Just a few minutes of the day remaining and it's up to 1563 comments. Well done everyone.
If this goes through it would be shady in the extreme.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
Craighouse
(177 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Snowy - yes, it would be outrageous. However, once planning permission is granted - it is almost impossible to overturn. There are only two options:
1: A successful judicial review of the decision, which can only be made on a point of law and not the merits of the decision itself. The Court can quash the permission - however the developer is free to re-submit the application and a judicial review is generally hugely expensive.
2. Scottish Ministers quash the permission by order. They have never used this power, generally because they have to pay compensation to the developer and it could shake confidence in the integrity of the planning system.The campaigners have to be successful every time - the developer only needs to be successful once.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Thinking about the decisions in the Donald Trump case - particularly now that the offshore wind farm that had permission that he objected to has been refused permission for it's onshore substation, which renders the project untenable - I find it hard to be optimistic.
Posted 10 years ago # -
EddieD - the Trump case is pretty much unique. The Council's local area committee had refused permission for the development. Trump could then have appealed to Scottish Ministers against the refusal - but loudly brayed that he would not stoop to submit an appeal and demanded the application be approved. Scottish Ministers then used a little known aspect of planning law to call-in the application for their own decision, i.e. although the decision had been legitimately made, it is technically not made until the decision notice is posted to the applicant. Ministers could have refused the application again - but, for some reason, that never happened.
If the Trump case teaches us anything of use for Craighouse, it is that campaigners against the development should meet politicians face-to-face. Go to surgeries - make their voices heard. Meet the council leader, planning committee chair and anyone else they can. The politicians are likely to say that they cannot offer av view as they might be involved in the decision - which is true. However, voters making their opinions known face-to-face is very powerful. The developers will be meeting these people, making their case - campaigners need to do likewise.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Yes - Trumpton (the golf/leisure development) case was in a class of its own. The Aberdeen Bay windfarm is a different case, subject to different consent(s), and with Bouffant Don in an entirely different role.
Whether or not more face-to-face contact would have made a difference to the outcome of Trumpton is moot; having been close to the sharp end, I'm not at all sure it would have done (because of the unusual procedures neatly outlined above). Which in no way invalidates the general principle that face-to-face contact with decision-makers can give a massive boost to one's case.
Posted 10 years ago # -
<quote>1: A successful judicial review of the decision, which can only be made on a point of law and not the merits of the decision itself. </quote>
Unless the decision itself is "Wednesbury" unreasonable (which is tough to prove).
<quote>A reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (or irrational) if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223). The test is a different (and stricter) test than merely showing that the decision was unreasonable.</quote>
More importantly, not everyone has "standing" to appeal a planning decision, though it's getting slightly easier, provided one has the cash.
Posted 10 years ago # -
RJ - you are correct that nothing could have changed the Trump decision. Ministers were always going to approve it, regardless of what campaigners did. What the case did show is the power of face-to-face meetings. Trump and his lawyers/consultants constantly met with officials and Ministers prior to submitting the application and then during its consideration - where they were variously schmoosed, cajoled, threatened with the development going to Northern Ireland and so on. Developing relationships with decision makers is key.
Hadn't thought to mention the Wedensbury rules - last time I really heard them talked about was when I was a student - so, some time ago!
Posted 10 years ago # -
Someone just sent me a link -
"
The purpose of this petition is to register an expression of 'no confidence' in the planning system, specifically relating to major controversial developments of National importance within the City of Edinburgh, and appeal for a full independent enquiry into these issues."
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/edinburgh-petition
This is what the main entrance to Craighouse currently looks like -
The entrance further up is fully open. The buildings are fenced off.
Posted 10 years ago # -
This article doesn't seem to make much sense. Are stone walls now a requirement, or has such a requirement been removed? It isn't clear.
Can't see how doing away with underground parking is an improvement. I note from documents on the Council's website that their transport people had recommended the proposal be refused - in part due to concerns about parking.
On a more worrying note, Historic Scotland seem to have passed the buck for protecting the setting of the listed buildings back to the Council. Historic Scotland only seem concerned with the removal of the buildings from the at risk register (which the proposals would do) - passing any decision on the amount of "enabling development" back to the Council.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I took it to mean that developers don't have to bother with real stone or underground car parks - rather big concessions from CEC(?)
In spite of that, the plans have been withdrawn(?)
Posted 10 years ago # -
Withdrawn to redraw them in their cheaper form, I guess.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
So what is going on at Craighouse? asks Gavin Corbett.
A few weeks back, I was asked to write an short piece on Craighouse, on Easter Craiglockhart Hill, for a community newsletter. Since the absolute deadline for the article was the same date (17 March) as the Planning Committee was due to take a decision on a major planning application there, I prepared two alternative articles – one where it was accepted, the other where it was rejected.
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
I asked my Dad about planning applications. He is a retired Town Planner. Note: he's been retired for about a decade now, and although he trained in Scotland, he worked in England for most of his career, so the following may 1) differ in some ways from the Scottish position and 2) be out of date. And I may not have remembered it correctly.
