Sounds like lots of grounds for some sort of legal action, must be plenty of lawyers in the area.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
Meanwhile in Canonmills (near Stockbridge...)
(93 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
Is it a sign of the continuing shift away from a manufacturing economy to a service economy that where once the govt would generate employment by paying people to dig holes and fill them back in, they now agree with a planning application then change their mind?
Posted 8 years ago # -
"paying people to dig holes and fill them back in"
They just get 'traffic' (and Lothian Buses) to dig the holes now.
Posted 8 years ago # -
They don't fill 'em back in again though...
Posted 8 years ago # -
Given the mess the Council made of this, I think the reporter has done a good job.
The decision the reporter had to make was whether to allow the demolition of the current building. The reporter had to take account of the fact that our elected representatives had decided the replacement building would preserve and enhance the character of the conservation area. We might all disagree with this, I do, but that wasn't the issue here and the reporter could not ignore that decision.
Was the reporter right to allow demolition? Looking at the Inverleith Conservation Area Character Appraisal (1), it is hard to argue that the current building added much to the overall character of the area. This means that its demolition would not really be detrimental to that character. Hard to see how the reporter could do anything other than approve demolition.
The problem was a poor decision by the council to approve the replacement building. Not the decision of the reporter.
(1) http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/746/inverleith_conservation_area_character_appraisal
Posted 8 years ago # -
Posted 8 years ago #
-
"
@MalcolmChishol1: Inundated in emails + surgeries by constituents outraged at decision of ScotGov reporter against @savecanonmillsB and unanimous Council view
"
Posted 8 years ago # -
I think the Spurtle has the right of it here:
"The planning system, as currently configured, does not attribute the same value to beloved but architecturally mediocre structures as do the people who live around them."
- note there's still time to contribute here to a review of planning in Scotland (background here).
and
"Organised public opinion is a marvellous and energising force for communities. This setback should not discourage activists. Concerned locals just need to get cannier about the system and more organised in advance. Long-term success comes from continuous organisation, effort and time, not intense, short-term responses to crisis."
Posted 8 years ago # -
unhurt - the purpose of the review of the planning system is to make obtaining permission easier for developers, particularly for new housing. The Scottish Government's Programme for Government 2015-16 states:
"We will review the operation of the planning system in Scotland, identifying the scope for further reform with a focus on delivering a quicker, more accessible and efficient planning process, in particular increasing delivery of high quality housing developments."
I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"Long-term success comes from continuous organisation, effort and time, not intense, short-term responses to crisis."
That's true.
Problem is 'campaigns' are usually run by people with other things in their lives.
Developments are done by developers who can play a longer game, because they know that eventually most of the schemes will happen and pay for their time - and that of their legion of advisors.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I won't - but it's still worth engaging with the process in order to register dissent, I think.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Yes. I am assuming they quietly slipped that one through while attention was all on Canonmills Bridge.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Downside of the WoL flood prevention works I guess. What was often flooded is now reasonably prime building land.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"
Earthy at canonmills, Edinburgh which has been sold to make way for flats.
"
Posted 8 years ago # -
Posted 7 years ago #
-
where appropriate, public access at the water’s edge should be maintained, provided or improved.
At the moment, there wouldn't even be anywhere for the Canonmills Bridge heron to perch.
This is potential good news. I believe SEPA have actual power so it would be possible for them to stand up to developers.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Chances of SEPA getting involved in a development that was technically approved by Scottish Ministers - nil. People just can't seem to accept that the current Scottish Government is super pro-development. It is clearly written into the Scottish Planning Policy. Today would be the day to do something about it - but it seems unlikely anything will change.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I think there will be many monkeys in yellow rosettes descending on Holyrood shortly.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I really think this is clutching at straws. SEPA would have been consulted as part of the original application and would have said so at the time. The chances of making the river bank accessible are virtually nill given the flood wall.
This all seems to be more about the demolition of a popular café that about the demolition of a non-descript building and construction of some hideous (much needed) flats.
Library photos taken from Cannonmills bridge. Building in question off to the right.
140415141053IMG_0438 by Paul fae Fountainbridge, on Flickr
151205151528IMG_4076 by Paul fae Fountainbridge, on Flickr
Posted 7 years ago # -
I'm going to stick my neck out and agree with Fountainbridge here; if there was a business in this unit that wasn't Earthy, the whole campaign thing might have ended up taking an entirely different nature.
That's not to denigrate the hard work of people who are trying to improve / save / better their neighbourhood, but when it comes to planning the process as it stands is pretty much deaf, dumb and blind to the popularity of any tenant business that may be impacted by the decision.
