6 terraced houses planned in front of Bath Place

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 24 Oct 2005, 21:17

It's not just as simple as you make out. If the objections are groundless, then why did the council say they were material?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 24 Oct 2005, 22:39

Just read the report. Seems key that property has previously occupied this site and that precedent means that a 'replacement' will be built. It is a shame it is such an ugly building. Reading the report has made me wonder:

* What happened originally to give some of the cottages gardens, which they still have today.

*I remember delivering papers to Marlborough Mansions which were large tenament blocks in the space that is now grass next to the Miami Vice building. Can they build here now given the historic precedent?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Oct 2005, 22:42

dccairns wrote:It's not just as simple as you make out. If the objections are groundless, then why did the council say they were material?

I retracted the groundless statement a few posts back. I chose my language more carefully in my penultimate post. The objections are insubstantive. I think my phrase was "clutching at straws" at the begining of this thread. Which, was way before the planning officilas meausred the proposal against the rules and decided yes.

It really is simple, the proposal meets planning rules, hence the reccomendation for approval.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Oct 2005, 22:48

Epykat wrote:And already the architect for the new build is citing Miami Beach as setting a precident

Well to be fair, it is a precedent and it would be professionally remiss of him to not mention it when being interviewed by the EN.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Oct 2005, 09:14

Pal of Porty wrote: Just read the report. Seems key that property has previously occupied this site and that precedent means that a 'replacement' will be built.

Well read

The architect was quite wise taking the decision to make the new build the same footprint as what previously occupied the site.

Pal of Porty wrote:* What happened originally to give some of the cottages gardens, which they still have today.

I don't know, maybe they sold their front gardens to developers. So, imagine it was the same owners or their descendants that still owned the cottages now. They sell the gardens for a huge profit, then many years later they want the council to protect their view. WTF?

Pal of Porty wrote:*I remember delivering papers to Marlborough Mansions which were large tenament blocks in the space that is now grass next to the Miami Vice building. Can they build here now given the historic precedent?

I suspect so. If you recall, when we went to visit the MV building, I pointed out that the windows facing onto the MM land were small and above eye level. This means that any new build on the land is unlikely to restrict the view or privacy of the Miami Vicers, maybe someone is thinking ahead?

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 25 Oct 2005, 11:48

Couple of things: very seldom are plannng issues black and white. If you read NPPGs they are very loosely written and open to interpretation. They are constantly re-interpreted with every planning decision, whether by local authorites or at public inquiries. There is not always agreement withing the planning department and sometimes planners get it wrong or even, allegedly, take bribes to make a certain decision.

Secondly, the Miami Vicers (nice term!) on the ground floor will not have much privacy shoudl the MM land be built upon - they obviously weren't thnking that far ahead. In fact they won't have any privacy at all and will have to spend their lives behind blinds unless they like living in a goldfish bowl. So much for "sea views"!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Oct 2005, 12:46

dccairns wrote:Couple of things: very seldom are plannng issues black and white.

Could hardly agree more, many planning issues are complicated. But! this one is a slam-dunk, no-brainer to everyone other than the far from objective objectors.

One only needs to look at the evidence.

Not sure what you mean about the ground floor occupants of MV? Will they have windows on the eastern elevation, which may hamper future developments or are you refering to the lack of privacy from the prom?

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 25 Oct 2005, 14:21

If you look at te eastern elevation, there are three reasonably- sized window apertures which at the moment are filled in. These will undoubtedly be opened up when the ground floor is converted into flats. There will be no privacy anywhere in that flat.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Oct 2005, 14:29

Ok thanks. I was looking out from an existing flat prior to the recent change of use. Maybe they will do something with/to the windows? During our visit I did express surprise that they had not put more windows in the east elevation, may just be a coincidence.

You are quite correct about the lack of privacy on the GF of MV. I wouldn't fancy that much.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 25 Oct 2005, 15:35

Thank God we agree on something.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 26 Oct 2005, 08:17

I've had a few computer problems recently so have been unable to join in the discussion relating to the proposal to build new houses on 19-24 Prom.

Here's one or two little points that you may not be aware of

Plannners in Edinburgh usually work to guidelines that ask for 18 metres of seperation distance window to window of 18metres. The current plans have only 13 metres between the cottages and the new houses. That is sure to affect the privacy of the residents in the cottages (and I'm one of them) as we'll now have windows looking into our front bedrooms a mere 13 metres away.
So it looks as though we Bath Place residents have very few rights to some privacy.

