"
SRD (@SRDorman)
03/09/2014 16:24
"not the job of the planning process to bail out developers" @gavincorbett #craighouse
"
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
Craighouse
(177 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
9 6
Very sad
Posted 9 years ago # -
An outrageous decision, which may well come back to haunt the council. I'll post few more thoughts later, when there are fewer children jumping on me.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
Nigel Bagshaw (@nigelbagshaw)
03/09/2014 18:13
#Craighouse passed by @cameronrose @jomowat Dominic Heslop Ian Perry Eric Milligan @BailieBlacklock @KeithRobson @FrankRoss06 Dennis Dixon"
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
The developer still has to enter into a Section 75 agreement with the council but it will contain a developer contribution of £336,000 to the education budget.
"
Posted 9 years ago # -
Why do I think this is such a bad decision?
Scotland has a plan led planning system. This means if your proposed development accords with the policies in the local development plan then it should get permission. If your proposal does not accord with the plan then it will normally be refused, unless there are very good reasons why it should be approved. There are several reasons why this system exists, particularly:
1. It provides certainty for developers and communities alike.
2. Communities have no right of appeal against planning decisions. However, they can feed in to the drafting of the plans on which decisions are based. These plans should reflect community views to some extent, which will then be reflected in planning decisions.This decision makes a mockery of the development planning system. The local plan could not be clearer that this development should have been refused. The reasons given for approving the development get nowhere near the threshold normally required for approval of a proposed development that goes against so many local and national planning policies.
How can any community now be confident that their area is safe from inappropriate development? The local plan would appear to offer no protection and some (although not all) councillors have shown themselves far too ready to accept the word of developers.
I am particularly concerned as to how the planners recommended this for approval. Unlike some, I do not think they are corrupt. I suspect they have been dealing with the developers for so long that they have gone native. Convinced of the developers' arguments that this is the only way forward. By contrast objectors and the community can be painted as nuisances, amateurs, nimbys. After all, planning consultants speak their language. Far easier to agree with "one of us". They may even know each other through the Royal Town Planning Institute or other organisation.
All in all, a bad day for Edinburgh.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
Ian Murray MP (@IanMurrayMP)
03/09/2014 20:42
I'm genuinely shocked at #craighouse decision. @SaveCraighouse did a remarkable job. I said today planning is broken & @scotgov must fix."
Posted 9 years ago # -
well when both planning officers and the planning committee ignore their own planning policy then the system is indeed broke. Why should anyone be prepared to spend time engaging with the current round of Development Plan consultations when the plan is so likely to be ignored? A waste of everyones time (and council tax money paying officials to prepare it) having such a document when it is so comprehensively ignored.
This is a really rubbish day for planning in Edinburgh.Posted 9 years ago # -
And there is no public right of appeal? This is bonkers stuff.
And while the jury of public opinion has got to be out on the honesty charge (the empirical evidence isn't looking good), I'll settle for the lesser definition of corrupt:
To taint, contaminate, to cause to become rotten.
Spotting a trend there, in fact.
Something has gone badly wrong when such overwhelming public opinion and clear rules are simply disregarded in the presence of large sums of money being made.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
@IanMurrayMP: @codeandrew @scotgov @SaveCraighouse can they? I'm writing 2 planning Minister today to look at system based on Craighouse and LDP2 shambles
"
Posted 9 years ago # -
As the application has been determined it can't be called in. There is no right of appeal currently for communities, though a new campaign to establish one is being publicised by Planning Democracy. But if folks think correct procedures have not been followed a judicial review can be requested. Can be expensive, but you can request that costs be capped.
Posted 9 years ago # -
A judicial review of a planning decision is almost always bound to fail. I have been told by a leading QC that over 90% of them favour the decision taken by the planning authority.
I'm only aware of two protective cost orders, which limit the costs that have to be paid by people seeking a judicial review of an environment related decision, being awarded in Scotland (Hunterston power station and the AWPR). Still, it could be a possibility.
My gut feeling is that a judicial review of the Craighouse development decision is likely to fail. There are generally three grounds for a judicial review in planning cases.
1. The council acted illegally. Probably a non-starter. The Council is the planning authority and is required to decide on planning applications, the decisions were made by the correct people who considered all the relevant matters.
2. There has been procedural unfairness. I'm not aware of the Council having failed to follow the requirements of planning law in this case (although there could be some detail that I'm not aware of).
3. The decision is irrational. There is a very high bar to jump here to prove irrationality. You might think the decision is irrational, but it would be easy to argue that wanting to protect the listed buildings was a rational reason for granting permission.I'm not saying it isn't worth a punt. I'm just pointing out that they are rarely successful, can be costly (even capped costs would likely be in the region of £5000 to £20,000) and time consuming.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
CAMPAIGNERS have vowed to appeal the controversial decision to rubber-stamp plans for a £90 million housing development at the old Craighouse university campus.
