flue.

Summary

The proposal complies with the development plan and is of an acceptable scale and design in terms of its impact on the character of the area. Whilst it does not fully accord with the non-statutory guidance, there will be no identifiable harm to the character of the area. The proposal will not result in unreasonable loss of neighbouring amenity. There are no other material planning considerations. Recommendations

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below (in section 3 of the main report). Financial impact

There are no financial implications to the Council. Equalities impact

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

This application meets the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

No representations have been received.

Background reading / external references

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

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 3 of 10 Report

Application for Planning Permission 13/03150/FUL At 112 Greenbank Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5RL Extend house to side and rear, re-instate original chimney and erect flue. 1. Background

1.1 Site description

The site is a single storey, semi detached bungalow with garden ground to the front, side and rear located within a residential area of similar house designs. The prevailing architectural form of houses within the area is single storey with hipped slated roofs and stone or rendered walls. Houses lie to the north, south and east of the site, whilst to the rear, there is a thick belt of mature trees.

The Craiglockhart Hills Conservation Area abuts the rear boundary of the site but the application site does not lie within the conservation area.

1.2 Site History

There is no relevant planning history for this site. 2. Main report

2.1 Description Of The Proposal

The proposal is to convert the attic space into habitable accommodation and to extend the property to the side and rear.

The rear element would project approximately 4.8 metres into the rear garden and be 6.6 metres wide, located approximately 2.5 metres off the mutual boundary to the north and 0.9 metres off the boundary to the south.

First floor accommodation is proposed within the roof space and the extension would have a ridge height of approximately 6.1 metres which terminates in a gable.

A flue for a multi fuel stove projects approximately 1.8 metres through the side facing roof plane.

There is a single storey flat roofed side extension which forms part of the rear extension. The proposed materials are the same as the house.

Two rear facing velux roof lights are proposed within the roof of the house. An existing side facing door is to be changed to a window, two existing side facing windows are to be blocked up and one larger side facing window is proposed. All of the windows on the extension either face to the rear (west) or the front (east). A chimney on the side of the house is proposed to be reinstated to the same scale and design as the original.

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 4 of 10

2.2 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?

2.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether: a) the proposed scale, design and materials are acceptable; b) the proposal is detrimental to the the amenity of neighbours; and c) the proposal has any equalities or human rights impacts; a) Scale,Design and Materials

The proposed extension is subservient to the house and the use of matching materials provide a unifying link between the extension and the house.

The design of the roof of the rear extension does not fully comply with the Council's Guidelines for Householders as the extension terminates in a gable when the main roof of the house is hipped. Whilst this does not accord with the guidelines, the house does feature a small front facing gable and there is an example of a similar approach having been taken on the rear of a detached bungalow to the south of the site. Limited public views of this end gable will be possible and as the ridge of the extension is set down from the ridge of the house an exception to the guidelines is considered justified.

The extension does not occupy an unreasonable amount of rear garden space and adequate amenity ground remains.

The reinstatement of the side chimney replaces a lost feature of the building which will not harm the character of the area. The new stainless steel flue to the rear is similarly acceptable in this location in terms of its visual impact upon the character of the area.

The introduction of two rear facing velux roof lights, alteration to existing side openings and the creation of a new side facing window are all permitted development.

The proposed scale, design and materials are therefore acceptable and do not harm the character of the area. b) Neighbouring Amenity

The proposal is set sufficiently distant from boundaries to preclude any loss of daylight or sunlight to neighbouring properties. The front and rear facing windows will not reduce the privacy of neighbours. New side facing openings on the existing building are permitted development.

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 5 of 10 The reinstatement of the side chimney and the introduction of a new flue to the rear will not harm residential amenity. The use of these structures to dispose of fumes is a matter of consideration for other legislation and an informative advising the applicants of their requirements to comply with the Clean Air Acts is attached.

The proposal will not reduce the amenity of neighbours. c) Equalities and Human Rights Impacts

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

In conclusion, the proposal will not adversely affect the character of the building, the visual amenity of the area or the amenity of neighbours. There are no other material planning considerations.

