CURRIE COMMUNITY COUNCIL PLANNING CONVENOR’S REPORT … · 2017-09-19 · adjacent to Water of Leith 30/6/16” and Archies notes: “My initial views are: 1) That the reason for

CURRIE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

PLANNING CONVENOR’S REPORT ON MATTERS ARISING OVER THEPAST MONTH – to 3rd Oct 2016

Meeting Date: Monday 10th Oct 2016--------------------------------------------------

1.00 PLANNING RELATED MATTERS include the following:

Applications received between 5th Sept to 3rd October include the undernoted that are of interest to us. Those highlighted are for discussion at the meeting

16/04480/PNT Installation of cabinet. Proposed Telecoms Apparatus 84 Metres South Of 22 Lanark Road West Edinburgh

New telecoms cabinet. Applicant: BT Openreach.H=1130 W= 650 D=285

16/04160/LBC Internal alteration to form a new plasterboard partition in the place of an existing non original plasterboard partition with a glazed door and a glazed window. 4A Baberton Mains Edinburgh EH14 2SR

Currie Community Council Page No. 1

Minor internal alteration to listed building.

16/04026/CLP Erect one storey flat roof extension to rear 25 Currievale Park Grove Currie EH14 5XA


16/03995/ADV Fascia, Projecting + other signage comprising 1x illuminated logo, 1x illuminated projector, 2x non-illuminated wall-mounted 1 x non-illuminated wall mounted aluminium panel. Sign c; 1 x non-illuminated wall mounted aluminium panel 9 - 11 Corslet Place Currie EH14 5LS

16/03950/FUL Remove existing double dormer to front elevation + replace with two separate dormers with hipped pitched roofs; enlarge existing flat roof dormer to rear elevation 403 Lanark Road West Edinburgh EH14 5SL


16/03758/FUL To erect a new single storey unit for retail or commercial use on vacant land adjacent to the shops at Corslet Place Currie. Unit may be divided into one single space or two. Materials of proposal to match neighbouring houses + properties, roof concrete tile and rendered walls. Widening access road to side of co-op, formimg new pavement and 1no disabled car parking space, 3no car parking spaces. Land 28 Metres West Of 13 Corslet Place Currie


Follows on from a Planning Permission in Principle application for the same thing, granted April 2016 ref 16/00658/PPP, to which we objected (bad use of existing carpark).

Environmental Protection recommends refusal of this application due to a lack of information on class of use.

No objection from 'Transport'


1.02 Applications Decided/Concluded:

14/02494/VAR4 Non Material Variation to consent 14/02494/FUL. Re-location of the spectator stand from the east side of Pitch 1 to a central location between Pitch 1 [SFA grass pitch] & Pitch 2 [3G Artificial Pitch]. Land 272 Metres South Of Heriot-Watt University Riccarton Mains Road Edinburgh

Varied

16/02937/FUL Replace existing sub-station with new GIS building, form a new access road and a new temporary construction access to the rear of the site. Erect new palisade fencing and form new double-access gates. Scottish PowerRiccarton Mains Road Currie EH14 5AA

“The existing 132kv switchgear in Currie substation is reaching the end of its operational life and requires to be replaced. It is proposed to install a Gas Insulated Substation building to replace the switchgear. A new access to facilitate the delivery of a new transformer and a new temporary construction access to the rear of the sitefor the GIS building is also proposed. Tree/vegetation clearance will be undertaken to facilitate the GIS Building and new access. “

The existing site:

The proposed installation:


Appears much the same footprint, except for the building in the lower right (south East) corner, which extends into what was open ground. This is a larger, higher building than at present:


Existing:

But it is further from the road.

It seems unreasonable to demolish trees to provide a temporary access, especially where those trees are there to screen the substation from view.

Why is the new building much larger than the buildings it replaces? Why is it partly outside the existing footprint?

I have written a letter of objection to the planning officer (Andrew Marshall). Utilities companies can usually update their installations without planning permission, but this is bigger, involves revised road access and is definitely intrusive.

Only two 'comments' on the planning portal, including ours.

Granted. Our objections mentioned in the report. The planners felt that the tree cover was not significantly reduced, and the new building not significantly bigger than the surrounding substation equipment. They allowed the slight extra intrusion into the green belt.

14/03079/VAR2 Non material variation comprising removal of the astragals to the windows, change in colour of the windows, minor modifications to the landscape design. Land At Kinleith Mill Road Currie

I have trawled through the 21 documents playing 'spot the difference' with the original plans.