Going down the "much loved local institution" route when it comes to trying to resist planning applications is bound to sadly always end in failure.
If the law is an ass then what does that make planning regulations?
And yes, the flood works along there have pretty much stopped any attempt at providing a river-side walkway along that section before it ever started.
Posted 7 years ago # -
" This all seems to be more about the demolition of a popular café.... "
That says it all. I don't see how planning regulations can take into account the popularity of a particular tenant because tenancies, by their nature, can be transitory, whereas buildings usually last a bit longer. There is very little about the present building that is noteworthy.
Posted 7 years ago # -
" This all seems to be more about the demolition of a popular café.... "
Not true. Go back to the beginning of the thread, this started well before Earthy moved in to the block.
Posted 7 years ago # -
There is little about the current building that is noteworthy, but it just kind of works where it is - a low frontage that doesn't take away the sense of place next to the WoL.
That's not the case with the proposed block, which is too tall and just looks wrong amongst the surroundings. Clearly this isn't enough of a reason for planning to block it though.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Part of the Reporter's decision seems to have been made because, as noted, the block on its own is of little architectural merit and is a hodge-podge of additions and styles that have grown up on the building over a long period of use. In the context of the local conservation area (Georgian villas, townhouses and tenements) it also has little relative merit.
The reporter is of course perfectly correct in the above respects, but in my opinion this is why they also end up making the wrong decision; it's the very "doesn't quite fit" and unusual nature for the area of both style and structure that makes it both notable and worthy. It's one of the few remnants in the area from when the riverbanks would have been peppered with a variety of small industrial concerns with an architectural style akin to Steptoe and Son in Oildrum Lane.
Taking an approach where only "purism" is valued will mean we continually lose interesting little industrial and retail premises as they don't quite fit with an established idea of what we should conserve. If you look at any old map of Edinburgh, industry was always cheek-by-jowl with residential, and not just in working class areas, the New Town too was full of print works for instance. Yet we only usually only seem to seek to preserve the more coherent and uniform residential parts and therefore don't conserve the nature of areas at all.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"Taking an approach where only "purism" is valued will mean we continually lose interesting little industrial and retail premises as they don't quite fit with an established idea of what we should conserve."
Yes, and don't quite fit with a more recently established idea of what should be there - especially the industry.
The space behind Earthy used to be a stonemason's yard. I knew someone who moved into the tenement along Warriston Road. He started complaining about the noise and after a few years the stone cutting ceased.
He then moved.
I used a printer in a basement in Cumberland Street Lane about 20 years ago. I bet it's a flat now.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I did town planning at university in the 90s although sure much has changed, would be surprised if similar principles don’t apply.
I would tend to think it could be argued that permission to build these flats would affect the character of the area, even if the building to be demolished was not considered unique in its self, a low rise building on a main road may be considered unique to the area , The building of the flats may alter the character of area. Permission to demolish and permission build a higher building would be considered 2 different decisions.
If the building was shoddy and needed replaced another low rise building of similar scale may not have the same impact, however struggle to see how a the higher building would not detract from the uniqueness of the area.
Not sure every reporter would necessarily come to the same decision, planning lawyers may be bias to pro development, also I suppose depending on what most of their work relates to may be different perspective as much work may relate to gaining permissions for clients etc, however looking at reasons for the decision the supporting evidence the decision to refuse( Env2 and Ev3 not being applicable as not listed) , previous councils decisions, council advice support the development.
The atypical nature of the building in the area may be argued to add to the conservation area.
Not sure if decision relates to any SNP specific policy or not.
It appear councils previous decision play a large part in the decision, permission given, advice given, also no reference to significance in plan.
If had been considered to enhance the character through its scale then it may have been refused considering the Scottish historic environment policy 2011. The decision maker themselves does not make a decision on its uniqueness themselves but look at evidence the council evidence does not support that its unique may be it should or could have but does not appear to. Personally I tend to think its atypicalness adds to the unique character of this conservation area.
If council had advised differently or cited this feature in conservation plan then the reporter may have made a different decision.
Posted 7 years ago # -
http://www.earthy.co.uk/
Earthy closes on Monday so I suppose the demolition will begin soon and the crappy flats will go up suspiciously quickly.Earthy Canonmills will close its doors at end of business hours on Monday 4th September 2017. Earthy is moving on.
Our two other premises at Windsor Place, Portobello and Ratcliffe Terrace, Causewayside are open as usual trading seven days a week, as they have been since 2010 and 2008 respectively. We look forward to seeing you there as we always have done.Posted 6 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
