Derek Scott Planning

Chartered Town Planning and Development Consultants

Our Ref: ep355/letOOI/DS
24
th
January 2012
Directorate for Planning & Environmental Appeals
4 The Courtyard
Callendar Business Park
Callendar Road
Falkirk
FKIIXR
Dear Sir/Madam
ApPEAL TO THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS AGAINST THE REFUSAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR
PLANNING PERMISSION BY THE CITY OF EorNBURGH COUNCIL FOR THE PROPOSED
CHANGE OF USE FROM A SURGERY AND OFFICES TO A GUEST HOUSE AT 57
CONSTITUTION STREET, LEITH, EDINBURGH EH6 7AF
We write on behalf of our client, Mr. Kamran Akbar (The Cameron Guest House Group) to
lodge an appeal against the decision of the City of Edinburgh Council to refuse an application
for planning permission for the proposed change of use from a surgery and offices to a guest
house at 57 Constitution Street, Leith, Edinburgh.
Please acknowledge receipt and registration ofthis appeal at your earliest convenience.
Thanking you in anticipation for your assistance.
Derek Scott
ene.
ee. City or Edinburgh Couneil
Mr. K Akbar
21 Lansdowne Crescent, Edinburgh EH12 5EH Scoilond T: 01315351103 F: 01315351104 E: edinburgh@derekscottplonning.com
olso at
Unit 9, Dunfermline Business Cenlre, Izall Avenue, Dunfermline KY11 3BZ T: 0 13B3 620300 F: 01383 B44999 E: dunfermline@derekscollplanning.com
W: www.derekscollplanning.cam
Partners: Derek Scali MRTPI MIPI, Irene G Scoll ACIBS
FORM PPA
Directorate for Planning
and Environmental Appeals
PLANNING PERMISSION
APPEAL TO SCOTTISH MINISTERS
The Scottish
Government
UNDER SECTION 47 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (APPEALS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2008
IMPORTANT: Please read and follow the notes provided when completing this form - failure to
supply all relevant information could invalidate your appeal
Use BLOCK CAPITALS if completing in manuscript
E-mail * 1 1
Contact Tel No 1 1------------------------------1
Contact Tel No 2 ------------------------------------
Fax No ------------------------------------
Appel/ant(s)
Name
Address
Postcode
Mr Kamran Akbar
(The Cameron Guest House
Group)
51/2 Mitchell Street
Edinburgh
EH67BD
Agent (if any)
Name/Contact Derek Scott
Address Derek Scott Planning
21 Lansdowne Crescent
Edinburgh
Postcode
EH125EH
Contact Tel No 1 0131 5351103
Contact Tel No 2 07802 431970
Fax No 0131 5351104
E-mai 1* Iscott.planning@btconnect.com
I
Mark this box to confirm all contact should
~
be through this representative
* Do you agree to all correspondence regarding your appeal being sent by e-mail? ~ Yes D No
Planning authority ICity of Edinburqh Council
1
Planning authority's application reference number
111/01867/FUL
I
Site address
57 Constitution Street, Leith, Edinburgh EH6 7AF
Description of proposed
Proposed Change of Use from a Surgery and Offices to a Guest
development
House
Date of application
109 June 2011
I
Date of authority's decision 124 November 2011
1
OS Map Grid Ref or
IEH67AF
I
Area of Appeal Site (m
2
/ha) 1
0
.
04
ha
1
Post Code
Nature of application: Appeal against:
Planning permission
IX Refusal of application
~
Planning permission in principle
r Failure to give a decision
D
Approval of matters specified in conditions
r
(deemed refusal)
Variation or discharge of conditions
r=
Conditions imposed on consent
D
~
Page 1
STATEMENT OF APPEAL
You MUST state, in full, why you are appealing against the planning authority's decision (or
failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be
taken into account in determining your appeal. Note: you might not have a further opportunity
to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the
information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You will though be entitled
to comment on (i) any additional matter which may be raised by the planning authority in its
response to your appeal, or (ij) any representations the Scottish Government might receive from
any other person or body.
State the reasons for your appeal and all matters you wish to raise here. (If necessary, this can
be continued or provided in full on a separate document.)
