EARLY DAYS IN FRAMING A RESPONSE
With details of RBS’s PPP only very recently available, the New Town & Broughton Community Council had not come to any settled position when it met last night.
Greater clarity is expected at its next meeting on 12 December, ahead of the deadline for public comments on 16 December.
In a long discussion, however, many observations were made, questions raised, and further lines of enquiry identified. The following came from both community councillors and members of the public.
- The pavilions fronting Fettes Row and Royal Crescent are 2 storeys too high. Their height ‘matches’ only the highest points of the corner blocks opposite.
- The discovery of two sewers leading down from Dundonald Street to Logan Street has resulted in reshuffling of the pavilion blocks fronting Fettes Row and Royal Crescent. The space north of Dundonald Street is now wider, but Blocks G and H are consequently both too close and too massive. Block K now looms over King George V Park.
- The developer should go into more detail about the various potential economic impacts of the plan. (For example, replacing RBS – and its thousands of employees – with 99 per cent residential occupancy and 1 per cent retail would have a huge local effect.) An Economic Impact Assessment from the developer is likely to appear soon.
- Up to 527 car parking spaces for 400 flats seems disproportionate, especially for a site close to such good public transport routes. Could a condition be attached to planning consent that would prevent or limit resale of parking spaces?
- The long and complicated traffic model estimates only a minimal increase in journeys. But it appears to be based on outdated assumptions about how much traffic is already in the area. It underestimates the effect of traffic displaced from elsewhere in the north of the city, and of extra traffic created by recently consented new developments.
- The Environmental Statement is long, unclearly organised and slow to unpack. It includes a proposal to remove some trees from King George V Park.
- Demolition on the site could, in theory, precede permission being granted for any particular scheme. However, Councillor Joanne Mowat – who sits on the Development Management Subcommittee – said that scenario is now regarded as poor practice and would be unlikely to happen.
- Concerns persist about the potential effect of development on ground stability nearby. Water regularly floods the RBS car park and is cleared at night. A satisfactory geological survey should precede a decision on the PPP application.
- Greater clarity is needed on the likely infrastructural effects of this development, both locally and further afield. Any consented scheme must include a robust schedule of contributions so that, for example, transport, schools and medical services can grow in line with population increase.
If any of these points has sparked your interest, and you would like to investigate them for yourself on the Council’s online Planning Portal … forget it. Their website has gone wrong yet again and has been out of action for most of the day. Try again later.
Got a view? Tell us at spurtle@hotmail.co.uk and @theSpurtle and Facebook
***************
Jennifer Inglis There are two applications. One is for demolition in a Conservation Area the other for Planning Permission in Principle. The demolition application- according to The Local Development Plan adopted by the Council yesterday- should not be granted. I quote “demolition will not be permitted unless a detailed planning permission is approved, and maybe subject to a legal agreement to link demolition to the provision of replacement buildings”. There are currently not many objections to the demolition on the Council's site but I believe it is important to object to avoid ending up with an ugly gap site that lends itself to developers putting pressure on to get whatever they want built.