...
There was even criticism from Cllr Sandy Howat, vice-convener of the planning committee, who said: “I think we are setting a very bad precedent, failing the community and the city as a whole.
“We need to keep fighting to make sure we have the appropriate development for the site.” The SNP councillor, who represents Morningside and the Meadows, said he would be “reviewing” his role on the committee after the completion of the Local Plan next year.
He said: “I still have some unfinished business on this committee, but let’s say my confidence in some of my colleagues has diminished.”
Despite pledging during the meeting that “work will start tomorrow”, the developers have confirmed construction could begin by next summer.
"
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/90m-craighouse-development-goes-ahead-amid-boos-1-3529672
Right - so work isn't starting today!!!
Posted 9 years ago # -
Hi Morningsider.
Well there may be conflicts of interest. which would certainly be another ground.
There have been caps put on some of the costs for judicial reviews that have gone on re some windfarm devs too. Certainly Sustainable Shetland got a £5000 cap for their judicial review of the approval for big windfarm there. And they won their case (but it was later overturned at a further appeal).
But I agree these things are not easy. BUT with crowd funding and support it IS possible.
Lizzie.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Lizzie - Agreed, I think it is worth investigating. I also think there might be merit in exploring whether a complaint could be made to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman for possible maladministration. Details of how to do this here:
If there are conflicts of interest involving a councillor then you might want to consider complaining to the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life, details:
http://www.publicstandardscommissioner.org.uk/make-a-complaint/overview/
Worth noting that only a judicial review can overturn a planning decision. The suggestions above can result in sanctions against councillors or embarrassment for a Council, but not much more.
It's highly unlikely that Ministers could call-in the application. Although an application is only deemed to have been made once the decision notice has been issued. So if the letter isn't in the post, Ministers could still call it in. This has only ever happened once - a certain golf course in Aberdeenshire.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Laughably bad comment piece on Craighouse from the odious John McLellan in today's chipwrapper. The last section "explaining" the call-in process is extraordinary - literally everything in it is wrong.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"literally everything in it is wrong"
Why doesn't that surprise me?
Well, perhaps - everything?!!
Can you give us the correct version sometime?
Posted 9 years ago # -
chdot - okay, here's what it could say:
"Friends of Craighouse have vowed to fight the Council's decision. There are three ways the decision could be overturned:
1. Scottish Ministers choose to call-in the application for their own decision. Ministers can exercise this power at any time until the Council issues the decision notice to the applicant. Once the notice has been sent, Ministers can no longer use this power. This is extremely unlikely to happen at this very late stage, where no Government agency has raised any objections to the development (assuming the decision notice hasn't already been sent, pending the signing of the Section 75 and other legal agreements).
It is worth remembering that Ministers could decide to approve the application after call-in. There is no guarantee they would reach a different decision to the Council.
2. An interested party pursues a judicial review, which is successful and the Court orders the decision to be overturned. The court would then return the application to the Council for reconsideration.
3. Scottish Ministers use their powers to revoke a grant of planning permission under Section 68 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Ministers must consult with the Council prior to making an Order to quash a planning permission. This power is highly unlikely to be used, particularly as compensation for abortive expenditure is payable to the applicant.
It is worth noting that Historic Scotland or MSPs have no formal role in any of the processes described above.
Comparisons between Craighouse the Odeon on Clerk Street are entirely misguided, as planning permission for the old cinema's conversion was granted by the Council on 18 April 2013."
To be fair - I suppose the first line of the original was correct.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
Despite the apparent opportunities for the public to get involved in planning decisions at an early stage, for example by commenting on a local development plan, or participating in a pre-application consultation, there remains a glaring inequality between the rights that are afforded to the public and the rights that are afforded to developers.
"
http://www.planningdemocracy.org.uk/2014/equal-rights-of-appeal
Posted 9 years ago # -
There is time for the Scottish Government to call it in. The system is complex, so hard to explain. I think the best example we have that is relevant and recent is the quarry near North Lanark. In that case, Historic Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage didn't intervene (for which they got a lot of criticism). Local MSPs demanded a call-in. The Scottish Government was highly reluctant at first, but due to pressure was forced to call it in. There is a current public inquiry in that case.
The vote on Wednesday means that the application is "Minded to Grant", not granted. To get to the "granted" stage, a Section 75 agreement needs to be agreed and that takes time. The council also needs to notify Scottish Ministers of their vote and give Scottish Ministers time to decide whether to call it in or not.
