Skip to main content


Submitted by Editor on

Officials have recommended that the application to install temporary seating outside the Category A-listed 23 Elm Row be refused (21/05858/FUL). Councillors on the Development Management Subcommittee are due to consider the case on 2 March.

The applicant proposes a timber-decked outdoor seating area outside the Joseph Pearce bar and restaurant, with a pergola type structure for coverage.

It would measure about 70 sqm with the decked area being approximately 40 sqm. The structure would be roughly 3m high and painted to match the signage of the existing premises. The proposal includes wooden planters and whisky barrels as a boundary treatment.

Permission is sought for an unspecified winter-holiday period of 3 months. It is in addition to the existing outdoor tables and chairs which are removed at night.

In response to the application, 48 letters of support and 22 letters of objection were submitted. As reported here last year, the latter included one submission by the Cockburn Association.

Elm Row
Reasons to refuse

The report gives 5 main reasons to refuse the application:

  • It does not comply with Section 59 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, LDP Policy Env 3 Listed Buildings – Setting or Env 4 Listed Buildings – Alterations and Extensions as it would adversely impact the special character of the listed building.
  • It does not comply with Section 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 or LDP Policy Env 6 Conservation Areas - Development as it would not preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the New Town Conservation Area.
  • It does not comply with LDP Policy Des 5 Development Design – Amenity as it is likely to adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
  • It does not comply with LDP Policy Hou 7 Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas as it is likely to have a materially detrimental effect on the living conditions of nearby residents.
  • It will have a negative impact on road safety as it would result in the occupancy of a section of public footway that forms part of an adopted road.

Regarding that last point, Transport officials had argued that occupying a section of footway which forms part of an adopted road would not be supported. ‘[The] presence of a structure on the road would have an adverse impact on various road operations (road maintenance, gully cleaning, gritting, street cleansing, events etc) and obligations (utilities access etc). The structure may also result in restrictions on the footway which is contrary to the Council's Equal Pavements Pledge.’

Got a view? Tell us at and @theSpurtle