]]>
]]>
]]>
I reckon the future residents might find themselves clearing the seaweed from their windscreens on occasion
Statistics: Posted by Maria — 09 Mar 2010, 17:08
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
Can't see how they would tie up the Waste Transfer Site with Pipe Lane. In my view Sean's is the most likely explanation.
Check the councils website here to see if "you" or someone on your behalf, sent in a letter of objection:
Statistics: Posted by Porty — 08 Jan 2010, 13:52
]]>
]]>
Think a lot of the objections were sent by an individual or small minority. I had previously objected to the waste transfer facility and think that is where they got my details from.
Statistics: Posted by Lima — 07 Jan 2010, 20:55
]]>
31 Pipe Lane, Edinburgh - Flats
The Sub-Committee considered a planning application (ref. 09/00248/FUL) for the demolition of amusement arcade and the erection of 73 flats with associated underground parking, amusement arcade and café with landscaped public and private gardens, at 1 Pipe Lane, Edinburgh. The site was located at the western end of the promenade at Portobello and extended to 0.6 hectares in area.
The Head of Planning reported on the application and the planning considerations involved. The scheme had been the subject of extensive community consultation and the original scheme had been revised. In summary, he considered that the revised proposals would introduce a positive element to the promenade frontage and would maximise the historic environment of the kilns. He recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. A total of 90 letters of representation had been received.
Councillor Hawkins, as a local ward member, said that there was considerable opposition to the proposals from local residents and he considered it to be contrary to the Design Brief for this site and likely to have a detrimental effect on the setting of the promenade and the kilns and on the amenity of the surrounding area.
Motion
To grant planning permission, as recommended by the Head of Planning, with a further condition to be added in regard to ‘landscaping/fencing’ (relative to gardens, etc. for the flats) and subject to a prior legal agreement, as detailed in the report by the Head of Planning.
- moved by Councillor Lowrie, seconded by Councillor Rose.
Amendment
That the Sub-Committee be minded to refuse planning permission on grounds principally that it was contrary to the guidance contained in the North-West Portobello Development Brief regarding the promenade frontage; that the height and design, and materials proposed, were inappropriate for this key site; that the importance of the setting of the kilns and their historical character and attraction were not respected in the design, and that the development would result in over-shadowing of the promenade and the beach – with the Head of Planning requested to report back on suitable wording of these reasons.
- moved by Councillor Child, seconded by Councillor Hinds.
Voting
For the motion-7
For the amendment-7
There being an equality of votes cast, the Convener gave his casting vote in favour of the motion.
Decision
To resolve to grant planning permission, as recommended by the Head of Planning and with a further condition to be added in regard to ‘landscaping/fencing’, and subject to a prior legal agreement and other informatives, as detailed in the report by the Head of Planning.
(Reference – by the Head of Planning, 16 December 2009, submitted.)
Statistics: Posted by Porty — 07 Jan 2010, 11:32
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Bob Jefferson — 14 Dec 2009, 18:13
]]>