Transcript

• We're just setting up now.
• Okay, thanks.
• Okay.
• Okay, thank you.
• We'll start by reading the webcast notice. Welcome to the meeting of the planning and local review body, Panel 1. This meeting is being held in the Dean of World Courtroom, in the State Chambers, in the High Street in Edinburgh, and remotely by a bunch of teams. It will be filmed for live and subject broadcast via the council's website. The council is a data controller under the General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018. We broadcast council meetings to fulfil a public task obligation, to enable members of the public to observe the democratic process. Members are reminded that the cameras are activated by the same system and they must switch on microphones when speaking and off when fully speaking. For the benefit of the webcast, I'll do roll call of members. Councillor Cameron? Councillor Gardner?
• Morning, Claire.
• Morning, Councillor. Councillor Jones?
• Present.
• Morning, Councillor. Councillor Osler?
• Good morning.
• Morning, Councillor. I'm Councillor Stanislaus.
• Good morning.
• Morning, Councillor. First item, item 8.1, is appointment of a convener, who do you appoint?
• I'd like to nominate Councillor Osler.
• I'll second that.
• Councillor Osler appointed.
• All right. Next item, 2.1, Order of Business, a request of applicant item 6.7, which is set to serve as an agenda. Item 3.1, are there any Declarations of Interest? Item 4.1, previous amendment of 24th April, approved to the correct record. Item 5.1, Note of Procedure for Noting.
• Noted.
• Noted.
• First substantive item is 6.1, 1.2 Macleod Street, change of views to short and wet for 250 nights in the calendar year, in retrospect application number 23-ablique-04-102-ablique-FUL-STL, decision notice, support of handling and letters of representation and notice of review and supporting documents have been circulated. The applicant has requested that we proceed on the basis of an assessment of the new documents.
• Thank you, convenor. The application site is a one bedroom, third floor property at 102 Macleod Street in the south side of the city. The property shares its access to the street via a communal stair. This section of Macleod Street is predominantly residential. There are several shops and one cafe adjacent to the communal entrance door. Public transport links are easily accessible from the site and the site lies within the south side conservation area. There's no relevant site history and a description of the proposal is the application is for the retrospective change of use from residential to short-term let show generous for 250 nights in the calendar year. There's no internal or external physical changes proposed and the applicant advises that the short-term let use has been in operation since 2019. In terms of supporting information, there is an NPF for planning statement, a supporting appeal statement, drawings and photographs and I'll just take you through the presentation. You can see the communal door, sorry, this entrance from the street to the communal stair is highlighted there with the red star, so it's a third floor property and this is a view looking along Macleod Street towards the meadows and we've got an OS extract here just showing the situation of the property in context and we've also got the layout of the property here showing bedroom and shared kitchen and diner and we've got some images just showing the internal communal stairway and I think there's also another slide just showing some internal pictures of the property as well. The relevant policies and the report of handling are NPF 4 policy 1, policy 7 and policy 30, local development plan policy house 7 and local development plan transport planning policies TRA 2 and TRA 3. The listed building and conservation area guidance is relevant, the report handling notes that the guidance for businesses 2023 is also relevant, however a judicial review against the council ruled on the 1st of December 2023 that the April 2023 guidance for businesses should be reduced which means it must be disregarded in the consideration of this review. An updated guidance for businesses which reflects the judicial review decision was approved in January 2024 and the panel should have regard to this updated guidance. The key issues in the report of handling are the property shares its access to the street with other properties in the block via communal stair, it's located within a mixed use area with commercial retail uses on the ground floor and residential properties above, there is a moderate degree of activity in the immediate vicinity of the property at any time, the applicant has submitted a planning statement addressing NPF 4 policies, the statement asserts that the applicant undertakes regular property maintenance within the communal stair, they have clear guidance for short-term guests to ensure neighbours' amenities respected and there are no known complaints, the use of the property as a short-term would introduce an increased frequency of movement to the property and the proposed use would enable visitors to arrive and stay at the premises for a short period of time on a regular basis throughout the year in a manner dissimilar to that of permanent residence, there's no guarantee that guests would not come and go frequently throughout the day and night and transient visitors may have less regard for neighbours' amenity than individuals using the property as a principal home. The additional servicing that operating a property as a short-term requires compared to that of a residential use is also likely to result in an increase in disturbance, the potential for noise to be generated would be significantly different from the ambient background noise that neighbouring residents in the shared stair might reasonably expect, the proposals do not comply with NPF 4 policy 30E part 1 and LDPE policy house 7, NPF 4 policy 3 part 2 requires that where there is a loss of residential accommodation, this will only be supported where the loss is outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits. Paragraph 222 of the LDPE acknowledges that tourism is the biggest source of employment in Edinburgh, providing jobs for over 31,000 people, the applicant's planning statement addresses the loss of residential accommodation, it states that the application property provides excellent value for guests and the applicant always promotes local businesses, the statement further asserts that since the short-term let has been operating since 2019 there has been no loss of residential accommodation, the application property is a residential unit and the lawful use of the property is residential, the use of the property as a short-term let for 250 nights in the calendar year would result in a loss of residential accommodation which given the recognised need and demand for housing in Edinburgh is important to retain where appropriate, further it is important to recognise that the residential accommodation of the property contributes to the economy, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the loss of the residential accommodation is outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits, there are no issues with regard to transport matters and in terms of representations the application received 11 representations, 10 objections including one from the Southside Community Council and one letter in support. The notice of a request for review was received on the 25th of January 2024 and the statement of grounds of review states the apartment has been used as a short-term let for over four years and is managed in a highly professional manner ensuring the best possible experience for guests minimising the impact on the local area, the appellants are fully committed to maintaining the highest possible standards and are members of the Association of Scotland Self-Catchers, the property is let to a maximum of two guests at any one time, no complaints have been received from neighbours, to ensure this continues neighbours have been provided with emergency contact numbers which can be used to contact owners should any issues arise, the flat does not have its own entrance however the appellants spend a considerable amount of time and effort ensuring there is no disturbance to the neighbours and the stairwell and the entrance is maintained to an extremely high standard, there is much evidence to suggest that apartment blocks where there is an existence of one or more short-term let properties, the communal areas are maintained to a higher standard than apartments where there are only owner-occupiers or long-term lets, the area is very diverse in nature and is not particularly quiet due to its central location and its proximity to shops, cafes and bars, the carefully managed coming and going of well-briefed guests would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the surrounding area which is already very transient in nature, there is also a need for short-term accommodation for visitors as the level of hotel accommodation within Edinburgh is not sufficient to satisfy the needs of the tourist industry, on the occasions that it is used for Airbnb there is a demonstrable local economic benefit, there were no further letters of representation and in terms of procedural options available to the local review body, as you will be aware there was a judicial review decision issued on the 1st of December 2023, the court revoked the guidance for businesses on the basis that the council's interpretation of the law, section 26b of the 1997 act was flawed in applying the Edinburgh short-term let's control area to secondary short-term lets that had been operating prior to the control area coming into force, as this application was for planning permission in retrospect and the use was taken up in 2019 before the control area came into force, the application needs to consider whether a material change of use has occurred under section 26 of the 1997 act, this will be a matter of fact and degree assessment, the Moor versus the secretary of state for communities and local government 2012 court case identifies that relevant factors include the frequency of arrivals and departures, the character of the property in the area, the number of people staying and the likelihood of disturbance to neighbouring residents, in relation to the information provided by the applicant in seeking this review and in the report of handling, I note there is not a consideration of whether a material change of use has occurred, if the local review body considers it does not have sufficient information in respect of this, it is possible for additional information to be sought, the LRB need to decide if there is sufficient information to proceed to consideration and determination or whether one or a combination of the following procedures will be used, further written submissions, the holding of one or more heating sessions and/or an accompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land to which the review relates. If the LRB are of the mind that there is sufficient information to proceed, I would remind you that the LRB's determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, in particular you must consider if the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area, thank you. Thank you very much indeed, I don't believe we have any additional information do we? No Councillor, that's correct. So we've got no additional information to consider but does committee feel that we have sufficient information to determine this today, yes I'm seeing nods, excellent, questions from committee, Councillor Stanislaus. Just to clarify, from reading the papers it doesn't look like these 250 days are specified dates of the year, is that correct that it's just any 250 that they're asking for? Thank you Councillor, from the papers you're correct, there isn't any specification in terms of when the 250 days will take place. Any further questions from committee? No, okay, moving formal, I think