These are lively times in the planning stushie over 154 McDonald Road (Ref. 13/02458/FUL; Breaking news, 6 November).
Developers Kingsford and local objectors are jostling for position in advance of the Appeal to the Scottish Government which was lodged on 21 November (Breaking news, 26.11.13; Case Ref. PPA-230-2109).
Kingsford Developments are appealing on the grounds that the Council has 'failed to give a decision'. Everyone who attended the Development Management Subcommittee meeting on 6 November knows that a decision against the development was made (and it was minuted here). But Kingsford say they have not been officially informed about it within the required statutory period.
On 15 November, Kingsford's representative Paul Scott emailed a Council official asking for clarification. Kingsford’s understanding had been that the application would be reported to the next available Committee (on 20 November), but no such report appeared on the agenda.
The official responded later that day, saying that new report-checking processes were in place at the Council which had to be completed before finalised reports went to Committee. Volume and complexity of reports, and the number of staff members available, could affect the speed of the system and result in delays. For such reasons, this particular report would not be available until the Subcommittee's 4 December meeting. (Meeting to be webcast live from 10am tomorrow.)
Worrying loophole?
Spurtle is still enquiring about the precise details of this ‘statutory’ deadline which Kingsford alleges has been missed. However, we have had sight of a communication from Ian Perry (CEC's Planning Convener) to Broughton Primary School Parent Council objectors stating:
'As the applicant has appealed to the DPEA on the basis of non-determination, we no longer have the application before us to determine. The application is now a deemed refusal and we cannot issue a decision notice.
'It is now for the DPEA to decide whether to grant planning permission.
'The Committee will be asked on Wednesday to confirm that the reasons for refusal which are set out in the report are those that it wants put forward as part of the appeal process. An appeal statement will then be prepared by the Council and submitted to the DPEA'.
If CEC continues with its new report-checking processes, and does not have the staff or time to turn around reports sufficiently fast, Kingsford's approach would therefore appear to set an alarming precedent for any accountable Planning process at Council level. It's a loophole through which other developers might pour with enthusiasm.
Meanwhile, Kingsford have so far submitted 55 documents in support of their case to the Scottish Government's Reporter. Many of these have been seen before in the original application, but some are new.
The ‘Obscured Windows Plan’, for example, seeks to address Parent Council concerns about overlooking of the school and potential ‘lean out’ by residents in three proposed apartments closest to the playground. Kingsford now proposes 5 toughened, obscure, translucent glazing panels in front of the existing windows.
It is unclear to Spurtle whether the Reporter will consider this supplementary information. But we will return to a possible reason for its inclusion below.
More obviously to the point is a document clarifying room-size calculations for the 73 proposed units (a point of contention at the 6 November meeting).
Also of interest is a newly provided estimate of costs for essential repairs, and returning the premises to basic office use.
At last night’s New Town & Broughton Community Council meeting, Sandra Bagnall – a spokesperson for objectors at the Broughton Primary School Parent Council – addressed members. She thanked them for the NTBCC’s support on 6 November.
She said that the Parent Council and its planning advisers had been surprised at the grounds on which Kingsford had launched their appeal. They were 'unusual'.
She urged anyone who objected to the proposal – whether or not they had objected in writing before – to state their case to the Reporter with address (154 McDonald Rd) and case number (PPA-230-2109) at dpea@scotland.gsi.gov.uk by 9 December. She hoped the NTBCC and the Cockburn Association would join Leith Central Community Council in doing so as well.
Bagnall had barely stopped speaking, and NTBCC had barely begun to discuss the matter, when Alex Watts, Chief Executive Officer of Kingsford Estates Ltd, joined the meeting late. (He had in fact emailed his intention to attend in advance, but the message had not been read in time.)
He accepted an invitation from the Chair to give a summary of Kingsford's position.
Watts remained calm, polite and self-controlled throughout what followed. However, his anger at NTBCC’s change of opinion from for to against the proposal, just prior to the 6 November meeting, was in no doubt.
Watts claimed the case against Kingsford’s proposal had been one-sided. It ignored Edinburgh’s need for affordable housing and the requirements of those in the rented sector. Some parents, he said, had told him afterwards that they would prefer residents to office workers on the site.
He defended the grounds of Kingsford’s appeal as perfectly legal. The Council had not stuck to its timescales. ‘Why should we have to wait?’
He called for a fair-minded reassessment of the plans, claiming that Kingsford had now addressed many of the parents’ concerns by sending ‘rational solutions’ to the Reporter.
NTBCC’s response
At this point, it sounded to Spurtle – before we had read Cllr Perry's note quoted above – as if Kingsford’s objection on a technicality was perhaps principally a means of re-starting the discussion phase of the application, this time trying to win round objectors in the light of various amendments to the plans.
However, several NTBCC members expressed irritation (both to his face and after he had left the meeting) at the length and vehemence with which Mr Watts voiced his opinions, and/or bafflement that he had addressed them to the NTBCC at all.
The NTBCC’s Planning Subcommittee resolved to meet again to consider any submission to the Reporter for the Appeal, but without material alterations to the proposed development, members suggested that it was highly unlikely they would change their stance. They might even go so far as to reiterate it for the avoidance of any doubt. They would certainly not alter their position without first consulting the full NTBCC.
Chair Ian Mowat repeatedly expressed his determination to remain in constructive dialogue with Kingsford, as with any other developer.
Onward and upward
Last night’s meeting was a fascinating if at times excruciating encounter.
Aside from the conflict of opinions on the proposal, and on how the planning process had played out, there were four other exquisite ambiguities concerning Mr Watts'
- local residence, and therefore right to attend as a private individual
- social acquaintance with some of those present
- personal stake as a future parent at Broughton Primary School
- later participation in other business of the meeting as an anxious local householder.
Mr Watts' use of the phrase ‘our community council’ when speaking on behalf of Kingsford Estates Ltd encapsulated another of these awkward ambivalences. Such issues will be added to a list of discussion topics for consideration at a scheduled private meeting of the NTBCC early in the New Year.
Despite initial consternation at Watts' or Kingsford's criticisms, on the substantive issues around No. 154, the New Town and Broughton Community Council appeared to emerge from the meeting knowing where it stood and how it would proceed next.
We await developments with interest, and a decision on the Appeal possibly as early as February 2014.
What do you make of all this? Do you think the objectors' case was too one-sided? Do you mind Kingsford's grounds for appeal? Tell us by email: spurtle@hotmail.co.uk Twitter: @theSpurtle Facebook: Broughton Spurtle
[Crocodile image is from Wikimedia Commons.]
----------
Broughton Spurtle @theSpurtle What's the point of CEC Planning process? McDonald Rd developer seems to have found way around it: http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/news/seconds-away-round-2-mcdonald-rd-bustup-continues …@papawasarodeo
euan leitch @papawasarodeo @theSpurtle excellent reporting! Last night's meeting sounded tense.
@theSpurtle if @planningedin had issued the refusal where would the appeal have gone? The Local Review Body would likely have refused too.
Ella Taylor-Smith euan leitch