Transcript

Street in Edinburgh and remotely by Microsoft Teams. It will be filmed for live and subscription broadcast by 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 fulfill 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 that they must switch on microphones when speaking and off when finished speaking. Thank you, adventurers. So just to note that we have Cancer ban its day for cancer certainly. So just a reminder to members that you're required to be present from the beginning of consideration of each planning application to be able to participate in the decision making today. For any members joining remotely, you should keep your cameras on for the duration of the meeting and the interest of openness and transparency. When members are not speaking, you should meet your microphone to minimise interference from background noise. Members should use today's hand function to advise to the convener that you would like to ask for a question or raise a point of order and all discussions should take place via the convener. There will be a shorter German after every planning application to allow officers to prepare the slides for the next planning application, which will allow us to remind everyone and votes will be taken by a show of hands. There have been no presentation or hearing requests today, so we'll just move on to section 2. At 2.1 we have Decorations of Interest. The Council's Code of Conduct requires members to publicly declare interest in that I was being considered at day's meeting. These interests can be financial or non-financial. Do members have anything they wish to declare? Thank you. Move on to section 2, which is minutes or minutes at day's meeting. So move on to section 4, which is General Applications, Miscellaneous Business and Pre-Application Reports. At 4.1 we have an application for Planning Promotion and Principal at 18 Keith Crescent in Edinburgh and it recommended that this application be granted. Thank you. At 4.2 we have an application for Planning Promotion at 2.1 F Worden's Clothes in Edinburgh and it recommended that this application be refused. Thank you. At 4.3 we have an application for Planning Promotion at 2.2 F Worden's Clothes in Edinburgh and it recommended that this application be refused. At 4.4 we have an application for Planning Promotion at 2.3 F Worden's Clothes in Edinburgh and it recommended that this application be refused. Thank you. There are no applications at section 5 so move on to section 6.1. We have the protocol note for the hearing at 94 Ocean Drive in Edinburgh and at 6.2 we have the hearing. So I'll ask Planning Officers to introduce the report. [ Pause ] Right. Okay. Is that me? Good to go. Thank you very much. Good morning committee. This is a site down at Ocean Terminal or Ocean Drive sorry. We've been here a few times in the past few months so this is the one which is referred to as Ocean Point 2. That's it just marked out in an aerial photo so it's site covers approximately 0.57 hectares. Six nexted offers book known as Ocean Point 1. The east of the development site is referred to as Dockside so that's the site which has got the four big blocks recently consented or previously consented and currently under construction. We've got Ocean Terminal and the redevelopment ongoing over there to the west and to the south we've got the Calla development at what's called Waterfront Plaza which is almost built out. These are just some photos so that's the Ocean Point 1 office development existing. That's the Calla site to the south. That's looking back towards the west and that's our site on the right here behind the hoedings. That's existing offers 0.1 building and the site just sits in here and again that's just the entrance to the application site and that is looking at ground 4 rear of the Ocean Point 1 office building with its undergrowth car parking and existing sort of hard standing and road area in there. Just moving on to the local development park designations so it sits within what's called EW1B which is for commercial and housing red mixed use development to the north of the site is the promenade safeguard which is that sort of dock that runs round the water's edge. We've got the tram route now in place around Ocean Drive and we've got the Imperial Dock within the Wiestok area which is a special protection area for towns and then we've obviously got the wider kind of Wiestok's industrial area to the north and Ocean Terminal commercial centre over there. NPF4 designates area between Wiestok and Granthon is the national development so that's why we're having a hearing today because this is normally just be a major development but it gets elevated up to the national development so we need this pre-determination hearing. Sorry I sent the throws. Just in terms of history in 2002 final permission was granted for two office blocks and so this includes the Ocean Point 1 building which has been developed which sits there and there's a extant permission for another office block which was slightly bigger and wider and that went up to about 59 metres in height so that was just the ground for a way out just there. So moving on to the proposal itself, proposal is for a mixed use development comprising both the rent residential accommodation, purpose block student accommodation and co-working space and the ground for with associated landscaping and infrastructure. We've got two large blocks proposed on the site. These are orientated in a north south manner separated by areas of landscaping. Application also includes part of the promenade on that side. Vehicle access is taken from the north where Ocean Point 1 is and will come in here and it leads to three car parking spaces. One of them is accessible, one of them is EV charging and then looks back out into the adjacent site. And around there. So this is block one which is the built the rent, block on the western part of the site. It contains a total of 112 units but into 24 studio flats, 24 one bedroom units, 36 two bedroom units and 27 three bedroom units. 25% of the units are to be affordable which is 28 and this is proposed to be intermediate rent. It's 15 stories in heights rising up to approximately 50 metres before stepping down to 46.6 metres towards the office block. It's a sort of red bronze rain screen cladding which is applied to vertical fins, horizontal bands, perforate panels and windows and upper floors are proposed to be a slightly lighter car. This is just a ground floor plan which contains the sort of reception area and what's identified as a sort of commercial shared workspace alongside management suites, plant rooms and bin stores. Cycle parking is proposed at basement level and a mezzanine level. This is identified to cover a total of 227 spaces which is split into 113 two-tier spaces, 68 standard Sheffield spaces and 46 non-Shephild stands. Just a typical kind of floor plan shown at the range of units or sort of three beds, one beds and studios and two beds and split across the floors. Block two is a purpose built student block on eastern side. This contains a total of 404 student bed spaces which is split into 168 studios and with the remainder as costafat so it's 26 six beds, costafats and 65 bed costafats. 16 stories in high rising up to 51.314 metres AOD with a little bit of additional plant area on top of that and this is proposed to be clad in a brown bronze metal green screen cladding and again upper floors, slightly different colour. This is just a ground floor showing, occasional entrance, mainity space, plant, bin stores and some cycle parking and that's a mezzanine floor on the right hand side which has further amenity space for the students and cycle parking which has access to a lift. Again that's just a typical floor plan so the costafats, I don't know how well you can see that are mostly on the eastern side and on the western side, it's internal to the sites, the studios. This is just a general way out showing the context of the development if it all takes place down here so that would be the dock side development over here, the two blocks that are in front of us today and then the proposed development at Ocean Terminal which is sad it might be the grant subject to the legal agreement, elevations and context and that is the sort of 3D visualisation so that's from the water side and that's the one from Ocean Drive. So moving on to the key issues for the presentation, just cover the principal design height, layout landscaping, amenity and parking. So in terms of principal and general terms both NPF4 and the currently adopted LDP identified a waterfront for mixed use developments. Housing is part of a mixed use scheme is acceptable on the site although the development principles in LDP indicate it should be for commercial red mixed use. The site is not within the strategic business centre which is shown as that purple line there and it does contain some ground floor workspace area, so housing generally acceptable. Student accommodation policy is generally supportive of purpose built student accommodation, this is subject to vocational requirements and also a consideration of concentration of student accommodation in the locality. The proposed site is around 30 minutes travel time to the University of Edinburgh and about 45 minutes to Napier University. It does raise the question over the demand that the proposal is seeking to address while some distance from university is well connected to the city centre by public transport. It was a tram every seven minutes or even less at peak time which is about 20 minutes to the centre. In terms of concentration levels, using an 800 metre radius, the current level of students is about 10% within this area. With the proposed development, this would rise up to about 14% which is well below the 50% threshold set out in the non-saturated student guidance. As the site area is 0.57 hectares, the student guidance also requires a provision of 50% of four space to be residential. Across this, this comes about 43% of the gross floor areas proposed to be residential. In this instance, it's considered to provide sufficient balance in an area with relatively low concentration of students. So overall, the principle of the proposed development is acceptable. Just moving on to design and height. So again, that just shows you how the layout is a similar manner to what's being taken place elsewhere then near Ocean Drive. Both blocks are of a similar architectural language. Elevations in uniform manners split by the vertical fins and the horizontal banding. Juliet balconies. Student blocks are somewhat designed with the brown bronze material to pick up on the warmer tones of the brick of the dockside development next door. I think the design and access statement sets out that the materials are meant to pick up on the industrial heritage of me. So that's just a section showing the fall of the aluminium rain screen paneling and the fins. It's pretty much a similar design for both blocks. Generally, simple elevations design appropriate the context and we would require sample panels and materials and final colours as part of a condition. So that's just shown in context again with the adjacent developments and the change in colour at the top level. So just moving on to height. Height of the blocks are similar to that of the dockside development, rising up to about 51-52 metres there and then stepping down towards the lower ocean point building before it steps back up on the consented ocean terminal site. And then if we move on to views, local views show limited impact when considered against the adjacent proposed development. So this is just a view from western harbour. So that's existing, that sits coloured in. Unfortunately, we're not getting yellow, green and blue buildings. That's just a visualisation. Well, they're quite nice sometimes to have something a bit different. I might be a step too far. And then that's just showing the blocks in the context sort of sitting here. So taking in the context is a site that is limited impact in terms of what's already consented and the variation in roof levels and roof styles. From the shore again, the townscape and visual impact assessment took one from the shore but we're not really going to see very much, especially in the context of everything else that's been granted down in this part of the city. So the key views are really the castle, Carlton Hill and north of Seat. So this is as existing. So we're sort of looking at this area here so that the important elements always been that sort of gap between the top of the buildings and in Schkeith Island. So again, we can see that there's the two blue buildings in here. So the gaps kept retained. We've also got to sort of that kind of gap between the buildings from this view, which is the same set out as the Buxide development. It sort of sits comfortably within the context from this view. In the context of the World Heritage site, it'll be limited overall impact given the heightizing with the adjacent developments. The important backdrop of the water space between the top of the buildings and then Schkeith Island is retained and we do have the gaps between the buildings. Moving on Carlton Hill, so again that says existing. So that's lotion point building and that must be the distillery. And so it's a wee bit more clustered. We lose the sort of definition between the buildings from this view. But again, there's a variation of heights and roof forms and we can still see the wider kind of further forth and over across the 5th. The final one is from Arthur Seat. So again, ocean point just down here where that cursor is. And again, it shows a sort of stacked, layered view. And again, with a differentiation of materials that will be important in avoiding a sort of cluster of these books. So certainly in terms of kind of heights and views, it's been established through other applications in an area that tall buildings can be acceptable at this location, especially next to the low-lying coastline in the broad expanse of water. Inber design guidance does note the potential for high buildings at the port of wreath area. And there's also an extant permission for a sort of taller wider office book, which would take up a wider visual impact to such. And proposals have also been altered through a course of application to sort of step down a little bit and be in a bit more in context, because they were higher before. So the heights and design consider generally acceptable. They're on landscaping, so this is just one of the landscape plans. It's been submitted. The landscape layout defines routes between the buildings and also allocates garden space for the blocks. This approach helps to establish some definition between the public and private areas. We've got proposed trees, hedges and landforms, which have been proposed to help provide sheltered spaces on the coastal edge. And these were informed by a window microclimate assessment to show where the windiest bits were and how this could be counted with this sort of shelter planting. We thought development framework does accept some sort of expect, some active frontage onto the ocean drive, the orientation of the box allows us to happen with some ground floor activity. On the southern part of the site, albeit sort of slightly set back with some sort of entrance public realm areas. And there's also a gym proposed on the northern site to provide a bit more activity on the northern elevation of the building. We've obviously got a new section of the prom, which is welcomed with tree planting on the side of it, which will link to either side, which is a very positive element of the scheme. In terms of coordinate development, there's been an objection from the owners of Ocean Point One building regarding a currently unknown future use of the site. So we've got no proposals that come forward for conversion or redevelopment. The proposal has been scaled back slightly in terms of height, and there's about 60 metres window to window from it. So in terms of privacy distance, it's okay, and we generally don't protect daylighting to office buildings. So overall, proposed layout was acceptable, and although provides large development in box within the relatively small site, it does extend the form of development on adjacent sites. And we've got limited car parking and servicing areas, which allows for fairly generous sort of landscaping between and around the box. Moving on to amenity, so this is just a slide showing how the provisional open space has been divvied up on the site. So for the 112 units in book one, which is this book, expects 1,120 square metres of communal open space, and that has been proportioned across these sort of darker areas of yellow, which comes to about 1,132 square metres, so it meets at minimum 10 square metres requirement. In terms of the student book, we don't really have a sort of set minimum of open space per student over a per bed space, and we've got this area over here, which is about, sorry, that's my car, so this area of green over here, which is about 516 square metres, and it has obviously had additional bits of open or public ground on the prom itself, and about 32% of the site area consists of some form of green space, which is over the 20% requirement. Delighting information submitted indicates that the adjacent developments of the callous site and proposed ocean thermal development meet the vertical sky component analysis. This slide shows a potential impact on the consented block A building on Duxide out of the 182 buildings. Windows analyse 28, or I think that's 15%, do not meet the vertical sky component requirements. The daylight study states that 28 windows retained between 0.79 and 0.68 times the form of value, so if 0.8 is a pass, these appear to be relatively low deviations, so I've just pulled out a couple of floor plans to sort of show you where these will be, so that's the first floor, there's no residential units on the ground floor, so this is the Duxide development next door, so it's living room, bedrooms, all here, which are sort of marginal fields, and obviously as you go higher up, it gets better and better. In terms of the proposed development itself, the impact has been assessed using what's called the low-skyne method, which considers whether direct sky will penetrate at least halfway into a room. For the residential block, this summarises that out of the 291 rooms analyse 23 or 8% do not meet the target levels, and these are mostly on this sort of