www.boylecartoon.co.uk
Bottom of Bath St -> Change of Use
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
Frank
I am responsible for the community website, Portobello Online. This is a not-for-profit venture, run entirely by local volunteers.
We were most amused by your 'Miami' cartoon in yesterday's EN and I would like your retrospective permission to use it on our discussion forum. I have included a link to your website.
Hope this is OK. Obviously I will remove it immediately if that is what you wish.
Regards
Bob Jefferson for Portobello Online
Dear Bob,
That's brilliant. I love it when local groups want to use my cartoons. I presume you scanned it directly from the Evening News. The quality isn't great, so I've sent you a copy from the original.
I live in Glasgow but I do love Porty and after I got the EN job I thought about moving there. Sadly the house prices have rocketed so I doubt I could afford it now. I haven't been for a couple of years so I didn't realise that new building was so big.
Good luck with the anti-superstore campaign. I must do a cartoon about that too.
Regards,
Frank
-
Brian McCrow
- Posts: 224
- Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 12:11
- Location: Portobello
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
How about this for bare-faced cheek? Not only has Gregor Properties appealled against the decision to refuse a change of use of the ground floor units, but they have also filed a claim for expenses against the Planning Department on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour!
Question 1: How hard did the developers try to market these units?
Question 2: Was the change of use the game plan all along and now they're miffed because it didn't work?
Appeal
Expenses
Question 1: How hard did the developers try to market these units?
Question 2: Was the change of use the game plan all along and now they're miffed because it didn't work?
Appeal
Expenses
Quite unbelievable.Bob Jefferson wrote:How about this for bare-faced cheek? Not only has Gregor Properties appealled against the decision to refuse a change of use of the ground floor units, but they have also filed a claim for expenses against the Planning Department on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour!
I can't imagine that two ground floor flats right on the Prom with no frontage separating them from the Prom itself would be any easier to market, if indeed, as you say Bob, they tried at all to market the commercial units.
In good weather that little section attracts loads of people who sit on the wall with drinks from the pub or takeaways from the Porto Grill. Who'd want that right outside their front window?
What an ideal position on the other hand for a coffee kiosk.
Thought you may be interested to know that there are 2 Flats which have yet to be sold, so the stories of waiting lists were a bit overstated. Together those flats are worth about £450,000, which is likely to be a fair chunk,if not all of the developers profit.
There has not been many of the flats at the top of Bath street sold and the other Bath Street developers or their financiers must be nervous.
There has not been many of the flats at the top of Bath street sold and the other Bath Street developers or their financiers must be nervous.
Appeal and Expenses
Is it possible to activate the links into Appeal and Expenses in Bob's (most interesting) posting at the top of this page? At the moment it comes up as page unavailable.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
-
Hawkeye
The result of the appeal came through this week and as was expected the developer is going to be allowed to convert the bottom storey into flats. Anybody remember the cafe being marketed for 20 months? As some of the flats haven't sold why not convert these into something else? This developer intended all along to get residential use for the whole block as they craftily shoe-horned eleven car parking spaces into the site right from the beginning.
The sooner some of the Reporters acknowledged the democratic decision making process of the local councils who represent everyone, including developers, the better.
The sooner some of the Reporters acknowledged the democratic decision making process of the local councils who represent everyone, including developers, the better.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
From Lawrence Marshall:
Dear All
I'm very sorry to have to let you know that the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit (SEIRU) has allowed the appeal by Gregor Properties Limited against the refusal by the City of Edinburgh Council of planning permission to convert the ground floor of 28 and 28a Promenade into two flats. The ground floor had previously been granted permission by SEIRU for office and cafe use. This latest SEIRU decision can be accessed at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/planning/sei ... 30_739.pdf
Given that the original appeal decision by SEIRU http://www.scotland.gov.uk/planning/sei ... 30_388.pdf - again against the decision of the City of Edinburgh Council - allowing this building to go ahead in the first place made specific mention of the contribution that a coffee kiosk at "this key location" could in particular make to the regeneration of the Promenade (see paras. 21 and 24 especially), I find this decision somewhat inconsistent! This is indeed a "key location", a corner site located at the junction of the Promenade with the primary street leading to anf from it. While conversion of shops to flats a little further up Bath Street has proved uncontroversial and indeed of benefit in townscape terms, I did not think that those arguments applied to a new building on this most prominent of Promenade locations - and with commercial uses directly opposite which a cafe and office would have, in a modern idiom, mirrored. I argued thus at the meeting of the Development Quality Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee held on 2nd February this year and was grateful for the Committee's unanimous support for refusal - despite the officer recommendation to grant planning permission for this change of use.
