10/01741/FUL - Bellfield Lane planning application

[Franck]

[seanie]

[Pal of Porty]

[Porty]

[rmolehusband]

[allaboardtheskylark]

[Porty]

[Porty]

[seashell]

[Porty]

Deputation to the DSC is a privilege for our Councillors and one that I agree with. I hope that it is never abused and I imagine it would be very hard to prove.

Over the last few Years; Stephen Hawkins, has in my opinion, demonstrated some dubious behaviour when it comes to small developments in the conservation area. One day, when I’m not quite so busy, I intend to publishiing a complete audit trail of his actions and without opining, people can make up their own minds.

It started in 2006 with him acting as Agent for a new build house in a former builders’ yard in Marlborough Street. (the application was referred to as High Street)

He submitted drawings and supportive dialogue. The application was incompetent: he referred to the land as a garden and not a builder’s yard, a critical error, there was no parking, too large a building on a small space (over development) windows overlooking neighbours gardens etc. I imagine he did not discuss the application with planners prior to submission. All the more galling now that he clearly believes he is knowledgeable enough to attend DSC meetings to request an audience to challenge planners and architects.

His application didn’t even make it as far as the Development Sub-Committee before being refused. This in spite of his lengthy contextual statement, where he waxed lyrical about how great this new house would be, in the conservation area.

Around three years later, the land had changed ownership and another application, by a new agent, was submitted for a much smaller, one storey, property. By this time Stephen Hawkins was a Councillor. There wasn’t many objections (around 7) but he objected personally (Cairns, Hosking and Ward too). And then; he turned up at the DSC meeting and spoke up against the application: A new house would not be desireable in the conservation area and so on. As far as I know this was the first time any Portobello Councillor had ever made representation at a DSC meeting. He failed to mention his former involvement with the site.

Eventually, after a few months, the application was granted, unanimoulsy. A bit like Bellfield.

Link to Hawkins application.

[wangi]

For transparency - the above issue was reported to Standards Commission for Scotland in December 2009. On March 2010 they made a decision that Cllr Hawkins had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct. See: http://www.standardscommissionscotland. ... e_918.html

L/

[Porty]

Well some aspects of the issue were dealt with in the SC complaint but not all.

I was disappointed with the result in some ways. DSC meetings are not minuted verbatim, there is no detailed record of what is said. So it basically comes down to the Councillors word on what he claimed, versus the word of the witness. Unfortunately there was no other Portobello Councillor at the first meeting. At the second meeting I believe he was more circumspect, which I am fairly sure was down to our attempts to establish whether PCC had asked him to represent them, they had not.

I took notes and I know what he said and on whose behalf he claimed to be speaking. The Standards Commission, understandably,chose to believe his version.

I was particularly annoyed by the reference to Portobello Community Council, who made no objection to Hawkin's two- storey monstrosity but were all over ours. Same goes for Ward, Cairns and Hosking. From memory more than 50% of the objections were from the core of PCATS. Not the sort of people to rally round a planning issue, according to the Standards people!!!

None of that changes the fact that given his personal track record on planning applications, he is hardly best placed to be doling out advice to architects and planners.

[seashell]

[allaboardtheskylark]

[seanie]

17 Bellfield Lane;

[seanie]

19 Bellfield Lane:

[Porty]

I'm delighted for the applicants, justice and common sense prevails..

Support for the planners and another kick in the nuts/female equivalent for the porty planning terrorists. Hopefully their day of influencing minor applications will soon be over.

[seanie]

[Pal of Porty]

[tom nimmo]

Can't remember the last time I offered anything to Talk Porty but I had heard that this thread was interesting. I knew nothing about the planning application but, on checking it out, I am delighted that it has been approved now. I tell friends, in jest I think, that there is a thriving "Portobello Says No" group who object to everything that could be mistaken for progress in Portobello but I am really surprised that anyone would object to the building of this house in this part of Portobello.

It's just a shame that it all became a bit of a character attack on Stephen. I know that there are two opposing groups in Portobello who seem to criticise each other at every opportunity and this forum seems to be a favourite counduit for it. I have known Stephen for around 18 years and I know that he is a man of integrity who gives far too much of his time as a councillor and, as I suspect he is well aware, he can't please all the people all the time. Would you want to be a councillor? I wouldn't. I admire the strength of feeling of the people who are prepared to debate the issues that concern Portobello but it saddens me when it becomes personal. Why does it have to be like that? I don't agree with everything everyone says but I can't think of anyone I know who I actually dislike just because they have a different opinion to me.

[Porty]

[wangi]

[Bob Jefferson]

See also:

http://www.theamcm.wordpress.com