(Please refer to attached appeal statement)
No
~
Yes
Have you raised any matters which were not before the planning authority at the D
time the decision you are appealing against was made?
If yes, you should explain in the box below, why the matter was not raised at that time and why
you consider it should now be taken into account.
List of documents/evidence
Provide a list of all documents, materials and evidence which you have provided with your
appeal and intend to rely on in support of your appeal. (If necessary, this can be continued or
provided in full on a separate document.)
(Please refer to attached appeal statement)
Page 2
APPEAL PROCEDURE
The person appointed to determine your appeal will decide the procedure to be used. In general,
a decision will be made based on your appeal documents and the planning authority's response.
In some cases the appointed person may require further procedures to gain more information on
specific matters before reaching a decision. This is your opportunity to indicate what procedure
you think is most appropriate for the handling of your appeal. (See Notes for Appellants)
10
2 ~
3 ~
40
50
Review of all relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, with
no further procedure
Inspection of the land subject of the appeal
Further written submissions on specific matters
Holding of one or more hearing sessions (i.e. round table discussions) on specific matters
Holding of one or more formal inquiry sessions on specific matters
* You can suggest a combination involving more than one further procedure, if necessary
If you have marked boxes 3, 4 or 5, please explain here which of the matters (as set out in your
statement above) you believe ought to be subject of that procedure, and why. (If necessary, this
can be continued or provided in full on a separate document.)
We reserve the right to respond to any submissions on the appeal as made by either the Council
or third parties.
Site inspection
In the event that the Scottish Government Reporter appointed to consider your appeal decides to
inspect the appeal site, in your opinion:
Yes No
Can the site be viewed entirely from public land?
Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely, and without barriers to entry?
If there are reasons why you think the Reporter would be unable to access and view the appeal
site alone, please explain here:
Page 3
OTHER APPEALS
Have you made any other appeals to Scottish Ministers concerning this land? DYes 1ZI No
If yes, please give details, including our appeal reference numbers (if known):
CHECKLIST
Please mark the appropriate boxes to confirm you have provided all supporting documents/
evidence relevant to your appeal:
Full completion of all parts of this form
Full statement of appeal
All documents, materials and evidence which you intend to rely on
Application to planning authority, including all plans/drawings and other documents
relevant to your application which is now subject of this appeal
Planning authority's decision notice (if any), which is the subject of your appeal
Where application/appeal relates to an earlier consent (e.g. approval of matters specified
in conditions; variation of previous conditions), the application, approved plans and
decision notice from that earlier consent.
f)(l The Report of Handling prepared by the planning authority in respect of your application,
L6J where one exists (see Notes for Appellants)
The Scottish Government routinely publishes all documents relating to each appeal on its
website at www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk. You must advise DPEA if there are particular reasons why
you think any document you have provided cannot be published.
DECLARATION
I appeal to the Scottish Ministers as set out on this form and supporting documents. I confirm
that I have today sent a copy of my appeal to the planning authority.
Signed
This form and all supporting documents should be sent to:
E-mail: dpea@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Post: Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals
4 The Courtyard
Callendar Business Park
Callendar Road
Falkirk
FK11XR
Fax: 01324 696444
Contact Tel: 01324696400
August 2009
Page 4
ApPEAL STATEMENT
11101867/FUL
PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE FROM A SURGERY AND OFFICES TO
A GUEST HOUSE
Al
57 Constitution Street
Edinburgh
EH67AF
Prepared by
Derek Scott Planning
Planning and Development Consultants
21 Lansdowne Crescent
Edinburgh EH12 5EH
Tel No: 0131 535 1103
Fax No: 0131 535 1104
E-Mail: enquiries@derekscottplanning.com
On behalf of
THE CAMERON GUEST HOUSE GROUP
(MR. KAMRAN AKBAR)
Executive Summary
57 Constitution Street - Leith - Edinburgh - EH6 7AF
11/01867/FUL- CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICES AND SURGERY TO GUEST HOUSE
The application premises are located at the junction of Constitution Street
and Mitchell Street in Leith, Edinburgh and comprise of a four storey
Category B Listed Building which is presently occupied on the ground floor
by a dental practice and on the other three floors by offices. Two of the
office floors are presently vacant and the third is being used temporarily by
our clients as an office in association with their guesthouse and hotel
accommodation business.