More path seems to have disappeared


Original plan (which we objected to because of the missing connection to the WoL path):

Revised plan

I have written to the planning officer objecting to the absence of the public footpath.

Granted. No mention of change to path: “The proposed variations will have little visual impact and will not significantly alter the character or appearance of the proposal as a whole. It is therefore determined that the proposed variations are non-


material”. Will ring the case officer for clarification. Has he approved any change to the path or not? He says not, but the developer doesnt want to show the existing path on his drawings in case this makes him liable for it.

A John Richmond from the Traffic Orders dept wrote to say that our objections to the stopping up orders will be considered by 'the Scottish Government for a Public Inquiry'. This might include objections to the absence of the path.

Cala to attended our April meeting and explained how they would love to keep the path round the western perimeter of their site but it wasnt technically possible. I thinkthe meeting was less than convinced by their arguments of unbridgeable differences in height and wrong river bank profile.

Rob arranged a meeting on site. Richard and Archie Clark also attended. Archie (as an architect) went through the route of the peripheral path. The developer produced a revised plan at a further meeting which he requested be shown at the next CCC meeting and approved, as this will mean that the proposed appeal hearing by the Department of Environment and Appeals (DPEA) will probably not need to go ahead and the developer can start on alterations to the path and associated works. The alterations to the path are:a) Where the path is also the pavement along the road, its on the river side of the road.b) The path now follows the river bank all the way round the site, but has to be narrow and steep in places. It is not to any recognised standards at these points and it is acceptance of this by the users (us) that the developer is particularly concerned about. There is a possible alternative route, put forward by Archie, that goes the wrong side of the last housing block, which could be slightly redesigned to leave a decent walkway.

For discussion at the meeting. See Cala drawing “ Proposed woodland footpath adjacent to Water of Leith 30/6/16” and Archies notes:

“My initial views are:

1) That the reason for objecting to the Stopping Up Order prepared by CEC, i.e. that it would permanently remove a much-used perimeter path and replace it with a route that takes people through a housing estate, would be resolved provided that CALA constructed a footpath to no less a standard than that shown on their drawing WoL Path RM 160530 (attached).

2) That the vertical alignment of the path is not ideal as it involves a drop to about a metre above the water level and some fairly steep gradients and long flights of steps,largely caused by the siting of the westernmost block of houses so near the water.

3) That while the path at about 127m would be well below the 1:200 year flood level (128.25m as shown in the Flood Risk Assessment), or 1m below the height of the existing path (128m) and only 1m above ‘normal’ water level (126m), it could be flooded after unusually high rainfall. I suspect the water level may have exceeded this height in the past but reprofiling the banks and providing a side channel at the footbridge may lessen the extent to which flooding would occur. If my perception is correct, improved upstream management of the water levels in the Water of Leith has prevented them from rising rapidly, thereby reducing the possibility of flash flooding.

4) Regarding approaching the low point in the path from the east, there is an alternative route through the estate though people may not be aware of the nature of the RoW until they have travelled some distance towards the low point – they may notfeel inclined to walk back, thereby putting themselves at risk.


5) That approaching from the west, anyone using the footpath following extreme rainfall should be able to see from the Walkway whether there is water lying at the bend below the lower flight of steps. This means that a clear view needs to be maintained of the bend to reduce the risk of people finding themselves unable to proceed having descended the 6m from the Walkway. Clear sightlines will be needed to enable them to make a judgement as to whether to proceed down the path or take analternative route through the estate. Nevertheless, some people will walk through the low point and put themselves at risk.

6) That until the houses are constructed, we will not know what improvements could be made to the horizontal and vertical alignment of the RoW. I believe there is scope to make improvements but that would be beyond the scope of the public hearingwhich solely relates to the Stopping up of the Right of Way.

7) Providing a footpath reduces the likelihood of people creating their own footpath with an increased risk of putting themselves and others in harm’s way. However inadequate the path may be, it is better than providing nothing at all.

Design development could see these risks being reduced, which is to be encouraged.”Some correspondence with the traffic orders dept to confirm the revisions to the pathagreed with the developer. DPEA wont withdraw the appeal until they are clear on the revised plans.

Further correspondence, phone calls and meetings involving Rob, Archie, Richard and Phil Mcculloch from CALA (Technical Manager) this month. CALA have gone back on their offer to provide a path as shown on their drawing produced as a result of the above discussions 'Proposed Woodland Footpath Adjacent to Water of Leith' because CEC wont take ownership of a path that is not to acceptable standards.

