"and kicking up a fuss because they don't like what it says"
They should probably keep quiet and appeal to SG...
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
GSR - 1,500 Housing Estate - Planning 6th Nov Deadline
(163 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
Just watched the webcast of today's hearing.
Short but sweet... Given that the applicant has complained to the council's monitoring officer, the report was withdrawn and won't be considered until they have responded to the complaint.
No date has been set for it coming back...
Posted 8 years ago # -
Who the hell wants to live at the junction of the A8 and the bypass anyway? Oh wait, I get it: the big blocks separated from the traffic by a few trees will be the affordable housing, right? Mmm.....breathe in that carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, it sure smells sweet...
Posted 8 years ago # -
The rearranged Planning Subcommittee is on Monday.
The Council's papers still recommend refusal, with the impact on Active Travel mentioned several times.
"The transport mitigation measures proposed by the developer fall significantly short of the measures identified in the Council's East of Millburn Tower Transport Appraisal of January 2015"
"The proposal does not include the recommended interventions on Gogar Station Road as per the Council's East of Millburn Tower Appraisal. This is a key cycle route serving the RBS HQ and the Council recently made provision for improved on-road cycle facilities within the existing road width. With the additional development traffic from this site, road widening or provision of a parallel off-road cycle route (through the centre of the site) is considered essential. The applicant will be required to work a cycle route into a Masterplan at the detailed application (AMC) stage." (my bold)
Glad to see our objections are being taking seriously.
Here's hoping sense prevails on Monday & good luck to those attending to fight the cause.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"
COMMUNITY councils have thrown their weight behind a major housing development planned for greenbelt land on the outskirts of the Capital.
Proposals for the first phase of the so-called Garden District would see 1350 homes built beyond the city bypass in west Edinburgh.
Now Balerno and Cramond and Barnton community councils have both written in support of the scheme, insisting it is “well planned and well integrated”.
They also argue it will help reduce pressure to grant “highly contentious” plans to build houses on Cammo Fields, which residents insist would cause major traffic problems.
"
Posted 7 years ago # -
Looks like they have got planning permission in principal :-(
Only greens voted against.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@HC - so you're watching it too then :-). I went along for a bit but after it had gone into its third hour I cut my losses and returned home to watch the rest online.
The developers must be cracking open the bubbly, in that they seem to have avoided having to build a new bridge over the bypass and to basically have got what they asked for.
This is, as was discussed at the meeting, approval in principle. We'll have to go through the whole rigmarole again when the detailed plans come up to make sure that the cycle provision is adequate.
The developer did acknowledge the need for a fast and convenient cycle route for commuters as distinct from a meandering route for leisure cyclists.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@greenroofer: not enough Internet here to watch it, but could get the odd tweet.
I'll watch again once I get home. Be interesting to see what conditions got applied.
Posted 7 years ago # -
A positive and relatively cheap condition would be the construction of a large and covered bike shed at Edinburgh Park Central tram stop for the new residents to lock up and ride the tram to town.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"
Developer Murray Estates – owned by former Rangers chairman Sir David Murray – previously said the ambitious scheme would create a “world class extension to the nation’s capital”.
But critics have blasted it as an unwelcome intrusion into valued greenbelt land.
The blueprints will go before full council next month to be ratified – and will also need to be referred to the Scottish Government.
Council chiefs stressed the masterplan was at an early stage and could be altered to improve access and transport links.
"
Posted 7 years ago # -
Having now caught up on the Committee on Monday via the Webcast, I got to this gem at the end...
Cllr Howat is explaining that a signalised crossing of the bypass isn't needed as 1,000s currently use it [they don't & it's flipping scary for those few that do] and he'd rather take his chances than rely on a red light.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@HC - yes, that was a bit of a corker. Presumably he's even happy doing it with a three-year old child or an elderly relative.
(Although, tbh, I don't see any realistic prospect of anyone from this new estate actually wanting to walk that far or needing to cross that junction on foot. It's pretty clear that they will all be taking the car)
Posted 7 years ago # -
I wasn't totally disappointed with the outcome, but more saddened by the quality of discussion.
The argument was that they have to build on greenbelt somewhere and this was the best connected for giving transport options than most of the other greenbelt sites.
It certainly has the tram/train & cycle options nearby and it close to major trunk routes (possibly too close).
A safe crossing of the Gogar Roundabout was apparently not needed as they will all walk to Edinburgh Park or Gogarburn tram stop. How wrong can they be when the Gyle shopping centre is less than a mile from the site but no easy access? Similarly Craigmount HS is under 2 miles & no safe route.
There was a lot of disucssion about transport but rather alarmingly this was kicked down the road to be dealt with at the detailed stage, which kind of seals what the developer needs to do to that in their proposal or on their site.
The Cllrs seemed content that it was in the developers interest to sort the transport issues to be able to sell the houses and so would leave them to it.
The representative from the Gogarburn BUG clearly articulates the need to have a commuter cycling route through the site and this to be distinct to any meandering leisure route.
The developer did say that with such a big site they should be able to do something. But again we'll have to wait to the detailed plans to see what they come up with or if they have forgotten it.
