10th MAY at 6.30pm in DUNCAN PLACE COMMUNITY HUB
Got concerns about purpose-built student accommodation and luxury developments in your local community?
Join Living Rent for a public forum on the redevelopment of Dalton Scrapyard, where you can bring your questions and concerns directly to your local representatives.
Hold councillors accountable and bring local planning back to the people!
A Scottish Government Reporter appointed to consider the Eyre Place planning application has dismissed the developer’s appeal and refused planning permission.
Nearly 400 objections to the planning application 22/0384/FUL (Student Accommodation) 72-74 Eyre Place were received from residents. The residents were largely concerned with the overall scale of the development, its overbearing presence blocking natural light for neighbours, and dense accommodation which would overburden local infrastructure and amenities.
Many local residents, therefore, felt the proposal was not compatible with the character of the area in terms of use or design and could also increase noise and disturbance due to plans that the top storey of the flats would be dedicated to ‘entertainment’ and karaoke booths.
On 11 January 2023, it was unanimously agreed by The City of Edinburgh Council’s Planning and Development Management Sub-Committee that a hearing would be held, so that local residents and developers could make their case in the Council chambers, before a final vote was held.
However, the developers, CA Europe Operating Company, appealed, and a Reporter, (a lawyer appointed by Scottish Government Ministers), instead was tasked to decide on the merits of the planning application.
Foysol Choudhury, list MSP for Lothian, raised deep concerns at the time about the fact that the public hearing would not take place and that the voices of local residents would not be heard, with local democracy being sidelined by the developer’s appeal.
Responding to the news that the Reporter has now dismissed the developer’s appeal and that planning permission has been denied, Foysol Choudhury MSP said: “My constituents are overjoyed at this result and they should be congratulated for all their hard work in organising as a community, to ensure their concerns about this planning application were heard by elected officials.
“Many of my constituents told me that the community was in despair, not just because of the proposed development but because they felt the decision to sideline the public hearing led to their voices being silenced.
“The developers attempted to bypass local democracy and failed in their appeal, which is of course a relief for my constituents, but we must learn lessons so that local democracy is not circumvented like this again in the future.
“Nevertheless, I am glad that this deeply unpopular planning application has been denied. It’s great to see what can be achieved through the power of community!”
Local resident, Hannah Edwards, said: “Our community is delighted with the Reporter’s decision. It reflects what was obvious to so many when we first saw this aggressive proposal 18 months ago.
“A development of this size on a constrained site would have had a really negative impact on the lives of so many. We’re eternally grateful to each and every person who fought so hard to get the result we were so dearly hoping for.”
A Scottish Government Reporter has granted planning permission for a planning application by S1 Developments for an ‘exciting new student residential development’ at Edinburgh’s former Tynecastle High School site.
In addition to 468 bedspaces, the original school hall will be repurposed as a central amenity hub, sitting within a collegiate-style courtyard space and providing high quality shared facilities for student residents.
Landscaping proposals increase green space across the site by more than 40 per cent, helping to increase biodiversity within the local area.
The development has been designed to be highly sustainable with zero parking, 100 per cent cycle parking, the employment of low carbon technologies and no use of fossil fuels.
In his report, the Reporter noted that the “development of the site for mainstream housing would be constrained by the presence of the listed buildings”, making student development a more viable option.
In addition, he identified the site which is dominated by the football ground and North British Distillery, as being more suitable for students “who would only spend part of their year in residence” and then only for the length of their University or college courses.
The Reporter also noted the proximity of universities and colleges to the site and that the student population in the local area, including the proposed development would be approximately 24% and therefore not lead to an overly concentrated student population in the area.
He notes that this figure is well below the 50% given to demonstrated excessive concentration of students and in his view would not lead to an “imbalanced community”.
Developers S1 Developments say this high-quality student development will regenerate a site that has lain vacant for over a decade and fallen into a state of disrepair.
The careful restoration of the original Category B-listed school building, designed by John Alexander Carfrae, forms an integral part of the proposals. The development will far exceed amenity standards for similar student developments and has sustainability at its heart.
Council guidance points to the benefits of purpose-built student accommodation in freeing up traditional housing stock for families with children and it has been estimated that a development such as this could release up to 180 properties back into the housing market. Local businesses will also benefit through increased spending from student residents.
Charity People Know How will act as preferred operators for community facilities on the site. This which already works with Tynecastle High School, will operate a community facility within the building.