that the officer has presented a pretty firm case, it's a shared stairwell and I see no reason to overturn the previous decision so I would be moving the fact that we uphold the officer's original determination. Any other comments from anybody? Application refused. Thank you. Next item 6.2, 128 Charterhall Road roof extension to existing mise-en-et dwelling, application number 23, 04233, FUL, decision notice, support of handling and letters of representation, notice of review and supporting documents and further reps have been circulated, the applicant has requested that you proceed on the basis of an assessment of the documents only. Thank you. Okay, thank you, so our next item is at Charterhall Road, the application refers to a two-storey mid-terrace property within a residential area, the terrace properties are two storeys with historic additions of two-storey outshots to the rear, the original roof is a dual-pitch roof which is pitched to the front and side elevations, i.e. those fronting a road and flat to the rear. The relevant history is in 2007, a conversion of attic to form accommodation extension of roof space and formation of a terrace was refused, this was subsequently appealed and that was also dismissed on the 3rd of October 2008. And May 2009, alterations to the first floor and a conversion of the attic to two bedrooms including dormer windows was granted. In March 2010, a non-material variation was approved to replace one of the dormers with a velox roof light, the proposal before us today is for the addition of a roof extension with an external roof terrace located on the flat roof section of the property and included in your papers as a design statement and a written supporting statement, I'll just take you through the drawings. So here we have Charterhall Road and the property is located here in the middle of a terrace. So this is the property in question, so we can see it's got pitched roof to the front and then the outshoots to the rear are all flat roofed in this terrace with the exception of this end one which has a pitch as it goes around the corner. So again just in roof form you can see the flat roofs of the entire terrace but the corner one has this pitch which obviously gives the impression of a pitched roof as you go around that corner. Just again from the different angles, so this is Charterhall Road here and this is as we come around the corner into Morris Road I think it is. So the proposal is located on this area here, so there's going to be an extension that comes out at this point onto the flat roof of this property and again just from a further way view from the rear of the property the extension is located here with a roof terrace on the remainder of this section of the flat roof. In plan form this is as existing, so we can see that the dormer and the Velux on the rear at the moment and then what's proposed is this extension coming out from where the Velux roof light is and then it goes onto a small decked area on the flat roof, so the flat roof then extends a little bit further on beyond that and there's some 3D visuals which help to show that as well. So again just in the plan form sections and elevations we've got as existing, it's not that easy to see it here but this is the extension coming out and then in section form so this is as existing and as proposed with the extension coming out at this point onto the flat roof and again just in section form this is the extension as proposed coming out from that flat roof, sorry from the pitched roof onto the flat roof and here it just gives a bit more visual information as to how that works. So at present there's a Velux roof light on the roof here and then obviously this extension is then being added to the roof and a small decked area is also proposed. So again as existing and then this photo montage as proposed. So maybe just a couple more, here we go. So as existing on your left hand and then as proposed on the right. The report of handling notes that the relevant policies are MPF Policy 1, MPF 4 Policy 14(c) in design and quality in place, MPF 4 Policy 16(g) quality homes, LDP Policies DES 1 and LDP Policy DES 12 alterations and extensions. We've also got the guidance for householders and there was one objection received to the application and the property, sorry the key issues in the report of handling are the property has a distinctive character and contributes to the wider neighbourhood character. While alterations to the pitch roof can be typical of a residential property, the proposal to extend the roof over the flat roof section of a mid-terrace dwelling would be wholly uncharacteristic and incompatible with the design of the existing building. Although smaller than the previously refused 2007 application, the principle of development would remain unacceptable and incompatible with the host building. The original design of the terrace intended for a pitch roof only on the end terrace fronting Morris Place. This original aspect does not form a precedent to extend over the flat roof. The rear elevation of the terrace is wholly visible particularly due to the topography which would allow a clear line of sight from the corner of Morris Place and Ladysmith Road to the proposed roof extension and roof terrace. The inappropriate design would be clearly visible from the public realm and harmful to the character of the surrounding area. The guidance for householders states that the design of a roof extension should match the existing roof. The proposal fails to comply with the guidance as the extension would introduce a new pitched roof form and which does not follow any characteristics of the original host building. The proposal does not draw upon any positive characteristics of the host dwelling or the surrounding neighbourhood and fails to reinforce the distinctive local architectural style and sense of place benefited by the original traditional design. The introduction of a roof terrace on the second floor would in effect create a third storey introducing an outdoor space on the roof which is incongruous feature for the building. Both the visual occupation of the roof and the subsequent residential noise of this occupation would be uncharacteristic to the wider area and alongside the roof extension this would contribute towards a cumulative harmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. There are no issues with regards to overshadowing and the loss of daylight and the proposal is more than 18 metres from opposing windows in terms of privacy. With respect to overlooking, the proposal would introduce a viewing platform with unrestricted views to the surrounding neighbours gardens. While some screening may be afforded by the positioning of the terrace at the rear elevation and abutting a chimney, this does not mitigate the level of unreasonable overlooking afforded to the proposal. The notice of grounds of review was received on the 1st of February 24th and the statement of grounds of review states, "The reasons for refusal are unsubstantiated and do not take cognizance of the design statement. The property is a mid terrace upper villa flat with a Victorian style terrace with pitched roofs to the north and flat metaled roofs to the south. The elevation facing the public street is highly ordered, formal and consistent in its architecture. The proposal has no impact on this elevation. The rear elevation does not have any formality or strong architectural ordering and is unintentionally visible. The proposed extension is less than 5% of the overall volume of the building. It's suggested that references to scale and size as being inappropriate are not substantiated. The proposed materials match the existing building. All gardens behind the terrace are overlooked by first floor level windows and in the case of this application building, they are overlooked to a minor degree from the accommodation at attic level. The proposed extension is set back from the rear roof edge which means that the first 10 metres or so of the garden ground south of the rear facade is not visible from standing eye level within the extension. The nearest fenestration and other properties is more than 70 metres in distance. There is no detrimental effect on the character of the home, it remains a maisonette. The area to the south is made up of different building types, buildings, characters, street forms, materials and building design types. This modest extension will not impact on the wider character of the area. The proposal will have a neutral impact in terms of the six qualities of successful places. We had one further letter of representation and there's also a response from the agent to that letter. So the procedures open to the local review body are, if the LRB decide there is sufficient information to proceed to consideration and determination, you must use one or a combination of the following procedures, further written submissions, the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or an accompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land to which the review relates. The requirements for determining the case are, if the LRB are of the mind that there is sufficient information to proceed, I would remind you that the LRB's determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Thank you. >> Thank you very much indeed, committee. Again, I know we have some additional information that's been provided to us from the applicant, but in terms of detail being discussed, do we have any additional information? >> There's no new information. >> So, committee, do we have sufficient information to determine this application today? I'm seeing nods. Questions from committee? Councillor Jones. >> Thank you, Kavina, thank you for the report, and I just want clarification with regards to the roof extension. Am I right in thinking that the proposed roof extension cannot be seen from the front elevation, from the front of the house or from the street? >> Thank you, Councillor. Yes, that's correct. From the front elevation, it remains the same. >> Councillor Gardner. >> Thank you, Kavina. My question is, is the property listed? >> No, the property is not listed. >> Any further questions from committee? No further questions from committee? Any discussion? Councillor Sumner. >> Yes. For me, I agree with the officer's decision here, mostly because of this roof decking, which means people will be out on the roof. The buildings in this row in particular are pretty uniform. As far as I can see, none of them have that. Nobody moved in, expecting their neighbours to be having people up on the roof and outside. Therefore, I think it is against the character of the area. Sometimes I have argued for roof extensions against officer's recommendations, but on this occasion, I'm not going to. I think the roof decking is too far, and it is against the character of the area. >> Councillor Gardner. >> Yes, on this one, I disagree with Councillor Standiforth. I'm looking at the aerial photographs, and there seems to be a single-storey, mid-century property in the garden. On the other side of Charitable Road, there is 1970s flats, but in this particular row, one of the properties has dormers on the front. There is no change to the front of this property through this application. Some of the rear extensions are painted white or have white render, so in amongst all that, I don't think you will really notice the extension particularly, and it is not really visible from the main elevation on Charitable Road. The one concern I had would be the roof terrace, whether that can be emitted or not. I will take genius advice, but personally, I don't have a problem with this extension. It is even in-slate, and you would hardly notice it. Thank you. >> So, Councillor, just to clarify what you are asking, you want to ask the officers whether we could have a mixed decision? Yeah, I think that would be useful. >> In this instance, I think the extension as proposed is obviously providing a door onto the roof terrace, and therefore, the design