Yep, there certainly were houses on that site in the past, but there were 4 only, and they did not extend all the way west to join onto Rena and Sandy Beggs garden wall, they stopped short of that, which means that number 4 Bath Place did not have a large building directly in front of it. There certainly were some single storey amusements for a while, but that left a decent view from number 4 Bath Place, which is now threatened.

The new houses have access via Bath Place to 6 garages. This means at least 6 vehicles will be introduced onto a narrow street that reduces to 2.7 metres in width, with no footway for pedestrians.
I reckon this is unsafe, and despite my protests, it would appear that someone in Edinburgh Council deems this a safe project.
Time will tell, but next time you're in the area, take a look at the width of Bath Place, and ask whether you'd be happy walking along the street near the corners, when there are vehicles going in and out of the street.

Last, but by no means least.
I've lived down here for 4 years, and in that time there have been countless numbers of passers-by walking the Prom who have commented on the lovely wee row of cottages on Bath Place.
There have also been several schoolkids outings who have sat on the Prom wall and sketched and discussed the old buildings and Portobello heritage with their teachers.
IF these cottages are hidden from view, those factors will be forever lost.
Thats progress for you.

The meeting today (Wednesday 26/10) 10am at the City Chambers will decide whether the plan goes forward, or fails.
I'll post a message on this board as soon as I know the outcome

Thanks to all who joined in the attempt to block the proposal

PC

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 26 Oct 2005, 12:40

I know that planners and the Scottish Executive Reporters are very keen on the minimum distances. I don't know them myself but if they are as you say this proposal should fail.

I'm sure you put this in your objections.

Let's hope it causes the Council to reject this scheme.

ras · Post by **ras** » 26 Oct 2005, 13:58

If you read the planning report it states that the proposals are 9m from their own rear boundary, but the cottages are only 5m from that boundary, so the cottages are regarded as 'bad neighbours' to this development. An interesting viewpoint, but one which I suspect will scupper any objection on privacy grounds.

Did anyone consider suggesting this be treated as a car free development?

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 26 Oct 2005, 17:23

Well the latest from the planning committee meeting is that the councillors had a number of concerns, so they will be making a site visit to Bath Place in November.

They propose to look into the attempt to CP the site by the council. This seems to have disappeared into a black hole.

Thery are also concerned about inappropriate developmnet on the Prom as a whole and will review the planning brief for the NW end of Portobello. They will investigate potential access problems to the site and will look at the impact on the conservation area of obscuring the view of the cottages from the Prom.

ras · Post by **ras** » 26 Oct 2005, 17:35

Lets hope thay see sense then and kick this one into touch and insist on a far superior scheme. Car free and environmentally friendly.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 26 Oct 2005, 18:29

That's good news - it read like it was going to be rubber stamped today. Whatever the outcome now, it at least looks like they are giving the matter full and proper consideration.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Oct 2005, 23:30

So it seems that the much vilified planning process (vilifiers please stand up) is fair and equitable after all.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 27 Oct 2005, 11:09

Or maybe the planners just didn't know so much better than the objectors after all.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Oct 2005, 11:27

Nah, the planners know their stuff inside out and recommended accordingly. They have a duty of fairness to the proposer and the objecters. There was never a chance that the proposal would be turned down prior to comittee.

We are now moving to inspection stage, which introduces a further balance. If the objectors bid ultimately fails, I hope they take the decsion on the chin and don't squeal like stuck pigs about how unfair it all is.

There is going to be a building on that site, one way or another.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 27 Oct 2005, 11:47

If the planners knew their stuff inside out, how did they get some things incorrect, such as the claim that the new building would exactly follow the footprint of the old building when it does not (the old building never extended in front of No 4 and the new building is proposed to)? They also claim that the rear of the proposed buildng exceeds 9m from its rear boundary when that distance is only 4.5m in reality.

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 27 Oct 2005, 11:52

Porty

I agree that it's very likely that there will be a building on the site. Compulsory Purchase by the Council is unlikely.

The objectors should focus on getting the best building possible from an aesthetic and conservation compliant point of view while protecting their privacy and security of access as much as possible. While I sympathise about the removal of their view of the sea, the planning standpoint is that no-one is entitled to retain their current view otherwise there would be very little development within the City.

Planners tend to be as user friendly as a corned rat when backed into a corner but much friendlier when approached in a discussive mode.

I haven't been able to get a copy of the external look of the building. It's important that it fits in but we must also recognise that planners welcome a modern architectural style as well rather than copying Victorian styles. As neighbours we should endeavour to get the best compromise without ending up with another Miami Beach type inappropriate design.