The vacant parts of the premises have been vigorously marketed for office
use by J & E Shepherd - Chartered Surveyors but without success.
The planning application submitted to the Council seeks permission to find a
new use for the building as a guest house accommodating eleven suites for
patrons and an additional suite for a resident manager. There are a total of
thirteen bedrooms proposed within the guesthouse (which includes one 2
bedroom suite). In addition to a bedroom(s) each suite contains a living area
fitted with tea/coffee making facilities and a bathroom/shower room.
Communal facilities including a dining area, laundry room and guest
kitchen are also proposed.
The proposed guesthouse will be aimed at the tourist and business markets
given its prominent position within the centre of Leith and ease of
accessibility to the city centre. The provision of such accommodation in
Leith is supported by the Council's Local Plan.
The application premises are located in an area which is mixed use in nature
containing bars, restaurants, offices and residential properties where
ambient noise levels are high throughout the day and at night.
The luxurious space standards proposed, aiming at the high end of the
tourist market and business clients, combined with the mixed use
characteristics of the area will ensure that the residential amenity of nearby
residential property occupiers will not be adversely affected.
The application premises are located on one of the principal transportation
corridors between the city centre and the waterfront and as such are well
served by public transport facilities.
Derek Scoff Pla/millg - 2/ LlIII,ftlowlle Crescelll- Etlillbllrgh - EH/ 2 JEH
A total of five car spaces are proposed in association with the proposed
guesthouse. Whilst this number of spaces complies with the Council's
Parking Standards our client's experiences with other guesthouses in the
city demonstrates that the number of spaces proposed far exceeds the actual
requirement as the vast majority of patrons to establishments of this nature
travel via either public transport or private taxi.
Derek Scott PIll/millg - 2I Lall.wlowlle Crescelll- Edillbllrgh - EH12 5EH
ApPEAL STATEMENT
11101867/FUL
PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE FROM A SURGERY AND OFFICES TO
A GUEST HOUSE
At
57 Constitution Street - Edinburgh - EH6 7AF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Location & Description of Site 2
3. Description of Proposed Development 4
4. Planning Policy 8
5. Comments on Reasons for Refusal 14
6. Summary and Conclusions 17
Appendix 1 - Copy of Historic Scotland's Listed Building Description for 57 Constitution
Street, Leith
Appendix 2 - Copy of planning application and supporting information submitted to the City
of Edinburgh Council.
Appendix 3 - Copy of Letter from J & E Shepherd - Chartered Surveyors
Appendix 4 - Copy of Decision Notice relating to Planning Application
Appendix 5 - Copy of Committee Reports relating to Planning Application dated 09
1h
and 23'd
Appendix 6-
Appendix 7-
November respectively
Copy of agreed minutes from meeting of Development Control Sub-Committee
on 09
111
November 2011
Copy of notes and observations from meeting of Development Control Sub-
Committee on 091h November 20 II as taken by architectural agent - Covell
Mathews
ApPEAL TO THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS ON BEHALF OF TIlE CAMERON GUEST HOUSE GROUP
(MR. KAMRAN AKBAR) AGAINST THE REFUSAL BY THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL OF AN
APPLICATION FOR TUE CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICES AND SURGERY TO A GUESTHOUSE (AS
AMENDED) AT 57 CONSTITUTION STREET, EDiNBURGI-1 EH6 7AF UNDER PLANNING
ApPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 11101867/FUL
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This statement has been prepared by Derek Scott Planning, Chartered Town Planning and
Development Consultants on behalf of our client, the Cameron Guest House Group
(Kamran Akbar). We dispute, on behalf of our client, the decision of the City of
Edinburgh Council to refuse a plalming application which sought planning permission for
the change of use from offices and a surgery (dentists) to a guesthouse (as amended) at 57
Constitution Street, Edinburgh and wish to appeal that decision under the terms of
Section 47 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
'Appeal Premises'
Derek Scott Platlllitrg
2. LOCAnON AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application site is located at the junction of Constitution Street and Mitchell Street in
Leith, Edinburgh and comprises of a four storey Category B Listed Building. The
propelty was originally built as Leith Post Office in 1875 continuing as such until the
1980s. A copy of the listed building description is contained in Appendix 1. It presently
accommodates a dental practice on the ground floor; with offices accommodating the
basement, first and second floors. The basement and second floors have been vacant
since June 2010 and May 2002 respectively whereas the first floor is temporarily
occupied by our client having been vacated by the last tenants in November 2005. All of
the vacant floors in the building have been unsuccessfully marketed by J & E Shepherd -
Chartered Surveyors for the past two years and without success as evidenced in
Appendix 3. The property benefits from a small courtyard to the rear which is used and
available for parking purposes.