of the actual extension is very much integral to the roof terrace or vice versa, the roof terrace is very much integral to the extension to the roof, and therefore, I think it would not be acceptable to omit one because we are still going to have an access from this extension out onto the roof terrace or onto the roof, and therefore, I would suggest a mixed decision is not acceptable. >> Okay. Is there any further comment from committee? No? Moving formal, I agree with Councillor Sunniforth, so I will be proposing that we uphold the officer's decision. Again, I have enormous sympathy if the applicant obviously wants to improve an existing accommodation, and I can totally understand why it looks like a fabulous place to live and so on, but I think the impact on the surrounding is incongruous, so I would be suggesting the fact that we stick with the officer's decision, which I think is solid in this case, so I would be moving the officer's decision. >> Yes, I will second you for all the reasons you have explained. >> Councillor Gotto? >> Yes, I would like to move approval, I forgot the seconder. >> No seconder on that one, so Councillor Gotto, would you like to have your dissent noted? >> Yes, and I would also encourage that, I think we will get a free application within the year to come forward without the roof terrace, because that seems to be part of the controversy for other members of the committee, but also that would go back to the planning department for consideration, so I would encourage them to go forward with a new application without the roof terrace. Thank you. >> Application refused. >> Next item, 6.3, 15, Coalbridge, Millside, Edinburgh, permission to obtain a change of use for residential for short-term letting, in retrospect, application number 23-ablique-04-490-2-ablique-FULSTL, decision notice, support of handling, and letters of representation, and notice of review, as when documents have been circulated. applicant has requested that you proceed on the basis of an assessment of the documents only. Thank you. >> Thank you. The application site is a first-floor, two-bedroom flat located off Coalbridge Millside, between the water of Leith and Coalbridge Avenue. The property shares its access to the street with other properties via a communal stairway and front car parking area. Coalbridge Millside is of predominantly residential character, featuring a low degree of activity at any time. Bus and train links are accessible from the site, and the site is within the Coalbridge and Westercoats conservation area. In terms of relevant site history, there's an enforcement inquiry into the unauthorised use of the property for short-term letting, and that's currently ongoing. The description of the proposal, the application is for the retrospective change of use from residential to short-term let. There's no internal or external changes proposed, and the short-term let use commenced in February 2023. In terms of supporting information, there is a covering letter, additional circumstances statement, photograph, and a supporting appeal statement. I'll just take you through the presentation. You can see the property highlighted here. The windows of the property are shown with the red star, and you can see the entrance to the communal stair. And this is just a view of the property from the other side of Coalbridge Millside, looking back at it. And this is the OS plan showing it in context, so you can see it in context of the water of Leith and its proximity to surrounding roads. And then we have a layout of the property showing living room, dining room, kitchen, principal bedroom, and second bedroom. Thank you. The relevant policies in the report of handling are NPF 4 policies 1 and policy 30, local development plan policy house 7, and transport planning policies TRA 2 and TRA 3. In terms of non-statuary guidelines, the Edinburgh design guidance is relevant, as is the guidance for businesses. The report of handling notes that the guidance for businesses 2023 is relevant, however a judicial review against the council ruled on 1 December 2023 that the April 2023 guidance for businesses should be reduced, which means it must be disregarded in the consideration of this review. An updated guidance for businesses which reflects the judicial review decision was approved in January 2024, and the panel should have regard to this updated guidance. There were three objections received to the application, and the key issues in the report of handling are the use of the property as a short-term let would result in an increased frequency of movement to the property and into the shared stairwell, representing a pattern of movement that would be dissimilar to that of permanent residents. A transient visitor may have less regard for neighbour's amenity than individuals using the property as a principal home. There may also be an impact to community cohesion and resident safety. It is recognised that the amenity impacts of the application are to a degree mitigated as there is a high likelihood that the additional servicing of the property is going to be conducted during the daytime. On balance, the proposed change of use would increase the level of ambient background noise beyond that of what might be reasonably expected by neighbouring residents and have a significant detrimental effect on the living conditions and amenity of nearby residents. The proposal does not comply with NPF 4 Policy 30E Part 1 and LDP Policy House 7. NPF 4 Policy 30E Part 2 requires that where there is a loss of residential accommodation, this will only be supported where there is a loss, where the loss is outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits. Paragraph 220 of the Local Development Plan acknowledges that tourism is one of the biggest sources of employment in Edinburgh, providing jobs for over 31,000 people. The use of the property by guests and the required maintenance and upkeep of the short-term let properties are likely to result in a level of job creation and spend within the economy, which can be classed as having an economic benefit. It is important to recognise that having the property within residential use also contributes to the economy using local services and fulfilling employment opportunities across the city. Long-term residents can also make consistent and long-term contributions to the local community. The proposed change of use would result in a loss of residential accommodation, which, as there is a recognised need and demand for housing in Edinburgh, is critical to retain the existing supply where appropriate. It has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the loss of the residential accommodation is outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits. There are no issues with regard to transport matters. The notice of a request for review was received on 7 February 2024, and the statement of grounds for review states, with regards to the enforcement inquiry, the applicant visited the property in February 2023 and 17 August 2023. During the time between these visits, the applicant had friends and family from all over the world stay at their property. It was on the applicant's return to the property in August 2023 that they received correspondence from the council regarding the enforcement inquiry. During the applicant's stay in August 2023, they were invited by the Association of Scotland self-caterers to join them as a member in order to defend all short-term rules and regulations. However, the applicant intends to work with the council and has sought to do what is necessary to ensure they are complying with all rules and regulations, and to do this in collaboration with the council. The three contributors who commented on the proposal are not located within the shared stairwell. Murrayfield Stadium is within five minutes walking distance from the property, offering guests, tourists, spectators, rugby fans, music festival fans, et cetera, the opportunity to stay nearby and within walking distance to the venue, thereby reducing carbon emissions that would be used by having to take transport to and from the venue. Less than one kilometre from the property is a large Britannia hotel, which has 223 rooms, and there are other smaller hotels within the area. Edinburgh is a tourist destination for tourists from all over the world, and the property will benefit tourism into Edinburgh. The stairwell is carpeted and locked and covered, and is not shared by persons who have objected to the proposal, and nor do they have the right or accessibility to the shared stairwell. If the property is rented out as a short-term let, the applicant will be fortunate to have three sets of guests per month at three persons at two days each, with a total of six days. This will be far less than having three tenants for 30 to 31 days per month, and the noise and negative amenity impacts, particularly at night, as far outweighed with a short-term let at approximately six days or nights versus 30 to 31 days of permanent tenants. A local Edinburgh resident assists with the servicing of the property, as well as the communal stairway. Following research on rightmove.co.uk for long-term flat rentals around the area, the applicant found 28 apartments that were available at the price range. There is a fair supply of accommodation within the area, and no shortage of residential accommodation. There will be no loss of residential accommodation, as it will not be renting out long-term in the future, regardless of the decision. To state that the short-term let of this small two-bedroom unit will have a material detrimental effect on the living conditions and amenity of nearby residents is an over-exaggerated and unacceptable reason to refuse my request to use my human rights to rent out a two-bedroom flat to persons whom I personally regulate and control. There were no further letters of representation, and in terms of the procedural options available to the local review body, as you will be aware, there was a judicial review decision issued on the 1st of December, 2023. The court revoked the guidance for businesses on the basis of the council's interpretation of the law, section 26(b) of the 1997 act was flawed in applying the Edinburgh short-term let's control area to secondary short-term let's that had been operating prior to the control area coming into force. As this application is for planning permission in retrospect, but the use began in February 2023 after the short-term let control area came into force, section 26(b)(2) of the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 is applicable. This states in a short-term let control area, the use of a dwelling house for the purpose of providing short-term let's is deemed to involve a material change of use of the dwelling house. The LRB needs to decide if there is sufficient information to proceed to consideration and determination for whether one or a combination of the following procedures will be used for the written submissions, the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or unaccompanied inspection of the land to which the review relates. If the LRB are of the mind that there is sufficient information to proceed, I would remind you that the LRB's determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In particular, you must consider if the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Just checking, we don't have any additional information that's been provided. No, Councillor. There's no additional information. Do we have sufficient information to determine this case today? I see nods. OK. Councillor Jones. Thank you, Camille, and thank you for the report. I'm really struggling to understand those figures that you presented to us. Can you just summarise, I'm not sure what the applicant was actually trying to say with those figures. Can you just summarise very briefly what the point is that they were making? Certainly, Councillor, a summary of it is the applicant is making the point that having three tenants for 30 to 