Excellent news.Porty wrote:I understand that Councillor Stephen Hawkins, who is one of the 15 objectors, turned up at the Development Sub-Commitee and spoke at length in an attempt to persuade them to reject the application.
Can anyone tell us who he claimed to be representing?
Thing is, not so long ago, Stephen Hawkins made an application to build a two storey house on a piece of land in Portobello's conservation area, a little more than stones throw from this application- it was refused. Wouldn't it be interesting to publish his self penned supportive statement for his application and compare it his objection to this application?Pal of Porty wrote:
I was also pleased to see that Cllr Hawkins now chooses to exorcise his right to speak at Planning Sub Committee meetings to oppose Planning Applications in Portobello other than just my own application.
Perhaps if he really wanted to stop it he should have spoken in favour.seanie wrote:Did I mention the approval was unanimous?Porty wrote:I understand that Councillor Stephen Hawkins, who is one of the 15 objectors, turned up at the Development Sub-Commitee and spoke at length in an attempt to persuade them to reject the application.
You didn't mention. Failed to secure one single vote? That equals his best performance to date when making deputations to the DSC.seanie wrote:Did I mention the approval was unanimous?Porty wrote:I understand that Councillor Stephen Hawkins, who is one of the 15 objectors, turned up at the Development Sub-Commitee and spoke at length in an attempt to persuade them to reject the application.
You've got to question why he went along to a DSC meeting to speak against a minor planning application? We are talking about an application for a single dwelling house and one of our Councillors sets aside a morning, a sacrifice for both of his employers, to turn up and pitch for refusal.allaboardtheskylark wrote:
Perhaps if he (Cllr Stephen Hawkins) really wanted to stop it he should have spoken in favour.
Porty wrote: It started in 2006 with him acting as Agent for a new build house in a former builders’ yard in Marlborough Street. (the application was referred to as High Street)
He submitted drawings and supportive dialogue. The application was incompetent: he referred to the land as a garden and not a builder’s yard, a critical error, there was no parking, too large a building on a small space (over development) windows overlooking neighbours gardens etc. I imagine he did not discuss the application with planners prior to submission. All the more galling now that he clearly believes he is knowledgeable enough to attend DSC meetings to request an audience to challenge planners and architects.
His application didn’t even make it as far as the Development Sub-Committee before being refused. This in spite of his lengthy contextual statement, where he waxed lyrical about how great this new house would be, in the conservation area.
Around three years later, the land had changed ownership and another application, by a new agent, was submitted for a much smaller, one storey, property. By this time Stephen Hawkins was a Councillor. There wasn’t many objections (around 7) but he objected personally (Cairns, Hosking and Ward too). And then; he turned up at the DSC meeting and spoke up against the application: A new house would not be desireable in the conservation area and so on. As far as I know this was the first time any Portobello Councillor had ever made representation at a DSC meeting. He failed to mention his former involvement with the site.
Eventually, after a few months, the application was granted, unanimoulsy. A bit like Bellfield.
Link to Hawkins application.
http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... X0OEWU1000
I agree Seanie. I am not normally a gambling man but I would have placed a sizeable wager on these two apps getting granted on appeal - as a layman the applications just seemed to make so much sense and the reasons for refusal did not really seem substantial enough.seanie wrote:Well I'd hope it might give the Planning Committee cause to ponder.
The principle that such decisions are taken by democratically accountable representatives is very important, you don't just want to leave things to a bureaucratic assessment.
But at the same time decisions must be fair and in accordance with the relevant planning regulations. Decisions against recommendation should hopefully be an exception rather than the norm, and soundly based.
In both these last two cases, the reasons for refusal were weak.
And269.10a Open space strategy response
Diana Cairns had been asked to write a response to the Open Space Strategy on behalf of the community council but this had been taken out of her hands by the Chair. (previous Chair RG)
Can I ask our resident PCC members? In what way can the PCC's objection to the application be justified to the community?271.8a CEC Open Space Strategy
Last month it had been agreed for Diana to write a response to the CEC Open Space Strategy and circulate it around interested parties. However this proved to be contentious and agreement could not be reached so the Chair had taken it out of her hands. He thought that both the majority and minority opinions should be expressed in the letter. The final version had not been seen or agreed by all members. There was a lengthy discussion around how best to deal with this in the future, which included the possibility of voting, for which there was strong support, so that it is democratically decided, although it was acknowledged that previously things like planning applications were usually decided by consensus. It was also noted that people are entitled to their individual opinion but the PCC is there to represent the views of the community and should be able to justify the stance taken to the community. There was also concern that some people are more vocal than others and that it was important that all views are heard and people feel that they have been fairly represented. It was also felt that there is clearly a split in the community over some issues and that this has the potential to be difficult unless some way forward was found. It was noted that this issue would not easily be resolved and that it was something that the new PCC could determine how to proceed when they form the new community council
Wheelchair friendly Edinburgh home takes shape
Ian McMillan, architect associate at BDP, has unveiled his designs for a unique disability friendly home for his family – drawn up in collaboration with his wife Thea who has taught architecture at Edinburgh University.
Squirrel Cottage in Edinburgh’s Portobello district, is costed at £250k and is being custom built to cater for their young daughter who uses a wheelchair.
This has necessitated designing barrier free spaces around a central ramp to allow Greta, who has been involved in the design of the home from the start, to participate in everyday family experiences.
Key to this has been the need to manage site levels whilst minimising the amount of dead space which would arise from the insertion of a ‘bolted on’ ramp.
To mitigate this McMillan has arranged spaces and events around a ‘Z’ shaped circulation space in order to create a ‘journey’ which both breaks down the ramp length and allows more useable space.
Describing the “monstrous” struggle with Edinburgh City Council to get planning permission for a 1 in 9 ramp McMillan told Urban Realm: “It’s totally non-compliant in terms of the technical standards, but speaking at an early design stage with Tom Lister of People Friendly Design, he encouraged us to design it as we and Greta would like to use it, as it is a private house as opposed to a public building.”
Nevertheless this has meant that the family has had to, reluctantly; make provisions for the installation of a lift.
Currently on site the project should be completed by November with McMillan providing regular site updates and progress reports via his blog.
