Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Saturday, 7th November 2009 Change Date

Four years and £50,000 to turn flat back into a..flat

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 23 July 2008
IT must be one of the least contentious planning applications ever to come before councillors – an application to turn a vacant tenement flat back into a flat.
But a property developer told today how it had taken four years of wrangling, an estimated £50,000, and an appeal to the Scottish Government to gain permission for work at "Flat 1F", 24 Nicholson Street.

The saga finally ended this week when a Gov
ernment planning reporter overturned the council's objections and admitted it was "difficult to think of any other use" for the property.

The wrangling began when Edinburgh-based developers Etienne Group acquired the first floor property which had been used for decades as a religious meeting house.

The firm thought it would be a straightforward project to renovate and restore the building back to its original use as a home – only to be stunned when the council twice rejected the plan.

The problem was a fast-food outlet had opened on the ground floor of the building while it was in use as the Christian Friendship Centre in the 1970s. While that did not pose an issue for the religious group, officials said it was not compatible with a flat because odours might waft into the bedrooms.

David Fleming, Etienne's property director, said: "It was not a hard call – a former dwelling into a new dwelling. To take almost five years to sort out was far too long and verging on negligent and serious questions need to be asked as to the process of planning and procedure in the city.

"This was passed from pillar to post and no concern was given to the time and money. It took just weeks for the Reporter to publish his findings after studying both our file and the council's."

It is understood the developers may now approach lawyers to see if there is any way to recoup some of the losses, but no decision had yet been taken.

Bob Tait, of architects Format Building Design, which was involved in the project, added: "It's completely bizarre. We wrote initially to the council in 2004 as a pre-planning inquiry and it seemed everything would be fine."

When the flat was used as a Christian centre, its official use was described as a religious meeting house. Councillors first rejected the change of use back in 2005, and when the application came back in February this year officials rejected it under delegated powers before it even reached committee level. They said that food odours from the restaurant and fast food property below wafted through to the bedrooms and that noise nuisance would also be a factor.

But Scottish Government planning reporter Alan Walker rejected those views. He said: "The appeal property is part of a category B listed tenement, the floors above it all being in residential use.

"The original use of the property was a residential flat and it is difficult to think of any other use which would comply with fire regulations and be equally or more appropriate.

"The appeal proposal offers the opportunity to put a property which has now been vacant for many years back into beneficial use, with obvious benefits for the fabric of the listed building."

Southside/Newington Conservative councillor Cameron Rose, who also sits on the planning committee, said: "I don't recall seeing this one in front of me but I do have a general concern that minor issues we try and control too much, sometimes to the considerable expense of the applicant."

One resident of the tenement, who did not want to be named said: "It's better to have people in than rats and mice. I can't see why having another flat would be a problem. Obviously you always want to know who's coming, but there shouldn't be any problems."

A council spokeswoman said: "The planning committee will consider this report and implement the decision."





The full article contains 659 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 23 July 2008 10:36 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Statsman,

Edinburgh 23/07/2008 14:10:37
This is typical of the planning department. They worry about meaningless minutia while foisting large ultra-ugly developments on us.
2

Brian Ferrari,

23/07/2008 14:16:56
So, why are the Council granting fast food licences to outlets beneath residential properties?
3

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 23/07/2008 14:35:49
#1:

Quite agree.
4

Howard Moon,

23/07/2008 14:59:45
You're both right, of course. I don't know about you, but I've, somewhat grudgingly, come to the conclusion that it would be better if the Tories had control of this and other planning departments. I know they aren't perfect, and I know there's a lot more to these departments than just the elected councillors, but it just seems that your average Tory councillor is a bit more sensible and a bit more able than the rest of them.

And this is coming from an SNP voter last time round (purely because of trams).
5

Finbarr Saunders,

23/07/2008 15:15:15
#4 - Howard Mooon - Why do you think it would make any difference if the Tories were in power?

Councillors know nowt about planning and just act on the advice that they receive from their planning officers.
6

M33,

23/07/2008 16:00:07
"...odours might waft into the bedroom". They should come to my bedroom after I've had six pints and a kebab and I'll show them odours.
7

McMillar,

Fife 23/07/2008 16:28:38
Maybe they were on strike...hard to tell sometimes.
8

Howard Moon,

23/07/2008 16:30:56
I'm inclined to agree with you Finbarr. Perhaps it's more wishful thinking, but I can't help but think that no group of councillors could be as inept as those who have represented the Labour, Lib Dem and SNP groups at the City Chambers over the last decade. Of all the mannifestos, the Tory one was to me by far the most measured and coherent, with regard to a planning vision for the city as well as other issues, and its councillors at least give the impression of having work experience outside the local socio-political 'community work' bubble, unlike the others who, perhaps not surprisingly, I would hold at least partially responsible for its creation.

Do Councillors Rose, Mowat et al know more about planning than the others? Maybe not, but I am sure they at least would like to see an end to these sort of ridiculously protracted delays. I'm not sure the other would-be power wielders would.
9

Euan,

Edinburgh 23/07/2008 17:46:26
What with this planning idiocy and the news yesterday about raising the price of parking permits depending on what car you drive, Edinburgh District Council desperately needs to take a good, long, hard look at it 's practices and policies..

..Otherwise we're all screwed.
10

The Geniune Mario Antionette,

23/07/2008 18:55:56
planning laws need overhauled. they are too restrictive, time consuming & costly.
11

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

23/07/2008 19:37:10
"So, why are the Council granting fast food licences to outlets beneath residential properties?"

It's Newington. The Council won't be happy until it's just some vast fast-food emporium.
12

jdships,

23/07/2008 19:55:47
10 The Geniune Mario Antionette

Wow !
Here's a "first"
I agree with you 100%
Absolutely spot on !!
13

Euan,

Edinburgh 23/07/2008 20:55:14
#12

Ditto.
14

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 23/07/2008 23:54:25
Surely everyone knows the planning department WANTS everything to very complicated time consuming and costly .. then they can just hire more meaningless staff to deal with the 'workload' ...

God forbid they ever become good at what they do .. the unions would be out on strike if efficiency reduced their membership !? How's that for looking after the nations interests .... ?

Just leave the brown envelope on the desk sir and consider your pink concrete hotel next to the Wallace monument built sir ! -- Surely they wouldn't ?
15

Drum Major,

Brisbane, Australia 24/07/2008 00:13:24
Planners have far to much power with very little life experience. I have had to deal with planners who could not read an architectural plan. They relied on the pretty planning pictures that showed the trees and perfect people outside the building. They rarely go on site and who not be seen dead on site during construction. Most have little or no understanding of building codes but expect the rest of the building industry to understand the weird whims they scribble down and call planning policies. I have seen planning policies that resulted in building plans that could not receive building approval because the policy conflicted with the building code. All planners should be required to work on a building site for 2 years before they are accredited as planners. Alternatively let them work UNDER a building control officer to keep some balance to their left field thinking.
16

Drum Major,

Brisbane, Australia 24/07/2008 00:15:04
Thats "would not be seen dead"
17

SlyFifer,

California 24/07/2008 00:31:12
I've never yet met a planner who could: nor one I thought justified his salary. Trying to think of anything that has been planned that has been a rip roaring success and came in on or under budget ?.
18

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 24/07/2008 11:24:18
#10 The Geniune Mario Antionette

Absolutely correct Mario.

It's also time that planning departments had their powers considerably reduced, especially in Edinburgh which has the planning department from Hell.
19

Marcoloco,

24/07/2008 13:03:10

*17 SlyFifer

"I've never yet met a planner who could: nor one I thought justified his salary. Trying to think of anything that has been planned that has been a rip roaring success and came in on or under budget ?".

Where do i start? Your post shows a complete lack of understanding of the development process. Firstly, planning is not a well paid profession considering the social responsibility that planners weild. They are human and do not always get things right; but then again you cannot please everyone.

Secondly, FYI the New Town was planned and that was pretty successful. Then there's Edinburgh Park another rip-roaring success... it might take yrs of red tape but to say these schemes are not well planned is silly.

Lastly, but not least - what has budget control got to do with planning? Nada. This is the private developers concern. Planner's deal with land use planning matters - not build costs, land costs, inflation, rents, values, financial viability...

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.