ITEM e 4 TABLED ITEM BIGE T BAILLIE 7 Castle Street John lnman Esq Edinburgh EH2 3AP Planning Strategy Manager Tef: +64 (01131 226 5341 Fax: *44 (0)131 226 2278 The City of Edinburgh Council OX ED15 Planning Department LP -2 Edinburgh 2 18-19 Market Street Edinburgh €HI 1BJ E-mail: info~~iggartbaillie.co.uk Webslte: Our Ref: MAS/12542.3 www.blggartbailiie.co.uk Dalmare House Dear Mr Inman 310 51. Vincent Street Glasgw G2 5QR fel: +44 @)I41 228 8M#3 OUR CLIENT: FSH EDINBURGH (AIRPORT) SERVICES LIMITED Fax: t44 (0)141 228 8310 RURAL WEST EDINBURGH LOCAL PLAN OX GW9 LP - 1 Glasgow 12 I refer to the telephone call from my client company's Mr Barry Kitcherside to you yesterday afternoon at around 4,OOpm. A list of the names of tho Partners may be inspected Mr Kitcherside has asked me to reiterate his wish not to have to challenge during office hours at each of the addresses given the adoption of the RWELP, probably next year, as the only means of above securing the proper application of Flooding Policy to our clients' site at Eastfield Road, Edinburgh. As you will know, my client has lodged a Generic Objection to the RWELP, which Objection was put in evidence before the Local Plan Inquiry and articulated in written submissions by the learned Dean of Faculty, Mr Roy Martin Q.C. at the conclusion of the Local Plan Inquiry. Essentially, the Generic Objection is that it would be unlawful and contrary to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997,for The City of Edinburgh Council as Planning Authority to adopt a local plan for its area which covered only part of that area and provided a policy vacuum in respect of the area covered by the Interim Protocol adopted by the Planning Authority last year. In order to obviate my client having to take that course of action, albeit reluctantly, Mr Kitcherside has requested that the Planning Committee due to meet on 3 November 2005 should defer consideration of the Flooding Authorised and regulated by the issue in section 3.16 of Report Number PC/044/05-06/CD until further Ftnrnclitl Sawices Authonty representations and discussions can be undertaken with planning officers. I shall be grateful if you would take these matters into account in consulting with colleagues before the planning meeting on 3 November 2005. Associated C%lces Athens Barcelona Brusvels Copenhagen Dublin Frankfurt Geneva Hamburg Helsinki Kid Lisbon Locarno London Los Angeier Louvarfi Accredited Planning Specia I ist Luxemburg Madrid msales@biggartbailtie,co Manohestar Milan uk New York adlo Paris SFodtholm Tallinn Tam c.c Andrew Holmes, Director of City Development, City of Edinburgh Tilburg Vienna Council, I Cockburn Street, Edinburgh, EHI -IBJ Warsaw Washington 01-11-05-smcgrel .Itr HUGH MARTIN PARTNERSHIP CW/CJWOO/ZG 4.1 2 November 2005 18 ROTHESAY PLACE EDINBURGH EH3 7SQ Trevor Davies Esq BY HAND & E-MAIL Convenor of the Planning Committce TELEPHONE 0131 226 5123 City of Editiburgh Council FACSIMILE 0131 226 3042 City Chambers E Mait mail@hughinaninpartnership coni High Street Edinburgh EHI IYJ Web www.huglimanInpannership.com Dear Councillor INGLISTON: Land to the South of tlie Hiltori Hotel FSH Edinburgh (Airport) Services Ltd Rural West Ediiibnrgh Local Plan On bchalf of FSE Edinburgh (Airport) Services Ltd I must register the strongest protest and objection to tlie recommendation contained in section 3.16 of the Report being presented to your committee on 3 Noveniber 2005. Forgive me for writing to you direct but this is a time sensitive niatter of some importance. My client has since early 2001 contested the designation of the above site as fiinctional floodplain, conducted numerous discussions with all interestcd parties and submitted several representations on the matter, The recent Local Plan Inquiry was the first compreliensive opportunity to independently review all related policy matters and planniiig guidance. The Reporters’ subsequent recomniendation to remove the designatLon is of prime importance to the future of this key site. Therefore we cannot support the recommendation being presented to your committee which is to reject the Reporters’ findings. We ask YQU therefore to consider the following points: The site flooded in 2000 siiiiply because the bunds and back tlap valves installed in thc 1940s were not maintained. These nicascires were addressed and the site has not flooded since. The Reporters accepted this point, 0 We do not contest that the sitc is part of a flood plain, albeit one that has been created by protection measures downstream combined with increased discharge from upstream developnients in thc Gyle; but we do contest that it is ‘‘a functional floodplain”. 0 The site does not offer significant protection to the airport as suggested in the report or for that inalter any other landholding in the area, This was covered in great detail at the inquiry and confirmed that any theoretical loss of storage would not materially increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. ‘This ffict is acknowledged in tlic sunitnary table appended to the report. 