, Locatioll Plall'
Derek Scott Pltlllllillg
2
2.2 The general character of the area within which the site is situated is mixed use in
character containing residential, offices, public houses and restaurants. The property is
located within the Leith Conservation Area.
, Mixed Use Area'
Derek Scott PllI/willg
3
3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
3.1 The planning application submitted and determined by the City of Edinburgh Council
(See Appendix 2) sought permission to change the use of the propelty from a dentist's
surgery and offices into guesthouse accommodation. A total of eleven suites available
for public use along with an additional manager's suite are proposed within the building.
Nine of the eleven suites proposed will accommodate a single bedroom; bathroom or
shower room; and living area; one suite has a living room, bathroom and two bedrooms;
and one suite is a studio with an internal living/sleeping area. All of the suites will be
fitted with tea/coffee making facilities. The manager's suite which is accommodated on
the basement floor contains a living room, bedroom and shower/bathroom. A reception
area, laundry room and communal dining room with a guest kitchen are accommodated
on the ground floor. The internal alterations required to facilitate the conversion of the
property to a guesthouse were granted listed building consent under Listed Building
Consent Application Reference Number 11/0I866/LBC on 20
th
July 20 II.
P_m_
car parfdng
ilfTangemcnl ror S
co....
Ilvn)
MANAGER
SUITE .....
L-..,-,---r-..JI(
_______---'---_-J-J=J..----f
'Proposed Basemellt PIa'"
SUITE 3
/] lI,t09
l>edl
1.6'>'...1
- - L . . . . . . . l . . I - - ' - - - - J ~ L ~ ~
3.2 A total of five car parking spaces are proposed at the rear of the building in association
with the change of use which will be accessed through an existing pend off Mitchell
Street.
3.3 Excluding the manager's accommodation the proposed guesthouse will operate with 24
hour on-site management presence on the basis of a maximum of twelve lettable
bedrooms as indicated on the proposed plans.
3.4 Given the building's prominent location within the centre of Leith, with good transport
links to both the centre of Edinburgh and Leith's own attractions the guesthouse will be
aimed at the tourist and business markets.
Derek Scott Phll/lIllIg
4
living
SUITE 5 "
,
I
I
.,
I
I
/
reception
o
"
, \ I
J 1\
'-. , ,
I .J
,
,
living
bed 1
, ,
, ,
t 10.,.:0 t
SUITE 4
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : : : , ' . . - - : - \ ;:::::::::;.,
guest L..,--,
dining/breakfast
"-,
,
,
I
I
I
I ,
. -1.. I ,
'Proposed Groul/lf Floor Plol/'
bed 1
living
'Proposed First Floor Plol/'
Derek Scott PIOIlllil/g
living
:
I
-, ----
I _
pOInt

I
I I
..J
.............
'1----
I
I
I
I
I bed 1
I
I
1
I
I I /--
I I /
I I I : :
I I
L __-I
SUITE 10
I -r-------------------,-,
l
I
3Ct cowl through roof
c
, I
I
-
,
\
\
I
I
I
bed 1:
I
I
I
tea $
point
ILD
'Proposed Secolld Floor Phm'
'Existillg Pelld Off Mitchell Street'
Derek Scott Pla/millg
6
3.5 It is worth noting in the context of the appeal proposals that our clients operate a number
of guesthouse and serviced holiday apartment accommodations at various locations
within the City as outlined in the table below employing a total of some 70 staff. With
the exception of one guesthouse it is more than signi ficant to note that none of the other
guesthouses offer parking facilities for guests.
