10/01741/FUL - Bellfield Lane planning application

[seanie]

There has been recent discussion about the PPC and how things could be improved. Further discussion is really required and hopefully we'll be able to make things a little more transparent than they've sometimes been in the past.

Whether or not or not you agree with the above letter, it's reasonably representative of the views expressed within the PCC.

[allaboardtheskylark]

Anybody know when this will be decided. Can't be long now, sure ir was to be decided in August.

[seanie]

If I were the Planning Department I might be treading water on this one.

The two previous applications at 17 & 19, recommended for approval but refused by committee, are currently subject to appeals. I'm not sure the Planning Department are all that confident in defending the refusals, not least because in both instances two of the three original grounds given for refusal have changed come the appeal.

In any event they're in an awkward position. They might want to recommend approval but know the committee are likely to want to refuse given recent history. Or the judgement in the two appeals effectively establishes, one way or another, what is and isn't acceptable in the location.

There might be a temptation to string things out till the appeals are settled, then make the recommendation in line with those.

[Puerto bella]

Seanie you won't mind me putting right your inaccuracy, we wouldn't want the Porty massive being misled on here...........The Planning 'Department' ie officers - do not defend appeals on applications that they recommended for approval which were refused by elected members.

[seanie]

Sorry. You're right.

Just making the point that the reasons for refusal have changed. That suggests to me that someone's realised that at least some of the original reasons were pretty weak.

[Bob Jefferson]

Whether or not or not you agree with the above letter, it's reasonably representative of the views expressed within the PCC.

Do you think so? It was a very marginal decision - 7 FOR, 8 AGAINST. I don't feel that the letter reflects that well enough. The objectors' views are given much more weight (529 words) compared with the supporters' views (a mere 155 words). Perhaps those who wished to support the application should have been allowed to elect their own spokesperson and each side could have submitted their arguments to a maximum number of words to be incorporated into the final letter?

But more transparency is certainly to be welcomed.

[seanie]

I think that sort of approach could get very convoluted, although I think some thought is required on PCC correspondence. In the past it wasn't such of an issue given the custom of only commenting when there was consensus.

Now that votes are being taken and we will be commenting on issues where there is disagreement (which is a perfectly legitimat approach) the issue of drafting letters becomes more complex. A letter need to be a fair reflection of the range of views, but letters written by committee aren't great.

[Porty]

The letter is an improvement on previous "objections" from the PCC.

I'm not convinced the number of words allocated to "for" or "against" is all that relevant. Planners will be more interested in the quality of what is said and relevancy to planning policy. I'm pleased with the comments from the "for" camp, the planners will easily relate to the prevailing policies.

At the end of the day the PCC has objected on an 8- 7 vote. The letter indicates that on balance the people of Portobello are not that fussed about the proposed new houses in Bellfield Lane.

This is the start of more balanced representations from PCC. Hopefully the days of allowing one indivdual to compose objections that reflect only their personal view are over. Some won't be happy but the above letter is closer to the way it should be done.

[Grunk]

I love how democracy works...

According to the website pcc is made up 20 members.

8 of which Objected to the plans. Which means 12 of which would either actively encourage the plans or if the plans went ahead, would hold no objection.

So 40% of pcc members object, this translates too ....
a binary 100% objection to the plans by PCC.

It's a shame that some folk's default position on everything is to object. The default stance should always be to encourage enhancement to the local area.

There is character in local area, which reflects 100 years of ideas and various building techniques ovre time. There are lots of examples of architecture from different periods in portobello. Therefore in keeping with tradition we shouldn't be curtailing development, we should be encouraging it. It will add to the organic nature of development within the town.

Just now any modern extensions will look modern, and maybe out of place, However in 100 years they'll look 100 years old, and they wont be in keeping with whatever the styles or techniques are in vogue in the future. If we don't allow for modern stylings now a piece of history will be lost.

In general people don't want to extend for the hell of it or to make some outlandish statement. There is usually a functional need, or at least some desire to improve and leave one's mark (perhaps the only memory of oneself in 100 or 200 years). It's hardly right that the needs of the individual be curtailed buy the nostalgic views of people who may never even see the finished work let alone be affected by it on a day to day basis.

Also rejecting something due to precedent is a lazy man's argument. Go back 150 years and we'd still be using leeches, perhaps the objectors would prefer this kind of medical treatment over modern techniques. Go back 500 years and there would be no objection to any building work (although you may have to defend it with a pitchfork). The reason building look the way that they do is that that was the pinnacle of building material and style at the time.

So, any development projects should always be looked upon favourably, however the contents of the project may be up for scrutiny. If there are outlandish or garish features, or items that really will negatively affect the wider community (and not just in a perceived what if manner) then perhaps instead of objecting outright it be fairer to hold off making a decsion and allowing the plans to evolve until the majority becomes less than 40% of the council.

[allaboardtheskylark]

An interesting arguement.

So if the styles , materials and standards of current buildings do not merge perfectly with the ideal Portobello then nothing gets built at all.

[Porty]

Excellent post and points well made. Grunk

Also rejecting something due to precedent is a lazy man's argumentl.

It could also be a stupid man's argument, which I think it is in this case.. The author is saying that "we have always objected to this type of development therefore we have to keep doing so" Even when the previous grounds for objections didn't stand up. YES we must object, we've always objected and we always will object. STUPID.

He also uses the fact that 2 previous applications are now at the appeal stage as evidence against this latest development. It is dumb. The planners recommended approval, based on planning strategies and the politicians voted them down. Hence the appeals.

