6 John Street - proposed change to homeless hostel

[Brian McCrow]

We have uncovered some very disturbing news (see letter below) about the new owner of 6 John Street. This has convinced the neighbours adjoining the property to put in objections to the Planning Department against this change of use.

We have more detailed articles on this owner if you wish to view them. You can also access them on the Web by going to the Scotsman site, by searching on – Akbar Mehar, followed by the detailed search option, selecting the Evening News.

It is important that as many people as possible who may be affected by this change of use put in an objection to the Planning Department as soon as possible. The final date for objections is 26/9/03.

We have drafted the attached letter, which you can sign, adding your name and address and post to Alan Henderson, Head of Planning & Strategy.

Of course, you may wish to add your own comments or write your own letter.

If you want more information on this Planning application and/or the owner or if you have additional information, which may help us, please email me.

It’s important to register your objection for your own and the community’s sake.


This is the text of a draft letter to

Mr Alan Henderson
Head of Planning and Strategy
City Development Department
City of Edinburgh Council
1 Cockburn Street
Edinburgh
EH1 1ZJ

6 John Street, Edinburgh – Change of use to Guest House – Planning Application No. 03/03222/FUL

As it will be a large Guest House with circa 20 guests, who may be in the main young unemployed homeless youths, we object on the following grounds to this proposed change of use to a Guest House:

Residential Amenity

Impact on parking spaces
Excessive noise
Disturbance through drink and drug abuse
Fear of crime

Effect on a Listed Building or character and appearance of a Conservation Area

This B listed building requires both internal and external repair and there is no commitment to make improvement or repairs
Close proximity to community facilities such as the beach, Daisy Park and the proposed paddling pool development
Poor local management
Poor maintenance standards

We have based our comments on poor management and maintenance standards based on the experiences of residents near his other Hostels/Guest Houses in Leith Links, Poplar Lane and Hopetoun Crescent.

We are aware that the owner’s Hostel at 12 London Street did not have its HMO licence renewed in October 2002 due to complaints about drug taking, drunkenness, insulting behaviour and public fornication as reported in the Edinburgh Evening News. There were 14 incidents recorded by the Police between May and October 2002.

We would also like to make you aware that the owner had guests living in the house illegally prior to making this application for this change of use.

We would also object vigorously to any Housing Multiple Occupation licence application, which may be made in the future by this owner.

We are further concerned about placing vulnerable people into a facility with at least another 19+ vulnerable people, without excellent care and management facilities. This appears contrary to current practice and wisdom for the treatment of such socially disadvantaged people.

In summary, granting this application will not enhance our Outstanding Conservation Area but rather bring it down through building neglect, poor management and serious impact on the local amenities.

I trust that you will view this objection very positively and refuse this change of use.

[Guest]

Brian

I found it difficult to find the articles you mentioned so I will paste the links below. Having read them, I don't think that anyone will be left in any doubt about the type of establishment that this person runs and I would hope that, as in the case of the proposed superstore, there will be a large number of objections from the community at large. Remember, you can now email objections to the planning department at:
alan.henderson@edinburgh.gov.uk

Click on following links for articles:

http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=277422002 12/03/02

http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=752742002 12/07/02

http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=904972002 17/08/02

http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1119352002 09/10/02

[Susan]

Hi,

This is very bad news for John Street and Portobello.

If the permission sought is for housing of homeless young people it will have an impact on the local area.

Better to shelf plans to upgrade the Paddling Pool site. It will become the hangout for those residents looking for somewhere to go. The Daisy Park benches will be useful too.

Susan

[Kirstielove]

[angigael]

[Brian McCrow]

[Brian McCrow]

The planning application for change of use to a Guest House with 24 beds has been rejected by the Planning Department as being too large for the local amenity. This would apply to any HMO application as well.

There were 244 letters of objection and they had a strong influence on the Planning department and local councillors.

This is a great example of Community Power.

I'd like to thank all those who submitted a letter of objection.

Brian McCrow, secretary of the 6 John Street Action Group

[Susan]

Hi,

It certainly is good news that the planning department has turned this down.

I would be wary of any appeal to the Scottish Executive though, the new building at the foot of Bath Street was also turned down by the planning department.

There is lots of useful information about the appeal procedures on the new building at the foot of Bath Street topic. Perhaps if we had known about them in time the outcome there may have been different.

Hopefully the matter is resolved and no appeal will be sought.

Susan

[Surrealist]

[Kirstielove]

[Surrealist]

I think that if the application had been put in by Mother Theresa there would still have been objections from well-to-do residents who didn't want people who didn't fit into their narrow-minded criteria.

It makes sense when you read the other nonsense about not wanting DSS tenants.

I'm fed up reading on here about how "we" don't want unemployed/homeless/youth/junkie/waster/insert-bigotry-of-your-choice

It smacks very strongly of "not in my backyard".

[administrator]

The following message has been moved by the administrator in order to maintain thread continuity. It was originally posted by registered user 'tom nimmo' earlier today as a new topic.

I did raise a smile at the Surrealist's rant about the intolerance of some Porty people. I work in the homeless sector and I can assure you the John Street objectors have done homeless people a favour by blocking yet another doss house being opened. Private individuals do not open homeless hostels but they do open bed & breakfasts for the homeless. Our council has an obligation to house homeless people and there are plenty of people out there willing to cash in on a very lucrative business opportunity. Make no mistake, homelessness is exploited by some very shady characters who are motivated purely by money. If you don't believe me have a look at some of the dumps that take in council referrals and see for yourself the conditions some folk have to live in. Homeless people need access to permanent, good quality affordable housing and support. They don't need to be ripped off by landlords.
_________________
the roadie

[Surrealist]

Agreed. But the only result of the John Street vigilante group is to move the problem to someone else's street instead. Once this was achieved, the members of the group could safely disband themselves in the knowledge that their respective property prices were unaffected.