extended one, it's not really an extension, but this bit that comes off the building here, so at the low level, yes, so one's on there, so 30%, so 50% would be a pass, another one's on another side on the internal elevation, mostly around this room here, and again as you sort of go up the level, so this is the second floor, it sort of slowly gets better as we go up, but there are obviously some failures there on either sides. And in relation to the student block out of the 446 rooms analysed, 47 or 11% do not meet the recommended daylight target, 30 of these are bedrooms and again, it's mostly on that elevation there, and this elevation here, the sort of east and west ones concentrated around these parts, and again as we go up it sort of gets better, but yes, there are some failures there, overall there are some infringements against the daylight standards, both in relation to the impact on adjacent development and the proposed development itself, generally in urban areas of high density development, we sort of expect this to take place, and there is some acceptance of that. In terms of noise, we've obviously got, with docks next to the site, environmental protection has some concerns in relation to noise, mostly from port activities, the noise impact assessment shows that rooms with windows on the most exposed elevation would not comply with recommended internal noise criteria using open windows, mitigation in terms of closed window assessments with alternative means of ventilation is required through development to achieve compliant internal noise, so that this would be closed windows as a way of dealing with that which environmental protection don't generally support, but we've obviously had a number of applications down here next to the docks where we have accepted similar proposed mitigation with enhanced windows and trickle vents or mechanical ventilation, so I think it'd be difficult to resist on these grounds, given the context of the site, nearly their councilors, so parking, just a quick one on parking, so there's only three car parking spaces which are identified up here in accessible space, an EV charging space, and suppose a standard space, and there's also a drop off area that sits in here, so the parking relatively supportive of all levels of car parking at this location, in terms of cycle parking for the residential development, this is 227 spaces, you'll like this council of birth, this is set across a basement area and a mezzanine area for the residential access by a lift, and the figures are shown there, so it's 50% too tire, too tire, too tear, and 30% Sheffield standard, and then 20% are a non-standard Sheffield style, and then in the accommodation we have, that's the figure there, so we've got 404 bikes, the 404 bed spaces, so we've got 322 which is 80% with a sort of two-tier, and then 74 standard Sheffield, which is 18%, and then 8 non-standard Sheffield, so that's where it stands at the moment. In terms of representations, a summary has been provided in a report, we've received 69 representations to initial scheme, 64 objections, and then the second period attracted additional 11 objections, this was mostly in relation to height, immunity, and a supposed student accommodation, so overall in conclusion, the principle of both residential and student accommodation with Ansari uses acceptors location and generally complies with LDP and NPF for destinations for the site, the height of the development is in keeping with emerging heights of the of the general area, and we'll have an acceptable impact on the views as considered within the submitted timescaping visual impact assessment, the proposed design of the box falls out of the adjacent spatial spasm with the proposed materials described as referencing the industrial heritage of the earth, proposed landscaping is acceptable, and so is inclusion of the proposed prom link. In terms of immunity, yes, there are some infringements on daylight in both relation to the adjacent dockside development, and upon the proposed development itself, environmental protection has raised some immunity concerns for future occupiers of the box primarily in relation to noise, but I have recommended some conditions to hopefully mitigate this, other matters such as transport implications, flooding, biodiversity, and sustainability are considered acceptable, subject to recommended conditions and a legal agreement is recommended that the application is granted, at one point I would like to make on the legal agreement is that the report doesn't pick up on the health care for students, which would be in a dish of £150 per unit, so if application is granted, we'd have to note that in the minutes and have that updated. Thank you, fine. Okay, thank you very much indeed, that very comprehensive delivery. I see council meeting followed by Councillor Jones, whoa, followed by Councillor Bennett, followed by Councillor Douglass, follows by Councillor Matis-Quail. Thank you, so many questions, but just starting on the day lighting, I'm just doing the one, starting on the day lighting, the report states there are some infringements of day lighting, one wonders why we have day lighting standards if infringements are fine, but can you give us again the percentage of infringements, because it seemed rather high to me? Yes, certainly thank you for the question. So, the submitted day light assessment obviously looks at two things, one looks at the potential impact on adjacent developments either existing or as consented, so this first slide that we have up here is the blockade on adjacent dockside, you know, the former Skyliner name site, and that sort of shows where the potential infringements are, and I'll just get the percentages up and find it again. And so I think there's 28 which, yeah, which don't meet it, so that's out of the 182 windows, that's 15% do not meet that required target level, so this was done on the back of the vertical sky component, so generally what is a pass is 0.8, and so some of these relatively minor, you know, we can see some of the bedrooms, we've got 0.78 and 0.79 and 0.73, and obviously as you go up the building it sort of works, it's way out as such, so in the general context of sort of high density urban development, these ones are viewed as generally minor, it's obviously up to committee to take their own view on that and decide on whether that's the case or not, in terms of the development itself, so sometimes we're less concerned about the development itself because it's new, it's new people moving in there, they're not sort of being impacted on by something in front of them, so they don't, they haven't had great lighting, and then it gets worse if that makes sense, it's just figures were for that, so yeah, so for the residential block out of the 291 rooms analyzed, I think it was 23 or 8%, didn't meet the standard, and for the student block it was over the 446 analyze, that was 11%. Okay, okay, does anybody else, while these slides are up, does anybody else have any questions on this matter, is it directly related to this, just give it to the slides, cool, can I just add a fourth? So you said that 11% of the student accommodation the daylight isn't sufficient, doesn't that matter more for student accommodation than it does for other accommodation where the insufficient light could be in bedrooms, surely for student accommodation, that means their entire living space doesn't have sufficient daylight? Yep, certainly, there's, so that pan in front of us, what's that, that's the student first four, so that'd be, there's no, there's no accommodation on the ground for, so everything starts again, the first four up, so certainly these parts of the site are, these are the studio flats, so in short, yes, councilor. Okay, if there's no further comment on this particular one, I will move on then to Councillor Jones. Thank you, Kavina, and thank you for the report, I note that environmental protection recommend that the application be refused due to noise concerns, and I'm just needing clarification on the closed winter assessments, and am I right in thinking that all the windows are closed and that mechanical ventilation applies throughout the buildings? Yes, in short, yes, so a violent protection like open window assessment for certain things, especially when it comes to sort of, outside commercial noise, and it won't meet that, that test with open windows, so what the applicant's proposed is, is higher, standards of glazing, and mechanical ventilation, so the test is under, undertaken with closed windows, and I think that you can still open your windows a little bit, so it's a sort of purge. Can I just follow up on that? I didn't fully understand that, so so the windows can actually be opened a little? Yes, that's my understanding, it's, the assessments just call the closed window assessment, so it's when you take your measurements, whereas they prefer it to be the noise when you have a window open, as opposed to the noise when you have a window closed? Council Matt, is it, can it, yes? Yeah, it's a, it's a follow-on from that, and it's just about, with changing and building standards, and the maximum energy efficiency, and having mechanical ventilation, and air recovery, and as I understand now that you don't get trickle vents in triple glazed windows, where does this noise versus energy efficiency, or are we just cheating them as completely separate things, because is this building designed to work with its windows closed for energy efficiency, or are we having opening windows because we like to open windows? I understand it's supposed to work with its cause, but maybe that's something we could ask the architect, who may be able to shed a bit more light on that, but certainly in terms of our sustainability standards and our S1 format, but it's so, those basic requirements. Okay, move on, Council Bennett. Thank you, Canvino. A number of my questions have already been answered, but just in staying on noise, can you tell me about mechanical ventilation with heat recovery and acoustic trickle vents? I think everyone else here probably knows what it is, but if you could give me some information on that, on what environmental protection says about that, and what the downsides of it are. Thank you. Yeah, certainly it's quite a technical question, which I won't have all the answers to, I'm afraid, but my understanding is that you have sort of these sort of filters that you use and the ventilation goes around the building, and so that you don't have to open your window and you don't have to have trickle vents for that sort of general throughput of it. I think environmental protection don't generally like it because A, we can't really control how the filters get changed, so I think they can get clogged up. It's something which is a wee bit out of kind of our planning control, and also I understand that the obviously it will generate a wee bit of noise itself from that kind of movement and how it gets pumped around the building, but it's not something of no great deal about it, but as I say, I understand that environmental protection aren't specifically happy about it, but in other developments, certainly on here in the dark side we have accepted it, and we have accepted conditions to have that put in place. I think these are going to be questions that we can obviously get a bit more information on from the applicants afterwards. Right, okay, if we've exhausted that part for the moment for officers, Councillor Dugglesch. Thank you very much, Commissioner, and thanks Kenny for the informative presentation, so I want you to touch on something that you said in terms of transport, and transport for students said 40 minutes travel time to get to Edinburgh Napier University, is that an average travel time, is that an extreme travel length, or was there any more examples of travel time for students to get to other educational institutions? Yes, certainly, so the transport assessment and planning statement sort of set out a little table of how it proposed, how long it would take to get to certain areas of higher education establishments, so for Edinburgh College itself, which is probably unlikely to be a kind of source of students, that would take about 15 minutes on all the embossed 16 and 200, cycling would take 20 to 25 minutes. University of Edinburgh Surgeons Hall by bus route 7, 14 and 35, it's estimated the total journey time of 25 to 30 minutes. Ocean by tram, I think the tram takes 17 minutes to get up from outside ocean terminal to St Andrews square, and then it'll be, what, a 10-15 minute walk through to various parts of the nearest sort of round George Square and then Murray House and then down the bits of Holyrood. Further field, yes, certainly, I think across the Napier it's routes 11, 16 and 36, which is estimated to take 45 to 50 minutes, so it's probably doubtful that it's going to be the target audience for students. Quick, follow up. Very quick, maybe getting a little bit too much into detail, so in those examples, is this one direct bus route, bus journey or does this take into fact there could be, you know, get up one bus and get one to another? I think some of it will be various buses. Okay, thank you. Councilor Mathisquale. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you for the presentation. My old problem, which is the two-tier rack. I'm really, really concerned, so 80%. I find this very difficult to accept. I know it's a recommendation on 50%, but I think 80% is a bit too much, so wasn't there any other alternative? And then I have another question on cycling, but I can come back later if you want to. Sorry, I know this is what they've come forward with, and obviously as officers, we have to take a view on it. You know, we could look at cycle parking in a number of ways. You know, the first one will be unpopular is our cycling partner to owners, because he comes up with us looking at me and saying no. The second one is cycle parking, a good barometer of density these days. You know, if we can't fit in adequate cycle parking, does that mean perhaps the development is too dense, too high? Can I just ask, because obviously this is questions to officers, not in return. So I think if we could just, at this present moment, just if we could just try to stick to answering the question, because we obviously discussed this in debate, and I'd rather we didn't debate now. We just answered the questions now. Yes, certainly. No, this is what they've come forward with and in discussion with going to transport colleagues. We've obviously realized that it's not 50%, and we've made a recommendation on that grounds. Obviously, you're up to make your own mind up about that. Okay, I just wanted to check, is this going to be about cycling as well? Because if Council matters, Crayo is still on cycling, you can ask your second question on cycling as I've tried to keep questions together. Thank you. Sorry, Colina. Were you asking me? No, me? No, I was not here. I will come to you in a minute. My second question on cycling, you're probably going to give me the same answer, but I'm going to do a question. Anyway, I found it a bit weird to have the cycle parking divided between ground front and masoning as well. I guess that's what was proposed by development and no other options we're discussed. Yeah, again, mindful of what the convener said to me about talking too much. It's a design issue, isn't it? It's how do you fit things on the ground for the bin stores, some active frontage, and what do you do with a large amount of cycle storage, and so I suppose that one can become inventive and put some in the basement as a way of trying to deal with that? Councillor Biff. Thanks. Unusually, my question is not about cycling, but I would say it's disappointing if... Councillor Biff, just question, please. I will reserve my comment to the comment section. My question is about flooding, so as far as I understand it, separate initially objected and then withdrew their objection. Can you just clarify on what basis they withdrew their objection? Sorry, I haven't got the consultation response in front of me. I think they were just after additional information to understand what was happening at the ground for level and if they were safe, ingress in the US. Generally, I think the objection, we might be holding one where they didn't want residential development or bed spaces on the ground for. Can I come back? I think what we might try and do is let's see if we can find any further detail on that. So, if we can just have a look for that and we'll come back to that if that's OK with the Councillor Biff. I do have a specific question which might be, I mean, I don't know whether you've got a map that shows this, so if their objection, I've read through their objection their consultation response and that is part of it, but it's not all of it. Could you just show on a plan where the area of where the access and egress will be in the event of flooding, please? I don't have that to hand. I think it was just dealing with what the finished four levels are and what the site levels of the surrounding site are. I don't have a plan to hand. OK, I'm just going to ask a quick question and then after I've asked the question if nobody else wants to ask a question who hasn't asked the question, I think everybody has, I'll be moving on to Councillor, who am I looking at? No, actually no, Councillor Gondner has an answer question, so I'm going to go first. Affordable housing, we have 25% affordable housing, do we have a breakdown of how that is in terms of types? We did have, originally the application came in with a sort of affordable housing statement that showed that the percentages between the studio, the one, the two, and the three beds was pretty much like for like, through the course of the application we've lost a little bit of height and eight residential units, so instead of 30 or 40 works, now 28, but I'm assuming the mix is going to still be representative of the wider mix of units and that will be secured through the legal view. Councillor Gondner. Thank you and thank you for the presentation. I want to look at open space, Kenny, and overshadowing and at what times of day there's good lighting in open space. Thank you. Sorry, I seem to have lost my slides, but in terms of open space for the residential uses, it meets our 10 square metres per unit, split into sort of three areas, and the daylighting and overshadowing assessment showed that these could meet