“
New rural home rejected as council say plans 'completely unjustified'
Planners described the site as ‘relatively remote countryside’ saying the nearest house would be 45 metres away.
“
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
"Pressure on green belt as 10,000 homes to be built"
(705 posts)-
Posted 9 months ago #
-
“
However, he added: "Companies like Get Living, they are effectively owned and funded by big global pension funds.
"My shareholders include pension funds from the UK, Canada, Australia and Holland and a lot of those are for public sector workers.
"When I go to them and say I want £200million to undertake a scheme in Glasgow and the fundamentals are really strong but the top-line revenue can't be controlled by us, it's actually controlled by government, [and I say] can I have the same £200million to do the same project in Manchester or Leeds, it's a really short conversation.
“
Posted 8 months ago # -
So just to be clear, sub-1% ROI for plebs on their savings for almost a decade: fine, reasonable, fair, the invisible hand has spoken. Pretty much guaranteed 3% come rain or shine on an asset that will probably never depreciate short of WW3 wiping out the global economy: disastrous, onerous, burdensome gubmint overreach etc.
Also maybe I have the wrong end of the stick, but I thought pension fund investors *loved* modest return-but-very low risk propositions?
Posted 8 months ago # -
Councils should have the ability to purchase such sites at their current use value (something within the gift of the Scottish Government) - the value of derelict land abandoned for decades being hee-haw.
Councils can borrow the money to build social housing at rates lower than the private sector. The Council builds, owns and rents these homes. Rental income pays off the debt over 30 years. The ultimate cost to the taxpayer is effectively zero. Renters get quality homes owned by a decent landlord at a truly affordable rent.
How is this not what happens? It is standard practice in other European countries.
(I am well aware of the failings in Council housing - I grew up living in Council homes. Properly managed and maintained they are far better than privately rented homes).
Posted 8 months ago # -
“Also maybe I have the wrong end of the stick“
Probably not.
The smoke and mirrors of all this is that the pension funds are working in the interest of future pensioners.
The truth is that, in practice, they work for the current staff and management. Additionally, private pension providers will have directors and shareholders wanting a slice.
Any mistakes/poor investments/misreading of the market/etc will largely affect pensioners.
‘Your investment may go down as well as up’ may be a statement of fact, but most people seem to (in the past at least) read it as ‘things go in cycles, but over time - like when you need your pension - things will only go up’…
Posted 8 months ago # -
“
A proposed train station in West Lothian could significantly relieve traffic on the M8, M9 and M90 according to a new report.
Winchburgh having its own train station could reduce congestion on Central Belt motorway network around the areas of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stirling and Falkirk, says a new independent impact report by Systra, a multinational engineering and consulting group which looks at rail and public transport.
“
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23756610.motorway-traffic-greatly-reduced-m8-new-train-station/
Duh!
Posted 8 months ago # -
Wow - that would be the housing site from hell. No local amenities, inaccessible by foot or bike, served by one infrequent bus route to Balerno, a mile from the end of Edinburgh Airport's runway and bounded by motorway and a mainline railway.
I take it from the news report that "housing emergency" has now replaced "climate emergency" as the Council policy buzzword de jour.
Posted 5 months ago # -
@morningsider What the 63?
Posted 5 months ago # -
@gembo - yes, the only bus serving Newbridge is the 63.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Quite a new service. Takes two hours to get from Balerno to South Queensferry.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Google says just over an hour.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Well who you gonna believe Google or Gembo?
Posted 5 months ago # -
There are bus providers beyond Lothian Buses…
Posted 5 months ago # -
Perhaps see what the GoSEStran app suggests by way of buses?
Posted 5 months ago # -
Have done - it’s on LCB’s Whitburn route (approx every 30 mins), McGills Stirling route & Stagecoach’s Dunfy-Livi
Posted 5 months ago # -
Ah, right. I only looked at the bus stops nearest to the development site. I didn't realise other routes passed along the main road. Still, doesn't really change my opinion that this site is better suited to industrial uses than housing.
Posted 5 months ago # -
“
He said: “We think that needs to be explored and pursued. There are of course significant planning issues. All the land around Kirkliston is designated greenbelt – it’s why we wrote to the Scottish Government to ask for a change to national planning framework so schools were included on the list of essential infrastructure which can be built on greenbelt land.
“
Posted 2 months ago # -
“
This is the plan for the greenbelt field which Barratt and David Wilson Homes want to build on just opposite Mortonhall Garden Centre (opposite side of Frogston Road).
The developer was hosting an event today, and I understand they received over 100 comments 3pm to 7pm (they ran out of forms at one point). One person from the developer team said it was the busiest consultation event he had attended.
I was there 6pm to 7pm, and around 40 people must have passed through in that time. Things I learnt:
1) 400 homes are proposed at 40 homes per hectare. (The council hasn't designated this field for development, but if it did it would be at 60 homes per hectare.)
2) The plan would be to form a signalised crossroads at the Mortonhall Garden Centre.
3) The development would include shop/office space
4) Residents said the local GP is already full, and the schools are the same. (Last week Ian Murray MP had warned me about the lack of GPs serving the area.)Remember:
1) Edinburgh can meet its housing demand without this field being lost.
