Local residents have alerted the Council to what they claim is unauthorised work using a JCB on land adjacent to 62 Broughton Road (the area known locally as 'Sandy Hill'). Officials investigated the situation this morning.
Work began again here yesterday. A workman questioned by locals told them that he did not know who he was working for. He denied that he was working for Quattro, but was later seen getting into a Quattro-liveried vehicle. The yellow Quattro digger shown at the foot of this item was photographed a couple of months ago. The one on-site today has had the company name painted over. It has never been clear whether plant here is being used by or rented from Quattro.
On page 4 of the application form, in answer to the question ‘Are there any trees on or adjacent to the application site?’, SFMA have ticked the No box. Photographs on this page indicate otherwise.
Neighbours have not been officially notified of the application, and the proposal has yet to be considered by officials. It is therefore difficult to understand how contractors could have considered starting work on it, if that is indeed what they were doing yesterday and today.
The access road is an early step in preparing the 2,660 sq.m. site for residential development. Plans for those buildings will follow. SFMA says in its planning statement:
The road access will be created from a new and widened carriageway from Broughton Road, rising up into the site, where it can serve, in due course, the development of houses. The houses would be built at the top of the sloping site on the south west boundary. They will be built into the slope and will not rise materially above the level of the fences of the gardens at the point. The road access at the foot of the slope will be supported by a retaining wall system rising close to the existing boundary wall at the end of the gardens to the tenemental block.
The Consulting Engineer has examined the measures necessary to protect and stabilise the sloping land on the site. There are stabilisation measures, and boundary fences in place from earlier times, at the top of the slope, and further down into the body of the site. In the course of the development works, these existing works will be examined and retention features put in place.
Spurtle’s understanding is that Planning officials prefer to consider applications in whole rather than in part, and that this very specific application for an access road, which lacks any detail about the accompanying housing, may therefore be refused.
For previous coverage of work here, see Breaking news (12.3.14).
*****
The Glasgow-based firm plans to demolish the existing building and create in its place a ‘flatted residential development with associated parking and landscaping’ on 1.02 acres. A spokesperson for architects JLL told Spurtle today that the flats will be available on the open market, with parking to the rear. But no further details on elevations or number of units are available at the moment.
A public exhibition of the concept proposals is scheduled for 12 August at 52 Annandale Street. Time to be confirmed.
Whatever they may feel about its replacement, few locals will mourn the disappearance of the current structure.
*****
The owner of the former newsagent's at 23 Rodney Street has been granted permission to convert it for use as an accountant's office (Ref. 14/01730/FUL). In recommending approval, officials noted that the application had 'no impact in terms of equalities or human rights'.
*****
Reasons given for the decision were:
- The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Env 4 in respect of Listed Buildings - Alterations and Extensions, as the proposal fails to respect the integrity and composition of the building to the detriment of its special character
- The proposals are contrary to non-statutory guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas as the proposal is an incongruous addition to the roofscape having an adverse impact on the building and area.
- The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Env 6 in respect of Conservation Areas - Development, as the proposal is an incongruous addition to the roofscape failing to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area and setting a dangerous precedent.
The detailed reasoning behind these findings is contained in the document at the foot of this page.