the sort of 50% requirement. In terms of the student space that's slightly smaller, we don't really have currently a sort of 10 square metres per flat, or 10 square metres per student, so I think that's about 500 square metres and that's located between the block and the one on the dockside side, and again that the overshadow information showed that that met our minimum requirements. With respect you haven't been answering my question, I wonder if you can pull up the slides because it's not just whether it meets the requirements, the quality of the lighting at times people might use it, I was thinking the committee might want to understand. Thank you. I'm seeing I can't get them up because I physically can't get them up. I think the slides are frozen. Well, Kenny's trying to say that Paul's going to come back on the CEPA response. Thank you. I think the response has a CEPA and an holding objection as such, but then additional information was provided to them, I think some of that surrounds interpretation of NPA for policy, and I think the other point of clarification was I think the the original flood risk assessment, I think it stated it was a 40% or it was climate change at 40%, not 56%, so I think that clarification was sufficient from what I can see in the papers for them to be satisfying that they've no objections to the proposals. Okay, and now we have the slides, Kenny, for the open space and overshadowing. This one just shows the open space, I don't have a overshadowing one on the slides, Joe. Can Veena, can I just make a comment, remember the applicant has that slide or would like to have information about it either way, thank you. Okay, moving on to Councillor Mnuchin. Thank you. I have two more questions, but I'll stick to just the one. It's noted on the report that issues such as flooding are considered acceptable. Now, we can see that there's actually three sources of flood potential flood risk here. We've got the entire birth of fourth, we've got rainfall and the projected increase of rainfall with global warming, but we've also got hundreds of people with flats using showers and flushing toilets in have all of those factors, internal pressure on sewer systems and climate change and the increase of rain that we're expecting from that. Can you just give us a bit more detail on how flooding risks have been dismissed as not a concern? Yes, certainly thanks for the question. I'm not sure about flushing toilets, but generally as a planning officer, you know, we take our advice and our leads from our colleagues in flood prevention, we have a set kind of self-certification or third-party certification where we receive flood risk assessments and surface water management plans, which our colleagues in take off to say that they're acceptable. We obviously consult with Seapur, who have come back and said they are happy with the proposal, and then that meets through the kind of policies and NPF foreign and LDP. I think Paul just briefly said before in response to Council Boost's previous question about how they had a holding objection and requested a bit further information in terms of of the climate change figure used from the 40% to 56, and that information was forthcoming, and then they kind of withdrew their holding objection. Thank you, Governor. I think just to really add to what Kenny said is that we don't have any objections as such from the Council's own flooding team or Seapur, and we obviously Seapur statutory counsel to you such, so there isn't really any basis for us to come to the conclusion that the information isn't sufficient for us to move forward with us and application for your consideration. Councilor Bennett? Thank you, Computer. I'm going back to daylight, sorry. I just want to see if I've picked this up correctly. Daylight to office blocks is not generally protected. Does this mean there is no legislation in place that would protect the workers' daylight? There hasn't been an assessment of the neighbouring office block. Thank you. It's not to do with the legislation, it's to do with sort of guidance and the BRE standards, which again are just sort of guidance and general information on how you carry out the series of tests, but generally I don't think it covers office blocks. I know Councillor MURPHY wants a third question before your third question. Does anybody else want to ask a second question? Councillor Beeth? On the affordable housing, so obviously our guidance says that 70% should ideally be social rent. I've read through the consultation response with affordable housing and they say that that might be problematic in this specific instance. So you just go into a wee bit more detail on why it's considered that intermediate rent is acceptable and why social rent is not possible on this site, please. It might be worthwhile if we can get either Alex or Chris Glover. Good morning. Before we get into the detail of that, my colleague Chris will just give an overview which I think helps to answer that question. Good morning, Committee. Yeah, I've got some bullet points here, given a general outline of the proposal for the affordable homes bearing in mind that when we did the consultation response, we had it as there was going to be 30 affordable homes and not the 28 as we've just found. So this is the site that proposes 28 now affordable homes in a block that is 15 stories high. The affordable homes proposed to be billed to rent with the affordable homes as intermediate rent as their rental tenure. The height, scale and density of the block means it's highly unlikely any registered social landlords would be able to actually deliver on site affordable homes. A separate affordable housing block for RSL delivery registered social landlord delivery which is preferred for management and maintenance reasons would lead to a loss of affordable homes due to the reduced density. Edinburgh's allocation of grant funding for affordable housing was cut by 24% in 2024. Had it been possible for the 28 affordable housing units to be delivered by a registered social landlord, this would have required a grant funding amount of around about 3 million. The affordable housing is proposed to be delivered by the applicant as intermediate rent and would be secured as affordable housing for a minimum of 25 years. Rents would be restricted to Scottish Government's published broad rental market area, BRMA 30 percentile. Rents at the 30 percentile are affordable to people on below average incomes. The rents are significantly less than the average market rents in Edinburgh between 2,600 and 7,700 less per annum depending on the house size. Thank you very much. Can I just cut in? I totally appreciate and we totally understand obviously but this is a bill to rent block. I think the particular question there was about the intermediate versus social rent and I think it'd be good to have some clarity of why it was the intermediate rent was chosen over social rent. Thanks. There's two reasons for that. So firstly, the premise of intermediate rent had been approved both by house and committee and annoyed by planning committee back when we put forward the report. Support was built to rent back in 2020 and that sets out the criteria that we use for looking at this. So basically the overfillment factor with this block with this application on the height of the blocks and the number of homes that the ASL would be taking. So from a 15-story high block there would be 28 homes which would be delivered by an ASL potentially but that would be hugely challenging for them given that they would be a minority owner. They would really struggle in terms of the overall management and maintenance contributing towards the fact that block with such a lifted cover, such a substantial distance. Another factor in this is we were in terms of grant funding. So Chris had mentioned about the grant funding budget being cut. There was a report which was which was considered by house and homelessness and fair work committee. Yes, 13, which is the position in relation to affordable housing which is all we will do everything we can to continue to bring forward affordable housing. Unfortunately, the lack of funding says unlikely there will be any new affordable housing approvals this year. And to deliver the 28 homes, as my colleague Chris has said, we'd require around 3 million pounds which we don't have from this year's budget. Thank you. Do we have any further questions for officers? Sorry, yes, Councillor MATAS-COE, followed by Councillor MACKEN. Thank you, Kathleen. I'm just wondering if it's possible on the so page 91 about the commuted sums. The amount we have is per residential unit and I just wondered if you could know roughly how much for education, how much for health care, even if it's just sent to us later on it. I'd appreciate that. Thank you. Sorry, I didn't quite catch the... Sorry. So on the commuted sums or on the informatives, we have an amount for the Trump, but then for education and health care, we have per unit and I'd like to know the full amount for education and health care if that is possible. Thank you. Yeah, so without... If you have done the maths for me, that would be appreciated. If not, I'll do it. Okay, thank you. It's okay if I cut come back, maybe... I'll calculate that. That's not a problem. Councillor MACKEN. Thank you, Councillor. I think I know the answer to this, but I'll ask anyway, is it possible for us to grant approval for one of the blocks and not the other, because the daylighting issues clearly seem to be worse with block two? So, can you confirm or deny? Can we grant approval for one, rather than both? Thank you, Convenor. Technically, it would be possible for you to approve one of the blocks and not approve the other, but I think, given that the scheme is for the two blocks, my best advice would be to avoid such an approach along that on that piece. I don't think it's really appropriate because it's ultimately changing the nature of the scheme quite significantly, given that it comprises two particular blocks when we're built in and when we're student housing. Conscious of time, do we have any further questions? Paul Kenny's trying to work out all the various sums. Thank you, Convenor. I'll see if I can try and just share the slides showing the sunlight. So, yeah, this slide shows, I think, the equinoxing march and the 50 per cent, so the home space areas A1, A2 and A3 and the hatch areas comply in the lighter tone there, but obviously the area that's covered by the darker tone, you've got the lilac coming in wouldn't be compliant in terms of over-shadowing. Convenor, can Paul confirm what time of day that is, please? [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] I hope the applicants noted down all the questions are coming. Okay, do we have any further questions from committee? No, we're still waiting, obviously, for the facts. I think we can probably move on, and then we'll get those pieces of information. Was there a follow-up question to that, Councillor MURPHY, or was it just, so there was a need to have additional? So, we'll get that information a bit later on. Okay, so that's no further questions from committee? No? Thank you. So, there are no representatives or consultees in attendency, and there's no word Councillors in attendency either. So, invite the applicant and applicants agent down, if you want to just come down and sit here and make your presentation, and you'll have 15 minutes followed by questions from committee. [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] Sorry, if we could just ask you to just move slightly further on, because we just need that to be the vision, obviously, between committee and applicant. [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] Okay, good morning. I'm Colin Smith, director and head of planning with Charlie in Scotland. With me from the project team to present are David Hanna of CD Architects, who review key design matters and the architectural development of the proposals, and Leanne Bauer, Rankin Fraser, Landscape Architects, who will review landscape and public realm design and development. Also present to assist with responding to questions, as Chris Hale of S Harrison developments, and Katrina Gray of CD Architects. We welcome the positive recommendation of the head of planning, an opportunity to address the committee today. Before passing on to David, I'd like to note the positive nature of the planning process we've been through, and inputs from all concerned, including the case officers. There's been a detailed and robust process which is coming out in the proposal that's in front of you today, and I pass on to David. Thanks, Colin. Yeah, good morning everyone. This is a tremendous opportunity to redevelop a brownfield site in Leath, and something that really welcomed becoming involved with for a client's Harrison developments around two years ago. I think the opportunities are huge. Obviously this whole area is one of the most exciting parts of Edinburgh, and it's emerging tremendously well with all these proposals you can see. On that first slide, the potential redevelopment of Ocean Terminal, part of it, and Doc's side on the other side, which is also another tremendously exciting opportunity. I think specifically the tram has made a massive difference, and we've seen that emerge and actually been delivered during our design period, which has been great. And I think the links through to the boardwalk is something else that we can really offer with this project to connect up those two areas, which will just enable much more connectivity along the water's edge. In terms of our brief from our client, it was very clear from day one. They wanted to mix new sites with residential, built around, and student. So obviously we had to start looking at the development brief into buildings. We looked at options for one building that didn't really work particularly well. You can see the site isn't particularly big at 0.57 hectares, and it's also a slightly awkward shape. So we pretty early on developed that into two buildings, and then we had to really respond to the context, the Ocean 0.1 building on the left-hand side and the west side, which is a particularly sculpted forum from around 20 years ago, and the emerging buildings of Doc's side and the right-hand side, which is four towers effectively. So we started to develop a design on that basis, but also looking very carefully at how the site would integrate with the surroundings and how the public realm would work, and we worked with Leanne, her team, and the TVIA was part of all of that as well, and the microclimate analysis. So we've done a very thorough job looking at all of that, and I think the public realm has turned into something that's really quite exciting, and also is almost a third of the site in terms of green space. The existing consent, you can see there was for a large office building as Kenny explained at the outset. That was significantly longer on footprint and taller, but it really did belong to different contexts in terms of the local area. There was nothing planned for the callous site at that time. It was residential, it was all meant to be office and commercial redevelopment, so it kind of referred to that. So also the context for that peninsula has changed greatly since that was consented, and it's now far more fragmented series of pavilions that respond to the ocean drive itself and to the water behind. And I think what's exciting about that is that these buildings will be a tremendous addition to the area, but they also allow links through in terms of visual connections to the water and beyond from both the local area and from distant views from the castle ramparts in Calton Hill, et cetera. So we look to all that in great detail with Leanne and her team as we refine the shapes of the buildings. In terms of the height very quickly, you can see there the slightly faint outline of the existing consent, and I think you can probably understand that that really did belong to different typology buildings, different forms, and so we have a much more individual terror-based context that's now emerging for the area, so we responded to that. A brief of the built-around was very simple from Harrison, it was a mix of apartment types from studios up to three beds, and obviously we were careful to ensure that was all pretty equal throughout, and were well over the 20% three beds, which I think is a very good thing. All the apartments have great aspect as well, which is another great attribute for the development. The building on the right, the student building is something that came up during our EUDP presentation, which is November 22, generally well received, but at that time that building was far more of a linear slab form, and there were concerns raised about the immunity of those properties in particular. So we re-sculpted that form effectively and changed it to something that was far more angled and really responded better to the context of the buildings on the right-hand side and obviously to the left-hand side as well, and also offered opportunities for far more views through and connections through both visually and physically ground floor level. We have dropped heights for buildings slightly during the application process, but really are very much in line with the immersion context of buildings on both sides. Fantastic opportunity though here to redevelop as I say this Springfield site, and we've been delighted to be involved throughout the process so far. I'll hand over now to Leanne, who is the landscape consultant for the project. You need to switch your mic on. Hello. I will touch a little bit on the landscape because it has been such an integral part of the entire development, how we approached the development of that specific scheme. And I really do appreciate the question on landscape because so much work went into really grading a very green environment. It's a high density environment, but we still managed to not only meet but to exceed the open space requirements for the site. 32% off the overall site is soft landscape, so it's green landscape. 