Fun Park Planning Application

[seanie]

[Pal of Porty]

[Pal of Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

[Porty]

Main letter in the EN. I don't have strong feelings either about the proposal. I notice the author is going down the "they are not listening" route with his "haven't read the brief" jibe.

[Maria]

Worth mentioning perhaps, that though the developer has set the building back from the prom, he has been given Council/public land at the rear of the building to offset this.

[Porty]

[quote="Porty"]

Main letter in the EN. I don't have strong feelings either way about the proposal. I notice the author is going down the "they are not listening" route with his "haven't read the brief" jibe.

[seashell]

[Pal of Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Grunk]

Looking at the photo above, I wonder how they can give the go ahead for a building like that, yet people in the old tenements aren't allowed to change their rotting sash and casement windows for double glazed ones (upvc or other).

I'd like to see the architects in Edinburgh stop being lazy and actually design a modern building that fits with the surroundings.

[seanie]

[Grunk]

[seanie]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[Maria]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

[Porty]

From Minutes of the Sub-Dev Committee meeting 16/12/2009- not exactly a foregone concusion.

3 1 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.)

[Lima]

Not sure there was that much of an opposition to the plans. I received confirmation from the council that my objection had been noted but I never submitted an objection.

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.

[seanie]

Or somebody objected using your name and address.

[Porty]

Or maybe you supported the application and got treated as an objector?

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:

[seanie]

I popped a comment into a box at the library re. the Scottish Power site and got a letter noting my objection even though what I said was favourable. Applications only usually get objections so they can be caught out by supporting statements.

[PortyConvert]

[allaboardtheskylark]

[seanie]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[Maria]

There was some discussion earlier in this thread about the underground parking being vulnerable to high tides. I took these shots of the Funpark site last month.







I reckon the future residents might find themselves clearing the seaweed from their windscreens on occasion

[seanie]

The ramp down to the car park is shown to the south side of the building and starts about half a metre above the level of the prom. If the sea's high enough to flood that they'll be plenty of other properties in trouble too.