Moreover, I do think - having had some inquiries regarding premises available in Portobello in recent weeks - that it may well have been possible to lease these premises, if not for cafe use then at least for retail/meeting space. Granting permission for flats is in effect irreversible and will, in my view, produce a dead frontage with no public interaction whatsoever - indeed, any such interaction, even if merely visual, will surely be detrimental to the use of these premises for residential purposes.
I am really dismayed by this decision. We in effect can do little more than note it but I have discussed this with Councillor Trevor Davies, Convener of the Planning Committee, and he will add it to the issues he regularly now raises with the Scottish Executive regarding SEIRU decision-making. I disagreed with the original SEIRU grant of planning permission for this new block but I could at least understand the arguments made. For another Reporter subsequently to even in part undermine that reasoning I find disturbing and especially so given the controversial nature of the original grant at appeal. It only adds insult to injury.
I am also copying this to Susan Deacon MSP as I know that she takes an especial interest in the workings of the planning system.
Finally, please find pasted in below a copy of the Council's written submission to SEIRU on this matter.
Lawrence
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
And here is that submission referred to in the previous post:
SUBMISSIONS BY THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL in PLANNING APPEAL BY GREGOR PROPERTIES LIMITED in respect of THE REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION for ALTERATION AND CHANGE OF USE TO FORM TWO FLATTED DWELLING HOUSES at 28 & 28A PROMENADE, EDINBURGH, EH15 1HH
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE REFERENCE :- P\PPA\230\739
CEC REFERENCE :- 04/04370/FUL
GENERAL
For a full description of the site and for details of the Council's consideration of this application reference is made to the report enclosed under cover of the questionnaire. Said report (minus the section entitled "Addendum") was first considered by the Council's Development Quality Sub-Committee on 2nd February 2005. The report as extended to include the Addendum section was considered by the Sub-Committee on 16th February 2005 following which continued consideration the application was refused.
The Council's reason for refusal is based upon the development plan considerations outlined below and also on one additional significant material consideration namely the terms of the Reporter's decision in a previous appeal relating to this site (SEIRU Ref P/PPA/230/388 – a copy of said decision letter is enclosed herewith and referred to for its terms).
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The Approved Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan 2015 and the North East Edinburgh Local Plan constitute the relevant Development Plan in relation to these applications. Material considerations include the Council's Non-Statutory Guidelines entitled "Shops- Conversion to Residential Use".
The Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan 2015
Contains no policies of particular relevance to the determination of this appeal.
North East Edinburgh Local Plan (adopted 30 April 1998 and altered by Alteration adopted 22 January 2004)
Contains the following relevant policies:-
Policy H1 (HOUSING DEVELOPMENT) encourages the provision of new housing development on identified sites.
Policy H3 (HOUSING - CONVERSION OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS) encourages, and sets out citeria for assessing, the change of use of suitable non-residential buildings to housing.
Policy E21 (CONSERVATION AREAS - GENERAL): requires proposed development within a conservation area to retain all features which contribute to the character and appearance of the area.
NB – the Portobello Conservation Area is classified as Outstanding by the Historic Buildings Inspectorate
Policy E22 (CONSERVATION AREAS - REDEVELOPMENT): sets out criteria against which new development in conservation areas will be assessed.
Policy E25 (DESIGN OF NEW DEVELOPMENT - OBJECTIVE): encourages new development of the highest possible standard.
Policy E26 (QUALITY OF NEW DEVELOPMENT): sets out general design requirements for new development, and requires particular attention to be paid to main approach roads to the city centre and seafront and waterfront locations.
Policy T7 (CYCLE PARKING) requires new development to provide secure cycle parking in conformity with approved standards and in appropriate public locations where it contributes to greater cycle use.