31 days, I think, in terms of full-time basis, if they were to let out, would result in more noise and negative immunity impacts than if it was let out for approximately six days or nights a month for short-term uses. Just for clarification, there's no condition on this. They are just applying for a change of use, so it could be let 365 days in the year. Thank you, Councillor. That is correct. The description of development is permission to obtain a change of use from residential for short-term letting in retrospect. And to confirm they haven't asked for a condition of a certain number of nights, they've just asked for a change of use. That is correct. Any further questions from committee? No further questions from committee? Who would like to open up to discussion? Councillor Jones. Thank you, convenor. I think this is relatively clear-cut, both in respect of amenity and in respect to the loss of residential accommodation, so unfortunately, I can't agree with the applicant's arguments, and therefore, I would be supporting the officer's recommendation here. Anybody else have a view? No? Okay. So moving formal. Obviously, Councillor Jones has suggested we uphold the officer's decision. Does anybody have a disagreement with that? No? Okay. So agreement, the fact that we are upholding the officer's decision. Next item, 6.49, Ure Place Lane, change of use of drawing class 9 for short-term let, use suited generis for a maximum of 10 months in the calendar year in retrospect, application number 23-ablique-03909-ablique FULSTL, decision notice, support of handling and letters of representation, notice of a view, answer when documents have been circulated, the applicant has requested that the view proceed on the basis of an assessment of the view documents and holding one or more hearing sessions on specific matters. Thanks for coming up. Thank you. So our next item is at 9 Ure Place Lane. The application site is a three-storey, two-bedroom, mew-style townhouse. The property has its own main door entrance and there is no shared or private amenity space. The surrounding area is a mix of residential and commercial. At the west end of the lane is the west end police station and car park. Beside the police station on the north side are authorized short-term lets. Eastwards is the rear of the hub by Premier Inn Hotel and the associated car park. There's one office on the north side of the lane and on the south side of the lane there is mainly residential units. Two units along from the application property at number 13 is another authorized short-term let unit. The remaining three townhouses of similar style to the application property are in residential use. Public transport can be reached within a five-minute walk and the application site lies within the west end conservation area. So there's no specific history for this actual unit itself but we have got history for the adjoining properties. So in 2021, short-term let use was granted at number 13 Ure Place Lane and we also had a change of use granted on appeal in 2021 at 4A Ure Place Lane and the same again at flat 3, 4 Ure Place Lane and again at flat 2, 4 Ure Place Lane and again at flat 1, 4 Ure Place Lane. This application was actually part of a demolition of existing buildings and erect four mews houses which was granted in 2000. The description of the proposal is the application seeks permission to change use of the dwelling house from a short-term let for a use of maximum 10 months in the calendar year. The property has been used as a short-term let since the 10th of September 2022. We have a planning statement and also some photographs from the applicant. So just to go back I'll show you the location plan. So it sits in this row of four properties at the moment and we can see we've got the police station. There's also a hotel and other uses in this surrounding area. So this is the front of the property as you can see set within a row of four properties of similar design. We've then got the back of the Premier Inn Hotel which you view from the front door of this property so across the street from it and we've got some views up and down looking west and east down to a place lane. So it's a three-story property with two bedrooms and this is the layout and I'll just take you back. So the report of handling notes that MPF 4 policies 1, 7 and 30 are applicable and also LDP policy house 7 and 2 and 3. We've also got the listed building and conservation area guidance and the report of handling notes that the guidance for businesses 2023 is also relevant however a judicial review against the council ruled on the 1st of December 23 that the April 2023 guidance for businesses should be reduced which means it must be disregarded in consideration of this review. An updated guidance for businesses which reflects the judicial review decision was approved in January 24 and the panel should have a regard to this updated guidance. There was no letters of representation and the key issues in the report of handling are the property is one of four similar townhouses located on the south side and at the midpoint of Duer Place Lane. It has its own main door entrance to the street. The applicant submitted a planning statement which states that there is a mix of use in the area and a lot of activity where properties are largely non-residential. The statement continues that the property is well managed, is not spacious enough for large gatherings and has no communal facilities or external areas. The applicant states that there have been no complaints. The residential properties within Duer Place Lane will already be used to significant levels of background noise from the other non-residential uses and short term uses within this lane. Consequently the change of use of the application property to a short term let will cause no further deterioration in terms of residential amenity. However the authorised use is residential and the proposal would result in the loss of residential accommodation. There is a recognised need and demand for housing in Edinburgh therefore it's important to retain the existing supply where appropriate. The applicant's planning statement states that the short term let accommodation fees generate income for local businesses and provide work for local cleaning and maintenance staff. It states that the short term let guests will visit local attractions, bars, restaurants and shops and that the use of the property generally by short term let guests will have a direct and positive benefit for the city's economy. However it's also important to recognise that having the property within residential use also contributes to the economy using local services and fulfilling employment opportunities across the city. Long term residents can also make consistent and long term contributions to the local community. In this instance it's not been sufficiently demonstrated that the loss of residential accommodation is outweighed by local economic benefits and as such the proposal does not comply with MPF 430E part 2. There are no issues with regards to transport matters. The notice of request for review was received on the 7th of February 2024 and the statement of grounds of review states we believe this should have been a certificate of lawfulness due to the incorrect advice from CEC following the outcome of the judicial review. We wish to convert this application to a certificate of lawfulness. We dispute the finding that there has been a loss of residential accommodation. This property is used by a family and only as a short term let when it's not. If not a short term let it would be unused during this time and displace guests who may use other potential residential accommodation. The property has been let on a frequent basis with no issues or complaints. The property is in a highly sustainable location and accessible to a variety of modes of transport. One of the principle benefits of a short term let in contributing to the city's tourism offer by offering specialist accommodation for visitors as an alternative to hotels and other conventional types of accommodation which may not be suitable for many visitors. Due recognition should be given to the important contribution to the tourism sector that will be made by the limited number of remaining short term lets that comply with planning and licensing regulations including the house at 9 Dewar Place Lane. The area is a mixed use and there will be no harm to residential amenity. The short term let house is relatively small with 105 square meter living floor area and only two bedrooms. This small size makes it unlikely that guests would generate noise sufficient to cause disturbance. It has its own main door and no communal spaces. The short term let accommodation fees generate income for local businesses and provide work for local cleaning and maintenance staff and guests will use local attractions. The use will have a direct and positive benefit for the city's economy. Between two and six months of the year the property will be used as a non short term let dwelling place for family visits. If the short term let is refused the property will remain empty so there's no loss of residential accommodation. There was no further letters of representation so the procedural options available to the local review body are as you will be aware there was a judicial review decision on the 1st of December 2023. The court revoked the guidance for businesses 2023 on the basis that CEC's interpretation of the law section 26 B of the 1997 act was flawed in applying the Edinburgh short term let's control area to secondary short term let's that had been operating prior to the control area coming into force. As this application was for planning permission in retrospect but the use began on the 10th of September after the short term let control area came into force on the 5th of September 2022 section 26 B of the town and country planning act 1997 as applicable. This states in a short term let control area the use of a dwelling house for the purpose of providing short term let's is deemed to involve a material change of use to dwelling house, sorry wrong dwelling house. Therefore the LRB need to decide if there is sufficient information to proceed to consideration and determination or whether one of or a combination of the following procedures will be used. Further written submissions, the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or an accompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land to which the review relates. The requirements for determining the case are if the LRB are of the mind there is sufficient information to proceed, I would remind you that the LRB's determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In particular you must consider if the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Thank you. >> Thank you. I don't believe we have additional information, no, committee do we have sufficient information to -- I should say panel on committee, sorry -- I see nods. I'm just going to go first. I just think as this is quite an unusual one and just clarification that what we're looking at here is NPF 432 and I just wanted to read it out just so we're very, very clear of exactly what it is that we're being asked to look at here. The loss of residential accommodation where such a loss is not outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefit. Getting nods. Yes? >> Yes, that's the case here. So the reasons for refusal in this instance didn't refer to issues of amenity given the mixed use area and it purely came down to the loss of residential property and whether this is outweighed by economic benefits. >> Councillor Jones. >> Thank you, convener, thank you for the report. Can you again -- could you go back, sorry, to the front elevation and can you just tell me are the properties either side or let or all sort of on short-term lets? >> Bear with me, I'll just get up the image that you're looking for. So in the report of handling, it was noted that this is one of four properties