Planning Issues

by Marian McIntyre
(reprinted from The Inverleith News, Summer 2004)

Monitoring of Planning Applications

You may wonder how the Inverleith Society monitors Planning Applications over the year. A Committee member checks the City
of Edinburgh Council website (Edinburgh.gov.uk/planning) every week or so and forwards relevant applications to our Planning sub-committee. The sub-committee decides whether any applications merit further action and follows up those that do with a visit to the Planning Department in Cockburn Street to view the plans. This office-hours visit can be tricky to manage as we all have work commitments. As stated with some satisfaction on its website, the Planning website is now one year old. Although undoubtedly useful its value would be greatly enhanced if application plans, details and drawings were available online.

If the sub-committee members have concerns with the proposals they then pass their comments to the Committee Secretary who writes formally to the Planning Department. Comments and objections must be material to the Planning Guidelines, not subjective. Since we are an amenity group and not a Community Council, objections received from the Inverleith Society are not considered statutory objections.

Advice to Homeowners

If you are planning any alterations to your house you should visit the Planning Department’s website first, but it also worth visiting the Planning Office at 1 Cockburn Street for a quick chat with the duty officer. If you receive the Inverleith News you are almost certainly within the Conservation area and the alterations you make must be in keeping with the appropriate Planning Guidelines. These are listed by topic on the website, but detailed information so far is only available at the Planning Office. Topics cover, for example, the finishes you can use in a Conservation area. Don’t invest in plastic double glazing until you have checked, no matter how charming and persuasive the salesman! And you are most unlikely to be able to get the go ahead with a contract of that sort.

Individual Cases

One of the most important cases this year is the two storey building at the West Gate to the Botanic Gardens. Ted Cullinan, an architect of international standing with impeccable ‘green’ credentials, has proposed a low lying building clad in stone and timber, which looks a sympathetic and interesting contribution to the gardens (see RBGE contribution later in this issue).

A notable trend over the last couple of years has been the use of leading architects by developers, producing contemporary designs rather than mock traditional. For example, AMA, who built the large development on Inverleith Place (on the Art College site) have recently completed another development by Reaich and Hall at Succoth Avenue, Murrayfield, to general acclaim. Similarly, Applecross, who have a block of flats, New Fields, currently under construction in Kinnear Road, are following this with a stylish modern design at the foot of Dundas Street, designed by Comprehensive Design Partnership.

However, size matters. Regardless how stylish a design is, it is often scale which decides acceptability. A spokesman for the Edinburgh World Heritage Trust said in February 2004 that the Dundas Street block was too large for the New Town. Similarly, an interesting design by Richard Murphy on the Trinity House site, north of the Goldenacre traffic lights, is marred by its scale. Nine storeys at the last count, 4 metres higher than the roofline of the tenements opposite - is this the Appleton Tower of the north side? An active campaign group is lobbying the Planning Department to reduce this massive development just neighbouring our area.
The Society supports this initiative to retain the scale of the existing housing in the area.

The sub-committee is also conscious that small details add up to a visual texture which enhances the environment. In minor cases we try to limit our comments to cases where we can really make a difference. We do not comment on many homeowner plans, knowing that we are all very much regulated as it is. However, where the proposals are very much out of keeping with our streetscapes, we do object. We objected, for instance, to the obtrusive ‘strawberries’ advertising Connor Malcolm’s practice, which was erected without benefit of Planning Permission (even though they advertise themselves as planning consultants). That building is already peppered with old fixing marks and this new advertising just added some more. Not appropriate treatment for a listed building. Sadly, their retrospective application was accepted by the Planning Department.

If you are a planning/architecture professional with time on your hands we would love you to join us on the Committee (or as an advisor if you prefer) so don’t be shy, let us know. Inverleith needs you!

Marian McIntyre

Planning Issues Archive
2004
2005
2006
2007