Policy T10 (PRIVATE CAR PARKING) requires all new development to comply with approved car parking standards as set out in the Development Control Handbook.
Non-Statutory Guidelines entitled "SHOPS - CONVERSION TO RESIDENTIAL USE"
These supplement local plan policies, providing guidance for assessing planning applications for the conversion of shop units to residential use. These were approved by the Council in November 1998.
DISCUSSION - comments on grounds of appeal
Reference is made to the Appellants' Grounds of Appeal as set out in the document received by the Council under cover of a compliment slip dated 1st June 2005.
In support of the Council's decision on this application the Council would refer to the reasons for refusal set out in the decision Notice issued by the Council dated 18th February 2005. A copy of this Notice has been lodged by the Appellants.
It should be noted that the refusal is based on the Council's conclusion that as well as falling foul of Policies E21 and E22 of the local plan the development proposed would be contrary to the conclusions of the appeal decision Ref P/PPA/230/388.
Dealing with the relevant policies and with the previous appeal decision in turn:-
As regards Policy E21 & E22 the Council takes the view that the cumulative effect of the development proposals serves to detract from the contribution which the building currently makes to the character and appearance of the Portobello Conservation Area. Reference is made to the proposed infilling of the lower section of the openings, the additional pier, and the proposed window alterations. The Council disputes that the proposals would have the neutral effect which the Appellant's agent claims they would have. In the Council's view these proposals would neither preserve nor enhance the area's special interest and its character and appearance. In this respect reference is made in particular to the Local Plan's Portobello Conservation Area Character Statement (copy enclosed) which refers to the seaside character of the Promenade. The Council takes the view that the consented coffee kiosk with its glazed frontage enhances this character, adding vitality, which the proposed residential use with its altered dead frontage would not.
The Council would accept that the Appellant's apparent inability to lease or sell the ground floor area in the comparatively short time since it was constructed is indeed, as the Appellant's Agent indicate, a material consideration to be taken into account in determining this appeal. However it is a consideration that falls to be weighed against the background of the very appeal decision which authorised the erection of the building of which the ground floor forms part. As acknowledged in the Committee report and as evidenced in appeal decision Ref P/PPA/230/388 issued as recently as May 2002 the inclusion of a proposal for a corner coffee shop kiosk appears to have been an important factor in the reasoning which resulted in that appeal being allowed. The Reporter in that case viewed "the coffee kiosk particularly as potentially making a significant contribution to community life in that it would provide a social venue and be likely to attract more people back onto the Promenade." (para 21). Additionally in paragraph 24 of the decision reference is made to the contribution the coffee kiosk would make inter alia to the Council's programme to regenerate the Promenade. The Reporter's views were echoed in the Development Quality Sub-Committee's comments of 2nd February 2005 relating to the loss of mixed use development to the detriment of the amenity, vitality and character of the area. The Reporter's views were also subsequently reflected in the Council's ultimate decision to refuse the application which is the subject of the current appeal.
CONCLUSIONS
In terms of section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 these appeals require to be determined in accordance with the terms of the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
So far as concerns the planning application the proposal is contrary to Policies E21 and E22 of the North East Edinburgh Local Plan and contrary to the conclusions reached by the Reporter in Appeal Ref P/PPA/230/388.
The Council would submit that it has demonstrated that this application is contrary to the terms of the Development Plan. The Council would further submit that there are no material considerations in this case which suggest that the determination of this application should not be made in terms of the Development Plan. In fact the principal material consideration of substance - namely the previous appeal decision – would, in the interests of consistency appear to point to a refusal as being the appropriate response to this appeal.
The Council would therefore respectfully request that for the foregoing reasons the Reporter should uphold the Council's reasons for refusal of this application and dismiss this appeal.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL in PLANNING APPEAL BY GREGOR PROPERTIES LIMITED in respect of THE REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION for ALTERATION AND CHANGE OF USE TO FORM TWO FLATTED DWELLING HOUSES at 28 & 28A PROMENADE, EDINBURGH, EH15 1HH
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE REFERENCE :- P\PPA\230\739
CEC REFERENCE :- 04/04370/FUL
GENERAL
For a full description of the site and for details of the Council's consideration of this application reference is made to the report enclosed under cover of the questionnaire. Said report (minus the section entitled "Addendum") was first considered by the Council's Development Quality Sub-Committee on 2nd February 2005. The report as extended to include the Addendum section was considered by the Sub-Committee on 16th February 2005 following which continued consideration the application was refused.
