CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh

"Pressure on green belt as 10,000 homes to be built"

(336 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/pressure-on-green-belt-as-10-000-homes-to-be-built-1-3110345

    'People have got to live somewhere'

    'Not in my Greenbelt'

    Wouldn't it be nice if serious wide/convenient paths were built to these new settlements FIRST.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  2. Arellcat
    Moderator

    "Company owner Sir David Murray has aspirations of creating a garden district development worth up to £1 billion on land west of the city."

    "Murray Estates is proposing to build a business village that would include 1500 homes located within walking distance of Edinburgh Park."

    'walking distance' =! 'people will always walk'.

    Perhaps it's time urban planners stopped 'acknowledging the lessons' of New Towns and dormitory villages that tried to reduce the dependence on cars while simultaneously making it more convenient to use cars, and started acting on those lessons.

    I wonder if the Cammo estate will be built on. The last owner passed to the National Trust with the proviso that it would be a public park for all time. Once you build on green land you never get it back.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  3. kaputnik
    Moderator

    "We must build these houses, but we must not build them on the large, existing brownfield sites in and around the existing city boundary as someone else is waiting for the property market to pick up before developing those".

    Quartermile. Sprinside. "Canal Quarter". Western Harbour. Granton. All big tracts of land that were/are earmarked for housing development and yet existing developments stalled, cancelled, constructed properties lie vacant, in negative equity or rented out as people can't / won't buy them or the sites are being downgraded from executive penthouses to pile-em-high "social" housing or student "villages".

    What Mr Murray and his chums want to do is to "maximise the value" of greenbelt land by filling it full of McMansions and getting a hefty return in the process. And the above brownfield gapsites will probably still be empty when he's done.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  4. Stickman
    Member

    I understood that the proposal was not to build on the Cammo estate itself but on the surrounding farmland, although I may be wrong.

    In response to David Murray's claim that only Greenbelt building can meet the housing shortage: "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"

    Posted 4 years ago #
  5. crowriver
    Member

    There's also the Lochend butterfly, Shrubhill, former tram sheds off Leith Walk/McDonald Road, and so on.

    Plenty of brownfield sites ready for development. They're just not owned by a man who is (allegedly) more culpable in the demise of a certain Glasgow football club than he cares to acknowledge publicly.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  6. chdot
    Admin

    "
    Edinburgh Greens (@EdinburghGreens)
    25/09/2013 19:08
    Worried about loss of Greenbelt and urban sprawl? Our meeting Thurs 26 Sept, 7.30pm at 7 Victoria Terrace, looking at Local Development Plan

    "

    Posted 4 years ago #
  7. gembo
    Member

    Proposals to build 300 houses in Balerno at various fields around the village )much of which was developed on greenbelt inthe late sities, early seventies. Whilst the kin leith mill site has planning permission rejected any time developments proposed, apparently as it is south of the river and would set a precedent.

    The village needs affordable housing as the people who came in the seventies have now retired but stayed in their houses. So younger families need to buy new houses. As with any village younger people are needed.

    Any solutions?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  8. fimm
    Member

    gembo, where's the "kin Leith mill site"?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  9. Dave
    Member

    I find it hard to complain about construction in the green belt now that I've bought a house in an area (Currie) that was entirely constructed by taking one enormous bite out of the green belt.

    People who advocate building on brownfield sites aren't really arguing for the preservation of the green belt because eventually all brownfield sites would be built over, leaving only the green belt. It seems to me that only opposing all house construction is really campaigning to save the green belt.

    Anyone doing that? Thought not.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  10. "People who advocate building on brownfield sites aren't really arguing for the preservation of the green belt because eventually all brownfield sites would be built over, leaving only the green belt"

    Eh?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  11. SRD
    Moderator

    There are sound people - Andy Wightman, Peter Matthews - who would suggest that 'farmland' of the sort found in our greenbelt is likely to have lower biodiversity than urban brownfield areas, and/or the same areas once they have been built on.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  12. chdot
    Admin

    @fimm

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/directory_record/264267/kinleith_mill_site

    (Don't know if gembo had a keyboard stutter or was trying to make a kin point.)

    Site used to be a major paper mill - therefore 'brownfield'

    http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Kinleith+mill+edinburgh

    All previous plans to develop for housing have failed because of access/traffic.

    Don't suppose any developers would pay to re-open the railway!!

    Posted 4 years ago #
  13. PS
    Member

    "a business village"
    Urggh.

    It's odd that the cities that come top of everyone's "favourite city" polls are the densely populated, apartment above shops ones and yet UK punters' desire is to get your own "house with a garden" leading to this suburban sprawl.

