Bottom of Bath St -> Change of Use

Post by **wangi** » 14 Dec 2004, 14:55

[Due to a mishap I'm reposting recent posts on this thread manually - L]

Poppy wrote:Gemini wrote on the Paddling Pool thread:

Gemini wrote:BIF - other planning application lodged for 28A Promenade - two dewlling houses I believe, this will put them bang in front of the Georgian Cottages - objections have to be submitted before 22nd December.Same Developer for the Bottom of Bath street edifice - Gregor Homes.
I assume that paulw's post is the 'true' version of events?!

Post by **wangi** » 14 Dec 2004, 14:55

Gemini wrote:Don't really know? I got the information from a resident at the B of BS.

Post by **wangi** » 14 Dec 2004, 14:56

paulw wrote:Turns out you were correct Porty. I received a letter yesterday containing a notification on application for planning permission. 'Alter and change use of office and cafe premises to form two flatted dwelling Houses' Submitted for 28 and 28A Promenade by Gregor Properties.

Plans etc available at 1 Cockburn Street. There should, although not checked yet, be info available at http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning

Paulw, you (or anyone else) got the reference number for that? Can't find a thing on the planning portal...

Post by **wangi** » 14 Dec 2004, 14:56

Anthony wrote:As you may know, the flats at the bottom of Bath street had planning permission approved on the basis that street level would contain offices and a Cafe.
Gregor properties have now rather cynically applied for planning approval to change the usage to two more flats.

Are we prepared to let this one drop, and let the developers get away with abusing the system? From the point of view of community amenities, a nice modern Cafe would be welcome on the beach.

Does anybody know what a realistic "material objection" would be to this?

Representations need to be made by 14th December...

Post by **wangi** » 14 Dec 2004, 14:58

mr magnolia wrote:
Anthony wrote:Does anybody know what a realistic "material objection" would be to this?
Representations need to be made by 14th December...
Dunno, in strict planning terms BUT I think it would be worthwhile objecting, if that's what you want to do, on the basis that the original consented use must have been arrived at in furtherance of a requirement of the Local Plan, or through discussion with Planning Officers, or as a direct expectation on behalf of the developer.

In any of those scenarios the development must have been thought to address a local need / requirement / business opportunity, and the balance of housing and business use must surely have been a consideration when granting consent?

Have any of the other disused commercial premises had an application for dwelling conversion refused?

Post by **wangi** » 14 Dec 2004, 14:58

Epykat wrote:Doesn't look like it judging by the several disused shops at the foot of Bath Street which were very recently turned into flats, and there's also the one along next to the Ormelie which was recently converted.

Post by **wangi** » 14 Dec 2004, 14:59

Okay, have found the details re 04/04370/FUL "Alter and change use to form two flatted dwelling houses", see:

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... e=PROPERTY

There's a whole slew of associated docs and plans. Comments by 07/01/2005.

Also I've come across the Scottish Executive appeal outcome document:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/planning/sei ... PA/230/388
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/planning/sei ... 30_388.pdf

L.

Post by **wangi** » 14 Dec 2004, 15:01

Gemini wrote:copy of objection letter from resident at Bottom of Bath Street:-

Head of Planning
The City of Edinburgh Council
City Development Department
PO Box 12473
1 Cockburn Street
EDINBURGH
EH1 1 ZJ

Gregor Properties Ltd, Alter and change of use of office and cafe premises to form two flatted dwelling houses. 28 and 28A The Promenade.

Dear Sir

I object to the above proposal.

In 2002, the cafe premises mentioned above were referred to as a Coffee Kiosk. It was to have folding doors and tables set up outside. The Appeal Reporter's Decision Letter of 8th May states ...

"I would view the Coffee Kiosk particularly as potentially making a significant contribution to community life in that it would provide a social venue and be likely to attract more people to the Promenade". Page 5 No 21.Policy H1.

The above proposal to form two flatted dwelling houses breaks the conditions of the Appeal Letter.