The Council's reason for refusal is based upon the development plan considerations outlined below and also on one additional significant material consideration namely the terms of the Reporter's decision in a previous appeal relating to this site (SEIRU Ref P/PPA/230/388 – a copy of said decision letter is enclosed herewith and referred to for its terms).
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The Approved Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan 2015 and the North East Edinburgh Local Plan constitute the relevant Development Plan in relation to these applications. Material considerations include the Council's Non-Statutory Guidelines entitled "Shops- Conversion to Residential Use".
The Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan 2015
Contains no policies of particular relevance to the determination of this appeal.
North East Edinburgh Local Plan (adopted 30 April 1998 and altered by Alteration adopted 22 January 2004)
Contains the following relevant policies:-
Policy H1 (HOUSING DEVELOPMENT) encourages the provision of new housing development on identified sites.
Policy H3 (HOUSING - CONVERSION OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS) encourages, and sets out citeria for assessing, the change of use of suitable non-residential buildings to housing.
Policy E21 (CONSERVATION AREAS - GENERAL): requires proposed development within a conservation area to retain all features which contribute to the character and appearance of the area.
NB – the Portobello Conservation Area is classified as Outstanding by the Historic Buildings Inspectorate
Policy E22 (CONSERVATION AREAS - REDEVELOPMENT): sets out criteria against which new development in conservation areas will be assessed.
Policy E25 (DESIGN OF NEW DEVELOPMENT - OBJECTIVE): encourages new development of the highest possible standard.
Policy E26 (QUALITY OF NEW DEVELOPMENT): sets out general design requirements for new development, and requires particular attention to be paid to main approach roads to the city centre and seafront and waterfront locations.
Policy T7 (CYCLE PARKING) requires new development to provide secure cycle parking in conformity with approved standards and in appropriate public locations where it contributes to greater cycle use.
Policy T10 (PRIVATE CAR PARKING) requires all new development to comply with approved car parking standards as set out in the Development Control Handbook.
Non-Statutory Guidelines entitled "SHOPS - CONVERSION TO RESIDENTIAL USE"
These supplement local plan policies, providing guidance for assessing planning applications for the conversion of shop units to residential use. These were approved by the Council in November 1998.
DISCUSSION - comments on grounds of appeal
Reference is made to the Appellants' Grounds of Appeal as set out in the document received by the Council under cover of a compliment slip dated 1st June 2005.
In support of the Council's decision on this application the Council would refer to the reasons for refusal set out in the decision Notice issued by the Council dated 18th February 2005. A copy of this Notice has been lodged by the Appellants.
It should be noted that the refusal is based on the Council's conclusion that as well as falling foul of Policies E21 and E22 of the local plan the development proposed would be contrary to the conclusions of the appeal decision Ref P/PPA/230/388.
Dealing with the relevant policies and with the previous appeal decision in turn:-
As regards Policy E21 & E22 the Council takes the view that the cumulative effect of the development proposals serves to detract from the contribution which the building currently makes to the character and appearance of the Portobello Conservation Area. Reference is made to the proposed infilling of the lower section of the openings, the additional pier, and the proposed window alterations. The Council disputes that the proposals would have the neutral effect which the Appellant's agent claims they would have. In the Council's view these proposals would neither preserve nor enhance the area's special interest and its character and appearance. In this respect reference is made in particular to the Local Plan's Portobello Conservation Area Character Statement (copy enclosed) which refers to the seaside character of the Promenade. The Council takes the view that the consented coffee kiosk with its glazed frontage enhances this character, adding vitality, which the proposed residential use with its altered dead frontage would not.
