Transcript

Welcome to the Development Management Subcommittee. This meeting has been held in the Dean of Guild courtroom in the city chambers on the High Street in Edinburgh and remote by Microsoft Teams. It will be filmed for Live and Subst muted in the Broadcast via the Council's website. The Council is a data controller under the General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018. We broadcast Council meetings to fill our public task obligations to enable members of the public to observe the democratic process. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council's published policy. Members are reminded that the cameras are activated by the sound system, and they must switch on microphones when speaking and off when finished speaking. Thank you, Pinnir. So we'll move on now to item 1 on the agenda, which is the order of business, just an update that we have Councilor Bennet for Councilor Thornley. So just a reminder to members that you are required to be present from the beginning of consideration of each planning application to be able to participate in today's decision making. If you have members joining remotely, you should keep your cameras on through the duration of the meeting in the interest of openness and transparency. When members are not speaking, you should mute your microphone to minimize interference from background noise. And members should use today's hand function to advise the convener that you would like to ask a question or raise a point of order. And all discussion should take place via the convener. There will be a short adjournment after every planning application to allow officers to prepare the slides in the next planning application which will allow us to remind everyone and votes to be taken by a show of hands. I advise now of any items called for presentations. There have been six, so Councilor Booth has requested a presentation on items 4.2 and 4.6. Councilor Cameron has requested presentations on items 4.9 and 4.11, and Councilor Matos-Pella has also requested presentations on items 4.9 and 4.11. So, we'll move on to section 2 now on the agenda today which is the Declarations of Entress. The Councilor's Code of Conduct requires members to publicly declare entress and items being considered at today's meeting. These entress can be financial or non-financial. Do members have anything they wish to declare? Thank you. So, there are no minutes at today's meeting. So, we'll move on to section 4 which is General Application, Smith-Slernese Business and G Application Reports. At item 4.1 we have a report for forthcoming application by Glamprop IV LLP for a proposal of application notice at 14 Ashleigh Place in Edinburgh. It is recommended that the committee notes the key issues at the stage and advises of any other issues. Noted. Thank you. Item 4.2 is now a presentation item. Item 4.3 is an application for planning permission at 2, due to replace in Edinburgh and it is recommended that this application be granted. Item 4.4 is a confirmation of Chief Preservation Order number 2-1-1 at Green Park. It's recommended that the Chief Preservation Order number 2-1-1 at Green Park is confirmed. Thank you. Item 4.5 is an application for planning permission at 1a, what is in place in Edinburgh, and it's recommended that this application be granted. Item 4.6 is now a presentation item. So, we'll move on to item 4.7, which again is a confirmation of Chief Preservation Order number 2-10-18 Wharton Hall Road. And it is recommended that the Chief Preservation Order number 2-10-18 Wharton Hall Road is confirmed. Thank you. Item 4.8, we have an approval of matter specified in conditions at 1/03, UK Hall Road in Edinburgh. I'm just going to pass over to plan officers, as I believe there's an additional condition that's being added to this item. Hi. Good morning, committee. Yes, we've had a late consultation response from the call authority, and we would like to add an additional condition on to the application. The additional condition just says for the avoidance of doubt, the following conditions are not discharged at this stage. Conditions 2-1 and 2-8, Conditions 6-Archeology, Condition 8, Site Investigation Works, Condition 9, Call Mining and Condition 11 Ventilation Details. Now, all these conditions have sort of two or three parts to them, so they've submitted a reasonable amount of information to satisfy the condition, but there's still some further work to be done, so at this stage, we're not fully discharging these conditions, and it was just to clarify the decision. Thank you, Taylor. Agreed? Agreed. Thank you in that case, we'll move on to item 4.9, which is an application for planning permission at 12 Newton Street in Edinburgh, and that is now a presentation item as well. Item 4.10 is an application for planning permission at 1/8 of a report in Edinburgh. It recommended that this application be granted. Thank you, item 4.11 is an implementation item. Item 4.12 is an application for conservation area consent at South Gillerton Farm at Ravenscroft Street in Edinburgh, and it is recommended that this application be granted. Can we know? Sorry, point of order. Is there, since the previous one is a presentation item, would it be pertinent to also include this one as a presentation item as well? Yeah, I think that would be... we'd be sensible, given that one in release, the conservation area consent, and you would normally watch to have an approved scheme before you grant conservation consent, albeit that's not always a case or maybe some scenarios where it is appropriate to grant conservation area consent in its own, but I think in the circumstances, I would be appropriate. Thank you, so just to confirm then, item 4.12 will now also be a presentation item. We'll move on to item 4.13, which is an application for planning permission at 5 sems place in Edinburgh. It is recommended that this application be refused. Thank you, so there are no applications at section 5, so we'll move on to section 6, which is applications for reheating. We have an application for reheating. It's for planning permission at one Lockside Court in Edinburgh. I'll just pass over to the chief planning officer who will make the presentation. Thank you, Victoria. Thank you, Kevin NogIST. There's an introduction. We've just advised members that today we've got laying Campbell as operations manager. We've also got Clare Miller, who's beside us, who's the senior manager in events and public space operations, which I think was previously known as public safety, and you've got Jackie Mcallenis, who's the senior planning officer who will be given the presentation, but it's just so the members are aware of who's sitting across from you this morning. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This application is for the development of. arena Class 11 use, including ancillary classes, one, a retail, class three, refreshments and cafes. Hot food and bar. Amenities with associated public realm access, landscaping and infrastructure. This slide just shows the location of the application site here in the red circle, you have Edinburgh Park real station next to, and there's real stations up here. Edmar Gateway and Southgail. Jamline comes along here from the eastern turns northwards. There's the 7020 bypass here the M8 here and the site industrial state here with the Southgail here and the airport is up there. This is just a close up view of the application site here at the moment is vacant with the bus turning circle on the south and part. Here is a hotel which is a premier in here and here is an electricity substation with offices up here and the, Mr. New to part here and then site Hill industrial estate. This is just a couple of shots from different angles from the air just showing the application site here with the bus turning circle and the real line and tram line here. A few shots off the application site here this is from the south west corner looking north eastwards got the electricity substation here offices here and you can see that the land dips down from the bus turning circle to lower level. And just another shot from the northwest corner looking towards the city eastwards with the paint lines here. And again you can see how it dips down and the two levels. And just another shot from Northgail looking south towards the paint lines with the premier in here and Edinburgh Park station there. Working westwards of the premier in and Edinburgh Park and beyond that you would have the city bypass. This is a Longside Court here with existing hotel and application site just opposite and that road turns along here and becomes on the northern edge into a pedestrian and cycle route. And that route then turns you can continue eastwards into town or you can go turn south down towards Edinburgh Park and the tram stop and then to Hermiston Gate area. And this is just the substation on the eastern side and this is the cycle path that I referred to earlier. Looking northwards at the bus turning circle you can see the hotel there and out towards offices in the north of Edinburgh Park. This is at the southern end on the path which takes you down to the onto pass. This is Edinburgh Park station and hotel bus turning circle here. And the path just going down, meeting up with the onto pass here that links the Edinburgh Park into the Hermiston Gate area. And this is the, there was a pedestrian cycle route up from the onto pass and it takes you to the tram stop here, the bus stops there and there is an Edinburgh Park station there. And this is just showing the link from Edinburgh Park station. There's also ramp there and cross the tram tracks. There's bus stops there as well and then into the Hermiston Gate area. Moving on to the proposal. As you can see the building itself takes up quite a large chunk of the application site. And we'll be plaza areas at the front here next to the Edinburgh Park station and railway and there will be an access formed here for servicing which will take you round into the servicing yard. So 3D image looking at the front of the building you can see there is a large plaza area at the front and a lower plaza area here. And then this is the service yard here and you can see how would front onto hotel there. And this is just another 3D image from the other side. And again you can just see how it will sit on the site and in relation to the existing hotel that's there. This is a couple of photos together of the model which has been done of the arena and it just shows again how it sits next to the railway line here and with the hotel here and the future development that will take place in Edinburgh Park. And you can see also there's the eastern cycle in there coming onto the underpass and the cycle lanes can go east or west. Just a photo of the elevation here is the Edinburgh Park station there and they can just see the plaza here. And just the lower plaza, there's another plaza and a lower plaza and this is just the lower one again in front of the building. In times of the key considerations these are the principle of development, sustainability in terms of climate change mitigation, design quality and place, amenity of neighbours and future occupiers, transport and public safety. The principle of development, the location of the arena did follow the town centre first approach which looks to put proposals in the most sustainable locations and which are accessible by the most sustainable transport modes. As a sequential test has been carried out and it showed that the centre and edge of the centre and defined centres have been discounted as either unsuitable or unavailable, and that there would be no significant impact on these defined centres and the proposal cannot be reduced or altered to enable it to fit into existing centres. It is in a sustainable location and it will be a mix of uses which is compatible with surrounding area where there is mixed uses. In terms of Edinburgh Park and Southgual it's defined in a local development plan as a strategic employment centre and any development must also include such commercial and business uses. It also looked to have a hub near the station, the application sites marked on the red star. This is where it could link into public transport and also pedestrian and site routes and meet the area where integrated into the city. This is just from the LDP again showing the design transpose and the application site is a large blue square here which is defined as a commercial development and as you can see it is close to the hubs and is in a commercial area. In terms of culture and tourism, the proposal also contribute to us and visitors to the city and not be in a sustainable location which is a transport hub and it will also benefit the economy. Moving on to sustainability, there will be some wildfire planting and in the areas and this will not as pollinators. There are also a hedge proposed along the northern site of it which will contain some green networking corridors. The building will also have to be built, the latest building standard regulations in terms of energy efficiency and insulation, there will be solar panels on the roof. As it will be zero parking and it is next to transport hub, it will also be sustainable in terms of transport. Moving on to design quality and place. The surrounding area has a mix of architectural styles and materials. Most of the buildings are fairly large in height for four or five storeys plus and the building will sit within this context. It will also sit within the wider surrounding area in terms of buildings, for example cross-and-ham flooring, which are large warehouse type buildings and it will contribute to the collective mix of buildings in the area. Materials are modern, for example aluminium cladding and are also acceptable in terms of the surrounding area. It will also contribute to a sense of place, we come to destination itself and that will build on a sense of place of transport hubs or for railway station, tram stop and bus stops at Hermiston Gate. The accessible by range of transport modes are also including walking and cycling and as more residential uses built up in Edinburgh part, it will be integrated into that. It will contribute to local and compact living and 20 minute neighbourhoods. In terms of public realm, there will be the large plaza areas and landscaping will be incorporated into the design and this such as the boundary walls and this example shows how it's incorporated into the steps and other walls and things. And this approach to landscaping given the type of proposal and the site is acceptable. Moving on to amenity of neighbours and future occupiers, this is just to show an overview of Edinburgh part and down here in McPherster is the Accrication site. There is a hotel and offices consented on the site which are higher than the hotel opposite. And in terms of impact on daylighting and sunlight, there will be impact on to the hotel. However, a balance needs to be made between achieving reasonable standards of daylighting and good townscape. And in this case, the townscape of a forming a denser and mixed use area in Edinburgh part would mean that the arena would be compatible in that sense, and would not be an unreasonable loss. The hotel is also commercial, which is less sensitive than if it was an impact on residential properties. Noise mitigation will be required for residential properties. The nearest ones at the moment are at the galleries. And the Edmond part is built out the nearest residential development from the application site measures at about just over 20 metres. However, environmental protection, have recommended conditions relating to noise, and we would be recommending that these are added to any planning permission should it be forthcoming. In terms of transport, this is just an overview. You can see the transport hubs here of the guile and the tram also the Edinburgh Gateway up here and the tram route and the bus routes. It is well linked on the core path network and also with bus stops and it shows the core path coming quite near to the application site. There's also quite route eight, which is just basically goes round the site from running from the east, and it is also near to the tram stop to as I've already mentioned. A transport assessment has been submitted relating to a level of service, and also thinking about chewing from people coming from the event has been tested on different levels of scenarios with worst-case scenario. And in such a case, the arena operators would engage for any pre-communications of support. Any issues on the networks. The application is a highly sustainable location. It's near public transport routes. There will be 78 Sheffield stands on the front plaza. And the egress also relates to public safety. And in this case, public safety is a material planning consideration for this planning application. These slides just show the plaza areas where people would, the space where people would be able to queue. So the key concerns are about the egress coming out of events and how you would get from the event to the public transport stops. This would involve crowd management and a safe working practice for those waiting in queues. The transport assessment has done a mode analysis where a majority of people would use the tram, and it's also looked at different levels of services from good level, an average several, a degraded service and a severely degraded service, which is basically the worst-case scenario and we require contingency plans. The Council's public safety team has advised that the submissions demonstrate how the space could be used to facilitate the queues. And for example, this one here, in addition to the plaza areas, you could have queuing up and around the building on the path and then down into towards a public transport route. So more details would be needed to show how these would work in practice and how the queuing area and where people could come out and egress. It's likely that a public entertainment license would be required. And consider, the license and authority would also consider public safety. However, as public safety is a material planning consideration, there are conditions recommended requiring more details such as accurately, dimensional plans showing queuing areas, plans showing the routes for the non-benew. And it is another pedestrian and cyclist not wishing to use the public transport. For example, we'd also be looking for permanent and flexible signing to provide real-time and live information to the queuing public. And in terms of levels of service, giving information on that and also bearing in mind the zone X, which is the area between the venue and actual public transport and how that could work and operate safely. And therefore, conditions are recommended to the permission relating to these items to ensure that public safety. And so many, the proposal complies with the development plan and principle of development is acceptable in this location. It will be in a sustainable location and contribute to compact urban growth, local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods. It will result in a wider mix of uses in Edinburgh Park and contribute to climate change and mitigation and be energy efficient. It will not have an unreasonable loss on neighbouring immunity and future artepies subject conditions, and there are no issues with archaeology or airport safety, again subject conditions. It will encourage the use of sustainable transport modes, and again, a condition is recommended to ensure a safe operation of roads in the area, falling on from the agnes. Public safety and equality matters have also been considered and in order for mitigation, there is also planning conditions recommended such as lighting. Thank you, Committee. That is the end of my presentation. Thank you very much indeed. That was a regular presentation. Right. Again, to open up for questions. I can roll start and then follow by Councillor B ensuring. I wonder if you could go back because I have a question about accessibility. We know that there is a difference in height differential to access this site and it is quite a tight site, and I would be grateful if you could just show us what accessibility actually looks like because I saw there were some steps there in quite a large chunk of it. I know there is a ramp as well around it. But it would be good to have an understanding, especially when we are talking about queuing process, so people entering and exiting somewhere, how that will be managed in terms of also to deal with accessibility, so individuals from a public safety point of view, you know, have a safe sort of way to exit and to enter an establishment. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO]

This is just one slide showing examples of the levels, and for example, there's lower plaza and upper plaza. Although there's quite a lot of steps there, there is also going to be an external lift for access to the different plaza levels. Is there no slide that shows us how individuals will access, for example, from the railway or around, because if we're suggesting the fact that the tram is, the preferred point of departure and entrance, can we have a look at how people access the area from that space? Do you want me to share this one? Yeah, okay. Thank you, Venerall and I'll be sharing some additional slides that the applicant has submitted with help. I'll come at you very quickly. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Yep, so this is the additional side probability, clarifications that the applicant has provided. And we're looking at that first slide that shows the access in terms of through under the railway line into the site, into that lower plaza area. And again, here's the potential intervention, so you've got the lower plaza area in here in the upper plaza, and this is railway station. Obviously, railway station's got lifts in it, which some members would have noted from the site visit, and these paths are then graded down the slope towards the tunnel under the railway line and over to the tram. I think it's Jackie showing one of the earlier slides, although there's steps in this area here at the tram stop. There is also a ramped access at that point. As Jackie's alluded to, there are steps. It's only way to deal with the difference in levels between the two external plaza areas, but there is a lift provided to give access into the building. And obviously, the internals of the building have to meet with all the various requirements under building regulations in terms of accessibility, but I don't know if that slide helps. Convening in terms of Nicky clarifying the position with accessibility. Can I add something? Sorry. I'm away over the end here. I think as you arrive from the different locations, you will be faced with an act-grade access into the building. There are two different entrances into the building which allows any users from the train station or the tram station to enter from a specific level. There isn't any need to do that movement up and down those steps that are set within that public realm area. There are the two different levels. I can't quite see the plan. The polls got my eyes are not strong enough. There is a top level and a bottom level. There are entrances into the building and movement within the building through lifts or access into seating as well. Anybody that was arriving with mobility issues or wheelchair issues, they would need to address those steps that they can get direct access into the building. Before I move on from this, does anybody have any questions about this particular aspect? No, Councillor Maude. Did you have a question related to this? It was about the lift. I'm just thinking in terms of it's a great feature but sometimes such things aren't maintained well. Can we condition that in any way to make sure that a lot of people don't shop? I think they can use the lift but it just happens to be out of service that week. Is there any way we can condition maintenance on it? It's not something that would be built to me. In terms of placing that burden on the council's planning authority in terms of a condition. You will also appreciate there are various lifts within the building that will also provide access. A similar scenario would apply to those we wouldn't recommend conditions. I think it's in terms of something that the applicant would obviously want to address so they are not falling foul of any equality legislation in terms of any adverse publicity, should we say. Because we know that has come up in other cases but it's not something we would suggest using a planning condition to control. Does that make sense? Thank you. Councilor Cameron was your question related to this? It's related to accessibility and so far as well specifically around queuing management in that release accessibility. It was more just to do those slides though. Okay. Councilor Booth was next. So I was going to ask Councilor Booth then Councilor Cameron, Councilor Gardner then followed by Councilor Nishmanikin. I can get this to work. There we go. Got there in there. It's also about accessibility but it's more about accessibility for people using active travel and walking, wheeling and cycling. So it's right next to quiet route 8. I think it is. I note that the second bullet point in the consultation response from public safety asks for plans to show routes for non venue related and other pedestrians and cyclists not wishing to use public transport. So I suppose do we have those plans and if not are we going to include them as a condition? And if we are including them as a condition, what certainty do we have that there isn't going to be a negative impact from people queuing on those using the existing quiet route? I think if I could come in. I can hear another obvious of various conditions attached which have been recommended by the chief plan officer in terms of more detailed plans. And I think it's about getting a balance between what we can control and planning in terms of what is within the gift of the applicant and their site and what ultimately lies out with their site. And I think what you will also notice in the informates is there is the potential that they may require to get temporary traffic regulation orders put in place and it's part of the transport assessment. We also looked at the situation in terms of the closure time, I think the main issues are really to do with exiting. I mean obviously people arrive at venues at different times but when an event finishes you can have a large number of people exiting the venue and what the applicant is looked at as it looked in terms of various different scenarios, and there's four scenarios in terms of the public transport, but what they've also done is they've carried out site visit at half past ten or thereafter to look at the use of some of those paths that are in the area and it's not considered to be significant, it wouldn't be for all the events that the potential closure, it would only be for potentially specific events if it was actually required as such. So that's why we've tried to cover that with the informative and I understand that the colleagues in transport would probably be looking at having a traffic regulation order that applies full stock, one order, but then it's only used as and when necessary and certainly not all the time as such. I don't know if Matthew's in the call and if he wants to give any further clarification on that which would be something that kind of lies out with the planning process. Yes, thank you. Just to just to confirm what Paul was saying there, what we're looking at would be a traffic order that is in place and is implemented as and when necessary. Part of that is a practical issue that you could be looking at maybe 50 temporary traffic orders a year. So it's just a simpler and more efficient process. I think that's really the only difference. Follow up, cancer booth? Yeah, can I ask a point of clarification? What exactly would this traffic order achieve would that effectively be banning cyclists on the quiet route, or what? Thank you. The details of that will need to be worked out in consultation with my Rhodes colleagues and public safety as to what is actually required and the various agencies that would be involved in that. But certainly what I'm expecting and this is one of the things we've been discussing with the applicant is making sure that you've got pedestrian and cycle access through the site. Even when there is queuing because that's obviously a key issue. So I think that a lot of those details have got to be sorted out, but that will become clear as we work through that process. Can be a no, I'm still not clear what the traffic order will will do. Can we have some clarity on that, please? I think Claire is going to have a go now. Okay. The initial discussions I've talked about a short term and also shortly diversion aim for active travel. So while we haven't finalized that, it would be for a very short period at the egress of these larger events and we're talking about the full capacity events, eight and a half thousand. Again, limited times per year, so up to twenty, I think, is part of the application and the diversion route is, I don't know in terms of metres, but a very short diversion off the usual route. Can I ask you, is that similar to what we have, for example, we've just had for Taylor Swift and we've had around the sort of Murray Field area? Yeah, so I think it's fair to say that zone X management for events and can enlarge your venues such as this is complicated. So I've been very pleased with the kind of positive engagement we've had so far. However, you know, there's still some details that need to be worked out because there is a kind of multi agency approach to zone X between the venue and public transport hub. So these initial discussions have happened and that's one element of it that we've discussed so far. I think I catch a camera and then capture the gardener and then I had captured me in the each meeting and then I have to change. Thank you. We'll jump to the queue because even though my question is about queuing. So, Port Analysis, and I'll be asking the same question of the applicants when I get the opportunity. What analysis, queuing management analysis has been done of the proposals because from the site visit from the formation and the report and the presentation that we have. I'm looking for some sort of clarity of our students around people who are seeking to access the events who have mobility issues whether they're using wheelchairs or other means. How are they affected by the queue management? Has that been taken into account? I fear that people who do have mobility issues could get caught up or, you know, has that been analyzed thoroughly by our officers? I'm really, I have studied queue management, but I'm a bit rusty on it. So how do we do that here when we're looking at things, you know, applications like this? What has been done? So, as part of the application, they provided details about the various modes of transport and the percentages of people they expect to use per transport. We then took that information based on the kind of flow in terms of time and length and depending on the type of transport and the kind of level of service we're expecting to give best case and worst case scenario in terms of the number of people we'll be expecting in queues. So that is being put back to that book, and we have got good level of plans in terms of how they would expect to hold people on their plazas and then feed those people to the various transport links. Accessibility is one part of that, and so it's particular cues for people with accessibility needs would be part of that management plan. As I mentioned earlier, it's quite a multi-agency thing that we need to be looked at. So not only the venue are involved, but also the transport partners themselves and how we feed people from the venue to the transport hubs is something we would need to work out in detail, but accessibility is obviously a major consideration as part of that. May I do a brief follow-up please. I appreciate you answering to me in terms of how you've looked at it in the whole and accessibility and queues, but given the people are going to come individually with groups and families. So with two different entries to the venue, and given the choices of mode of access, tram, chain, whatever tax they drop off. Is it envisaged that people with mobility issues are going to be in a... Is the plan or is it thinking that they have to be in a separate queue regardless of how they arrive and regardless of which level they're seeking to access the venue from? Are they going to have to be split up from there? And companions? To see what I mean, I'm trying to visualize it if you're going as an individual, not in terms of these are the numbers and these are the physical buildings. It's how it all gets managed in a way that respects human rights, if you like. We wouldn't expect anyone to be separated from their family, and certainly that would be part of the planning that we would do with the applicant. I think if they've probably had a question for the applicant about how they deal with that and other venues, and haven't been out, that's not the approach that would be taken. I think we had to be mindful of sticking to the planning sort of thing, and not to stray too heavily into the management element. I appreciate there's a very, very fine line, I'm just saying that right from the beginning. My question is really convene how our officers analyze the queuing management element that relate to the planning application. Sorry if I was a bit clumsy in my work doing around that. I just think we just need to be very clear, the difference between an actual management of an event versus the actual application of the stadium itself because obviously they're two separate things. Right. Okay. Councillor Gourdner. Yeah, thank you, Executive Director. So I think that the main issue that concerns committee so far is the external space, and I appreciate that planning has limited powers over that, but I want some degree of reassurance about similar to what Councillor Booth was talking about, but really in terms of pedestrian routes, because it's quite a tight space in front of the venue on two levels, and there's something like between 1500 and 1800 houses scheduled to be built in the South Edinburgh Park area over the next five years or so. So there's going to be a lot more people there than are currently there, and also with COVID. It's ceasing to be an issue. More people are returning to officers in the area, and there's going to be more office blocks as well. So I want a bit of the assurance and I'll ask the same of the applicant about pedestrian routes coming through the tunnel in front of the venue, et cetera, so that the local community won't be impaired when events are taking place. And a bit more information, if possible. I see it is a planning condition about the queues, but I would have thought you'd want more reassurance at this stage as well as putting a condition in there. So condition five is about space and queuing, and condition six is again about pedestrian routes and so on. So please give me a bit more reassurance, whatever you have there on this matter, please. So for the existing community, and people are not going to concerts getting through the area, and that there is enough space for adequate queuing. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Yes, there are planning conditions that do relate to this type of situation with how the queues are managed, and also for folk going to the event and folk not using the event, but still needing to use the routes. And that's all through the planning conditions for this one, and that's how planning authority would look. Maybe I should be more specific. I appreciate your reassurance there, but can you -- we're here to examine these and reassure ourselves to how that might work or is that something that the applicant is going to bring to the table. This scrutiniser, thank you. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Councillor. Yes, the queues, the has been some work and analysis done on the queues and the areas and how the areas would be used and how they would impact on the pedestrian and cycle network. And this slide just shows how the green is like the worst-case scenario or the detailed and degraded service. And the queues would come around there. [ Pause ] [ Pause ] So yes, and the queues just shown how the would be managed in terms of the local space available on the roads and also the plans would be holding it, and the conditions would also look at how people using the pedestrian and cycleways that aren't going to the event would also be managed. But again, there are the plan conditions, and in addition to that the route to be the crowd management plans, etc., that the multi-agencies and public safety would be involved in. I'm sorry, I'm just going to say, I think it's important to remember the dynamic nature of the events that might happen in the arena, that there's various different capacities, various different events that will take place. So, it's examining the worst-case scenario at the 8,500 capacity, but it's not all events that will be pitched at that level, there will be other different events. I think it's also important to think of how people move within the Edinburgh Park area. So, if you were being in town and you're coming to potential new housing, there is other tram stops, so there's not necessarily that interaction from Edinburgh Park tram stop to the new housing because there's the tram stop up at the parabola. So, there is a second tram stop up there. So, it's thinking about how pedestrians would interact with that tunnel, how they would come through that area. We walked across the bridge at the station, so there is an alternative route for pedestrians across the bridge at the station as well, that then takes them away from the front of the venue as well. And also, it's thinking about the different options for movement within Edinburgh Park as well, and it's not just all funneled up the front of the building, there are other options there. OK, I've got Kastmani Tmedekem, followed by Council of James, followed by Council Douglas. Thank you. My question is also related to Zone X. So, we were told that there would be signs giving live waiting times to people that work here, which would, I think, be very useful, but where will those be and who will be maintaining those? Is that the applicants? Is that the tram network? So, where will they be and who's going to be maintaining them, so that the live journey times are accurate? There is a condition recommended relating to information and real sort of lifetime information for events, and we could cover often that. The maintenance would not be something that the planned authority would recommend we take on, and that would be up to the arena operators to ensure that they were maintained. Councilor Jones. Thank you, Kelvina, thank you for your report. The transport assessment indicates a modal split of journeys with approximately 40% by tram, 30% by bus, 10% by heavy rail, and 15% by car. Now, it's quite hard to imagine 8,500 people converging on those different modes of transport. However, my concern here is how reliable is that assessment? I mean, how did you actually arrive at 30% by bus, 40% by tram, and it could actually be a lot more by tram? Has that been considered? Can be, I don't know, if Marty would like to comment on that, but obviously the applicant has provided a detailed transport assessment and a tandem, which has examined the likely modal splits, and I think as Councilor Jones has highlighted, it suggests that the greatest amount of output lifters is obviously through the tram, and then followed by other forms of transport down to then walk and inside, but no, if Marty would wish to comment on the transport assessment as such, or make any comment. Yeah, so thank you. In terms of the assessment, essentially what we would normally expect is you're looking at the worst case, I think the 15% by car is really the worst case. So yes, we would be hoping and expecting and looking for a higher mode share, ideally, zero by car. Obviously, that puts pressures onto other modes, but basically what they're looking at is a worst case. And as I think I've said before, it depends on a number of assumptions, so what it's really doing is giving you an indication so the figures will vary from event to event, because obviously you're looking at different types of events, potentially different times of event, daytime, night time, winter, that kind of thing. So it is an estimate over a number of times. So I think we're comfortable with what they've done. Just a quick follow-up. Just a quick follow-up, 15% by car is quite high and there's no parking. Can you just clarify that for me, please? Although there is no parking directly with the venue, there is potential for parking. Obviously, you've got Hermiston Gate, not that far away. Now that's up to them to manage that. I think at the moment it's a four-hour maximum. And there's also the Bankhead Industrial Estate, which has no restrictions on a lot of that. In terms of Edinburgh Park itself, we're pursuing or we're looking at the wider context in terms of controlling parking. That said, the majority of that will only be controlled during the day, so it wouldn't operate. It's unlikely to operate at evenings and weekends. That said, we are looking at the wider context of that and the whole of that West Edinburgh. The potential for development in the whole of West Edinburgh, what the implications are. So although there is no parking directly with the venue, there is potential for parking in the area, and that's why we're looking at that wider Edinburgh Park context. Can we just add to that, you also have the multi-story, parabola. And I think the applicants' transport assessment does recognize that if you look at the wider area, there's potential for up to 4,500 car parking spaces. But that's not something that we can control through planning and such. I have Councillor DAGUISH Facebook, no? I have Councillor MAT. Yes, I suppose what my question was really about whether the buses assessment in the transport mode shift included coaches. I hear what you say about the potential for car parking in the wider area, which we're all familiar with, but knowing how the second, well, that's the largest theatre venue in the UK, actually, at the playhouse. Has a significant amount of coach parking and drop-off associated with performances. I would imagine that this may well be similar. So is there any provision for coach parking, or are they included by the drop-off in buses? Matthew, I think you might be up for that one. I think coach parking is a tricky one because it'll vary depending on the type of event. But I think we're quite happy with what's being proposed in terms of accommodating that. Whether they will be accommodated as part of the traffic order that applies to that, or whether they'll be required to go somewhere else, or drop-off and then go somewhere else. I think those are details that need to be worked out, but that's going to be on an event by event basis, I would expect. I completely garbled that question, because I conflated two things. My real question was really about coach drop-off and is there provision for that, because that's really the bit that we can control in the planning application? Yes, essentially, yes. There is, there can be coach drop-off. Then whether that answers the question directly. That's helpful. Thanks, Matthew. Okay, so anyone who hasn't asked a question so far - oh, can you get to it? Coming back on a completely different issue. So I'm looking at thanks Jackie for the near-bring immunity, it's touched on the important bit, there will be a detrimental impact to the hotel, that is close to site in terms of daylight and sunlight. Now I obviously understand what you don't attach the same amount of weight. Commercial premises we do to residential premise in your report you said, that you're sort of satisfied with the levels of daylight lost, but can you give me a little bit more detail because it doesn't actually go into the information or the number of rooms that would be affected by the loss of daylight? It's a little bit more information to be helpful, thanks. [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] The daylight's impact and sunlight impact is quite tricky, one to consider and bring up the balance of other things, what happens is that there is an existing consent on the site of the hotel and office development which is six stories plus and which is higher than the arena is going to be, and that's already been consented and that obviously has an impact on the existing hotel in terms of daylight and sunlight. And this is the shadow diagrams that have been provided by the applicant, and they do show some of the sunlight and how it goes around and affects the hotel. It is only the eastern side of the hotel affected the rooms on the southern part of the hotel, and to the rear won't be affected by the arena building, but it is in this case weighing up the amenity in terms of townscape, and as the Edinburgh Park is going to become a more denser area and the buildings are going to be that a bit higher than that impact would be reasonable in this instance. Thank you. OK, moving on to secondary questions. I have a secondary question, I see Councillor Nish Butnykin has a question, Councillor Jones? OK, so, Jackie, my secondary question is about women's safety. In your presentation, you've stated to ensure women's safety, the applicant will need to address improved lighting to footpaths, and the CTT coverage and design the fence along surface yard boundary to east to provide visual support, therefore condition is recommended. I see in condition eight there is a recommendation about lighting, but there is nothing about CCTV or the rest of it. I just wondered where that is covered. Thank you, Convener. Yes, we will be looking for that to include the CTTB and lighting, and they are to improve the safety in particular on the eastern section. You know, where the substation is and the existence cycle path, and just improve the safety for that. I think the other thing, Convener, is that the applicant has submitted information on this, and some of it will relate to management. So, obviously, the operator thinks we've got a women's safety charter as such. There's got the front of the house teams, CCTV as Jackie's alluded to, but I think they also employ covert security teams, and have got dedicated fan welfare teams and specific medical resources that they would provide. Again, that would be something that would be the only appropriate under the actual operation of the premises, rather than the kind of land just planning considerations, some of those latter points. Thank you. Council moves? Thank you. It was -- I'm not sure if this question is for Matthew or Claire, but it was on page 261 of our papers. It notes that with a good level of service on the trams, running every 3.5 minutes, they could move approximately 3,857 people. We've heard that we're hoping that most people are accessing the arena by public transports, but looking at that good level of service, it looks like it's going to be two to three hours to get everybody out, including people that work at the arena. So, could we hear some comment on that because I'm not sure queuing for two hours and an Edinburgh summer would be classified as good? Thanks, Councillor. Yes, so the levels of service have been calculated as if they are the level of service throughout what we actually experience with public transport as there is possibly a delay but a delay that takes 20 to 30 minutes. So, while those calculations have been done in a kind of genetic way in reality, we would expect the queuing to be far less. Indeed, that's what we experience at other events as well. I think your next, Councillor Johnson. Thank you. I realise that there's a fine line between planning issues and management of public safety. However, I think this question needs to be asked with regards to worst-case scenarios. Should there be a tram, public transport strike and the tram there is an operative or the trains are not running? You mentioned there are contingency plans for the worst-case scenarios. What are those contingency plans, please? That's something I think we would consider as part of the overall management of the events and probably through the licensing process rather than through the planning. What we've tried to do here is put forward what we think would be permanent and kind of physical measures that would help inform and help put in place those contingency plans. So, it's really positive that we're able to influence this stage some physical things that would help overall contingency plans for the venue of this size. Councillor Booth. No I had Councillor Bennett. Then Councillor Booth. Thank you, Kavino. Excuse me. Going back to worst-case scenarios, we've spoken about queuing. Now, behaviour on the way into a venue is always going to be a bit different to the behaviour on the way out. And assuming that there are going to be people leaving, maybe having had some alcohol, there's not much space for dispersing of crowds as they're concerned that this might be difficult to mitigate. Thank you. Thank you for the question. So, yes, I agree that there's kind of limited space. However, I haven't discussed with that. We can, and their experience now that are venues, again, this is something that will come up as part of the Sonix Management Plan after the venue's been built. And we're dealing with the Mechanical Agency meetings to do the Sonix. However, you know, our experience would be that there'd be welfare teams stewarding, not just from the venue, but also from public transport providers to make sure that the welfare and safety of people outside the venue is taking care of before they enter on to whatever transport mode they're looking to do so. Councillor Booth. Thanks for coming in. In terms of the underpass, what's the width of that? Obviously, it's outside the red line, I appreciate that. But what is the width of the underpass and what is the anticipated capacity in terms of pedestrians per hour or whatever? We measured at 4.6 metres wide on site. Yeah. In terms of how that would be managed, again, the financial discussions with the applicant would be that the underpass would be kept clear. So, the queuing would take place before they would then be managed through and then enter into the other queue for transport hubs. That would also enable an easier passage of those who aren't part of the event or any just looking to go about their daily business. So, while the underpass is a pinch point, that is how we would kind of physically manage it on the site. But, again, this is something that would be taken care of as part of the zoning mix management, which is probably not part of planning. Is it a brief follow-up that particular question, Councillor Booth? It is, yeah. So, have any conversations been had about expanding the underpass and if not, could we potentially condition that? Can you tell us something about that? Convenor, I think really what I would suggest is that we wouldn't be recommending any conditions to do anything with the underpass. I think Matthew might be able to write further information on it because I know he was involved in some of the upgrading of the underpass many years ago. But unfortunately, this underpass seems to date back to the original Edinburgh Glasgow Railway line, that's the edge of it, and it was the original Carltons Road. And I think the concern is that it wouldn't be appropriate for us to require the developer to upgrade that, and I think there's no concern just given some of the experience we've had with bridges in a city dealing with network rail. That given the consenting processes that would have to be gone through, which we don't have any control over, network rail might not, consent to what's been carried out under railway line, there's a real concern that any such approach along those lines could jeopardize. The delivery of this project, whether actually delivering a significant benefit, but it was something that we did look at very early on in the process. But I don't know if Matthew wants to come in further on that. I think I've got an awful lot to offer, rather than just to say that the practicalities of widening effectively alive underpass, under a live railway line is going to be a very complicated process. As my colleague says, I don't think it's actually going to be worth doing that. It's better managed, rather than trying to widen that and the costs I think would be fairly substantial. I think it's also worth saying that the ownership of the bridge and the land underneath is slightly opaque, I think it's putting it mildly. OK, I'm moving around to the third-running question. I'm conscious also of time. Sorry, Councillor Cameron? OK, I'm conscious of time because we have been at this for a while now, et cetera. Can I please ask that we keep our questions really brief? Councillor Cameron followed by Councillor Maurit. Yes, my question simply is about provision or discussions that have been hard around taxi dropoff. Provision space for blackups to bring people that's been happening. Matthew? Apologies could be, do I miss the question? It's about taxi dropoff. Taxis will be able to dropoff. I think what the applicant is proposing is to limit that amount of dropoff by taxis, coaches, private vehicles. So clearly the travel plan and how that is managed on an event by event basis is going to be very, very important. A brief-- Yes, it's very brief. Just that particularly blackups are capable of bringing wheelchair back --there's only mode that can bring people's clothes. So I would hope that they don't get lumped. I appreciate limiting private vehicle dropoff, but blackups are different. They're in an accessible form of transport. Councillor Matt, just trying to crystallise this, we've got an application that is going to be reliant in its operation on very, a lot of other regulatory services within the Council. So leaving that to one side, which is helpful to have representatives today, are we from a planning point of view, confident that the necessary management that will need to be in place for these events can be accommodated on this site and within the plan that is in front of us before us? I suggest that it's answered by clear first in an onto planning officers. From my point of view, yes, I am. I think the conditions that are in here will mean that we've got some physical measures in place to help that, which is very welcome. I think from a planning point of view, you wouldn't be recommending approval before you. I think as you recognise, there is a kind of mastery in between what planning can control and what falls under public safety. I think in particular about some of the wording in NPA for policy 23, which, to quote Matthew, is probably slightly opaque on the public safety issues, but we wouldn't be recommending approval subjects, take intentions if we didn't think that this was appropriate, and we'd give them the due regard. That's why you'll see in your papers that you haven't looked at it through the President of the Development Plan, we've then went on to look at public safety being a significant material consideration. Thank you. I can't remember how many questions you've asked Councillor Gartner. Do you want to come in after Councillor Moneukh in because she has waited for a while? Thank you, for the record, this is my third question. It's a question to clear. Is there anything else that you think could be done in terms of physical measures to make that area more permeable if it were needed? So if there was a need to evacuate immediately away from the building, can you advise us whether anything can be done structurally to make it become more permeable? For some reason, there's a reason that people are not able to queue around the building because they need to get away from the building. That's my question. Yeah, I thank you for the question. I think given the site and given the roots away from it, I think that the planning, the plan shows the best use of the space. Again, a lot of it will come down to management at the time, which is not something we're considering today. But we will look, obviously, very closely at those plans to make sure that people are dispersed in as quicker and as easy away as possible. Councillor GODNE. Yes, again, a question for a clear convener. I understand the sort of Disney queuing system to get in and people are often prepared to do that. I'm not aware of instances where people queue to get out, particularly given Councillor VEN Manet's question about people perhaps consuming alcohol as well, and so on. But are you aware of instances where people have to queue to get out for possibly 20, 30 minutes to wait their tram? Just a wee bit of reassurance. Excuse me, can I sum out? Could you be quiet, please? Thank you. Are you aware of instances like that, please? Yeah, so in this instance, we're not queuing to get the building as such as the walls and the emergency the people will be out of the venue. It's more that the queuing on the plazas are designed to queue for the next stage in their journey, and that happens a lot. So other theatres, Murray Field is obviously the forefront of my mind having just had the weekend that we've had, so yes, it is present for that and we're comfortable that the conversation is ongoing with the operator that we'll be able to manage that. Okay, Committee, have we now exhausted questions to your officers? Councillor Jones. Thank you, convener, and I'd be absolutely clear in my mind that understand this issue, and I think Ms Campbell referred to it earlier. The majority of people coming by tram will be coming out of Edinburgh, probably right-hand assuming that. And... Oh! Okay, so those coming out of Edinburgh, for example, and getting off the tram stop, can you just clarify again exactly what are there, what are the entrances from the actual bus from the tram stop, obviously underneath the bridge, and also there's another way of accessing us there. So, yeah, I feel that's been directed to me. So, tram arrivals, people coming from the city, they have an option to either get off the tram at Edinburgh Park Station. I think when I answered the question, it was more about the new residence within Edinburgh Park and where the air option would be. If they were arriving by tram back to the residence, there's the Edinburgh Park Station outside the parabola office that we took the tram to on the site visit, so there is a second tram stop there to allow the residents to access their properties up to the offices and the businesses. If you're arriving by tram to go to the venue, then you can go under the tunnel or there is the overbridge at the railway as well. I think there will be passengers that will arrive from your airport bound destinations. We've got the park and ride at Engleston. We've got Edinburgh Gateway Station, which provides that interaction hub between train and tram as well. There's the guile, and we do have a significant population within the north cram and direction that may approach from the north as well, so it won't be everybody that will be coming city bound. I think, you know, just to add to that, it's part of the transport assessment. The applicant has modeled and looked at it in terms of the split between coming from Engleston and the split coming from city centre. Obviously, the split between city centre takes a greater proportion in terms of the transport assessment. Okay, is this final question after Councillor Gardner? Yeah, very quick. We talked about the tunnel converter. It was thought given to an additional bridge at any point. Convener, I think it was probably an area in terms of what we'd actually add in terms of mitigation. It wasn't considered that it would be appropriate to mention it with the scale of its development. We've had a lot of discussions this morning where we've had Murray Field mentioned in the concept of the weekend. And I think just now we take a bit of perspective. That was 73,000 people that were at that. This venue's got a potential top capacity of 8,500 in the wound that operated at that level. And as I've already narrated, having been involved in a whole line as well as being involved in a number of situations where we've tried to get bridge connections across live rail rail lines. But what rail it is is an extremely complicated matter and it's also very expensive as well, not only in terms of the course of the actual bridge, but I think also some of the course to do with insurances that are required during construction, a thousand accidents on tele-rail rail line and the various legals that are required with that. So as I said, it wasn't something we felt was appropriate, but we do obviously have the bridge with a lift accessibility on the railway at the station site itself. Yeah, I was just going to add in. I'm involved in negotiations with Network Rail on another bridge to provide an out-of-travel route over. It then comes into the liability of the bridge and who is then the owner of the bridge and the adoption and the insurances, etc, that go with it. And quite often that burden is then left with the council and how that is then maintained going forward and it's an extremely complex process for what might be an event once a week or something. What is the outcome? I think, given it's the main Edinburgh Glasgow line, then Network Rail there will be significant issues there as well to resolve. It's not a straightforward process, unfortunately. Okay, right. Have you exhausted questions to officers? Okay, I believe the fact we have no representatives or consortees present. So they're known from the Kevin Association Spokes, Connor Boyle or Karen Jack in the gallery. No. So what I'm suggesting that we do, that we take a break until Harpassed. And then at Harpass we will obviously hear from the applicants. Okay. Okay. No problem? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. All good? Sure. Sure. Hi everyone. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. My name is Alistair Wood. I'm the EVP for Real Estate Development for EAG. And I'm here today with Daniel Kennedy Clark, who's Vice President for Guest Experience and Operations, again, across our European venues, which we'll talk about shortly. We also hear John Rhodes, who's the Architect from HOK, Adam and Alice De Wood, the other Alice De Wood, from Servo's, our Planning Consultants, and Alan Spence, from Ted Zotek, who is our Transport Consultant, so obviously I haven't pulled everyone down, but if you want to ask questions then they're certainly here to help. Should you wish? So I just want to, that does not work. Point it. Oh, right. You. Yeah. It's buzzing. There you go. Thank you. Right, so just to introduce our company, so EAG is the Enchals Entertainment Group, privately owned by a chat called Phillip Anchots, who's US-based and basically create, present and promote live content through state-of-the-art venue sports properties, concerts, festivals, events and broadcasts. We only operate over 325 at the world's most prestigious facilities, including those through our current affiliate ASM Global. We present over 22,000 events each year and reach billions of fans globally. And I think one of the benefits we're sort of presenting to you today is we're an owner, operator. So there's some examples of our sort of big trophy projects, if you like, at the bottom there, so the crypto.com arena in downtown Los Angeles, the Uber Arena in Berlin and the O2 in London, which are all great examples of urban regeneration projects that have transformed districts using the venue as the anchor to that proposition. So I think that's, you know, a big part of the benefit as we see it, is that we're here throughout the construction stage and then obviously across into operations as we get through that. So that's also been a really key part in the sort of defining of the site, the conception of the brief that we gave to HOK, and the design development as well. So Danielle and me here today, but we've had about another 15 people within EAG involved in creating the brief and making sure the building's right size for the site, and then also for the market. So we've also got our Promotions of division, A.G. Presents, who were the promoter for, there was a show at the weekend, you won't have heard about Taylor Swift, played three nights. So that was an A.G. Presents show. We've got Axis, our ticketing division, and then also A.G. global partnerships, our sponsorships division. So we've got the tools in-house to sort of program commercialize, a ticket, all the venues, and that's a model we roll across into all our venues. Could you go on to the next slide, please? So this site, so I just wanted to sort of summarize how we ended up on this site. Basically, we conducted a sort of European-wide search to identify, effectively, a gap analysis to identify the cities where there's an opportunity for new venues. Edinburgh came up right slap bang at the top of that list. It's been on our sort of target list for a long, long time. So we've had a number of discussions around the city. I mean, some of the data points which I won't talk about to you here on, but you understand, obviously, a fantastic catchment, but also an amazing amount of inbound tourism. So all of those kind of fundamentals add up to give us a really strong sense that Edinburgh is a great market. We also do a lot of work analyzing Spotify listeners, and we know that Edinburgh comes out third in the UK in terms of music consumption per capita behind only Manchester and Birmingham, and ahead of London Glasgow leads. Bristol, obviously, Edinburgh's got a fantastic pedigree in terms of its history for entertainment and sport. You've got the big events, you've got the rugby, but you've also got the festivals and the success of all your smaller venues and theatres. And so we love the kind of heritage in pedigree of Edinburgh. But obviously, it's a city that's starved at the moment of a decent-sized venue in this category. So you've got the three venues out around 3,000 capacity, and then you've got Murrayville Stadium and the Edinburgh Castle as the sort of outdoor opportunities. But there's no significant indoor venues. So that's kind of how we've ended up choosing this site. And then, obviously, you've got larger venues that you're aware of, the Hydro Glasgow PGA in Aberdeen, and then the arena in Newcastle. But we think this still fits as a massive gap in the market. Jacky mentioned the sequential testing we did earlier. We looked at sites in Leith, we'd looked at sites on Meadowbank, we'd looked at sites out around the airport. But we stumbled across effectively Edinburgh Park and Parabola, who we think would be, we love the work they've done they're all ready, and we think they'd be a great partner to help us bring forward this transformational project onto the site. And then, obviously, the world-class transport connections and the train. So we've got some stuff that we've talked about so much. I only add to that appeal. So if you go on to the next slide, please. So, the arena itself, so obviously the maximum capacity of 8500, which isn't, and then we'd have 6500 capacity when you've got seats rather than standing across the floor. Very high quality venue, so HOK, it's a world-leading arena architect. So we've designed the building the specific brief in mind. And we want the building to be capable of hosting a whole range of content. So that will include, obviously, focused on live music, but that will also hopefully include comedy, boxing, ice shows, music. And we think there's a massive opportunity to sort of tie in and support the festival and all the activities that go in around that. Our target would be to host around 150 events a year. So, again, across those sectors. But that, the arenas generally take a bit of time to stabilize, but we'd hope that by year three we'd be having at least 150 shows a year. We've got the public Piazza. John just made a good point. I think given the scale of the building, the Piazza's looked very small in the context of the images and everything else. But actually, there's a lot of space there, and we think there'd be fantastic public spaces all the way around the building that help customer flows, but also help the guest experience as they approach the building. We've spent a lot of time on acoustics, internal and external. So, someone mentioned the potential impact on the hotel. Early I think generally they'll be cockahoot that we'd be building an arena next to their hotel, but also we've made sure daylight, sunlight, and no noise bleed effectively from the building, so it'd be completely acoustically sealed. So, it'd be very little discernible, audible noise outside the venue itself. And then just a key point here, obviously, the project, as it's planned, proposed is 100% privately funded. So, I think you're probably aware of examples in Cardiff, Swansea, and Leeds, where there's been subsidies ranging between £30 and £50 million coming from the city. From day one, Paul Lawrence and his team have been very clear, there's no city subsidy available here. So, we're trying to deliver this venue as 100% privately financed initiative, as we did. The O2 and the Staples Centre as it was in Los Angeles, same in Berlin. We think the economic benefits to Edinburgh and local community will be huge, about 250 operational jobs at the arena, and a further 700 jobs halo benefits, as we call them, in and around the arena, and the same about £85 million to spend a year driven into the economy, not just in the arena, but again in the wider area. And I think you saw some of those impacts with the Taylor Swift shows at the weekend. Enhancing, diversifying Edinburgh's already fantastic cultural offering. Hang on to the next slide. So, leading sustainability credentials, again, this has been a focus of all the very, very positive discussions we've had with all the stakeholders, planning officers, public transport providers, and other key stakeholders around the site. So, we've touched on this as we've gone through. Obviously, we're proposing no parking, which we think in itself is a great thing, but obviously that also in itself creates a number of natural questions. I think the very fair questions that have been asked around how people will get to the venue. And I think also it's easy to get concerned by the sort of snaking cues, but just to emphasise a lot of that stuff is predicated on failures in public transport, which we hope will never happen. Cami Dade talked a lot in his article this morning about team Edinburgh and how everyone joined together to make the Taylor Swift shows such a success. I think we're relying on that support, but nonetheless have analysed the downsides if you like. What happens if there is no tram? What happens if the trains aren't working, et cetera. But we're very confident that this is an arena site. No site's ever perfect, but we think it's as close as you get. So, we'll be targeting Briam excellent. So, we've got a ray of photovoltaic cells across the roof. We're using air sorts of heat pumps, and then there'll be other initiatives around the site to drive biodiversity, cycle parking for staff and customers that's been mentioned, and we're hoping it'll be one of, if not the world's most efficient arenas when it's built. So, just picking up on a couple of other points that have been mentioned. So, I think Danny will talk about wheelchair access as we go to the next slides. I think also just one example, Arthur News, is when we took on the Millennium Dome from the government and built out the O2, we had two nights of Madonna Friday Saturday night, and we got a letter from Transport for London. Anyone who's been to the O2 knows how the line is on the effect of this single line, a transport, the Jubilee line. We got a letter from Transport for London on the Tuesday, saying basically there'll be no tubes this weekend. We're closing it to do signal upgrades. We got two nights at Madonna, and actually it worked as well as it possibly could. In the circumstances, everyone came, everyone got there, got away. But I think the point I'm making there is, you know, if you had to have analyzed that scenario and considering the application from the Dome or the O2 arena that came subsequent, there's no way anything would ever have been approved. So, you know, the Transport networks do obviously fail at times, and they also prove fairly resilient in finding ways to get people in and around the site. Done now. Great. So, I'm just going to take you through... Thank you. Got a loud voice, but I'll use that. So, I'm going to take you through some of the operational considerations. Obviously, they're vast, but I'm just going to summarize briefly for you today. So, as Alistair mentioned, we own and operate large venues, small venues across the world. We also do festivals. So, one of our main values is just to be best in class in everything that we do. So, my particular job is making sure that that is always considered in the guest experience. So, whoever the guest is, we're always thinking about the tiny details from how the toilets are going to be working, to how quick you can get into that building. Can you be serviced at a bar? How can you move around when you arrive and you leave? So, you know, we do really strive to be best in class. And we do have lots of accolades that kind of support that. So, the O2 being the billboard venue of the decade, Polestar for the last 12 years running, we have a greener arena of accreditation. So, again, considering how we put sustainability at the forefront of everything in which we deliver, and you're probably aware that this industry hasn't necessarily been the most sustainable in the past. But we're really moving forward now and pushing all of our incoming promoters to sit in a really, really high standard of what accessibility, sorry what sustainability is and, you know, down to the way in which we manage our waste and what products we would bring into the building and all of those sorts of things really are at the forefront of what we deliver. And we're also very proud to be just recently named Sunday Times Best Places to Work in 2004. So, you know, our teams are seeing it's a fantastic place to work as well. Looking at the building of this arena, we took lots of reports and looked at many different factors around hostile vehicle mitigation, blast mitigation, security threat risk assessments, and vulnerabilities. So, that will be really put into absolutely everything that we do. And safety and security is our number one priorities in all of our buildings and our festivals. It's paramount. So, that will be put into all of the planning processes and Claire mentioned it lots today. There will be detailed processes around that. We would share that with you guys. It would be on an ongoing basis, depending on what the risks are of those events and what we're actually bringing to that area. We will continue to liaise throughout. I'll give you a quick example of how we do it at the moment. We have very, very close contacts with all of our local authorities and our stakeholders. We sit down and we provide all the details of the events well in advance. So, there will be a diary that would come out 28 days in advance. You'd get a risk assessment around what we actually expect. So, what's the demographic of the event? What are the risks? What time arrival processes? Are they going to come in the car? Are they going to come on the tube or on the tram? So, all of that detail really is put through really rigorous testing and our events teams don't plan anything without going through those processes. We spoke about briefly women's safety. Again, we would be looking to be part of many charters. Depending on where we sit within this area. But we'd be looking to put at the forefront of all of our planning women's safety but also for any vulnerable guests that are coming to us as well. So, good examples of this is safe spaces on site. Paul mentioned earlier covert teams working both outside the venue but inside the venue. Taylor Swift would be a really good example of that. This is probably the first gig they've ever been to. And they don't know how to interact. They don't know where to go. They've lost their phone, their shoes, whatever that may be. We do consider all of that in the planning and we put those processes in place so that our staff are able to interact with those guests and make sure that they have the best possible time. And it's a fantastic memorable experience rather than a really negative one. So, that is always at the forefront of our planning processes. It goes without saying you know there'll be full CCTV and operation. There'll be an on site 24 hour coverage but we will uplift on event periods as well. So, there'll be a control room dealing with all of the transport herbs, local authorities, etc. So that everybody is aware of exactly what the plans are. I'm so sorry to interrupt you. Your 15 minutes is actually just about to be up. So, if I would just ask if you would mind us concluding? Yeah absolutely fine. I think I've covered off the event plans fully in there anyway. But our dream is that we are good neighbours and that we will fully engage with you guys. And we're just super excited about this project. It's over to you all. Okay, so I was going to conclude by wrapping up. If you've got one more minute or happy to finish there if you want. Oh go on. I'll give you a bit back. So, just quickly, so you know submission is application quality, sense of consultation. We did two public exhibitions and a lot of stakeholder discussions. Alan's had a lot of discussions all transport operators. Been a very positive dialogue and as Daniel says we're hugely excited about hopefully bringing this forward. Considered all that feedback with designer building we believe is perfect for the market. We're a best-in-class operator. We're privately funded and we think the economic benefits, 80 million a spend, 500 million plus of gross value add and 1000 or so jobs is all very positive for the city. So, if planning permission secured we really want to get on and seek closure on some of the issues we've spoken about today. Close out the site purchase with Parabola and then secure naming rights in a building partner. None of which is going to be easy but aspiration would be to be able to host our first event in 2020. Thank you very much. If you just wouldn't mind switching if you're mind temporarily thank you. I'm going to open up for questions. I see Councillor Booth. Thanks for coming along. Sounds really exciting in many ways. I'm afraid I'm going to ask you the same question that I asked to officers about specifically that underpass and the capacity there. Do you know what the pedestrian capacity is going through there and what impact will full sell out shows have on people using that walking and cycling path? It's 4.6 metres wide so it's roughly as wide as this room and I think the key point that we're trying to emphasize is that we've got plans to queue people within our site and then basically to hold people inside the building, inside that queuing zone in worst case scenario, and then basically to filter people through the underpass at the right time. So that might even be in a zone as small as 2 metres wide. For example, this all needs working through. But there's no suggestion that we're enhancing pedestrian and cycle routes on every side of the site. But equally even during the busiest times there's no suggestion that we're going to preclude any of that access to or around the site. So we will need to rely, as I said earlier, on Team Edinburgh. We need support to bring this forward. But we think everything we've put forward is extremely practical and doesn't close off. You know, cyclists are still – we know how important cyclists are in Edinburgh. And there's no suggestion that they're going to be precluded from getting around the site at any time. I'd be very grateful if we could just answer the question, which was specifically about the underpass. I appreciate the fact there's a wider issue here. But I would be grateful if we could just, you know, stick to answering the question. Did you have a brief follow-up, Councillor Veth? Thanks, commentant. Yes, I did. So obviously we had from officers that they are considering putting in diversions for cyclists. Is this something that you're happy with, or would you prefer just to ensure that cyclists are always out access, even at the busiest times when you're full capacity? Yes. We had suggested in discussions that there could be a small 50 metre diversion around the Hermiston gateside to the cycle route. So it would basically be 50 metres long than it is at the moment. That would enhance the queuing solution, but it's not a requirement of ours. Come back, thank you. Is it possible – do we have a plan of where that diversion would go? It was on the plan that they showed earlier. So as you come out of the underpass, you turn right to go back towards the tram station. And basically it's that section there that could potentially be closed. So if you're coming from the roundabout on the other side, you go down on the Hermiston Gate Road. I don't know what it's called. And then you would basically hop back in roughly at the underpass. So it's a very small diversion. But it's not necessary, but we think it would benefit everyone. The aspiration is we don't close it off but it would only be required. And like we mentioned it for the 20 times a year where we do think it would be at capacity because we obviously wanted to have everybody's safety considered in this scenario and it may be safer to put that diversion in, but it's not necessarily something that we would do every single time just for the sake of it. It would be required. Officers, do you have a slide to show you, Councillor B 'Eckley? [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Question there is the section that we suggest could be closed. And then that green, obviously, is the alternative link to hook you back in arriving back effectively at the underpass there, the intersection of the green and orange line. [BLANKAUDIO] Yes, thanks, Convener. The investment's very welcome. We obviously have to scrutinize it. So I was wondering if you can give me a bit more detail about, you've got the queuing system outside. I appreciate how that could work. Like, the recent concerts at Marisol, there's quite a lot more space around Marisol, obviously it's 10 times the size. You get salespeople with feather boas, cowboy hats and all that kind of thing. How are you going to, people just want to not join the queue, but to get to the venue and then kind of make a day of it. How are you thinking that's going to operate in the confined space around here? [BLANK_AUDIO] The guest experience is obviously paramount and we do want them to engage with that. So we do try and theme our staff where possible, but they'll all be in high biz and they'll all be interacting, full sort of set briefings, all of that sort of stuff is done. We would build the sort of paid barrier, Disney queues at the latest point so that we don't impede on everybody else, but it's ready to go by the time that the guests are actually leaving. So yeah, it is a smaller area, but it is certainly not, you know, by any which way we operate buildings in the middle of London. So you know, think of Hammersmith Apollo, those sorts of places, they're on the middle of roads. So we are able to operate safely with the right staff in place. And we would do very detailed plans around how that actually happens. Where that key member goes, where the signage is, where does the barrier go? So those flows always feel nice and comfortable versus you know, this is a real pain and I'm having to wait to get home. Can I have a brief follow up, obviously appreciate it, are you able to operate success? Oh, these are independent sales people who may be causing blockages to quite tight routes and so on. So do they factor into your plans, etc. And you know, the unexpected people gathering before pre-Q. I think you can deal with success with the queue, but the bit that's out with your control, but it's generated by your venue. Can you give me a bit more reassurance? I know it's beyond the realms of planning that's in the back of the line. Thank you. Yeah, so your meaning kind of merchandise sellers, right, that are unauthorized. Yeah, so we would look to be moving those on and have agreements in place. We operate with a company that is looking at the intel around when those people will turn up. We don't envisage it first for our venue as so much because of the capacity. You know, Taylor Swift, everybody got on to that amazing event. But for an arena of this size, it's unlikely that we would have large numbers of unauthorized merchandise sellers. And for our official stuff, we wouldn't be putting in any sort of egress routes. And our staff would be moving those out of those routes if it was a safety concern for sure. But yes, we would be working in conjunction with whoever the owner of that space was, as well. So we could all get to a happy place with that. Thank you. I've got Councillor Mallat and then Councillor NikshmanBl [inaudible] Thank you. Yes, we've concentrated a lot on what's happening outside the building. And that's understandable. But just could you just talk us through what's inside the building? Because I think some of the concern is that when we've had events pushed on in, I suppose, well, either theaters which have large capacities or Murray Field, which has, obviously, it has a campus around it. But it's not a design arena, so there is a demand for pre and post event sort of food and drink and things. So what have you got inside the building? People have got off the tram, got inside the building. What's their experience inside the building? Because I think it might help us if we understood that, for those of us who have never been to one of these arenas, to understand what the offer is so that we can think about if is it creating additional pressures outside. So, yeah, just quickly, so I think when we built the O2 arena, that was very much a kind of US-style model imposed on the UK. And it kind of opened people's eyes effectively to the fact that, you know, premium lounges, different areas to drink, to eat around the show. It just effectively created a music venue that literally didn't exist in London, so it's almost like those tickets weren't going elsewhere, they just weren't being a service because there wasn't a suitable building. We've designed, this is much more arena, but we've designed it with all those facilities in mind. So the nature of the site, the flow down the site, it lends itself to the arena. So we've got three levels across the building. So we'll have a big concourse on the standing floor level, which we'll have bars. So we will be encouraging people to arrive before the event and they'll be held on those concourses before being allowed. And so there's a big concourse on the lower level and then on the intermediary level we have lounges effectively serving into the seats. And then again, on the upper level, there's another concourse up there. So there'll be bars, there'll be FMB concessions and then also be merchandising opportunities inside the building as well. It's probably worth mentioning as well, our aim is to bring people in as early as possible so that we can actually slow the flow on transport but also to give people an opportunity to actually enjoy pre-event. So we will be looking at offering potential themed food and drink or premium offerings so that people actually come and dwell with us in a longer period, both pre and post-event. And we've designed the bars on the floor area so that we can get people into the building as quickly as possible. Hold them in that can session concourse area before the bowl potentially opens. So say, for instance, an artist holds the bowl closed. We haven't got people waiting outside in the cold and the rain. We have thought about where we are and we want them to just be in and enjoying the experience and the warmth versus an artist isn't ready. We can't let people into the building and we've put technology in place as well to make that as speedy as possible and we will be thinking about technology around all of the concession areas as well so that that's again a quick process for people because we want to design out all of the pain points so it's a nice experience for people. Can I have one small follow up? It better be a small one. As you said, post-events as well so there would be the opportunity for those people that didn't want to join the scrum for the tram or the queue to have another drink or something with friends before they went out and got that. Yeah, absolutely. So what we would look like to do, depending on again on the demographic of the event there will be hospitality areas and they would be open usually an hour after the event so that we can slow. And we would be encouraging almost people to stay on in certain areas. You know what it's like, people want to get home, don't they quickly? But there will be some areas that will stay open so that you can have that last drink or last catch up with your friend or talk about how fantastic the night was so, yes, that's built into our plan so that we can slow that egress down as well. Thank you. Councillor. Miss Whitney. Thank you. I'm sorry I'm. Telling here. Somebody's mic must be on. And I don't know if that was a reference to our weather but yeah, not an idea. My question was about one of the things that you referenced a eg do training for women safety and I just that sounds wonderful. I just wonder if you could expand on that a bit and, you know, for example, tell us if if someone's become separate from the group, you know, how do you support them. I just like to hear more about that because it sounds quite positive. Yeah, sure, absolutely no problem. We have a safeguarding module that all of our front of house teams would complete prior to deployment. So there would be a certain level that all of our teams would have. So, you know, think of ask Angela situation or where is our safe space. What do you do if you see a lone female or a vulnerable person. We have sunflower lanyard schemes in place. So those, it depends on what level and I also spoke about welfare teams too. So we have dedicated welfare teams that will be deployed across different areas pending again on the event. It may be that they're best suited for instance on an arena floor if it was a very young demographic that hadn't been in that sort of scenario before. And they're trained to look out for people that just aren't looking great and comfortable in that scenario. So obviously, we won't go into the outermost details, but it's quite a comprehensive package that we deliver to the teams to make sure that they are fit for their role really. Council Parker? Yeah, thank you. It's sort of related to council amount's questions. So we talked about access accessibility and the exterior of the venue and it's also in reference a little bit in terms of the interior and obviously things like toilets. We would expect there to be provision in terms of accessible toilets. I'm wondering if it also extends to things like the seating areas and the concession sounds. So having things like bars that are at a lower level, just to ensure that nobody has excluded. Thanks. Yes, it's definitely built into the plan. So yes, there will be drop counters at bars. There will probably be in-seat ordering for accessible platforms. There will be changing places. What we would be looking to achieve is gold. We work with a charity called Attitude Is Everything. They work across the music and arts division, giving guidance on all of the soft and hard things that you would need to put into a building to make sure that the building is accessible to everybody. So much of how do we build our websites? Where do we have braille? Do we have a dedicated phone line for access customers? We do, and we will be having that. And we also integrate our ticketing process as well. So we'd be looking to give carefree tickets when you buy an accessible ticket. So gold is where we want to achieve. We will then be looking to achieve platinum. There's no arena in the UK currently that has platinum. Hopefully the '02 will be the first one. And we would like to go shortly after for this as well. Thank you. Just before you ask Karz again, I just want to check to see if anyone wants to ask a question. It hasn't asked a question. Kelsey Cameron. Sorry, I hope... If you didn't, I hope you heard the question I put to you officers earlier just around the whole queue management thing and about the needs of people who be arriving, perhaps, and the ability needs. I just wondered how you've gone about analyzing that and putting your thoughts on our intentions around the whole management thing with a view that this is a planning application that we're considering. Thanks. So our aim would be to give as much information as possible to those guests well in advance so that they can plan their journey, how they see fit. There will be dedicated lines, as I mentioned, so that if they do have any particular issue or need that we can address that before they turn up. So much so we would have guest relations teams meet those guests if they did have particular needs. As we know, it's not all needs are visible. So we have deployed the Sunflower Lanyard scheme, which all of our staff would be trained on. All of the... You don't need a lift, by the way, to get into the building at all. It's there as an additional. So there are accessible routes to get into the building in whichever way you arrive. You can, we will pick people out of queues. If we notice the Sunflower Lanyard, we might approach them and say, Hey, we can do some fast track. There will be a fast track. There will be signage labelling so that people can almost fast track if they wanted to. Or they don't have to, and they can stay exactly as they are. So there will be lots of different schemes in place, really, just to make sure that that's a really nice, easy journey. Just briefly, does that include black kabtaxi drop-off provision as well? Yes, we would definitely consider that. If probably there would likely be a soft check and we would be asking who are you dropping off. But as I said, if there's a particular need, so I think of some of our guests who need to turn up with lots of equipment, or they need plug points and all of that, then we would be making that provision to say, You're coming at this time and we'll have one of our team meet you. Okay, Councilor Godner. Thank you. So economic benefits, also part of the planning process as well. You talked about 250 jobs. How many would you directly employ? Are you a living wage employer? Would you recruit from local high schools out at Webster-Hales High School, which is just south of the site and there's also Forrster High. And also any other community benefits that you could bring to the table, including you talked about the festival. Like would you let the venue be operated on for low-cost during the festival, or do your thoughts in that area? So I think we'd… So Savoels did a sort of independent economic assessment that I think's been reported on in the committee report. So I think there'd be about 200 operational jobs a year, 200 to 250 on the site. But I mentioned earlier the halo benefits. I think you see that with all arenas, not just the ones we build. They deliver fantastic benefits to the whole of the city. So as an example, at the O2 in London, we partnered with the local council. There's an initiative called the Greenwich Local Labor and Business program that already allows jobs and job opportunities to be tailored into the local community. So it's effectively a city agency, a council agency, but effectively a city agency that's there to work alongside us to basically make awareness of the jobs and opportunities and obviously to harness the benefits for the community. I'm just out of interest. Are you a living wage employer? Council Governor, can we please stick to planning questions, please? You are. Thank you. I'm Mrs. Minichin. Yes, I, it was slightly a related question in terms of economic benefit. Do AEG prioritize using local providers, local traders, local products for sale? Councilor Earnest, we're asking planning questions? Councilor Booth, is it a planning question? It is a planning question. Thank you, Kevin. You touched on earlier that you're upgrading the psychopaths on each side of the arena. Spokes in their submission to your planning application, obviously, was at an early stage. Raised concerns that the north path is only 2.5 metres when Council guidance says it should be 4 in width and that your visualisations don't show any cycle infrastructure at all on the west side of the development. So can you just give some reassurance that the north path is going to be 4 metres and that there will be infrastructure on the west-hand side along the lock-side court as well, please? We don't know definitively yet the width of that northern, I think it's three and a half, three metres in the application pack. That is part of the ongoing discussion with Matthew and his team because obviously there is an existing, I think it's two metre wide cycle path along that top boundary that we're looking, we're effectively moving out of the site to facilitate the service road that goes around the arena. And then down the eastern side, obviously we've got the CCTV and the lighting improvements that we've spoken about, we don't own that land. So we're building up to the edge of that, but as I say the plan will be to light that and CCTV that off our infrastructure effectively. And then down the western boundary, you're right, there's no plan at the moment. So again, we don't own lock-side court, the road that runs down that boundary edge. So there's no specific provision for cycle infrastructure down that side of the scheme, but equally there's no detriment to anything that exists at the moment, we're effectively not touching that road. Okay, any further questions from committee? No. Thank you very much, Hindi. Thank you. Okay, committee, do we have any points for clarification for officers? Councillor BASS? Yes, I don't know whether Matthew can comment on that last point. In particular, lock-side court, is it adopted by the Council and could the Council then potentially add cycling infrastructure alongside that? And can you give us any reassurance about the path to the north, please? Thank you, Councillor. In terms of the adoption, no lock-side court, lock-side way, and station, come in with its road or way, are unadopted. They are roads under the legal definition in the Road to Scotland Act. So we do have some controls, but they're not within our maintenance. In terms of the routes around the site, there will be requirements for stopping up orders for certain parts of roads. And there will also be requirements for road construction consent. And we've also asked for it, well, we will be requiring a quality audit and road safety audit. So we'll definitely be looking for benefit for betterment around those parts. The route to the north is somewhat restricted. That's historical. That was built a number of years ago, probably 25, 26 years ago. So we're certainly looking for benefit, but for betterment. But that will be sorted out as part of the road construction consent in terms of achieving those as best as we can within the constraints on the site. Can you clarify as best we can? Does that mean a 3-meter path, a 3.5-meter path, a 4-meter path? I think until we see any applications for road construction consent, I can't be definitive about that. But certainly that's what we'd be looking for. I had a for the comprehensive clarification in terms of the condition 8, which is about the lighting. And Jackie did mention something on the lines of, Is there a possibility it can be improved this? Because obviously it's related to the within safety. I appreciate what Paul said about. There's a wider aspect that the applicant is going to deal with in terms of CCTV and natural surveillance, but I wondered whether it was a possibility if we could just slightly improve this condition, because I do have a concern over when this application is, when there isn't, say for example, something happening around this site, there will still be people moving around it. The lighting and the overall visual surveillance should be more suitable to the fact that people do feel safe to move around it. Convener, I'm wondering if it's merely a matter of inserting it, and that conditions of details of improved lighting surrounding the venue, and CCTV should be submitted to and approved by the Council's planning authority to install prior to the four shoes of the building. And that would be a fair shame. I would be happy with that, committee. Yes. Councilor Jones. Just a quick point for clarification. Who actually owns the bridge and therefore responsible for its maintenance? Convener, it's not ultimately a plan and matter, but I would suspect it would be network rail, given that the railway stations on their land today are basically the National Organisation that's in charge of railway infrastructure, so they would have the bridge and the tunnel, I suspect. Obviously, Scott Rail would be the train operating company. The operator, the various trains that go through that station, but it's no landers within the application site as such. Councilor Baka? Yeah, thank you. It's not come up in questions, but there is a condition for landscaping and planting, which presumably is in place to support biodiversity, but there is only an informative for the wildlife boxes, so I just wondered why we're treating those two things differently when clearly they're in pursuit of the same aim. The condition itself is to ensure that it's appropriate and good quality for the area, for this development and the information that's there for additional information. I guess my request is, can we shift the wildlife boxes up into the condition space, because it's all in support by diversity? I suppose we can be able to recruit, we don't normally condition, it's normally informative. When you're looking at conditions, you have to look at the six tastes. And if you look at the first test in suffer four and nine eighths necessity, which is, would you refuse planning permission if you didn't require that to be dealt with through a planning condition, but if members of the mind wish to see that as a condition, then we can certainly look at applying that. I think the applicant has also lined as part of their preliminary ecology report that there are a number of other specific pieces of design. They're pieces of infrastructure so they could be put in to facilitate where we would leave if members were looking at that. I would like to propose that, if that's how it's done. Cass, Matt? I just wanted to clarify, do those proposals, as described by Mr. Devaney, about do they form part of the formal planning application, in which case, were they not done, because the condition about landscape is about maintenance of it that it will continue to be maintained. So I'm just trying to work out if we need that change to improve, to condition that or if it's essentially conditioned by inclusion within the plan. I think a convener would probably direct members to the case of Millon Mead in 1963, where the recipient of a planning permission should be able to work out from the four corners of the decision letter and the approved drawings and not various other documents that may have been put in. I'm just wondering whether the landscaping condition could be expanded to say the approval landscape and scheme, including any boxes for habitat, which shall be fully implemented; details about, to be agreed to be applying authority, and to be implemented within six months of the completion of development, and that would allow us to have a follow-up discussion with the applicants about the precise location of these, given that there are some matters of detail, which might need a, you know, further investigation in terms of the preliminary nature. I think of the ecology report that was submitted. I'm going to come to you in a second, and I'm speaking with that, that does open the door to what's going to be my follow-up question to what Councillor Parker was asking, which was actually condition 10, which would stay. It's landscape and planting should be maintained for perpetuity and failing plants replaced. I just wondered if there was a way that we could take that, because my concern is I'm sure there are absolutely perfectly good applicants, and it's in their best interest to have, you know, a site that actually looks attractive and doesn't have dying plants in it, but I just wondered whether there was no time limit or anything on it. Are we content, the fact that that condition is tight enough to make sure the fact that it is actually achieving the purpose it's in there for? Convener, it's possibly tight, I've been some of the ones that are in the circular of forward of 98. Well, much of forward of 98 is still relevant today, and the advice in that circular is based on various pieces of case law. I mean, obviously, given that it dates from 1998, the world has moved on slightly since then, so it could possibly do well with that, but I think certainly in 4 and 98, from memory, I think the time scales are often quoted for landscaping are actually 5 years and 10 years. Eventing comes to the disease. So, anything, the condition, which we're looking at here is probably tighter, given the perpetuity. Councillor MUNNIECHM now can. Thank you. My apologies because I don't know if I just missed this, but we've seen that some people may be arriving by cycle and are any of it, is there sufficient cycle planning for individuals that might have an adapted bike or a tandem bike or some sort of non-standard bike? Will they be accommodated? I don't know. Convene of Matthew would like to comment on that, but there is a cycle parking inclusion I think provided not only for the visitors, but I think there's also staff on the drawings, whether of Matthew is going to fill the comments who would want to make on that. I was just looking to see what I'd put in my response. It doesn't refer specifically to non-standard bikes. There are 78 Sheffield rack spaces, but I don't have a note of whether there aren't any non-standard with that. I'll see if I can find an answer to that. But the slight follow-up, is that something we could condition? Convene, I'm wondering whether there's a specific wording that you were suggesting Councillor. I don't want to fall for a little of, I think we're going to fall before of non-standard bicycles, when I drafted the condition as a wording that you're possibly thinking about there, the details of cycle parking for. There was a mobility needs, or some ability to approve by the Councillors's plan. I thought I'd probably use been taken up and installed thereafter. Sounds fine. Councillor MAT. Well, just in the papers, it does say that all the cycle racks are Sheffield racks, which usually, when we've had this discussion about non-standards, have been deemed to be what we would want look for for non-standards. I'm looking at the cycle parking expert to my right, but that has been my takeaway from the many discussions that this committee has had about cycle parking over the last couple of years. Councillor B said. I'm blushing slightly that I'm referring to as a cycle parking expert. I mean, my take on this – a matter you can correct me if I'm wrong – is that Sheffield racks are indeed very accessible, but the key issue is the gap between them. And if standard Sheffield racks are usually for standard bikes, and obviously a trike, for example, may struggle to use a Sheffield rack. I think Mr Devani has outlined a potential condition which we could add, which simply says that they have to submit them to the satisfaction of the Chief Planning Officer. And I think that that might be helpful in this circumstance. I mean, I have to say they're providing more than our minimum, but our minimum for stadiums is not very high. I'm wondering if the condition moves up the long lines of notwithstanding what's shown on the approved plans. Followed details of cycle parking for those with special needs, who will be submitted to an approval to the Council as planning authority, prior to the use of being taken up and installed, prior to the fossil operation of the premises here by approved. I think the use of the term special needs is acceptable because it's a broad range of bicycles. So it could be a mobility scooter; it could be the trike. It's just specially bicycles that's comfortable with that. It could be changed out to non-standard and the reason there's no more to comply with the qualities? Yes, it has. Councillor BERck. I'm sorry, I've got a new point. Can I... Yes, it's partly new and it's partly coming back to this issue of the traffic regulation order that is potentially going to stop up this short section, which I think on the slide was marked as orange. And I have a question, a sort of two-part question. I presume that the reason that we're considering stopping that up is because expanding that is not possible. I mean, it's obviously quite constrained in terms of the banks either side. So presumably expansion of that path has not possible to improve capacity and if that is the case, can we add something potentially to condition six, which already deals with this quite well, but just to clarify what I think was given verbally that the number of stoppages of that path will be kept to an absolute minimum. And will be only when the... I mean, we don't need to say this, but... but it'll only be when it's maximum capacity. Convening, I think the best advice that we'd give would be a note to include that in a planning condition, I think, keeping it to minimums probably a wee bit vague. I think the condition's been drafted in such a way to try and ensure that we've got a degree of flexibility and giving it ultimately when it comes to temporary traffic regulation orders and stopping up orders. Those are matters that fall fairly and squarely under the council's rule as road's authority, not planning authority as such, but the reason that the condition's been worded the way is is to give that degree of flexibility so that we don't have that up, looking at them to come back through a more formal planning process if those details are required, but as I said, I would really believe in the stopping up is some that we recover off so that the council's got the authority to proceed with that under two or seven and two as a week under the planning act because it's a result of development, and the TTRO is something that the road's authority and we do under the road traffic act of A4 separately from this, but certainly take on, building the points that have been raised about keeping that to minimum. And I think it's really used to give that degree of flexibility to the maybe circumstances, but it would be ultimately limited, but as I said, ultimately, for the road's authority. Can I just check, though, with Clare, I'm assuming that that would be an issue, it would be covered anyway under any sort of APOC that we'd be to do with, you would consider parts like that. So we have an event where we use public space guidance, and that is part of that, because the guidance is there to minimise disruption, and of course that would be one of those considerations, so we'd only close something if we have something to do. Casa, have you had a comment? Thanks, Ma'am. I also ask whether consideration has been given to expanding that section marked orange, and I don't know whether Matthew is on the call, and whether you could comment on that. I'm not particularly clear as to which bit you're talking about, just to clarify the stopping up order under the town of Country Planning Act is to accommodate the actual development. So that's really the existing turning area, which is at the station end. But again, in terms of widening that route at the moment, the route on the south side has a set of steps, which was one of our concerns, but that's being changed to being a ramp, so we'll be looking for the details of that as part of road construction consent and changes under the section 56 under the Road to Scotland Act, so it's controlled through that way. So again, we're looking for betterment, but removal of those steps is certainly a betterment there. Matthew, I think Councillor BETH is actually asking whether there's a possibility when you're removing the steps, whether the path would be able to be widened. Well, that's really what I would be looking for, but again, that would be coming forward as part of the road construction consent and the section 56 permits, so we'll be looking for betterment on that, both in terms of the steps and the width. There is a constraint from memory. There is a gas governor in that area, which constrained what we were able to do, as I say, about 25 years ago, so there may be constraints there, and obviously there's the railway line to the south. One of the things that tends to happen as part of planning applications is that we don't get detailed drawings in terms of what would be acceptable for a road construction consent, that requires engineering drawings from a road engineer, so I think those details will be coming forward. So I can't clarify exactly what would be there. It certainly won't be any worse. I will be looking for betterment. So, is any further points of clarity to officers? No. Okay. Moving on to discussion, who'd like to kick this off, Councillor B. That's going to be – I think this is a really, really exciting development. I mean, there's no doubt that Edinburgh is a massively cultural city, but we have been lacking a capacity – a high-capacity venue, apart from the outside venues of Murrayfield. So I think this is fantastic. It's going to massively contribute to our cultural life, and it's very, very welcome. I initially had some concerns about the pedestrian and access, about the safety of people queuing, but I think as we've gone through and as we've heard reassurances both from officers and from the applicant, that my concerns have been assuaged in that respect. I do strongly support the upgrading of the condition in terms of the biodiversity. I think it's essential that that is included. But overall, I think this is a really welcome development, and I will be supporting it today. I have Councillor Daggart, I have Councillor Manish Mckin, and then Councillor Mudd. Thank you very much, Governor, just to thank Jack Hicken for reporting for the applicants for coming along today and getting a little bit of a grilling from Councillors. I think we had a site visit here. It was probably a couple of weeks ago, but it feels like a lifetime ago now. And I was looking at the site, and my first initial thoughts were this is quite actually a small site for the type of application that we have, that it could potentially have some constraints, which were a bit of a concern. But it also has a lot of opportunity. I think, like Councillor Buffen and other members I have had, some concerns just about the traffic, the amount of people coming, how that would be managed, how that would be handled. But I think through questions to officers on what applicants would say to those concerns, I don't have them anymore. I think this is a great bit of investment. I think that it aligns a lot with what the Council wants to do in terms of our net zero by 2030 goals. So I think it aligns with our policies there. Fundamentally, as a city, we are known globally for our cultural offerings. That's brilliant. That's what we want to do. But we have to be cognizant of the fact that if we don't invest in our city, then we will no longer have that time. We will not be able to offer those services to our residents and to people from across the world. So I think that's our application is brilliant. I think it's very, very good. It brings a lot of investment and fills up a gap that we're missing in terms of our city, so I'll be supporting it today. Thanks, Coordinator. Do I say Councillor Minnan-Chumekia? I can't remember who was next. Councillor Minnan-Chumekyou followed by Councillor MACKIN. Thank you. Yes, I'm also very much in support of this development. I think for a lot of the reasons stated, I think it's quite exciting. I think it's going to be wonderful for the residents of the city to go and hear some of the apps that they would like to enjoy without leaving the city to do it. But I'm also reassured by hearing from the developers on terms of some issues which have been of a concern to this committee, including accessibility, including women's safety, and also the sustainability credentials that they're looking for. So I'm actually quite impressed with this and I'm looking forward to seeing who performs there first if we approve today. Councillor MACKIN. Thanks. When I'm not sitting on DM SF, I'm quite often to be found sharing the licensing subcommittee which deals with the APOG and the other regulatory processes. So I think I'm really appreciate— Councillor— Mr. Clare Miller, sorry if we've got another. Clare Miller, from Public Safety, coming along today to fill that in, because those are issues that I'm quite familiar with. And frankly, when you see them set down in the context of planning application, you would—I think the applicant said it yourself. I wouldn't approve plan—or—or—or—areas because they do throw up a huge amount of issues that we can—that can be successfully managed, and actually I think I'm really—was really reassured to hear that our public safety team and with all their expertise are sitting there saying yes, they've managed it out as much as they can at the planning stage, and then there's just the general management of getting a lot of people into venue. As previous Councillors, as other previous speakers have said, you know, this is something Edinburgh's really been wanting. It's been an aspiration that we've had. I think this is a fantastic location that you've chosen because you do have a tram and a train and actually quite an extensive road network to pull people in, but it's easy for people in the city to get into. And I would also like to say, which I also said, I think the design of the building is really exciting and really interesting. I have one reservation about this, that the experience that people go and get when they've been to this is going to make everyone else and all our other venues suddenly look not quite so good, and it may be a case because it's really encouraging to see that all those things that do give us problems do have been designed out in the management. So I think this is a really exciting application. I'd like to thank the applicants for bringing it here, especially the bit that they're not looking to us to fund it, which is hugely appreciated. And I think the city's going to be champing it, but I have a suspicion this will go through and I think the city's going to be champing it a bit to get in there. So thank you very much. And this is great. Not only really well planned in from the planning bits, but actually I think a very attractive addition which will increase, will enhance the regeneration of West Edinburgh, which is another big council project we have. Councillor Guttner. Yes, thank you, convener. Like others, after scrutiny, I had some concerns about the space around it, but I think they've been allied by the officers, Clare, planners and also the applicant. So I feel comfortable with this. And I think it's the most accessible site in Scotland out with the city centre. You've got a street high level, Queen Street, low level. You've got a tram to Ingleson Park Road, airport and back to the city and to Leith. So this is absolutely the right site for it, and it can be a catalyst, as has just been said for generating and regenerating West Edinburgh, may well be that Gate Shopping Centre develops on the back of this as well. And I'm pleased to hear that for Greenwich there was a plan to engage with local high schools to fulfil the 200 odd jobs that are directly related to this project and also potentially other halo jobs. So West Hills High Schools and Doggies and Forester will be delighted to hear about that. And I'll be delighted that I don't have to go through to the hydro in Glasgow and overnight there if I was going to go to a concert. And actually coming out of the hydro is an absolute gutter with cars, unclear routes with pedestrians and so on. So this has been well considered and people can arrive by public transport, so that's really, really welcome. I'd like to thank, not only the applicant for bringing investment which doesn't seek public subsidy here, but also Parabola who have worked with the developer, I believe. And also I'd like to thank directly Paul Lawrence and his team that have brought, they've done everything to make this happen today. I think it's rare that you're allowed to name an officer, but I think Paul hadn't always had plays for me, but I think Credit Wear Credits to you, Paul really has worked hard to bring this to the city and I know how much he enjoys concerts as well. So this is a great asset to Edinburgh. I'm happy to support it today, thank you. Councillor Mysbury. Thank you, I'll be brief because the good thing about having a committee like this, is everyone has said mostly what I was going to say. I was actually going to emphasize what Councillor Moore said about the architectural design which is very interesting and I do welcome it. And I may join Councillor McKnee's meeting the first gig, hopefully, in 2027. So I will be supporting this application as well, thank you. Councillor Kef Herndt. Thank you, Canvietner. It's wonderful to hear so many enthusiastic comments from colleagues. And I think it's also worthwhile, not just as a planning authority, but as a council, to reflect on our four beers who could have made Edinburgh Park happen in the first place. And it's also been very interesting to see how Edinburgh Park has evolved over the years. It's initially set out to be a place, you know, business park. But now we've got exciting developments that include housing and include the application that we're here today. And we're also considering this application in Edinburgh where we've got really good reliable, popular transport infrastructure. All of that takes political will, as well as, obviously, our efforts from our officers. And of course, and especially, the faith and the investment and the quality of design and proposals that come forward to this committee by those who wish to seek to invest in our city, to create things that are exciting for our citizens, that are accessible for our citizens. And as my councillor colleague immediately to my right, Councillor Moira said, 'We'll become the envy of other cities, not just other cities, but indeed other venues that already exist in this city. And Deirei say we as a council own some of these facilities ourselves. And we see the culture, the event landscape having this edition today. And it's also not just about concerts because I'm sure this kind of venue will lend itself to other exciting events. Great speakers, you know, types of things. It won't all be about pop concerts. So I'm pleased that there are fields to be unanimous will for this to happen today. And I think well done everybody involved. And also well done this council, and those that went before us for laying the groundwork and for everything that's happened, because that just goes to show the importance of planning and looking forward to the long term as well as, you know, the day to day stuff. Thank you, confederate, for allowing me to make those remarks. Yes, Councillor. Well, if there's anyone else left to speak, I'll just conclude. I'm absolutely delighted. I think when we are presented with something where so much work has been done across the board, then we should thank all the individuals that involved. It is incredibly rare that we see something of this high standard coming from of us that's had this level of work, putting in a stadium, I sit on cultural community, and we deal an awful lot, and we don't, you know, King's Theatre and having to absolutely redesign the entire thing to make something accessible and, you know, for all. It's very good to actually have something that's put in front of you. There's been consideration right from the beginning about how people are going to access something, how people are going to enjoy themselves, how they're going to leave safety, lots of extremely complicated aspects that we spend a lot of time dealing with, and there's been huge amounts of work on this, from the applicants, from officers to try to design as much as possible to get that into the beginning. There will be complications going forward, and I look forward to obviously Claire's going to have a great time, you know, dealing with that, but I would hope that we would be able to have tackled some of the issues that have developed in other areas that because of poor design, we haven't been able to deal with. I'm also particularly excited because West Edinburgh is going to be developed, and this is a wonderful aspect to have something of this quality and of this