Redevelopment of empty Council-owned premises at 154 McDonald Road as 73 private bedsits (Refs 13/02458/FUL; 13/02459/LBC) has been rejected.
This lunchtime, the Development Management Subcommittee at City Chambers rejected Kingsford Developments' proposal by the tightest of margins: 7 votes to 6. More-or-less local councillors Bagshaw, Blacklock, Brock and McVey all voted against.
Local residents had mounted a vigorous, carefully researched and articulate campaign of opposition almost as soon as the proposal was launched, even though this fell at the start of the summer holidays (Breaking news, 24.6.13; 2.7.13; 3.7.13; Issue 220).
Then they turned to the particulars. Objections included: housing density, conversion to unsuitably small dwelling units, inappropriate overlooking, an insufficient housing mix, no certainty of long-term affordable housing, too little attention to sustainable building, too little green space, a probable parking impact on the neighbourhood, procedural problems in how the Council had managed the application, and insufficient public consultation.
Their unpaid, self-tutored campaign and the hundreds of hours' work which went into it culminated in a 10-minute presentation to councillors this morning by John Gardner and Sandra Bagnall (pictured above afterwards, and below with Councillor Nick Gardner). In it they banged home the points submitted earlier in a 10-page document, carefully limiting themselves to material rather than emotional objections.
(You can see the photo and the rest of the report in the pdf attached below. Planning officer Stephen Dixon's report to councillors recommending approval is also attached below.)
Community council presentations
Their case had early convinced Leith Central Community Council, Malcolm Chisholm MSP and the Cockburn Association. It was cogently delivered to Monday evening's meeting of the New Town and Broughton Community Council, at which the new membership dropped the previous NTBCC's previous lukewarm support for the development.
At today's meeting in City Chambers, NTBCC's Richard Price and Ian Mowat therefore surprised Kingsford representatives by speaking against the plan. NTBCC's shift in direction again felt decisive, although Mowat afterwards questioned how much real difference it had made. NTBCC's change of heart was facilitated by a site visit earlier this week, when the potential development's position in the playground became suddenly apparent. Mowat later described it as 'the right development for Edinburgh but in the wrong place'.
Also speaking against the development today were Leith Central Community Council's Julian Siann who, among other points, raised the lack of social mix proposed and what effect an influx of exclusively single or childless people would have on community spirit. It was one of several similar (perhaps clumsily expressed) observations by today's speakers which raised hackles among otherwise well-disposed single and childless community-minded members of the public.
Malcolm Chisholm MSP trenchantly rubbished the notion that McDonald and Broughton Roads were quiet residential backwaters. He pointed to potential parking problems locally, poor transport links, insufficient open and green spaces, and the incompatible nature of the development so close to a primary school. He rebutted claims that comparable precedents exist elsewhere in the city.
As did others, Chisholm pointed out that the Council's own Environmental Services had raised concerns about the development. Officials there recommended that the proposal 'be refused on the grounds that residential amenity and public safety could be detrimentally affected should this application be granted'.
Cockburn Association and sharp intake of breath
Marion Williams, Director of the Cockburn Association, claimed the development would cramp the school's expansion in future and might mean it would have to relocate at great expense in years to come. Lack of space could also affect the design and educative usefulness of any new builds behind the school, she said, whereas well-designed schools may improve learning by 25% (see this report).
She said the proposed scheme went against local and national guidelines on the use of playgrounds. In response to Councillor Maureen Child's doubts, Williams drew on her own experience as a school teacher to say that the building was perfectly suited to reconversion into an educational establishment.
Kingsford stick to their guns ... and compromise
Next spoke Kingsford Developments' Alex Watts, and Paul Scott of Scott Hobbs Planning. Between them, they strongly rejected claims that any of the proposed bedsits had insufficient floor areas. The plans were, they repeated, entirely compatible with technical regulations on this, and on open and green spaces.
Watts stressed that the proposal would fulfil a very real need for affordable housing in the city which was keenly felt by young professionals otherwise excluded from the housing ladder. He suggested that parental fears could be reduced by obscuring playground-facing windows in two of the most proximate flats. At this point, many listening thought that the argument had perhaps begun to swing in Kingsford's favour.
Watts dismissed the likely traffic impact of 73 new residents, and suggested that the traffic impact of 350–400 office workers would be considerably worse. (Kingsford Developments already have the money and necessary permissions to develop No. 154 as offices.)
Kingsford's plans would, he said, turn the building from a deteriorating drain on the city into a popular and useful economic asset.
Councillor Nick Gardner spoke next, succinctly and effectively outlining widespread community unease at the plans, and fears that it would evolve into being used for short-term and holiday lets, perhaps even stag parties. He was followed by Councillor Blacklock. Like many others, she stressed the impact on residential amenity of children playing nearby, some as late as 9pm. She envisaged more than one resident living in each bedsit flat, and so foresaw potential problems with inadequate and badly sited waste disposal arrangements.
As councillors and officials next discussed possible compromises and conditions to suit both sides, many members of the public thought that Kingsford – pragmatic, polite, technocratic and avowedly community-minded – would win through. So when Councillors Bagshaw and Brock (the latter something of an éminence tartan before and during proceedings) moved to reject the application and the vote was cast, half the delegation from Broughton Primary School and surrounds nearly fell off their seats.
Theirs has been a notable triumph for community activism, persuasive argument and effective lobbying of local political representatives.
So now what?
It is not clear what will happen now. Will Kingsford walk away, appeal to the Scottish Government, revise their residential plans, or opt to provide office space? We'll find out soon.
Fortunately, whatever comes – and whatever bureaucratic obstacles Council officials may put in their way next – Broughton residents clearly have the confidence and momentum to move mountains.
What did you make of today's events at City Chambers? Tell us by email spurtle@hotmail.co.uk on Facebook Broughton Spurtle or Twitter @theSpurtle
--------------------------
‘It was an amazing campaign by the Broughton parents and their presentation today was outstanding.’ — Malcolm Chisholm MSP
You have to hand it to The Broughton Primary School Parent Council, this is a compelling doc: http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/sites/broughtonspurtle.org.uk/files/story/Mcdonald%20Road%20arguments%20against.pdf …
@scottishchris very clever...I want all my reports to look like this!
@planningclaire very simple objective text and leaves the clip art to tell the more emotive story!
Planning Claire