that were built out. So they got consent for residential use in 2000 and the report of handling notes that the other three units in this block are actually in residential use. So this is the only short-term let within that block of four. So the properties that you can see on either side of it are residential. >> Could you also just confirm exactly when the short-term let control area came into force? >> The short-term let control area came into force on the 5th of September, 2022. >> Which is post the decisions that were granted on appeal for the other -- the other properties within the area. >> Yes, that's correct. The other properties predominantly at number 4 were all granted on appeal in 2021. >> Just again, clarification on where those let properties are, have we got an image to show that, please, in the street? >> Bear with me, I'll see if I can work that out for you from the location plan. So the property in question is number 9, and this looks like it's a higher number. So across the road here, that looks like number 4, and then -- and then there was also the rear of the hotel, and number 13 was also a short-term, an authorised short-term, and that's located here. You see where the cursor is? >> Councillor Gardner? >> Yes, thank you. I think you said, I just wanted to confirm that this became operational as a short-term let after the control area came into force, is that correct? >> Yes, Councillor, that's correct, it came into operation on the 10th of September, which is obviously after the short-term let control area came into force on the 5th of September. >> So -- and I think -- okay, that's fine, I'll save my thoughts for later. Any further questions from committee? No? Moving on to discussion, Councillor Gardner, did you want to kick it off? >> Yeah, I think it was where you were going, this is different to the other ones because it needs to be considered under a different policy, whereas other ones were operational before the short-term let control area was operational, this one's after, so it's the NDF4 policy that we need to consider in this instance, and I think it is a loss of housing. I appreciate what the current owner is saying, that they may not -- that it makes no difference to them, but nonetheless, if we get granted a short-term let audit, it could be sold and then would be lost to housing because the consent, as we often say, goes with the property rather than the owner, so therefore, I think we have to refuse this one. Thank you. >> Councillor Sandefur? >> Yes, something that puzzles me a little bit about the applicant's appeal here is that their appeal is saying this is mostly used by a family and only occasionally as a short-term let, but the application we have in front of us is for a maximum of 10 months. Now, I would say if you're using a property as a short-term let for 10 months, it's a short-term let. Those two months could be in the sort of worst seasons, probably January, February, and the rest of it, it's used as a short-term let, so that is a definite loss of residential property, which does conflict somewhat, I think, with what the applicant's saying in the appeal, but we have to judge on the planning application before us, and on the planning application before us, it's a loss of residential property, so I would uphold the officer's recommendation. >> Councillor James? >> I take a different view because I think there is an argument here for the fact that the loss of residential accommodation is outweighed by the economic benefits. If you look at the street as a whole, and there's a hotel there, it's obviously attracting a lot of visitors, and you could say in terms of aggregate, the aggregate effect is that it is actually beneficial to the economy, so I take a different view. >> Okay. I have sympathy with the applicant, but I think the policy is pretty clear. It's demonstrable local economic benefit. In the documentation we have in front of us, I don't see anything that's actually demonstrable. That is a point, so I understand the fact that, and along with what Councillor Staniforth has just said as well, is that if the argument for this is the fact that it is on a family benefit basis, that this is mainly going to be used, and only used occasionally for short-term lets, it does seem like in Congress, again, that there's an application for 10 months, because that does very much sway it towards more of a commercial element, rather than a residential element, so again, I think this is slightly sort of, I think that they need to have a rethink about how and why they want to present a case for a short-term let, and I don't think that the case in front of us is actually presented in a way that it could be, that there would be information here to sway an opinion that's, and a judgment that's already happened, and as that's our point is that we're looking at the decision that's already been made to see whether there is any information that's been presented to us that actually sort of goes against the decision that's been made, and for me, I don't think there is actually any information put in front of us today that actually goes against what the officer has already stated, so I will be upholding the officer's decision in this case. Okay, so moving formal, Councillor Jones, are you wishing to move something separate? I am, but I don't think I'm going to get a seconder. Okay, so I will be moving the fact that we uphold the officer's decision, Councillor Sandefur wants to second? Yeah, I'll second that. Yes, I move that we uphold the applicants here in this instance. Do you have a seconder? I'm obviously looking at Councillor Gardiner because he's the only individual left. I don't second that, thank you. Okay, would you like your dissent recorded, Councillor Jones? Thank you, convener, yes, please. Application refused. Thanks, item 6.5.43, Jamaica Street, South Lane, Edinburgh. Change of use to short-term let. Proposal as retrospective property has been used for short-term let since 20 June
• Application number 23, oblique 04061, oblique FULSTL. This is notice of support of handling and letters of representation. Notice of review and supporting documents have been circulated. The applicant has requested that the review proceed in the basis of assessment of the documents and a site inspection. Thank you, convener. Thank you, the application site is a mid-terrace, two-storey, one-bedroom property located on the southern side of Jamaica Street, South Lane. The property has its own access to the street. It's part of a category A listed building within the Newtown Conservation Area and the Edinburgh World Heritage Site. Public transport links are moderately accessible from the site. In terms of relevant site history, in December 2016, planning permission was granted for the park change of use from garage and store together with alterations to form an apartment. There was also a list of building consent granted in December 2016, which was to alter the Mews garage and storage to form an apartment. In terms of the description of the proposal, the application is for the retrospective change of use from residential to short-term let and the short-term let use commenced in June 2019. There's no internal or external physical changes proposed. In terms of supporting information, we have drawings and a supporting appeal statement. I'll take you through the presentation. So we can see the property here. That's it highlighted there with the cursor looking along Jamaica Street, South Lane. You can see the property adjacent is also a lock-up garage. And then there's residential properties further along. But I'll go into that in a bit more detail. And if you follow the road round to the right, there is a substation at the end of that image. And the road then takes you round to Cays Bar. And this is an image of the property from the rear from the garden of the property on Heriot Row. And here we've got the OS extract, which shows the property in context. So you can see it there on the south side of Jamaica Street, South Lane. You can see Jamaica Street Mews opposite it. We've got a mixture of lock-up garages, the substation and other residential properties on the south side of the lane. And we have got the layout here. So we can see the garages below and the private access up to the upper floor. And we can see the studio layout with the single bedroom and shared a kitchen, living facilities, and bathroom. Thank you. The relevant policies in the report of handling are NPF 4 policies 1, 7, and 30, local development plans policies house 7, and transport planning policies tria 2 and tria 3. In terms of the non-statuary guidance, we've got the list of buildings and conservation area guidance, the Edinburgh design guidance. The report of handling notes that the guidance for businesses 2023 is also relevant. However, a judicial review against the council ruled on the 1st of December, 2023, that the April, 2023 guidance for businesses should be reduced, which means it must be disregarded in the consideration of this review. An updated guidance for businesses, which reflects the judicial review decision was approved in January, 2024, and the panel should have regard to this updated guidance. In terms of representations, there were none received to the application. There was consultation with Historic Environment Scotland. And the key issues in the report of handling are the application property has its own main door access and is located within an area of predominantly residential character that features a low degree of activity during the day and night. The use of the property as a short-term let would result in increased frequency of movement to the property representing a pattern of movement that would be dissimilar to that of permanent residents. A transient visitor may also have less regard for neighbours' amenity than individuals using the property as a principal home, which results in negative amenity impacts, particularly at night. It is recognised that the amenity impacts of the application are in part mitigated, as the property has its own main door access to the street, is of a one bedroom size, and there is a high likelihood that the additional servicing of the property, necessitated by its change of use, would be conducted during the daytime. On balance, the proposed change of use would increase the level of ambient background noise beyond what might be reasonably expected by neighbouring residents and have a significant detrimental effect on the living conditions and amenity of nearby residents. MPF 4 Policy 30E Part 2 requires that where there is a loss of residential accommodation, this will only be supported where the loss is outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits. Paragift 220 of the LDP acknowledges that tourism is the biggest source of employment in Edinburgh, but it is important to recognise that having the property within residential use also contributes to the economy using local services and fulfilling employment opportunities across the city. Long-term residents can also make consistent and long-term contributions to the local community. The proposed change of use would result in a loss of residential accommodation, which, as there is a recognised need and demand for housing in Edinburgh, is important to retain the existing supply where appropriate. In this instance, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the loss of the residential accommodation is outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits. As such, the proposal does not comply with MPF 4 Policy 30E Part 2. The notice of a request for review was received on 7 February 2024. The statement of grounds for review states in terms of the property and site history, planning permission and listed building consent were granted in 2016 to alter the property and in part change the use from garage and storage together with alterations to form the apartment. Permitted works were carried out between 2016 and 2019. In June 2019, the property began being used to