If it were the conditions they were objecting to, they would be campaigning permanently on behalf of all exploited homeless people. They used the reports of poor conditions to suit their own prejudices and pockets - after all, any monies they donated to the action group will be re-visited on them ten-fold as their property prices continue to rise.

The conditions of the property are a red herring. The group were objecting to the individuals who would have been housed there. I don't object to their right to lodge a complaint and have the planning permission turned down - just call the action what it is because it AIN'T community spirit - a community is something you welcome people into, not something you erect barbed wire around in order to keep people not like you out.......

[Brian McCrow]

It is good to see such a spirited response from the Surrealist. This is what the Forum should encourage as it's much better than everyone agreeing on topics.

However, I feel that I should point out some inaccuracies in his scathing attack on the John Street Action Group.

Firstly, its name clearly supports its function why call it anything else?

We objected to the proposal of a 26 bed hostel with 12 rooms. This was blatant overuse of the premises. It is also contrary to the perceived wisdom for the care of vulnerable people such as the homeless. It's interesting that the owner has now put in an application for a 9 bedded Tourist B&B - so much for his original business focus.

We also objected to the owner's poor track record when running an HMO in London Street as this again would have a negative effect on the vulnerable people he intended housing at 6 John Street. This track record is clearly documented in the Web sites listed earlier within this topic.

There are various groups of disadvantaged and vulnerable people housed in the neighbourhood and they have been welcomed and integrated into the community. The John Street Action Group carefully researched the homeless situation within Edinburgh, combined with speaking to the relevant managers within the Council, with the local Police Inspector and with Councillors. Members have also written to MPs, MSPs and Councillors expressing their concerns over the plight of the homeless. We are very sensitive about homelessness as any of us could become homeless through business and/or personal circumstances and we fully support the current steps being taken within the Council to improve the treatment for the homeless. This includes better approval and management of the B&B establishments.

The John Street Action Group is still active and we are considering ways in which we as a Group or as individuals can further our support for the homeless. You may be interested in knowing that my Glasgow based company has been supporting the Glasgow City Mission financially for the past 10 years.

A Community comprises people from a diversity of backgrounds and with different viewpoints hopefully living in harmony with some common goals/aspirations. It should reserve the right to block entry by some people who would disrupt the community. It was clear that having a B&B/Hostel with 26 vulnerable people without adequate and professional management would not have been in harmony with the rest of the community.

This property is B listed and we are also keen that it is sympathetically restored to its former state in line with the aims of Portobello becoming an area of outstanding conservation.

I would be more than pleased to continue this discussion either via the Forum or face to face.

[Surrealist]

[Epykat]

[Brian McCrow]

[Brian McCrow]

[Brian McCrow]

The owners of 6 John Street have made a HMO (Housing in Multiple Occupancy) application. We're astounded as the use for HMO was refused by Planning. Also the owner should have posted the application at the front door of 6 John Street from 31/3/04 but nothing has appeared.

Currently the objections should be in by 21/4/04.

I'm in communication with the HMO staff about this. If the application deadline isn't extended I will put in an objection on behalf of the John Street Action Group tomorrow.

The non posting of the application is totally in character with the other means adopted by this family!!

I'll update you on progress later.

[Brian McCrow]

I'm waiting for responses from the HMO deaprtment to some detailed questions before I draft an objection letter.

My questions follow the theme of:

If Planning permission is required for Change of Use from a Nursing Home and permission has been refused for a HMO and a Guest house, how can a HMO application be valid.

I've offered to meet with the HMO department and the Akbars to discuss the application prior to anyone expending effort on raising/dealing with objections.

I'll post an update once I get a reply.

[Brian McCrow]

I'm waiting for responses from the HMO deaprtment to some detailed questions before I draft an objection letter.

My questions follow the theme of:

If Planning permission is required for Change of Use from a Nursing Home and permission has been refused for a HMO and a Guest house, how can a HMO application be valid.

I've offered to meet with the HMO department and the Akbars to discuss the application prior to anyone expending effort on raising/dealing with objections.

I'll post an update once I get a reply.

[Brian McCrow]

[bellybabe]

[Brian McCrow]

[Brian McCrow]

[Brian McCrow]

The actual owners have now put in a HMO application i.e. Mr & Mrs Akbar with their daughter, Shabana, being in charge of day to day operations.

A site notice has been displayed this time.

I spoke to Brian Grieve, Housing Manager, and he is checking with Planning to determine if this application can go forward.

I've also asked the HMO staff some other points of clarification.

As soon as I hear from the Council the Committee will convene and advise neighbours on a suitable course of action. We have 21 days from the 25th May to send in objections i.e. the latest date is 14th June so we have time to prepare a reasoned response.

[Brian McCrow]

[Porty]

[Epykat]

[teddygirl]

Great news !!
Living in fairly close proximity to the house it was a huge worry. I also lived in that house for several years with the family that owned it at the time (before I got married) and have many happy memories of the place.
The thought of "undesirables" taking up residence there was just too awful to contemplate.

Thanks for all the hard work you have done.

[Dadaist]

[teddygirl]

[Dadaist]

[Dadaist]

[teddygirl]