http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Illegal gated-community development blocks access to WoL (Juni Green) en Tue, 19 May 2026 07:18:59 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-337655 Fri, 18 Sep 2020 09:33:37 +0000 chdot 337655@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Story update -</p> <p><a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20343" rel="nofollow">http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20343</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-321822 Fri, 31 Jan 2020 20:13:53 +0000 gembo 321822@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Gates remain </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-321819 Fri, 31 Jan 2020 19:22:43 +0000 ejstubbs 321819@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>During a tidy up of my Inbox today I noticed that I had received an update notification about this planning applicaiton, dated two weeks after Cllr Arthur's tweet. It was refused. The summary in the planning committee's report stated:</p> <p><em>The development has an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area by virtue of its inappropriate and incongruous siting and intimidating and negative appearance, contrary to LDP policies Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) and Env 6 (Conservation Areas - development).</p> <p>The proposal discourages access through the site, resulting in the use of an alternative footpath which does not meet the Council's standards in terms of width, surface and alignment. The proposal does not comply with the local development plan and is contrary to LDP Policy Tra 9 (Cycle and Footpath Network).</p> <p>No material considerations outweigh this conclusion.</em></p> <p>The consultation from the roads authority appears towards the end of the report and includes this statement:</p> <p><em>The applicant should note that the gate may be considered an obstruction under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.</em></p> <p>Although I've traversed the WoL walkway a number of times in the last few months I've not been down Baberton Loan recently so I don't know whether the multiply illegal gate has yet been removed. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-317085 Mon, 04 Nov 2019 15:19:54 +0000 neddie 317085@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The photo of the path in Dinwoodie's tweet (above) is misleading. It looks more like this:</p> <p><a href="https://flic.kr/p/HHrz5T"><img src="https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4681/27379592919_cfededb46e.jpg"></a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-317066 Mon, 04 Nov 2019 13:39:18 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 317066@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>An astonishing lack of self-awareness displayed there. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-317058 Mon, 04 Nov 2019 12:21:29 +0000 chdot 317058@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Replying to CllrSA</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/dinwoodiedani/status/1191282361276739584" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/dinwoodiedani/status/1191282361276739584</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-317057 Mon, 04 Nov 2019 12:19:15 +0000 Frenchy 317057@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@urchaidh - I could be wrong, but I <em>think</em> the original planning application is 13/01525/FUL. The very top document in the list of documents on the planning portal for that application is a landscape plan. It seems to focus more on trees, etc., but there's no sign of a gate on it.</p> <p>EDIT: Sorry, there is a gate shown at the Water of Leith walkway itself. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-317048 Mon, 04 Nov 2019 11:43:32 +0000 urchaidh 317048@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Don't suppose anyone has copies of the original plans, particularly the landscape plan(s). Can't find them on the Council website now. Need to check my memory of the original approved plans. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-317044 Mon, 04 Nov 2019 11:09:46 +0000 neddie 317044@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>It looks like retrospective planning permission (18/05069/FUL) for the gates across Baberton Loan at the entrance to the Water of Leith will be refused at the planning committee this week.</p> <p>Reasons:<br /> 1. Adverse effect on the character and appearance.<br /> 2. Discourages access to WoL.</em></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/CllrScottArthur/status/1191264419256455168" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/CllrScottArthur/status/1191264419256455168</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-292839 Fri, 05 Oct 2018 07:30:27 +0000 chrisfl 292839@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It does occur to me that the replacement of the gate with a set of chicanes only just passable by cars would be enough to deter parking and speedy driving.... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-292760 Thu, 04 Oct 2018 12:20:18 +0000 gembo 292760@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@neddie, looked new to me, maybe he just clearwed it then? You are the local man afer all. So I go with your call. Agree too steep to use, no one does </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-292758 Thu, 04 Oct 2018 12:00:49 +0000 neddie 292758@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>he is arguing because he put two new paths in either side </em></p> <p>He only put in <em>one </em>new path at the West, connecting to the hairpin bend. The other path, to the East, by St Margaret's was always there &amp; has always been in poor condition - mostly inaccessible due to nettles, narrow path width and certainly wouldn't feel safe at night. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-292756 Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:52:54 +0000 Frenchy 292756@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>he is arguing because he put two new paths in either side of the old engine shed he converted to flats that means all fine.</em></p> <p>Even ignoring the issue of accessing the WoL path, the pavement <em>to the development itself</em> should also be free from barriers. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-292748 Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:32:27 +0000 gembo 292748@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@frenchy, he is arguing because he put two new paths in either side of the old engine shed he converted to flats that means all fine.</p> <p>THe road and both paths are steep so access tricky</p> <p>There are rarely motoerbikes that far south west but occaisionally they get on. His gate means really only Colinton is their access point, not that I wish to help him out here. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-292726 Thu, 04 Oct 2018 09:13:41 +0000 Frenchy 292726@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>May also be worth quoting from the Council's Street Design Guidance, which says that “Design should give special consideration to the young, old and those with disabilities” and that footpaths should be “free from barriers such as footway obstructions”.</p> <p>A gate is a pretty obvious barrier. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-292718 Wed, 03 Oct 2018 23:04:06 +0000 neddie 292718@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>A copy of my objection here, if anyone wants to make use of any of the points:</p> <p><a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/p98hc8gl15adqir/baberton%20loan%20gate%20objection.pdf?dl=0" rel="nofollow">https://www.dropbox.com/s/p98hc8gl15adqir/baberton%20loan%20gate%20objection.pdf?dl=0</a></p> <p>Fill yer boots.</p> <p>Objections to be in by <strong>5th Oct</strong> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-292663 Wed, 03 Oct 2018 07:47:41 +0000 ejstubbs 292663@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Have responded with an objection.</p> <p>The portal told me that my comment had been "truncated", which was annoying, but the e-mail confirmation I got contained the text in full so I'm hoping that it all got through. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-292644 Tue, 02 Oct 2018 19:55:08 +0000 crowriver 292644@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I have objected to the new application, on the same grounds as the previous one was rejected by the council. I encourage others to do the same! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-292641 Tue, 02 Oct 2018 19:12:36 +0000 gembo 292641@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@frenchy, the chap put in two routes one to the west and another to the east of his illegal gate </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-292631 Tue, 02 Oct 2018 15:46:04 +0000 Frenchy 292631@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>alternative/additional routes exist between Lanark Road and the Water of Leith Walkway in the immediate vicinity of the application site, including the route to the south west which is used by the vast majority of pedestrians/cyclists. </em></p> <p>The south west route being more used than the south east route is, of course, nothing to do with the fact that there's a blooming big gate across the south east route. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-292630 Tue, 02 Oct 2018 15:30:17 +0000 gembo 292630@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@jonty - that is why I am saying Archie Clark would normally be all over this. He objects to all planing and keepos C&amp;B in newsprint </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-292628 Tue, 02 Oct 2018 14:57:26 +0000 ejstubbs 292628@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><strong>@neddie</strong>: <em>It looks like the residents have had a campaign and gone around all their friends and asked them to write in and support.</em></p> <p>Interesting to compare the Neighbour Notification List for the <a href="http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/files/B63FAE07AA0AB51A5A9A79069E1F50B8/pdf/17_05343_FUL-NEIGHBOUR_NOTIFICATION_LIST-3789196.pdf">originally approved planning application for the change of use of the warehouse</a> with six addresses, all on Baberton Loan, to <a href="http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/files/CE24206AF6E6C4D29ECBEEBA79701985/pdf/18_05069_FUL-NEIGHBOUR_NOTIFICATION_LIST-4032489.pdf">that for the illegal gate</a> with <strong>82</strong> addresses. Certainly does look like there's been some local lobbying going on, probably emphasising the law'n'order and "Won't somebody please think of the children!" arguments wibbled on about in the covering letter.</p> <p>The covering letter states: "The Report made no reference to the fact that alternative/additional routes exist between Lanark Road and the Water of Leith Walkway in the immediate vicinity of the application site, including the route to the south west which is used by the vast majority of pedestrians/cyclists. Having scanned the report it seems clear to me that it <u>does</u> reference the proposed alternative routes, and says that they are inadequate and non-compliant (on the final page, in the Roads Authority consultation section). On that ground alone the application seems to be badly flawed.