A summary of the EACC Saturday morning Question Time held in the Business Centre of the City Chambers on Saturday December 6^th  2008 from 10am to 12 noon.  The topic under discussion was Planning and Economic Development

Coordinating the discussion was EACC chairman Norman Bonney. 

In attendance for the panel were:

Cllr. Jim Lowrie (SLD - Fountainbridge/Craiglockhart --  representative from the SNP/Liberal Democrat coalition administration  and Convenor of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee).

Cllr. Joanna Mowat (Conservative - City Centre), 

Cllr. Steve Burgess (Green Party - Southside/Newington)

Cllr Norma Hart (Labour Liberton/Gilmerton.  

The meeting was open to all community councillors and was attended by just under 20 members from across the city. .

The main points of the discussion were:

 How the Planning and Development Committee works

Cllr Lowrie noted in his opening remarks that he had been a councillor for 10 years, and acknowledged that the other councilors had been council members for just 18 months.  All acknowledged that the workload for the Planning Committee was ‘very heavy', the training was continuous and frequent, and the newer councillors described their brief as the ‘steepest learning curve' they had ever experienced. 

Councillor Hart noted that she had been surprised to learn just how ‘constrained' the Planning Committee was by legislation.  Cllr Burgess described the Committee work as ‘complicated'; with the Planning Committee focusing on policy, and the Development sub-committee on more practical decisions. He emphasized he would like to see more of the policy standards implemented. 

Cllr Lowrie noted that when he first joined as an opposition member, the Committee was ‘non-political', cross-party, a ‘really good committee' with all members having knowledge of some aspect of the planning process.  He stressed that the emphasis has always being on trying to secure ‘early and meaningful consultation'.  Cllr Lowrie further noted that despite a current popular belief that the Committee is now influenced by decisions politically, this is not the case.  Councillors from one party will often express different views and vote in opposition to each other over proposed developments. 

Cllr Lowrie emphasized that the Committee does not have the powers to ‘really stop developments' if they are within the national and local policies and plans.

The chairman reminded the audience that hard copy papers relating to all pending committee meetings are always available in the Atrium of the City Chambers.  They are also available online and in the main public library of the city. 

Consultation Issues

CCllr John Knight of Newtown/Broughton urged that the committee ‘should always be assured that consultation is really taking place'. He believes that developers often pay only ‘lip service' to the process.  He also noted that one developer had been told that he need only go straight to the Neighbourhood Partnership, not the community council for the area.  Cllr Hart noted that in such an instance a developer would realize that cross-party co-operation does exist during a consultation process. 

David Salton of Costorphine CC  noted that it is useful to remember that CC's are ‘statutory consultees' in relation to planning applications. 

Cllr Lowrie noted that until the new act relating to Planning matters becomes law, developers can carry out just the minimum requirements, such as neighbour consultation notices.  Cllr Mowat urged CC's to notify the Planning Committee if they wish to be considered statutory consultees.  She acknowledged that many complain that the neighbour notifications happen late in the process and are hard to find. 

Cllr Lowrie agreed with a suggestion by the chair that the Planning Committee needs to rectify this problem by sending out notices - a pro-forma --  to the relevant CC's so that they could affirm that they had been properly consulted over a particular application.  All members of the committee were in agreement with this suggestion. 

Cllr Lowrie said that the expertise of the CC's represents the local community views.  Cllr Burgess said because the Green Party and other environmentalists want to be more serious about consultation, they had backed the suggestion of a third party right of appeal when the new planning laws were discussed in the previous session of the Scottish Parliament but this had been voted down. The emphasis now is on effective and early consultation which should take place before the application is considered.  The Green Party has been concerned about the level of consultation and would like to see it improved.  Cllr Hart agreed that the pro-forma is an excellent idea. 

A South Edinburgh CCllr noted consultation can be effective.  A major housing development was refused at sub-committee level thanks to the protests from CC's and other organizations.  The re-submitted application included major changes, such as improved height of buildings and some well established trees being retained on the site.

Development Issues in Cramond

However Patricia Eason from Cramond CC complained that the Green Party don't seem to be doing anything to protect the established trees in a Cramond conservation area, which are usually quickly removed to make way for new blocks of flats.  Brae Park Road trees are being decimated .  Cllr Burgess noted that no-one had reported this to him before and that he would investigate this complaint further.  He requested more details and a contact by email.  A tour of the area was invited. 

Cllr Lowrie noted that the whole committee is ‘trying to stimulate policy' about this problem.  The committee is however constrained by having to consider the economic value and impact on the whole area.   He said that an area with big houses and big gardens is always at risk from development, but that the committee tries to keep the density as low as possible.

 Cllr Mowat noted that there is a constraint on policy - not every application will come before the committee. 

Patricia Eason:  Wonders about the criteria being applied ‘during committee members' bus trips to Cramond'.  There seems to be no consideration given to ‘streetscape' in the decisions taken. 

Cllr Hart noted that there is a need for review of the decision-making process.  Cllr Mowat noted that a tension exists between local people's views and the awareness that a developer will always go to appeal.  Cllr Lowrie noted that the cost of appeal is not an issue, but that the council could be liable for a lot of expense if the ruling is taken that the objection is ‘frivolous'. 

Cllr Burgess stressed that despite the recommendations made, committee members do on occasion go against these and they do ‘have our own mind'

The chair summarized that the policies in Cramond appear to need review.

Hot Food, Restaurant and Bar Licenses etc

CCllr Paul Beswick Noted from the floor that Tollcross has more than 200 licences granted for hot-food premises in a small area. Late-night revellers come out from George Street at pub closing time for hot food, disturbing local residents with long queues and causing tremendous litter problems in the area.  It feels like the management of development in the area is becoming very vague.  Resident amenity is also being affected.

Cllr Lowrie noted that some shopping parades have been protected and officers are looking at the inner city parades.  There has been an erosion of the corner shop.  There should be a restriction on the number of hot-food take-aways, such as no more than three in a row of shops.  

The Government has required that submitted plans be presented with less detail and descriptive plan.  Though the descriptions may not be on the plans, the controls will still be in place.   Cllr Mowat noted that there does seem to be an ‘unwillingness' to accept that people do live in the city centre.  The policy in George Street does seem to be for a ‘24 hour economy'.  Why do cafes have to close at 8pm?.  This encourages young people to drink alcohol as pubs are the only establishments open after this time.  Cafes need to be open until 11pm.  We are trying to be more aware of these needs. 

Cllr Burgess: The committee had been told that the zones of sensitivity were not causing a problem.  He urged Tollcross members to make representation about problems in their areas.   These concerns will be taken on board.  Cllr Hart noted that as a former resident of Tollcross she shares CC concerns. 

Jo Scott of Southside CC:  Southside is very concerned at the number of licences granted for fast food and the attendant problems that occur.  She notes that cafes are fine, but late night revellers visiting hot-food outlets causes quite another problem.

Richard Ellis of Morningside wants developers to be required to set up displays in prominent shopping centres like the St James Centre, so that the public can gain proper aspect to information about proposed developments.  We must have more face to face engagement and consultation. 

The conflict between economic development and planning

Norman Tinlin of Fairmilehead notes an ‘overemphasis on economic development'. The CC does have a committee that tries to deal with this issue in the area.

Cllr Lowrie:  The public seems to think that the Planning Committee will automatically pass applications.  Yet the Scottish Government is making statements about the importance of development, and developers complain that the committee is slow in its responses.  An application for a skate park was rejected twice before it satisfied our concerns.  We can influence decisions but we walk a tightrope between different expectations. 

The chair summarized that there is a conflict between economic development and planning values.  

Norman Tinlin:  There is a perception that if a named architect is linked to a project, then it will be passed.

The chair noted that with the right kind of consultation, then the city will have developments that everyone can be proud of. 

The Caltongate Development

Cllr Burgess:  We have been very concerned about both the Caltongate and the proposed Haymarket hotel.  In the Caltongate proposal we were concerned at the demolition of a building that had value for the Heritage value of the city.  The committee made a judgement.  The developer said that the building stood in the way of a proposed conference centre.  A huge office block comes right to the top of the roofs roves of existing tenants.  There is a tension between economic development and planning.  We are already being requested to relax controls.  We need to stick to the standards that we impose when passing the applications.  We want developments that are uniquely Edinburgh, not just another Euroblock.

Cllr Hart: The Labour Group voted for Caltongate.  This was not a decision taken lightly.  The application was scrutinized and qualified.  There was a balance needed between interests and potential benefits.  In general it seems possible to strike a balance.  There is a significant degree of local discontent, yet there will be a new amenity, an important green site and cycle routes.

Cllr Mowat:  We will be proud of the new development.  It is not the abomination that some people describe. It will create safer routes from the station through to the Parliament buildings, some of which can at present be dangerous and threatening after 4.30 in winter.  Those promoting the Heritage argument asked why we would allow this proposal to go through.  We felt it would add to the area.  The impossible ‘fish-bone' patterns of medieval times that were proposed by those supporting the Heritage views would not have been good for the site.  The plan is now above the standard of plans usually seen.

Cllr Lowrie:  We were successful in significantly changing the original concept.  The original application passed in 2002 wasn't exciting and didn't generate a sense of place.  Now a big square is part of the plan, with cafes and walkways.  The route to Parliament will be vital and lively.  There will be one big arch, but generally the frontage won't vary from that along the rest of the Royal Mile. 

The Haymarket Hotel Development

Cllr Lowrie:  The plan for this is streets ahead of what was passed years ago.  The height of the hotel has caused controversy. 

Cllr Burgess:  Seventeen stories is too high.  It dwarfs anything around it and is placed right on the edge of the Heritage site.  One third of the committee voted against this.     

Cllr Hart:  Something needs to be done about this plan.  We are in danger of ending up with a very large, over ambitious development. 

Affordable housing: 

Cllr Lowrie:  There has been a policy since 2001 of affordable housing being integrated into new developments.  But the difficulty has been in the potential tenants being able to afford the factoring costs.  This has caused problems.

Housing associations can often offer more houses off-site from these developments. 

Cllr Mowat:  We had pressure from within the council to provide more affordable housing.  Developers build to make a profit.  If 25% is allocated to affordable housing, then the 75% remaining must yield the profit.  This is pushing up the prices in the private sector.  We will be calling for a review of the social housing policy.  We do need families in Edinburgh.  But if developers are building dwellings as small as a mouse-hole to meet the 25% quota, this is not providing for families at all.  We need to look at the policy in a cross-party review.  We could be much more imaginative about working with social landlords and involving them more in the housing process. 

Cllr Hart:  Edinburgh is experiencing a housing crisis. We must provide more decent affordable housing.

Cllr Burgess: We want mixed communities, with affordable housing in mixed developments.  But the factoring costs are causing a problem.

Cllr Lowrie:  We are looking at shared equity.  It needs to be remembered that developers have many criteria to meet at the moment.  The trams, flood defences, carbon emission all push up the costs.  We do now expect them to pay for a lot of things in the area.

Cllr Burgess:  I am concerned about the notion that Edinburgh is too expensive for developers.  Edinburgh provides an amazing quality of life.  We can't let developers use the current crisis to remove constraints and lower standards. 

The chair summarised that we are in deep recession, but perhaps this could lead to making housing more affordable. 

The Waterfront. 

Cllr Mowat:  This is a 20-30 year project.  The area proposed is the size of a new town.  We need to retain our World Heritage site, the birthplace of modern town planning.  We have to take the best of the old and the new.  This is the new town.  It's got to be good and we need to ensure that we set the ground rules. I would like us to put in the infrastructure ourselves. 

Cllr Lowrie:  Platinum Point was started in 1998 and has proved to be a big disappointment.  But we are making more progess from what has been learned.

Granton is now developing more pleasing results.  Nicer landscaping is developing and some statues are being erected.  .

Cllr Burgess:  The Unesco party that visited Edinburgh thought that the Platinum Point development looked ‘terrible'.  One Professor of Architecture was appalled at the design standards.

Edinburgh Harbour:

Dave Halbert:  The Planning committee are the community councils in waiting for this whole new development site.  There is a very poor tendency to create an ‘homogeneity of traders' eg as at Ocean Terminal.  Few local traders are able to compete in this environment. 

Portobello:

Dawson Currie of Portobello notes that there does seem to be a loophole in the planning application process.  If things don't go right for the developer, it appears that the planning committee or officers have the right to make changes to suit.  One development in our area was refused certain parts of the plan, but later the approvals were modified and the developer was able to carry out the plans after all. 

Cllr Hart: My understanding was that approvals cannot be changed without returning to the committee.

Cllr Burgess:  It is vital that approvals are carried through.  We take it on trust that developers will abide by our decisions.  We may need more checks on these decisions and how they are carried out. 

Cllr Lowrie:  The Committee should be notified of ‘significant' changes to the approvals.  The interpretation of ‘significant' is left up to the planning officials.  Developers do squeeze the system as much as possible.  This is a big area of concern.  However, enforcement is an expensive option.  Hopefully the Planning Act will give us greater enforcement powers. 

The meeting concluded with councillors noting that they had found the meeting useful and informative.  The chair thanked all for their attendance and suggested an early repeat of the event.