51% is usable open green space. We have seen the slide on daylighting earlier. You can see that the layouts and the graphics are a little bit deceiving here because you can see that it's not fully north. The north, the green spaces are actually exposed to the south elevation. We do have a little bit of buffer planting along the south because we obviously have trauma. We have noise along the ocean tribe, but we have chosen very careful trees. We have chosen birch trees which are quite light and canopy, provide structure, but don't overpower the space. Oops. So the daylighting assessment for the open spaces has actually proven that we have enough sufficient daylight on all of the major green spaces throughout the site. This diagram, you have seen loads of it already. So this really just shows the breakdown of the usable open space. The orange areas are the usable open space for the residential development. The green areas show the usable open space mostly for the students. The darker areas are protected private spaces, and those are really the ones which were used for the calculations to meet the requirements that we have to provide on site. So lighter areas are areas which are accessible to the public and are shed spaces. We have made a real effort to tie our development into the wider context, be that through connections. So we provide a connection from ocean terminal to the trams to the boardwalk along the waterfront, but also then from the existing or the calming dockside development right up to the distillery. We have also created four public squares which help with place making towards ocean drive, but also within the development. And they also provide an active frontage both to ocean drive, but also within our own, with our own buildings to our own buildings. All of this is stitched together by a really intensive green network. We have used quite a lot of different habitat types from trees to hatches to dens, but light woodlands. So this is a kind of like woodland that we imagine on the edges to rain gardens, but also to green walls to make sure that we provide a whole range of habitat. Different types of habitat for habitat diversity for biodiversity, but then also obviously for human beings. Nestled into the green infrastructure are the private spaces. These are protected and separated spaces which are just accessible to the residents or to the students. They all vary a little bit in character. Some of them are for play and recreation. Some of them are for growing. Other spaces are for seating or observation. And then there's obviously the student area is quite an active area where we will have table tennis and picnic benches for social gatherings. And this slide really is just, this is my final slide on landscape, but it really demonstrates to me the beautiful iterative design process we had for this development. And that started with a really early townscape assessment that we worked on and discussed with the architects and then informed the massings, the height and the shape of the buildings. But it also continued through to the microclimate assessment, which you can see two slides on it here. The microclimate assessment really informed partially the shape of the buildings, which then allowed more daylight into the central space. But also the planning strategy and where we position trees and what types of tree we positioned and the type of planning that we used. But it also was a really productive process with planning who have really pushed us to re-sync some of their external spaces and pushed us to reduce the clutter and the external spaces, which is why we now actually have this enormous extent of beautiful green space. It's one of the greenest sites I have designed in recent time, and I think it's really demonstrates their accent, flower landscape, I feel we have on that project. And I hand back to Colin and I maybe bring up. Thanks. Thanks, Dan. Colin, you have about three minutes left. I'm putting lines through text, so we're going. So we fully support the overall assessment proposed development and recommendations presented to you. The development proposed will complete the re-shaping of the water site development along Ocean Drive in conjunction with development suggestion at Dockside and Ocean Terminal. From being a car-dominated commercial place with little green space, public realm, co-opium ability and extensive car parking. To being an MPF4 compliant place, forming part of a new dense mixed use community at Ocean Drive, Western Harbor, it will replace the current permission and deliver radically improved overall development in the context of wider changes along Ocean Drive. All compliance with MPF4 drivers or in sustainability and climate change. Compared to the current approved development and the compliance development policy, it will deliver a maximizer optimized use of brown fuel land, two buildings will sit comfortably in their emerging context, more homes, more green space, radically reduced car parking, and increased public realm. Specifically, 112 new homes were 25% immediate and to be touched on. 100% compliant with space standards, 61% residential dual aspect, 404 new student bedrooms with approximately 60-40 cluster studio mix. Excellent direct access to City of St. University of Edinburgh campus and other campuses by direct bus routes. The only campus not accessible by a direct bus route is King's buildings. Active frontiers and both buildings provided by the internal community space. 100% open spaces assessed achieving the required tours of sunlight provision, the spring equinox. 97% overall daylighting performance under the terms of guidance for existing dwellings and 91-4 proposed. Substantially, as a public realm, including the section of the boardwalk, we delivered in advance of any occupation, enhancing quality and safety of the space. Significant biodiversity gain, cycle parking, which I'm sure will come on to discuss, and significantly reduced car parking with only three spaces on site. What is proposed is a sustainable development that will make a positive contribution to addressing climate change, whilst delivering critically needed new homes and accommodation. It will enhance and diversify the types and tenure of housing available in the ocean drive area, which will encompass private sale, private rent, mid-market rent, intermediate rent, social rent, elderly rent. And the student accommodation all centered around the reinvigorated ocean terminal. NPF policy 9 is clear in directing development to the most accessible locations and maximize the use of existing assets, so as to minimize additional land take. Proposed development delivers all of these, a dense mixed tenure and brownfield development that provides convenient local living and compact urban form, well connected to the wider city and designed to sit comfortably in its context. And Mercedes Mobility plan identifies the creation of dense mixed use developments as the most sustainable way to plan for a future and combat climate change. Proposed before you is such a development, it is in effect the last piece in the development jigsaw, an ocean drive with the creation of a high-munity dense mixed use community around ocean terminal and ocean drive. Thank you for your time, we're happy to respond to any questions. Fantastic, you're only four seconds over, that's amazing, very impressed. Questions from the committee, I have Councillor Booth followed by Councillor Mater's clear, I can't see anybody online, so I'm going to see a line. I also have my hand up here. I can see Councillor, yes, and then Councillor MINGLEIS should be Nican. Thanks Kamehia, thanks very much indeed for your presentation. So many of my constituents will warmly welcome the housing aspect of what you're bringing forward, but many of them are bemused at why you're coming forward with student housing. You've said yourself, there's very long journey times for students to get to most universities and colleges. So can you just clarify, please, why have you incorporated more than half of the floor space as student housing? Is this just to make a fast buck? Councillor, no, it's not just to make a fast buck, we have done a number of student developments across the city in Edinburgh. We feel it's a good location, I think as Colin suggested in his presentation, mixed community, often in other parts of the city, where you come under pressure for over-density of students, we feel this is a good location. The early dialogue we've had with student operators and universities, they're very excited about this location, and we feel with the tram passing by the front door and all the bus services that you've heard, we think it's still a good location. And with good links and fast links to the universities. Believe me, we wouldn't be investing this sort of money if we didn't think it was a good location, and it was viable. Okay, I'm going to say this once, can we please keep questions respectful, okay? Thank you. Councillor matter Square. Thank you, can Vina, I will try. I believe you heard my question before about the cycle parking. I've been this committee for about a year, and this is something I ask all the time, because I'm a tiny person, I'm a cyclist, I cannot use it to your cycle parking. So 80% on the student accommodation does really concern me. Could I ask what other options were tested if why weren't other types of maybe alternatives? And how did you get to this point if this is something easy to answer, which probably won't be, but thank you. Very simply, we've followed the same strategy that we've used on other student development in the city, which has generally been acceptable. However, there are new two-tier cycle stores, which are actually able to be used by people with disabilities. I'm not suggesting you have a disability, but there are improvements on those systems, which are a simple lever, which pull down and lift up. Obviously, meeting the standards for cycle storage in the design guide is a huge challenge. I'm not suggesting that the standards are wrong, but we operate and own a lot of student development around the country, and I know from surveys we've done, the maximum uptake we've had in student development, particularly as 6% of cycles. So we're faced with this challenge of creating a huge internal cycle store, which we have to fit a massive number of cycles in there, which we know will, in our view, never actually be utilised. But to combat that question of two-tier cycles, we believe there are systems on the market now, which are able to be used by a whole range of people that make it much easier. Thank you. Councilor McMeishman, you can. Thank you. My question was regarding the landscape design, which I agree looks beautiful. It looks lovely, but in terms of maintenance and that landscape, still looking the same a few years into the future, can you, I guess you can't guarantee. How much assurance can you give that, for example, that landscape will receive sufficient sunlight and remain the way that we have been shown in the in the lovely images into the future. Well, so landscape has been designed, so we obviously had microclimate assessment, and we had the daylighting study, and the landscape has really been designed to work with all of the requirements of the site, both in terms of the pressure it will receive, but also in terms of the environmental constraints it might have. We have developed a very detailed planning plan that takes all of that in crisis. There will be a first stage where we will also coordinate that with an ecologist just to kind of make sure that all the MPF for requirements are completely covered. I mean, it's most of the areas are private areas and also engage, encourage, I guess, residential buy-in and the growing space, for example. So I think there's a high interest also from the developer and the management team to make sure that it's well maintained because the landscape and the green envelope really makes a development beautiful and sells it and attracts new residents, I guess. Thank you. Councillor Sutterforth. Thank you, Convener. I am quite concerned about this 11% of the student block not getting sufficient daylight, especially since I also understand they can't open their windows fully there, that kind of environment where you can't open your windows fully for fresh air. It's going to be quite gloomy in their only room that they inhabit. This isn't a case of, in the residential areas, the daylight bridges are mostly bedridden. Councillor Sutterforth, can we just ask the question? Yes, so my question is, is this not, for those 11% of rooms, a recipe for bad mental health? Can I respond first of all in the ventilation and then Colin will comment on the daylight, because we've got, we had an earlier question about how does this system work. First of all, over the last seven developments that we've done in the city of Edinburgh, we have the same issue about high traffic noise, high background noise. So we're very comfortable we deal with this on a regular basis. We do a lot of development within the city centre in York in the historic core. We have exactly the same issues. And the way this is approached is we do a background survey to understand what is the type of noise, what is the frequency and level of noise, and how often does it occur. And often that will determine that some elevations have traffic noise, some elevations have a high industrial noise, some might have different times of the day. We've done those surveys, we obviously, we're not at the detailed design stage, but we know that this, it's classed as a closed window system, but the way it actually works in practice, all windows will be openable. So everyone can open a window, and the receiver of noise can be quite different from one person to another. What I may think is noisy, you may not think is. So the occupy has the choice, if they feel the noise is too high, they would close the window, there will be a mechanical system of ventilation, and depending on the type of noise and where it is, on one facade, it may be what we call a trickle vent, which is passive. So you open a vent to allow air in, and you extract the stale air from the room. Another elevation where perhaps the survey picked up a ship that had docked very close to the site, that was a different frequency, and it was constant for 24 hours a day while the ship was there. That facade, for example, would have what we call a whole house MVHR mechanical ventilation system, which is both supply and extract. So we suck air in through a duct, and we exhaust it through another duct in a different location. The fan box, which is located within the ceiling void, uses a very low energy, low powered fan, almost something like you would have in a computer, and it has what we call heat recovery. So if you are bringing in cool air, that's warmed. If you're extracting warm air, the heat is taken out of that and put back into the room. So it's a very energy and low carbon system, and it complies with all the building standards. There are different types, and we apply the one that is most appropriate to the noise level in the location of where that apartment or bedroom or the room is. So rest assured, it's not an uncommon issue, it will be over the whole of the city of Edinburgh, and we're very capable of dealing with it. So hopefully that answers the question on the MVHR and noise. Colin is going to respond on the daylight. There's two paragraphs in the assessment that deal with that, and I'll just read them out. So in terms of the student block, there are 47 rooms that don't meet the target, 30 of which are bedrooms, and that's purely bedrooms in cluster flats. And all of the bedrooms are less important in terms of daylight, such deviations are considered less significant. Moreover, any impacts are offset by the availability of the shared living kitchen dining spaces, which all exceed daylight targets, so all those shared spaces exceed the targets. They will afford occupancy to use a space with natural light attributes suitable for data and activities. The remaining 17 rooms are studios, and attract direct sky visibility between 49.56, so very marginally below, and 27.87 for the other floor areas. This indicates that some of the rooms are only marginally below the guidance target of 50%. The lower levels of daylight distribution achieved are commensurate with values typically achieved in built up urban areas with tenor mental or higher density flatter streetscape. So it's really establishing that of the 47 that don't quite meet the 50%, 30 are purely bedrooms, and all those bedrooms have access to living down the kitchens that do pass. Over the ringing 17, there are a number that are very marner in one terms of field, and some are towards the bottom end. We could go through and establish just exactly how many they are, but it's probably going to be about perhaps 10 that are below 40%, but I'd have to go into the room. So it's a very small number in a very large amount of where there is a lot of choice as to where, which room you may take. So it's a very full explanation on that, so I think it was Councillor Maui to next. Yes, actually mostly the question on ventilation was answered, but I suppose it's looking at the new standards, the new building standards that have come in and about having the, you know, you said all the windows do open. So how does that work with the new building standards that have come in, because they've been, I think there's a tension between building standards and environmental standards here. We know we will have to meet the building standards and those systems will allow us to comply with that. We've also looked at overheating and done studies for all of that as well. So the fact that the building standards are changing and fact that it's never moving target, it's getting higher and higher, but we know we have to comply with that. So if we can't comply, we can't build. So hopefully that gives you some comfort. Okay, Councillor Gartner. Yes, you had warm words about landscaping, I think I would like to get a bit more information in fact about daylighting, particularly, I think I understand it's 404 students. The students will take that direct transport that Mr Smith said alluded to to University of Kansas and they'll be in the building in the evenings. So the evening sun comes from the west. So how much of the garden is actually going to get sunlight when those 440 students, some of whom have been single rooms which don't get much daylight will be about and hopefully one thing to look after their mental health. Thank you. Yeah, so this is why we have we have wider wide network of different types of green spaces, which are semi public as well. So we have the board work to the back on the waterfront. We have a little, oh, maybe actually I can go back to my, to my joint. We have this little orange square