level appear as a flagship for this part of town, and I think that's something highly commendable. It's extremely accessible, and the really great thing is there's loads of hotels already around there, there's also an airport, there's so many ways you can get to this that I appreciate the fact that there's issues. I've been to many venues where I have queued – I've actually been to the O2, and it's absolutely fantastic in London, and I did have to queue for about 20 minutes, but it was really easy to get in and out of. This is only 8,500 people, so it is not of the scale of Murrayfield, it does not have the same complications, and the most fantastic thing for us is it is not in the city centre, which is absolutely fantastic, so we're not just drawing everything into the city centre, we are giving things to other areas of the city as well, and that having a focal point that I see is really, really good. It is very hard to find areas of land that are capable of coping with some of these, and a lot of work has gone into the design to make sure that that's possible, so well done. Anyway, so moving forward, I propose the fact that we've a few adjustments to some of our conditions, which I will ask officers to read out that we approve this application. Thank you, and I think it was Amendment that conditionate, which details improve lighting surrounding the venue, and CCTV, shall be submitted to an approval of Councillors planning authority installed prior to Forest Use of the building, Amendment of condition nine, which then become the approved landscaping scheme, including wildlife boxes to be submitted to the approval of the Councillors planning authority, shall be fully implemented within six months of the completion of development, and then there was a further condition which was not withstanding what was shown on the approved plans, further details of site park and open park, it's a non-standard site park and shall be submitted to an approval of the Council prior to the use being taken up and installed prior to this here, but here by approved being operational, and the reason for that again was in requirements under the qualities like 2010. Okay, committee can turn to have that. Agreed. Agreed. Great. That is the application for a plan of permission granted then. I was going to say, committee's now cut to one, we've got several applications to review afterwards, should we take a break until quarter past one, so that's half an hour? Yeah, agreed. Okay, quarter past one, add one back. Now just check that you're online. Yep. Okay, committee, we are starting. Thank you, so we'll go back in the agenda to item 4.2, which is an application for a plan and permission at 140 cosplay sites, she ends in Edinburgh. This presentation was requested by Councilor Beth, and I'll pass over to plan officers to present the report. Good afternoon members, so the application front of you is for a proposed student housing development at 140 cosplay site in Edinburgh. Quick summary, the proposal, we're looking at 174 student bedrooms with associated amenity space and landscaping. The slide here just works on the location and the lovely parallel gram site boundary, which is my favourite site boundary ever, I think. Next slide please. Thanks. So just a quick couple of quick photographs of existing building on the site. It's existing office building, predominantly three stories with partial fourth story office development. It's currently vacant, next one please. And here's a couple of views of the site looking down Cosby's side. You can see the library building just sits opposite the site and the existing, my slides are going very quickly for me. You can just see the tenant building just beyond the site there, which is a category c-listed building. Looking south along Cosby's side and you can just see the building which is set back slightly from the existing street frontage. Looking at the LDP map on the next slide, the site sits within the urban area and is not located within a conservation area, but it is positioned between three different conservation areas, the Grange to the West, Blackock Conservation Areas to the East, and the South side Conservation Area is just located to the north of the site as well. Quick visual of the proposed development it's a five story student housing development, fronting onto Cosby's side, the set back upper floor. The building also has a lower ground level to the rear and a landscape courtyard. Just looking at the site plan here, this just shows a quick visual of the rear courtyard as well for a minute to use and some elevations here of the building. On the next slide there, that's it. Clockwise, this is the, we can see the north, gable elevation and the principal elevation is top right, the rear elevation below and the south elevation bottom left. The next slide shows a quick overview of the proposed landscape plan, and you can also see that the building is set back in terms of its height to the rear of the building as well. So the application today has been called by Councillor Booth for clarification a number of matters which are set out on the next slide, so I'll run through these matters one at a time. So the first query is in relation to the applications compliance with policy, LDP policy, how eight is student housing, specifically in terms of the student concentration levels in the local area. So we've taken advice from colleagues in planning policy in relation to assessing the scheme against LDP policy, how eight. Just to explain, it's not possible to calculate an exact student concentration due to the limitations of the data that we hold. Therefore, the current student concentrations in the local area have been assessed using estimated student concentrations which are based upon the latest available census data from 2011. The current, based on this, the current student population in the area is at 51%. And should this development be granted permission the proposed student population in the area is estimated to grow by 1% to 52%. Now, the Edinburgh Student Housing Guidance notes that where a student population is dominant, then there's a greater potential imbalance of a community, and within areas of potential imbalance it's necessary to consider the character of the area and the existing level of students within it, and it sets a level of balance as being at 50% as the threshold. So the advice from planning policy, in this case, is that the proposed increase in student population is relatively small, it's only 1%, and is only marginally above the guidance threshold of 50%. And as the site is located within a mixtures area, it would seem unlikely that this proposal would cause such change in the area that it would be detrimental to the established character of the area. The data zones that are included within the 800 meter radius area that we use for calculations, it's got a mixed character, it's got a range of different uses between commercial, institutional and mainstream housing, and in balance it's concluded that a small addition, or 1% student population, in this part of that 800 meter radius area would not result in an imbalance sense of community, therefore accept that this is a reasonable student concentration and it complies with policy and how to eat. So just moving on to the next query which is regarding the setting of listed buildings. The buildings of sensitivity in this regard are specifically the category C listed tenement block which sits at 1-28 to 1-38 cosby-side and goes round the corner onto one numbers 1-7 range road. You can see on the photograph here, and also there's a category B listed property, a villa, a detached residential villa which just sits on range road as well, you can see in the top right hand photograph there, there's the rooftops of that villa building there. So in terms of how the design has responded to the setting of the listed buildings. The building has been designed to provide a response to these. The slides here show how the floor plans differ as you move up the building. So these have been stepped in to cut back from the west and the north of the site boundaries to provide an offset to the tenement building to the north and to the listed villa to the northwest. And through the pre-application process which we had an extensive process with the applicant, we have increased the setbacks that have been provided and we've also brought the building, the height of the building, down from, it was originally a further six-story on top of it. So the current proposal in front of community today already represents a change in terms of the massing, the height and massing that first came in front of us. So the other key consideration in terms of the listed building is the relationship between the building on the site and the gable end of the listed tenement building at 1-28 to 1-38 cosby-side. So the existing building on site, the office building, is set back from the street frontage where it's provided an offset from the gable end of that building. You can see there's also windows on the gable end of that building which need to be considered in the setting of the new building. So the proposed building will sit, you can see in the plan here, we'll sit further forward, the red dash line there shows the alignment of where the building will sit from that particular viewpoint. The building, the new building has been designed around the need to provide an offset to that listed building and there is a cut back in the front elevation which you can see on the left hand image there. The building cuts in to allow some breathing space in front of that gable elevation. The building will also sit at 1.5 metres behind back from the street frontage of the tenement building. And our view is that this provides a reasonable set back to allow that listed building to have the same impact and the same sort of setting within the street frontage. Next one. So the applicant has provided some visuals from using verified view points to demonstrate how the relationship between the new building analyst and tenement and plan is accepted is satisfied that the proposed arrangement would not impact adversely on the setting of the gable end of the listed building. You can see the gable windows are still open to the street to a reasonable extent and the design intention of the gable will still be there. So the next area which we've been asked to look at is the setting of the conservation area. So in terms of the conservation area setting there's two key areas to consider. First of all, how the development will fit into the historic pattern and built characteristics of development within, in this case adjacent to the Grange conservation area and the impact of the building in the local setting of the conservation area. So firstly looking at this slide here which shows an historic image of the site, historic photograph. You can see the site just down the bottom left of the photograph. Originally this shows a large school building on the site and prior to that there was also a large villa which sat on the site. The school was demolished in 1966 and the existing office building was constructed at that time. The photograph here shows that there's quite a clear distinction in terms of the belt pattern between Cosbury's side which has a much denser level of development and the more green leafy setting of the conservation area you can see the row of villa houses and the green space and the garden grounds behind that. So there is an established difference in the time'sscape character of the plots on Cosbury's side and the adjacent plots of the Grange conservation area. Just looking at the current development pattern you can see that the existing building in the site actually sits lower than the historic development that has been on the site so, well as it has a large footprint and extends into the, the area has a single story extension to the office block. This is a, is a, is a, is a, is a, is a, is a war level of massing that was historically on the site. So just, the applicant has also undertaken various viewpoints of the setting of the, the building from within the Grange conservation area so this helps explain, I guess, the impact in terms of the local setting of the streets within the conservation area. This image here shows the view from Grange Road and you can see on the left hand side that's a existing building you can see the, the existing left tower of the building which projects just in between the tenement building and the villa and then in the proposed development. Actually that part of the building will be lower and the impact is, is considered to be neutral and not significant. The next viewpoint shows another viewpoint just from slightly further along Grange Road and the photograph is quite small so a little trickier to see but you can just make out the, the existing building and massing behind the villa and the tenement and, and comparison to the proposed development. Again it's considered to be a neutral impact and, and not significant. Just looking at the, the, the last viewpoint I have here to show you, which is from Finn Forn Place around to the rear of the site. You can just see slightly more of the, the building just above the wall there. It's quite, again, quite difficult to see. And Milane's just pointing out for you but comparison to the existing situation it's, it's not considered to be a significant change. So just moving on to the next area which we'd been asked to consider farther is the, is the need to justify the demolition of the existing building and why we use to the building has been ruled out in regard to compliance with MPF4 policy 9. So MPF4 policy 9 notes the demolition of an existing building as the least preferred option. The applicant has provided information which demonstrates that they've undertaken marketing for the site during this process 28 beds were received but there was no interest in retaining the building from, from bidders through that process. The applicant has also undertaken a structural assessment of the building which has assessed the, the existing structure as being a medium risk, meaning it required ongoing assessments and has also found that there is rack construction in the rear part of the building in the single-story extension. They've undertaken a redevelopment feasibility study which is, which identifies various constraints to reuse of the existing building footprint for use as a PBSA development as proposed which includes the fact the building has a hybrid structure which is likely to be prohibitive to alterations to supervise floor plan. There are also issues with vertical loads which would not be sufficient to accommodate any additional height in the existing building. There would be problems in developing a basement level which is proposed in the, in the pool scheme and the existing forestation pattern is locked into the building meaning that it couldn't be altered which would then not be conducive to changing to a student housing floor plate. MPF4 policy 9 also talks about the biodiversity value of brownfield sites and the applicant has undertaken a preliminary ecological assessment which summarises existing ecology values on site as slight are negligible. It's important to note that the proposed landscape and strategy will provide significant ecological enhancements for the site which will increase biodiversity opportunities within the local area. So on balance it's considered that redevelopment of the site complies with the overall policy objective to direct new development away from green sites and support reuse of sites within the urban area, including brownfield, vacant and derelict lands and empty buildings and this regard the proposal complies with the attentions of MPF4 policy 9. So the next area to consider is the extent to which the applicant's submission has responded to feedback from the urban design panel. So the application went to the panel in May last year. The application was then submitted to us in December. So during that time there were several changes made to the proposals. The applicant has provided a section in their design access statement which summarises these but some of the key changes that have been made in response to the comments made in the urban design panel are in relation to scale and massing of the building which has been reduced. The top story has been removed and there's been further stepping back into the view of the building. The active frontage on the building originally the proposals had about 50% of the frontage as an active frontage and that has now been increased to just over 60% in the current proposal. The applicant has also provided analysis in terms of the positioning of the building line on cos we say this was raised as something that the urban design panel points picked out that they didn't support bringing that frontage forward but the applicant has provided a good level of townscape assessment and assessment in terms of the setting of listed building which we discussed earlier which our view supports the relocation of the building frontage forward. They've also provided what's information in terms of the demolition of the building and embodied carbon and have provided some like daylight assessments as requested by the Edinburgh design panel, verified views and has given consideration to the future reuse of the building which was another issue raised by the urban design panel and set out that there is potential for future use of service apartments in a particular hotel or residential uses. There's anything specifically that you'd like addressing that then we can address that after this presentation. So just moving on to the next query which was in regard to amenity, sunlight and daylight in relation to the existing properties at the tenements at 1.30 to 1.38 cos we say and in relation to open space provision for future occupiers. So in terms of daylight to the existing properties, the applicant has followed the approach recommended in the Edinburgh design guidance which is the vertical sky component and average daylight factor methods. They've assessed 62 neighbouring windows which face towards the site. 60 of these meet the initial assessment which is the vertical sky component assessment which means they comply with Edinburgh design guidance. Two windows feel that which means that they've been taken forward to do a further average daylight assessment and both of these pass in terms of the AD requirements. So overall the proposed development in terms of impact on existing windows will it complies with the requirements that in Edinburgh design guidance and just also just in terms of the two windows which don't meet the VSC assessment but do meet the second level of assessment in the ADF assessment. These are dual aspect rooms. They sit on the corner of the tenement building. So actually they inject their also gable end windows which are generally not protected by the Edinburgh design guidance. So overall we are content that the level of impact on existing properties is acceptable. In terms of sunlight to the existing properties and garden grounds, the applicant has undertaken error by error shadow plans for the existing garden ground for the surrounding properties to the north and the west. The properties to the west and northwest which is those properties on the villas on Fintour in place and at number eight, Grange Road will continue to meet the standard city and Edinburgh design guidance. There's no negative aspect impact on them. However, the report of handling outlines of the tenements to the north will not meet the standard city and Edinburgh design guidance. Therefore, they would not receive two hours of sunlight on the 21st of March. So the sunlight assessment provided by the applicant also demonstrates that the gardens don't currently meet the standards so they currently receive less than two hours of sunlight. 50% of the garden grounds currently receives less than two hours of sunlight on the 21st of March. Therefore, they have undertaken an additional sunlight assessment of the garden grounds of these properties which has been carried out to BRE standards. The plan here shows this assessment which is a sort of heat map type of approach, which sets out that in the area of interest here is that triangle of land in sort of below the L-shape of the top tenements there Elena's pointing out for you. The left hand assessment here shows that currently based on this assessment, this garden ground receives 29% of the garden ground receives two hours of sunlight on the 21st of March and the right hand shows the post-development position which is that 26% of the garden ground would receive two hours of sunlight on the 21st of March. Therefore, this is a different assessment from the Edinburgh design guidance and so it's just a bit and it's as set out in the report of hands like we don't meet the Edinburgh design guidance threshold in terms of overstabbing. However, on balance, given that it's a relatively small impact of 3% of the garden area that would receive less sunlight as a result of the development, we would accept this failure to comply with the guidance in this instance as a reduction in amenity value is relatively low. Finally on amenity, there was a gradient relation to open space provision on the site, so to clarify 30% of the site will be usable open space. The plan here shows all of the open space on the site just to point out only the northern amenity space that has been included in that open space calculation as the area to the south, the study area to the south is will be overshadowed in that as accepted. But 30% is considered to be a good level of provision, just to note as well there's currently no minimum requirement for open space provision for student housing and this is considered to be a good level of open space for a student housing development. The landscape proposals also provide good biodiversity opportunities and biodiversity net gain is anticipated for the site through the landscape strategy that's been set out. So we are satisfied that the open space provision complies with the policy requirement and is of a good quality. And then just moving on to the last query that has been raised, which is in relation to cycle parking. So the plan here shows where cycle parking will be provided within the schemas is at ground floor level. So we're looking at a cycle parking provision of 69% as opposed to the target which we usually want to reach which is 100% provision. Originally the proposal came in from the applicant which included 100% provision but this included a high proportion of two tier racks and wall storage units which are less easily accessible. The applicant has discussed the proposals with transport officer who has taken the view that it would be preferable to reduce the overall quantity but ensure that a good mix of accessible spaces are provided. So the current mix includes 40 standard Sheffield spaces which is a third of the provision 22 non-standard Sheffield spaces which is 19% and then 58 two tier spaces which is 48%. So in terms of the actual quality and range of types of cycle parking that's provided, this part complies with our guidance as to what we would like to see on sites coming forward. So the spaces are included in the three secure parking areas shown at ground floor level on the site. So therefore the proposed quantity of cycle parking does fall below the 100% provision but the mix is combined. There's also, the applicant has also made that there is another mention that there is another part area within the site building which could be used to accommodate another 10 to 15 cycle spaces if members were minded to consider the need for slightly further cycle parking to be provided and indeed that could be all speed on the basis of the demand increases in terms of the requirement for that. So in conclusion the proposal will make a positive contribution to the city's accommodation provision for those undertaking further and higher education and is acceptable in this location. The development plan encourages well designed compact urban growth that is sustainable and allows for 20 minute neighborhood principles to be delivered. The proposal is compatible with these principles. The impact of development on the setting of nearby listed buildings, character and appearance of the adjacent constitutional areas and the wider townscape has been considered and is acceptable in this regard. The proposal's not considered to have a significantly adverse impact in surrounding residents and will provide an acceptable amount of indoor and outdoor amenity space for future residents. Non-conformities with relevant non-stashity guidance regulations to suddenly and daylight are justified in this instance. Subject to recommended conditions, the proposal is acceptable and complies with national planning framework 4 and the aims of the Edinburgh LDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conclusion. Thank you very much indeed for that very detailed presentation. Councillor if followed by Councillor Gmanner followed by Councillor LIPOC. Thanks very much indeed. Yeah, that lays my concerns on a lot of areas. Can you just go into a little bit more detail on the impact on the listed tenements to the north? And particularly you showed a couple of visuals there that sort of show the impact of the new building in respect of that tenement. Do you have any visuals on what the impact will be within that tenement, within those, and in particular those gable end windows? I think you said that they will still be able to see down view forth, but to what extent and to what extent will their view be impeded by the new building and the building line coming forward. We don't have any views I can show you. I can explain as I mentioned in the presentation that the building of the proposed building is say 1.5 metres behind the frontage of the tenement building, so it does sit behind that, and it's also offset because of that cutout in that corner it's offset by I think it's around six and a half to seven metres in terms of the actual offset of distance between the gable end and the new building. There will still be views will still be open views available in terms of the view point from the inside the building out with looking south whereas along Cosby side. I think as well it's just in terms of sort of a planning consideration of views not protected aspects in terms of what we're looking at. So it's really about the setting of the listed building in terms of how it sits within the streetscape itself. Free follow up? It is a supplementary year. If you could go back to the slide that was up previously, can you just tell us what is the distance between the tenement and the bit of the new building that isn't set back? So what's the distance between that window and the bit of the building that isn't set back? Just to confirm as well, I'm assuming from the visual that there are no windows in that gable end of the new building. Is that correct? There is a small window at ground flooral level which is not a habitable room so it's not a room which we need to protect the viewpoint from that window. In terms of distances, we'll just need to have a look at a plan and we can tell you what that is shortly. Councillor Gardo? It was just in terms of NPM-9 and reuse of existing buildings. You had on the slide something about structure. Could you confirm whether there's any structural issues with existing building or not? Thank you. I'm not aware of there being any structural issues with the building itself. I am aware that there is some rack concrete construction in the rear extension part of the building which would obviously have considerations in terms of what we know by that. But structurally, the concerns in terms of reuse of the building are in relation to its conversion to use for the proposed purpose as a student accommodation building or a potential out uses. Can I just clarify that? So is it being said that structurally it can't? There's no existing problem with the structure but it can't be adapted for the new use. Is that what's being said? Just to reiterate what I said earlier in the presentation. So the issues that are picked out are to do with the hybrid structure which is likely to be prohibitive to the stresses of the observations to supervise for a plan. There are issues with the vertical loads which would not be sufficient to accommodate any additional height in the building. The existing structure would be prohibitive to the provision of a basement level. The existing demonstration pattern is locked into the building meaning that it can be altered which then would be difficult to convert in terms of the proposed use. So that's the kind of mattress we had covered. And that's a couple of accounts of an extra one you can. Thank you. My question is about the courtyard space. There's a couple of points in the report which talk about accessibility. So it mentions that the upper level of the courtyard space will be an accessible path but it doesn't reference the lower courtyard space. It also says that level access is provided for both parts of the courtyard but only internally via the building. So I'm just wondering could you describe to me the journey that a wheelchair user would have to make if they wanted to get from one part of the courtyard to the other. And I guess can you compare that to the journey that somebody who wasn't in a wheelchair would have to make? The journey would be via the interior of the building. We did discuss this with the applicant during the P.A. application process because ideally we would like to see the provision of wheelchair accessibility for doing out with in the courtyard area. Given that it's quite a constrained site in order to do that you would be removing quite a lot of the amenity space, the space that would be available for amenity use for students. So both parts of the courtyard, the lower and upper levels are both fully accessible from inside the building but I guess in terms of providing that outdoor access, there's no, that's not been provided in this instance. I just ask a quick follow up which is so, how long is that journey? Because obviously it's very different if you're going in one door and straight back out the other but if you haven't to snake through the building to get to the other access point then that would be a problem. So can you describe to me the journey that someone would have to take into? We'll just get the floor plan, the ground floor plan up for you to have a look at and then we can see how that will work. Okay so so far we're looking for the distance between the gable end and the knee building and now we're looking for accessibility from one level to the secondary level. So while we're waiting to do that... [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Sorry for the delete. Okay so I'm just having a little look at the floor plans. So the lift unit, if you look on the building on the plan there you can see the two left boxes which are just where Elaine's got the cursor there. So and there's an entrance on the lower ground and the upper, the lower ground and the ground floor pretty much at the same point just to the north of that you can see on the top on that elevation of the building. So there is I guess a little bit of movement through a corridor but it's not sort of particularly overly relatively close in terms of the size of the building.

