Earlier this year (Breaking news 10.2.11) we covered the application to build a three-bedroom dwelling house on Northumberland Street NE Lane (behind 17 Great King Street), and predicted a vinegar-faced reception from neighbours for the proposal. We now learn that consent has been refused following 12 letters of objection.
With a lack of consistency which – regrettably – is all too familiar at the moment, no official reasons for the decision appear at the Council's Planning Portal online. However, given the accelerating spread of such developments in recent months, it is worth quoting (in reduced detail) some of the residents' articulate and closely argued objections for future reference:
- Destruction of original boundary walls and the historic pattern of the lane area
- Material loss of traditional garden space in the World Heritage Site Design, form and positioning of the new building would be incompatible with the appearance and character of the original listed building and its garden
- Design, form and positioning of the new building would be incompatible with the appearance and character of the original listed building and its garden
- The massing of the building would be intrusive in historic views of the main, listed terrace
- Adverse impact on the traditional layout and setting of the second New Town and consequent prejudice to the 'outstanding universal value' of the World Heritage Site, including its authenticity and integrity
- There would be material loss of daylight and privacy to neighbouring houses and gardens
- The proposed building would fail to enhance or preserve the spatial character and built form of the area
- The proposed building does not meet the dimensions and specifications required by the Council's mews guidelines (Guideline on Mews Developments)
- The inclusion of a garage in the proposed building will have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours.
In addition you will be aware that there was a similar planning application for a property at this sight comprehensively rejected in 2002. I believe there has been no material change in the guidance and therefore valid reasons to reject that application apply today as it did then.
(Point 8 above will interest concerned observers who have detected, of late, what appears to be a flexible CEC attitude to its own guidelines in this respect.)
Less specifically, but persuasively, another resident wrote: 'This proposal seeks to defy the original design and intention of the secondary New Town, and risks establishing a precedent which could make a quasi-shantytown of this historic area. As a homeowner and resident in the area since 1989, my objection is unequivocal. We hold these buildings in trust for future generations, and must not allow the area to be corrupted.'
--------------------
Starbucks's application for new signage at 45 Leith Street (Breaking news 12.4.11) has been granted. Once again, no official reasons are given online.