    Doesn't seem to matter that the estate itself is soulless, the garden you get in a new estate is tiny patch of grass, overlooked on all sides. And the standard of suburban gardening is plummeting because everyone's too busy working to do anything in the garden beyond BBQ (or can't be bothered).

    Posted 4 years ago #
  14. kaputnik
    Moderator

    People who advocate building on brownfield sites aren't really arguing for the preservation of the green belt because eventually all brownfield sites would be built over, leaving only the green belt.

    Developing brownfield sites isn't just about not building on greenfield sites (part of it is, of course!), it's a lot to do with trying to rebuild and improve large areas of the existing city which are currently un or under-occupied or lack facilities or people find themselves in substandard housing.

    Apart from the great work that the Grove temporary allotments have done on the undeveloped half of the Springside development, the brownfield sites lie unnocupied and blocked from any meaningful use by uncooperative developers who see them only in terms of how much profit can be extracted from the site.

    To be clear, David Murray owns large tracts of land on the west of the city and would stand to make a LOT of money if they are developed as I don't imagine farmland brings in much in the way of rent.

    Edinburgh has quite a few large areas of underdevloped land which for various economic / planning / development reasons aren't doing very much. There's a recognised need for more housing. Building it elsewhere because it's in the developer's interest to "maximise value" from their farmland is going to leave those brownfield sites underdeveloped and large parts of the city lying vacant.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  15. Morningsider
    Member

    The most common misconception about the green belt is that it exists to protect land of some special value, e.g. prime agricultural land or land of high landscape value. This isn't the case. A green belt simply exists to clearly define the boundary of a city or other urban area. Green belt land may have other designations that offer additional protection from development, but generally the boundary of a green belt can be easily altered to facilitate development if a planning authority considers it appropriate.

    Much of the (potential) damage to the Edinburgh green belt has already been done, when Scottish Ministers approved the Straegic Development Plan in June. The local development simply has to find specific sites for the number of housing units identified in the SDP for specific sections of Edinburgh. In addition, the West Edinburgh Planning Framework directs a lot of development to the area near the airport.

    I'm not saying it' a lost cause, but it dosn't look good for that specific part of the green belt. Anyone interested in the proposals should check pages 12 and 13 of the draft local development plan at:

    http://217.174.251.127/plans/ldp/LDPProposedPlanMarch2013.pdf

    Posted 4 years ago #
  16. kaputnik
    Moderator

    The most common misconception about the green belt is that it exists to protect land of some special value...

    A green belt simply exists to clearly define the boundary of a city or other urban area

    This.

    Without a "green belt" we'd quite quickly end up with a West Midlands-type sprawl where you can go for hours on end without ever leaving the urban conurbation. We can call it Edinbathglaslivingsmothergateburghwellgowston

    Posted 4 years ago #
  17. fimm
    Member

    Kinleith Mill... Ah, there. I agree, trying to sort out vehicular access to there would be horrible. Much better to clean it up and make a nice wild/park space out of it. But there's no money in that, of course.

    Near where my parents live, there's a "brownfield site" that had an office building on it. If it was greenfield, I don't think developers would be interested as it is small and right next to a river that floods regularly. As it is, they appear to be trying to cram stupid numbers of flats onto it, or something, because they can.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  18. chdot
    Admin

    Building on a bit more of Edinburgh's green land. It's right next to a brown bit.

    The trees are probably 'safe'.

    Middle distance is Midlothian. Left is East Lothian.

    "A green belt simply exists to clearly define the boundary of a city or other urban area"

    Posted 4 years ago #
  19. Morningsider
    Member

    Development is allowed in a green belt in certain circumstances. The Scottish Planning Policy states:

    "Where a proposal would not normally be consistent with green belt policy, it may still be considered appropriate either as a national priority or to meet an established need if no other suitable site is available. Development in a designated green belt should be of a high design quality and a suitable scale and form. Intensification of established uses may be appropriate subject to new development being of a suitable scale and form. Many uses will only be appropriate at a low intensity and where any built elements are ancillary to the main use. Public transport and access by walking and cycling will be required for uses that will attract a significant number of visitors. The cumulative erosion of a green belt's integrity through the granting of individual planning permissions should be avoided."

    The current trend in planning is for green belts to be replaced by "green wedges" that don't entirely surround a city - directing development to particular corridors or dormitory settlements.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  20. chdot
    Admin

  21. gembo
    Member

    Getting quite mental on the developments around Balerno now,, any field has some kind of planning application

    Posted 4 years ago #
  22. Pintail
    Member

    In Colinton the SNP Govt gave away the polo fields and I fear that the fields of Woodhall Farm will be next. As technology to facilitate remote working becomes more and more widespread it would be nice to thing that we could move away from the big cities. But this doesn't seem to be happening.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  23. chdot
    Admin

    "
    ALL of the almost 8000 extra homes which have to be built in Edinburgh under new government targets are likely to end up on green-belt land, the city council has conceded.