We are going ahead with the DPEA hearing on the grounds that:

The perimeter path is a right of way, appearing on Ordinance Survey maps. Its on the drawings approved by CEC planning when granting planning permission

We disagree that its not practical to reinstate the path to an acceptable standard. We are asking the DPEA to instruct CALA and CEC to produce a report showing a suitable design with any reasons why it might not be practical, for comments by interested parties (us) and adjudication by DPEA.

The hearing is scheduled for the end of September. Archie Clark is also continuing with his submission.

Statement for hearing sent to DPEA.

The DPEA hearing was held on Thursday and Friday 29-30 Sept, pm. The reporter has had a detailed examination of all submissions. CALA were present as advisers tothe council, somewhat oddly as this gave the impression that Edinburgh Council were acting for the developer. There was a site inspection on Friday, also attended by Currie CC, Archie and Edinburgh Council (John Richmond) plus Cliff Beavers andmembers of the public. We dont see the the reporters recommendation, and will have to wait for the Ministers decision, for which there is no deadline.

16/04186/OBL Application for modification of planning obligation. Land At Kinleith Mill Road Currie


Refers to the planning in principle application before CALA took on the development on Kinleith site (12/04126/PPP). Changes to the 'section 75' agreement to do with the conditions of sale or lease of the affordable housing 'Golden share'. Has to be offered for sale to suitable buyers for 13 weeks instead of one year, in line with current CEC policy. If not sold by this time, reverts to market rate, open sale.

Interestingly, the site location plan seems to suggest that CALA have acquired the land on the other side of Blinkbonny Road bridge (Mutters bridge).

The agreement was with the Bank of Scotland on behalf of Kinleith development company (in administration).

1.03 Applications ongoing

16/03801/FUL Remove existing rear outshoot and conservatory of domestic dwelling, build new rear extension. 1 Kirkgate Currie EH14 6AL

Before:

After:


Have objected as unsuitable for an old building in a conservation area. Similar to a previous application for this building (15/03046/LBC) that was rejected

Listed as Granted but no decision or report on portal. I hope this is a computer error. Have emailed the case officer (Clare Macdonald).

Historic Environment Scotland (?) supportive

16/03853/PPP Erect 4 new detached family homes and to re-develop the existing house Brooklea. The latter will require the down taking of an existing extension and the erection of a new extension. Brooklea Blinkbonny Road Currie EH14 6AD

plan:


Artists impression:

This is to develop the Kinleith valley on the other side of Blinkbonny Road bridge to the nearby CALA development. Four new houses plus the existing house redeveloped.

Looks reasonable, given it is a brownfield site with a history of industrial use (similar to the Kinleith site), but the suggested three storey houses is maybe a bit too big for the small site.


Have written to the case officer suggesting that the buildings be two storey and with a similar footprint to the existing house.

16/03401/FUL Change of use from commercial forestry (Sui Generis) to outdoor air rifle range (Sui Generis), erection of structures. Woodland 307 Metres North Of 81 Riccarton Mains Road Currie

Sui Generis= of special characteristics

Retrospective application for existing rifle range operated by Juniper Green Rifle Club since about 2006. Structures are one portacabin, one shipping container, a portaloo and a firing point.

Discussed at August meting. No objections.

16/03065/FUL Demolition of existing garage, erection of single storey garden room and garage / workshop at end of garden by access lane. Erection of new porch to front of existing house. 5 Bryce Crescent Currie EH14 5LN


This is to replace a garage at the end of the garden with a house sized building. Existing:

Proposed:

view of proposed 'garden room' from house:


Have written to the case officer (Brian Fleming) objecting on grounds of size, intrusion and access.

Ours is the only 'comment' on the planning website I would have thought the neighbours would object.

16/03587/PAN Proposed new village incorporating approximately 1200 new houses, neighbourhood centre, primary school, open space and associated landscaping, roads and infrastructure. Hatton Mains – land east and west of Dalmahoy and north of A71

This is preliminary notification of yet another 'village' to be built from scratch on agricultural land, this time opposite the Dalmahoy country club:


Outside our area, but another huge development that will affect Currie

The developer is proposing a public exhibition at Heriot Watt, date to be advised.

Ratho CC have asked for more public exhibitions

Pre-application consultation approved

Exhibitions were held late Sept at Herriot-Watt but Currie CC was not notified (?). Since the Proposal of Application Notice has been approved it might be best to wait for the Planning Permission in Principle stage before commenting, when there will besome detail.