We do need to campaign now. Calling-in is the first step, before judicial review. Because there isn't a decision notice for the application, yet, we can't even do Judicial Review yet. So, let's concentrate on calling-in, for now, as we have political support for that. Jim Eadie MSP and Alison Johnstone MSP have both said they want the Scottish Government to consider calling Craighouse in. Ian Murray MP has also said he wants the Scottish Government to look at the case and he is also asking for Third Party Right of Appeal, a policy that would greatly help communities suffering under planning decisions that are unjustified and against policy as Craighouse is. We should ask more politicians and organizations to demand the same thing.
What we have to show is that this development will have a national impact. You should stress that when writing to MSPs, organizations, or the planning minister, Derek Mackay (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/currentmsps/Derek-Mackay-MSP.aspx)
This will affect the setting of the world heritage site, as its setting *is* the seven hills of Edinburgh.
It is an A listed *site* (not just the buildings, the site and setting is in the listing), which is of national significance.
This will affect enabling development cases across Scotland because it is so unusual it will be used as a precedent.
We can do this people! We need to make some noise. We need to show how important this site is. We need to show how damaging this decision is to trust in the planning system. We need to show that if this can go through, no listed building in Scotland is safe from what has happened here.
Andrew, Friends of Craighouse
Posted 9 years ago # -
This the Clyde Falls/North Lanark quarry campaigners: http://saveourlandscapes.moonfruit.com/
They did it, so why can't we?
(Although, Scottish Ministers haven't made their decision yet. Fingers crossed they make the right one).
Posted 9 years ago # -
Here's another one closer to home, the proposed tower at Haymarket which was called in: http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/inquiry-into-towering-hotel-stalls-1-1146814
This one was later rejected: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/murphy-fury-after-haymarket-scheme-rejected/3152249.articlePosted 9 years ago # -
@andrewr
"The vote on Wednesday means that the application is "Minded to Grant", not granted. To get to the "granted" stage, a Section 75 agreement needs to be agreed and that takes time. The council also needs to notify Scottish Ministers of their vote and give Scottish Ministers time to decide whether to call it in or not."
That's encouraging.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
Decision: Minded to Grant - Legal Agreement
1. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, having first been agreed by the City Archaeologist.
2. A detailed specification, including trade names where appropriate, of all the proposed external materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards prior to work commencing on site; Note: samples of the materials may be required
"
And a LOT more -
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p95kw4fo144j34x/Craighouse.pdf?dl=0
Posted 9 years ago # -
andrewr - I'm not sure that the Council has to notify Scottish Ministers of their intention to grant permission for the Craighouse development. There are only three categories of development where this is required:
1. Development which the council has an interest in, which is a significant departure from the development plan.
2. Development where there is an outstanding objection from a Government agency.
3. Opencast coal mine.None of these seem to apply to Craighouse.
That said. Scottish Government planners will already be well aware of such a high profile development. Scottish Government guidance (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/03/27112705/0) on the criteria for call-in gives Ministers complete discretion as to what to call-in, stating:
"However, there can be circumstances where proposed development raises issues of such national importance that it is reasonable for Scottish Ministers to call in a planning application from the local authority; in effect to take over the role of decision-maker. It is at Ministers' discretion whether to do so. For example, Ministers might choose to intervene in circumstances where a Government agency has expressed strong concerns about the impact of development on their national interests, or where the possible impacts or benefits of a proposed development extend well beyond the area of the local authority to the extent that they become of national importance. However, simply because a particular development proposal may be complex or controversial does not make it of strategic importance or of national interest. The existence of a substantial number of objections is not in itself sufficient ground to merit call-in for decision at a national level."
What constitutes "national significance" is determined by Ministers on a case by case basis. If I was to try and make a case for call-in, I would focus on the following (in no particular order):
1. The decision has undermined confidence in the development planning system, contrary to paragraph four of the Scottish Planning Policy
2. The proposals will have a detrimental impact on a multiply protected site, considered to be of national/international importance
3. The proposals will impact on views from and to the world heritage sites
4. Concerns were raised by Councillors about the role of Historic Scotland in this caseMy main concern is, even if the application was called-in, it would be approved. The Scottish Government is very pro-development. You only have to read the new Scottish Planning Policy and National Planning Framework to see this. Remember, these are the people who approved the Trump development.
Drop me a PM if you want to talk planning.
chdot - it's a fairly standard list of conditions. Actually surprisingly short for such a large and controversial development.
Posted 9 years ago # -
May or may not be relevant -
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/historic-scotland-leant-on-for-wind-farm-bid-1-3534385
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