provide short-term let accommodation and has been used as such ever since. The property has never been used for residential. In terms of the neighbourhood, the applicant has carried out an analysis of properties within a radius of 20 to 30 metres. This analysis indicates a mixed use area. There are residential properties, commercial use and unoccupied properties forming part of Heriot Row houses. The needed properties can be summarised as going west there are along Jamaica Street South Lane. There are two garages with stores above, then three residential properties, then an electricity substation. Beyond this is Ks Bar at 39 Jamaica Street West. On Jamaica Street South Lane going east, there is the garage underneath. There's two lock-ups with stores above, two residential properties and then a block of three lock-up garages. On the north side of Jamaica Street South Lane is the rear of the residential properties that Jamaicans use. To the south is the rear garden of 35 Heriot Row, but it's a long garden in excess of 20 metres. Ks Bar at 39 Jamaica Street West means that Jamaica Street South Lane has passing football. There is also noise generated from the public house itself, taxis and bottle disposal and departing customers. There were no objections received to the planning application. In terms of the property itself, the property has its own entrance to the street. There is no occupied residential property bounding the application property. It's a studio size with a wooden double bed and is only suitable for occupancy by a single person or a couple. Bookings, cleaning and the provision of bed lending are all handled by a professional agency. There haven't been any complaints from any neighbours since the property began use as a short-term let in 2019. In terms of impact on residential amenity, there were no objections to the application. With regards to ambient noise level, the size of property and the pattern of use during the day, the property is situated in an area that experiences a level of ambient noise typical to that of a city centre street with a busy public house, restaurants and other activities generating uses in its immediate environment. In the evening and night time, the level of background noise is still elevated compared to purely residential areas due to the nearby presence of Gays Bar. People smoking outside the premises and customers arriving and departing either on foot or via taxi all contribute to this. The apartment is accessed from a secure main door directly onto Jamaica Street South Lane with no access to the rear garden. The size and layout of the apartment and the type of guests it's best suited to significantly reduces the risk of disturbance arising from antisocial behaviour. In terms of the nature and character of the services provided, servicing and safety checks are all undertaken during daylight hours and maintenance work is carried out once a year. In terms of neighbour support, the owner is written to occupiers and owners of the nearest properties to ascertain their feelings. These are summarised in section six of the supporting statement and no concerns were raised by any recipient. In terms of the loss of residential property, the property hasn't been used as residential so there is no loss of residential. In terms of the economic case, a takeable of occupancy rates for the property from 2019 to 2023 are included and it outlines 280 bookings implying between 280 and 500 visitors to the local economy who have stayed since the operation commenced in 2019. The number of visitors staying for this number of nights makes a real contribution to the local economy. There were no further formal letters of representation and in terms of the procedural options available to the local review body, as you will be aware, there was a judicial review decision issued on the 1st of December 2023. The court revoked the guidance for businesses on the basis that the council's interpretation of the law section 26 B of the 1997 Act was flawed in applying the Edinburgh short-term let's control area to secondary short-term let's that had been operating prior to the control area coming into force. As this application was for planning permission in retrospect and the use taken up in June 2019 before the control area came into force, the application needs to consider whether a material change of use has occurred under section 26 of the 1997 Act. This will be a matter of fact and degree assessment. The moor versus the secretary of state for communities and local government 2012 court case identifies that relevant factors include the frequency of arrivals and departures, the character of the property in the area, the number of people staying and the likelihood of disturbance to neighbouring residents. In relation to the information provided by the applicant in seeking this review and in the report of handling, I note there is not a consideration of whether a material change of use has occurred. If the local review body considers it does not have sufficient information in respect of this, it is possible for additional information to be sought. The LRB need to decide if there is sufficient information to proceed to consideration and determination or whether one or a combination of the following procedures will be used, further written submissions, the holding of one or more heating sessions and/or unaccompanied inspection of the land to which the review relates. If the LRB are of the mind that there is sufficient information to proceed, I would remind you that the LRB's consideration must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In particular, you must consider whether there will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the listed building or the conservation area. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Now I know there is a large amount of information that came with this application, but just to check is there any additional information being provided? Thank you, convener. I confirm there is not additional information. Does committee have sufficient information to review this application today? Yes, I see nods. Questions to officers? No questions to officers. I do have a question which is unlike the previous application, we are also using House 7. Just to confirm exactly what House 7 says, development including change of use which have a material detrimental effect on the living conditions of nearby residents will not be permitted, correct? Thank you, convener, that is correct. Question, Councillor Jones? Thank you, convener. Just again to clarify, as the applicant says, it has never actually been used for residential, but the original planning application for the conversion was for residents, presumably residential use. Thank you, Councillor. Yes, the 2016 permission with planning permission granted for a part change of use from garage and storage with alterations to form an apartment at the upper level, so residential use. Any further questions from committee opening up for discussion? Who would like to kick it off, Councillor Jones? I think again this is quite clear cut in terms of the impact on amenity. It is a predominantly residential area and I don't really accept the argument that since it has not been used for residential purposes, there is no loss of residential accommodation because there is, so I think on those two grounds I would support the officer's recommendation to refuse the application. Councillor Simeon. I would agree with that in particular. I think the applicant makes a lot of Ks bar being nearby, but it is round the corner and it strikes me as more likely that most people going there would access it from the larger road, India Street, which is much closer than coming through this highly residential area. So I think this is a quiet street and that it is predominantly residential and that introducing a short-term let to it is an impact on amenity, plus it is a clear loss of residential accommodation. So I would agree with Councillor Jones. It's pretty clear cut to me. Yes, it is tucked away behind, you know, Heriot Row and it is very clearly a very small, narrow cobbled street with not a huge amount of vibrancy on it, even if you just look at the photographs. It does look like a rather idyllic place to live. Anyway, moving on, Councillor Gardiner, do you wish to say anything? No. So moving formal, propose the fact that we uphold the officer's recommendations. I'm getting nods from committee. No other proposal? No. Sorry, could we have a short break, please? Okay. It's 11.20. So back at 11.30. I'll just change device. Item 6.6 is 3 London Road. Two stores created an external pergola. In retrospect, application number 23 public 02729 public FUL. This is not a support of handling and letters of representation. Those of you who are supporting documents have been circulated, but again, I was requesting that you proceed on the basis for assessment of the documents online. Thanks very much. Okay, thank you. So our next item is at 3 London Road. The site description is it's a single storey 1950s detached building of concrete block construction, which was originally a public toilet and is now used as a restaurant and cafe. There previously existed a small sloping garden area to the front of the property behind a retaining wall on the northern boundary. The site's located within the new town conservation area and the World Heritage Site and is designated as protected open space. Relevant history is that in November 2016, change of use to convert the former public toilets to an office was granted. And then in the 31st of August 2021, a change of use from offices to cafe bar at Delhi restaurant was also granted. And this application included balustrades and planters on the main elevation alongside the proposed decking. And the description of the proposal for this application is for two stores to the rear and a timber pergola to the front elevation of the building, all in retrospect. And I'll just take you through some of the drawings. So here we've got the application site as now built. So with the retrospective works that have taken place, we've got the pergola that has been constructed here on the decking. The decking was already previously authorised along with some balustrading and planters. So this is the new element here on the front. In terms of its location, you can see it on London Road. And so the existing floor plan was as here where we've got the rear entrance blocked off at this point or opening onto the back, should I say, at this point. And now proposed we have two small store areas. So slightly larger one here and then a much smaller one at the back. And then on the front elevation, we've got the existing decking with the balustrade that was already approved around the front and what's now been constructed is the pergola on this area here. So again, as existing and then as proposed. So here we've got the additional store added on at the rear here with the smaller element at the back and the pergola at this point here. So again, just photographs of the site as it currently stands with the pergola at this point. Some images from the inside and then at the rear, you can see the added on store areas that have been constructed onto the rear here. So the report of handling notes that the relevant policies are MPF 4 Policy 1, MPF 4 Policy 7, Historic Assets and Places, MPF 4 Policy 14, Design Quality and Place, and LDP Design Policies DES 1 and DES 12. We've also got the non-statutory guidance, listed buildings and conservation areas and the Newtown Conservation Area character appraisal. The application received four objections and the key issues in the report of handling are the timber pergola is of an inappropriate design, material and scale which dominates the streetscape. It represents a low quality and incongruous feature which harms the character and appearance of the Newtown Conservation Area. The front elevation of the building is almost entirely covered by the combined structure of the pergola and the decking damaging