The application requires a Committee decision as both of the applicants are employees of the Council, one of whom is involved in the planning process, but has taken no part in the processing of the application.

It is recommended that the Committee approves this application.

3. Recommendations

3.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

2. The development proposal includes a flue. The associated solid fuel stove/burner does not itself require planning permission, however to be lawful for use in Edinburgh it should to be an “exempt appliance” in terms of the Clean Air Act 1993 and the City of Edinburgh Council’s Smoke Control Area Orders. Information and advice on this matter is available at http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/44/air_quality/862/air_quality_in_edinburgh/3 or by contacting Environmental Assessment on 0131 469 5475 / email [email protected]

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 6 of 10

Statutory Development Plan Provision The proposal lies within the Urban Area as identified in the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Date registered 15 August 2013

Drawing numbers/Scheme 1-3,

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 7 of 10 Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Policy Des 11 (Alterations and Extensions) sets criteria for assessing alterations and extensions to existing buildings.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

Non-statutory guidelines 'GUIDANCE FOR HOUSEHOLDERS' provides guidance for proposals to alter or extend houses or flats.

Appendix 1

Consultations

Environmental Assessment

Environmental Assessment has no ground to object to the installation of a wood burner under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. However we recommend that the “FLUE” informative be included in any consent.

Informative for applications with flues (serving solid fuel appliances): The development proposal includes a flue. The associated solid fuel stove/burner does not itself require planning permission, however to be lawful for use in Edinburgh it should to be an “exempt appliance” in terms of the Clean Air Act 1993 and the City of Edinburgh Council’s Smoke Control Area Orders. Information and advice on this matter is available at http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/44/air_quality/862/air_quality_in_edinburgh/3 or by contacting Environmental Assessment on 0131 469 5475 / email [email protected]

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 9 of 10 Location Plan

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 10 of 10 Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 23 October 2013

Application for Listed Building Consent 13/02657/LBC At Flat 3, 2 Greenhill Place, Edinburgh New timber sash and case windows, double glazed slimlite low E units to rear dormers and slimlite double glazed units in existing window frame to the front windows

Item number Report number Wards A10 - Meadows/Morningside

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITE4, CITE6, NSG, NSLBCA, this application

Nancy Jamieson Acting Manager of Development Management

Contact: Barbara Stuart, Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3927

Executive summary

Summary

The proposal complies with the development plan and non-statutory guidance. There will be no impact on the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building. The character and appearance of the conservation will be preserved. There are no other material planning considerations. Recommendations

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below (in section 3 of the main report). Financial impact

There are no financial implications to the Council. Equalities impact

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

This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 19 July 2013.

No letters of representation were received.

Background reading / external references

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

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 3 of 8 Report

1.1 Site description

The application relates to a category B listed building (listed on 19 March 1993, LB ref: 30522). It is part of a terrace of stone-built two storey villas designed by Robert Reid circa 1875.

This property is located within the Merchiston and Greenhill Conservation Area.

1.2 Site History

There is no relevant planning history for this site. 2. Main report

2.1 Description Of The Proposal

The proposal is to alter the existing windows.

It is proposed to replace the existing timber sash and case window within the two rear dormer windows with new timber sash and case windows fitted with slim double glazing. To the front, slim double glazed units are to be fitted to the existing two windows.

2.2 Determining Issues

Do the proposals preserve the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses? If not, there is a presumption against the granting of consent. For the purposes of this issue, preserve, in relation to the building, means preserve it either in its existing state or subject only to such alterations or extensions as can be carried out without serious detriment to its character.

Do the proposals harm the character or appearance of the conservation area? If they do, there is a strong presumption against granting of permission.

2.3 Assessment

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

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 4 of 8 (a) the proposals impact on the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building; (b) the proposals preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area; and (c) the proposals have any equalities or human rights impacts. a) Impact on the listed building

The rear dormer windows are not original. The replacement of these windows will not result in the loss of historic fabric. The proposed replacement windows match the existing in terms of materials and style and are therefore acceptable.

