The Local Plan Inquiry - RESULTS!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Jul 2009, 22:47

I know that most of you, like me, have been on tenterhooks these last few weeks eagerly awaiting the results of the Local Plan Inquiry.

Well rejoice. It has now been published.

To save you from actually wading through it I'll present a summary of the issues most closely related to our area.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Jul 2009, 22:50

OSR 6 – 19-24 Portobello Promenade

In summary, as outlined above, there are strong arguments in support of the principle of the objection site being retained and developed as open space. Nevertheless, on balance – for the reasons outlined above in respect of the CAAD, which are rightly acknowledged by the Council - we conclude that it is appropriate for the Proposal OSR 6 to be deleted from the local plan when it is adopted, as set out in Modification 2 put forward by the Council.

Recommendation

For the reasons outlined in our conclusions, we endorse the Council’s proposed Modification 2 and so recommend deletion of Proposal OSR 6 from the local plan and from the Proposals Map when it is adopted.

Unfortunate but not unexpected.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Jul 2009, 22:55

HSG 13 – Newcraighall North

Recommendations

Amendment to the finalised plan to allocate HSG 13 site for 140 houses – with a paragraph of text in Table 6.1 and 6.2 summarising the factors that have influenced this limited allocation (when compared to the allocation made in the finalised plan for broadly the same site).

Site HSG 14 – Newcraighall East

Recommendations

Amendment to the finalised plan to allocate only a northern section of the HSG 14 site (as defined above in our conclusions) for up to 90 houses and removal of its existing Green Belt designation – with a paragraph of text summarising the factors which have influenced this limited scale of allocation here (when compared to the allocation made in the finalised plan for broadly the same site)

Retention within the Green Belt of both the southern portion of the HSG 14 site, which is not to be allocated for housing but designated as publicly accessible Open Space (on a similar basis to OSR 5), as well as the adjoining Newcraighall Park – the latter is shown in the finalised plan Proposals Map as no longer within a GB designation, so this would require to be changed in order to ‘reinstate’ it as Green Belt and Open Space on the Proposals Map when the plan is adopted.

I'm not as familiar as I should be but I think the Council proposals were over 400 houses across the two sites so 230, if accepted by the Council, would be a partial victory for those opposing development. Not the same as no development, granted.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Jul 2009, 22:58

Proposal SCH 4 – Portobello Park

To conclude, I consider that it is reasonable for the local plan to include an indicative proposal for a new high school at Portobello Park. Furthermore, I am satisfied that given careful design such a proposal could be compatible with the approved SP, national planning policy and other policies of the local plan. I agree that “identified” is a more appropriate description than “safeguarded” in this case but would caution against the use of phrases that are likely to be overtaken by events. I do, however, consider that it is important to state that any proposal will still be required to comply with the relevant design policies of the local plan. I therefore conclude that an alternative wording for the commentary in Table 6.3 would be appropriate – as set out below.

Recommendations

No changes to the finalised plan except for the commentary under Proposal SCH 4 in Table 6.3 of the finalised plan to be replaced with the following text:

“A site at Portobello Park is identified for the possible development of a replacement high school. This location has been selected by the Council following public consultation in 2006. Any detailed planning application will be assessed against the relevant policies of the Local Plan.”

No essential change from the pre-inquiry modification.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Jul 2009, 23:01

Policy Os 1

In summary, for the reasons outlined I conclude firstly that there is no justification for making the policy more strict - to satisfy some local concerns about its scope for interpretation leading to a risk of unnecessary and inappropriate losses of open space. I am also not persuaded that there is sufficient justification to make the policy more flexible to allow a more generous interpretation where developments can compensate for some local losses of open space by funding compensatory or improved provision elsewhere in order to facilitate new developments where these are deemed appropriate. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed wording of Policy Os 1 now agreed by the Council already provides sufficient safeguards to address the main concerns of local interests seeking to avoid losses of valued open space - whilst providing a degree of flexibility, but setting appropriate and stringent tests, for proposals which would involve the loss of open space provision. I am satisfied, therefore, that the policy, subject to the changes agreed by the Council, is appropriately worded and balanced and so is fit for purpose, without further amendments to the policy wording or associated text.

Recommendations

No change to the plan apart from the following changes to the wording of Policy Os 1 agreed by the Council as detailed below:

o to insert the word ‘and’ after Policy Os 1 criterion b)

o to remove the phrase “in the area” from the wording of Policy Os 1 d).

So no suggested change of any significance.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Jul 2009, 23:02

Policy Os 2

To conclude, I am satisfied that the pre-inquiry change put forward by the Council, as Modification 1, closely follows the wording of a recommended model policy and accurately reflects national planning policy advice. I am therefore not persuaded that there is any need for further changes to the revised Policy Os 2 or its explanatory text.

Recommendations

Amend the finalised plan by replacing the wording of Policy Os 2 by that proposed in the preinquiry change put forward by the Council as Modification 1, as set out above.

No change to the pre-inquiry modification.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Jul 2009, 23:14

Bit of an anti-climax on reflection.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Jul 2009, 10:40

Climax -How was it for this lot?

