Turnip seems a bit harsh!
Still don't understand how they can begin works in bad faith. Dodgy, dodgy, dodgy...
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
Craighouse
(177 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
To my knowledge Napier do not subsidise the 23 bus. I've really enjoyed studying at Craighouse but I can understand why Napier were keen to let go of it. It's a pig to heat and as far as I can recall one of the reasons given has been that it's not suited to being a modern educational facility.
@Stepdoh, sadly the library on this campus closed prior to my arrival and I now have to use the Merchiston one which is undergoing extensive building work during the 'holiday'... Clearly postgraduates needing to use the library are not important.
Posted 11 years ago # -
SRD - it makes perfect sense for the developer. They can now say there is an extant planning permission for a very large development on the site. This makes it harder for the council to argue that they would never allow development on this site. I've looked at the relevant documents - the developer literally dug a small trench and then filled it back in for "health and safety" reasons, that is the extent of the development - and will probably remanin so.
I've dropped a message to the campaigners offering assistance.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The planning consent was not in the archives until very recently, despite it being said to have been granted in 2007. The contract which the consent depended on was signed, but without dates anywhere. The signatures had no names, place or dates next to them. The file was not available when we first looked. Very little was on the online planning portal (nothing at first, then just a date). This despite all files after 2003 supposed to have been scanned in and on the portal. The consent was not supplied from freedom of information requests to either Napier or Historic Scotland, despite it being Napier's application and Historic Scotland a statutory consultee. No evidence is given this was referred to Scottish Ministers to see if they want to call it in, which was required as far as we can see.
The conditions on the consent (including needing Listed Building Consent, which had expired before the planning consent was granted) were very strict, but waived through in a few days by the planners. And the "work starting" doesn't match the legal definition of work starting. Although, yes, building a trench counts as work starting, it's only if it's possibly part of the foundations of a building, which the trench in question is not (there's no proposed building there).
The consent was only granted "because of the needs of the university", with lots of strict conditions attached. But the conditions are now discharged very quickly and the university no longer needs the building. So all we're left with is permission to build a car-park and chop down woodland for no good reason, with the planners and council having a clear reason for stopping this. All they had to do was spend a few more days thinking about it.
The woodland on the hill at Craighouse will now have tarred paths to meet the needs of cyclists. But the woodland on the hill is used by mountain bikers, not commuters. So why tar the paths?
And all this went through when some of the key planners and many of the councillors were on holiday.
Posted 11 years ago # -
andrewr - I agree that the development undertaken on site doesn't meet the requirements of Section 27 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. This defines the date development is initiated as being the earliest date on which any "material operation" comprised in the development begins to be carried out. While a material operation is defined to include the digging of a trench for foundations, it only applies to buildings and not car parks. I would also argue that a car park foundation is not an operation in the course of laying a road (a car park not being a road).
If you haven't already taken this up with the Council then I would do so as a matter of urgency, as getting this decision revised would mean the application had ran out of time.
However, it is not necessary for the works to have been undertaken with the intention of carrying out the approved development (see East Dunbatonshire Council v Secretary of State for Scotland, 1999 SLT 1088).
I don't have access to all the paperwork you might have amassed, e.g. the listed building consent, so can't really comment on this. However, I'm happy to have a look at what you have.
Posted 11 years ago # -
We have taken this up with the council (we wrote a very long, detailed letter and sent to several people at the council, including Andrew Burns). John Bury (head of planning) replied to say he had already accepted it as work starting. He didn't explain how or why he had not considered any of the detailed, serious points we put forwards.
Posted 11 years ago # -
andrewr - I thought you would have done this, and that this would have been the response. No-one really likes admitting they got something wrong. The best thing to do is to lodge a formal complaint (http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/672/complaints_procedure/1037/how_we_deal_with_your_complaint/1) about this.
This might seem daft, given you have already contacted the council. However, it is worth exhausting the Council's internal complaints procedure. When you have done this then you can complain to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (http://www.spso.org.uk/) - Councils hate this.
Obviously, this is all really a side issue, awaiting the formal application for planning permission for the Craighouse site. However, it doesn't hurt to show the council you mean business.
Posted 11 years ago # -
and how can they just cancel the archaeology?
was going to email councillors but 'write to them' still doesn't include my 2 new councillors!
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
DEVELOPERS behind controversial £90 million plans for the former Napier University campus at Craighouse have been slated by officials for submitting documents which are “factually incorrect”, “inaccurate” and “incomplete”....
The deadline for objections to the new-build element of the proposal is December 21.
"
http://m.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/fury-over-false-craighouse-plans-1-2695528http://friendsofcraighouse.com/2012/12/17/how-to-object-do-it-now
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Melanie Main (@melaniemain)
19/12/2012 13:08
@LothiansKen Craighouse planning application objectons filling up my in box. @SaveCraighouse - comment deadline extended to 24 Dec!"
Posted 11 years ago # -
Posted 11 years ago #
-
there are more pictures on the FB page, which I recommend you look at.
Posted 10 years ago # -
The latest planning application for the "bigger, taller, more car-friendly" application (a.k.a. Craighouse II) closes to comments on the 16th.