To the front, there is no historic glass within the windows which would be affected by the proposals. The installation of slim double glazing is therefore acceptable.

The proposals have no impact on the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building. b) Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

The Merchiston and Greenhill Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that the architectural character of the area is dominated by Victorian villas interspersed with substantial terraces of outstanding quality. The buildings are complemented by the profusion of mature trees, extensive garden settings, stone boundary walls and spacious roads. The villas are in a considerable variety of architectural styles, unified by the use of local building materials.

There is no change to materials or style of the windows; the visual uniformity of the terrace is therefore preserved.

The proposals will preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. c) Equalities and Human Rights Impacts

The proposals do not raise any equalities or human rights impacts.

Conclusion

To conclude, the proposal complies with the development plan and non-statutory guidance. There will be no impact on the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building. The character and appearance of the conservation will be preserved. There are no other material planning considerations.

The application requires a committee decision as the applicant is a close friend of an officer involved in the statutory planning process.

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 5 of 8 3. Recommendations

3.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below

3.2 Conditions/reasons

1. No conditions are attached to this consent.

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. The works hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

Statutory Development Plan Provision The application property is in the Urban Area of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Date registered 11 July 2013

Drawing numbers/Scheme 1-3,

Scheme 1

Nancy Jamieson Acting Manager of Development Management

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 6 of 8

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

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

Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas Development ) sets out criteria for assessing development in conservation areas.

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.

Appendix 1

Consultations

No consultations undertaken.

Location Plan

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 8 of 8 Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 23 October 2013

Application for Planning Permission 13/02640/FUL At Land 90 Metres West Of 95, Harvesters Way, Edinburgh Proposed redevelopment of longstanding brownfield site with 183 new flatted and housing units.

Item number Report number Wards A02 - Pentland Hills

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITD1, CITD2, CITD3, CITD4, CITD5, CITD6, this application CITD10, CITE8, CITE9, CITE12, CITE16, CITE17, CITE18, CITOS3, CITH1, CITH2, CITH3, CITH4, CITH7, CITH8, CITCO1, CITCO2, CITT2, CITT4, CITT5, CITT6, CITI6, NSG, NSGD02, NSDCAH, NSP, NSMDV,

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Andrew Trigger, Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3931

Executive summary

Application for Planning Permission 13/02640/FUL At Land 90 Metres West Of 95, Harvesters Way, Edinburgh Proposed redevelopment of longstanding brownfield site with 183 new flatted and housing units.

Summary

The principle of the proposed development accords with the development plan. The scale and design is appropriate and residential amenity will not be adversely affected. The impact on landscape, biodiversity and road safety has been assessed and is considered acceptable. There are no other material considerations that outweigh this conclusion. Recommendations

It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below (in section 3 of the main report). Financial impact

The site is currently owned by City of Edinburgh Council through its Housing Revenue Account (HRA). The Finance and Budget Committee approved the disposal of the site to Places for People in March 2013. The District Valuer has assessed the value of the site for affordable housing at a nil value. It is therefore proposed to dispose of the land for £1. This is best value for the HRA as it will no longer be liable for site maintenance costs and will dispose of land which may otherwise remain vacant due to the difficulties and costs associated with development of the site. In addition, the unrestricted market value of the site, agreed at £376,000 (subject to planning permission for 150 homes), allows the HRA to place a monetary value on the contribution to delivering affordable housing in the city.

Equalities impact

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. The impacts are identified in the Assessment section of the main report. Sustainability impact

This application meets the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

Consultation and engagement

Pre-Application Process

In line with planning legislation, a Proposal of Application Notice (Reference: 13/00672/PAN) was submitted on 13 March 2013 to the Council as planning authority with a copy provided to Wester Hailes Community Council. Further copies were also provided to the local ward members and the South West Neighbourhood Partnership.

A consultation event was held in Wester Hailes Library on 10 June 2013. The event was attended by approximately 20 people. Issues raised included the relationship with the existing Business Centre and public transport access.

