Nothing changed out on the ground. Same two paths to replace the old road, no change to any infra. No access down the street et cetera
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Illegal gated-community development blocks access to WoL (Juni Green)
(60 posts)-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
Looks like this application doesn't even propose a replacement path, but drops all pretense.
The right of way is called into doubt, claims that access is maintained through pushing a button, but also says that the gates have successfully deterred access.
Stage 2 would be removing the push button access, then claiming the right of way has fallen into disuse, so can be removed.
Robert
Posted 5 years ago # -
The previous planning permission for these gates (17/05343/FUL) was "refused and enforced". An enforcement order was served and the deadline for removal of the gates was August 2018.
The gates have never been removed. So the applicant has flouted the law twice - first by erecting the gates without planning permission, and second by refusing to comply with removal during the allotted period.
How on Earth have they been given permission to submit another application? It seems that due procedure has not been followed - they should at least be made to comply with the "enforcement" before being allowed a new application.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Sounds similar to the East Scotland St Lane garage farrago than has been ongoing for 6 years+.
https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/directory_record/989499/bellevue_crescent5_east_scotland_street_lane
"In Issue 270 we covered an apparent lack of progress in applying the enforcement order on a garage sometimes operating as an AirBnB at 8 East Scotland St Lane.
We owe Council Enforcement an apology. Before our ink was dry, they had removed the unconsented glazed frontage of the garage and replaced it with a consented metal roller door. Cue general rejoicings from locals.
Two days later, the owner removed Council Enforcement’s metal roller door and replaced it with a new (multi-astragalled), unconsented, glazed frontage. Cue general gnashing of teeth. Locals suspect that the garage is once again occupied.
This is the latest twist in an absurd saga which first came to Spurtle’s attention back in September 2012 (Issue 211). "Said property is on Booking.com for £70 pn
Posted 5 years ago # -
Yes, what I don't understand is why local volunteer planning police officer Archie C had not stuck his deerstalker into this one. He has maybe retired as is very old but still see him about
Posted 5 years ago # -
There seem to be huge number of comments submitted to CEC's planning portal in support of this application.
It looks like the residents have had a campaign and gone around all their friends and asked them to write in and support.
All the more reason to write an objection now, if this concerns you.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Maybe 12 people live in the development the illegal gate protects?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Do we have a C&B News subscriber around? Surely there's more background in there.
Posted 5 years ago # -
@neddie: It looks like the residents have had a campaign and gone around all their friends and asked them to write in and support.
Interesting to compare the Neighbour Notification List for the originally approved planning application for the change of use of the warehouse with six addresses, all on Baberton Loan, to that for the illegal gate with 82 addresses. Certainly does look like there's been some local lobbying going on, probably emphasising the law'n'order and "Won't somebody please think of the children!" arguments wibbled on about in the covering letter.
The covering letter states: "The Report made no reference to the fact that alternative/additional routes exist between Lanark Road and the Water of Leith Walkway in the immediate vicinity of the application site, including the route to the south west which is used by the vast majority of pedestrians/cyclists. Having scanned the report it seems clear to me that it does reference the proposed alternative routes, and says that they are inadequate and non-compliant (on the final page, in the Roads Authority consultation section). On that ground alone the application seems to be badly flawed.
I'm sure I read somewhere that the 2m high solid fence alongside the WoL walkway on the south side of the access road is also illegal.
The gates have never been removed. So the applicant has flouted the law twice - first by erecting the gates without planning permission, and second by refusing to comply with removal during the allotted period. The covering letter does say that the enforcement decision is under appeal. If true then I would actually expect the gates to be able to remain in place until that appeal is concluded one way or the other.
Posted 5 years ago # -
@jonty - that is why I am saying Archie Clark would normally be all over this. He objects to all planing and keepos C&B in newsprint
Posted 5 years ago # -
alternative/additional routes exist between Lanark Road and the Water of Leith Walkway in the immediate vicinity of the application site, including the route to the south west which is used by the vast majority of pedestrians/cyclists.
The south west route being more used than the south east route is, of course, nothing to do with the fact that there's a blooming big gate across the south east route.