Address No. of Rooms No. orear Website
Parking
Spaces
27 YOl'k Place - Edinburgh 18 3 (0 for guests) www.yorkhouseedinburgh.co.uk
10 Links Place - Edinburgh 33 5 www.abbotshouseedinburgh.co.uk
7 Links Gardens - II 0 www.adelphiprivatehotel.co.uk
Edinburgh
6 Hermitage Place - 11 0 www.linkshousehotel.co.uk
Edinburgh
24 Shaudwick Place - 23 apartments 0 www.shandwickapaltments.co.uk
Edinburgh 20 rooms
10 Johns Place - Edinburgh 15 rooms I
Table 1- Existillg Gllesthollses oWl/eel a/lfl operateel ill Eelil/bllrgh
3.6 In addition to the guesthouse accommodations refelTed to above we would further add
that our clients have recently opened a 4* hotel with 48 bedrooms known as 'The Place'
at 34-38 York Place (www.theplaceedinburgh.co.uk) and have also recently secured
planning permission for a high quality guesthouse providing 31 bedrooms at 20-30
Cockburn Street in the City. It is again significant to note that neither property was
required to provide off street car parking facilities.
3.7 The appointed Reporter may, as part of his or her site visit, wish to visit and inspect the
recently opened hotel at York Place (The Place) to see as an example of the quality of
accommodation which our client is aiming to provide in the appeal premises at
Constitution Street.
Derek Scott Plallllillg
7
4. PLANNING POLICY
4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) states
that:
'where in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the
development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the development
plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. '
4.2 Tn the context of the above it is worth making reference to the House of Lord's
Judgement on the case of the City of Edinburgh Council v the Secretary of State for
Scotland 1998 SLT120. It sets out the following approach to deciding an application
under the Planning Acts:
identify any provisions of the development plan which are relevant to the
decision;
interpret them carefully, looking at the aims and objectives of the plan as well as
detailed wording of policies;
consider whether or not the proposal accords with the development plan;
identi fy and consider relevant material considerations, for and against the
proposal; and
assess whether these considerations warrant a departure from the development
plan.
4.3 The relevant development plan for the area comprises the Edinburgh and the Lothians
Structure Plan 2015 and the Edinburgh City Local Plan 2009. Other material
considerations in the detel11lination of the application include the Council's non-statutory
guidelines; consultation responses; and representations to the application from third
patties.
Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan
4.4 The Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan 2015 was approved by Scottish Ministers
on 17
lh
June 2004. It provides the strategic framework for the determination of planning
applications and the preparation of local plans. However it contains no specific policies
or proposals of direct relevance to either the site or the proposed development.
City of Edinburgh Local Plan
4.5 The City of Edinburgh Council adopted the City of Edinburgh Local Plan on 28
1h
January
20 IO. The Pol icy considered to be of most relevance to the appeal proposal is Pol icy
EMP5 on 'Hotel Development.' Whist the policy relates to hotels as opposed to
guesthouses of the nature proposed by our client both uses fall within Class 7 - 'Hotels
and Hostels' of The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997.
