Well I listened to most of the webcast, with varying degrees of attention, last night.
I hope someone somewhere is actually writing down key quotes - inc Ian Perry saying he/CEC wants to reduce car use.
I was quite surprised that Andrew Burns was voting in favour.
This morning my feeling/impression is that it is rather too much like the current EuroRef 'debate'.
Free vote, so divisions within parties. It would have been surprising if the Green councillors weren't in agreement (not least because there aren't very many). All SNP councillors voting together is slightly strange, showing that they either represent a narrow range of views (which certainly isn't the case in the post-IndyRef SNP membership) or that that they willingly, or slavish, follow the SNP Gov's lines about 'presumptions for development'.
There are three striking 'equivalents' with the EuroRef. One is population. The focus on "immigration" is (literally) polarised/divisive. In Edinburgh there has, to date, been an acceptance that 'Edinburgh must grow', 'it's inevitable/good for the economy'. 'Resistance' has mostly been local (NIMBY or otherwise) or 'save the Green Belt' (NIMBY or more principled). But, like "immigration", perhaps there is a need for more 'discussion' about how the increase in population in Edinburgh is to be facilitated - to avoid future resentment about it being 'imposed' and without too many negative consequences. If we are going to have this level of population increase/development how do we make sure it's in the right place, of good quality and with appropriate infrastructure etc? A city with much less green space and more traffic is not my idea of "progress". Of course yesterday some councillors were saying that this particular field was next to the bypass (is that were people want to live?) and is of 'little landscape value'.
The second is "facts". Whatever the merits of this particular planning application, there are contrasting differences about what yesterday's decision means. There are those who seem to think that it means it's impossible (or at least harder) to stop similar developments and those who think it's all fine as this is just outline permission and that the "details" - especially transport links - have to be agreed first. In the real world of planning/development and developer appeals to the Scottish Government, this seems either naive or disingenuous. The fact that the "facts" are so disputable is unfortunate.
The third is 'control'. Brexiteers want out of the EU so that decision are made in Westminster/Holyrood. Ignoring such things as decisions by multinational companies, oil price fixers and "the market", there are obviously whole areas where it can be argued that decisions are (often) not taken locally enough or hampered by decisions/directives of the next layer up.
The Scottish Government has made rules about the number of houses Edinburgh has to build. Edinburgh has to deal with it, though as various councillors pointed out yesterday CEC has already granted planning permission for enough units. It's just that they are not in the fashionable/easy to build on bits of Edinburgh.
It was also suggested yesterday (at the full meeting of the City of Edinburgh's council, where the residents of the City's representatives make important decisions) that the 'housing need' was primarily for young single people and older people/couples. Which is not who this development is primarily for - though I think this "need" was about the demand for social housing, which isn't necessarily the same thing in terms of housing demographics.
So population, housing, Green Belt etc. etc. - not just about Transport (with or without bikes)!
Bearing in mind that (apparently) the officials' recommendation for refusal was stronger than any some councillors had seen before, is the system/process fit for purpose?
Is there any actual 'agreed' view on what is 'best' for Edinburgh? Especially when (as pointed out by Lesley Hinds and others) that this decision went against the Local Plan - developed in consultation with many people - and various CEC policies.
Any discussions with Spokes and Living Streets and the developers is likely to be rather one-sided. One side has the money (presumably) and the desire to make more plus the backing of a majority of councillors.
posts