The Objectors wrote: Portobello Park Action Group

• It is argued that Proposal SCH 4 shown in the finalised plan would be contrary to paragraphs 2.4, 2.13, 2.21, 7.4 and Policy ENV 1D of the approved Structure Plan (SP) and in reality would result in the loss of the whole park
• It is contended that Proposal SCH 4 would also be contrary to national planning policy and advice documents, in particular: SPP 1; SPP 11; Circular 7/07; PAN 65; and PAN 82
• Furthermore, it is suggested that the proposal would contradict other policy documents of The City of Edinburgh Council, namely; Public Parks and Gardens Strategy, Sports and Pitches Strategy and skyline protection guidelines
• It is pointed out that Proposal SCH 4 was not in the draft Local Plan and it is argued that it does not satisfy Local Plan Policies Os 1 or Os 2 - and is being proposed for financial reasons only, in the objectors’ view
• There is concern that development of a high school at this location would create traffic congestion, road safety problems and increase parking in neighbouring residential streets. A 3/4 Storey building would be visually intrusive, block views and be detrimental to the character and amenities of the area. The development would also impact on thegolf course and create drainage problems and its assessment in the SEA showed negative results
• The proposal appears to be the result of an education consultation and not all the normalplanning assessments have been prepared or considered. The inclusion of Proposal SCH 4 in the finalised plan is therefore seen as an attempt to give the proposal a status to which it is not entitled
• Deletion of Proposal SCH 4 from the Finalised ECLP would not hamper the Council’s ability to proceed with a planning application if that is the ultimate decision.
Portobello Golf Club, Portobello Ladies Golf Club and Individuals (see Appendix 4)
• There is no reason in planning terms for this indication as the land is already shown as open space and therefore already sufficiently safeguarded by the relevant policies.
• This proposal has not been the subject of adequate consultation by the Council as planning authority
• This is not a suitable location for a high school for one or more of the following reasons: loss of open space; loss of trees and wildlife; high levels of traffic generated by development / posing a safety risk.

Portobello Community Council
The local plan should make it clear that Portobello Park is only one option for the reprovision of the school and decisions will not be made until a thorough planning process has been undertaken.

Portobello Amenity Society
• The high school should be either relocated to a brownfield site or rebuilt on its present site.

All of their objections were utterly rejected. It is another door closed behind the pro-school campaign.

Seanie- does " remove the phrase “in the area” from the wording of Policy Os 1 d)."- help us out a little too?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 10 Jul 2009, 11:53

Clearly the Reporter saw that PPAG's objections were once more based on assumptions and wishful thinking than any material facts. No doubt this will add further fuel to ongoing conspiracy theories.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Jul 2009, 13:59

Portobello Community Council wrote:
• The local plan should make it clear that Portobello Park is only one option for the reprovision of the school and decisions will not be made until a thorough planning process has been undertaken.

Robert Gatliff, Chair of PCC, is obvioulsy unconcerned about how the group is percieved by the Council and others, like the Reporter. Leaving aside the advertising of their ignorance of the stautory consultation and its conclusion ie there is just ONE location/proposition being put forward by the council. How dumb is the Community Council's assertion that a decison on location of a the new school should only be made after "a thorough planning process has been undertaken."

What must the officers think when they see such a submission, from a group that is tasked with input on local developments? How can one possibly conduct a "thorough planning process" without first deciding on a location-it is dumb, it is dumber than dumb.

Guys you are letting your community down and need to rise above the school issue and get on with your role representing a broad range of community views.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 10 Jul 2009, 15:33

...Closely followed by:

Portobello Amenity Society
• The high school should be either relocated to a brownfield site or rebuilt on its present site.

Incredible comment at this stage of the proceedings.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Jul 2009, 16:02

Not incredible- it is likely one and the same person representing both the Community Council and PAS.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Jul 2009, 17:11

Porty wrote:Seanie- does " remove the phrase “in the area” from the wording of Policy Os 1 d)."- help us out a little too?

It would seem so on the face of it.

That's a funny one.

PPAG objected to criterion d) because 'in the area' wasn't defined. But because there are no national standards or guidelines for such a definition, and given the need for clarity in the Local Plan, the logical conclusion is to remove the words altogether. Just as the Reporter recommends.

I'm not sure that's what PPAG intended. They should've maybe thought than one through a bit more.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Jul 2009, 17:16

You could say the same about most.of their strategic decisions. I feel this particular faux pas merits a commemorative graphic. I can't decide what's most appropriate?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Oct 2009, 13:26

Anger as green belt homes plan doubles size of village

Council planning officials had recommended that the feedback from the Government reporter be followed, with the size of development reduced on the two Newcraighall sites and 100 homes built at Burdiehouse and 75 at Dreghorn instead. However, councillors voted to ignore the recommendations and only allow development at Newcraighall.

Planning committee member Councillor Maureen Child, who represents the Portobello/Craigmillar ward that includes Newcraighall, unsuccessfully tried to postpone the decision on building on the green belt. She said: "This is going to double the size of Newcraighall and potentially damage the whole village feel. Any development is going to have to be done extremely sensitively."