The policy as worded in the Plan states the following:
'Hotel development will be permitted:
aJ in the Central Area where developments may be required to form part ofmixed
use schemes, tfnecesswy to maintain city centre diversity and vitality,
especially retail vitality on important shopping/rontages
Derek Scott PIIII/I/il/g
8
b) in accessible locations in Granton Waterfront and Leith
c) on main approach roads to the city centre within the urban area. '
4.6 As the application building is located within Central Leith and is located on one of the
main transport routes between the City Centre and the Waterfi'ont area it is considered
that the principle of the building accommodating a guesthouse is supported by the terms
of Policy EMP 5. We would also, in SUppOlt of our client's application, wish to draw the
appointed Reporter's attention to the text supporting Policy EMP 5 which in our opinion
lends further support for the proposal. Paragraph 7.21 of the text referred to states the
following
'Tourism is the third biggest source oj employment in Edinburgh, providing jobs for
31, 000 people. Maintaining and developing this key sector in the city's economy relies
upon sufficient provision oJhigh-quality tourist accommodation. In 2006 a study looking
at tourist accommodation demand and supply was commissioned by the Council and
others. The study identified the particular importance oj hotels to generating economic
benefit /i'om growth in tourism and satisfying the main sources of demand for
accommodation. It found that room occupancy levels are currently high, even after two
decades ofgrowth in the total number oj hotel rooms in the city. 171e study identified a
theoretical requirement Jor 4, 000 new hotel rooms in Edinburgh by 2015 to help meet
predicted growth in demand. The city centre is the preJerred location Jor most visitors,
but Leith and Granton watel:(ront have potential as hotel destinations. '
, Royal Yallgflt Britallllia & Oceall Termilwl'
Derek Scott Platlllillg
9
4.7 Other polices considered to be of relevance to the application proposal include Policy
Hou 8 on 'Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas' and Policy TRA 4 on 'Private Car
Parking'
4.8 Policy Hou 8 on 'Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas' states the following:
'Developments, including changes ofuse, which would have a materially detrimental
effect on the living conditions ofnearby residents will not be permitted. '
4.9 The explanatory text accompanying the policy (Paragraph 6.31) states the following:
'The intention ofthe policy isjirstly, to preclude the introduction or intensification of
non-residential uses incompatible with predominantly residential areas and secondly, to
prevent anyfurther deterioration in living conditions in more mixed use areas which
nevertheless have important residential/unctions. '
4.10 The application site is clearly located within a mixed use area contall1l11g bars,
restaurants, offices, guest houses and residential properties. As a consequence of this the
area is relatively busy with high ambient noise levels throughout both the day and at night
time. Given the characteristics of the area and the nature of the proposed guest house use
it is not considered that the amenity of nearby residential properties will be in any way
adversely affected as a result of the proposed change of use.
4.11 Policy TRA 4 on 'Private Car Parking' states thefollowing:
'Planningpermission will be grantedfor development where the car parkingprovision
to be made complies with and does not exceed the parking levels set out in
supplementGlYplanning guidance. Lower provision will be pursued subject to
consideration ofthe following/actors:
a) whether, in the case ofnon-residential developments, the applicant can
demonstrate through a travel plan that practical measures can be undertaken
to significantly reduce the use ofprivate cars to travel to andfrom the site.
b) whether there will be any adverse impact on the amenity ofneighbouring
occupiers, particularly residential occupiers through on-street parking around
the site and whether any adverse impacts can be mitigated through control of
on-street parking.
c) the accessibility ofthe site to public tramport stops on routes well served by
public transport, shops, schools and centres ofemployment
d) the availability ofexisting off-street parking spaces that could adequately cater
for the proposed development.
e) whether the characteristics ofthe proposed use are such that car ownership
and use by potential occupiers will be low, such as pwpose-built sheltered or
student housing and 'car /ree' or 'car reduced' housing developments and
others providing car sharing arrangements.
f) whether complementmy measures can be put in place to make it more
convenient/or residents not to own a car, including secure, covered cycle
parking, car sharing or pooling arrangements, including access to the city's
car club scheme. '
Derek Scofl Plallllillg
10
4.12 We have demonstrated below that the five parking spaces proposed complies with the
Council's standards for parking levels as set out in its supplementary planning guidelines
on the subject. In addition to this our client's experiences with the similarly operated
establishments to the one proposed demonstrates that the vast majority of guests (90-
95%) arrive via public transport or taxi and are not, with the rare exception, arriving via
privately owned or rented vehicles. Our clients are also more than willing to prepare a
travel plan which will identify measures to encourage customers to avail of the excellent
public transport services existing along Constitution Street.
4.13 There are a number of other policies contained in the plan relating to Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas but since there are no external alterations of signi ficance
proposed in association with the application and in light of the fact that listed building
consent has previously been granted for all physical alterations proposed they are not
considered to be of any paJ1icuiar relevance to the proposal under appeal.
4.14 In view of the above considerations we are firmly of the opinion that the proposed
development complies in its entirety with the terms of the Edinburgh City Local Plan and
therefore with the terms of the Development Plan.
'Scottish GOI/emmellt HlliMillg at Victoria Quay - Leitl, /
Other Material Considerations
4.15 As noted previously in addition to the development plan due cognisance must also be
given in the determination of planning applications to other material considerations.