People Know How will operate a community facility, with the option for other local community groups to use space. The charity supports children, young people and their families in Edinburgh transition from primary to high school; helps individuals access the digital world and assists communities to shape their areas through community consultation and empowerment.
A large number of students volunteer to work with the charity, and this enables a positive relationship with students in the building to be established. Not only does this support the charity in its work, but also benefits the volunteers and engages them in the local area.
Dan Teague, Director at S1 Developments, said: “We’re delighted to have received planning permission for this exciting development.
“The original school building has fallen into a sorry state since it ceased being a school over a decade ago. Whilst the redevelopment is challenging, our proposed use brings with it an opportunity to save and renovate the original school building and continue its educational use, benefitting the local community.
“The Reporter also noted that this was a site more suitable for student housing than mainstream housing due to the constraints of the football stadium and North British Distillery.
“We look forward to working constructively with the community in delivering this development.”
The developers of the RBS site on Dundas Street, Ediston, wish to construct a (temporary) 4-/5-storey office accommodation block on Dundas Street while post-demolition redevelopment onto scores of flats etc. takes place.
Fettes Row & Royal Crescent Association, the local residents’ group, is objecting strongly (see letter to Ediston, below) and so is New Town & Broughton Community Council.
The block would encroach upon the street and be permanently lit with an “underpass” for pedestrians … a bit like George IV Bridge outside the hotel but probably bigger.
David Gow,
Fettes Row & Royal Crescent Association acting secretary
The letter reads:
Having considered your plans, we would say the plans are unacceptable on many fronts:
They amount to unnecessary and extensive street clutter. The process of planning this project should surely have planned adequate accommodation for the duration of the project. If this is not the case, the failure will amount to further inconvenience, disruption, pollution and loss of amenity for local residents over and above that already being endured by local businesses and residents.
Despite your point that the ‘tunnel’ underneath the proposed accommodation will be lit and provide adequate space to pass through, it will still amount to a significant obstruction to the passage of pedestrians and traffic, possibly resulting in pedestrians having to walk on the roadway at very busy times.
The obstruction in this location will cause a sclerosis of traffic on a very busy thoroughfare. Dundas St. is a route for public and tourist buses, delivery lorries and, critically, ambulances and fire engines. The current tunnel walkway on George IV bridge, similar to that you propose, is partially dark at night, and does not feel safe or comfortable for pedestrians at night-time;
The presence of the accommodation will result in a prolonged loss of parking spaces in front of the site. This will further congest the limited parking available to residents and business in the area;
Why is this project unable to accommodate its workers on site when other huge developments locally (eg the St. James Centre) have managed to execute their works without intruding further on local surroundings?
There are areas (admittedly limited) which are planned to be open areas in the completed project. Why can these not be used to house the accommodation? Furthermore, why can’t the project’s use of Centrum House continue in effect as accommodation for contractors?
The site development will be phased and accommodation could, and should be moved within the site, as phases progress.
You say the local residents will benefit from the location of the accommodation on Dundas St. Frankly any benefit residents would receive, and that would be questionable, would be at the margins, given the wholesale long term disruption to life and amenity this project is already causing by its execution.
The only beneficiary of the proposal we can see, in fact, is the developer who will save costs which might or might not have been incurred by inadequate planning. In any event, we can see no benefit which would go any where near compensating residents for the inconvenience this plan would cause.
Yours sincerely,
Judith Symes,
Acting chair, for and on behalf of the Fettes Row and Royal Crescent Association
The final steps towards introducing a Low Emission Zone (LEZ) in Edinburgh this May is expected to be given the green light by councillors this week.
A report to Transport and Environment Committee on Thursday recommends proceeding with the scheme approved in January, and to submit the Final Submission to Scottish Ministers for consideration.
The recommendations follow a month-long Statutory Notice Period in February, during which 26 objections and one note of support were received. After full analysis of the objections, officers advised there is no justification for changes to the scheme, though have affirmed that work will continue apace to ensure any potential impacts from the scheme are mitigated.
Edinburgh’s city centre LEZ would apply to all motor vehicles, except motorcycles and mopeds, with a two-year grace period and allowing certain exemptions, including for blue badge holders and emergency vehicles.
Once the LEZ is in place, vehicles must meet a minimum emissions standard to enter the zone freely, and those that don’t will be considered non-compliant and subject to penalties.
