The Scottish Ministers’ Reporter issued his ‘notice of intention’ yesterday, finding in favour of Kingsford Developments' appeal against City of Edinburgh Council’s non-determination of its planning application (Breaking news, 25.3.14; 13/02458; PPA-230-2109).
A number of interesting points arise from it, none of which will now make a ha’pworth of difference.
One of these occurs in Paragraph 4, referring to the fact that Edinburgh does not have a legacy of derelict listed buildings. In part, this is due to sensitive restoration and adaptation to new uses says Mr Guilford.
I find that Policy Env 2 is an important consideration, as there is evidence that the physical structure of this listed building, whilst generally being in good condition, is deteriorating. I therefore also find that a viable new use for the building is required to ensure that this deterioration does not become worse and eventually put the building at risk.
It occurs to the Spurtle that whilst ‘a viable new use’ might be one way of preserving such buildings in its estate, City of Edinburgh Council as a custodian of public property nevertheless has responsibility to maintain them adequately until such uses are found. Hence, the suggestion of urgency in the Reporter’s comments may be pragmatic but should not have been necessary.
Playground proximity
Key to the Reporter’s findings is Paragraph 9 where he begins to discuss the south-west elevation of the development and its close proximity to the school playground:
Children within the primary school would generally be occupied by their school activities and the residents of the flats would have no influence on the operation of the primary school.
What concerned objecting parents was not that children would be distracted from their school activities, or that flat dwellers would influence the operation of the school. They were deeply uneasy about the potential for unsupervised access to primary school children in the playground by unvetted adults on a day-to-day basis. We do not allow strangers to wander about among children on school property during the day, so why would anyone feel comfortable about a mere (openable and shuttable) window existing between them as a matter of course?
Safety of children not raised by Council
In Paragraph 12, he states:
The key issue here is the safety and well-being of children in the playground. This matter has not been addressed in the statement by the council supporting the committee’s decision to oppose the proposed development.
On the face of it, that appears to be another astonishing omission by City of Edinburgh Council, and one for which locals will certain want an explanation. Safety concerns were not considered important enough reasons against the proposal in the original officer’s report, but certainly did figure in the decision to deny planning permission taken later by Development Management Subcommittee members. The topic is without doubt germane since, as the Reporter says in Paragraph 13:
[B]oth the development planning and development management processes need to make decisions about the environment taking into account public safety, including the safety of children.
Interestingly, the Reporter observes that:
Noise from the playground, which is actually not referred to in the environmental assessment officer’s response, could be intrusive when this is in use, and I find that this would to some extent have an adverse effect on residential amenity.
However, he does not consider this a significant consideration and expects potential dwellers to be well aware of it at the time of buying. In Spurtle’s view, that may be so, but probably won’t stop them complaining about it anyway. We shall see.
On balance and in the circumstances
Mr Guilford’s clearest criticism of the development came in Paragraph 40, quoted here in full:
With most of the bus services being up to a 10 minute walk away, and not everyone being inclined to cycle, I consider that there could be a significant demand for additional resident permits, which would adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers to some extent. The proposed car sharing is limited in extent. I recognise that the council’s transportation service is content with the proposed development in terms of its provision for transport, including the lack of dedicated parking provision, but this has not been accepted by the planning committee, and on balance I find that the proposed development is not in the circumstances consistent with Policy Tra 4.
However, ‘on balance, and in the circumstances’, he found that this was outweighed by the consistency of the proposal with the other relevant policies.
Spurtle has written to the Council today requesting statements from Planning Convener Councillor Ian Perry and CEC Chief Executive Sue Bruce. We will publish them if and when they arrive.
The Reporter has deferred a final decision for 3 months, allowing time for revised arrangements to be reached between CEC and the developer on affordable housing and contributions towards the City Car Club and Edinburgh Tram Project. We have no reason to suppose these details will not be tidied up soon and without fuss. Thereafter, any planning permission will lapse after 3 years unless a start has been made on the development.
What's your take on this debacle? Write and tell us by email spurtle@hotmail.co.uk Facebook Broughton Spurtle or Twitter @theSpurtle