• And just ask a question about the doors to get to the lift. Like are there two doors that I can't quite see, are there two doors and are they push acts? You know, like are they easy to navigate?
• Yeah, there's two doors there, what we won't get provide comment on is they may well be fire doors that require for building standards for the building one stage. That would be all dealt with by building one stage in terms of open access of the doors, the movement of the doors, you know, push but an access ability etc. So I wouldn't want to make comment on whether the doors are acceptable or not because they're probably been fire rated because you can see the stairs there, the access to the doors you're through into sleeping accommodation. - Officers are just looking for the slide for Councillor Booth's question in regards to the distance between the gable end and the jutting out element of the new building.
• It's quite small there but if you have a look from that point there to the building gable is measuring at 6.6 metres which is where the window to that gable end and then as you see the building steps so we step away from those windows and the curve back, it's 3.4 metres is measuring, that we're going here again. I'm assured by the cycle provision especially, this is very close to the university right across from the Great National Library facility. I was wondering if you could give us a bit more details on that, the shared area on the amenities materials are being used. Do they have permeability in terms of heavy rainfall and so on.
• So the landscape proposals have been reviewed by the landscape officer who is satisfied that it's been done to a high standard.
• The landscape officer has been involved in the process since pre-app and has come through the planning application as well and they are satisfied that the level of landscape and provision that's been set out is accessible. There are all, it's not accessible, so it's sustainable. There's features such as rain gardens, there's quite a high level of sustainability built into the landscaping proposals which are made to address both sustainability, water management issues and biodiversity as well.
• Thank you.
• I can see Council with itching for a second question, but before we go to Council booth, does anyone who hasn't asked questions so far wish to answer a question? No, Council booth.
• Can we come back again to this issue of the impact on the tenement above? I think you had a slide that was called frontage which showed a sort of montage of the existing building with a dashed line to show where the new building would come in. Can we just have a look at that again if that's possible please? And I suppose what I'm asking for is you talk me through so the dashed line will effectively mean, well, all of the tenement to the left of that dashed line will no longer be visible.
• The visibility of the tenement will depend on where you are on the street because obviously as you move along the street there will be different views towards it. So the positioning of the building frontage has been designed in a way so as to make sure that we're not encroaching on that frontage to an extent where it's unacceptable in terms of the impact. So I guess from that viewpoint there with the pink area that you can see on the plan there you can see where the built line will be but that image sort of suggested was right the way up to meet the the gable end of the building. As we said previously it kind of sits sort of 6.6 metres further forward than that so the relationship between the new building and that gable end is considered to be acceptable.
• Okay, any further questions from committee? No? Moving on to discussion? Councillor Booth?
• Thanks, come here. Start with the good. I am delighted that the proposal is on cycle parking accord with what we agreed at Planning Committee just a few weeks ago. So there has been compromise on the numbers but not on the accessibility. I think that's right. And there's clearly enough room there that if at some point in the future demand for cycle parking is such that they could for example build a cycle shed in the sort of grounds. I mean, I'm assuming that we can't condition that but we just sort of seek to say, you know, if it fills up please consider this. But from my perspective it just has too many other problems. So I think, you know, when we're discussing how aid and student housing, it's very, very rare that we actually get an application that takes us above 50% and I appreciate this one doesn't take us above 50% because we're already above 50% in terms of the student concentration in this area. And our policy how aid is pretty clear on that. You know, it imbalance communities are where the students predominate and above 50% defines predomination in my view. So I don't think we should ignore that. I also still have concerns about the impact on the listed tenement to the north. I absolutely appreciate that they have attempted to sort of set back the corner. But the fact that the whole building line has come forward effectively means that the vast majority of that tenement won't be visible anymore. It's quite unusual to have windows on the gable of a tenement. And I don't think we should be losing that. I completely accept that the rack in the rear extension and all of the other arguments that have been put forward mean that regrettably it's not possible to reuse this building. So I accept that. I do still have concerns about immunity and in particular the immunity impacts on the tenement to the north. The daylighting and sun lighting showed there are a few little bits of red where they do get some, you know, significant sunlight at the moment in that garden. And the proposed building will effectively, you know, reduce that. So I have concerns as well about the layout design. Is it actually going to be accessible to wheelchair users? So I have a lot of concerns about this application. And I will be listening carefully to colleagues, but moving towards refusal. Council, I'm eating and talking about council. I don't think I'm in the same space as my colleague, council Booth. I think a lot of the concerns have been addressed by the developers. It seems to me that it has good provision for the amenity of students and the gable end of the adjoining building has been taken account of. So I don't believe it will negatively impact on existing neighbors. We have heard from the universities that students themselves are suffering from the housing crisis. So here's good quality short walking distance proposal. So I would be in support of proving that. Council Parker. Yeah, thank you. I'm interested in hearing others views as well. I would suggest I'm more minded towards rejecting or refusal at this point. For me, I think the, the point on outdoors immunity is really important to me. And I think it's fair to say that the experience of a disabled resident in this housing block would be very different. It would not be equitable to a non-disabled resident, which I think is a problem. I think we don't know about the doors around the lifts, which concerns me. And I think in terms of desk 7E, it says we should grant development where there is safe and convenient access and movement in and around the development, especially for people with limited mobility. I'm not convinced that the proposals put forward in terms of the outdoor space meet that. So I'd be minded to reject. And I would also say that I'm supportive of council boots comments in terms of that additional percentage on student housing as well, particularly noting City Plan, which is going to come in. We hope will come forward, I should say. I think it's clear about that too. Thanks. Just in terms of desk 7E that's been raised, I think we'll go formal and we'll get the specific policies from the Council when we get to that point. Thank you. Just be careful in terms of my advice previously, in terms of internal alterations and doors. In the movement of doors, we can't control that under the planning legislation, so I would be advising you should not be making any judgment on the proposals on the basis of that. And that no decision should be taken using the basis of City Plan, 2030, because it's not material consideration, so it shouldn't be used as part of your judgement today. Councillor Ghardness. Yes, for me it was NPF nine, and I appreciate that the structure report indicates that you couldn't put an additional story onto the building without strengthening the existing structure, whether that's possible or not. A structural engineer would need to determine and also you wouldn't get a basement. So, that means they can't get as much on the site, but nonetheless I think NPF nine talks about reusing existing buildings, and it's a building not of great merit, the office block, and therefore it is able to be converted and reused in a way that you could strip the facade off or other things potentially. I don't know, so given that the end result, that the proposed building is very similar to the existing building, I would have preferred to have seen that being reused, whether this is a strong enough ground to reject the whole application, I don't know NPF nine has not really been tested by us committed too much, but we do live in a climate crisis situation, and reuse of concrete framed buildings is something that many in the construction industry are advocating currently. So, for me I'm slightly troubled by the lack of reuse of the existing structure. Thank you, Covina. Okay, any further comment from committee? Okay, I'm going to go next then. This is really complicated. Again, we've spent a long time, especially when we're designing the new plan that's coming forward about urban-led development. Urban-led development is always going to have complications, and it's whether those on balance, you know, whether those infringements are reasonable, and this is a very difficult one because I agree with some of the points that Kasa Parker raised in the fact that equality is incredibly important. I am mindful though that this is presently a derelict site, it's not used. We have a housing crisis that includes students as well, and this is a way of actually allowing something to come forward that is not presently being utilised. There is also a huge amount of work that's gone into, actually putting suns in, green roofs, and actually making improvement to the general area and the general wellbeing. We get a lot of student accommodation in front of us that does not have very good amenity space for students. This is a very complex area and quite a congested area, and effort has been made to actually enhance the amenity for individuals who will be residing in this property. As Councillor Beeth did point out as well, there has been an adjustment towards the cycling provision to allow for adaptability and to actually have a look more properly and how to utilise this building properly. So yes, there are a few problems. There is a problem obviously with the Gable End, but the building has been pulled back. We've seen this in other areas, and as we know, we are not guaranteed to have a few special and a Gable End. So personally, I appreciate and understand there are some infringements on this that do you sort of mind to it, but when I put it into the balance of the overall, my feeling very strongly is that we should approve the officers' recommendations because a lot of work has been done, it's gone into this, and we are going to be re-utilising what is presently a derelict building. And I appreciate the fact that, you know, it would be much better if we could re-utilise it, but if it's not possible to re-use it within its present state, it will remain derelict, and I think that's more unfortunate than not, as we cannot as a city afford to have derelict buildings just sitting there doing nothing. So from my own personal point of view, there are infringements on this, which are regrettable, and I do wish that we could have a way that we could design it better, so it was more equitable going through, and lift access to a secondary position isn't ideal, but it is there, and so thought has gone into it. I would prefer not to have gone into it to be there, but there isn't the space to put a ramp in because unfortunately that would take up too much of the amenity space, which we have had problems with previously. So from my own point of view, I will be approving the officers' recommendations. So moving formal, I will be approving the officers' recommendations. I think I'm going to be looking for a seconder, Councillor Jones. I'm very happy to second you for all the reasons that you've said. I think there's so much commenders. I think it's much better building them what is there, obviously, because it's derelict, and I know we're stretching student concentration to the limit, but we do need student accommodation, as well as residential. So, yes, I'm inclined to even notwithstanding that it would have been good to reuse the building, but there are problems with that. I'm very happy to second your proposal. Councillor BANNA. Thanks, Good Minute. I move refusal of the application on the grounds of LDP policy, how eight specifically in terms of imbalance communities and density of students. I move refusal on the grounds of section 59 of the planning-listed buildings and conservation areas, Scotland Act 1997, and NPF 4 policy 7C in respect of the setting of the listed building to the north. I move refusal on the grounds that's contrary to LDP policy DES-5 immunity, specifically the immunity of residents in the tenements to the north and immunity of future occupiers in respect of the garden grounds. Also, NPF 4 policy 9 on demolition and reuse. I am convinced, actually, by the arguments that Councillor Gardener put forward there. I appreciate that the rear extension has rack and couldn't be reused, but I do believe that the main building could, with some imagination, be reused. Policy DES-7E on layout design, safe and convenient access to be 100% clear. We're not talking about the internals of the building. We're talking about the external space and whether people who are wheelchair users can access it in the same way that people who are not wheelchair users. I don't think that that is currently there. And finally, Convener, I appreciate comments from planners that we can't use CityPlan. The report in front of us says that at this time in the context of the consideration of this particular application, limited weight can be given to the relevant policies of CityPlan 2030. I would argue that given that CityPlan 2030 is on the agenda for Planning Committee next week, and given that I'm not using CityPlan as the sole reason for refusing this, that I would argue that it is competent to include CityPlan within my list of reasons for refusal. And specifically, I would argue that it's contrary to CityPlan policy, how six on student housing, in particular, in respect of the mix of units within the development that it does not meet CityPlan in respect of the cluster flats, and that it does not meet the overall requirements of how six. So I am looking for a seconder, please.
• You seconding, Councillor Gaudner?
• Yes, I'm happy to second. I think I jumped ahead of Councillor Parker, but I think the point that he made was extremely valid. I don't think it should be a complete new build in my question or earlier statement. I thought the building could be reused, but given that it is a new build, it should really be meeting the Qualities Act in terms of provision for wheelchair users and so on, and we really don't need to accept second best here. So we should, as a committee, scrutinising which I feel we've done and be looking for things that do meet the needs of future users and cluster flats in CityPlan's, another area where it's for the future users' mental health and well-being that we want to have more – amenable spaces within the buildings. And so there's many grounds here why this should be better than it is given that it's a new build. But really, for me, it's the NPR-9. It's untested, but it's there for a reason. It's there because of the climate crisis. We don't need to be filling in Doklin with lumps of concrete when it could actually be adapted for future use. So that's why I'm seconding Councillor Booth this afternoon, Carina.
• Well, I think I'd advised against using City Plan. I think my advice is still against using City Plan. I'm frantically trying to look up to see what amendments that are made to House VI, but you're potentially making a judgement and a decision on a policy that has not been adopted and has not been considered yet by the Council as there. So it's at the point of, yes, material weight can increase as we move through the process. We're just not there. We're not there yet. It's so close to being considered by committee and field Council. I wouldn't want you to prejudice this decision on the basis of you have made a determination under City Plan 2030 when we haven't quite made it to that point in time if you're looking to diffuse the application.
• Can you mail me with your permission? I'll withdraw that reason. I think there are plenty of other reasons on the table. You just want to double-check that I had written down a preemptive to what you were going to say, so I was prepared. How eight, in terms of excessive concentration of student accommodation and results in an embellished community, got section 59 of listed building with the associated MPF for policy seven. Propose development is adiversum part to an amenity country to now put down days four in terms of setting, but you hadn't mentioned days four. That's development design impact on setting height and form-scale proportions, but you will be comfortable enough because you then mention days five in terms of the daylighting and impact on communities.
• I'm happy to take days four as well.
• Okay, okay, I've made some proposals. Then a separate reason for refusal based on fields to address policy days seven e in the provision of outdoor space and access for all was how it was going to frame the refusal. And the final one, proposals of fail to appropriately demonstrate the existing building cannot be reused country to MPF for policy nine.
• Thank you.
• Thank you, brethren. In that case, we'll go to the vote. We'll have the motion by Councillor Osler, seconded by Councillor Jones, which is to grant planning permission subject to the condition reasons and the forms as set out in the report by the chief planning officer. We'll have the amendment by Councillor Booth, seconded by Councillor Garner, which is to refuse planning permission as the application is contrary to LTP policies out of eight days four five and days seven e in PF for policy seven C and nine in section 59 of the planning and list of buildings and conservation Scotland Act, so now votes for the motion please by Councillor Osler to grant.
• Thank you, and votes for the amendment by Councillor Booth to refuse, please.
• Thank you, so that is for the motion and five for the amendment. So plan permission is refused. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO]
• Councillor sampling, and Councillor Mckin, can I just take your vote online?
• Yes, I'm here.
• Thank you. In that case, we'll move on to item 4.6 now, which is an application for approval of matter specified in conditions at 139 London Road, Meadowbank Stadium in Edinburgh. This presentation was requested by Councillor Booth, and I'll pass over to a plan of search to introduce item. Hello, I'm the case office application, which relates to the environs of Meadowbank Sports Centre, it's primarily residential-led development with a little bit of commercial. So I think we're all familiar with Meadowbank case. [BLANK_AUDIO] Anybody? - Yes, miss.