A pre-application report on the proposals was presented to the Committee on 12 June 2013. The Committee requested that educational requirements be taken into account.

The proposals were considered by the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel on 22 May 2013. A full copy of their report is set out in Appendix 1.

A copy of the Pre-Application Consultation report is available to view via Planning and Building Standards online services.

Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 19 July 2013. One letter of representation has been received, submitted on behalf of the Wester Hailes Business Centre, offering general comments on the application.

Material Issues

* Proximity of dwellings to the business centre; * Proximity of service road to the business centre; * Security; * Parking provision;

Non-Material Issues

* Noise and disruption during construction; * Construction access; Background reading / external references

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

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 3 of 25 Report

Application for Planning Permission 13/02640/FUL At Land 90 Metres West Of 95, Harvesters Way, Edinburgh Proposed redevelopment of longstanding brownfield site with 183 new flatted and housing units. 1. Background

1.1 Site description

The development site is a longstanding gap site which is partially covered by self seeded vegetation and informal footpaths. The site is accessed from Harvester’s Way from both east and west directions.

The northern boundary is delineated by the Harvester’s Way carriageway with the Wester Hailes railway station and Westside Plaza immediately beyond. The eastern boundary is marked by the Greenway cycle route with the Wester Hailes Business Centre located to the north-east. The newly constructed Healthy Living Centre is situated to the west of the site. To the south of the site are established 3 and 4 storey flatted blocks which sit substantially higher than the application site and are fronting Dumbeg Park.

1.2 Site History

15 January 1998 - Wester Hailes Town Centre Planning Brief was approved.

21 August 2003 - planning permission was granted for a leisure development comprising hotel, family leisure complex and indoor/outdoor 5-a-side football with associated car parking (Reference: - 03/00341/FUL). That permission has not been implemented and has now lapsed.

Related Applications

17 March 2011 - planning permission was granted for improvements to the current underpass with the addition of DDA compliant ramp and steps (Reference:- 10/03606/FUL)

16 June 2011 - planning permission was granted for a Healthy Living Centre containing a range of Edinburgh Council services, NHS primary care services and GP practice (Reference:- 10/02091/FUL).

1 February 2013 - planning permission was granted for underpass improvements linking Wester Hailes Healthy Living Centre to Westside Plaza car park. (Reference:- 12/04037/FUL)

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 4 of 25 2. Main report

2.1 Description Of The Proposal

Planning permission is sought for a residential development comprising 183 units with associated parking and landscaping.

The units will be a mix of houses and flats and will be contained within 3 perimeter blocks. All of the houses will be 3-storeys high with pitched roofs and the flatted blocks with all be 4-storeys high with flat roofs with the exception of the south-west corner that will extend to 6-storeys. The buildings will have a brick finish with elements of metal cladding.

The mix of accommodation is as follows:

Affordable Rent

- 3 bedroom houses x 8; - 1 bedroom apartments x 10; - 2 bedroom apartments x 33; - 3 bedroom apartments x 2;

Mid-Market Rent

- 3 bedroom houses x 23; - 1 bedroom apartments x 12; - 2 bedroom apartments x 21;

Shared Equity

- 3 bedroom houses x 9; - 1 bedroom apartments x 16; - 2 bedroom apartments x 42; - 2 bedroom maisonettes x 2; - 3 bedroom maisonettes x 5.

Scheme 1

The main changes from the original submission are as follows:

Reconfiguration of car parking within Phase 3B; Reconfiguration of ground floor units within Phase 3A; and Finish of infill panels;

The following documents have been submitted in support of the application, all of which are available to view via Planning & Building Standards online services:

Design Statement; Access Statement; Sustainability Statement; Noise & Vibration Assessment; Habitat Survey; Tree Survey;

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 5 of 25 Site Investigation Report; Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation; Surface Water Management Plan, and Transport Statement.

2.2 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?

