Itemno 108 • EDINBVRGH. Report no THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL Planning Permission 11/03170/FUL at 222 Easter Road Edinburgh EH68LE Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 1 Purpose of report To consider application 11/03170/FUL, submitted by Mr Ronald Graham .. The application is for: Change of use from basement stores to residential It is recommended that this application be REFUSED for the reasons below. 2 The Site and the Proposal Site description The application site comprises the basement area to an existing ground floor shop unit within a four storey tenement with residential properties above. The unit lies directly below the existing shop and extends north under the adjoining ground floor residential dwelling unit at No 224 Easter Road. The unit gains access from the existing internal access stairs within the tenement. The existing ground floor shop unit forms the basis of a separate planning application for residential conversion with separate access directly from the Easter Road frontage. The frontage is currently traditional in form. The shop window is presently boarded up but it is understood that the traditional shop window remains in place underneath. There is a recessed stallriser below the shop window sill. The stone work and window surrounds are painted a dark blue colour, in contrast to the lighter blue of the corner unit. The property is located within a predominantly residential area with commercial uses restricted to the ground floors of the tenement buildings located at the corner properties at road junctions along this part of Easter Road. There is restricted car parking on the roads immediately fronting the site and in the general surroundings. At the end of Drum Terrace is Lochend Eastern Cemetery. Site History 1 December 2004 - Planning permission was granted for alterations to the existing windows of existing shop frontage (Ref 04/03830/FUL). 11 June 2007 - Planning permission was refused for a change of use from office premises to form two flatted dwellings, one on the ground floor and one within the basement area. This was refused due to inadequate daylighting, privacy, loss of traditional shopfront and stallriser, uncharacteristic pavement level window and lack of cycle storage (Ref 07101165/FUL). 20 January 2010 - Planning permission was refused for a change of use from office to form two flatted dwellings. This was refused due to single aspect property, insufficient daylighting, the loss of a commercial property and loss of a traditional shopfront with inappropriate replacement windows (Ref 09/02913/FUL). 3 February 2011 - Planning permission was refused for a change of use from office to form a two-apartment flatted dwelling within the ground floor of the premises. This was refused due to insufficient habitable space with inadequate daylighting, the loss of a commercial property and the loss of traditional shopfront with inappropriate replacement windows and increased demand for on-street parking (Ref 10103643/FUL). 3 February 2011 - Planning permission was refused for a change of use from office to form a studio apartment flatted dwelling within the basement level of the premises. This was refused due to insufficient habitable space with inadequate daylighting, loss of commercial property, loss of traditional shopfront with inappropriate replacement windows and increased demand for on-street parking (Ref 10103651/FUL). 28 September 2011 - A planning application was received for the conversion of the ground floor area to form a two-apartment flatted property, approximately 38 square metres of overall floor area (Ref 11/03161/FUL). 2 Pre-Application Process The proposal was the subject of informal pre-application discussions prior to submission. In those negotiations it has been indicated that conversion of the premises to a single f1atted dwelling, incorporating both the ground floor and the basement level, may be considered more favourably against the policies and guidelines. Description Of The Proposal The application seeks to convert the presently unused basement floor area, approximately 41 square metres of overall floor area, to provide a studio apartment flatted property. The external alterations seek to provide a replacement window with the insertion of a timber framed, six light windows with central mullion and mid­ level transome. The replacement shopfront window extends from the fascia to the pavement level, 1.9 by 3.7 metres, and an area of 7.0 square metres. Internally the proposal forms a basement floor flat of 41.2 square metres floor space with a lounge/bedroom (14.0 square metres) separated from the kitchen (7.6 square metres) by a dividing screen, comprised of glass blocks above 1.1 metres from the floor level. There is a separate bathroom to the rear. The proposal also details the raising of the existing floor 0.8 metres from its present level primarily to reduce the ceiling height so as to improve the internal daylighting to the premises. This is assisted by a similar raised floor in the ground floor above (subject of a separate planning application for conversion to a two apartment flatted dwelling) so as to maximise light from the fully glazed frontage. The flat takes access from the existing internal stairwell to the tenement block. The proposed windows in the altered frontage will provide the only natural light to divided room which is 7.1 metres deep, overall. A Supporting Statement has been submitted with the application. This considers matters of: the planning history; planning policy; non-statutory guidelines; daylighting; residential amenity; parking; reuse of the building and the replacement shopfront. This is available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Portal. 3 3. Officer's Assessment and Recommendation Determining Issues Do the proposals comply with the development plan? If the proposals do comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for not approving them? If the proposals do not comply with the development plan, are there any compelling reasons for approving them? ASSESSMENT To address these determining issues, the Committee needs to consider whether: (a) the principle of residential use is acceptable in this location; (b) the proposal will adversely affect the character and appearance of the existing building or the surrounding area; (c) there are any implications for road safety; and (d) there will be any loss of residential amenity as a result of the proposals. a) Policy Ret 11 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan provides that changes of use from retail would not be acceptable in circumstances where there is a clear neighbourhood need to retain the retail use of the premises. Although not in retail use, the basement provides a storage area integral to the ground floor retail premises. There are other retail premises at this location and the defined Easter Road Shopping Centre stands in close proximity to the south of the site. It is therefore accepted that there is no neighbourhood need for the retention of these premises in retail use. Policy Ret 11 states that regard should be had to whether the change of use would result in the loss of premises suitable for small business use. The Council commissioned an independent 'Small Business Study' which has identified a general concern over the loss of such commercial premises across the city. Policy EMP 4 recognises that there is a potential role for vacant shop units in providing such opportunities for small business units to fill this gap. However, within the Leith and North Edinburgh area there is sufficient existing supply to meet the present and projected market needs. 4 The property has been unsuccessfully marketed for the past three years which further supports this position. The premises have been vacant for the past seven years and visually detract from the appearance within the street scene affecting the character and appearance of the area. However, planning permission should not be granted solely as a means of improving the appearance of a property where the proposal is otherwise unacceptable. It is necessary to examine the wider planning merits of the proposal. As such the principle of the loss of these commercial premises would not be contrary to the provisions of the development plan. b) The Easter Road elevation of the premises presently comprises a shop frontage with a large display window and a low stall riser to the left hand side of a timber door with fanlight above. This reflects the adjoining shop frontage to the corner premises at 220 Easter Road (albeit the neighbouring property has retained the central mullion). The pilasters and fascia have been painted dark blue has have the window surrounds, door and stall riser. The shop front glazing has been removed and the opening boarded over for security. The applicant refers to a previous grant of planning permission (Ref 04/03830/FUL) for a replacement shop window. However, there is no evidence that this permission was implemented. Since that grant of consent, in 2004, the Council Non-statutory guidance on Commercial Frontages has been updated include a requirement for replacement shop fronts to reflect to the form, character and materials that reflect the existing and neighbouring commercial premises. As such planning permission would be unlikely to be approved now for that lapsed consent and little weight can now be attached to it as a material consideration. The proposed replacement incorporates various fixed and opening lights with tilt-and-turn mechanism, a second transom division at a higher level and central mullion. Given the proposed subdivisions and opening mechanism with an opening of such size, the resultant form bears little relationship to either the recently existing simple shop front or to any of the adjoining premises in this location. Other examples in the area either predate the revised Commercial Frontages Guideline or relate to circumstances that differ significantly where the former stall riser is retained with glazing above with no requirement for lighting to the basement area.