The accompanying report notes this is green belt and not in the local development plan.

16/01691/PAN Proposed Riccarton Mains Village comprising residential development Class 9, flats (Sui Generis) including affordable housing provision, University Halls of Residence, Neighbourhood centre including retail (Class 1) services (Class 2), food and drink (Class 3), non-residential (Class 10) and assembly and leisure (class 11). Together with associated access, parking, open space, public realm and infrastructure works (including the demolition of overhead and relaying of power lines). Land 320 Metres Southeast Of 1 Riccarton Mains Cottages Riccarton Mains Road Currie

No details as yet, just the area which is adjacent to Heriot Watt along Riccarton Mains Road:


Pre -application Consultation approved.Applicant: H&H Group Agent: Ferguson Planning Public exhibition held 5th May 11-7pm Conference Centre Heriot Watt

Described as residential with affordable housing, halls of residence, some retail and leisure. Have emailed the developer (Tim Ferguson) for more detail. May be along toour October meeting.

15/05100/FUL Proposed residential development of 206 houses and flats, formation of linear park, associated infrastructure and ancillary works. Land 150 Metres South West Of 28 Newmills Road Balerno

Latest plan to to fill in the last field off Newmills Road:


206 houses and dwellings. Site in LDP. Ongoing.

I have sent a letter of objection to the case officer: Green Belt; traffic; not in LDP

15/05133/PPP Residential development with associated landscaping, footpaths, open space,parking etc. Land 300 Metres West Of 200 Mansfield Road Balerno

A repeat application to develop the next field at Cockburn Crescent


Transport recommends refusal: “This site is not proposed within the LDP. Therefore,its transport impact on the strategic road network has not been assessed cumulatively. In addition, the applicant has not assessed the cumulative impact of this site in combination with other developments.”

The refusal does seem to leave it to the applicant to revise his own assesment (which Isuspect will prove that the network can easily cope) so we havent heard the last of this.

Its significant that CEC planning are now rejecting planning applications that are not in the LDP.

The applicant has appealed to the DPEA on grounds of non determination (ref PPA-230-2185). The planning dept has now recommended refusal to the DPEA on these grounds:

“The proposed development is contrary to the adopted Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan (as Altered 2011), in particular policies E5 and E6: development in the Green Belt. Item number Report number Wards A02 - Pentland Hills Development Management Sub-Committee – 24 February 2016 Page 2 of 32 15/05133/PPP Furthermore, the application site lies outwith the West Edinburgh Strategic Development Area (SDA) as defined by the Strategic Development Plan (SDP) (SESplan) and as such its development would be inconsistent with the SDP's spatial strategy, which seeks to prioritise, in the first instance, the development of brownfield land and land within identified SDAs. Using the method described in the Housing Land Audit 2015 report to the Planning Committee meeting of 3 December 2015 to assess unconstrained housing land with support, there is considered to be a five-year effective housing land supply in the Council's area. Finally, the development of the site for residential purposes is not supported by the Second Proposed Local Development Plan and is contrary to the provisions of Policy ENV 10: Development in the Green Belt and Countryside. “


DEPA reporter to carry out unaccompanied site inspection.

Appeal ongoing, DPEA ref PPA-230-2185 With reporter

15/05258/PAN Residential development of around 1,500 homes with a community hub (containing various neighbourhood facilities), a hotel, non-denominational primary school and associated infrastructure including new access and roads, improved access to public transport, extended rail station car parking, flood mitigation measures, landscaping, sports pitches and green networks. Land 300 Metres North And South Of 2 Malcolmstone Farm CottagesLong Dalmahoy Road Edinburgh

This is the scheme presented by Wallace Land as 'Riccarton village' in September 2014:

area:

A major development that was originally thought unlikely as not included in the new Local Development Plan. A small part of this is in the plan as suitable for housing. See under ‘Revised Local development plan’. The developers (Wallace Land) do not seem to have a track record of major developments. This proposal seems very speculative and without basis.


As it has now been granted 'Proposal of Application Notice' status, additional consultation has to take place. Its not clear how much the previous consultation covers this, but Wallace Land made a further presentation to Currie Community Council in January, and intend to hold a further public exhibition at Currie High school in February.

We may call our own public meeting. This is of major concern to this area.