Have your say (follow above link for full details) if you're interested in either the loss of a large amount of greenfield site or rather irreversible changes to the Edinburgh suburban skyline.
You may wish to support it of course and you can do so at the above link also. There's ~1,500 responses on the council planning portal when I made my response this afternoon. Must be one of the most responded-to (objected-to?) consultations in Edinburgh.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Deadline TOMORROW!
my letter: http://deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/protecting-craighouse.html (nothing profound)
Posted 10 years ago # -
Excellent letter, SRD.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Have just completed my objection. Not as eloquent as SRD. When I started typing there were 1512 comments on the planning portal, by the time I clicked 'Submit' there were 1517...
Cycling provision seems poor. In the building plans I looked at there seemed to be no cycle storage. The Transport Plan refers to all the various cycle routes around, but glosses over how inaccessible they are from the site. Craighouse Road/Balcarres Street junction was the site of cyclist fatality a few years ago.
Posted 10 years ago # -
thanks K'nik and g'roofer, but mine was really rather derivative.
Now this one, on the other hand, by Morningsider is worth a read:
http://deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-objection-to-end-all-objections.html
Posted 10 years ago # -
Thats a hell of an objection. I'm not sure why (past experience probably) but despite everything I can yet another carbuncle being approved this time in a very visible area.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Thats a hell of an objection"
Think I'll just copy it...
(Will list all the policies it violates and add some comments.)
Posted 10 years ago # -
SRD - thanks for posting that on your blog. Bit of a rush job I'm afraid. Didn't have time to unpick their transport and heritage assessments, so just focused on the pure planning stuff.
Have to admit, their planning consultants are very good - but they have had to make some pretty imaginative leaps to try and justify the development. Also, they are prone to a bit of plagiarism it seems - some of the text in a couple of their documents looks very familiar.
If it is any use in composing your own objection, then please feel free to use it as you see fit.
Also, thanks again to the ever enthusiastic SRD for spurring me into action on this through her original blog post.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Top Job, Morningsider.
If this gets approved after that systematic takedown then its time to man the barricardes.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I've added a short objection. There are now 1532 comments.
Posted 10 years ago # -
My submission -
"
Dear Ms. WilsonI am objecting to the current planning application.
There are many grounds for objecting but the fact that it goes against many of CEC's own policies should be enough.
I am adding a list that I have seen elsewhere as I am confident that it is accurate.
What concerns me more is the possibility that the Planning Committee could even consider approving this application when it is clearly against the Council's agreed policies. I therefore assume this is all a formality and that officers will recommend refusal and that councillors will agree and indicate that revised plans (involving new-build) will fail.
I am well aware that the city needs more flats and houses, but there is no shortage of suitable sites in areas where the Council wants such development.
If planning permission is granted to this, it sends out yet another signal that the Council isn't serious about 'planning' and that if developers are persistent enough they will continue to get their way.
The priority for Craighouse is the conservation and conversion of the existing buildings.
If the developers can't do this at a profit they have obviously paid too much, perhaps with the 'expectation' that they will eventually get planning permission for one of their schemes.
This clearly highlights one of the problems of the planning process where developers can keep revising plans in the hope (belief) that objectors and possibly council officials and elected councillors will 'fatigue' and give in.
The Council needs to make it VERY clear that this and other proposals that are against carefully considered policies and local wishes WILL NOT SUCCEED.
It is not the Council's job to protect developers from ill advised purchases.
A LIST OF CONTRARIES -
............
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
chdot good points well made. I'm hoping that even my short comment will add to the general weight of evidence of public opinion...
Posted 10 years ago # -
@chdot nice one!
@fimm wonder if/when we find out how many went in by email or paper in addition to the ones on the portal?
Posted 10 years ago # -
SRD - Council planners should produce a report for the planning committee, which includes the number of responses received and summarises the main issues raised by respondents. Given they have hundreds of responses to wade through, I would imagine it will take at least a couple of months.
Posted 10 years ago # -
thousands more like.
think I heard somewhere that they are hoping to get this to committee in March.
Last couple of hours for sending comments if you've not done yours yet. A simple one-liner will count if it mentions even just ONE material consideration (you could say the local plan does not support housing development on this site; or you could wax lyrical about it being a designated area for open space and of High Landscape Value which is very valued by the local community, both of which will be negatively impacted on by the new development).
the transport assessment says how well the area is connected by cycle routes etc, but they obviously have not tried cycling the muddy paths with steps with a young child and two bags of shopping. I've not actually noticed a cycle route going to Morningside either which is the main centre for services. To get to the site nearly always means getting up a very steep hill (either on the road or on muddy footpaths with usually lots of steps). In addition, the new 'scheme' has more dwellings over all and less predicted car movements than the older one. Seems quite unrealistic.
And as for the bus. The terminus for the 41 used to be on-site, supported by an agreement with the council, but this has now expired.
Loads of carparking is to be provided adding further negative impact to the landscape, and increasing flood risk in an already sensitive area (Myreside and Balcarres Street).
Altogether this is a rubbish proposal.Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