• Right, so this is, well, sure we're all familiar with Meadowbank case, so this satellite's from about a year old now. So basically the whole site is everything out with this board of senators can see is defined by the two railway lines and the roads on the other side. So what you're not looking at is the layout as proposed. This is, so some of you being on this committee a bit longer will probably be involved in this, so this was the Master Plan approved under the previous application at this site. So what that application did was approve the layout of these blocks that you can see, which are all residential. The other thing with some commercial on the ground floor, the other thing it did was approve a story range and a maximum height to eaves. So when we're talking about amenity, impact in labour, amenity, a lot of these issues have been not addressing fuel but certainly been considered previously. So the other thing that previous application did was accept the removal of some trees. So you can see areas highlighted in red, which where trees are going to be removed in order to facilitate development, so their weekly alms that are to wish our terrace. So that's to the west of the sites that are all being retained. Our council tree officers have advised that they're outgrown their bases so they need to be, need new houses basically, a bit more space to expand. But generally when it comes to loss of trees, overwhelmingly being compensated. And this is the layout as proposed. So probably can't tell the difference because it's pretty similar. And I don't know about shore up very well but you can see the purple outline and these are the trees that are going to be retained. So obviously urban site constraints, there's going to be changes. These trees get their main park neighbours. So generally in terms of neighbour I mean we're only probably concerned with this side of the development because it's not really any residential elsewhere. So again it might not show up very well but decent separation from window to window on either side. And cricially there's not really been any encroachment further towards neighbouring properties from the previous application. But you know you're sticking a building next to some existing buildings that there will be a change. In terms of impact on light, daylight and sunlight assessment is overwhelmingly positive in the sense that there shouldn't be an adverse impact on the majority of neighbouring properties. But there will be some impact because it's essentially unavoidable. So what you're looking here is North on we're short terrace. So there will be some infringement of our guidance partly because of the big trees that you can see to your right. Partly because of the way that building the left designs you can sort of see it zig zags. So there's a certain element and impingement of light there. And the other one are these buildings here which is Marionville Road looking west. So these trees have gone, most of them have gone because we've accepted the removal but the daylight and sunlight assessment was based on those trees existing because of the existed. And there are things to note for this building on the right. There's modern one you'll note the recessed balconies which the daylight and sunlight assessment notes is sort of infringing light to an extent already. I think that's pretty much it. The only other thing to note is that one the reason, so when we go back to this part of the site you'll notice a stand to the north of the running track. And that's also had an impact on so we've had to sort of rejig the buildings around to make sure the metal bank facility gets a stand there. And that's pretty much it. Any questions? Thank you very much indeed to your presentation. Just mind switching your microphone off for a second. So open it up to questions. Councillor Booth? Thanks Councillor Mute. Can I start with why the statutory consentees were not available on the planning portal at the time that the papers were published? In fact, as far as I understand it, they were only published on the planning portal this morning. Well, I can only apologise, I think that would have been an oversight by the uploading of those files. So yeah, I can only apologise, but hopefully they are all now available to view. It's not the first time this has happened, so perhaps we need to take this offline. It's not acceptable, especially when in this case the environmental protection have recommended refusal. I've got a supplementary question, but I'll come back to it please. Any other questions from the committee? Councillor Booth? Sorry, Councillor Parker. I mean, that was kind of one of my questions anyway, but I'll ask a different one. So there's a reference in the report and it just says the site will be generally level. And that's as much detail as we're given. And I guess I'm interested in understanding the instances where the site will not be level and what that will mean for wheelchair users. So we were provided with existing proposed site level, so that's not – yeah, I'm not just taking a punt and what levels will be, that's a comparison between the two. So the main places where there won't be level access is -- [ Pause ] So if you go to the eastern side, you'll see a curvy path, a sneaky path, so that's quite a bit of a level change now. To where it's proposed to go through the railway arch, but there's only a way to – that's unavoidable. The other one is between London roads, here to the south. So we've had to put in a ramp, but again, there's quite a significant level change there, but there's a range of made for wheelchair users and wheelers as well. But generally, out with that, the site is fairly level. So just to check in terms of the gradient, because you've used the word, it's quite significant, the gradient of those have been considered in terms of the impact that will have on wheelchair users. It's probably compliant. Yes, it's compliant. So in the space we have available, it's compliant in terms of – there's better than that. Councilor Booth? Thanks, Councillor MURMST. Thank you. Committee, yes, it was in relation to the response from environmental protection, and in particular their recommendation that we refused. As far as I understand it, from having sped Reddit afterwards published this morning, I understand that's predominantly on the issue of the noise and light from the Sports Centre and the flood lighting. Can you just go over in a wee bit more detail about why you take a different view to environmental protection on this? So you put in residential blocks next to a sports centre. Now there's going to be some impact, so environmental protection, the previous master plan said they made recommendations about non-habitable rooms, only non-habitable rooms facing the Sports Centre. That's generally been done for these blocks here. It's not been possible to do it for every block because you'd be looking at quite invasive architectural works you're talking about, when they're blank façades or blanker façades, which is not undesirable, you know, design wise, and it would probably also look in a reduction in unit. So we have a noise impact assessment, we had a flood lighting impact assessment, so the noise impact assessment recommends a range of things, you know, you've got your super, you've got, you know, good windows, mechanical ventilation and that kind of thing, so although on occasion, there's likely to be adverse and immediate impact for residents, we feel the mitigation that's been proposed is adequate. So it's a very similar thing to hard- And just to clarify, in terms of the lighting, this is the external lighting which I'm assuming like we've had at places like I think it was Craig Lockett and so on is controlled so that it's only on to a certain periods of time. That is my understanding, I couldn't tell you what time? Councillor PAWKER. Councillor PAWKER. Thank you, just a separate question. So it was looking at the ecological report which talks about badgers surveys and though there's no evidence of badges currently on the site, it does also note that badges readily use railway embankments and also they can establish sets very quickly and there was a recommendation within the ecology report that badgers survey should be updated at six monthly intervals and immediately prior to works being done but that isn't referenced in the actual paper for DMSub today in the decision we're making so I'm just wondering why that's the case? Yes, pretty standard stuff. Obviously we can't ask them to do a survey every week, which is a double check, so the statutory provision exists in terms of protected species so the developers come across a badgers set, they've got to do a whole range of stuff to make sure so the fact that there's additional surveys recommended is pretty standard practice for a preliminary ecological visual. I think the question more revolves around the fact of the updating of it in terms of the fact that there's six monthly update, is it within date, I think it's probably more of the clarification. We had a preliminary legal structure that was done initially and we had an update which I think was this year, I've talked to my head, I can't remember but when it comes to post planning obligations that's wholly on the developer they've, you know, there's the whole range of disturbance of certain protected species of criminal events so that applies to them. So in terms of protected species, as expected, it's not a lot of the extra places of building sites so. March 2024 was the most recent ecological ecology report update. Keslowby... Thanks for being here. ages 10 and 11 of the report set out the size minimum internal spaces of the units and if I've understood it correctly 97.2% of the one bed units do not comply with our guidance. Why? That's not strictly true. So in terms of internal administrative space, site A which is the ones to wish our terrorists and site B, they comply with our guidance in terms of internal floor spaces, site C which is the bill to rent block. So we there is a tolerance built into bill to rent units in terms of internal floor space because they get benefit from enhanced levels of immunity both into internal annex then also, you know, so those guys will have private secure outdoor space, private roof space and private internal space so that we feel compensates for infringements in floor space. So it's just a bill to rent block rather than the schemas of all. So I couldn't find anywhere in the sake of design guidance that allows the bill to rent this leeway, can you point me to where I can find that please? Generally that's the approach so that we in this committee has taken in terms of bill to rent blocks because of the fact that there's, for example, shared sprinkler systems, there's not a requirement to have hallways, et cetera, as my understanding. So we have in the past accepted bill to rent units as Graeme's pointed out because what they also tend to have because it's all managed centrally within the bill to rent block additional immunity standards entirely so we do allow a tolerance, I'm sorry, I can't get that up until I get this open, we do allow a tolerance of a reduction in unit sizes and I think the report does mention that most of the units are within about 4 square meters of our guidance in terms of space standards. Let me just see if I can find it. So it does say, so in page 92 of the Edinburgh design guidance it specifically mentions purpose built homes for rent and in the third section which talks about design approach, it talks about in built-around developments there tends to be key differences in their design which may justify a more flexible approach that specifically relates to the standards for minimum internal floor space and a quantity of single aspect units and it goes on to list where there might be aspects of tolerance. Councillor Gough? Yeah, I think there's government guidance on that that came in around about 20, 18 or 19 that allowed reductions because of communal areas and so on that you didn't need to have lobbies onto the flats and so on. So that might be what's generated in the design guidance. Okay, sorry I was expecting a question on that. Okay, the question was are you aware of that? I think you're right. Thanks, come in and go back to the trees. Can you just clarify again, bring up the slide and identify which the trees are coming out and are any of them Wheatley Elms? No Wheatley Elms are coming out. So these are the trees in red that are T.B removed and that's there to facilitate developments no way around that, but traditionally they've been overwhelmingly compensated and the trees of highest value are being retained. I apologize, one other thing to note so if I -- so these trees here, they are to the railway line, so they have been removed by ourselves and the council on safety grounds. They will be getting compensated so they'll get put back in because they're quite important in terms of a bit of an actual buffer between the lower rise developments to the north-east. Councillor Parker. Thank you. Thank you. Separate question. So the report also notes that there is a significant but supportable change which is the replacement heating centre with heat pumps and I'm just wondering, could you explain to me why it is supportable presumably the carbon reduction is comparable or, you know, can you give me -- can you flash that out a little bit? It's the question. It's better so the distilled heating burner would be for us or feel -- no. I think it can be future-proof to be renewable but generally, you know, for this one my memory is that it was going to be for us or feel so. The removal of that is what's called exhaust air source heat pumps and these are like boilers that go in your flat and, you know, I don't have the exact figures but they're renewable technology so, you know, they should be a lower carbon generating. That's an addition to solar panels on the majority, certainly on the Site-C block and unfortunately another block as well. So just for clarity, the district heating that was proposed previously, most fossil fuel based is that the case? It was a district heating building that -- because this application was made on behalf of the council, so it's the council that would be developing it, previously there was an intention to have a district heating building which would supply the heating to the individual units but it would be effectively gas. But now, yeah, like as Graham's pointed out, it's not using any gas to heat the homes. Yeah, and in terms of the removal of the district heating buildings that's allowed play park and an orchard which we feel is a good move. All in all. Council be followed by council got there. And as a supplementary to Councillor Parker's question, does this comply with LHEs? Obviously, I appreciate LHEs is not specifically a planning requirement but nonetheless, given that the council is the developer here, obviously LHEs has -- sorry, you're looking blank -- the local heat and energy efficiency strategy which sets zones of the city, some of which heat pumps will be prioritised, and others of which zero carbon heat networks will be prioritised. So can we just clarify that this is not in the heat network as defined by LHEs? I've had a quick look at the sustainability statement and I'm assuming you're -- it's LHEs. Yeah, so I can't find any reference to it in here and it wouldn't be a specific planning consideration for just assessing what's in front of us in terms of sustainability. Yes. When there was a paper that had come to this committee looking at council assets which could be the anchor of heat networks, it strikes the new Medibank Sports Centre which needs to be heated pretty much from 8am, perhaps to 8. We can't say I just asked for the question. Yes, I'm going to get to it convener but sometimes it takes a bit of time so. We're quite pressed for time so I would really appreciate it. Well, I don't care, at the end of the day I'll answer the question now but it doesn't matter if we're pressed for time. We need to consider these things properly. So in terms of the heat network, can you confirm whether Medibank Sports Centre was part of it because that was certainly a council policy in a previous paper. Thank you. I don't know. I'm afraid. Any further questions? Moving on to discussion, Councillor Bea. I mean this application is excellent in many respects but as we've established today there are a lot of unanswered questions, so I'm going to be moving in continuation. I don't think I absolutely do not want to refuse this application because I think the volume of high quality housing that will come forward as part of this is strong. But because there are so many unanswered questions about the heat network, the ecological impact, the noncompliance with standards, the ecological impact in terms of biodiversity and badges, I would prefer that we continue this application to allow further information on those multiple questions that have come forward today to be answered and that we get a definitive answer to some of those questions when it returns to committee in the future. I do think that it's deeply regrettable that we have an application before us where the comments from statutory consultees were not available until this morning and a lot of my questions stemmed from that. So I would prefer that we just continue this application convener. Councillor Gourno. I would be happy to second that, particularly given the— Wait, we're not moving forward just yet. All right. Thank you. Is anyone onto any further discussion? I think we just need to check in terms of—Oh, this is EMC. So it's… Okay. Moving formal. I do have sympathy with some of the points that Councillor Booth has raised because there has been not necessarily full information provided until early this morning, and I do think that does need to be explored a bit further. So I would be supporting Councillor Booth's request for continuation as this is an EMC. And I do think we do need to have—there's a number of aspects here that have been altered and it's just a double check because that will have a knock on impact to what's actually then developed at the end, and if there's a master plan for this as we know from what's happened at Granton and so on. If you change little bits of the jigsaw and so on like that, we just need to make sure the fact that we're the information that's provided this morning. But if we can just be clear and get actual clarity of what it is that is required in terms of additional—so then, when this application is brought back, we can make sure that these parts are clearly identified and also the information is provided, obviously, when the application and when the papers are produced, you know, on time. The sort of interest, is that anybody else moving in a different position apart from sort of continuation? No one else? Right. So then we're just going to agree to continue. Councillor Booth, would you like to start in terms of the points raised? Thanks, Premier. Just to try and recap, so continuation in order to provide further information on the heat sources, the non-compliance with policy in terms of minimum unit sizes, the ecological impact in particular in respect of badgers, the— Sorry, we've got that one, have we? I haven't made a comprehensive list. I suppose we need them all now, don't we? Can anybody help me out? Just to clarify, perhaps we didn't have all the information immediately available but there is a very extensive sustainability study on the portal which talks about the energy strategy. I don't know, Graham, if you want to advance that in terms of what you've said in the report. Just bearing in mind that this is the Council bringing this forward and they will be putting in the technologies which are the most up-to-date and sustainable at the time. There is a whole strategy, I haven't had time to digest it but there is considerable sustainability information here. I don't know specifically in terms of the ill, he's stuff, it's not a planning policy or we just have to assess. We've set against day six, you know, I'm just trying to be a bit pragmatic in terms of how we've actually assessed this. Bearing in mind too, it is an AMC application and it's not full application so the considerations are slightly different in terms of going into that level of detail. In terms of the non-complaintable unit sizes, apologies, I did think that I addressed it and it does say the design guidance that there is provision for those kinds of unit tolerances and I hope that we have addressed now the ecology report which was detailed in March 2024. Thanks, Camilla. I mean I appreciate that compliance on not with L.H.E.s is not a material planning consideration. However it is, we do have policies in the LDP and NPF 4 about energy, I think it's policy eleven on energy, NPF 4 and so it's crucial from my perspective that these are complying with broader policies. I think the council doesn't always have a brilliant reputation of one department speaking to another. So personally I'm not reassured that the council is the developer in this respect. So I think as planning authority it is right that we continue this to allow further discussion. I would also appreciate further detail on the trees, I appreciate their not-weekly helms, but I think we do need more detail on exactly which ones are coming forward. I would also like further information on how the concerns raised by environmental protection in terms of the impact of the flood lighting and the noise from the stadium will be mitigated. I do feel that this is covered in the report of handling though in terms of the flood lighting so I don't know if there's any more detail we can bring forward. It does acknowledge that there's a concern from environmental protection regarding the sports centre flood lighting but then we do go into the reasons why we feel it's justified to look at things from a different perspective. I have to admit the only thing that I have, the major concern about because I understand that we have a pre-matters like that because we did exactly the same thing in terms of Craig Locket in terms of the outdoor tennis facilities there. There was a long conversation about that but I do have a concern about the change in terms of the heat network because again this is a council related scheme that's come forward and that's quite a major city of change and it's just a secret assurance. I appreciate the fact that you said there is an addition within it but what we've discussed quite a lot through this is quite pertinent to other aspects the council is trying to take forward as well. For me personally it's more about the change in the heat source to double check whether there can be, if change has been made whether that fits into the overall council policies we're trying to drive forward in terms of other parts of the council and if it doesn't it can be considered back again to understand why it can't and I do think that's quite important for the council point of view that we are consistent. For me it is about the heat network because I don't believe the fact that I appreciate environmental protection point of view but we have in terms of planning side of things agreed other cases because of it's to do with the conditioning of the lights etc. Councillor Goughner. Yes, I think that's right. What we need is presentation probably by sustainability officers. We often have presentations or opportunities to speak to transport officers. We haven't got that today and this is a council led project. We do have policies that came to this committee identifying council assets and how they could be the anchor for heat networks. So as I said earlier there's a real missed opportunity potentially here. Now there's a lot of good things about this scheme convener including the housing and I want to be able to support this as council about as intimated but I just want a little bit more reassurance on that ground. So I think that's most adequate reasons for continuation to try and get this across the line or if we need to add conditions or something like that but at the moment there isn't enough information on the table convener so I think continuation is absolutely the way to go on this. Thank you. Sorry to come back again. I'm just wondering because I'm really keen to get a resolution and I'm just wondering if it's possible that we could look at reserving because this is an EMC, I just wonder if it's possible to reserve the heat network aspect and grant everything else and then the applicants come back separately with more details of the heat network. It just means that we can approve everything else and then we can come back with the heat network separately. Yeah I think that seems the right way to go forward. Councillor Booth has raised some other issues but I think personally I think that that now is a real way forward. Okay, so Councillor butakani can you have your hand up? Yes, I've got somebody else's mic on again, I was going to propose that we do as the officers' intimated and approve and come back to the heating element. I'm very conscious that there's a housing crisis and these would be council-owned I believe so yeah, if we could approve and then dig into more details on the heating system, I think that would be a positive way forward. Okay, I believe that is what we are going to be doing. So with committee's agreement we're going to approve the officer's recommendations but we're going to reserve. Councillor Booth do you have some conditions for the community to consider? I'm getting a death stir from the convener. Can I very briefly convener ask planners whether it might be possible to add a condition notwithstanding the approved plans that details for the attempted mitigation of the flood lighting will be submitted to the satisfaction of the chief planning officer? I believe that is acceptable. So to go back what we're agreeing is we're agreeing the officer's recommendations but reserving the – is it the right – I can't actually remember what my brain is really starting to fry – reserving the granting of the heat network to be reviewed at a later date and also to add the condition from Councillor Booth. Yeah, I was going to propose – I was going to propose then what the condition that Councillor Booth just did, notwithstanding the approval plans for the details shall come forward. I'm just writing as I'm talking regarding the mitigation for the flood lighting. Exterminal. Exterminal? Flood lighting. Flood lighting. To the satisfaction of planning authority. And the other one was another condition so for the avoidance of doubt no permission is given for the details of the heat network. These details shall come forward for separate approval by the planning authority. Sorry, Convenor, can I ask the officer to consider – we want the heat network but what's in the plans is that source of heating, so we don't want to approve the source of heating currently which is heat pumps as I understand it, so just need to be careful that we're not approving that bit of it as well. Can that just be given about a consideration in that condition, thank you. That's right. So I had written for the avoidance of doubt no permission is given to the details of the heat network. These details shall come forward for separate approval by the planning authority. Are you saying it's a distinction between heat network and heat source? Yeah, well, what my understanding is currently for approval is that there's heat pumps individual heat pumps on the blokes, so that's not a heat network and what we want to see is a heat network ideally, so we don't want to approve the heat pump situation, so your wording talks about something else other than what's in the plans currently. So it's supposed to be the heat source that that's been talking about. Yeah, so I think that's probably stronger and you can mention heat networks thereafter but we don't want to approve the currently proposed source of heating. Thank you. Okay, so it shall read for the avoidance of doubt no permission is given to the details of the heat source, these details shall come forward. Right, okay. So in that case, item 4.6 is approved notwithstanding the heat network which is to come back and the additional condition on mitigating floodlight in, external floodlight in. Convener, point of order, could I ask a five-minute break? I'm not sure if you had that in mind but I think it's been quite a, it's 1447.5 to. All right, thank you. Thank you. Just to confirm. Councillor MATNEES Meekin and Councillor KAMRAN and you can hear us online. Thank you. In that case, we'll move to item 4.9 now on their agenda which is an application for planning permission at 12 New Toft Street in Edinburgh. Test presentation was requested by Councillors KAMRAN and Councillor MATAS KAWALO and I'll pass over to plan officers to present the report. Good afternoon, committee. So the application relates to 12 New Toft Street and it is for a change of use of the building from offices to class 7 bed and breakfast and to replace existing steps and a door with a window. I'm just waiting for my slides to catch up, sorry. All right, there we go. Well, so the application property is a two-story building on the north side of New Toft Street. The area is predominantly residential and character, so if you can see my mouse cursor, I've got residential buildings surrounding the sites here and here. Access to the site is taken from New Toft Street so there are two access points. We have one here and a further access point here. The detached building has an 18-space car park located to the north so that's this area of hard standing here with a garage located on the west side of the site and landscape areas surrounding the building itself. The application site is within the Gilmatt and Conservation area and the building is not listed. I've got a couple of additional photos here so this is the building from New Toft Street and so you can see that the grounds are in a bit of disrepair. That's the gate there is the alternative access with a 1 to 20 gradient ramp. This is the northeast elevation and then we'll go to the proposal itself so the application is for a change use of the existing building from class four offices to a bed and breakfast with associated internal work to form 14 bedrooms. External changes are limited as we can see in this picture here to the removal of a set of steps and the door and that is to be replaced with a window. Coastal parking is proposed within the site within the existing garage to the west so that will be for eight standard bikes and two nonstandard bikes using Sheffield stands. The existing car park with 18 spaces is to be retained and there will be no increase in car parking proposed. Three