Anyway, what Dad said was that it costs money to put in an application (and the bigger the application, the more it costs). If the application is rejected, then there is an appeals process, but the person putting in the application can't keep on putting in applications and having them rejected indefinitely. What I didn't ask is, what about withdrawing an application and putting in another one? I guess that is what is happening here, and so, when the new application comes in, we'll all have to object all over again (assuming there are unacceptable new-build aspects to the application).
Posted 10 years ago # -
Another guestpost on my blog:
http://deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/craighouse-third-time-lucky.html
Posted 9 years ago # -
So are these vandals able to keep resubmitting every 5 or 6 months indefinitely until our appetite to object is exhausted?
Posted 9 years ago # -
So long as they can pay the architects and there's a buck to be made, I believe our planning system works on a principle of grinding the opposition down. After all, the developer only needs to win once, the opposers have to win every single time, so the odds are stacked against them.
There then comes a point when the listed structure has been left to rot for so long that they get to proceed in order to preserve it, or in other cases they get to pull the whole thing down and do what they always wanted to - bulldoze and build anew.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Meanwhile in WL -
"
Now, however, hopes are gaining momentum that the site – earmarked for 500 houses in the West Lothian local plan – might finally be an attractive proposition to a shrewd developer. Its prime location just off the M8, ready-made buildings oozing character and ripe for redevelopment and attractive grounds with scope for around 250 homes, could well offset the slight hurdle posed by its conservation site status to lure a property developer into making a move. All they need will be £8m and a lot of elbow grease.
"
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/life-style/tales-from-closed-psychiatric-hospital-1-3438593
Posted 9 years ago # -
Persimmon Homes had the same idea about Bangour Village Hospital a few years back. Usual story about an overleveraged developer and funding drying up from overleveraged/bankrupted banks.
I suppose now there's been a few more years of the elements and nature doing their worst there will be a few more listed parts of the site the next developer can get away with knocking down.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The deadline for responses is Friday.
Clear explanation of how to respond here: http://friendsofcraighouse.com/how-to-object/
You can just send an email - no need to faff with the council website.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Posted 9 years ago #
-
Done, thank you for the reminder.
Posted 9 years ago # -
last chance - before midnight tonight.
a short email will do, as long as you mention 'material' issues - any of the following will do:
1. This site is protected against newbuild development in planning policy.
2. There is no Enabling Development Case: The enabling case is deeply flawed and goes against the guidelines. The site will be spoilt and there are viable alternatives. The newbuild is not a proven minimum. The sales prices for the listed buildings are artificially low and the conversion costs inflated. The A-listed buildings are profitable developed alone.
3. Craighouse is not designated for housing in the Edinburgh Local Plan. It is highly protected green Open Space which Edinburgh Council are obliged to protect ‘whether publicly or privately owned’
4. New-build ruins the setting of the Grade A Listed Buildings against policy: the setting and views of the oldest building – Old Craig built in 1565 – will be spoilt by Burton a large 5/6 storey block. New Craig and the villas will be dominated by large imposing and very long housing blocks in the woodland. Clouston will dominate its historic neighbour, Bevan.
5. The character of the Conservation Area will be spoilt contrary to policy which protects the setting of Victorian buildings against dramatic landscape backdrops (see above). The new houses and carparking at Craiglea Place are out of keeping and spoil the country feel of the entrance of the site and Right of Way.
6. Loss of Public Amenity with loss of open space and beautiful woodland and views. Areas of traditional walks destroyed. Loss of beauty, naturalness, mature trees and views.
7. Roads/carparks 308 carparking spaces will turn areas of Open Space to brownfield against policy. The road report is worried about increased hazards to children and pedestrians.
8. Schooling: the number of dwellings will create more strain on local schools. Flooding – Balcarres St, Meadowspot and Craighouse Rd: there are questions about the potential for increased flood-risk from extra car-parks and buildings.
9. Trees and Wildlife: loss of mature trees and removal of woodland which is the habitat of local wildlife and of protected species such as bats and badgers. As a Local Biodiversity Site and Nature Conservation Site, the wildlife should be especially protected.
10. Views and Skyline: The plans spoil the spectacular protected views both into and out of the site with large 5/6 storey blocks overwhelming the existing Grade A listed buildings. The view from Blackford Hill will be spoilt.
11. Precedent. This amount of new-build contravenes the Local Plan and its numerous protections and policies creating a dangerous precedent for Edinburgh’s other historic sites and green spaces.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Interesting choice of picture to illustrate the story - the other proposed blocks far more imposing.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I thought that was an exceptionally opinionated piece of journalism but then noticed it was from the opinion menu.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"noticed it was from the opinion menu"
He's the editor.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Ah, did not know that. He seems very against the friends of craighouse. Maybe he is pals with the architect who lives across the road and is being shunned by his neighbours?
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
The transformation of the former Napier base has been backed by planning officials and is expected to be rubber-stamped by councillors next week.
It comes after the blueprint, which has drawn criticism, was rejigged for a third time since it was first submitted in 2011.
Now 145 properties are set to be built, with 64 in the seven 16th and 19th-century listed buildings and 81 within six new residential blocks.
"
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/craighouse-plans-set-for-the-go-ahead-1-3524540
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