its aesthetic value. The Notice of Grounds of Review was received on the 1st of February, 2024 and the Statements of Grounds of Review states the pergola's design is well thought through, sitting well with the natural environment of the park setting. The scale of the pergola is important to provide an area of shelter for our customers while leaving some elements of the terrace exposed. When Bosworks took over the property, it was evident there was a lack of space for staff, particularly storage and no noticeable location for an ice machine to be stored. Bosworks strongly feels that there has been an appropriate solution in this location by creating a more enclosed space, not only does this provide our customers with greater comfort but it also reduces noise to the neighbouring buildings. We had no further letters of representation and the procedural options available to the local review body are if the LRB decide there is sufficient information to proceed to consideration on determination or whether one of or a combination of the following procedures will be used. Further written submissions, the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or an accompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land to which the review relates. The requirements for determining the case are if the LRB are of the mind that there is sufficient information to proceed, I would remind you that the LRB's recommendation must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In particular, you must consider if the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Thank you. So to check, we don't have any additional information? No, it's nothing further. Committee, do we have sufficient information in front of us? Okay, I'd just like a bit of clarity. Can we just put up that image again, please, because I think it's important in this situation to be totally and utterly clear exactly what it is that has been granted and what it is that hasn't been granted. Because my understanding is the actual decking area is absolutely fine and what we're referring to from looking at the image in front of us is just the pagola which is on the right-hand side. So it's not the actual overall wooden decking and the frontage. It is literally the covering bit on the right-hand side which is from that image. Yes, you're correct. So to confirm, when the consent was granted for conversion of this from office to a café de la bar, it was granted consent with this existing decking or with this decking, should I say. So this has been granted. So what's now been constructed is this element here, the pagola. So the covered area and also the application includes the two small store areas at the rear. Do you want to see those two? Okay. So probably easiest seen in the photographs. So also at the rear, we've got these two stores. So the smaller one and then the one that's the same height as the existing. So that back elevation has been extended out further. Just to complete that, understanding that the air conditioning units on the left-hand side had been granted permission, they don't form part of this application. Councillor Goner. Yeah, just when you say they don't form part of this application, have they been granted or not? That wasn't really my question, but that's my question was again on the front elevation. Do you know how on the looking at it on the right-hand side, there's a bit of timber where there's balustrade in the middle bit, but there's a bit of timber on the right-hand side. Is that part of the original application as well? Or is that part of, is that an addition with this pregola? Sorry. Bear with me. I'll just take you back through the drawings again. So this is the existing plans. So what we have is the steps coming up and then they onto the decking of the, these elements, these white elements of the two doors that sit below, which obviously offers some storage space. And we've got the decking coming across with the balustrade. And again, the store at the rear or the rear elevation is as shown here. And then if we just go forward to as proposed, we've got a slightly different form to the balustrade and then this pergola element here. So the bit of timber that you're referring to, can you clarify which bit you're referring to? Sure. It was sort of, it's in the photos, but not in the drawings. So it's, it was in front of the pergola there. If you see the sort of flower box with some writing on it and behind that, as it were, the timber, there's not a sort of balustrade with upright sticks. It's a solid timber kind of material. So it's not, it's not being consented either nor have the fire boxes actually. Sorry, I was going to say that there were some planters granted with the original application, but I think you are correct in saying that the balustrade previously appeared to be open all the way across. And now obviously we have this more enclosed element. So yeah, the solid part of that balustrade on the extreme right as part of this new pergola structure. Did you want to follow up on that Councillor Gardner? Yeah. I noticed also in the drawing that Gina just showed that below the deck, did you confirm it looks clearly timber now, whereas it looks almost like stone, that kind of, or you can see the drawing probably better than I can on my screen, or is there any key to it? It looks like stone. I don't actually have any details of the materials on that, but I believe that, I mean, it is kind of shown to be the same here as well. It's just obviously a much fainter image. I believe it was always timber decking. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further questions from committee? No? Okay. Opening up for discussion. I have to say I'm not 100 per cent convinced by this one, because if I take away what has already been granted, it's whether there's an adverse impact on the conservation area. My argument would be there's been an adverse impact on the conservation area already, and this is a minor infringement upon that. I'm not entirely sure I'm 100 per cent convinced that this addition of the pergola has taken it so far forward that that's an incongruous sort of addition to the, so I have to admit, if it was the entire decking and everything, I would have more sympathy, but as that has already been granted, I feel that the balance has already shifted, and again, when we look at something, for example, like sort of infringements in terms of windows and things, there's the horse bolting element of something that I do feel, and the timber at the back, bearing in mind that that's towards the back of something, you've got, you know, units next to it. Again, I'm struggling to sort of uphold the purity element that this is an adverse impact on a conservation area when you consider it in its whole. So I have to admit, on balance, I'm struggling to uphold the officer recommendation on this one, because I feel that already there has been an impact, and whether we can justifiably say that this has taken it too far, I'm struggling to justify that, because quite frankly, I'm not entirely sure that anyone passing this and seeing that level of wood which has been granted all the way across the front, would say that the pergola, yep, that's not allowed, but the rest of it is. Do you see what I mean? So it's that balance element. Sorry, Councillor Anderson. I believe Councillor Gardner had his hand up before me actually. Councillor Gardner. Yeah, I think that I just disagree. I acknowledge that the timber decking is there, but I just think it just goes a wee bit too far with this pergola. It just looks a right hodgepodge of elements, whereas if you took the pergola away, you just have a simple balustrade above the timber element below, and it would look a lot simpler, and you could actually see the existing building much more clearly, whereas now you've got such a collage of different elements that it really, it's difficult to decipher the existing building, and it's just too busy. So I think it would look a lot better visually, and it is an important street. If you're coming up from Easter Road or along London Road itself, you do very much notice it, and so I think it would look a lot better removing the pergola and make it a little bit more simple. So I'd like to uphold the officer decision on this one. Thank you. Yeah, I'm more inclined towards your position, Convenor, partially because in talking about the character or appearance of the conservation area, the report of handling, the report in front of us, talks a lot about the typical character of the buildings of a generally consistent three-story and basement scale with some four-story corner and central pavilions. Now, obviously, this building already doesn't match that, but equally, this building is also not in a setting where it's surrounded by other buildings. It's already incongruous with that. I don't think it makes sense to consider it against other buildings of the Newtown conservation area when it is clearly separate to those and clearly of its own character. Now, you could argue that the decking was a step too far in the first place, but that planning permission has been granted. I don't see that the pergola is that big of a change, that important a change. And moreover, I don't feel like the report of handling has well defended that it's incongruous with the character of the area because this building is already incongruous and this doesn't change that whether this pergola is here or not. I do have some sympathy with some of the non-planning relevant complaints about this, the fact that this used to be a public toilet and now it's a commercial building doesn't sit well with me. Equally, I don't like planning permission in retrospect. As a rule, I would urge people to get their planning permission before they build things, but neither of those is relevant to the appeal. And when it comes to the appeal, I just don't think the case has been made with regard to the conservation area because the case talks mostly about other buildings in the area and it's not in a setting where it's surrounded by other buildings. So, I lean towards upholding the appeal and going against the officer's recommendation on this one. Councillor Jones, you don't wish to speak? Okay, so moving forward, I will be moving the fact that we do not uphold the officer recommendations because I don't believe the fact that this is an additional impact, mainly for a lot of the reasons that Councillor Stanifold has already set out. And what I said is that in fact of the fact that materials were introduced already into it, I think it's extremely difficult to sort of now say that this is incongruous when the materials have already been introduced. Councillor Gardner, are you wishing to move a different position? Yes, yes I do. The terrace is a simple element with a balustrade if all the incongruous bits were removed and then set behind that is the stone building. You can hardly see much of the stone building now because of the pagola and the frontage of the terrace is now a hodgepodge of different materials. So the building is extremely visible when you come in from Portobello or down Easter Road from Leith and it would look a lot better. It was just a little bit more simple and back to the original consent. So I think it is important not to have too many extraneous things added on, added to an item. It would look a lot better without the pagola. So I really think it's important to uphold the officers decision on this one. Thank you. OK, so we will be moving formal then. I will be looking for a seconder to not uphold the order. Councillor Osanic, please. Yes, for the reasons I've already given that I don't think the case has been made in the report that this is further incongruity with the conservation area which is the main thrust of it. I am happy to second you. Councillor Gardner, do you have a seconder? I can't see Councillor Jones, I don't know. No, so would you like your dissent noted, Councillor Gardner? Yes, and also it's not necessarily just an officer report. We are