The development already has planning permission - nothing anyone can do about that. This new application would allow the developers to build one restaurant/retail unit, rather than the two units that they have approval for. If I was a betting man, I would put money on this being to allow a mini-supermarket to be squeezed into a larger single unit, as the two smaller units would be too small.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
Meanwhile in Canonmills (near Stockbridge...)
(93 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
Another one! Who is using these mini-supermarkets?
Posted 9 years ago # -
I must confess to using the Barnton Sainsburys and will continue to do so as long as they let me take my bike in.
Posted 9 years ago # -
If you've ever tried, you quickly find you can't actually do your weekly shop in these "local" supermarkets due to the rather random and limited nature of the things they stock, not to mention poor quality of perishables like fruit and veg. They mainly seem to be glorified off-licences and purveyors of snacks.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@kaputnik
So your weekly shop is more than just just lager, crisps and imodium? This truly is the middle class Edinburgh cycling forum.
Posted 9 years ago # -
These shops are more designed for you to make small regular purchases rather than a large weekly shop. Having said that what they stock is very area dependent. I managed to get high quality strawberries, bananas, raspberries, carrots and potatoes in mine today, but couldn't find a ready made steak pie.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I would prefer to foster a tiny kernel of hope that Morningsider is wrong (not that Morningsider is ever wrong). There is a large Tesco a few feet away after all.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
CAMPAIGNERS are stepping up their efforts to halt a controversial development they claim will destroy the character of a conservation area.
Plans for two restaurants, three flats and six townhouses at Canonmills Bridge have already been approved, but the developers have not yet got permission for demolition of the current single-storey building on the site, which houses the popular Earthy restaurant.
"
Posted 8 years ago # -
Had an Earthy breakfast at the weekend (banana toast: enough calories for the week) and sat at the window admiring the effectiveness of the no-to-demolition stall opposite. Not sure whether Canonmills people are inherent petition-signers or if the campaigners just had great patter but they were stopping and persuading a lot of people.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"
PLANS to demolish a popular restaurant to make way for a controversial new development are being recommended for approval.
Earthy at Canonmills would be bulldozed if councillors accept officials’ recommendation to approve the move despite a determined campaign which has gathered almost 5000 petition signatures calling for the plans to be thrown out.
Objectors said the organic restaurant and food shop, part of the low-rise building at 1-6 Canonmills Bridge, has become a focal point for the community and also brings people into the area.
And they argued the proposed development containing six flats, three townhouses and two restaurants would destroy the character of the conservation area.
Planning permission was issued for the proposed scheme in 2013, but developers need approval for demolition before it can go ahead.
The application is due to be considered at the council’s development management sub-committee on Wednesday.
The site is in the Inverleith Conservation Area, but the building itself, which dates back to about 1860, is not listed.
Ross McEwan, one of the campaigners fighting the development, said: “The proposed replacement building is utterly out of character and oversized.
“Overall it is a ‘bad’ building and typical of new Edinburgh architecture – safe, bland and lazy.
"
Posted 8 years ago # -
It is just insane. Look at all the ugly gap sites that just sit around for years and years and they want to demolish this? Talk about brown envelopes.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Reprieve!
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=818018738316397&id=790209471097324&fref=nf
Posted 8 years ago # -
council rejected demolition application
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/council-blocks-demolition-of-earthy-restaurant-1-3869264
Posted 8 years ago # -
@lostedinburgh: Demolition of the existing buildings on Canonmills unanimously REFUSED!
#Carbunclegate is NOT going ahead! Well... http://t.co/PMZFvj1Wi5
Posted 8 years ago # -
Don't get your hopes up just yet. The developer is likely to appeal and I am fairly certain that, if they do, the Reporter will reverse this decision. Council officials recommended that the demolition be approved and the Reporter is likely to agree.
Happy to be proved wrong, of course.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I'm slightly confused how the same council can approve the planning permission in one meeting and reject the demolition in the next. "Yes, your great big, ugly, out-of-context building is fine for a conservation area but don't you go knocking anything down to build it"
Posted 8 years ago # -
Call me cynical, but it's only a matter of time until it's appealed to the SG, always bezzie mates with the property developers, where it'll be promptly overturned. Progress 'n' that. Hasta la revolucion siempre.
Perhaps Wee Nicola could be given a shot at driving the bulldozer?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Does it even need to go as far as the SG when councillors are apparently just there to look pretty and can be safely ignored by officials?
Posted 8 years ago # -
"... councillors are apparently just there to look pretty..."
Yet another way in which they are failing! >:)
Posted 8 years ago # -
The flats on the site of the old Standard Life office at 120 Dundas Street still haven't been sold or let. The whole planning thing just baffles me.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"The whole planning thing just baffles me."
Yes, though the planning process isn't designed to stop developers doing financially disadvantageous developments. (It could be argued that the planning process isn't designed to stop developers doing anything much!)
If only there was a mechanism for taxing empty properties - might discourage some developments and (more a London problem) stop flats being left empty as they have become a capital investment rather than a place to live - or even to make money by renting out!
Posted 8 years ago # -
Decision overturned today.
Developer appealed and has been given permission to knock down the buildings.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Hadn't heard, always seemed likely though, CEC refusing the demolition order was just a belated sticking plaster to mollify local protestors.
The damage was done when CEC granted planning permission to the replacement monstrosity. There should be a few questions raised about that.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"@adamrmcvey
Appeal for demolition of 1 Canonmills Bridge has been granted. Disappointing that planning com. decision not upheld."
Posted 8 years ago # -
:(
Posted 8 years ago # -
(deleted due to forum rules)
}:-(
Posted 8 years ago # -
'On what grounds was the developer's appeal successful?'
@adamrmcvey
'the reporter decided building didn't significantly contribute to character & appearance of the conservation area.'Posted 8 years ago # -
I read the full decision letter from the Reporter to try and get my head around this. And yes their decision was based on the fact this was a little, single-storey, ex-industrial building of somewhat mixed heritage which had been added to over the years and did not fit with the character of the Inverleith convservation area; i.e. it wasn't a Georgian Townhouse. They also noted that this building was right on the edge of the conservation area and therefore in their view was unlikely to have a detrimental impact to the conservation area; basically getting pedantic about the boundaries - it wasn't the Canonmills Bridge as an area they were concerned about, it was the defined Conservation Area. If the Conservation Area had a different boundary, and if small ex-industrial premises of a ramshackle t nature were part of its character, the decision may have been different.
I'm no expert, but my impression of the Reporter's letter was pretty much "based on the arguments and evidence prevented, there's not much more I can do than to overturn the decision at appeal". I also got the impression that they were intimating "the Council approved the redevelopment and then blocked the demolition against the advice of their own officials on the basis of local pressure for rather weak reasons. Blame them, not me."
There seems quite a bit of confusion on the social medias about the decision the reporter was actually making; they were overturning the decision by the council to block demolition, and were not considering the previous planning approval for the redevelopment. There's clearly a lot of local anger about this decision, but folk are at a loss as to where to direct it. The council (officials or councillors)? The Reporter? The developer? The Government? The system? Well there's probably a degree of blame/culpability/whatever to be shouldered by all of the above.
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