If it is encroaching on privacy and natural light, I would be interested in knowing more about the "bad" neighbour definition, then it should be resisted on those grounds. Perhaps the developer will have to reduce the number and height of the proposed houses. The impact on the PHS and other school roles is another interesting objection. Perhaps the housing needs to be for families without children or those where the children have left the nest. The developer may need to re-consider his design in the light of these factors and build flats rather than family homes.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Oct 2005, 11:54

dccairns wrote: If the planners knew their stuff inside out

I meant in terms of planning regulations.

dccairns wrote:how did they get some things incorrect, such as the claim that the new building would exactly follow the footprint of the old building when it does not (the old building never extended in front of No 4

Did the report not mention and did Paul not concur that there was a building in front of No 4? Amusements I think they said. I haven't seen the term "exact footprint" mentioned by anyone other than you.

dccairns wrote:They also claim that the rear of the proposed buildng exceeds 9m from its rear boundary when that distance is only 4.5m in reality.

Are they supposed to assume that the drawings they are provided with are inaccurate or do they have to work with the tools provided? What is making such a huge difference?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Oct 2005, 12:05

Brian McCrow wrote: The objectors should focus on getting the best building possible from an aesthetic and conservation compliant point of view while protecting their privacy and security of access as much as possible. While I sympathise about the removal of their view of the sea, the planning standpoint is that no-one is entitled to retain their current view otherwise there would be very little development within the City.

Agree totally.

Brian McCrow wrote: Planners tend to be as user friendly as a corned rat when backed into a corner but much friendlier when approached in a discussive mode.

Think that applies to most people but you are quite correct. Having said that planners still have to comply with the rules. Phrases like "they don't care" are inflammatory and whether they care or not is irrelevant.

Brian McCrow wrote: I haven't been able to get a copy of the external look of the building.

There is a link at the beginning of the thread but don't watch alone, its not very appealing.

My view is the architect has been clever by keeping it simple and not too adventurous. In terms of aesthetic appeal its poor but the rules will probably allow it.

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 27 Oct 2005, 14:25

Having had a look at the revised plans. it looks as if it's not too close to the cottages but this would need to be checked. While it's rather bland in appearance it doesn't look as much out of character as Miami Beach.

They've made an attempt to make it less bland by having a step back in the middle of the terrace.

I think it might be difficult to refuse it on Planning grounds.

I can't determine the issue of blocking natural light to the cottages but they may be far enough away for this not to be a problem. As they have their own garages parking may not be such a problem however a 4 bedroomed house typically has more than one car. Alternatively if it's argued that it is for a family with kids then PHS etc don't have room for more pupils. It'll be a very narrow argument however the councillors obviously think that it's not straighforward hence their visit to site so there is still hope for the cottage residents.

It would be interesting to consider what would be put there is the Council did buy the land.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Oct 2005, 15:03

Brian McCrow wrote: It'll be a very narrow argument however the councillors obviously think that it's not straighforward hence their visit....

As dc said 173 protests is a lot and councillors would be unwise to blithely ignore them. However, i cannot see how they can say anything other than yes, given the prevailing planning rules.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 27 Oct 2005, 17:39

Porty, you asked, "Are they supposed to assume that the drawings they are provided with are inaccurate or do they have to work with the tools provided? What is making such a huge difference?"

The answer is that the south-west boundary is not a straight line. Indeed a revised plan had to be submitted to give enough turning space into the garages. Have a look at the amended plan deposited 16th Sepetember. The planning officer chose to gloss over this issue.

The author of the report also states that "until the mid 1980s the site was occupied by a small terrace of three Victorian houses in front of 2 and 3 Bath Place. THIS OCCUPIED THE SAME FOOT PRINT AS THE CURRENT PROPOSAL." This is incorrect as the current proposal extends in front of No 4 as well.

The report also says that the number of cars entering and leaving the site would roughly double - this is also incorrect as at the moment only one car parks on Bath Place, sometimes. When the houses were fully ocupied there would be six cars going in and out of the site. Slight difference between one and six cars, especially on such a constricted site.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 27 Oct 2005, 17:43

PS You yourself said on 25 Oct that "The architect was quite wise taking the decision to make the new build the SAME FOOTPRINT as what previously occupied the site." Don't believe everything you read in Council planning reports!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Oct 2005, 21:22

From today's EN:

Porty house protests spark visit by chiefs

Plans fly in the face of conservation directive

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Oct 2005, 10:46

Whoa, i am confused.

