Brighton Place - Dentist's "garden"

[Puerto bella]

Planning legislation does not exist as pay back for breaking the rules or being an arrogant person.

[wangi]

What would your opinion be if Viridor had just gone ahead and built a waste processing plant anyway, regardless of planning permission. Would it be unfair if it was subsequently tore down?

[rmolehusband]

Its an unhealthy society that looks to preserve things in aspic for all eternity.

You're right, but it's equally unhealthy to allowed unrestrained re-development so we have a planning system in the hope of striking a balance - even if it doesn't always work. Personally I feel that we do err a little on the side of preservation in Edinburgh at the moment, but I still feel the current system is better than no system at all.

Ultimately, the response to this may seem disproportionate but the chap clearly called the council's bluff all the way - the only alternative the council had was to back down and that sets a dangerous example.

[Puerto bella]

You're all still missing my point.
'Proportionate to the problem' and I'm trying to bottom out exactly what the impact is of what was done - Setting of the LB and CA?
The system does not exist just to punish.
As for anything larger just going ahead then its down to its impact, that's my point.
Did the dentist call the council's bluff or is there another reason why he didn't comply - did anyone try to find out?

[Puerto bella]

In addition some of you seem to be assuming that because I'm raising questions that somehow I'm on one side or other. There are people who are clearly jumping to the council's defence here as though they are always right.

Questions and discussions are healthy.

[Maria]

I'm not 100% sure what questions you are raising.

Did the yard deserve to stay even if it lacked the correct approval?
No, it didn't. It was an ugly, hotchpotch of materials, which jarred with the area. It was neither decorative nor useful, removing as it did 2 off-street parking places and providing none in return. The Council granted retrospective approval for the gates and railings, which had been installed. It was the big lit sign and the rest of the 'landscaping' that was refused permission. The council did not merely issue a blanket refusal. They took each aspect on its own merits.

Did anyone approach the dentist directly?
Yes, I believe neighbours ,who approached the dentist with their concerns, were not treated with any courtesy ( the issue was raised at the 2007 Residents' Association AGM ). And obviously, as confirmed by the conversation I had with the planning officer present last Monday, the Council had been in contact with the owner.

Do you have any knowledge of any attempt at compromise by the owner PB?

[wangi]

In addition some of you seem to be assuming that because I'm raising questions that somehow I'm on one side or other.

I know how that one feels!

There are people who are clearly jumping to the council's defence here as though they are always right.

Not sure I'd agree with that - I don't think we overflow with council apologists! I think what you have is people sharing their opinion, which just so happens to be sympathetic to the actions taken by the council.

[rmolehusband]

'Proportionate to the problem' and I'm trying to bottom out exactly what the impact is of what was done - Setting of the LB and CA? The system does not exist just to punish.

The way I see it the issue is not one of scale or impact, so the response can't really be proportionate. Where modifications are made to a property in contravention of the planning regulations, i.e. without advance or retrospective planning permission, there are only two alternatives:

* ignore the changes
* undo the work and reinstate the property

(There's maybe a third option, one with some degree of compromise, in which the owner submits alternative plans which do get approved, but it looks like he chose not to or was unable to do this in this case.)

The time for proportion is when the planning application is being considered, preferably before the works commence but possibly, as in this case, retrospectively. Once permission has been declined there is no real wiggle room - all modifications without permission have to be undone. If your point is that, in this case, CEC could have been more flexible when he applied for planning permission then I agree, but after permission was declined they only have the options listed above.

I don't think there was any element in what was done that could be described as punishment. The actions taken are solely to undo the changes made in contravention of the current planning regulations. He'll be charged the costs of this work, but not fined. The approach may seem a little heavy handed, but it would appear that he was given several years to sort out the problems himself and chose not to do so.

There is the possibility that his planning application was viewed less favourably because it was made in retrospect, and I can believe that this probably happened in this case, so there is perhaps some element of punishment there which is possibly a tad unfair.

(in reference to your other post, I don't think anyone is really taking sides and I'm enjoying the discussion, so thanks)

[rmolehusband]

(Slow day at work)

It turns out the dentists did submit new proposals (09/03330/FUL) to tidy things, the plans were more or less the same as the new layout but with better quality and more sympathetic materials. Permission was granted March 8th with the proviso that the work would be done within three months. Four months later nothing had been done so the council went in and reinstated it to how it looked originally.

So the question of proportionality in this case possibly boils down to 'should they have been given more time'? I'd like to think that if they'd at least got as far as getting quotes for example, i.e. demonstrated some genuine progress, then they would have been given more time. If that was the case, and the council still sent the JCB in, then that would indeed be a bit harsh.

[Puerto bella]

Mr M, I too am enjoying the discussion, I enjoy hearing all of the different views. Given all the other discussion on planning issues that tend to be pretty black or white I like the fact that people are participating in a sharing of info and attitudes.

Listed building enforcement is something I have been involved in for many years in a variety of roles. Its not straightforward and its certainly not about pay-back. I have seen horrific alterations having been done to cat A listed buildings with less action having been taken that this by the authorities which is why I found it interesting to explore the degree of action and remedy that had been taken.

In the current economic climate with council budgets as they are it is difficult for an authority to commit to sanctioning such action with no degree of certainty in recouping the costs within a reasonable timescale or indeed in the worst case scenario having to CPO the building if the owner cannot pay.

I also find it interesting that such heavy action has happened twice now in Porty in recent times and is positively unheard of in other places.

[Maria]

(Slow day at work)

It turns out the dentists did submit new proposals (09/03330/FUL) to tidy things,

Hadn't seen that rmolehusband. That looks much better than the one he had gone ahead with. Wonder if he'll use the approved design now?

[seanie]

In the current economic climate with council budgets as they are it is difficult for an authority to commit to sanctioning such action with no degree of certainty in recouping the costs within a reasonable timescale or indeed in the worst case scenario having to CPO the building if the owner cannot pay.

The costs involved are hardly huge, the chances of recouping them fairly high, the ability of the owner to pay not really in doubt, and the chances of a CPO somewhere between none and none at all.

[Porty]

It is a good discussion and enjoyable.

I also find it interesting that such heavy action has happened twice now in Porty in recent times and is positively unheard of in other places.

Is this true?

On the COEC website there has been 130 or so enforcement complaints in the Portobello Parish since 2006 and as you say only 2 "heavy" actions.

I tend to agree with The Mole, once the Councils takes a decsion they have to follow through, otherwise some people would run amok.

I also accept what PB says about grade A listed buildings being damaged. I presume you mean mostly internally? In this case the aberration was there for all to see, right in the Councils face and in a conservation area.

If the dentist follows through with his threats this one could run and run. I can envisage Joni Mitchell and The Counting Crows arriving in a Big Yellow Taxi along the cobble stone Brighton Place singing "they paved a parking lot and threw up a paradise"

[Maria]

If the dentist follows through with his threats this one could run and run. I can envisage Joni Mitchell and The Counting Crows arriving in a Big Yellow Taxi along the cobble stone Brighton Place singing "they paved a parking lot and threw up a paradise"

[Puerto bella]

If the dentist follows through with his threats this one could run and run. I can envisage Joni Mitchell and The Counting Crows arriving in a Big Yellow Taxi along the cobble stone Brighton Place singing "they paved a parking lot and threw up a paradise"

Love it

[Bob Jefferson]

Absolutely no comment. I have an appointment on Tuesday.

[Porty]

Are you going to risk: "well your garden is looking a lot better, must have cost a pretty penny"