which kind of like brings the two promenade walks together and that is a really well exposed to evening sun. We also have that second largest square in the center also north facing towards the waterfront, but it's not not obscured by any buildings and that is a shared square as well. And those squares, although they're semi public and can be accessed by everyone, are of really high quality. So we imagine to have some of some of them planted with trees and have some furniture in it and then it's a shared communal space between both of the developments. So while the main private green space is to one side, there's a lot of variety of green space that is shared and contributes to the overall quality and also options where people might go and hang out. Yeah, thank you convener. The main green space would be in shadow, would it not? And so the space you're leading to are quite small, the 440 plus, you said they're public spaces, so plus the public, plus the housing residents. Do you mean the residents or students? I mean, I think what is really a little bit deceiving on here is that it's not that we've used that format that kind of like fits best on the plan, but it's not completely north. But all of the green spaces, I might be go back to this one. Yes, I mentioned that in a second. All of the green spaces are really south facing. So they do get a lot of sun and they do meet all of the green spaces meets a required daylight requirements by 100%. And we have also obviously undertaken a lot of like micro climate assessments that also take into account overshadowing and the quality of the green spaces to make sure that you have long views, but also that it's not too windy or too gusty and it's comfortable to sit down. So we've had a lot of considerations going into the green spaces that we have designed in terms of their quality of it, but also in terms of the diversity of what we are offering and their exposure to sunlight that we can offer on that site. I will come to you in a second. Councilor Bennett, if you asked a question already. No, Councilor Bennett, anybody else off to Council Bennett who hasn't already asked a question. Councilor Bennett, followed by Council. Thank you, convener. Please forgive me if I'm being obtuse here. The daylight study states that 28 windows retained between 0.79 and 0.68, 0.8 is a pass. Is that right? Yes. So I don't, I mean, we're not really talking about a very significant loss of light. Okay. Councilor Beeth. That's coming in. I want to come back to the issue of the cycle parking. So, obviously, you're all, well, several of you are regulars at this committee. So you'll be aware that when we discuss cycle parking, we always try and say there should be a focus on the accessibility rather than numbers. And obviously that was confirmed in the decision of planning committee last month, that where it's unavoidable to make a compromise on cycle parking, that should be on the numbers, not on the accessibility. So why have you not addressed that in your application coming forward? And can you, I don't know if you have a slide showing this, but you can you just, I think you said that the two tier that you're prepared for. Two tier that you're proposing is more accessible. Do you have any details of that? And can you also show us details of the mezzanine? I think it was said that this was, will be accessed through a lift. Why is it being done through a lift rather than a ramp, for example. And final part of this question. That's quite a lot of questions. Can we just, just get compromised on the, on the numbers rather than the accessibility? Can you revise your cycle parking proposals? In other words. I might not remember all of those questions, so I'll just, I'll try and get them as I can. So the access, first of all, for the student, well, first of all, the residential building is fully compliant in terms of numbers and types of parking, cycle parking. It has a number of spaces at basement, and ground, and mezzanine. And the reason for that is because we've tried to keep the building footprint as tight as possible, not have external stores so that we can maximize the landscaping available for them in terms of amenity. The lift is because of the height of the building basically and the amount of space a ramp would take to get up an entire story. So it's more efficient for us to get more cycle spaces in by using a lift rather than a ramp, and that applies to both buildings. For the student, we, as Chris mentioned, we haven't specified a product yet for the two tier, but we are aware that there are products on the market that will come through the detailed development. The number of low level spaces is around 60% are at the lower level, if you include the larger Sheffield, the typical Sheffield, and the lower level of the two tier system. And then the remaining are the upper ones, which are on that mechanism system. Apologies, I'm trying to remember what the last one was. I think the last one was about adjusting the balance between numbers and type. So, yeah, what's been submitted has been to seek to meet the numbers and provide a very large number of lower level, which is about 240 at the lower level. But, I mean, certainly it's common for a planning condition to be applied to consents that have further detail required in terms of exactly what the provision is, what the type of tier racks is used. So if there's a preference that balance is switched, then that can certainly be looked at, without speaking for the developer. Can I just add something to that? As a company, Harrison have something like 600 student beds that we've owned and operated for 10 years in the center of York in the city. I was responsible for planning consent for all of those. I sat down with officers planning and transport, knowing the uptake that we have, as I say, a maximum of 6% is all we've ever surveyed in our cycle stores. What we historically agreed is that we would provide 50% of the numbers at day one in exactly the type and style that officers planning or highways or even members in some cases requested with a provider that if we needed to add more, then we had space allocated elsewhere on the site to do that. And to date, we've never added one more cycle space because the demand has never been there. But to come back to your question about the percentages, I'd be more than happy if we changed the mix. We've got a certain amount of space allocated that meets the standard in terms of numbers. I'd be more than happy to put more Sheffield hoops and less double stacked, but on the understanding that the numbers would come down. Perhaps with a proviso, if demand dictated we need more, then we'd revert back to meeting the numbers. Councillor MURPHY. Sorry, Councillor DUGGLISH. Councillor MURPHY. That's OK, thanks. I mean, my question to certain extent is it already be answered. I was following on from what Councillor Buss said. And obviously, thanks for coming along and showing us the application that if members do have a concern about certain parts of the application, we can go potentially through a process. Or maybe adding an informative on it, maybe cycle parking would be one of those examples. Now, I think you've potentially confirmed it, but would you be willing to look into a formative to work with the Planning Department if Councillors do wish to add an informative on a specific issue in the application? Yeah, I mean, if it's a case of agreeing, you know, what is the preferred type of storage that's going to go on site, recognising that the amount of space that's there has been a balance between providing sufficient space and also providing the combino active frontage and the living spaces, but certainly happy to do as you suggest. Thank you. Could I just add one more point? I would rather, at this present moment in time, because I'm conscious of that, it's now 20 to 12. So if we could just answer the questions, that would be fantastic. And committee, if we could just stick to the questions, that would also be fantastic. Councillor MATAS-Crayer. It's just a very quick question. I'm sorry, I'm terrible with names, I forgot your name. You've mentioned 6% for a while. And when was the last time you were aware that only 6% of students were using psychopaths? Sorry, just what? Just to mention, York and we are in Scotland. Yes, we have a number of student developments within the city centre in York, within the historic core. And within our student developments, which is, let's say it's about 600 bedrooms, we've never exceeded a 6% uptake. So if we were providing 600 cycle spaces as 100%, we've never actually had more than 6% in use at any one time when we've done the surveys. And that was over a number of years. OK, we are slightly straying off the topic of this particular application. I'd be grateful if we could just stick to this particular application. Do we have any further questions directly related to this application? Councillor Gartner. Thank you, convener. Did you at any point contemplate having social space at the top of the buildings, roof gardens or enclosed spaces or anything like that? Thank you. We looked at all options early on in the design process, but we discovered that we could make the buildings work. As I mentioned, we went through a massive iteration of process of getting the right shapes and forms of buildings for the views, et cetera. That we could yield around 30% of fact, over 30% ground level on the city space. So we thought that there was no need to do that. So we discounted that early in the process. OK, is there any further questions from committee? OK, thank you very much indeed for your time. OK, committee, I'm now going to the fact that it is 11.45 out there. So I'm suggesting the fact that we break until 12 and giving you 15 minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. OK, committee, thank you very much indeed. We've obviously had questions and applicants, so I'm just going to open up to see if there's any questions back to officers for clarification. I think we were still outstanding in terms of contributions. Kenny, do we have that information? Sorry. I'll share the education response. The tram was 598,000 as in the back of the report, primary education is 375,606. Secondary education was 309,582. So the land for the education, it was 20,475. And then for the health contributions, it was for residential, it's 112 times 945, which is around about 105,000. And then the student health was 404 units times 150, so that was 60,600. Can I just double check on that? You did mention at the beginning, is the student accommodation, is that actually a counter for in terms of art, et cetera. Are we going to need to add that? We will need to add that if it's granted, we'll need to add all extra text in a minute, so we'll pick it up. OK, so questions to officers, Casa Booth? A question about cycle parking condition. I would prefer a condition rather than informative about not withstanding the approved plans. The proposals for cycle parking will be resubmitted to the satisfaction of the chief planning officer to better comply with accessibility in cycle guidance or something like that. I think we have a standard form of words somewhere. I suspect what would probably be proposing is a conditional on lines of not withstanding what's shown on the approved plans. The cycle parking for block two, which is a student block, is not approved. The details of cycle parking to provide compliance in terms of quality of cycle parking provision. In relation to development plan policy and on statutory planning guidance on the council's cycle and fact sheet, she'll be submitted to and approved by the council's planning authority. The approved cycle parking shall be installed prior to occupation of block two student block, if that will be satisfied. Any other points for clarity to officers? No. So, opening up for discussion, Councillor JONES. Thank you, convener. And I am a bit conflicted on this particular application. On the one hand, we desperately need more homes, new housing. But I feel my first major concern was with regards to the fact that environmental protection did not recommend this application because of the noise levels. And I'm concerned about that. If it were just solely that, and I'm conscious that the applicant made a very eloquent defence that you are in this business. You know what you're doing. And I take all of that on board and your experience, which I know we wish to dismiss. But it seems to me a combination of things, the noise, the impact on immunity, daylight. And I know that in many, in a sense, it's marginal, but it's a combination of events, which is steering me towards not accepting a recommendation to grant the application. Okay, looking at my list, I've got Joan, Brisbane Booth, Merit, MacMitch, MacMitch, MacMitch, MacMitch, MacMitch, MacMitch, MacMitch, MacMitch and stand up for us. Booth. Sorry. I thought there was somebody before me. Thank you very much. Like Councillor JONES, I am leaning towards refusal of this application. I think there are a lot of concerns about it. I mean, I initially had concerns about the cycle parking, but I think the condition addresses that. So across that off my list. But I still have concerns on a number of grounds. I think immunity is the crucial issue. The noise that Councillor JONES has referred to and which provides an objection from our environmental health officers, that's not very usual, that they actually object to an application. But in particular, the impact on sunlight and daylight, I'm particularly concerned about the immunity for students who will be living in, you know, in many cases in one room, which doesn't get sufficient sunlight or daylight. And they don't have an open space standard. I mean, there is some open space there, but I would question whether it is of the quality that we would hope for from our students. So I think there's significant issues there about immunity. I come back to, and the report makes this clear, that this is not an ideal location for students. Journey times to universities and colleges are substantial. And I'm not sure that that is appropriate. And I still have concerns about the height and the massing and the general impact on setting of this development. So I will, of course, listen to contributions from colleagues, but I'm also learning towards refusal. Councillor MATCH. Thank you. Thank you, convener. I think given the context of where the site is, the emerging local plan, which much to my surprise has been received by the reporter with the glowing report. And what we've also approved in this area. We are seeing a changing environment, and I think great care has been taken with this application to respond to the other developments in the area. We are building housing next to a port. We actually have four other blocks, which we've all approved, and we're granted approval fairly recently with all of the same or very similar issues, the same objection. I think it would be perverse for this committee to refuse this application on those grounds when we've actually had a detailed response and also a change in building standards, which will improve the security, which actually deals with some of those sound issues as well as a byproduct of that. Regarding the immunity, we are talking very marginal fails compared to the size of the site, and I have to say that the care taken over the landscaping and putting those squares in, which are south facing, will get the southern light, is actually very, very impressive. And I think it will really add to that environment, and will be what is a bit desolate, because it's a building everywhere, it's just a blank bit at the moment, is going to be enlivened and adds to what is an emerging as a new quarter. And that has been a city aspiration for many years, and this will be the realisation of that. I think this is a good application, and I think we heard that actually most of the student rooms where there is a fail, they are actually part of cluster flats, they are not the individual's studio flats, so that isn't the objection. I just want to come back to cycle parking, and I think there was an illusion about have we got the right policy, if developers are spending so much time trying to meet all our other concerns about active frontage green space, bin stores, whatever on ground floors, and whether we have. There is a very innovative solution that was proposed, that you put in something that is much more accessible, and with a comeback, if there is that demand, because having empty space, when you're trying to build a dense urban environment, is criminal. And if we're over providing something that isn't going to be used, because we don't know what we're saying, you've got to take more floor space up, because we don't like the fact that they're too tier. I want to say to anyone, as someone who does exist in the first percentile of height for adult women, I do expect that occasionally because I might have to stretch occasionally, because I'm not, you know, I'm well below average, and we can't actually design each end of the spectrum comfortably, because nothing would be possible. I think there was a very good compromise there, and I'm happy to support Council Booth in wanting that sort of condition about, we improve the accessibility, I'd add to it that, you know, if we can go back. But the other thing I would say, the other, you know, people who've had concerns about will this green space be maintained, this will be a managed site. So it will actually be a good site, it won't be good on day one, it should be good through, you know, day one until it ceases ceases to be here. I think this is a good application today and I have no hesitation in leaving, leaving support for this today. Council, I mean, she can. Oh, thank you. I'm conflicted to, but it's more my upbringing to be kind and my upbringing to be honest, because I'm looking at this and thinking. I'm disappointed, and I think it is such a significant site. It has so much potential. And I just often feel that there's a kind of, it's good enough relief, or it's good enough for students attitude and I'm very concerned about the amenity for those students. Some people seem to think they're an invasive species, but they're young people coming to the university to study, and if they don't have enough daylight. And they're, and it impacts their mental health. That's an issue, I think, for all of us. I heard the response saying, well, they could choose to have that bedroom or that