2.3 Assessment

To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether: a) the proposals are acceptable in principle; b) the scale and design of the proposals is acceptable; c) the proposals raise any implications for road or pedestrian safety; d) the proposals are acceptable in terms of landscape and biodiversity; e) the proposals will adversely affect existing residential amenity; f) the proposals afford an acceptable living environment for future residents; g) the proposals are adequate in respect of infrastructure and affordable housing provision; h) the proposals meet the Council's requirements in respect of sustainability; i) the proposals raise any issues in respect of equalities or human rights; j) there are any other material considerations; and k)representations raise issues to be addressed. a) Principle of Development

The application site and the neighbouring HealthyLiving Centre site are identified within the Edinburgh City Local Plan as a development opportunity for mixed use including commercial leisure. The local plan also stipulates that the development of part of the site for housing as an integral component of a mixed use scheme encompassing town centre uses other than retail is also acceptable in principle. With the multi-functional Healthy Living Centre having been delivered on the wider site, the current proposal for housing would result in the overall site being developed for uses supported by the local plan.

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 6 of 25 b) Scale & Design

The proposals involve 3-storey townhouses being flanked by 4-storey flatted blocks with the exception of Block 1, which extends to 6-storeys. The height of the 6-storey element is comparable with the existing housing to the south, which sits substantially higher than the application site. The additional height marks the entrance to the development and also the new area of public realm that is shared with the healthy living centre. The height of the remainder of the development is comparable with existing properties further to the east.

The proposed layout adopts a traditional perimeter block approach that is capable of being extended. The proposals successfully balance building, parking and open space requirements and represent an appropriate level of development.

The proposed architectural treatment is simple but attractive. The principle material is brick, which is durable and easily maintained and in terms of context, takes reference from the recently completed Healthy Living Centre.

Careful attention has been paid to the public realm between the proposed development and the healthy living centre. There will be no car parking in this area to ensure that priority is given to pedestrians. Extensive landscaping, including established hedging will be introduced to provide an attractive environment. Bus stops will be located in this area that will help activate the space and longer term, the serviced site at the northern end of the square could support a small retail/commercial unit that can further contribute to the vibrancy of the square.

In summary, the proposed height is acceptable, the layout is appropriate and the architectural treatment will reflect its context. c) Road & Pedestrian Safety

The level of parking provision proposed complies with the Council’s parking standards. The mix of on-street parking and parking courtyards that will benefit from natural surveillance and landscaping features is a positive feature of the proposals. The applicant is keen to provide City Car Club facilities within the development and this is to be welcome. Given that there is no shortfall in parking, there is no requirement to secure the City Car Club contribution as part of a legal agreement.

A transport statement submitted in support of the application states that the increase in traffic accessing Wester Hailes Road will be approximately 2.2%. The existing road network is sufficient to accommodate this additional increase. Transport raises no objections to the proposals.

The proposed development will restore Harvester’s Way as a through-route and bus operators have indicated a willingness to serve the new development and the adjacent Healthy Living centre. To further enhance transport options, cycle links to the Greenway will be improved with level access and the entrance to Wester Hailes train station will be made more welcoming by the overall site redevelopment and landscaping improvements.

There is a series of unadopted pedestrian routes that have become established across the site, particularly from the south-east of the site towards the underpass to the north.

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 7 of 25 As part of the proposals, a formal path and restoration of the existing steps linking the site directly to Dumbeg Park will be provided.

In summary, parking provision complies with Council guidelines; access to other means of transport will be enhanced and there are no road safety implications. d) Landscape & Biodiversity

The existing site currently accommodates largely self-seeded vegetation, which is quite sparse and relatively unattractive. The proposals will introduce a range of structured greenery including trees, shrubs and mature hedging both to public and private areas. Landscaping will be used to reinforce existing boundary conditions to the south and east of the site. The overall landscaping masterplan is comprehensive and is to be welcome.

There is limited tree cover within the site, which although is in good condition, is mostly semi-mature and are the result of natural regeneration. Their loss will be compensated by significant tree planting across the site and the implementation of a landscape masterplan.

The application site has been surveyed and there is no evidence of any protected species. The extensive greening of the site will help to encourage biodiversity.

