To my untrained eye, the works going on appear to follow exactly the plans and drawings submitted in the planning application. It's not like the developer has suddenly done a fast one and built something that they didn't lodge an application for.
I note that the council's "acting head of transport" made only 1 comment about trams in his submission asking that the development be declined (for not providing parking provision.) That was to ask for a contribution towards the tram funding!
If you read the official report from the Planning Department put to the sub-committee for approval, you get the following paragraphs;
The western part of the application site falls within the Tram Limits of Deviation (LOD) as defined under the Edinburgh Tram Acts 2006. These will remain enacted until 2016. Prior Approval for this section of the tram route was granted in 2008 under reference 08/01149/PA. The route remains protected in the Local Plan through Policy Tra 7 Public Transport
Infrastructure
Tram and Bus which advises that planning permission would not be granted for development which would prejudice the construction of the infrastructure
necessary for a tram network. The proposal conflicts with the works approved under 08/01149/PA and is therefore contrary to policy Tra 7 (Public Transport).
Notwithstanding this, this section of the tram
network will not now be taken forward and therefore the proposals will not have an adverse impact on the proposed tram network.
Whilst the proposals will not have an adverse impact on the proposed tram network, they will have a detrimental impact on road safety.
So there you have it, in black and white. The council knew that the development encroached on, and may prejudice the future tram route development. They specifically state this. They also specifically state that this part of the tram won't be getting built, and that therefore the proposals "will not have an adverse impact on the proposed tram network". They say the latter thing twice in as many sentences!
If anyone has screwed up here, I don't think it's the developer.
I guess that this sort of hi-tech investigative journalism that I have just undertaken (opening publicly accessible documents and scan reading them) is clearly beyond the Chipwrapper and its highly trained professional journalists.
posts
