Craigmillar Park proposal falls
The proposed hotel development at 41-43 Craigmillar Park was rejected by the Planning Development Management sub-committee this morning. The committee divided 8-4 against the proposal. The grounds given by the committee included the design and massing of the extension at the rear and the vehicle parking arrangements. It is not clear whether there will be an appeal.
Comment: This was always going to be a controversial application and so it turned out. More than that, the Committee was faced with a report from the planning officials recommending rejection whilst a number of the local amenity associations were strongly in favour. That was a very unusual situation. In addition there was strong feeling against the developmetn from many local people and in addition I received many representations from proprietors of guest houses and small hotels in the area concerned especially about the how competition from a hotel in the area would affect them after a relatively poor season. For the record I voted for the development for reasons which include the following.
1. Membership of the planning committee is part of a quasi judicial process and members are required to act as individuals on the basis of the evidence and planning rules rather than on party grounds.
2. The existence of competition is not a groud for refusal of such a planning application. (In their policies the Planning Committee would have to designate an area as unsuitable for such development in general terms and that is not the case here.)
3. The site has lain unused for some time. There is a need to use the site productively. The proposal made effective use of the site.
4. The city as a whole has a policy of providing additional hotel accommodation.
5. As to the massing and scale of the extension, there is an argument that it is too great. However, compared to other such developments which the committee have passed it was not unusual.
6. The area is a conservation area. The proposal provided a solution which retained the villas at the front which are a part of the character of the area.
Of course there are disadvantages of the proposal as well but, on balance, I took the view they were outweighed. A difficult call.
1 comments:
Appreciate the comment Cameron. Good to get an insight into the factors involved in the decision-making process. Hopefully all those on the committee considered those factors before voting.
If more councillors were prepared to be similarly transparent with regard to the rationale behind decisions such as this, perhaps some measure of public confidence could be restored. Here's hoping.
Post a Comment