Despite at least 37 letters of objection, City Planners will recommend that the Planning Subcommittee approve revised plans for a Sainsbury store at 28 Howe Street on 7 December (Ref. 11/02842/FUL).
The report by John Bury, Head of Planning, can be read by clicking on the pdf at the foot of this page. In it he concludes that:
- The proposed use is acceptable: 'This is not a change of use application. The existing use is retail (class 1) and the proposed use as a Sainsbury store will be the same. A number of letters of representation have been received which object to Sainsbury’s being the new occupant of the premises as well as potential disturbance from deliveries waste odour and increased traffic. However since this is not a change of use it is not possible within the granting of planning permission for these works, to add conditions which would control this use. There will be a small component of baking done on the premises, which will involve the baking of semi-cooked or frozen products three times a day. The products would be for sale only in this branch. As such the bakery function is ancillary to the retail unit and is within the existing class use. The use is established and therefore there are no issues of use'.
- The proposals do not have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the conservation area: 'The proposed plant will be placed on the flat roof of a non-original extension to the rear of the main building. The adjacent property to the south has a higher extension to the rear and the proposed plant will be concealed behind this and will not be readily viewed from street level in the lane to the rear. The change to the appearance of the conservation area will therefore be minimal'.
- The propsals do not adversely affect the listed building or its setting: 'The proposed works will be on the flat roof of a non-original extension and will not be very conspicuous. The works will not have an adverse impact on the listed building or its setting'.
- The proposals are not detrimental to residential amenity or road safety: 'Environmental Services has not objected to the proposed mechanical equipment provided a condition is attached relating to the control of any noise that it may generate. The imposition of this condition will ensure that noise levels generated by the plant will be within acceptable levels. There will be no detrimental impact on residential amenity'.
- In short: 'The proposals comply with the development plan and non-statutory policies, have no adverse effect on the character or appearance of the conservation area or the setting of the listed building, and have no detrimental impact on residential amenity. There are no material planning considerations which outweigh this conclusion.'
[img_assist|nid=2477|title=|desc=|link=node|align=right|width=200|height=150]The Great King Street Association was among those individuals, businesses and organisations which wrote in against the proposal. Deplorably, the New Town and Broughton Community Council's letter of objection was submitted using the wrong reference number, and was thus considered inadmissable. Also deplorably, Historic Scotland felt they had no 'locus' to comment on the issue because they understood 28 Howe Street to be a Category B-listed building. The Councill's own website describes it as a Class A-listed building.
Three familiar points emerge from this sorry tale:
- Current planning procedures are in effect, heavily weighted in favour of professional, well-resourced, wealthy developers. They are opaque and difficult to understand for even the most dedicated laypersons to negotiate.
- Current planning regulations do not reflect or protect the aspirations of Edinburgh citizens when it comes to preserving independent retail diversity on city high streets. Concerned citizens must express their dissatisfaction to politicians.
- The public has it in its power to drive unwelcome supermarkets away. If we don't like them, then we simply shouldn't use them. Unfortunately, far too many consumers are principled in theory but inconsistent in practice.
**********
City Planners have granted listed building consent for the demolition of the Gateway Theatre, workshops and associated buildings at 40–4 Elm Row (Ref. 11/02694/LBC) and for erection in their place of managed studio accommodation, associated amenity and landscaping.
Among other conditions, work must start within 5 years, but not before the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland has accessed the site and recorded the building structure and any other items of interest.
Before work begins on site, the Head of Planning and Strategy requires to approve details of the elevational treatment of the rear of Elm Row once demolition has taken place.
Local reaction to the plans was fairly muted. One letter of objection, from a resident, cited possible noise pollution, loss of light and privacy. One letter of support, from a local buffet, claimed businesses on Elm Row welcomed the development and the arrival of students with money to spend.
The Council's report contains an interesting short history of the area:
The site of the Gateway Theatre has historically accommodated a variety of uses. As well as being a veterinary college, it has also been used as a timber yard, cab and car hire firm and a funeral home.
In the early years of the 20th century it became used for leisure purposes, accommodating successively a billiard hall, skating rink (when the courtyard was infilled and covered over), picture palace and cinema. In 1945, the Church of Scotland acquired the site and it became the Gateway Theatre, the first theatre to be run by the church. In 1969, Scottish Television bought the buildings from the Church of Scotland and the buildings were converted to become TV studios. In 1988, Queen Margaret University College purchased the buildings to form part of their Drama School. The buildings are significant as much for the various roles that they have had in the community, as for their architectural value.
The report accepts that restoring or rebuilding the theatre is not economically viable, and is content that whilst the loss of brick ranges (originally part of the old veterinary college) is regrettable, retention of more important listed structures on Elm Row will conserve what is of most interest in the building.
**********
The Edinburgh Nursery has received permission to change the use of a flat at 4 Beaverhall Road in order to extend its premises at 127–9 Broughton Road and 3 Beaverhall Road (Ref. 11/03189/FUL)
A few neighbours objected to the change of use from residential to commercial, and potential parking problems at drop-off and pick-up times.
Planners determined that the loss of a flat was acceptable given that it would result in the nursery expanding to meet local demand. However, they agreed with Environmental Services' assessment that effective noise mitigation measures must be put in place to avoid disturbance to residents upstairs.
**********
Planning permission and listed building consent have been sought to convert commercial office space at 19 Heriot Row into 4 new flats (Ref. 11/03759/FUL).
A similar applications was approved in 2001 and renewed in 2006, but a possible move elsewhere by the present owner-occupants – a Debt Management company – have encouraged them to apply for another renewal.
The application proposes to create 1 flat on the ground floor, 1 flat in the basement, and 2 flats on the lower ground floor of the Category A-listed building. Would presumably suit well-heeled moles with deep pockets.
**********
Plum Developments Ltd seek listed building consent to convert offices at 13a Abercromby Place into a double basement flat with conservatory (Ref. 11/03777/LBC).