In summary, the proposed landscape masterplan will enhance the site and will encourage biodiversity. e) Residential Amenity

The proposed development is wholly residential in nature and is compatible with neighbouring residential properties. The nearest residential properties are located to the south of the site in Dumbeg Park and will not be affected by overshadowing or loss of daylight. Privacy will be protected.

In summary, the proposed development is compatible with residential properties and will not adversely affect amenity. f) Future Living Environment

The proposals include large landscaped communal areas that will be overlooked and will have good access to sunlight. These areas will include play equipment and drying facilities. In addition to the communal areas, the proposed houses will have private, hard landscaped gardens.

There will be sufficient distance between neighbouring windows to prevent any privacy concerns. An assessment has also been undertaken by the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed units will meet the Council’s requirements in respect of daylight.

Environmental Assessment has confirmed that noise and vibration from the railway line will not adversely impact upon the proposed development.

The large majority of the 183 units proposed comply with the Council’s minimum guidelines in respect of minimum floorspace. There are 3 one-bedroom units proposed that will be approximately 48 m2, which is marginally below the guidance figure of 52

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 8 of 25 m2. Given that the units will have access to high quality, semi-private open space; good privacy and the strong urban design that will be created, the non-compliance with guidance is acceptable in this instance.

In summary, there are no concerns over privacy or daylight; there will be good access to amenity space and the level of floorspace is justified in this instance. g) Infrastructure & Affordable Housing

In terms of education infrastructure, Canal View Primary School, St Joseph's RC Primary School, Wester Hailes Education Centre and St Augustine's RC High School have sufficient capacity to facilitate the development. Children & Families raise no objections to the proposals.

The entire proposed development is defined as affordable housing and therefore comfortably exceeds the Council's minimum requirements of 25%. The mix of tenures and property types proposed is supported by Housing & Regeneration.

The impact of the proposal upon the water and waste water network has been considered. Scottish Water does not object to the proposals.

The proposals include the provision of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS). Site constraints will prevent the required two levels of treatment in small areas of the site but the affected areas will have one level of treatment. SEPA does not object to the proposals. A surface water management plan has been submitted in support of the application that will meet the requirements for flood prevention.

In summary, existing infrastructure will be able to support the proposed development and the approach to affordable housing is to be welcomed. h) Sustainability

The applicant has submitted a sustainability statement in support of the application.

Essential Criteria Available Achieved

Section 1: Energy Needs 20 20 Section 2: Water conservation 10 10 Section 3: Surface water run off 10 10 Section 4: Recycling 10 10 Section 5: Materials 30 30 Total points 80 80

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 9 of 25 Desirable Elements

In addition the applicants have provided a commitment to further sustainability measures as set out in the desirable elements. Additional measures include City Car Club provision and communal composting facilities.

In summary, the proposal complies with the requirements of Parts A and B of the Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Buildings. i) Equalities & Human Rights

The proposed development will create an environment where public spaces can be used safely and securely without fear. The proposals will offer a good standard of living with access to transport and public places including green spaces. The proposals will have a positive impact in respect of rights.

A range of living accommodation will be provided that will support different users including young families and the elderly. The site is accessible for people with mobility issues. The proposals are for affordable housing to assist those who cannot access traditional housing markets. The proposals will have a positive impact in respect of equalities.

In summary, the proposals will have a positive impact in respect of equalities and rights. j) Other Material Considerations

The south-east corner of the application site is identified within an area of archaeological interest. Of particular interest is a small quarry in terms of understanding the development of the historic Wester Hailes estate. Given the potential for archaeological remains, it is appropriate to impose a condition requiring a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation prior to the commencement of development on the affected area. k) Representations

Material Comments

Proximity of new dwellings to the business centre;

There will be access roads and car parking both to the south and west of the business centre separating it from new residential properties. This should be sufficient distance to prevent any conflict between the two uses.

Proximity of service road to business centre and associated noise;

Any noise generated from the service road will be typical of an urban environment and is unlikely to create undue disturbance.

CCTV coverage of the business centre will be lost;

Whilst direct sight of the business centre may be affected, the proposals will greatly increase natural surveillance and on-site activity and should improve site security.