looking at these as a new decision, so it doesn't really matter what the officer report absolutely says. I would just like Councillor Stanford to acknowledge. OK, thank you, convener. Reasons for overturning is that the reasons given for the refusal were based on the fact of it being contrary to their proposals, contrary to the local development plan policy, DES 1, respect to design and quality. I would say that not upheld, bear in mind the materials are similar already to what's already been granted within the area. The materials have already been introduced into the area being wood, et cetera, and something like that. The proposal is contrary to the local development plan, no, that's when we've already done, and DES 12, in respect of alterations, extensions of the design and reform, choice of materials and positioning are incompatible with the character of the existing building. Again, the materials have already been introduced into the area and this is an extension to the existing granting. Councillor Satherfall, was there anything you wanted to add to that? Sorry, in terms of policy 14, respect to design and quality in place as it is poorly designed and will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The building itself is set within a woodland, so I would struggle to sort of say that it's an additional sort of detriment to the area considering it's trees around it, et cetera, like that, and it's not set within the terraces which sit above. Application granted, the reasons being it was not contrary to policies DES 1, DES 12 and DES 13. Item 6.7, Milton Street, has been withdrawn, so the final item on the agenda is item 6.83, sorry, 36 South Oswald Road, proposed extension, garage conversion, attic roof light and replacement of all window glass, application number 230804356WKFUL, decision notice, support of handling and letters of representation, notice of review and supporting documents have been circulated. The applicant has requested that you proceed on the basis of an assessment of the documents online. Thanks. So our next item is at 36 South Oswald Road. The property is a single storey and attic near Elplan Lodge designed by Robert Moreham in the 1885 as a gardener's lodge. The property is surrounded by low level walls with modern fencing and hedging. On Oswald Road there is a section of higher stone wall with gates giving access to flat roof stoned garage. The property is B listed and lies within the Grange Conservation Area. The relevant history is in March 2023 there was a full application and LBC application for a single storey rear extension and alterations to the existing garage, replacement of glass to slim light glazing and new attic roof light and this was withdrawn. We then had the current application along with its associated listed building application. On the 20th of December the application for listed building consent was refused and the subsequent appeal to the DPA was allowed on the 20th of March 2024. The proposal is for a rear extension, garage conversion, attic roof light and replacement of all window glass and in the supporting the information we got the tree survey and a letter regarding supporting and cantilevered beams and I'll just take you through the drawings. So this is the property in question and on this elevation on Oswald Road itself we have an existing stone built garage and there's a gap between the house and the garage and also this gated access here has its gates replaced basically. So here we've got the property so you can see the existing garage is the smaller element here and then the house. So as existing the gardeners lodge with the separated garage and again just in plan form you can see the separated garage and the garden area around that and you can just start to see that they've started to locate the trees on site. So we've got the broadleaf lime and a chestnut and another lime at this point. What's then proposed is an extension which converts the garage and adds an interlinking element between the garage and the property to create a new extension to the house and also these gates are replaced with new timber gates within the existing opening. So again just in plan form elevation form you can see the extension now joining or the joining element and then the converted garage as well and again just in different elevations and the new timber gates too. So these two trees are located in the space basically between the house and the garage and if I just take you to the next image you can see this is the lime tree and here's the horse chestnut and you can see the extension sitting below those trees. So the report of handling the house and this is one of the things that's important to note is that policies MPF4 policy 1, MPF4 policy 6 on forestry and trees and MPF4 policy 7 on historic assets and places, MPF4 policy 14 design quality in place and MPF4 policy 16 quality homes all apply as does the LDP policies DES 1 and DES 12 and environment policy ENV 12. We've also got the non-statutory guidance for listed buildings and conservation areas. The application received two objections. The key issues in the report of handling note the single story rear extension would be a subservient addition to the listed building and would have no adverse impact on its setting in terms of design. The finisher materials are acceptable and the extension would form a modern addition to the existing property. The garage would be converted as part of the extension and the development of the space between the existing house and the garage would not represent over development of the site. Adequate garden ground space would be left over in the grounds of the listed building. There is no unreasonable loss of neighbouring amenity with respect to privacy overshadowing loss of daylight or sunlight. However the location of the extension would have an unacceptable impact on the mature trees on site. The extension is located within the root protection area and directly adjacent to the trunk of the closest tree. The extension has the potential to compromise the trees which form part of the character appearance of this conservation area. In addition the proposed timber gates in the existing opening on Oswald Road would be an inappropriate boundary marker in the context of the existing stone walls which form part of the character of the conservation area. The notice of grounds of review was received on the 22nd of January 2024 and the statement of grounds of review states the proposed single story extension is below the tree canopy and therefore no damage will be done to these to the tree canopies. The extension is fully built off cantilevered beams between the house and garage which are above the ground level and therefore no tree roots are being damaged. As the tree canopies and roots are not being affected or damaged by the proposed extension there is no adverse impact on trees or the character and appearance of the conservation area. A tree survey dated May 2023 states the proposed development falls almost entirely within the root protection area of the two trees of the site. The default position should be that structures are located outside the root protection area of the trees to be retained however where there is an overriding justification for construction within the root protection area technical solutions might be available to prevent damage to the trees. Root damage can be minimized by using piles with site investigations used to determine their optimal location whilst avoiding damage to roots important for the stability of the tree by means of hand tools or compressed air soil displacement to a minimum of 600 millimeters. Beams laid at or above ground level and cantilevered as necessary to avoid tree roots identified by the site investigation could then be employed. A structural engineer will need to be involved in the process. The floor joist should be positioned above the ground allowing 70 millimeter clear distance between the underside of the joist and the ground level. Ground within the root protection area should not be disturbed any more than absolutely necessary. We had no further letters of representation and so the LRB need to decide if there's sufficient information to proceed to consideration and determination or whether one of or a combination of the following procedures will be used. Further written submissions, the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or an accompanied or unaccompanied inspection of the land to which the review relates. The requirements for determining the case are if the LRB are of the mind that there is sufficient information to proceed, I would remind you that the LRB's determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In particular, you must consider if the proposals will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the listed building or the conservation area. Thank you. Okay. We don't have any additional information on this one. Committee, do we feel that we have sufficient information? Castle Garnet, is that a question about or is that for a question? Your hand is up for a question or is it you don't agree that we have sufficient information? Well actually, we might need more information about the cantilever and beam, Gina. Is there any more information we've got about that because the case kind of hinges on that? The submission from the applicant simply included a statement talking about the cantilevered beams and we don't actually have drawings as such to show the construction method. And again, the reports from the tree report from May 2023 also refers to a process and a method of protecting the tree protection routes, but we don't have that formally before us to consider. Yeah. I mean, I must admit I was going down the same line. As most of this hinges upon, you know, impact on trees, there is a number of questions, but my understanding is obviously what we're being asked today is, you know, to make a judgment on the application that's put in front of us. That is correct, but if you feel that you require further information, obviously there are options where you can ask for further written submissions. You know, that option is open to you, but you are being asked to consider the application before you today. Yeah. I have to admit, I would prefer to have additional information about this as, you know, the actual entire application hinges upon the impact. I appreciate there is still within sort of the root zone, et cetera, like that, but again, I think I would prefer the fact we had additional information on the cantilever aspect of it. Yes, I agree. I think it's very difficult to make, well, we could make a decision, but you know, I don't think it'd be fair to make that without this additional information. So if that can be obtained about a little more than a statement about how the foundations, because they will be development as well, how they will work with the root balls of the trees, that would be helpful. Thank you, convener. Okay. So I'm proposing the fact we move to continue this application while we seek additional advice. So I think I need a seconder. Yes. Looking for a seconder. Councillor Gartner. Please second your formulae. Is there any other contrary view? Councillor Jones. I feel we have sufficient information to proceed. Thank you. Is there a seconder for Councillor Jones? Do you want your dissent recorded? Thank you, yes. So this is to continue the application to seek additional advice. So just to clarify, if I may, we're continuing the application to get additional information on the proposed construction of the cantilevered beams and how the root protection area will be protected during construction? During construction and, of course, in the long term as well. Sorry, could you repeat that? I didn't actually catch what you said then. Sorry, yes, you're right, Gina. During construction is probably the most important, but also in the long term as well. It won't detrimentally affect the trees. Thank you. And that concludes the business. Thanks, Gina. Thank you. .