</p> <p>I'm sure I read somewhere that the 2m high solid fence alongside the WoL walkway on the south side of the access road is also illegal.</p> <p><em>The gates have never been removed. So the applicant has flouted the law twice - first by erecting the gates without planning permission, and second by refusing to comply with removal during the allotted period.</em> The covering letter does say that the enforcement decision is under appeal. If true then I would actually expect the gates to be able to remain in place until that appeal is concluded one way or the other. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-292626 Tue, 02 Oct 2018 14:50:00 +0000 jonty 292626@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Do we have a C&amp;B News subscriber around? Surely there's more background in there. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-292622 Tue, 02 Oct 2018 14:42:54 +0000 gembo 292622@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Maybe 12 people live in the development the illegal gate protects? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-292620 Tue, 02 Oct 2018 13:57:55 +0000 neddie 292620@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There seem to be huge number of comments submitted to CEC's planning portal <em>in support</em> of this application.</p> <p>It looks like the residents have had a campaign and gone around all their friends and asked them to write in and support.</p> <p>All the more reason to write an objection now, if this concerns you. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-291399 Mon, 17 Sep 2018 19:33:38 +0000 gembo 291399@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Yes, what I don't understand is why local volunteer planning police officer Archie C had not stuck his deerstalker into this one. He has maybe retired as is very old but still see him about </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-291383 Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:58:03 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 291383@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Sounds similar to the East Scotland St Lane garage farrago than has been ongoing for 6 years+.</p> <p><a href="https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/directory_record/989499/bellevue_crescent5_east_scotland_street_lane" rel="nofollow">https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/directory_record/989499/bellevue_crescent5_east_scotland_street_lane</a></p> <p>"In Issue 270 we covered an apparent lack of progress in applying the enforcement order on a garage sometimes operating as an AirBnB at 8 East Scotland St Lane.<br /> We owe Council Enforcement an apology. Before our ink was dry, they had removed the unconsented glazed frontage of the garage and replaced it with a consented metal roller door. Cue general rejoicings from locals.<br /> Two days later, the owner removed Council Enforcement’s metal roller door and replaced it with a new (multi-astragalled), unconsented, glazed frontage. Cue general gnashing of teeth. Locals suspect that the garage is once again occupied.<br /> This is the latest twist in an absurd saga which first came to Spurtle’s attention back in September 2012 (Issue 211). "</p> <p><a href="http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/sites/broughtonspurtle.org.uk/files/backissues/Spurtle%20271%20Final%20Hi%20Res.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/sites/broughtonspurtle.org.uk/files/backissues/Spurtle%20271%20Final%20Hi%20Res.pdf</a></p> <p>Said property is on Booking.com for £70 pn </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-291381 Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:33:46 +0000 neddie 291381@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The previous planning permission for these gates (17/05343/FUL) was "refused and enforced". An enforcement order was served and the deadline for removal of the gates was August 2018.</p> <p>The gates have never been removed. So the applicant has flouted the law twice - first by erecting the gates without planning permission, and second by refusing to comply with removal during the allotted period.</p> <p>How on Earth have they been given permission to submit another application? It seems that due procedure has not been followed - they should at least be made to comply with the "enforcement" before being allowed a new application. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-291320 Mon, 17 Sep 2018 11:17:02 +0000 Roibeard 291320@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Looks like this application doesn't even propose a replacement path, but drops all pretense.</p> <p>The right of way is called into doubt, claims that access is maintained through pushing a button, but also says that the gates have successfully deterred access.</p> <p>Stage 2 would be removing the push button access, then claiming the right of way has fallen into disuse, so can be removed.</p> <p>Robert </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18466&page=2#post-291002 Wed, 12 Sep 2018 13:22:19 +0000 gembo 291002@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Nothing changed out on the ground. Same two paths to replace the old road, no change to any infra. No access down the street et cetera </p>