room with less light. That's not realistic. I don't know how they'll be allocated, whether it's pays the most to first come first serve. I also heard officers say it's only a smaller percentage of students who would be impacted by this. But I do find it concerning. We have come through the worst pandemic in 100 years. I think we really have to think about their amenity. My proposal, if I got any support is that we can give approval for block one, I think it is, but ask for more thought to be put into block two to address, particularly that day lighting issue. Don't know if I'll have any support is for that. I'm sure you'll be coming to that later. Counselor Douglass. Thank you very much. I want to thank Kenny for bringing forward the report and for the applicants and come along to answer our questions and show a bit enthusiasm for the application. And so I'm generally leaning to support the application. You know, as a whole, we have to look at these things in the round. I think there's a lot of positives. I do have a concern, as other colleagues said, about the sunlight and the daylight. I think the applicants have gone some way to address those concerns, but I still think there's concerns there. I mean, obviously it can't really discuss hypotheticals, but when we look at this site and think about what else could have come on to this site, I think we're aiming for something residential. And there's going to potentially always be some issue with some light and daylight. So I'm not quite sure that issue would be able to be resolved within this specific application. I'm generally appreciating as I had some concerns about cycle parking, that the applicants have been open and honest and forthcoming and willing to work with planning officers to potentially put a condition on that. Not all applicants are as willing to work with committee and with planning officers, so welcome that and thank them for it. But fundamentally, if we're going in the direction that we are with our new City Plan 2030, we're going to look at the reuse of brownfield sites, highly densely populated, preferably with a focus on residential, and that's what we've got here. So I'm leaning towards supporting at the moment, but again, I'll be interested to hear what colleagues have to see on this. Thanks, convener. Councillor CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, convener. I found the answer to my question on airflow, very assuring, but on daylight far less so. I think there is a difference between daylight only being gloomier in bedrooms when it's a private residence to saying, Oh, but they've got shared space that has enough daylight for students. Realistically, students spend more time in their individual rooms than people could be expected to spend in their private bedrooms in a home. Equally, there are those 17 studio flats to consider that don't have that at all. Some of them are quite marginal breaches, but I would remind people that our daylight standards are supposed to be a minimum. So once you start breaching that, you are below a minimum. It's not like the very minimum is the absolute ideal. With that in mind, and with the fact that, yes, they said there are many options here, but clearly, the applicant is going to want every room filled, which means we have to assume there will be people living in those rooms with poor daylight. Council Member Nice Meakin touched on the fact we are only two years away from the pandemic when students were effectively locked in their rooms for months. We don't know when something like that's going to strike again, so there is a non-zero chance that someone in one of these gloomier studio rooms would be living there and stuck there for quite a substantial amount of time. I do think that's a recipe for poor mental health. I don't think that's good design. And for that reason, I will definitely be moving to refuse this under desk five. Thank you. Thank you, Comvener. I agree with Councillor Maude's comments. I know the area very well. We desperately need more housing. We need more student accommodation. We need more affordable housing. I believe that the lack of daylight is minimal. I like the green space. We're not talking about an enormous reduction in daylight. I travelled enormous distances to university on the bus, greater than the 50 hours, the 50 minutes that have been mentioned here. I lived in some very, very dingy student accommodation, which I do not believe this is. I am satisfied with the noise, mitigation and ventilation and I am happy to support the application. Thank you. Councillor Gough. Thank you, Comvener. I heard a minute for me in what Councillor Jones was saying, that it's sort of marginal that this thing, whether it's good enough, I'm trying to think about. I think about Deus 5 amenity of future occupiers. I appreciate our policy towards external open space. Apparently, it doesn't take into account daylighting is what I heard from officers. Maybe we need to look at that policy, if that is the case, because if these students, hardworking students, are going down to King's buildings or city centre campuses or whatever, and coming back in the evening, then evening suns from the west and most open spaces were going to be in shadows. That is of concern, equally some of the comments Councillor Stanforth was talking about are of concern, but we do have a housing crisis as well. We need more homes and for me the overall application is marginal, I just wish it could have been a bit better and it could have taken into account some of these things that I mentioned. Whether it's strong enough grounds to absolutely refuse this and win an appeal is something I'm going to have to contemplate convener. So my plea to any developer watching is to come back with better proposals than this. It's not as good as it should be for 404 students and 112 units, so the population would be bigger than that in the build trend part of it. I would expect there's something more, I can accept that open space in say a tenement infill might be compromised to be, but here I was really expecting something a bit better. But I appreciate as Councillor Mao has also said we have approved a bit next door to this, but we have to look at each application on its own merits. So I'm going to have to hear what other people say and then make a decision. Thank you, convener. Okay, if there's nobody else who wishes to speak, I will finish off. I've listened very carefully, I also kind of remember the last several years trying to sit through and trying to work out how we're going to develop City Plan 2030, which has just come back. We focus very heavily on urban led development, brownfields, active travel connections and also most importantly in mixture. We've had many applications in front of us in the past where there's been no residential with student accommodation. We actually have an application in front of us that does have a mix of both. I'm back to my favourite expression which is let's not make perfect the enemy of good. This is going to be a really big problem for urban led development. We're not going to get perfection if we don't develop greenfield sites. I totally understand, yes, 17 students, I've had a student and so on. And I've been a student, we've all been a student and so on. I appreciate the fact that for possibly 11 or 12 individuals, that is not absolutely fantastic and I totally understand that. But we have to have a balance of you towards something. We are in a housing crisis. We desperately need new accommodation and we desperately need to find space where we can build upwards so that we don't have such a massive impact on our below and on our surface level. I like the way that this development has tried to fit in very well with itself, with other buildings around it. Forming communal space passes through safety, all these things being considered and so on. A lot of work has gone into this. We're going to get the actual sort of footpath connected at the front. There's a lot of benefit, one of the things that we look at an awful lot when we talk about development is how does it fit in with the existing. A lot of effort has gone into this, into this whole area, a lot of consideration. If we remember as well, presently on this site, there's an application that's been granted that's for actually something much higher. So already there's something there which was an office development. And I do think a lot of effort has gone into this. And yes, we can go back and we can nit pick and so on that. It'd be great to have something that's absolutely perfect. But my more of my fear would be we'd get something sort of worse. I think we just have to be considerate of what's going forward. And remember what we were extremely hard for in terms of 2030 plan and what is, you know, going to be coming forward for us in the future, which hopefully will be. Lots of very well thought out development that build on connections. I'm delighted to be good at high scale development that is literally right on the tram. We have no need for cars. We have no issue with having a car led development because we are literally right on active travel. So I do think that's really important. And I think not enough credit has been given as well that yes, okay, there might not be any ground space. But what amazing views some of those individuals are going to have. I mean, that is absolutely awesome when you think about that. So yes, I do take into consideration there will be a possibility of impact on mental health. And I would really, really hope that is something that universities could look at and everything else as well. As opposed thinking about the overall sort of looking after the development. I note in the conditions, there is a condition actually states for five years. If a tree or if a bush needs to be taken out, it has to be replaced. I'm satisfied that that's sufficient enough in terms of its development because it's not a huge amount of area. Though I do think we do need to look at some of the other conditions to do with the cycle parking and also the health care as well. So I would be proposing the fact that we add, we do make a change towards the cycle parking and we do add in the health care. But, you know, I think we should be supporting developments like this and I think we should be actually be enthusiastic about well-thought-out development that actually considers how it fits in. And also allows students to live amongst residents and be part of a community, not sidelined somewhere else, et cetera, and put just around a campus. You know, it is important we do spread our students around because they are members of our city as well. And I appreciate for residents living within the leaf area, yes, they would have wanted more housing. But I would just remind committee, if you reject this application, there's a whole mass of housing they're not going to be getting. So it is a balance. Anyway, with those comments, I shall move formal and I will be proposing the fact that we accept the officer's recommendation. And we also change the condition, add a condition about cycle parking, which I will give it to officers and also about health care. So looking for a seconder. Councillor Duggish. I'll just do it formally because of me to come in here, thank you. Councillor Beeth. Thanks for being here. I would like to move refusal of the application. I think the grounds, I've listened carefully to colleagues. I think that one thing that I've heard again and again and again is concerned about immunity, both immunity of future occupiers and immunity of sort of neighbouring blocks that are in development at the moment. Excuse me. So I would argue this application is contrary to DES5 immunity, in particular on noise, on sunlight and daylight. And I also have concerns about open space. I'm in the hands of colleagues, but personally, I would also include policy how eight paragraph A on location and that the application is also contrary to our guidance on student housing because it does not meet the 50% threshold for floor space given over to standard housing. In terms of cycle parking, I think it's important that we encourage developers not to provide cycle parking for current cycling levels which are not high because we don't have good cycling infrastructure. I would argue actually that this site is not good for active travel infrastructure. It is good for sustainable travel infrastructure because it's right next to the tram line. But, you know, God help anybody who wants to cycle a long ocean drive. It's not a pleasant environment, I have to say at the moment. However, I do feel that the condition addresses that. So I will not include tri-3 and tri-4. I also have concerns about the design, but I don't know whether I'm in a minority on that one. I would perhaps include DES1 and DES4, but I'm in the hands of colleagues. I do have some sympathy for Council McNeese Meekins' position about granting the housing for which there's a desperate need but not the student housing. But on balance, I feel that we've heard from officers that they would recommend it not proceeding on that basis. And I would also note that on appeal, quite often those mixed decisions do not get upheld. So to conclude, convener, I move refusal on the grounds of DES5, how 8? And I'm in the hands of colleagues as to whether or also include DES1 and DES4. I noticed that Council, Leslie Meekin, you've got your hand up. Is it two second Council booth? No, it's just to make a comment a little bit. Oh, I'm so sorry that time has passed. I'm really, really sorry. Sorry, I saw then Councilor Sannathforth. Sorry, not make a comment. I've had comments, but is there not an opportunity to make comments once things are moved and seconded, convener? Yeah, that time has passed a moment because I'm just looking for a seconder for Councilor Booth. So, yes, I'll happily second Councilor Booth. While I do have some concerns about the design myself, I think it's better to go with what we are solid on. And in my view, that is DES5 and how 8? I think it is going to be detrimental to some students' mental health to live in some of those blocks. Particularly some of the studio flats. In addition to that, I do think it is too far away from most university locations. I take your point with regard to spreading students out across the city, convener, but I would also say it's good practice for people to be able to live near where they work and students work at universities. It's better that they have easier access to the majority of campuses, which this application really doesn't grant them, particularly in walking or cycling. Public transport, perhaps to the city centre, to the university buildings there. But are they a significant amount of the university buildings, you know? So, I would say, under DES5 and how 8? Yes, this should be refused. Again, as with Councilor Ruth, I would echo that we have been advised that partial approvals aren't really good practice. Otherwise, I would argue for a partial approval because all of my issues are with the student accommodation not being good enough for the students there, not with the housing. But as that is not good practice, I simply go for, we should refuse this application. Thank you. Councilor Cameron, you wanted to have a comment? Yes, I was just wanting to confirm that I'll be supporting the application and it's heartening to hear your own comments, convenient about the importance of this type of development and including housing as well as student housing. And absolutely, we can't make perfectly enemy of goods, so I will be supporting the application today. Thank you very much. I have a comment that officers would like clarification on the moving. Yeah, thank you. We're just really to seek some clarity on the position and respect to the suggestion that we recommended for refusal under policy days. In terms of the amenity of neighbouring developments, given that much of the discussion appears to have been on the second part of that policy, which is the future occupiers, and I think particularly the fact that discussions seem to have been primarily on the student accommodation element. Whether an actual fight is really more on the effect of the future occupiers in terms of student accommodation in terms of not providing adequate levels of amenity as opposed to the DTR block or the proposals having any adverse impact on surrounding amenity or enabling residential or other uses. It was just to seek clarity on that convener. I'm happy to withdraw that comment, Cameron. I'd like to clarify for me, it's all about the amenity of future occupiers. Convener, you mentioned a condition to do with hills. Can you confirm what that was, please? Yes, it was mentioned earlier by Kenny, the fact that presently there isn't within, I shall let Kenny explain that. Yes, simply this was to add as part of the kind of informative to do with the legal agreement that there should have been a contribution for the student accommodation per headspace of £150. That just needs added to the informative if it gets granted. That would be per unit given you £60,000 total. Sorry, £600. Thanks for that convener. I would like to second, Councillor McNeese, Meekins, possession if she wants to move it. Thank you. Are you moving something? I was proposing to move that we grant permission for lock one, which is the residential component. I understand that the best advice I can give you is that this application is in front of you today's for a mixed use development that clearly comprises two blocks, one built around and the other one's student housing, and we would not consider it appropriate to be advising committee to only be approving part of the development. It's such a fundamental change to what's before you that we don't think that will be appropriate. It's not some small minor change. Thank you. Okay, I hear that very clearly in that case, I will withdraw the suggestion. Thank you. So in that case, there are two positions in. We have the motion by Councillor Osler, seconded by Councillor Douglass, which is to grant planning permission subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives as set out in section C of the report by the chief plan officer, and then additional condition on cycle parking and an additional informative on health care. And we have the amendment by Councillor Booth, seconded by Councillor Jannoforth, which is to refuse planning permission as an applications contrary to LTP policies, days five, how eight, and is also contrary to the guidance on student housing. So now votes for the motion, please, by Councillor Osler. Thank you, and for the amendment by Councillor Booth, please. Thank you, so that is six votes for the motion and five for the amendment, so the motion is carried and planned permission as granted. Okay, Kimita, we've got one other application in front of us, I'm suggesting we press on, and we hear this application. Yes, I agree. Thank you, so in that case we'll move on to item 7.1, which is an application for planning permission at 120 to 124 Portobello High Street in Edinburgh. There's also an application at item 7.2 for conservation area consent at 120 to 124 Portobello High Street in Edinburgh, I'll pass over to planning officers to present the report. Point of order convener, sorry, there seems to be some confusion about the result of that vote, could we just have that clarified, please? Sorry, yeah, so there were six votes for the motion to grant and five for the amendment to refuse, so the application is granted. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Good afternoon members, I'm Julie Ross, I'm the planning officer for this application. I'm going to do a two handed mouse situation here so I'll test my ambidextrous skills. See how we go. The application in front of you today is for planning permission and for a separate application for conservation area consent for a site at 120 to 124 Portobello High Street. Basically, at the complete opposite end of the scale of what you've just looked at down in and leaf, it's a completely different level of development. Just to keep things interesting for you. So here's the application site, it's located on the corner of Portobello High Street and Beach Lane. It's got a few photographs to give you some context. The site currently has two existing shop units on it, which are separated by a private food path in between. There's an adjacent three and a half story tenant building to the east and the police station building, which is the former Portobello Town Hall sits to the west and that building is Caterpie Beelisted Building. This is just another view looking east along Portobello High Street and then another view here just looking west along Portobello High Street. Again, you can see the Town Hall building just beyond the site there. Just looking at the site itself, you can see the relationship as to how it sits on Beach Lane, which is a really narrow access through. There's currently no pavement on the application site side of the street. There is a narrow pavement on the other side. This photograph is just a view of the rear of the site, so the existing building that's on there, the single-story brick walk. You can see that shows that that's the back of the boundary of the site boundary here. There's a parking hard-standing area just to the rear and east of the site, which is owned by the Co-op Building, which is the sort of blue and grey shed that you can see just in the photograph there. You can also see the relationship there, the view of the building and the adjacent tenements as well. This gives a little bit of context to the rear of the site that are more dense, tenemental development just going along the back of Beach Lane and Ramsey Place just to the rear of the site there. Just looking at the context in terms of the local development plan, the site is located in the urban area and it's also within the Potabilla Conservation area, which is shown in the red hatch there on the plan, and also the Potabilla Town Centre, which is the wildlife wash on the plan there. I've just picked out the various lists of buildings in the area, but the two kind of critical ones. The most critical is the former town hall building, which is the police station, the medial adjacent to the site, and then the current town hall sits sort of diagonally opposite. It isn't quite as visually connected to the site. So in terms of the proposed development, it's a residential and retail mixed use scheme. The building is five stories in height, with a retailer retail on the ground floor and then four floors of residential above that. The top floor is set back from the frontage into a Mansar groove, and to the side, the building has been designed with slanted windows just to account for the narrowness of Beach Lane. In the proximity to the adjacent listed building, police station building, there's also a new footpath that will be formed along Beach Lane on the eastern side of Beach Lane as part of this development. The shop will be accessed from the retail unit, be accessed from the corner of the site, and you can see that in the image there, and then the entrance to the residential properties will be from Beach Lane. This just shows an image of the re-relevation of the building, and you can see there that the building doesn't project as far into the site as the current single-story building does. It sits back from that with a guarding ground to the here. Again, you can see the footpath which is formed along the edge of the site boundary there as well. In terms of the schedule accommodation, we're looking at 11 residential flats and a Class 1 retail ground floor unit. The flats range in size from one to three bedrooms, or three one beds to four times two beds, and four three beds, so a good split of accommodation size is provided. The ground floor retail space is 100 square meters, and then there's external green space to the rear of the site climb of 70 square meters. In terms of key considerations for the site, they're listed on the slide there. I wouldn't read them all throughout, because I'm going to go through them all before you. First of all, we're looking at heritage considerations. There's two key heritage considerations for the site, and the legislation that we look to assess them against is shown on the slide there. The key issues are the impact of the development on the setting of listed buildings, and secondly is the impact on the conservation area. There is a conservation area consent which deals with the demolition of the buildings on site, and then the quality of the proposal to replace that is assessed through the planning application in terms of what is coming forward. Just to look at the listed building setting first of all, the applicant has undertaken a 10-scape assessment for us and has provided visuals of the proposed development, which show the proposed scale and massing in the context of the listed town hall building, which is the key listed building that we need to assess against for this site. The first visual there just shows the viewpoint from Portugal High Street looking towards the site, and you can see there will be a shift in the density and built form in the corner of Portugal High Street and Beach Lane, which will change the character of this corner from the current single-story building. This visualization here just gives another rendered view of how the building will sit into the townscape on that side of the high street. You can see that it will clearly increase the scale built form on the site, which will have some impact on the views towards the town, the police station building, but the design of the building has been considered in terms of this relationship. It includes a sort of recess corner at ground for a level on the front corner of the site, which allows views to be retained through to the police station building and also the positioning of it and the height and massing allows for the views towards the key features of the building, which are the turret and the gable features to be retained. Overall, the height and proportion of the proposed building is considered to be proportionate to the adjacent listed building and doesn't dominate its form, and importantly, the listed building continues to be read as a historic landmark on the high street. This is just another visual of the site adjacent to the police station building from Rosefield Avenue and again shows how the new building sits in our view comfortably beside that in terms of scale and massing to the front edge onto Portobill High Street. Overall, the proposal is not considered to be detrimental to the architectural character or appearance or historic interest of the listed building, and we have concluded that the proposal is acceptable in terms of the setting of the listed building. So just moving on in terms of the impacts on the conservation area, there's two buildings on site at the moment, 120 to 122 Portobill High Street is the blue fronted shop there, which sits right on the edge of the site. This is a flat roofed non-traditional building and is not considered to make any appreciable contribution to the quality or appearance of the conservation area. The shop front has no traditional characteristics and removal would be considered to have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the conservation area. The adjacent site at 124 Portobill High Street has a pitched roof and has a slightly more traditional shop front in terms of characteristics with a recessed doorway and stall risers. However, the value that these characteristics bring to the high street are to some extent counterbalanced by the single story form of the building overall, which limits the overall contribution that the building makes to the high street and its overall character. In order to meaningfully redevelop the site as a whole, it's considered reasonable to remove both units collectively. And on balance, it's considered that the benefits to the overall sense of scale and massing of this part of the high street that would arise from redevelopment coupled with the replacement of the poor quality shop fronted at 124 Portobill High Street is considered to outweigh the benefits of retaining just the shop at 122 to 124. So the impact of the proposed replacement buildings will come onto that in more detail in terms of our assessment of design as well and it's also covered fully in the report of handling for the planning permission. So there we go, that's just another image there of the same, we've seen this one already, but it's just to make the point I guess in terms of the fit with the conservation area. Looking at the block as a whole, the block in which the development site sits contains two to four story buildings. The single story is building on the site at the moment are the only exception. And looking at the kind of overall townscape and massing of that side of the street and that block, it's considered that the proposed development will actually help to repair an existing gap in the massing of the block and will introduce a building for a much as an acceptable scale height and position, which is appropriate to the overall character of the high street. In terms of materials and detailing, there's a mixture of different building treatments present along the high street. The proposed development in the site will comprise and makes high quality materials with the predominance of natural stone on its front and capable elevations. Overall, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to its impact on the setting of the list of buildings and character and appearance of the conservation area and conforms with the heritage legislation in this regard. Moving on to principal development and our assessment against the development plan, the proposed scheme is for residential and retail use, which is well-lined with the requirements of MPF4 policies for this in this location, particularly in terms of policies such as MPF4 policy 15, which is local living. The site is located within Portugal Town Centre, which is very well-served, connected, and it's certainly a good use of land within this area. In terms of the proposed retail development, the scheme is replacing light for light retail floor space in a town central location and is acceptable. So overall, in principle, we have no concerns with the proposed uses on this site. In terms of design matters, moving on, the key policies and guidance that we've referred to as the application against we're shown on the slide here. I'm just going to show you a few visualisations here. I've already touched on some of the design matters in terms of context and height and massing in the heritage assessment that I've gone through already. But in terms of the more detailed design for the scheme, looking at the image on the left there, you can see how the building sits next to the adjacent tenement. They're broadly the same height, and it feels a successful fit in terms of the alignment with the building next to it. The front elevation will be finished with natural sandstone with glazing at ground floor, which will provide an active frontage onto the high street. The shop front unit has been updated since this drawing, which is what they've been revised to include stall riser details, which more clearly reflect the traditional shop front characteristics of the high street. And in terms of materials that upper stories will include accommodation set into the Zinc Command-Sired Roof, and additional detailing is also added with court and steel paneling. There's a glaze balcony as well on the top floor elevation. To the rear, the image on the right shows that the building steps in at the back to meet the adjacent tenement. The rear and the side buildings will be finished with a buff brick, and court and steel detailing will be added as well. The side elevation there, which you can see best in the image on the left, shows how the angled windows are positioned to reflect the position beside the police station and the narrowness of each lane. So overall, in terms of design, we are comfortable that the scheme is appropriate and complies with the development plan and guidance in this regard. So moving on to amenity, we've looked at the key aspects that we need to consider, which are accommodation standards, open space, provision and some light daylight privacy for this application. In terms of floor plans, we have a mix of one to three bedroom apartments, which provides more than 20% of family accommodation as required by the Edinburgh Design guidance. All the flat sizes comply with the minimum space standards set out in the Edinburgh Design guidance as well and are acceptable. Open space provision, we have 70 square meters of usable open space provided to the rear. This is adequate space and meets the requirements of policy how-to-three. And just moving on to sunlight daylight and privacy, this just shows an example of the sunlight assessment, which has been undertaken by the applicant, which is an error by error assessment as required by the Edinburgh Design guidance. There are no daylight or sunlight considerations in relation to existing properties, all meet the standards that we require. In terms of the proposed residents, there is a minor shortfall in the amount of open space that will receive direct sunlight in that rear area of green space. There will be between one and two hours in the spring equinox, rather than the required two hours minimum, which is a minor shortfall. However, given the relatively small scale of the site and its proximity to high quality open space in the surrounding area, there's obviously portability, beach and spigot park. There's other high quality open spaces around. We do feel that the shortfall in sunlight is marginal and would be acceptable. And given the contribution that the building makes in terms of filling that space on the high street and providing a suitable urban forum, we feel this is an acceptable concession to make. In terms of privacy, the angled windows on the gable side of the buildings, which are in floors one to three of the buildings, will provide adequate privacy to properties in relation to potential overlooking of the adjacent police station building and are acceptable. Moving on to transport, this is a car-free development, and we will also have the benefit in terms of accessibility, providing a new footpath along the eastern side of Beach Lane, which will improve safety and make it a more welcoming pedestrian environment. Connecting through to the rest of the pedestrian network beyond that. In terms of cycle parking, now to explain here that there's a slight error in the committee report here, the committee report notes that there is five non-standard spaces provided. We do have 100% provisions, so 26 spaces are provided of which 50 are 50% single-tier. Of the single-tier provision, there are three non-standard spaces proposed, the committee report says five, but there are actually three. Now, there has been discussion with the developer on the provision of cycle parking, which is partly why there's an error in the report because of various things were discussed during that. There is a willingness to increase that to meet the standards set out in the Edinburgh design guidance, so if this is something that members wish to consider them, there's potential to revisit via condition. There's potential options in terms of reconfiguring slightly to remove the dedicated access into cycle parking, which comes from Beach Lane, which would provide more space, or alternatively, just changing some of the existing standard Sheffield stands to larger ones, but they may not be quite large enough. There's a discussion ongoing and apologize that the error is in the committee report, it's just an over site on my part. Moving on to climate change considerations, the applicant is provided a supporting information relation to proposed by diversity measures, trees on site and sustainability. Landscaping strategy includes a mix of hard and soft landscaping to the view, garden ground, which includes a mix of paved areas, raised planters, seating area, and grass for amenity use. A tree survey has been undertaken for the site, one tree is proposed for removal from the site, which is located down in the very far corner of the paved area there to the view of the site. The tree is a self-seeded tree and is not currently growing in an optimum position, therefore it's lost and it would be replaced in a more appropriate position in the view of the view, garden ground at the site, so we consider that to be acceptable in the circumstances. The applicant is also proposing bats and bird boxes and there's a sustainable drainage strategy, including green roofs proposed for the scheme, so overall we are satisfied that this complies with the policy requirements. The applicant is also provided a sustainable waste management strategy and energy strategy, which will include air source heat pumps for the scheme. So just moving on to other material considerations, the application has been considered in relation to the qualities and further details are provided in the report of handling. In this regard, there's no considerations related to qualities identified. In terms of public comments, again this is summarizing the report of handling. Generally it's quite a balance between the number of support and objection comments received for this, these applications. In terms of support, the key matters raised were in terms of support for a provision of housing, support for the design and replacement of the retail unit within the scheme. Objection comments focused on overdevelopment of the site, design concerns and impact on the conservation area, transport impact and the loss of the traditional shop frontage. These matters, as I said, have been addressed in the report of handling. In terms of pickup as well for developer contributions on the site, there's no requirement as it falls below the threshold for the affordable housing contribution. It has less than 12 units on site and there are no other financial contributions required for any other matters. So to conclude, it's considered that the proposal complies with the development plan by providing a valuable contribution of residential development for the city and local retail development space within Port Development Centre. It provides an appropriate design response to the surrounding townscape and heritage consideration and complies with the Heritage Act in this regard. The proposals will deliver a sustainable and well-designed scheme that will contribute to climate mitigation and adaption. The report notes no material considerations, which should outweigh this conclusion, which recommended that planning commission and conservation area consent are granted. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much indeed. Thanks. Julie, you said that the would provide a new pavement on the east side of Beach Lane where there currently isn't one. So can you just explain how they do that? Because the picture you showed of the current arrangement seemed to be incredibly narrow. Do they pull the site back, the whole site back sort of towards the east to facilitate? Yeah, that's right. So the building line will be pulled into the site to leave space for a new food path to be formed. So there's no encroachment on the existing width of the carriage way at the moment. This building seems to be fitting five stories into the same height that neighboring buildings fit for. So are we certain that there is sufficient width between floor to ceiling on each level? We have had a discussion with the developer about this. Obviously, the proportions of the traditional tenement are different from proportions of our contemporary building that we bring in. In particular, I had a discussion with them in relation to the floor to ground to floor space at ground floor level because it's a commercial unit. Also in terms of fitting in the required infrastructure and things that need to be built into building to accommodate that as a retail use. And we are confident that the proportions of the building are reasonable. I get a lot of non-material variations in for buildings to creep up in height because of the very reason that you're talking about in terms of affecting it. But we have already had that discussion with the applicant, so I'm fairly confident that we're in a position where we have considered that. Thanks for a minute. Following on from Councillor Mater's question. So can you clarify whether the footpath runs the whole length of the site and how it sort of links in with the footpath on the next one along? And also what's the width? Does it comply with our guidance in terms of width? I would need to double check the width on a plan for you. I don't know off the top of my head. But the footpath runs along the length to the depth of the application site. It doesn't go beyond that because the site, the land is there now with the applicant's ownership. So I guess it's not an ideal situation so far as we're not providing a fully continuous footpath to connect with footpaths in beyond. But it does spread along the end of the site. Beach Lane is a very narrow street already and in terms of pedestrian traffic, sorry, in terms of vehicular traffic, it's not particularly busy access anyway, so one way route. So on balance we feel that this does make a positive contribution. What it also does is it makes access into the building from, at the moment there's an access on that building into a storage part of the building to the rear, which goes straight out onto the track, the vehicular route path highway, carriage way, thank you, road, road will do. So obviously in terms of the actual safety improvement by, and we're now using that site of beach lane much more heavily in terms of providing a residential access and they're pretty well ensure that there's a safe residential access into the site from that position. Yeah, just is it possible to get clarity on the width, please. If you can give me a few minutes, I can check the plans, please. While officers are checking that, do we have any further questions from committee or will this be the final question? Matthew. Yes, thank you, I think I can clarify. The majority of the footway along there will be two metres, but as shown on the drawing it narrows down to about 1.2 metres, and then it doesn't go the entire length because you then it's constructed by the site, which is outside this development site. I think it will also just make the comment that the difficulty with potentially widening the footway into the carriage way is that there is the police carp up to the rear of the police station there. Councillor MATIS-Crayo. Thank you, Katrina. Just following from Councillor CASSIDY for this question, which was going to be mine. I'm just wondering, there's no sections on the drawings. Is this normal? Thank you. Did you say there's no sections? Yes. Sorry, no drawings with sections of the proposal. We do have those drawings, I just know, add them into the presentation. I do have them at the back of the presentation if you'd like to see them. I just, for efficiency, I wanted to kind of not dwell too much in terms of the minutiae of that, but they are available and they are all available in the planning portal as well. I can bring them up for you if you'd like to have a look at them. No, that's fine. I was on the planning portal, couldn't find them, so I'll look at them. Thank you. Before Councillor Beth else's second question, does anybody who hasn't asked a question and want to ask a question going going on, Councillor Beth? Yes, thanks. Obviously, we're getting a benefit here in the sense that there's no current footpath and we're getting two metres. But tapering down to 1.2, that doesn't comply with our guidance, is it? And I just wonder whether any discussions with the applicant were had about taking more space from their area. I appreciate Mr. Simpson said we wouldn't want to take space from the carriage way because of the turning circle there. Has any conversation been had about making the width more accessible? And in particular, can we add an informative or a condition that says, I suppose my question is that if the footpath were to continue on to the next street, is that land owned by the Council? Is it adopted land of the Council or is it a neighbouring applicant? Because presumably, if it's the Council, then it shouldn't be too difficult to provide a continuous footway that runs along there and over the access for the code. Convening, I think, I think we'll pull a number of points there. I think the first point is that we're getting an improvement by getting a footway and it doesn't currently exist. And in terms of the guidelines, it might not be compliant, but it's still an improvement. I wouldn't really be suggesting that you condition any permission to require them to look at that, given that there are some complexities with the footways and how the roads developed over time to the north and you have to take any context. So this is a fairly quiet lane, albeit it does serve the police stationers we've heard from Matthew. But it might be the case that we could look at that through an informative would be my suggestion rather than the condition because I wouldn't want to put a condition on a permission that you reminded the grant permission that the applicant ultimately couldn't comply with, if that makes sense. Can I just check, is there any requirement at all for this applicant to provide this footway or is this something that they've actually voluntarily done themselves? Matthew, I'm not sure if you have any, you can come in on that at all in terms of requirements. I don't think there's a requirement. I mean, what we would probably recommend in terms of traffic movements would be a rubbing strip. That would only be 300 millimetres and that's really to prevent or try to avoid damage to vehicles and particularly to the building. But I think that's probably the minimum that we would be looking for or recommending. But it's it's really in the gift of the developer in terms of could they could they widen that further. Yes, they could along the length of their site, but then obviously that impacts on to the open area to the rear. Any further questions before I go back to council booth? No council booth. Let's come here, it's a separate issue and it's not directly limited directly connected to this application before us, but a number of residents have raised concerns about the impact of the development and whether that would effectively close off this road, which I think is an important walking and cycling access to Taubank, primary school, and is obviously also used by the police. Now, I know we can't condition what they do during the construction. Is there only we could add, for example, as an informative to say that they will engage with Taubank, primary school on safe routes to schools and stuff like that? Yeah, I think if you know in response to that, any sort of closures to those during the construction of developments are matter for those authority, not the planning authority and such, so it probably would be something that we keep condition, but we could probably look at how informative to suggest them that they're trying to ease, not only with the roads authority, but also with other interested parties that are dealing with some of the safer routes to schools. Actually, it's given the fact that we appreciate situations where we've got schools ourselves, but people who are either walking or wheeling as opposed to other modes of transport. Any further questions on committee? If not, should we move on to discussion? Okay, I will kick this off then. Personally, I think this is a good application. When you look at the streetscape and you look at what it actually looks like, it is like in Congress to have this formation and then a drop down and so on, and it's quite good to have that completion, and I think it has been quite sensitively done. It is modern, obviously, but I think it does fit in. I'm actually very grateful that, again, the applicant has come forward with a positive point for the community, which is putting in a footpath. They obviously didn't, we weren't required to do it, and they went above and beyond. They actually took back space from what could have been their own building to provide this for the general public, and I think that's something that should be commended because we'd like to see, obviously, more applicants doing that, especially in, I would refer to sort of gap sites like this, where there's obviously an anomaly that's actually going to be really, really helpful for individuals. So, for one, I would be mindful that we obviously grant both applications because there's obviously two in front of us. The other thing I would say is I would hope that any application, especially in an urban area, there would be consideration to have people move around if roads are going to be closed off, and that is obviously something we should be looking at in general, so very good council booth, bringing it up, but I would hope we would be doing that anyway. Councillor MACK. Yeah, I mean, like you, this is, this is a, it's, you look at this on a street plan and you go, that site needs a building that completes that corner, because it's, that corner needs to be completed. I mean, I would be really, really concerned. I've seen the concerns from residents that, you know, they're going to lose access to a site and that the route will, whilst the building's being constructed, that is development in an urban setting. You know, we, and it's historic settings. We can't avoid that, and it is really frustrating, but there are requirements for people to put in the diversion routes and indicate where people should be going, but the worst thing to do would not to be, would be not to do this development, because we will gain a footpath, so there will be a short-term pain, but actually a very long-term gain for all those people using that route, because they'll have a much safer route down and through that. So, you know, I think this is, this is absolutely, you know, it's a good application, and it's, it's welcome to sit. Council meeting, followed by Councillor Gartner. Thank you. I agree with both previous comments about the inclusion of the new footpath, and I also wanted to say that, unlike the last application, I wholeheartedly welcome this, this in terms of the thought that's gone into it, the design and the completing that, that sort of, that space along the high street, so I'll be supporting it. Councillor Gartner. Yeah, I think I agree with the sentiment. This is a really good application, and I'm very pleased to see the retaining the retail onto Portabale, who high streets, it's a really good mixed use application, much in line with what was intended with City Plan 2030. So, fully support it. If we can get the pavement, that's an added bonus. I'm happy to accept the slight relaxation on that external open space, because it's quite difficult to develop these urban blocks, but they've done a good job with this application. Convener, so, very much supporting it, and there we are. Councillor CUNNINGHAM. Yeah, obviously, if you look at the objections and support comments, the numbers, this is clearly relatively controversial, but overall, I think it is a good development in what is effectively a brownfield site. I know there are current businesses on there, but they will be replaced like for like, when it comes to commercial premises. I would say that if he wants to press that, I would support Councillor Bous's informative, it is just an informative, and if we can make the footpaths link to it better, it's even better application. But beyond that, I would say, yeah, I think on balance, we should support this application. Councillor BOOF. Yeah, thanks. I mean, I don't disagree with what colleagues have said. I do think this is a good development in the sense that there's clearly a gap there that needs to be filled, and there was no discussion about the previous application that came forward and was refused, and this is clearly a significant improvement on that. I just do, I mean, on the issue of, is this a benevolent developer who's giving us some space for the footpath? I would argue that if they'd come forward with an application that didn't do that, it would be contrary to DES7. You know, layout design specifically talks about ensuring that people can walk and cycle around a site, and actually there's a specific issue for disabled people as well, which is picked up in DES7. I would have preferred that we came forward with an application that provided a full-width footpath along the whole depth of the site and linked in with the existing infrastructure. Now, if an informative will encourage the developer to consider that again, then I would strongly support that. I would not support this if we don't have those two informatives. One on the management of the impact on tower bank specifically, and secondly on asking them to look again at that footpath. But with those two, I'm happy to support it. I know it's unusual to come back in, but I would just like to be clear on this the fact that my understandable officers said that if we wanted to think that that would come out of the open space. So I just wanted to make sure that we were all clear on that. Councilor Gardner. Thank you. I just wanted to check the wording of the informative on the tower bank situation because I do appreciate it is a good route to the school, but there are other routes and I appreciate it's only an informative. But if in any way hinders realisation of this development, I would have concerns because it's a good development for Portobello. It's going to bring 11 houses to the table. It's going to keep or it's going to keep retail on the high streets. So I don't want to in any way preclude the development. So I don't know if Paul's got anything to set my mind at ease. Thank you. I've been busy typing away and altering things slightly. I think from the discussions I've taken, there was two particular points. One was to do with the cycle parking and the idea that we probably have a condition to cover that to say that notwithstanding what's shown in the approved plans of cycle parking is not approved. Details of the revised cycle parking is to provide five non-stands of cycle parking spaces to be submitted and approved by the Councillors planning authority cycle parking to be installed prior to the occupation of the development here by approved. So that was a condition. And I think in terms of the informers, if I put it in as one, it was really along the lines of that the applicant engages with the Council's active travel team/safer routes to school team to ensure that any disruption in terms of temporary road closures is minimized during the construction period on Braggis Tower Bank and investigates whether improved access can be provided in relation to equalities requirements. I'm happy with those convener if colleagues are as well. Thank you. Okay, committee, shall we move formal then? I'm proposing the fact that, because there's obviously two applications in front of us, I'm proposing the fact that we go up both with the condition and the informative as mentioned by officers. Is there any opposing opinion on that? Fantastic. Yep, so that's both applications granted and there's no other applications on the agenda today. Thank you very much everybody. See you in a couple of weeks. Thank you.