Posted 5 years ago # -
@frenchy, the chap put in two routes one to the west and another to the east of his illegal gate
Posted 5 years ago # -
I have objected to the new application, on the same grounds as the previous one was rejected by the council. I encourage others to do the same!
Posted 5 years ago # -
Have responded with an objection.
The portal told me that my comment had been "truncated", which was annoying, but the e-mail confirmation I got contained the text in full so I'm hoping that it all got through.
Posted 5 years ago # -
A copy of my objection here, if anyone wants to make use of any of the points:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p98hc8gl15adqir/baberton%20loan%20gate%20objection.pdf?dl=0
Fill yer boots.
Objections to be in by 5th Oct
Posted 5 years ago # -
May also be worth quoting from the Council's Street Design Guidance, which says that “Design should give special consideration to the young, old and those with disabilities” and that footpaths should be “free from barriers such as footway obstructions”.
A gate is a pretty obvious barrier.
Posted 5 years ago # -
@frenchy, he is arguing because he put two new paths in either side of the old engine shed he converted to flats that means all fine.
THe road and both paths are steep so access tricky
There are rarely motoerbikes that far south west but occaisionally they get on. His gate means really only Colinton is their access point, not that I wish to help him out here.
Posted 5 years ago # -
he is arguing because he put two new paths in either side of the old engine shed he converted to flats that means all fine.
Even ignoring the issue of accessing the WoL path, the pavement to the development itself should also be free from barriers.
Posted 5 years ago # -
he is arguing because he put two new paths in either side
He only put in one new path at the West, connecting to the hairpin bend. The other path, to the East, by St Margaret's was always there & has always been in poor condition - mostly inaccessible due to nettles, narrow path width and certainly wouldn't feel safe at night.
Posted 5 years ago # -
@neddie, looked new to me, maybe he just clearwed it then? You are the local man afer all. So I go with your call. Agree too steep to use, no one does
Posted 5 years ago # -
It does occur to me that the replacement of the gate with a set of chicanes only just passable by cars would be enough to deter parking and speedy driving....
Posted 5 years ago # -
It looks like retrospective planning permission (18/05069/FUL) for the gates across Baberton Loan at the entrance to the Water of Leith will be refused at the planning committee this week.
Reasons:
1. Adverse effect on the character and appearance.
2. Discourages access to WoL.https://twitter.com/CllrScottArthur/status/1191264419256455168
Posted 4 years ago # -
Don't suppose anyone has copies of the original plans, particularly the landscape plan(s). Can't find them on the Council website now. Need to check my memory of the original approved plans.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@urchaidh - I could be wrong, but I think the original planning application is 13/01525/FUL. The very top document in the list of documents on the planning portal for that application is a landscape plan. It seems to focus more on trees, etc., but there's no sign of a gate on it.
EDIT: Sorry, there is a gate shown at the Water of Leith walkway itself.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Replying to CllrSA
https://twitter.com/dinwoodiedani/status/1191282361276739584
Posted 4 years ago # -
An astonishing lack of self-awareness displayed there.
Posted 4 years ago # -
The photo of the path in Dinwoodie's tweet (above) is misleading. It looks more like this:
Posted 4 years ago # -
During a tidy up of my Inbox today I noticed that I had received an update notification about this planning applicaiton, dated two weeks after Cllr Arthur's tweet. It was refused. The summary in the planning committee's report stated:
The development has an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area by virtue of its inappropriate and incongruous siting and intimidating and negative appearance, contrary to LDP policies Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) and Env 6 (Conservation Areas - development).
The proposal discourages access through the site, resulting in the use of an alternative footpath which does not meet the Council's standards in terms of width, surface and alignment. The proposal does not comply with the local development plan and is contrary to LDP Policy Tra 9 (Cycle and Footpath Network).
No material considerations outweigh this conclusion.
The consultation from the roads authority appears towards the end of the report and includes this statement:
The applicant should note that the gate may be considered an obstruction under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
Although I've traversed the WoL walkway a number of times in the last few months I've not been down Baberton Loan recently so I don't know whether the multiply illegal gate has yet been removed.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Gates remain
Posted 4 years ago # -
Story update -
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