Ian Perry, Planning Convenor of CEC commented on this when he attended the last South West Communities Forum. Because the Local Development Plan wont allow for the required number of houses, the planners feel bound to investigate additional proposals. I've emailed Ian Perry to confirm this as, in conversation with Bill Henderson, IP says this is not CECs position.

A report summarising the application for the Development Management Sub-Committee has appeared. Here is the key issues section:

3.2 Key Issues The key considerations against which the eventual application will be assessed include whether:

a) The principle of the development is acceptable in this location;

The site is designated as 'Green Belt' in the Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP) and theSecond Proposed Local Development Plan (LDP).

The proposals are therefore contrary to policy and a reasoned justification to allow development within the Green Belt will be required. Consideration will also need to be given to Scottish Planning Policy and Strategic Development Plan Policy 7 in terms of the requirement to maintain a five year effective housing land supply.

b) The design, scale and layout are acceptable within the character of the area; and does the proposal comply with the Edinburgh Design Guidance;

The proposal will be considered against the provisions of the ECLP, LDP and the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Sufficient information will be required to demonstrate how the development will take account of its impact on the Dalmahoy Estate Gardens and Designed Landscape Inventory site. Although the application is for planning permission in principle, it is expected that a Design and Access Statement will be required to accompany the application. A strong design framework/masterplan should be developed to avoid piecemeal development and to aid in creating a high quality place with consideration for the proposed mix of uses.

c) Access arrangements are acceptable in terms of road safety and public transport accessibility;

The proposal should have regard to the transport policies of the ECLP, LDP and respond to the requirements of the Edinburgh Street Design guidance. Consideration should be given to the impact on traffic flows to and from the site on local roads and the wider road network and access to public transport. This should include


consideration of the cumulative impact with other development in the west of Edinburgh. Transport information will be required to support the application.

d) Impact on infrastructure can be addressed;

The proposal will need to be considered within the context of the LDP Action Programme and the Council's Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing Guidance.

e) There are any other environmental factors that require consideration;

The applicant will be required to submit sufficient information to demonstrate that thesite can be developed without having a detrimental impact on the environment. In order to support the application, the following documents will need to be submitted:

Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) report; Planning Statement; Design and Access Statement; Transport Information; Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal; Site Investigation report; Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Management Plan; Air Quality Impact Assessment; Noise Impact Assessment; and Phase 1 Habitat and Protected Species Survey.

Nothing further on this application since May 2016

15/03332/PAN Erection of residential development with associated access, landscaping and open space. Land 138 Metres West Of 103 Curriehill Road Currie

and

16/01515/FUL Erection of residential development with associated access, landscaping and open space. Land 138 Metres West Of 103 Curriehill Road Currie

This is an application by Miller Homes and CALA to build on land south of Curriehill station, so the area in the (unapproved) local plan ref Curriehill Road HSG 36. HSG36 allowed for 70 houses. a public exhibition was held in Sept 2015


53 dwellings (inc 14 affordable housing).

Green belt and Prime Agricultural Land.

Our (late) objection has appeared on the planning web portal: Green belt; prime agricultural; may be dropped from the RWELP.


Aug 2016: Awaiting assesment

15/04150/PAN Proposed residential development consisting of flats, garden flats and luxury penthouses, and affordable housing units. Site 70 Metres Southwest Of 351 Lanark Road West Edinburgh

and 16/01353/FUL Residential development and associated works comprising 53 units including 12 affordable units.

This application concerns the former tannery. The applicant is George Dunbar & Sons (builders).


The architect (Yeoman Mcallister) held a public consultation on Wednesday 28th Oct, at Currie library. There was an approved planning application for mixed use (09/01964/FUL) some years ago but this is a new application for residential only.

Comments from the presentation were that the footprint of the proposed buildings looked smaller than the previous application (it leaves the west end clear for access and some landscaping) but the height of the (5 story) buildings was a cause for concern. The architect (Grant Watson) claimed that the buildings are no higher than the previous application.

CCC did not object to the previous planning application, but did have some commentson the construction details. Our letter is on the planning website (from Archie Clark).Previous 'nursing home' application:


Current application:

The maximum height of the flats appears to be about the same as the previous application and the original tannery.


Have written to the case officer (Jennifer Paton) suggesting that a) a study be made of mixed use viability and b) The residents be consulted on building materials. Especially concerning the metal roof – how about slate?

A group called 'Edinburgh Urban Design Panel' lead by David Leslie, CEC planning and including:EAA (Edinburgh Architectural Association) The Cockburn Association RTPI in Scotland (The Royal Town Planning Institute )Landscape Institute Scotland Napier University ESALA (Edinburgh School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture)Johnny Cadell Architecture + Design Scotland Police Scotland Heriot Watt University

have submitted a report recommending further design – report on planning portal.