0 We me advised that the Reporters’ recommendation in this respect should be considered as “matrers of fact” rather than planning judgemeiit; and that no reasonable local authority could conclude otherwise or consider rejecting the rccornmendation. D CAMERON WALKER B Arch (Hons) Dip Arch Conspw (H-WATT) RIM ARIAS H BSe Dip Arch (EDIN) RlBA ARIAS I SWART CAMPBELL D;pArch (GUS) hlCB MSAl CHRISTOPHERD J BROWNING BSc 6 Arch (Hons) {DUNOEF) JOHN PQRAHAM Dip Arch (Hans) RlOA PHILIP W LEIPER BSc (Hons) ILa. DIP DAVID M WILSON DID Arch (PLYMOVTH) RlBA ARIAS USTAIRW LINDSAY UHl~-mtd(~2.11.OS)flnaI The tiugh tJan n Pannoish’p Lam ‘ea He nd NO 146570 Rrgls%redOKte 12 HblC Sfreel El nburQh EH2 4DQ Page 2 02 November 2005 * The significance of this site in terms of watcr storage has been vastly overstated by the local authority and the advice froin officials is generally misguided and not in accordance with current national guidancc. hideed the flood risk assessments cavied out on behalf of EARL and '1'ramline 2 by TIE have established that the loss of storage in the area Is insignificant. Essentially if the facts of the case were as straight forward as suggested in tlie report the local authority officials should have been able to convince the Reportcrs. hi this instance despite one and a half days of conycehensivc evidence and interrogation the local authority officials failed to do so completely, As you will appreciate, the purpose of an independent iiiquiry is to make a ruling when 1wo sides cannot reach agreement. In this case, the Reporter fotind in our favour and the Authority officials should be able to accept this. We tlicrefore suggest that this recommendation from your officials should be rejected and you should accept the Reporters' reconxriendations or at the very least you should set aside and delay this decision to allow further discussion with your officials. Any other outcome will incvitably force my client to consider alternative mechanisms to secure the Reportcr's recommendations. Yours sincerely cc (by e-niail only) Planning Committee Meiiibers City of Edinburgh Council: Andrew Holmes City of Edinburgh Council: Jolm Inman (by post and e-mail) FSH - Barry Kitcherside FSH - Korie Henderson FSH - Michael Margereson Biggat? Baillie - Martin Sales PWP - Neil Clarkson Ratho & District Community Council BY Email The City of Edinburgh Council Paul Douglas Planning Committee 53 Station Road City Chambers Ratho Station High Street Newbridge Edinburgh Midlothian EHI EH28 8PT 2"dNovember 2005. Dear John Sturt, Please table this representation at tomorrow 's Planning Committee Meeting Reporters Recommendations for Ratho Station / Newbridqe We are writing to you to raise our concerns at the Reporters recommendations; Chapter 21: Housing Sites Assessment; to limit the support of house build allocation to 75, (50 at Hillwood Road, and 25 at Newbridge Nursery). Our core concern is the impact that these recommendations, if accepted by the Council, will have on Hillwood Primary School. This school will be under threat according to the announcement of the school review. If extra housing is not to be permitted in Ratho Station it would appear likely that the Primary School would have to close. This would have a significant adverse impact on not only the pupils, staff and parents of Hillwood, but to the sustainability and regeneration of the villages and their sense of community as a whole. We would advocate that the number of houses to be built should reflect that necessary for the regeneration of the villages' ability to sustain the number of pupils required to maintain stability at Hillwood Primary School. The villages have become stagnant. Over the last twenty years there have been only ten homes built within the two villages. There was planning consent granted for the building of sixty homes in Ratho Station, fifteen years ago, on the same site that the Reporter now sees fit to recommend only fifty homes. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown, these homes were never built. I refer you to Chapter fifteen, paragraph fifteen (15.15) of the Reporters Report on Education Matters, where numeric forecasts are mentioned. We do not, at this time, advocate that the upper limits of the scenarios are accommodated but, certainly enough to sustain the viability of the Primary School and not necessarily to full capacity. HiI Iwoodl Ratho & District Community Council Hillwood has always operated on the basis of composite classes and has never been in a position to be considered as single stream with seven classes. The quality of education administered at Hillwood has never been in question due to composite classes and there is no compunction to change this set-up.