When Paul said the following:

"Yep, there certainly were houses on that site in the past, but there were 4 only, and they did not extend all the way west to join onto Rena and Sandy Beggs garden wall, they stopped short of that, which means that number 4 Bath Place did not have a large building directly in front of it. "

Am I correct in my assertion that the victorian houses never filled the complete 32m frontage?

And when Paul said:

"There certainly were some single storey amusements for a while, but that left a decent view from number 4 Bath Place, which is now threatened."

Does paul mean that

a) the complete frontage was taken up by amusemets

b) the complete frontage was taken up by a combination of amusements and victorian houses.

c) the 32m frontage has never been completley built on

d) something else altogether.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Oct 2005, 11:03

dccairns wrote: The author of the report also states that "until the mid 1980s the site was occupied by a small terrace of three Victorian houses in front of 2 and 3 Bath Place. THIS OCCUPIED THE SAME FOOT PRINT AS THE CURRENT PROPOSAL." This is incorrect as the current proposal extends in front of No 4 as well.

You are misrepresenting the report by taking the the above out of context..

dccairns wrote:If the planners knew their stuff inside out, how did they get some things incorrect, such as the claim that the new building would exactly follow the footprint of the old building when it does not (the old building never extended in front of No 4 and the new building is proposed to)

Again, you are misrepresenting the report. There was a single storey building in front of number 4, therefore it did have a footprint.

Furthermore, nowhere does the report say "would exactly follow the footprint". You inserted the word"exactly" to suit your own ends.

In reality I doubt you or anyone else knows the "exact" footprint of the amusement building. Like I say, you are the only one using the exact word.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 28 Oct 2005, 11:23

Brian McCrow wrote:I know that planners and the Scottish Executive Reporters are very keen on the minimum distances. I don't know them myself but if they are as you say this proposal should fail.

I'm sure you put this in your objections.

Let's hope it causes the Council to reject this scheme.

Brian, I believe that the same objections were voiced when the Miami
Vice building, was given the go ahead - there is/was also the factor of
Dominant Tenement (Stairs Encyclopedia) which would have been the existing Victorian tenement on the prom. Perhaps a POLer with legal
experience, could clarify this?

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 28 Oct 2005, 16:23

In answer to Porty's last post, I have not mis-represented the planning report; the planning officer has deliberately mis-represented the situation at Bath Place. The whole tone of the report was selling the development; he is not doing his job properly. He is supposed to carry out an objective appraisal of the situation, not sell it.

I see you have chosen to ignore the other points he got wrong, i.e. the boundary measurement and the traffic generation of the scheme.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Oct 2005, 16:33

dccairns wrote:I see you have chosen to ignore the other points he got wrong, i.e. the boundary measurement and the traffic generation of the scheme.

I ignored these points as I am not sure of my ground. For example; there are no traffic numbers on the report, you don't seem to need numbers to identify it as being wrong, I do.

I did focus on your mis-representation of the report, as I have a copy of it and you have mis-quoted and quoted out of context. I have both in black and white.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 28 Oct 2005, 16:57

I have mentioned the numbers. It is quite simple: one car currently parks on the site, sometimes. The proposal clearly states that there are to be six garages. That means six cars entering and leaving the site on a regular basis. The report states that the traffic will "roughly double" in volume. One times two is two, not six, or have I got that wrong as well?

I have not mis-represented the report; you have mis-represented me by taking me to task on the points you think you are correct on and ignoring the rest which I can assure you are correct and valid criticisms of this report .

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 28 Oct 2005, 19:13

dccairns wrote:I have mentioned the numbers. It is quite simple: one car currently parks on the site, sometimes. The proposal clearly states that there are to be six garages. That means six cars entering and leaving the site on a regular basis. The report states that the traffic will "roughly double" in volume. One times two is two, not six, or have I got that wrong as well?

I have not mis-represented the report; you have mis-represented me by taking me to task on the points you think you are correct on and ignoring the rest which I can assure you are correct and valid criticisms of this report .

dc... the detail you quote from the report is not dealing with cars parked on the site, it is dealing with potential increase in traffic. The report says " the existing houses in the lane can in theory generate as much traffic as that now being suggested, so demand is likely to roughly double" You may happen to know that only one car currently parks there but that is irrelevant. The current owners of the cottages may not have cars but you cannot expect the planning officer to know that nor should it be a consideration as that can change at any time.