Councillors on the Development Management Sub-Committee this morning unanimously voted to refuse planning permission for eight semi-detached dwellings in four blocks on ‘backland’ south of Broughton Road (Ref. 15/02335/FUL).
As reported here last week, an official report had earlier recommended refusal on grounds including scale, access, spatial character, housing density, loss of privacy, and residential amenity now and in the future.
Listed builded consent for associated changes to the boundary wall was recommended for approval.
Procedural query
Councillor Lewis Ritchie (Leith Walk) asked officials why the case had not been settled using delegated decision-making powers. Public submissions backed the Council’s report, but the outcome of this uncontentious case had paradoxically been placed in more doubt because ‘everybody’ opposed it.
Officials replied that the level of objections – 112, including from Malcolm Chisholm MSP and the New Town & Broughton Community Council – meant that the application was high-profile. Officials had been criticised in the past for not presenting cases with high levels of public interest. It was 'not an ideal system' but essentially officials were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
Councillor Angela Blacklock (Leith Walk) repeated Councillor Lewis’s concerns, and added that she hoped a decision today would ‘put this application to bed’. She hoped it would never come back.
Planning Convener Ian Perry said that if councillors were unhappy with the procedure, there was room to review it at a later date.
Decision
Councillors moved to a vote without further comment. Planning permission was unanimously refused. Listed building consent (for the wall) was unanimously approved.
The proposals had been drawn up by Sir Frank Mears Architects on behalf of a shadowy entity called Provincial Property Holding Ltd, based in the Virgin Islands. The architects submitted their latest visualisation of how the development might appear on Monday (see below).
You can follow the committee proceedings on the Council webcast, starting at Item 7.1.a (00:07:36).
-----------
Got a view? Tell us at
spurtle@hotmail.co.uk and @theSpurtle and Facebook
-----------------------------------
Allyson Kerr Woo hoo!! X
Bob Murphy So, the developers should now reinstate the site, right?
Alan Kennedy They will probably appeal. So it will look like shit for a while longer yet... And many many years of they are granted permission on appeal!
Ady Gaham unless they go to appeal with reporter always taking the devlopers side like at cannonmills bridge last month so its not over until the appeals are finished . . good luck .
@theSpurtle good result! Are the developers likely to appeal?
Broughton Spurtle @theSpurtle
.@CityCycling Seemed like fairly comprehensive refusal. But on recent evidence, why wouldn't they?
@theSpurtle yes. These days we well are used to planning appeals over-ruling community wishes and elected representatives decisions.
Valerie Goodman I feel like there's no point in celebrating this decision based on how things have been panning out in Canonmills, both at Earthy and the wee stone cottage.
Raymond Rose It's a ploy, recent events point to it going through on appeal and the planners know it!