    The local authority is consigned to going back to the drawing board to find fresh sites for housing, with the latest requirement to build about 30,000 homes in the Capital by 2024.

    "

    http://m.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/extra-8000-edinburgh-homes-set-to-go-on-green-belt-1-3115498

    Posted 4 years ago #
  24. crowriver
    Member

    Very worrying that central government can apparently even tell Edinburgh which part of the city these new homes should be built in!

    What is going on? Why are local authorities disempowered in this way?

    This is a huge issue which will affect the city for generations to come. We cannot allow such high handed governance. Nor can we allow unsustainable development unfettered access to green belt land.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  25. Morningsider
    Member

    crowriver - very briefly, it works something like this:

    1. Scottish Government sets national planning policy in the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP).

    2, Strategic Development Planning Authorities (SDPAs), i.e. groups of local authorities based on the four cities, are required to produce Strategic Development Plans covering the city regions. These establish high level planning policies and set out broad areas suitable for development. This includes a figure for total potential new house building over a fairly long period. These plans are subject to approval by Scottish Ministers, principally to ensure that they comply with national policy.

    Where there are outstanding objections to a draft SDP, a Scottish Government appolinted Reporter holds an exmaination into those objections and then submits a report to Ministers with recommendations. Ministers generally approve the plan subject to these recommendations. In the case of the South East scotland SDP, the Reporters recommended that the plan be amedned to include extra houses and gave a broad indication of where these houses should be. A local authority must make the changes required by Ministers.

    3. Each individual planning authority is required to produce a local development plan(s). These set out more detailed planning policies and idenify specific sites for development. These plans must be consistent with the policies and proposals in the SDP. The increase in houses required by the amended SDP must be reflected in the local development plan - which i what is happening at present.

    Ministerial powers over the content of development plans, particularly the ability of local authorities to reject recommended changes, was increased by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. All part of the Scottish Government's drive for "sustinable economic growth" - with the emphasis on economic.

    I should say (to any planning types reading this) that I am well aware that there is a bit more to the process than this - but I think it's a reasonable summary. I'd say to anyone else that I'm aware that this isn't as brief as I had hoped.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  26. gembo
    Member

    Was this the same under coalition / labour? The applications around Balerno are genuinely mental. Every possible field

    Posted 4 years ago #
  27. crowriver
    Member

    What possibilities are there for revising the directives from Scottish government ministers/reporters if they are based upon wrong or outdated assumptions?

    From Ian Perry's statement it sounds like CEC has been directed to allocate the vast majority of new build to certain areas, rather than a 'suggestion'. On the other hand, I read the ministerial revisions to the SES plan on the Scot Gov web site (haven't seen the original document itself) and most new homes seem to be allocated to Granton/Waterfront?

    Something doesn't stack up...

    Posted 4 years ago #
  28. Pintail
    Member

    In the case of the polo fields the council denied the application but were then overuled by the SNP Govt. So much for local democracy...

    Posted 4 years ago #
  29. chdot
    Admin

    "In the case of the polo fields the council denied the application but were then overuled by the SNP Govt. So much for local democracy..."

    I'm not sure how much difference the 'party' makes - there always seems to be a 'presumption for development' in such case.

    It's also far from clear how much 'a bigger picture' is taken into account when developers put planning applications in 'piecemeal' - sounds like what is happening around Balerno.

    'Another field' won't make 'much difference' - but all the fields will!

    Developers can (usually) afford to play a long game. Revised planning applications are just part of the process. If the first one fails the objectors are jubilant. When subsequent ones come along the 'campaigners' have often can't face going through it all again.

    Worse (especially in the case of "local democracy") councils decide that they can't keep refusing as they can't afford to go to court to fight the developers.

    And Governments - Westminster and Holyrood - 'promise' to 'cut red tape' and make the planning process 'simpler'.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  30. gembo
    Member

    The Balerno campaigners are well organised. I am with dave in that all of the campaigners moved to Balerno when green belt first developed, now they don't want the fields next to their houses being developed because tht is greenbelt. The high school needs students (anyone on the 44 bus route with kids coming up for secondary most welcome, anyone not on the 44 bus route welcome too, but transport more of an issue for you). However, anyone moving to Balerno likely to have young children rather than older children. If all the applications were successful there would need to be another primary school built but the strategy appears to be to run multiple applications at the same time and if one gets through go for that one

    Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin