Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 9th January 2009 Change Date

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.

Caltongate plans in ruins after council blunder



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: 07 August 2008
THE controversial £300 million Caltongate scheme was in chaos today after a major council blunder.
Officials have been forced to write back to all 350 objectors, inviting them to submit further comments and present any new evidence they believe should be considered.

The revelation is likely to delay the start of work at the Old Town site by more than a month and could even threaten the viability of the project.

The requirement to give objectors another 14 days to comment is a new rule introduced last year, which was overlooked by council officials – although they today blamed Government advisers for the mix-up. It means the planning applications will once again come before local politicians later this month, then be handed back to ministers for yet another final decision.

Planning convener Jim Lowrie will have to decide whether to hear verbal objections and allow another vote later this month, although that is thought unlikely. However, although ministers gave the green light last June, they will once again have the chance to call the plans in, or even hold a public inquiry, if they believe there is sufficient new evidence.

In their responses, it is likely that many objectors will highlight recent news that Unesco has launched an investigation into Edinburgh's World Heritage status, which critics believe is threatened by the Caltongate plans.

For the developer, Mountgrange, it is thought the mistake could present financial problems, because the process of securing funds for the scheme is understood to have started.

In the current economic climate, delaying that could put the level of investment at risk.

A spokesman for the developers said: "Mountgrange are aware that the Scottish Government have asked for resolution of a procedural omission on the part of the council's planning department."

The administrative error stems from the Town and Country Planning (notification of applications) (Scotland) Direction 2007. It requires councils with a financial interest in a development – as in this case – to contact all objectors after a local decision has been reached. Only after residents have been given a further chance to comment should ministers be asked to make a final decision.

It is thought the error came to light when civil servants analysed the council's recent decision to approve a £200m redevelopment of Haymarket.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "Due to a procedural oversight by the City of Edinburgh Council, we have required the council to conduct a round of consultation."

But the council's director of city development, Dave Anderson, said: "Our staff held extensive discussions with their counterparts at the Scottish Government. A course of action was agreed setting out the council's responsibilities. However we have subsequently had advice that we need to make contact with those who made representations."

The letters were due to be delivered today.


The full article contains 470 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 August 2008 8:32 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

LUVMACITY,

IN THE LOBBY 07/08/2008 12:06:38
Here we go again. At least it makes a change from reading about Trams.
2

alex paterson,

edinburgh 07/08/2008 12:10:29
Dont we have a great council,what can they do right.
3

Jenny MacArthur's Humvee,

07/08/2008 12:21:41
Give Kenny Richey the job as head of this project.
4

Randan,

07/08/2008 12:38:46
Fingers crossed the credit crunch ends up cancelling Caltongate. It's been a disgrace since the start.
'Mon the financial meltdown!
5

Buttress,

07/08/2008 12:56:56
See:

www.eh8.org.uk


Also consider if the council is being lawful in entering into an agreement to dispose of the Canongate Venture (listed Grade C and due to be demolished) in an agreement with Mountgrange without offering this to anyone else.


The EU recently ruled on another case (in England) and found that unlawful.

6

tumshie heid,

07/08/2008 13:07:08
Mountgrange will just have to fill a few more envelopes for backhanders.
7

alec splode,

Edinburgh 07/08/2008 13:23:17
Alex Paterson

One thing the Council COULD do right is give you a job. Then perhaps you wouldn't have so much free time to post your pash on here.
8

Arrow,

edinburgh 07/08/2008 13:40:17
in this case it is not the Councillors it is the highly paid, sack proof officials giving what the RAF called "duff gen". resulting in SNAFU : "situation normal, all f**ked up".
9

James (1),

07/08/2008 14:55:21
So what? The outcome will still be the same. Approved! Let's get building!
To repeat myself "This is a done deal!"

Stop deluding yourselves that there is another possible outcome. There is not.
10

Buttress,

07/08/2008 15:22:18
What is required is a public inquiry.
11

I Love To Eat Prawn Madras,

London 07/08/2008 15:38:47
Caltongate's 'artist impression' is weak
12

Rap,

Haymarket 07/08/2008 16:50:36
I don't really see how there is any possibility of a different outcome at Council level. The letter they are talking about it asking those who have submitted comments to now comment on whether their submissions were dealt with properly. So, its a review of the process and not the decision. Unless someone can point our a gaping oversight in what they did the first time, it's unlikely to change the Planning Committee's decision (particulary with Jim Lowrie as Convenor).

However, the comments that get submitted now can help get the Ministers to call in the application to the Executive. If you do respond to this new letter, please send a copy to your MSP as well!
13

no more roads,

Edinburgh 07/08/2008 17:02:01
Of course the misguided politicians ruining the city wont change their minds. The significance of this is that it shows how incompetent the administration is, and how problematic the development will be if they cannot get the basic consultation process right. And our elected councillors face no proper scrutiny in the face of a supine press and an ignorant public.
14

Think Tank,

07/08/2008 18:50:47
Buttress et al must be loving this.

Let's be clear- the 350 objectors (many of them not even based in the UK) between them generated over 1800 objections using a coordinated spam tactic.

Being professional objectors, these people know how to delay processes by bureaucracy and technicality.

Without urgent action, these people WILL destroy hundreds of millions of pounds of investment into Edinburgh and thousands of jobs.

STOP THE PROFESSIONAL WHINGERS. The consulation and objection period is over, and EVERYONE understands this.

15

Rap,

Haymarket 07/08/2008 19:43:57
#14 Think Tank

- The objectors to this development have not caused this delay, the Council's own policies have not been implemented and that is causing the delay. Blame the Council!

- Regardless of how many objectors, the planning committee still saw fit to grant approval to the application. 350 or 35000, the process does not take any longer. And legally anyone is allowed to object - are you suggesting this democratic process should be withdrawn, or only in cases where their views differ from yours? I think in general people are too apathetic about speaking up about things they should have an investment in, so the fact these people (and I am not one) got off their butts and wrote in should be appluaded because they are trying to do something they believe to be for everyone's benefit.

- You seem to think digitally, developments are either up or down. It is not beyond the wit of man (or Council committee or architect) to design something that brings money into the city and yet does not have a detrimental impact on the existing community or cultural environment. Edinburgh looks and functions the way it is just because of planning control, so if you take away this due process you risk creating something truly ugly like Basingstoke or the Cumbernauld concrete centre. Is that more to your liking as long as it brings money in? And how much of this money actually makes it into Edinburgh's hands, rather than developer's pockets, or hotel chains?
16

Buttrest,

07/08/2008 20:31:49
there should be a public inquiry on why some people seem to know far too much about this subject.

its either a case of 'loser city' or certain "people" on here are being over-paid to mess about on their work computers, it's pretty much like stealing? Don't you agree?

not mentioning any names ... but someone on here who never posts on any other stories ... just Caltongate or anything that is connected with town planning ... hmm ... not biased then are you?

the architects are not allowed the right to reply, so I think the scathing criticism on these boards from wannabee keyboard hardperson is quite pathetic really!!!
17

Buttress,

07/08/2008 21:02:15
Septic Tank - can you give a breakdown of the objections and the ojectors, and be able to state here where they all live and how you know these were 'professional whingers' using spam tactics, and not legitimate objectors using the planning process?

18

Buttress,

07/08/2008 21:07:56
As to 16 'buttrest' - this is my home, my own computer, my own time, and my interest is personal. I am unsure why I should not be well informed - all information is in the public domain, if you take the trouble to seek it. I am entitled to comment on this and other isuues, indeed I have done so , and no-one - including the seriously misguided like you - is prevented from doing so either.
19

Rap,

Haymarket 07/08/2008 21:14:41
Butrest,
I have absolutely no professional experience of planning, I don't know any planners or anyone on the committee apart from what I have experienced from my involvement in a single, huge development.

Has it ever occurred to you that people post on here because of their frustration with the process? That perhaps the architects have more than fair share of right of reply, since they spend a very long time during the consultation and application process, sweet talking the planning officer of how wonderful their super-duper ego boosting designs will be? And yet any resident who objects gets to write a letter and perhaps even speak for a few minutes at a hearing. Is there really a level playing field? And yet you resent people voicing their opinions on a public forum design for public comments? Architects use the mesi and have their own websites, and have their lovely little architecty networks to schmooze and spread the spin.

And to point out, not everyone or writes in response to a planning application is an out and out objector. They are classed as an objector even if they say 95% of this application is ok, but this other 5% will make my day to life unbearable.

From my experience, your average Jock Smith knows nothing about the planning process, particularly of large scale developments. And if anything (reflected in comments on this site) everyone assumes it's all a done deal anyway and is too lethargic to even try and comment. If these sort of forums encourages one more person to get involved and stand up for what they feel strongly about, then it's worth it.
20

Buttress,

07/08/2008 21:16:53
All the objections are available in the public domain. I can also see nothing to prevent any architect posting here if desired.
21

,

07/08/2008 21:20:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

Buttress,

07/08/2008 21:21:43
Oh I agree - then there will be a far larger site to flog on...
23

Think Tank,

07/08/2008 22:01:17
Buttress:

Do you deny that the 350 objectors generated 1800 objections?

Do you not find it remotely suspicious that each objector filed multiple objections rather than simply objecting to the scheme?

Do you not find this slightly unusual, as if perhaps they had been "primed" as to how to object in an organised manner?

Do you deny that objections to a planning application featuring a small part of central Edinburgh received objections from American residents and those in the Far East?

Do you think that I as an Edinburgh resident should have the power to object to a planning application in, say, Tokyo on the basis I'd been there on holiday? Or even Glasgow? Slightly odd don't you think?

24

Applecrumble,

Somewhere near the equator 07/08/2008 22:03:25
Pirs orf wi yer rubbish cooncil and dinnae further destroy oor heritage wi yer 'modernisation' lout. this is edinbug.ger and no bluidy america - we actually have oor ain culture an heritage!!
25

Rap,

Haymarket 07/08/2008 22:06:21
Think Tank, why are you obsessed with the number of objectors - the committee approved the application, you won! Are you just a poor winner or what?

Do you really think the number of objections to any application really make any difference when so much money is at stake (not saying that is right, just what appears to be the case) - this case proves you wrong.
26

Buttress,

07/08/2008 22:11:09
Septic - it's clear that you are unaware (or pretend to be so) that the scheme was split into multiple parts, and each part was a separate application and required an individual objection based on that specific part. An overall 'I object' letter was not something which was relevant.

There is nothing in law to prevent interested people from seeking and giving advice on what and how to object. There is nothing to prevent people organising themselves into groups to organise opposition. At the end of the day, no-one was forced into writing, those who did so presumably because they felt strongly.

This is a World Heritage Site, therefore international objections should be considered, and also there is nothing in law to prevent anyone in any part of this country objecting to planning applications. As long as those are based on material planning considerations, they can all be taken into account.

How many of those who objected were from other countries? Can you tell me accurately?

27

Rap,

Haymarket 07/08/2008 22:14:36
It was split into separate sites, so I asume you have to object to each separate planning application. Hardly fraud, Think Tank. Is that really your gripe?
28

Buttress,

07/08/2008 22:15:55
Think Tank really is just someone who gripes full stop. Much of it sadly misinfomed.
29

Rap,

Haymarket 07/08/2008 22:23:44
Buttrest/Think Tank,
Richard Murphy (architect of Tiger Towers) submitted an application to build a new house in Forth St. and three of the architects who work for him - who don't live anywhere near Forth St. - wrote in to say how wonderful his design was. So, so these be allowed? Where do you draw the line? I asume the architect had the right to reply there.
30

Buttress,

07/08/2008 22:28:49
Did they state their relationship to the architect in those letters I wonder?

31

Rap,

Haymarket 07/08/2008 22:31:07
No they didn't! I did a bit of googling and all three names appeared on Murphy's employees page. How strange.
32

Buttress,

07/08/2008 22:44:20
Of course, if the application goes to an appeal nd those three give evidence, then the fact they work for Murphy can be brought out then.
33

Rap,

Haymarket 07/08/2008 22:49:25
Buttress, it hasn't actually been refused yet, although recommendation has been made that it is refused (another hearing yesterday). But yes, come the appeal...
34

Buttress,

07/08/2008 23:03:03
Ah yes - recommended to be refused in part because of the claimed effect on the WHS! Yet Tiger Towers was deemed to be going to have a positive effect... logic? What logic?
35

Leila,

Edinburgh 07/08/2008 23:07:12
#29: in fact SIX of Richard Murphy's employees wrote in support of his application for the house in Forth Street/Hart Street (not all of the representations have been published on the Planning website but they're all available to be read at Planning).
36

Think Tank,

07/08/2008 23:31:56
So Buttress denies a coordinated objection scheme drawn up by the people at the website address stuck on the end of a daily Buttress post....quite remarkable.
37

Think Tank,

07/08/2008 23:33:16
Once more, "Tiger Towers" (aka "The Haymarket") is outside the WHS. I thought a World Heritage Zealot would stop getting this repeatedly wrong.
38

Think Tank,

07/08/2008 23:34:39
At least any employees of Richard Murphy's probably live in the city on which the planning application relates. Rather than occasional tourists or WHS zealots.
39

Buttress,

07/08/2008 23:44:15
The Tower is in the buffer zone will block views, and I am stating what the CEC planners said in the planning report.


No-one forced anyone to write letters.


You're starting to rant again, Septic. Do desist.

40

,

07/08/2008 23:45:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

Buttress,

07/08/2008 23:49:58
I work for no-one except myself.
42

Buttress,

08/08/2008 07:38:46
The latest information and comment here:


http://www.independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com/


www.eh8.org.uk
43

Old Town Resident,

edinburgh 08/08/2008 10:19:33
Visitors, former residents and ex-students from towns and cities including Glasgow, Aberdeen, Nottingham, Bristol, Manchester, Banbury, Melton Mowbray and Leamington Spa have written to the city council to protest against the scheme.

Around 350 individuals and organisations have between them lodged more than 1800 objections to various aspects of the project.

While the bulk of the letters came from Old Town residents, representations were also made by city architects and Edinburgh University staff and students.
See Alan Rodens piece from Jan this year, he has seen all the objections, so ask him Think Tank...

Also there were 14 or so applications submitted at different times, and each had to be commented on, thus 1,500 individual letters by an average of 350 different people.
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/latestnews/London-New-York-Manchester-.3724471.jp
44

mad moo,

edinburgh 08/08/2008 13:09:55
I,ve just noticed the council's planning site now has some of the Caltongate applications open for comment again see
http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=JFX1CTEWW1000

Although decision notices have been issued for the demolitions????

Dont they have to call the decisions back on the demolitions as well? seems odd to consult on the justifications (cant see them anywhere on the council's site) for a decision which has been already issued

The council clearly dont know their @*rse from their elbow on planning proceedures or policy......All the more reason for Ministers to finally call this one (or 14) in to demonstrate if local democratic decision making is being undertaken or if various council officials havent done their job in line with guidence and law.

45

Buttress,

08/08/2008 13:36:08
I do agree Mad Moo. This is possibly an issue to raise with Ministers? Along with the dodgy flogging off of council land and buildings which a recent EU ruling stated was unlawful in England, so can't see why not in Scotland?

Also national planning policy on total demolition of a listed building seems to have been ignored? Maybe that could be raised again with Ministers? No justification at all for that!

46

Rap,

Haymarket 08/08/2008 15:55:43
Mad Moo,
It's not really another consultation. The wording is :-

"As this is a development where there has been an Environmental Assessment and the Council has a financial interest in the site, the application requires to be notified to Scottish Ministers before a decision can be issued. Ministers will determine whether the decision should be "called-in" for them to determine the application or if the Council can proceed to determine it as resolved by the Development Sub Committee.

The full report is available, blah blah....

I am writing to give you a further 14 days to make any comments on whether you consider your previous comments have been properly dealt with and to provide comments on the statement of reasons, should you wish to do so. ....Please note this is not an opportunity to raise new issues but to comment on your previous views have been responded to. This will then be reported back to the Development Management Sub Committee before the matter is formally notified to Scottish Ministers. Any representations that have already been received, as well as any in response to this letter will be forwarded to Ministers as part of the package of information to enable them to come to a determination.
Lots of Love
Alan Henderson"
47

Buttress,

08/08/2008 16:02:11
Hasn't he gone yet?

Sigh.
48

Rap,

Haymarket 08/08/2008 16:20:13
"Alan Henderson, the
Head of Planning, is also set to retire in late 2008." is all I can find. Dec 31st then.
49

Buttress,

08/08/2008 16:27:59
Sigh.
50

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 08/08/2008 20:32:00
THink tank #23- oh booo hooo, the locals got themselves organised and managed to make everyone aware of the right things to say. Thats why everyone objected multiply on various things- because people got organised.
Of course if you'd rather get rid of the last vestiges of local democracy in action...

 

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.