The Council would accept that the Appellant's apparent inability to lease or sell the ground floor area in the comparatively short time since it was constructed is indeed, as the Appellant's Agent indicate, a material consideration to be taken into account in determining this appeal. However it is a consideration that falls to be weighed against the background of the very appeal decision which authorised the erection of the building of which the ground floor forms part. As acknowledged in the Committee report and as evidenced in appeal decision Ref P/PPA/230/388 issued as recently as May 2002 the inclusion of a proposal for a corner coffee shop kiosk appears to have been an important factor in the reasoning which resulted in that appeal being allowed. The Reporter in that case viewed "the coffee kiosk particularly as potentially making a significant contribution to community life in that it would provide a social venue and be likely to attract more people back onto the Promenade." (para 21). Additionally in paragraph 24 of the decision reference is made to the contribution the coffee kiosk would make inter alia to the Council's programme to regenerate the Promenade. The Reporter's views were echoed in the Development Quality Sub-Committee's comments of 2nd February 2005 relating to the loss of mixed use development to the detriment of the amenity, vitality and character of the area. The Reporter's views were also subsequently reflected in the Council's ultimate decision to refuse the application which is the subject of the current appeal.
CONCLUSIONS
In terms of section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 these appeals require to be determined in accordance with the terms of the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
So far as concerns the planning application the proposal is contrary to Policies E21 and E22 of the North East Edinburgh Local Plan and contrary to the conclusions reached by the Reporter in Appeal Ref P/PPA/230/388.
The Council would submit that it has demonstrated that this application is contrary to the terms of the Development Plan. The Council would further submit that there are no material considerations in this case which suggest that the determination of this application should not be made in terms of the Development Plan. In fact the principal material consideration of substance - namely the previous appeal decision – would, in the interests of consistency appear to point to a refusal as being the appropriate response to this appeal.
The Council would therefore respectfully request that for the foregoing reasons the Reporter should uphold the Council's reasons for refusal of this application and dismiss this appeal.
From Lawrence Marshall:
Anyone know if Gregor Homes' claim for expenses was awarded?
Totally agree. Wouldn't fancy living on a ground floor flat there myself. Wonder who will?Granting permission for flats is in effect irreversible and will, in my view, produce a dead frontage with no public interaction whatsoever - indeed, any such interaction, even if merely visual, will surely be detrimental to the use of these premises for residential purposes.
Anyone know if Gregor Homes' claim for expenses was awarded?
www.porty.org.uk
Totally agree too, and a real shame that the appeal was won. I would like to see the evidence that Gregor Homes have actively pursued renting out the ground floor to a cafe/retail enterprise. It looks to me like they sat on their thumbs waiting so they could ask to convert flats and say "we tried, but no one wanted to rent the space.." 
What I'm really disappointed in is that I believe this space would have been ideal for a cafe/coffee shop. Imagine a shop like 'Beanscene' or even 'Starbucks' with a cafe overlooking the beach, with full length windows opened to the view of the sea (weather permitting). I also believe the trade would be there all year round, even in winter there are plenty of people walking taking a 'fresh air' walk along the Prom - a coffee shop would be a welcome rest stop on the way. I wish I had the money/backing to have gone for it!
An opportunity wasted.
What I'm really disappointed in is that I believe this space would have been ideal for a cafe/coffee shop. Imagine a shop like 'Beanscene' or even 'Starbucks' with a cafe overlooking the beach, with full length windows opened to the view of the sea (weather permitting). I also believe the trade would be there all year round, even in winter there are plenty of people walking taking a 'fresh air' walk along the Prom - a coffee shop would be a welcome rest stop on the way. I wish I had the money/backing to have gone for it!
An opportunity wasted.
miami flatz
£ 750 a month ????? They'll have a great view of the weekly 'scraps' at the foot of Bath Street and outside Utopia which are a fairly frequent feature of Prom dwelling these days.
MIAMI VICE
No, but there's a nasty wee security guard type that takes great pleasure in pointing out the 'private parking' sign every time I load my kayak onto my car on his patch.
If the ground floor dwellers ever need rescued in a flood, don't come looking for me!
If the ground floor dwellers ever need rescued in a flood, don't come looking for me!
-
Pal of Porty
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 13:41
- Location: Old Folks Home
- Contact:
Miami Flats
The new residents will have to be people who like a lot of noise and no privacy! No thanks.
-
Pal of Porty
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 13:41
- Location: Old Folks Home
- Contact:
