6 John Street - proposed change to homeless hostel

[Brian McCrow]

We have uncovered some very disturbing news (see letter below) about the new owner of 6 John Street. This has convinced the neighbours adjoining the property to put in objections to the Planning Department against this change of use.

We have more detailed articles on this owner if you wish to view them. You can also access them on the Web by going to the Scotsman site, by searching on – Akbar Mehar, followed by the detailed search option, selecting the Evening News.

It is important that as many people as possible who may be affected by this change of use put in an objection to the Planning Department as soon as possible. The final date for objections is 26/9/03.

We have drafted the attached letter, which you can sign, adding your name and address and post to Alan Henderson, Head of Planning & Strategy.

Of course, you may wish to add your own comments or write your own letter.

If you want more information on this Planning application and/or the owner or if you have additional information, which may help us, please email me.

It’s important to register your objection for your own and the community’s sake.


This is the text of a draft letter to

Mr Alan Henderson
Head of Planning and Strategy
City Development Department
City of Edinburgh Council
1 Cockburn Street
Edinburgh
EH1 1ZJ

6 John Street, Edinburgh – Change of use to Guest House – Planning Application No. 03/03222/FUL

As it will be a large Guest House with circa 20 guests, who may be in the main young unemployed homeless youths, we object on the following grounds to this proposed change of use to a Guest House:

Residential Amenity

Impact on parking spaces
Excessive noise
Disturbance through drink and drug abuse
Fear of crime

Effect on a Listed Building or character and appearance of a Conservation Area

This B listed building requires both internal and external repair and there is no commitment to make improvement or repairs
Close proximity to community facilities such as the beach, Daisy Park and the proposed paddling pool development
Poor local management
Poor maintenance standards

We have based our comments on poor management and maintenance standards based on the experiences of residents near his other Hostels/Guest Houses in Leith Links, Poplar Lane and Hopetoun Crescent.

We are aware that the owner’s Hostel at 12 London Street did not have its HMO licence renewed in October 2002 due to complaints about drug taking, drunkenness, insulting behaviour and public fornication as reported in the Edinburgh Evening News. There were 14 incidents recorded by the Police between May and October 2002.

We would also like to make you aware that the owner had guests living in the house illegally prior to making this application for this change of use.

We would also object vigorously to any Housing Multiple Occupation licence application, which may be made in the future by this owner.

We are further concerned about placing vulnerable people into a facility with at least another 19+ vulnerable people, without excellent care and management facilities. This appears contrary to current practice and wisdom for the treatment of such socially disadvantaged people.

In summary, granting this application will not enhance our Outstanding Conservation Area but rather bring it down through building neglect, poor management and serious impact on the local amenities.

I trust that you will view this objection very positively and refuse this change of use.

[Guest]

Brian

I found it difficult to find the articles you mentioned so I will paste the links below. Having read them, I don't think that anyone will be left in any doubt about the type of establishment that this person runs and I would hope that, as in the case of the proposed superstore, there will be a large number of objections from the community at large. Remember, you can now email objections to the planning department at:
alan.henderson@edinburgh.gov.uk

Click on following links for articles:

http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=277422002 12/03/02

http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=752742002 12/07/02

http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=904972002 17/08/02

http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1119352002 09/10/02

[Susan]

Hi,

This is very bad news for John Street and Portobello.

If the permission sought is for housing of homeless young people it will have an impact on the local area.

Better to shelf plans to upgrade the Paddling Pool site. It will become the hangout for those residents looking for somewhere to go. The Daisy Park benches will be useful too.

Susan

[Kirstielove]

I have first hand experience of this gentleman and his "hostels" - I have friends living at number 10 London Street and I am one of the numerous people who made complaints on several occasions. I can verify that the incidents printed in the papers are true! Trust me when I say you do not want this man or his "hostel" in Portobello.

I have lodged my objection to this hostel and urge others to do the same.

Kirstie

[angigael]

It is important that as many people as possible who may be affected by this change of use put in an objection to the Planning Department as soon as possible. The final date for objections is 26/9/03.

The planning number is 03/03222/FUL at http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... chform.asp .

If that doesn't work then try http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... 24SEW9E000

and documents at http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /03222/FUL

Cheers
Angi

[Brian McCrow]

This is the latest update on this campaign. We'd like to thank everyone for their support.


6 John Street Action Group 3/10/03

We have formed the above action group to -

focus and coordinate the local community objections to the proposed Change of Use at 6 John Street from a Nursing Home to a Guest House, because of its potentially serious impact on the local amenities, given the evident poor management and track record of the owner

A committee was formed with the following officers:

Co-Chairperson Bryony Ritchie, 4 Abercorn Terrace
Co-Chairperson Mike Rudden, 12 James Street
Secretary/Treasurer Brian McCrow The Coach House, John
Street Lane West

Over 190 letters objecting to the proposed Change of Use have been lodged with the Planning Department. This means that the application will be referred to a Planning Committee meeting in about a months time unless it is rejected beforehand by the Planning Department.

The Committee has discussed our concerns with the following:

David Lyon Council Homelessness Services Manager
Brian Grieve Council Private Sector Housing Manager (HMO)
Mike Paton Council Planning Officer
Mike Penny Council Housing Department Head
Helen Morgan Council Social Work
Brian Jackson Edinburgh Evening News
Maureen Child Local Councillor
Bob Wardrop Portobello Police Sector Inspector
Neighbourhood Watch representatives
Various residents of London St. who were instrumental in stopping the renewal of Akbars HMO license at 12 London Street
A number of homeless charities

The Portobello Web site www.porty.org.uk has the details of our campaign listed in the Forum section and has received over 160 visits.

The Committee will be writing on behalf of the Action Group to the local councillors, MSPs and MPs. They will also attend a Council Committee meeting regarding another objection campaign regarding a HMO application in Minto Street and any Planning Committee meeting regarding the 6 John Street application.

A legal representative has been appointed to add additional weight to our case.

The campaign is in good shape but we cant ease up. These activities cost money and a Bank account has been set up for the establishment of a Fighting Fund. We would like to thank those who have contributed already but we need more.

Any contributions will be gratefully received. Please send the tear-off slip below plus your contribution to, or put it through our post box at:

Brian McCrow
Secretary/Treasurer
J.S.A.G
The Coach House
John Street Lane West
Edinburgh
EH15 2EG

tel no 0131 657 2424
mobile 07712 841768
email brian@mccrow1.freeserve.co.uk

We havent been able to repeat our previous mailing of 1,000 households and hence have only sent this update to those people who have indicated to us their support. However, we know there are at least another 100 people who have sent in a letter of objection to the Council. If you know of anyone who wishes to make a contribution and/or receive future updates please let me know or ask them to pass their contribution directly to the above address.


Please accept this contribution to the 6 John Street Action Group (cheques should be made payable to J.S.A.G )

Amount:

Name

Address

Tel no

If you want to receive further updates on the campaign, reply directly to the above email address

[Brian McCrow]

The planning application for change of use to a Guest House with 24 beds has been rejected by the Planning Department as being too large for the local amenity. This would apply to any HMO application as well.

There were 244 letters of objection and they had a strong influence on the Planning department and local councillors.

This is a great example of Community Power.

I'd like to thank all those who submitted a letter of objection.

Brian McCrow, secretary of the 6 John Street Action Group

[Susan]

Hi,

It certainly is good news that the planning department has turned this down.

I would be wary of any appeal to the Scottish Executive though, the new building at the foot of Bath Street was also turned down by the planning department.

There is lots of useful information about the appeal procedures on the new building at the foot of Bath Street topic. Perhaps if we had known about them in time the outcome there may have been different.

Hopefully the matter is resolved and no appeal will be sought.

Susan

[Surrealist]

This is a great example of Community Power.

No, it's an example of people clubbing together to keep those they consider as "undesirables" out. Face it, the majority of your letters were not because the owner kept his tenants in shabby and despicable surroundings, but because they didn't want "unemplyed homeless youths" in their back yard.

Had it been a proposal to turn the building into flats for letting to executives, not only would there not have been a John Street Action Group (couldn't you think of a better name?) but you would have been round with the canapes as soon as Torquil and Trinny had moved in.

I presume that the balance of funds of the now-defunct J.S.A.G. have been donated to one of the homeless charities listed in the consultation....

[Kirstielove]

http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=277422002 12/03/02

http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=752742002 12/07/02

http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=904972002 17/08/02

http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1119352002 09/10/02

Did you not read any of the above articles? I objected to this man opening a hostel - not because I didn't want homeless people being housed here but because I work next door to the one John Akbar used to have in London St and witnessed some appalling incidents including the one mentioned in the last article. The living conditions of the residents were indeed poor. Do you think John Akbar is some kind of philanthropist - he makes money out of people who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances. How dare you accuse me or any of the other people who lodged complaints of doing so because we didn't want homeless people living there - you are way of the mark!

[Surrealist]

I think that if the application had been put in by Mother Theresa there would still have been objections from well-to-do residents who didn't want people who didn't fit into their narrow-minded criteria.

It makes sense when you read the other nonsense about not wanting DSS tenants.

I'm fed up reading on here about how "we" don't want unemployed/homeless/youth/junkie/waster/insert-bigotry-of-your-choice

It smacks very strongly of "not in my backyard".

[administrator]

The following message has been moved by the administrator in order to maintain thread continuity. It was originally posted by registered user 'tom nimmo' earlier today as a new topic.

I did raise a smile at the Surrealist's rant about the intolerance of some Porty people. I work in the homeless sector and I can assure you the John Street objectors have done homeless people a favour by blocking yet another doss house being opened. Private individuals do not open homeless hostels but they do open bed & breakfasts for the homeless. Our council has an obligation to house homeless people and there are plenty of people out there willing to cash in on a very lucrative business opportunity. Make no mistake, homelessness is exploited by some very shady characters who are motivated purely by money. If you don't believe me have a look at some of the dumps that take in council referrals and see for yourself the conditions some folk have to live in. Homeless people need access to permanent, good quality affordable housing and support. They don't need to be ripped off by landlords.
_________________
the roadie

[Surrealist]

Agreed. But the only result of the John Street vigilante group is to move the problem to someone else's street instead. Once this was achieved, the members of the group could safely disband themselves in the knowledge that their respective property prices were unaffected.

If it were the conditions they were objecting to, they would be campaigning permanently on behalf of all exploited homeless people. They used the reports of poor conditions to suit their own prejudices and pockets - after all, any monies they donated to the action group will be re-visited on them ten-fold as their property prices continue to rise.

The conditions of the property are a red herring. The group were objecting to the individuals who would have been housed there. I don't object to their right to lodge a complaint and have the planning permission turned down - just call the action what it is because it AIN'T community spirit - a community is something you welcome people into, not something you erect barbed wire around in order to keep people not like you out.......

[Brian McCrow]

It is good to see such a spirited response from the Surrealist. This is what the Forum should encourage as it's much better than everyone agreeing on topics.

However, I feel that I should point out some inaccuracies in his scathing attack on the John Street Action Group.

Firstly, its name clearly supports its function why call it anything else?

We objected to the proposal of a 26 bed hostel with 12 rooms. This was blatant overuse of the premises. It is also contrary to the perceived wisdom for the care of vulnerable people such as the homeless. It's interesting that the owner has now put in an application for a 9 bedded Tourist B&B - so much for his original business focus.

We also objected to the owner's poor track record when running an HMO in London Street as this again would have a negative effect on the vulnerable people he intended housing at 6 John Street. This track record is clearly documented in the Web sites listed earlier within this topic.

There are various groups of disadvantaged and vulnerable people housed in the neighbourhood and they have been welcomed and integrated into the community. The John Street Action Group carefully researched the homeless situation within Edinburgh, combined with speaking to the relevant managers within the Council, with the local Police Inspector and with Councillors. Members have also written to MPs, MSPs and Councillors expressing their concerns over the plight of the homeless. We are very sensitive about homelessness as any of us could become homeless through business and/or personal circumstances and we fully support the current steps being taken within the Council to improve the treatment for the homeless. This includes better approval and management of the B&B establishments.

The John Street Action Group is still active and we are considering ways in which we as a Group or as individuals can further our support for the homeless. You may be interested in knowing that my Glasgow based company has been supporting the Glasgow City Mission financially for the past 10 years.

A Community comprises people from a diversity of backgrounds and with different viewpoints hopefully living in harmony with some common goals/aspirations. It should reserve the right to block entry by some people who would disrupt the community. It was clear that having a B&B/Hostel with 26 vulnerable people without adequate and professional management would not have been in harmony with the rest of the community.