If we can get a direct commuter route through the site then I think that would be a success - it will already be slightly longer than GSR as you'll have to go round the back of the scrappy to get to the start of it.
It doesn't answer the concerns during construction phase though or deal with the Gogar Roundabout.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"
4
HAVE YOUR SAY
‘THE land is not required for housing”.The statement by city planners could not be more unequivocal. There is no need for swathes of new, undoubtedly expensive, housing to be built on greenbelt land just across the bypass to the west of Edinburgh Park.
And yet, this week, councillors on the planning committee – feeling they had to prove they could be decisive about something, anything – approved the first phase of Sir David Murray’s so-called Garden District.
"
Posted 7 years ago # -
"
E) Developers routinely failing to properly plan for and cost in pedestrian infrastructure – because they can get away with it
"
Posted 7 years ago # -
Spokes plea to councillors
"I write on behalf of Spokes to ask you to impose a planning condition for the development of this site to the effect that high quality pedestrian and cycling facilities are provided to cross the roads between the Development site and the Gyle Centre and rail tram interchange. Three options for doing this are given at the end of this paper. Without such a crossing residents of the northern part of the Development will have no effective active travel access to these facilities that are so physically close. In consequence less active travel and more car journeys will arise, contrary to Council environmental and transport policies.
"Posted 7 years ago # -
And a quick blog from me including the Gogarburn BUG's letter
https://hankchiefblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/30/will-the-car-always-win/
"What do the Bicycle Users’ Group want done?
We would urge you to impose two planning conditions on this development, to mitigate the risk to cyclists and maintain the levels of active travel that the current infrastructure on Gogar Station Road has done so much to promote.Planning condition 1: minimise construction traffic using Gogar Station Road. To protect cyclists and pedestrians using Gogar Station Road (and particularly its narrow bridges towards the south), all construction traffic must enter and leave the development at its north end (near RBS), and must take the shortest route to the A8. No construction traffic should be allowed to travel along Gogar Station Road to or from the A71.
Planning condition 2: creation of a direct ‘commuter’ cycle route through the development. The developer must consult with Sustrans and Spokes to design a direct, segregated, cycle route through the development for commuter cyclists. The route will go from the canal (National Cycle Route 75), past the underpass to Edinburgh Park and then on to RBS Gogarburn where it will link to the existing traffic-free cycle paths to the Airport. This will provide an attractive alternative to Gogar Station Road."
Posted 7 years ago # -
In reply to HankChief
Frank Ross @FrankRoss06 · Edinburgh, Scotland
@hank_chief @SandyHowatSNP I understand developer has approached spokes in the last 10 days to discuss option but is still awaiting a reply.
Posted 7 years ago # -
.@FrankRoss06 @SandyHowatSNP @CyclingEdin https://twitter.com/FrankRoss06/status/737535099546140672 … We did reply. Asked for wider consult inc RBS @hank_chief/@LivingStreetsEd
Posted 7 years ago # -
Anyone any idea what they actually want from Spokes?
Sounds like bad/cynical PR. Haven't read the Planning Department's recommendations for refusal (overturned by Committee) but presumably it points out some of the things that develops c/should do(?)
Posted 7 years ago # -
I *think* they are trying to get cracking with one of their conditions...
"LEGAL AGREEMENT: Consent shall not be issued until a suitable legal agreement, including those requiring a financial contribution payable to the City of Edinburgh Council, has been concluded in relation to transport infrastructure.
Explore the provision of a segregated pedestrian link to the Edinburgh Gateway/tram interchange"
However the wording is *currently* so wooly that I wonder if can have any legal basis (I'm not a lawyer).
They will no doubt propose the cheapest option (multiple ped xings) which the Roads teams won't like disrupting the traffic flow. Can't imagine Spokes liking that either.
Would really need a bridge(s) and or underpass(es), but hard to see an optimum solution because the dual carriageways create such a barrier.
Posted 7 years ago # -
It will be an interesting meeting / vote tomorrow as the full council can impose /amend / delete any conditions of their choosing.
They don't get any more information and it is a free vote, so party allegiances may not come into it.
Will be available on the Webcast but is the last item on the agenda.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I'm becoming interested in the minutiae of council planning procedure (and the failings thereof) as I watch this application lurch inelegantly through.
Is this a bad thing?
Posted 7 years ago # -
I'm tempted to say let the developers do what they want, then sit back and watch the nuclear (traffic) meltdown.
Posted 7 years ago # -
That's all well and good but I've of the primary concerns is around the routing of dangerous trucks during construction. They are more likely to cause personal injury than apocalyptic traffic.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@ac - that my concern too - there's still time to tell your councillors of your fears...
Posted 7 years ago # -
Just doodles. It is a quite reasonable condition of planning that certain core roads and paths are built before housebuilding begins, particularly given GSR's sensitivity to construction traffic.
Posted 7 years ago # -
CEC just tweeted that it was approved.
Interested to know what conditions were applied...
UPDATE: Cllr Booth has said no changes to the conditions from the papers.
There was a Green amendment for more conditions but it was rejected. (Will try to get details)
Really disappointed by this.
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