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 10 of 25

Loss of dedicated parking for the business centre;

The proposals will affect existing parking arrangements but the proposed layout will be able to serve the business centre.

Non-Material Comments

Issues relating to the construction process and arrangements during that period are not controlled through planning legislation and can be addressed as part of the building warrant application.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the principle of the proposed development accords with the development plan. The scale and design are appropriate and residential amenity will not be adversely affected. The impact on landscape, biodiversity and road safety has been assessed and is considered acceptable. There are no other material considerations that outweigh this conclusion.

3. Recommendations

3.1 It is recommended that this application be Granted subject to the details below

3.2 Conditions/reasons

1. No development on Phase B shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards, having first been agreed by the City Archaeologist.

2. i) Prior to the commencement of construction works on site: a) A site survey (including intrusive investigation where necessary) must be carried out to establish to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning and Building Standards, either that the level of risk posed to human health and the wider environment by contaminants in, on or under the land is acceptable, or that remedial and/or protective measures could be undertaken to bring the risks to an acceptable level in relation to the development; and b) Where necessary, a detailed schedule of any required remedial and /or protective measures, including their programming, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. ii) Any required remedial and/or protective measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved schedule and documentary evidence to certify those works shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

3. The approved landscaping scheme shall be fully implemented within six months of the completion of the development, and thereafter shall be maintained by the applicants and/or their successors to the entire satisfaction of the planning authority;

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 11 of 25 maintenance shall include the replacement of plant stock which fails to survive, for whatever reason, as often as is required to ensure the establishment of the approved landscaping scheme.

4. Notwithstanding the approved drawings, the development information centre, as detailed on drawing number AL(0)240, shall be removed within one month of the completion of the residential development hereby approved.

Reasons:-

1. In order to safeguard the interests of archaeological heritage.

2. In order to ensure that the site is suitable for redevelopment, given the nature of previous uses/processes on the site.

3. In order to ensure that the approved landscaping works are properly established on site.

4. In order to give due recognition to the temporary nature of the building.

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. Consent shall not be issued until a suitable legal agreement, including those requiring a financial contribution payable to the City of Edinburgh Council, has been concluded in relation to affordable housing and transport infrastructure.

For the avoidance of doubt, the transport contributions relate to:

* Promotion of Traffic Regulation Orders totalling £3,000; and * Construction of a new footpath and restoration of existing steps to Dumbeg Park.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

3. No development shall take place on the site until a 'Notice of Initiation of Development' has been submitted to the Council stating the intended date on which the development is to commence. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of planning control, under Section 123(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

4. As soon as practicable upon the completion of the development of the site, as authorised in the associated grant of permission, a 'Notice of Completion of Development' must be given, in writing to the Council.

Statutory Development Plan Provision The application site is identified in the Edinburgh City

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 12 of 25 Local Plan as part of shopping proposal S2, which identifies the site for commercial leisure development or a mixed use scheme including housing and other town centre uses.

Date registered 8 July 2013

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01-02,03a-05a,06-23,24a,25-27,28a,29,30a,31- 40,41a,42-43,

Scheme 2

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Development Management sub committee – 23 October 2013 Page 13 of 25

Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

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

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

Policy Des 3 (Development Design) sets criteria for assessing development design.

Policy Des 4 (Layout Design) sets criteria for assessing layout design.

Policy Des 5 (External Spaces) sets criteria for assessing landscape design and external space elements of development.

Policy Des 6 (Sustainable Design & Construction) sets criteria for assessing the sustainable design and construction elements of development.

Policy Des 10 (Tall Buildings) sets out criteria for assessing proposals for tall buildings.

Policy Env 8 (Protection of Important Remains) establishes a presumption against development that would adversely affect the site or setting of a Scheduled Ancient Monument or archaeological remains of national importance.

Policy Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance) sets out the circumstances in which development affecting sites of known or suspected archaeological significance will be permitted.

Policy Env 12 (Trees) sets out tree protection requirements for new development.