of the 18 car parking spaces are to be designated for disabled users so you can see those closest to the building and the blue dashed lines on the plan, mark level access and three of the spaces are to include electric charge points. Bin and recycling facilities are all so to be located in the car park and that's where my cursor is there to the east of the site. So we've got, I've just shown internal works here so we can see that there'll be internal works to form 14 bedrooms so this is the ground floor, we have a reception area here and a small kitchen here and then on the upper floor again just seven bedrooms. So the application was called to committee for further information on the impact on the conservation area and the potential impact on the road network. So first of all in terms of impact on the conservation area, external changes are limited to the replacement of stairs and a door on the northeast elevation with a window. The window shown in the drawings provided will match the style and pattern of other windows on the building and this is considered a minor change and given that the northeast elevation is not visible from public viewpoints so we can see it here in this picture, it is considered it will have no impact on the conservation area. Positive features within the site such as the garden ground in the trees has to be retained and the reuse of the building will ensure both the building itself and the surrounding grounds are maintained improving the appearance of the area and again just on the drawings there it's the door there at the bottom that will be replaced with a window. So overall it's considered that the proposal will have a neutral impact on the conservation area and that the proposals are acceptable with regards to section 64 of the planning listed buildings and conservation areas, Scotland Act 1997. In terms of potential impact on the road network the proposals for the formation of a bed and breakfast with 14 bedrooms it is likely that peak demand will be focused around check in and check out times and assuming that each of the 14 rooms that are to be occupied involves the use of one car this would result in an additional four cars every hour to the road network at peak times which is considered negligible in terms of the potential impact on the road network. The existing building itself has previously been used as office space associated with the City of Edinburgh Council Social Work Department. It's not anticipated that the pattern of use in terms of traffic would be significantly different from the use associated with the office in terms of peak times so in terms of the office use we'd expect peak times to be people coming to work and people leaving work at the end of the day the previous office use would have had visitors to the site and potential vehicle movements throughout the day associated with employees and deliveries. In terms of mitigating any potential impact on the road network the applicant is proposing 10 cycle parking spaces which includes two spaces for non-standard bikes. This exceeds the council's parking standards that require a minimum of two cycle parking spaces for a development of this size. The application site is a two minute walk away from bus stands, two to four minute walk so we've got the bus stand coming across road and a high rip bank and these bus stands offer a range of bus services directly to the city centre including routes 3, 11, 29 and 33. The proposal also includes electric charge points and the provision of three disabled parking spaces so in terms of promoting potential sustainable travel into the city centre and around the city it's felt that the proposal would achieve this. To ensure the level of off street parking is adequate to serve the proposed scheme and promote the principles of sustainable travel conditions have been included to ensure that cycle parking and the electrical charging points are installed prior to the commencement of operation of the proposed bed and breakfast. The road's authority were also consulted on the scheme and raise no objection to the scheme in terms of road safety, impact on the road network or parking levels. So in summary, the works will preserve the special character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposals are acceptable with regards to section 64 of the listed buildings and conservation area. Scotland Act 1997, the proposal complies with Edinburgh Local Development Plan in MPF4 and a minor infringement of tri-2 in terms of the 18 car parking spaces provided is considered acceptable in this case as the proposal relates to a change of use and does not increase car parking in the area. The proposed scheme is in an accessible location and will be compatible with surrounding uses. The proposal will not have a negative impact on residential amenity or the road network. There are all material considerations which are where the conclusion set out and it is recommended that planning permission is granted in this instance. Thank you very much. Just for question, I have one quick question for you. I know in the report it states the fact that there was an application previously granted in 2015 from office to residential. I take it that wasn't taken up that it still remains within its office like sort of state. Yes, to the best of my knowledge it wasn't implemented. It wasn't implemented, it will be expired now. So I brought to you questions for you. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. I have a few questions but I will start with the reason why I know, just the one. I start with the reason why I ask for a presentation and the impact on the rural traffic. I live in the area, I live really close, I've been living there for quite some time now and I can tell you that if you look at the map there's quite a few buildings, several story buildings. So parking there is always quite crazy. So Ravancroft Street, sorry about my technical expression of crazy traffic but the truth is Ravancroft Street very often has cars parked, fortunately not on top of the pavement anymore but they are still there. Very frequently and one of my colleagues is here, she can prove to you very often we have cars parked in front of the nursery which is across the road, close to the miners. So those two lanes on Ravancroft Street are often just the one and bus everything you can imagine is quite packed there. So I understand about the parking but I do feel that the bit between the Ormerton crossroads and the hybrid park where the bus 11 is a bit too narrow. So I would like to understand what kind of when you said about four cars is an hour, I believe you said. I don't really understand how the study was done because all day it's completely. So can you please let me understand how was the traffic study done, thank you. Yeah thanks Councillor and what we are saying is that if the bed and breakfast was fully occupied and each room had one car associated with it, if all of those visitors were here were coming and leaving within an hour. It would be one car trip every four minutes, 17 seconds. So the impact on the road network would be negligible from a transport point of view compared to what's already there. It's a really kind of negligible amount of increased traffic and that's assuming 100% occupancy and everyone coming and arriving at peak times. So we've got no concerns over this contributing in any significant way to traffic impacts on the network. I hear what you've said about the parking on the street and I think what this site lends itself to is the fact that it's got that car park, it's completely away from the street. And with 18 spaces for 14 beds I don't see any ovus spill onto the street, I think the fact that the site has this space set out already and that it relates to a change of use which allows us to support that level of car parking. I don't see this scheme impacting the on street element of parking that's already having a negative impact that you've set out. If it's a supplementary. Thank you for your views. I understand that my concern is the road is already jammed so people stop to go into the car park, they will jam the road a bit more, this is my biggest concern, it's not the car parking inside. So I assume this was taken into account as well. So we've considered kind of in the report what the impact of the development itself would be but I would also say you'd have to consider that the building could be used for office space, and it has been in the past, and that in terms of if it was to have that use. You'd be looking at cars going into the site and leaving as well, and the potential impact on the road so we can prevent all development of that site in the future because it might impact the road. It's what the impact is and I think they're broadly comparable so the office will have those peak times, those peaks and troughs, and this kind of used to be in breakfast again I think would have a peak in trough and I think if we're looking at four cars every, not four cars, one car every four minutes is what I'm looking for, then I think it's broadly comparable with what could be there without any further planning permission, and in terms of the potential impact, I think it's very exciting, it would be negligible. Okay, do you have any other questions from committee? I'll come back to the tech category just giving everybody else a chance. No? Car. To stop matters quick. Thank you. I go back to the report as well so I appreciate your views, I have different views, I'm not going back to that. I'm going back to at some point in the report about noise, and I do understand that it's just, sorry, let me open that, so one of the objections says concerns relating to speculative end users, and potential social behavior and noise, and on the report you mentioned that there's quite a distance, I can't find exactly where I'd say that, but you do mention that there is quite a distance from the adjacent buildings, I understand that. However, my concern with the timings is that if you happen to be in one of those high buildings you can actually, it propagates, that sounds quite nicely. So cars and people coming to that external area at different times of the day may have a bit of more antisocial impact than maybe anticipated at this point. So my question is regarding timings, I guess the informative would be if we could add an informative story asking for the developer or the owner, whatever, to be conscious of those timings because the noise in that place, it does propagate to the neighbor buildings, I hope I made sense, did I make sense? Maybe I didn't, sorry. Can you just clarify, in terms of timings, do you mean, what do you mean? Yeah, that's the part I'm trying to understand. So, I'll give you an example, maybe it's easy, I've been in the buildings on the Hives Road and there was people playing on that area which is supposed to be private. So the noise does propagate quite easily. I don't know, this is my question, is it possible to ask or to make an informative, maybe it isn't to be considerable of the times because it will, if people are arriving quite late in the evening, the noise will have a bit more impact maybe than it is anticipated at this time. See, I hope I made sense at this point, maybe not, or maybe there's nothing I can do about it, I just need to ask. So it's the arrival of people late at night, that is the concern. I'm trying to think out, were it informative, because ultimately the management of the building couldn't really fall within our remit, we're just assessing if the use is appropriate, and certainly we've done that and I think we've assessed it in the grand scheme of things, the use is acceptable here. So I don't think I would recommend that we put an informative. Thank you. Do you have any further questions from committee? No? Okay, so maybe on to discussion. Councillor MURPH backup? Yeah. I do welcome this application, the building has been derelict from what I believe about 10 years or more at the moment. And I think in your usage I know there are quite a few objections about the better practice. I don't see that as a problem. We are quite close to quite a few buses and cafes and stuff like that. So I am minded, obviously I will be supporting the officer's recommendation. I just had those two concerns about the traffic and the noise because I live locally and I kind of know what's going on. So that's it. Thank you. Councillor Cairman. Thanks for the presentation and report. Yes, I am aware, obviously the board member, some of the concerns around buses and the presentation has been helpful with that. I suppose, you know, leaving if there wasn't. Councillor Cairman, you are breaking up a bit, we can't really hear you chair very well. Oh, I am sorry, hang on, I am in my office, hang on, trying to spread my volume up on my speakers. Councillor interjecting. We can't really hear you, Councillor Cairman. Do you hear me now? It's a little bit better, but your microphone keeps cutting in and out. It's not anybody to call. I suppose in terms of the proposal that's the functionalities I'll be supporting it and it's not only the work that I do, but I think it's a little bit different. I think that's the way that I'm working on it. I think that's the way that I'm working on it. I think that's the way that I'm working on it. I think that's the way that I'm working on it. I think that's the way that I'm working on it. I think that's the way that I'm working on it. I think that's the way that I'm working on it. Obviously, that comes up to the licensing court anyway, so if you're in your very well, that's all I'd like to see. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. There's no further comment from Committee. No. Then I would be moving formal and I would be recommending the faculty grantless application. Agreed. Agreed. Great. Thank you. So, we'll move on to ATOMS 4.11 and 4.12 now, which is an application for planning permission and transport and an application for conservation area consent at South Gilmore Tin Farm at Ravenscroft Solly Street in Edinburgh and I'll pass over to the planning officers now to present and report. Point of ward the convener. I was going to propose continuation. I was going to propose continuation since item 4.12 was only made the work quite late and I don't think we can make a decision of 4.11 without 4.12. Could I just pause you for a sec? I was just about to check that Councillor C Councillor Mater's quote. Generally, what happens in a situation like this is that we tend to hear if somebody is asked for a continuation, we tend to hear the officer's report such a first and then decide to continue after it, if you're content with that. Sorry. And we have jumped again then. Thank you. No, no, no, no. You're absolutely correct in asking, but just to let you know the fact that if there's a request for continuation, we usually are here and then we make a decision afterwards of whether we need to continue it or not. Applications are going to be held together. Okay, members, this is a, we'll deal with as the convener said, there are the two applications together, so that is the application for planning, promotion and principal at South land for residential development and the conservation area consent application, which is for demolition of the buildings within the conservation area on the site. So the slide here just shows the site boundary, it's located at Gelmington Farm South just on the southern edge of the city, quite close to New Toft Road where we have just been. The proposed development is for planning, for a residential development with associated infrastructure, landscaping and open space provision, and the site extends to 1.28 hectares in size and is located partly within the Gelmington conservation area. So it's proposed that a number of the buildings on the site will be retained for redevelopment, the 19th century farmhouse, I'll show you some photographs in a minute, the row of workers cottages and two buildings within the staging arrangement which are on site at the moment, all their buildings will be demolished. And as I said already, there's also a conservation area consent, which accompanies this application. So the photograph here just shows a view into the site from Raven's Cross street looking into Raven's Cross place. The building – I've not got my mice with me, sorry, so here we go, the building that I'm just putting the arrow out here is the farmhouse building. The staging buildings which I was talking about there are located just to the side of the farmhouse building, and this building here where the Raven's Cross street sign-on is the age of the row of workers cottages. This just shows a slightly better view sorry of the workers cottages running along Raven's cross place. These buildings are all located within the conservation area boundary. And then this is another view just looking north, east along Raven's Cross place and also within the conservation area boundary, you can see the condition, current condition of the site and the staging buildings within the site boundary. And this building here just – this site just shows part of the site that's out with, the slide shows part of the site which is out with the conservation area boundary, this is when the agricultural sheds present on the site are present. And this shows the land just to the south side of Raven's Cross place, including a dwelling house which is proposed for demolition and another agricultural shed. So in terms of the proposals for the site, the application is for – the planning application is for planning permission in principle only, therefore the only drawing being approved within that would be for this read line drawing, with all design matters, layout, etc. forming reserve matters to be addressed with a subsequent application for approval. In terms of the matters that have been asked for us to consider at this presentation, we're looking at transport impacts and the impacts of development on the setting of Gilminton Conservation Area. So looking at transport matters, first of all, the procedures led by the Council are it was in relation to the indicative site layout which shows a road and footpath which doesn't connect into the existing net work to the south of the site. So as I mentioned, the applicant is not looking for approval of the layout of this stage, therefore the plan that's been submitted with this application is only indicative. The plan here shows the excerpt from the current LDP which identifies an opportunity for a new footpath and cycle link to the south of the site that's shown on the kind of green dot there just to where it says Gilminton Station Road, that green connection heading to the site area and this, the requirement for that for a footpath connection is something which has been noted in the reserve matters and set out that further detail would be required to be provided by the applicant to demonstrate how that could be delivered. It's noted as well that essentially, as it's in that list of reserve matters, they essentially form a checklist of items that need to be addressed at the approval of matter stage. So this is something that would be addressed in due course. There was also QEDI's from Council in relation to comments made by the Community Council which focused quite heavily on the transport assessment. The transport officers have reviewed the supporting document that was submitted by the applicant and hasn't read any objections to that material or the principle of development. As I said, this is a PPP application and there will be a requirement for the transport statement to be updated at reserve matters stage and this is noted in the list of requirements in condition three which sets this out. It's also worth noticing in terms of also worth noting with this application in terms of going forward the site does fall within the Gilmarshin transportation transport contribution zone. Therefore, there is a requirement to secure transport contributions through a section 75 should the application be granted and the contribution amounts for setting around £1,200 per residential unit so is a reasonably significant level of transport contribution which is required for development in this area. So, overall, we are satisfied that subject to securing design details through the approval of the earth matters and through the contributions via legal agreement, the proposals do comply with the requirements of the development plan for a planning permission principle in relation to transport matters by this stage. So just moving on to the second part of the request for presentation which is in relation to the impact of development on the conservation area character. So as I said, the site is partly within the Gilmarshin conservation area, the LDP plan here shows that in the red hash that's the area of the site which is within the contribution area and the land to the southern part of the site sets out with that boundary. So the existing buildings on the site are present, make quite a mixed contribution to the character of the conservation area. As I noted, the design isn't being approved at this point, however the conservation area consent does deal with the demolition of the buildings within the conservation area. So I've got a few photographs here just to show you the character of the buildings on site which in terms of what's been retained and what isn't. So the Gilmarshin farm, south farmhouse which is the gable end of it in the windows poking up above the wall and the role of farmhouse cottage is shown in the right hand side photograph there would be retained. These well retained and redeveloped obviously which would help to really bring the character of these buildings back to the area and make a positive impact on the character and opinions of the conservation area that is supported. Both historic environments go on and the city archaeologists support the retention and redevelopment of these buildings on site. The site layout here just shows as well the extent of buildings which are proposed for retention on the site. So there's the farmhouse building which is the block to the top of the image there. The role of cottage is further down and then there are also two smaller buildings which form part of the studying grouping which are considered to be of a reasonable structural potential to be redeveloped. So they would be the job we retained on site. It's not particularly clear but the blue lines on the site as well also show parts of existing stone wall which would be retained and incorporated into any new design. These matters are noted in the reserve matters to ensure that any future design coming forward would be required to demonstrate for our approval that it has been done to a satisfactory level. So this is one of the another building to be demolished on the site which sits out with the conservation area but has an impact in terms of the setting of it. The removal of this building is considered to be a positive in terms of the overall character of the conservation area. And then looking at the stedings cluster which sit to the northern side of Raven's Croft Place. So it's recognized that these are of a form and appearance that reflect the heritage and the form where agricultural land used at Gilmerton Farm South and there is a notable feature in the character of the conservation area at present. The city archaeologist has objected to their loss however it's recognized that the structural condition of these buildings, most of these buildings for the exception of the two that I noted on the yellow, showing yellow in the plan previously. The condition is generally significantly compromised the extent that they're now suffering from significant structural distress and in places are dangerous buildings. The opportunity to retain these buildings is therefore severely limited. As I said the applicant has provided indicative proposal drawings to demonstrate that the two buildings closest to the Stonewall onto Raven's Croft Street could be retained along with the farmhouse and the role of workers' cottages. These could be taken down and sensitively be built to form a new gatehouse dwelling that would reflect the form and character using existing materials. On balance it's considered that the applicant has demonstrated a commitment to retain heritage features across the site through the retention and redevelopment of the farmhouse building and the farm workers' cottages and the sensitive rebuilding and repurposing of two of the agricultural buildings. They've also demonstrated a commitment to retaining existing walls on various buildings within the site and they're also demonstrated commitment to the reuse of any existing salvageable stone where possible across the site and these matters are all noted in the reserve matters which require to be fulfilled at AMC stage. When looking across the site as a whole it's considered that the loss of some of the built form heritage assets in the site is balanced out by their poor structural condition and the applicant's commitment to retain and redevelop other heritage assets on the site. The loss of some of the existing buildings will facilitate the wider redevelopment of the site and provide housing for the city. In terms of the detailed design going forward this will be determined at reserve matters stage and the applicant is required to demonstrate at that time that an appropriate proposal can be set out which allows for design mix design layout and mix of building heights and architectural style and density which will preserve and enhance the character and opinions of the conservation area. From balance we are satisfied that the proposal has regard to the desirability of preserving and enhancing the character or opinions of the property and the conservation area and is acceptable. Thank you for your presentation. Questions from committee? Councillor MATAS-queh? So would it be now that there has some continuation? You are absolutely right. Thank you for reminding me. Yes, there was a request for continuation. We have received the details in bits and pieces, I would rather we have this application today. I do not see there is a need to continue for this last aspect because this is only dealing with the demolition. So I feel that we have been given sufficient information from officers to make a judgement on this today. So I would not be in favour of supporting the continuation. I appreciate there has been a request for continuation so we will now make a judgement. We will now do a vote on that. Sorry, looking for a second to - I'm very ready, it's not working. Councillor Douglas. I believe I need the seconder as well? No, I was one of the impression that for continuation it was a foreign against continuation. Is it? Good. If I can just take a point of clarification, is this just for the conservation area considering application? Because strictly speaking that could be a delegated application but we have brought them both forward because of the fact that we have got the wider PPP application. So it's just for you to bear that in mind. We just brought them forward together as we felt it was sensible. Can I reply to the last one? So the - I'm quite tired as you can imagine at this point. The thing is I didn't have time to look at 4.12, I'm just looking now for the reasons we stated and in one of the drawings it looks like they're going to demolish everything. So this is why I need continuation. Sorry. Do you have a seconder, Councillor HOWL? Apparently I need the seconder. Thank you. Formerly. Thank you. a lot. a lot. a lot. a lot. a lot. [ Silence ] I'll just come in. Sorry. So, item 4.12 was published on their agenda, but yesterday, I noticed that the PDF wasn't attached, sometimes on modern gov, if the PDF is open and then you attach it. For some reason, it doesn't pull through. I think that that's what's happened in that case, so as soon as I realized, I published it in a version 2 for circulated yesterday. So you would have seen the report for item 4.11. And even though 4.12 was on their agenda, you won't have seen the report for that until yesterday, if that makes sense. [ Silence ] [ Silence ] Can you? Can you hear me? Sorry. [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] Sorry, Councillors, we're just still trying to figure out when it was published or if it was published just internal or in public as well. I wonder, I can clarify that I use the public link myself. So, it was, you didn't have to have the internal link. I've got a question about that information. It appears that all the buildings in the plan are due to be demolished. And that's of concerns, also we saw the slides convener of the very interesting row of farmers' cottages plus the farmhouse. And so, that would be of concern, but I think the presentation said they aren't. To be demolished, so my question you'll be relieved here is, what is the case with that, please officers. [ Silence ] In case of the garden, I have a plan which I can show you which is one of the two approved drawings, the drawings to be approved as part of the Constitution are consent, which shows which plans are, which buildings are for demolition, which should clarify the situation. Just on, because obviously the published papers, which I can see on my colleagues' computer, show them in red indicating they're due to be demolished. So, there is a risk of what we're approving here, et cetera. It also states complete demolition on page 217. [ Silence ] Okay, this, there does seem to be a level of confusion and some individuals might not receive the papers, I've read the papers. They were there, I had them for the fifth, because I read them at the weekend. I understand that some people haven't had the papers, which means they couldn't have been in judgment made on Monday, which is when you would have to call a presentation in by. So, I am agreeing the fact that we should continue this item, because there's been too much confusion now over it. So, I think we should just continue both items 11 and 12, because obviously they run together. So, just from the sake of the fact that there's been a confusion about whether people have or have not read the papers that we can just continue it. Do we agree the fact that we just continue, yes? Okay. Convener? I do agree, and also, like clarity through the continuation out, that it isn't devolishing the whole set of buildings. Can that be part of the continuation, please? It's just going to say, and to seek total clarity, that when the report papers do come back is extremely clear, and 11 and 12 of the information of what's actually being provided. [ Silence ] Committee agreed. I believe that's -- I agree. Thank you. That is the end of today's business. Thank you. [ Silence ]