Here is most of the content of the letter sent to people who commented on the application. It's quite long but I think the main points are that speculatively included greenbelt land, tried to get away without building the active travel links required of the site and wanted to avoid paying to improve the Craigs Road / Maybury Road junction: (I assume there is a missing "Not" in point 7)
I am writing with regard to the above application to which you raised representations.
The City of Edinburgh Council has now determined that the application be Refused in accordance with the particulars given in the application.The decision with any conditions, reasons and/or informatives can be found on the other side of this letter. Full details of the final scheme, including the report assessing the application, can be found on the Council website at http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning .
The reason for the decision was
The HSG19 site represents one of the largest housing allocations in the LDP and a significant westward expansion of the city, on land which formerly comprised green belt. It is therefore imperative that comprehensive masterplanning is undertaken to guide the long term development of the site. The masterplanning undertaken as part of this application is not sufficiently comprehensive and is contrary to the LDP Site Brief and Development Principles.
This application cannot be supported due the inclusion of the area of the Edinburgh Green Belt (5.2 hectares) to the north of Craigs Road, the lack of clarity regarding the delivery of the pedestrian/footbridge from the HSG19 site to Edinburgh Gateway, the completeness of supporting information including the Environmental Statement and the current nature of the masterplan proposition. The application as submitted is not acceptable in principle and for this reason the Council has not requested the applicant to provide further information.
It is therefore recommended that the application be refused.
The refusal notice has the following points
Reasons:-
1. The proposal is contrary to Strategic Development Plan Policy 12 and Local Development Plan Policies Env 7, Env 10, Des 9 a) and c) and Hou 1 in that the proposed development of land to the north of Craigs Road has not been assessed through the LVIA, would undermine greenbelt objectives, the nature of the urban edge and setting of the special character of the city and the setting of the Cammo Park Estate recorded in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes. No deficit in the maintenance of the five year housing land supply (as evidenced through the housing land audit) has been identified to justify incursion into the green belt, as per the requirements of Hou 1.
2. The proposal is contrary to Local Development Plan Policies Des 1, Des 4, Des 9 c) and Env 10 in the proposals including information submitted as part of the LVIA have not demonstrated that development would conserve and enhance the landscape setting and special character of the city or include landscape improvements which would strengthen the green belt boundary.
3. The proposal is contrary to Local Development Plan Policy Tra 10 in that the proposed development of an access road to link Craigs Road with the Bughtlin Roundabout could prejudice new road and network improvements including the implementation of LDP Proposal T17.
4. The proposal is contrary to Local Development Plan Policy Des 2 a) in that extents of proposed development to the south of Craigs Road could compromise the effective development of adjacent land.
5. The proposal is contrary to Local Development Plan Policies Del 1, Tra 8, Des
7 b) c) and f) in that the proposals would fail to provide a pedestrian/cycle bridge link between the site and Edinburgh Gateway as per the location identified in the LDP, this also limiting the effective development of strategic pedestrian, cycle and green networks. Development identified in the vicinity of the LDP bridge location, immediately to the north, could compromise the development of the bridge and green corridor and thereby contrary to LDP Policy Des2 a).
6. The proposal is contrary to Local Development Plan Policies Des 7 in that a comprehensive approach to the layout of buildings, car parking, open space and SUDS features, including surface water attenuation within the layout has not been demonstrated.
7. The proposal is contrary to Local Development Plan Policy Env 21 in that it has not been fully demonstrated that the development would increase flood risk or be at risk of flooding itself.
8. The proposal is contrary to Local Development Plan Policies Des 3, Env8 b) and Env 9 in that insufficient information has been provided in the Environmental Statement to assess the archaeological and historic value of West Craigs Farmhouse and Steading and West Craigs Farm Cottage or to how these buildings could be incorporated and enhanced through the design proposals.
posts