Post by **wangi** » 14 Dec 2004, 15:01

Hmmm, thing is that's not fully what that section says, and it is not a condition - it is a conclusion of the reporter...

21. Policy H1 indicates that significant new development within areas allocated for Housing and Compatible Uses should be for a residential purpose or one which contributes to community life. With regard to the proposal, I would view the coffee kiosk particularly as potentially making a significant contribution to community life in that it would provide a social venue and be likely to attract more people back onto the Promenade. Policy E7 specifies standards of open space provision in new housing developments to meet recreational and amenity needs. In this case, whilst there would be limited open space to the rear of the building, the flats would benefit from balconies overlooking the sea, and from proximity to both the seafront and the adjacent park. For all of the above reasons, I am satisfied that the proposal would conform to the provisions of the statutory local plan.

Note the section i've bolded - it's right next to the quoted text from the Bath St residents letter and backs up a change in use.

Post by **wangi** » 14 Dec 2004, 15:02

Gemini wrote:Does anybody know what a realistic "material objection" would be to this?

Parking/turning/access? The change of use includes two garages off Bath St not in the original plans? Something to consider when reading through the appeal outcome document to see what it says on that.

Post by **wangi** » 14 Dec 2004, 15:03

Gemini wrote:Wrote my objection letter last night - this is reply from Stephen Dickson this morning

Application requests two flats on ground floor instead of office/cafe

Planning permission is required because this is not as originally approved by SEIRU... if it were it would not need an application

Closing date 11-01-05

Post by **wangi** » 14 Dec 2004, 17:05

wangi wrote:Parking/turning/access? The change of use includes two garages off Bath St not in the original plans? Something to consider when reading through the appeal outcome document to see what it says on that.

Forget that, I'm talking nonsense - the garages are on the original plans.

Anthony · Post by **Anthony** » 20 Dec 2004, 15:09

On a related subject, does anyone know whether the final building will be inspected to ensure it meets the standard of finish? The document http://www.scotland.gov.uk/planning/sei ... 30_388.pdf states that materials were submitted for approval, but I would be very surprised if the white rendering was considered to be appropriate for the conservation area.

Is it possible for residents to object to the final finish?

ras · Post by **ras** » 20 Dec 2004, 16:49

condition 3 states that the materials - specifically the stonework - were to match existing and samples were to be approved in writing by the council

the last time I looked the neighbour was red sandstone - not a very close match

Anthony · Post by **Anthony** » 21 Dec 2004, 15:25

Closing date for objections is end of tomorrow (22nd). Surely it's worth people objecting to there no longer being a coffee kiosk ... this would be a valuable addition to the prom.

Hawkeye · Post by **Hawkeye** » 05 Jan 2005, 14:41

Please note that due to the Christmas/New Year holidays that the closing date for objections is 11th January so get writing.

Of note is that another recent development proposal in Portobello was turned down because there wasn't 100% parking provision on site. The application form to this change of use states ten spaces. That is one short for the eleven flats proposed.

This would seem to me to be something that the planning officer, Mr Dickson, should take into account.

Post by **wangi** » 22 Jan 2005, 17:46

Walking down the High St this afternoon and looking down Bath St I thought about one of the reasons for allowing the flats to be built in the SEIRU appeal. The high buildings "fit in" with the rest of Bath St (oh really)... Shame the new flats also block the view of the beach/Forth from the top of Bath St / High St now too...

I thought that things like this were taken into consideration these days in planning - i.e. look at the Forth Ports plans for Leith Docks - a lot of importance is placed on views...

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 04 Feb 2005, 08:51

Have been informed by friend at BOBS that planning application for further flats ground floor level approved - foregone conclusion really

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 04 Feb 2005, 10:15

Gemini wrote:Have been informed by friend at BOBS that planning application for further flats ground floor level approved - foregone conclusion really

That's bad news Gemini. When I looked at the portal page for this application it said 'minded to refuse' so I thought that meant 'No'.