This property is B listed and we are also keen that it is sympathetically restored to its former state in line with the aims of Portobello becoming an area of outstanding conservation.

I would be more than pleased to continue this discussion either via the Forum or face to face.

[Surrealist]

Well written and well argued, sir.

Clearly we're not going to see eye to eye but I feel better informed as to the function of your group.

I could take issue with several of the points you've raised (the original function of your group was arguably not to support the homeless, I still have doubts if the real motive behind all the letters supporting your cause were 100% altruistic) and also with the points I raised which you failed to address, but your and my opinion are of equal weighting.

I expect if we continued the discussion face to face I would feel the need to buy you a pint.

Thanks for your support of the Glasgow City Mission.

[Epykat]

In the Evening News tonight - a notice re planning permission for John Street for change of use to a Guest House.

[Brian McCrow]

The Planning department have followed their normal procedures by advertising the application for the Guest House that was raised just before Xmas. The delay was due to the owner submitting an option on putting a car park in the garden.

The previous 100+ objections are still valid.

The John Street Action Group has submitted a group objection for completeness.

We understand that the application will be rejected on planning grounds.

Brian McCrow, Secretary, John Street Action Group

[Brian McCrow]

The latest planning application for a Guest House has been rejected on a number of strong planning grounds.

Many thanks to the 100+ objectors.

The owner now has the option to appeal via the Secretary of State within the next 6 months. I'll keep you posted on this and any other developments re. this property.

Brian McCrow, Secy of the 6 John Street Action Group

[Brian McCrow]

The owners of 6 John Street have made a HMO (Housing in Multiple Occupancy) application. We're astounded as the use for HMO was refused by Planning. Also the owner should have posted the application at the front door of 6 John Street from 31/3/04 but nothing has appeared.

Currently the objections should be in by 21/4/04.

I'm in communication with the HMO staff about this. If the application deadline isn't extended I will put in an objection on behalf of the John Street Action Group tomorrow.

The non posting of the application is totally in character with the other means adopted by this family!!

I'll update you on progress later.

[Brian McCrow]

I'm waiting for responses from the HMO deaprtment to some detailed questions before I draft an objection letter.

My questions follow the theme of:

If Planning permission is required for Change of Use from a Nursing Home and permission has been refused for a HMO and a Guest house, how can a HMO application be valid.

I've offered to meet with the HMO department and the Akbars to discuss the application prior to anyone expending effort on raising/dealing with objections.

I'll post an update once I get a reply.

[Brian McCrow]

I'm waiting for responses from the HMO deaprtment to some detailed questions before I draft an objection letter.

My questions follow the theme of:

If Planning permission is required for Change of Use from a Nursing Home and permission has been refused for a HMO and a Guest house, how can a HMO application be valid.

I've offered to meet with the HMO department and the Akbars to discuss the application prior to anyone expending effort on raising/dealing with objections.

I'll post an update once I get a reply.

[Brian McCrow]

We have had to send in written objections to an invalid HMO application i.e. someone made an HMO application, who wasn't the owner and this isn't allowed. Also the previous planning applications were refused hence it is invalid.

However, the Council's HMO system requires letters of objection from neighbours before they can review/reject an application. This is bureacracy gone mad and a waste of man effort by Council staff and neighbours.

Also the applicant has to put a site notice on the property but doesn't need to write to neighbours. In the case of 6 John Street no site notice was put up and neighbours only heard about it through the alertness of Councillor Maureen Child. This cannot be democratic.

If the Council tightened up on Quality across their current processes we would see a major saving in man effort and an improvement in user and citizen satisfaction.

I heard at the ELDC meeting last night that a developer can change their building design after the initial notification to neighbours without having to re-notify the neighbours of the change, which may be significant like making it taller, wider, painting it different colours etc. This cannot be democratic and needs changing quickly given the amount of building work taking place in Edinburgh.

[bellybabe]

"Man effort"... Not heard that one before... So none of the neighbours and none of the people in the entire planning department are women, then?!

[Brian McCrow]

There have been a goodly number of neighbour complaints sent to the Licensing section objecting to this HMO, which despite it having been submitted on invalid grounds, will go to the Regulatory committee on 21/5/04.

We are still trying to get the Council to reject it prior to going to committee to avoid unnecessary expenditure of time and money.