Councillor Lesley Macinnes, Transport and Environment Convener, said: “Being able to breathe clean air is a right we all deserve, and by introducing a Low Emission Zone in the city centre we want to tackle air pollution in one of the most densely-populated parts of Edinburgh.
“Our officers have carried out a great deal of planning, modelling and analysis, in line with national frameworks, to develop our proposals. They have been able to draw on this evidence in response to objections received during the Statutory Notice Period. I’m confident that the proposed scheme will deliver significant benefits to quality of life in our city.”
Councillor Karen Doran, Transport and Environment Vice Convener, said: “Significant work carried out to assess this scheme’s impact on carbon emissions, as well as the proposed boundaries and grace period, demonstrates that these proposals are appropriate for the city.
“The LEZ, alongside a range of ambitious projects to improve air quality, will encourage more sustainable transport and support active travel, and is key to achieving cleaner air for everyone.”
In general, objections to the scheme focused on the size and location of the boundary, the impacts of traffic displacement and the potential financial challenges of complying. Other objections included concerns around exemptions, the effects on individuals and businesses and the evidence base for the scheme.
Thursday’s report addresses objections by theme. Amongst the reasoning for proceeding with the current scheme is the significant modelling and analysis carried out under the National Modelling Framework and Options Appraisal work undertaken in accordance with the National Low Emission Framework.
This research demonstrates the rationale for the proposed boundary and the short-lived impact on traffic at its periphery. A Network Management Strategy is also being developed to counter any traffic displacement.
In response to concerns around the financial challenge of complying with the LEZ, significant support provided by the Scottish Government was highlighted.
This included funding to mitigate impacts for those most in need, in the context of Covid recovery. Some objections related to national exemptions, though the report confirms that these are prescribed in the regulations and the Council has no powers to amend them.
With regard to local exemptions, it is proposed that these are only issued on a case-by-case basis and in exceptional circumstances. It is recommended that a LEZ Local Exemption Advisory Panel (LEZ-LEAP) is established to consider requests for local time-limited exemptions.
In conclusion, the report summarises the evidence for introducing the scheme and refers to previous reporting which has been presented to Committee to support this.
Throughout the development of an LEZ for Edinburgh, consultation, engagement and scientific evidence, following national frameworks, has highlighted both why we need cleaner air and how to bring this about for Edinburgh’s requirements, while supporting the city’s Covid recovery.
A full breakdown of objections and responses is available as an appendix to the report.
Read the full report, Low Emission Zone – Objections Report and Final Submission, on the Council website.
Women Speak Scotland, as part of a coalition of 14 Scottish grassroots feminist and women’s rights organisations, have called on the Scottish Parliament to reject the Scottish Government’s proposed reform of the Gender Recognition Act.
Our joint statement, sent to all 129 MSPs, sets out our principled objections to the proposed legislation in its current form.
The First Minister has offered an assurance that this new legislation will “not … remove any of the legal protections women currently have”.
We welcome this commitment to women’s sex-based rights.
However, we believe the central feature of the proposed Bill – the introduction of sex self-identification – is incompatible with retaining women’s existing rights and protections under the Equality Act.
We use the term sex self-ID rather than gender self-ID because the most significant aspect of obtaining a gender recognition certificate (GRC) is that it allows people to engage in the legal fiction that they have become a member of the opposite sex, despite the biological impossibility of such an action.
Sex self-ID contributes to widespread confusion that makes it increasingly difficult to name, identify or define women or to protect any single-sex spaces, including hospital wards, prisons, youth hostels and changing rooms, sports, awards and women-only shortlists.
We ask the Scottish Government to drop its plans to introduce sex self-ID and to ensure its commitment to women is kept by:
We ask all MSPs to vote against the proposed Bill because of its hugely detrimental impact on women’s rights to safe single-sex spaces and freedom of speech.
Signatories
Frontline Feminists Scotland
Women Speak Scotland
Sole Sisters
Women Matter
Keep Prisons Single Sex
Liberal Voice for Women
Yes Women’s Pledge
Labour Women’s Declaration
Conservatives For Women
Independence for Scotland Party (ISP)
Brodie’s Trust
Audacious Women Festival
National Network of Scottish Feminists
Women’s Human Rights Campaign (Scotland)
For more information, please contact info@womenspeakscotland.com