PCC should be learing lessons about what is and what is not acceptable? Not bashing on about Caithness stone and lorries banging into corners. Its like a bunch of havering sweetie wife's, who just make stuff up to suit their argument.

[seanie]

The planning portal's been updated and comments received added.

There appears to be 15 objections.

But what's remarkable are the 44 supporting comments received.

[allaboardtheskylark]

What do you think then, does it look positive for the family. Seems as though the support is very strong.

[seanie]

Hopefully it'll be recommended for approval.

But then again, the current Development Management Sub-committee don't seem to take much notice of their Planning Officials.

[Pal of Porty]

The planning portal's been updated and comments received added.
There appears to be 15 objections.
But what's remarkable are the 44 supporting comments received.

I have never seen anything like it!

[rmolehusband]

Same predictable, tired old roll call of objectors too. Sad.

[Pal of Porty]

The letter written by the PCC, although full of holes, was a major step forward in that it was written as a mix of both 'against' and 'for' views rather than just voicing their concerns as has been done previously on many occassions.

They must now however, remind themselves that the PCC is meant to represent the views of the community in general and given the phenomenal level of local support witnessed for this application, they need to assess why they appear to have spectacularly missed the mark yet again.

[seanie]

There were a couple of pretty odd objections too.

[allaboardtheskylark]

Same predictable, tired old roll call of objectors too. Sad.

Everybody has the right to object or to support an application and I defend their right to do so. However, apart from a few local to the proposed new house, you could pick the names and write their objections for them. Same old, same old.

[seanie]

Yep. Even the right to make odd objections should be defended.

[allaboardtheskylark]

the PCC is meant to represent the views of the community in general and given the phenomenal level of local support witnessed for this application, they need to assess why they appear to have spectacularly missed the mark yet again.

You are quite correct PoP. Having said that I am not going to dwell on the subject in this forum and I feel the family should be able to get on with living in peace in their new house, which I am sure they will get.

What I do find surpising is the number of multiple objections accepted by the same people. An individual objection, a group objection and a PCC vote creating another objection, is in my simple little world, one objection.
Not three.

[Bob Jefferson]

Great to see so many messages of support and good luck to the family concerned. Some things in life are more important than defending the conservation area.

[Pal of Porty]

....Some things in life are more important than defending the conservation area.

Indeed they are - but this application significantly enhances the conservation area.

[seanie]

The Planners have recommended approval; it should go before committee this Wednesday.

[allaboardtheskylark]

Will the planners be given the usual vote of no confidence by the committee?

[Porty]

There were a couple of pretty odd objections too.

In what respect?

There were 16 objections in total and 47 support statements. Three of the objectors are basically John Stewart in his various guises, although he did get Gillian Andersion to sign the PAS one. Four of the other objections are from members of Portobello Community Council. When one considers that supporting comments outweighed objections by a factor of 3:1 it is yet more evidence that PCC is little more than a tool used by the hardcore planning terrorists in Portobello.

I hope the vote goes the family's way, although my money will be on a sub-commitee site visit, which will postpone the decsion to some point in the future.

[seanie]

There were a couple of pretty odd objections too.

In what respect?

There was a complaint that the applicants had made an "implicit claim that only slate is used on the roof" whereas in actual fact they would also be using copper.

How did these keen eyed objectors spot this sleight of hand?

Why, the copper was clearly marked and shown on the drawings and coloured elevations.

I bet the applicants must be cursing themselves;

"If only we hadn't provided clearly labelled drawings and coloured elevations showing where we planned to use copper! Then nobody would've spotted our secret plan to use copper!"

[Porty]

Coppertunity knocks?

[seanie]

There was also some doubt cast upon the 'intentions' of the applicants and elaborate specualtion that they were actually intending to operate a business from the premises.

Objecting on the grounds of design, materials, amenity etc is perfectly legitimate, whether or not well founded. But to simply make stuff up about someone elses intensions seems a little uncalled for.

[allaboardtheskylark]

There were a couple of pretty odd objections too.

I hope the vote goes the family's way, although my money will be on a sub-commitee site visit, which will postpone the decsion to some point in the future.

There is support in the community and the planners have backed it so perhaps they will just agree it. I think it would be unfortunate to delay this further.

As for the PCC, I am not going over old ground again. Perhaps it is something for them to discuss? Perhaps they willl seek to be more representative. Only time will tell.

[Porty]

There was also some doubt cast upon the 'intentions' of the applicants and elaborate specualtion that they were actually intending to operate a business from the premises.

Objecting on the grounds of design, materials, amenity etc is perfectly legitimate, whether or not well founded. But to simply make stuff up about someone elses intensions seems a little uncalled for.

Even if they objectors didn't make up the applicants intentions to operate a business from home, it is irrelevant to the residential application. If granted the use would be residential.

If the applicants then decide to operate a business from the premises they MAY require planning permission. It depends on the nature and space requirements of the business. For example; if the applicant was a CA working from home and using less than 40% of the available space ( a large study) then no permission would be required. There is a momentum to encourage working from home.

[seanie]

Granted.

[Maria]

That's good news!

[Porty]

That really is good news and I am delighted to be wrong about the site visit.

[Porty]

I understand that Councillor Stephen Hawkins, who is one of the 15 objectors, turned up at the Development Sub-Commitee and spoke at length in an attempt to persuade them to reject the application.

Can anyone tell us who he claimed to be representing?