If this Council process is an example of how other departments are run there needs to be a major business process engineering exercise within the Council to improve citizen satisfaction and reduce costs.

[Brian McCrow]

There was a Regulatory Committee meeting on Friday 21st May to decide on the latest HMO application.

It was deferred until 30th June at 2pm for a specially convened Committee meeting. It appears that the Council departments don,t do any work on the application until it has been to committee.

The applicant will have to post the site notice on or near the property in advance of this meeting.

I will write to the local neighbours to make them aware of this new application and ask them to send in objections.

Many thanks to those neighbours who sent in objections this time round. They certainly helped on the day especially as the applicant had signed a form saying that a site notice had been posted!!!

Brian McCrow, Secretary of 6 John Street Action Group

[Brian McCrow]

The actual owners have now put in a HMO application i.e. Mr & Mrs Akbar with their daughter, Shabana, being in charge of day to day operations.

A site notice has been displayed this time.

I spoke to Brian Grieve, Housing Manager, and he is checking with Planning to determine if this application can go forward.

I've also asked the HMO staff some other points of clarification.

As soon as I hear from the Council the Committee will convene and advise neighbours on a suitable course of action. We have 21 days from the 25th May to send in objections i.e. the latest date is 14th June so we have time to prepare a reasoned response.

[Brian McCrow]

The Reporter from the Scottish Executive has dismissed the Appeal by the owner against the Council's planning refusal for a Guest House.

Planning permission has been refused by the Reporter.

The owner, John Akbar, has also withdrawn his Appeal to the Sheriff Court against the Council's refusal for a HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) licence.

It would appear that the only avenues left open are for them to return it to a private residence or self contained flats.

We wait with bated breath.

[Porty]

Brian, I know you were a great force in this campaign, all power to you sir. Good job!

[Epykat]

Well done to all concerned! I must admit, I think the Appeal panel sometimes are a bit more on this planet than the Council Nice to hear a bit of common sense news now and again.

[teddygirl]

Great news !!
Living in fairly close proximity to the house it was a huge worry. I also lived in that house for several years with the family that owned it at the time (before I got married) and have many happy memories of the place.
The thought of "undesirables" taking up residence there was just too awful to contemplate.

Thanks for all the hard work you have done.

[Dadaist]

The thought of "undesirables" taking up residence there was just too awful to contemplate.

Would you care to refine your statement - I'm not sure what constitutes an undesirable. How would you define one ?

[teddygirl]

If you have had access to all the literature regarding this residence and others owned by Mr Akbar then you will know what I mean. I'm afraid it is too late for me tonight to get into a debate about this. If you want more information then Brian Mc Crow is the man to ask.

[Dadaist]

If you have had access to all the literature regarding this residence and others owned by Mr Akbar then you will know what I mean. I'm afraid it is too late for me tonight to get into a debate about this. If you want more information then Brian Mc Crow is the man to ask.

I'm sorry that it's late for you. Brian McCrow hasn't come onto a public forum making a pointed statement that he doesn't want to live next door to "undesirables" but you have. I'm not interested in the arguments for and against the kind of establishment run by Mr Akbar either.

You are the only person qualified to answer a question about the statement you just made. Please tell me - what exactly in your mind defines an "undesirable" ?

[Dadaist]

This is a great example of Community Power.

No, it's an example of people clubbing together to keep those they consider as "undesirables" out. Face it, the majority of your letters were not because the owner kept his tenants in shabby and despicable surroundings, but because they didn't want "unemplyed homeless youths" in their back yard.

Had it been a proposal to turn the building into flats for letting to executives, not only would there not have been a John Street Action Group (couldn't you think of a better name?) but you would have been round with the canapes as soon as Torquil and Trinny had moved in.

I presume that the balance of funds of the now-defunct J.S.A.G. have been donated to one of the homeless charities listed in the consultation....

May I refer you to the comment made today by teddygirl in another thread :

The thought of "undesirables" taking up residence there was just too awful to contemplate.

[teddygirl]

No no no, you are not drawing me into an argument for arguments sake.
I make no apologies for believing that certain members of our society today are less than desirable in my opinion. I am etitled to my opinion as are you.
I will leave it at that and bid you a good night as now I really am off to bed.
Night night.