Post by **wangi** » 04 Feb 2005, 10:45

Looks like the left hand doesn't know what the right is up to

If you search through the (very well hidden) "CPOL" you'll come across this report from the Development Quality Sub-Committee on 02/02/2005:

http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocID=59760

And that's a recommendation it be granted - so who know, because the actual decision shown is "minded to refuse" as you Maria:

04/04370/FUL 01/12/2004 28 + 28A Promenade Edinburgh EH15 1HH Alter and change use to form two flatted dwelling houses Minded to Refuse

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Feb 2005, 19:01

Refused I believe, though website not updated yet.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 15 Feb 2005, 19:14

Just received this from my friend at Bottom of Bath Street.

Phoned S Dickson to ask where my letter was confirming 2 dwelling houses and
he said it is not being decided until tomorrow - Wednesday. More meeting
type documents have been added to the Planning page. Quite confusing but
undecided until tomorrow.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Feb 2005, 18:38

Confirmed - Application Refused.

DG · Post by DG » 19 Feb 2005, 13:32

This is good news - had expected the same old...same old outcome

DG

Post by **wangi** » 19 Feb 2005, 14:00

But then again when they come to appeal there is a council document to support tham that recommends accepting the plan...

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 21 Feb 2005, 14:09

Did anyone look at the show flat, which was open this Saturday/Sunday afternoon?

I wonder how many genuine buyers turned up?

I also noticed that the advertisement in the Property News was an artist's impression and the upper floors were a sandstone colour NOT white.

Does this indicate what was on the original planning application? If so can it be enforced?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Feb 2005, 18:04

As there was a bit of confusion over whether this application was going to be granted or not, I asked Maureen Child if she could clear it up. Here is her reply:

The report recommended grant, but the Sub Committee said 'minded to refuse'. It then came back to the Sub Committee the following week with recommended reasons to back up that refusal.

The applicant will appeal and Lawrence will represent the Sub Committee at appeal, because he was chairing and it was a unanimous Sub Committee decision against officer recommendation. Probably not a public inquiry this time, but done by correspondence.

Brian, a friend of a friend went for a nose at the weekend. She was impressed with the large open plan living room/kitchen, but thought the bedrooms were a bit small. She was told that there was a reserve on at least three of the flats but that no-one has moved in yet. Maybe wangi could smuggle a camera in and get some shots from the penthouse?

Post by **wangi** » 08 Mar 2005, 15:08

And the council decision document: link

The proposal would result in the loss of the mixed use element within the approved development, to the detriment of the character of the conservation area, contrary to Policies E21 and E22 of the North East Edinburgh Plan and of the amenity and vitality of the area contrary to the conclusions of the appeal decision.

But as I said earlier the council has done a good job of also having a sub-committee document that argues for approving the application... No doubt helpful in the (I'd imagine) appeal to this decision.

Full set of documents and objections received:

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /04370/FUL

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 23 Mar 2005, 18:12

Piece in tonight's Evening News on the new development.

Post by **wangi** » 23 Mar 2005, 18:16

The finishing touches are being put to the last two, which will go on the market shortly.

Ahha? Hmmm.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 23 Mar 2005, 18:44

Eight of the nine flats, on the site of a former amusement arcade at the junction of the Promenade and Bath Street, have been snapped up within weeks of going on sale.

The finishing touches are being put to the last two, which will go on the market shortly.

the numbers don't quite work here ...

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 23 Mar 2005, 18:52

Well, Mr Mag, they say never to believe all you read in the newspapers!

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 23 Mar 2005, 18:55

I thought there were 11 flats in the original development.

If they win their appeal there will be the ground floor flats in addition.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 23 Mar 2005, 19:50

Original application was for 9 flats Brian

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 23 Mar 2005, 20:03

We saw somebody looking around the first floor Bath St end one the other night. As they looked out at the Miamiesque view, about 8 teenagers were standing on the wall looking up at them and singing rude songs. Bet they just can't wait to move in and meet the 'locals'.