2) Details of the proposal, including the exhibition presentation boards are online: holderplanning.com, and a feedback form is available on the website.
3) Please be respectful when making any comments or dealing with the developer.“
Posted 2 months ago # -
It would be better for them to build houses inside the bypass than not build them and have the houses built by Midlothian council just outside the bypass instead. So much nimbyism.
Posted 2 months ago # -
Yes, that's a really logical and obvious bit of infill to put houses on (this is not sarcasm). If more school/GP/whatever space is needed, then there are ways to get that, aren't there?
Posted 2 months ago # -
“them”
(Presume you mean CEC?)
“houses built by Midlothian council“
Which of course is a big part of the problem. Neither council is actually building many houses.
Both councils (and others) have to approve (or not) planning applications from (predominantly) commercial house builders who know targets have to be met and SG is quite likely to back developers after a planning refusal.
The boundary between Ed & MidL is, by definition, artificial and (especially if you add in EL) odd/illogical.
‘Everyone’ wants more houses/places for people to live. Most people don’t want them ‘next to me’ (standard NIMBYism) or nuanced as ‘only in the right place’.
Generally, people also want to ‘save that field’/‘green belt’.
So it’s complicated - without considering ‘simple’ things like school places, health services, oh and ‘transport’.
Perhaps more accurately ‘the desire/need for people to move about’. This seems to be largely thought of in terms of employment and the apparent assumption that ‘most jobs will be in Edinburgh’.
How much this is true/desirable/inevitable is no doubt looked at in multiple regional/planning reports - past and current.
I could argue that having people like SA, with key decision making roles, doesn’t help.
Posted 2 months ago # -
I'm dubious about the whole idea of supersizing Edinburgh with masses of housing (is it induced demand?) but if we're going to build, clearly we should build as densely and as close to the centre as we can, and certainly inside the bypass rather than just beyond it. If we lived in hypothetical houses by the ski centre, there's no way I would do a rush hour bike commute over those bypass junctions, whereas this garden centre at least has the potential that one day Braid rd will be re-filtered and you'd have a fairly nice way to bike into town.
Posted 2 months ago # -
“I'm dubious about the whole idea of supersizing Edinburgh with masses of housing (is it induced demand?) but if we're going to build, clearly we should build as densely and as close to the centre as we can, and certainly inside the bypass rather than just beyond it.”
Mostly addressed in my post above.
Drawing a line at the bypass is as artificial as the map based diversions between councils.
It also doesn’t work as a large part of Edinburgh’s housing is outside the bypass!
HOWEVER
The bypass is a very physical dividing line between Edinburgh and MidL & EL.
The truth though is that it isn’t a bypass in the conventional/originally planned sense.
It enables journeys from both sides of the road to other, relatively close, destinations.
Of course the creation of a roundabout will make things different but unlikely to be better.
The fact that Sherrifhall hasn’t been built (is there even a decision?) is just a further sign that ‘things don’t work’.
Plans are made and decisions taken based on assumptions/presumptions/‘available resources’/optimism/prejudices etc.
Unlikely that thoughts about pandemics/WFH/electric bikes have figured much in the process.
It’s hard to make ‘good’ decisions, but might be worth working harder on avoiding ’bad’ decisions!
Posted 2 months ago # -
Talking of old plans -
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/painting-plan-build-motorway-through-28676166
Posted 2 months ago # -
I agree with Fimm
Posted 2 months ago # -
The Council granted permission for the development of the neighbouring 633 house 'Heritage Grange' development in 2014. That site was also designated as 'green belt' when permission was granted (Planning portal reference 14/04860/FUL if you want details).
Heritage Grange was built by David Wilson and Barratt over the last few years. They now clearly want to extend the development into the neighbouring field. Personally, I don't see why not.
Arguing that marginal agricultural land within the bypass is Green Belt is a nonsense that should died decades ago. A big chunk of the homes in Cllr Arthur's ward were built on former Green Belt (such as New Swanston) from the 1980's onwards.
Issues around schools, medical centres and so on can be tackled using Planning Obligations (AKA Section 75 agreements).
Posted 2 months ago # -
I also agree with morningsider
Posted 2 months ago # -
So where actually is the Green Belt, now? Is it all up for grabs? If Midlothian for example carries on, it will come in from the south and build houses right up to the city bypass, which means there's no belt at all. Midlothian would cover the Pentland Hills with houses if it could: it's already having a go with Greater Penicuik.
I have all but given up trying to see my GP because the practice is completely overwhelmed now. The catchment has expanded hugely in just five years. The non-urgent appointment I asked for a month ago is still a month and a half away as I write. I have no idea if Midlothian even knows about S75; I certainly didn't.
I pointed out in an earlier thread that the boundary of Edinburgh and Midlothian around Shawfair is allowing any past definition of green belt to be forgotten about entirely.
I can't necessarily hold any high ground because 50 years ago my village was huddled around a crossroads and my house was fields, but then, almost everyone who doesn't live in a castle is probably in that same boat.
Posted 2 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