Many additional documents on the planning portal (July 2016). Some minor revisionsto building materials and design detail, but the size and layout, and design, of the buildings is as before.

Granted

3. 00 ASSOCIATED MATTERS:

Proposed development at Hermiston by Murray Estates ‘Edinburgh Garden District’

13/04911/PAN and 15/04318/PPP Residential development, horticultural visitor and education centre (the Calyx), new schools, community facilities, local retail facilities, local Class 2 and Class 3, Class 4, Class 10, Class 11, conference centre, hotel, a sports stadium/arena, sporting facilities, construction training centre, sustainable energy centre, green network, transport links, canal related uses and infrastructure.

Application Approved. (for a detailed planning application)

There is a website: http://www.edinburghsgardendistrict.co.uk

This is for a huge and much discussed urban development by Murray Estates. As it is still not in the Local Development plan (May 2015) it seems unlikely to go ahead, at least in this form and scale. Murray Estates are not really developers – their plan was to parcel the land out to developers who would put in their own version of the approved plan.

See previous reports for details.

A much lesser scheme (known as ‘east of milbank tower’) has been submitted (see 15/04318/PPP ). The developers have embarked on a fresh round of presentations,


http://www.edinburghsgardendistrict.co.uk/

promoting the 'East of Mill Bank tower' option. They may resubmit a planning application for this area only, and are lobbying for this to be included in the LDP.

I commented to the planning officer on aspects of the proposed plan that should make it ineligible to be considered: not in LDP; access for 1500 dwellings unfeasible;Greenbelt; arable land.

The South West Communities Forum considered supporting this application if taken as part of the overall housing plan. Specifically instead of Newmills, Curriemurend park and Riccarton Road development sites that are in the Local Development Plan. SWCM have sent comments supporting the proposal if it is in accordance with the LDP and the access problems can be resolved.

A transport report recommending refusal has appeared on the website. While it is open to the developer to respond and alter his plans, it is fairly damning and requiresextensive alterations to Gogarburn Road and associated junctions , assessment of the RBS interchange and agreement (funding) for extensive bus and transport links. Mention is made of the newly laid out cycle route.

Our letter is listed under the 45 'comments' but is not part of the documents. RBS comment also listed but not an accessible document. Is it possible to see that document?

The local community Councils have been invited to a special planning committee meeting to discuss the Millburn Tower proposal from Murray. No one from Currie CC attending as we are not objecting to the proposal in principle and its during the working day.

I emailed the case officer (Jennifer Paton) to ask if all the 45 comments could be made available before the meeting, especially the ones from RBS and Ratho cc, but was told "It could prejudice the decision making process if representations were made available prior to the committee determination and there has been cases of intimidation in the past on other projects. "

A report by the Development Management subcommittee (planners) has appeared and recommends refusal. Developer is pushing for a decision for planning permission in principle. To be considered with the proposed LDP as it is at present. The nearby Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA) establishment is a special consideration, and will involve the Scottish Ministers.

Extract from report: “There is a five year effective housing land supply. Within the Council's area, there is land with planning support (allocated in plans and / or with planning permission) and free of planning constraints for around 30,000 homes. Thisincludes sites in the proposed LDP but not the application site. This means that the site is not required to meet housing land need. “

“The lack of measures necessary to mitigate transport impacts, particularly thosethat promote active travel and public transport use, means that the development willresult in an unacceptable level of car use.”

This appears to have been referred to the Scottish Ministers on 9 th June, but thecrucial letter with the planning departments recommendations has not yet appearedon the portal. Application is listed as 'pending'. The Scottish ministers haveacknowledged receipt of the referral and set a deadline of 4 th August 2016 fordetermination


'Call in letter' sent to Murray Estates from CEC planning 25th July. 4th Aug dateunlikely to be met.

With DPEA appeal ref NOD-EDB-002. Oct 2016: Reporter not yet appointed Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

A map of the major planning applications in our area (compiled by Archie Clark):

The plan, as modified Sept 2016, is due to be formally adopted 24th Nov 2016

RHO7/10/2016


Documents

CURRIE COMMUNITY COUNCIL PLANNING CONVENOR’S REPORT … · 2017-09-19 · adjacent to Water of Leith 30/6/16” and Archies notes: “My initial views are: 1) That the reason for