Derek Scott PIlI/millg
II
These are addressed below and include the Council's Guidance on Parking Requirements;
Consultation Responses and Third Party Representations.
Parking Standards for Development Control
4.16 The Council's Car Parking Standards which were approved in December 2009 define the
levels of parking that the Council will permit for new development. The application site
lies within an area defined as Zone 3a which is described as follows:
'Existingpublic transport corridors and tenement areas/areas with good access to local
shops and services. Good public transport accessibility, on-street parking, controlled or
limited. '
4.17 Whilst there are no guidelines for guesthouses those for hotels, which as noted previously
fall within the same class in the Use Classes Order, require one car parking space per 1.5-
2.5 bedrooms which equates to a minimum provision of 4.8 (5) spaces and a maximum
provision of 8 spaces. As five car parking spaces are proposed within the area at the rear
of the building the proposal complies with the terms of the Parking Standards. This is
confirmed in the Transpoltation Department's comments on the application when they
stated the following:
'On the basis of our meeting on the 30'11 August 2011 and the agreement that the
application is for 13 bedrooms the additional 2 no spaces proposed in the pend equaling
5 in total meets our parking standards. '
Consultation Re[,ponses
4.18 Insofar as we are aware the Council's Planning Department undertook consultations with
its Services for Communities Department and TranspOltation Department on the
application. The Services for Communities Department whilst acknowledging that there
were residential properties in addition to other uses located within the vicinity of the
appeal premises noted that the area was reasonably busy with high ambient noise levels
existing throughout the day and night and as a consequence noise from the use of the
guesthouse from patrons was unlikely to be significantly noticeable or detrimentally
impact upon the existing levels of amenity. They further added that there is unlikely to
be any significant levels of kitchen odours affecting surrounding propelties.
4.19 The Transportation DepaJtment raised no objections to the proposed planning application
but suggested the payment of a financial contri bution to the Edinburgh Tram of 6,256 in
line with the approved Tram Line Developer Contributions Report; a financial
contribution of 2000.00 for the improvement of public transpOlt infrastructure (to
accommodate movement needs associated with the development in the vicinity in
accordance with LTS policies and the approved transpolt contributions report); and the
submission of a travel plan. Whilst our client has no objections to the submission of the
required travel plan we would question the relevance to the development proposed of the
financial contributions sought as the Council has now decided to terminate the tram route
at St Andrew's Square and as such will not directly benefit the application site.
Derek Scoff Plal/I/il/g
12
Third Party Representations
4.20 It is understood that a total of sixteen representations were submitted to the Council in
opposition to the proposed development. A summary of the representations made and
our responses to them are outlined below:
Over-provision ofguestllOuse accommodation in the area.
Response - It is unclear from the objector's comments where exactly they consider there
to be an over-provision of guest house accommodation. Irrespective of that we disagree
entirely with the comments made as there remains an unmet demand for such
accommodation in Edinburgh reflected by the fact, as referred to previously, that Policy
ECON 5 of the Council's Local Plan SUppOitS the provision of additional tourist
accommodation in the Leith Area.
Lack o.fCar Parking
Response - We have demonstrated above that the number of parking spaces proposed in
association with the proposed development complies with the Council's parking
standards. FUlthermore based on our client's experiences with other guesthouses
operated by them in the City the number of spaces far exceeds demand as the vast
majority of customers travel to such establishments via public transpOlt or by private taxi.
The guest house is not the true intended use ofthe property.
Response - The planning application documentation submitted on behalf of our clients
clearly demonstrates that the proposal being applied for relates to the change of use of the
building to a guesthouse serving the tourist and business markets in the city. Any other
use would require the submission of a fresh planning application. As noted previously
our clients operate a number of guest houses in the city and their intentions as far as this
property is concerned are entirely genuine.
Increased noise ami nuisances
Response - As noted previously the application premises are located within a mixed use
area containing bars, restaurants, guesthouses, offices and residential propelties where
due to the nature of these uses the levels of ambient noises are high during both the day
and at night. Giving the quasi residential nature of the proposed use we refute again in
the strongest possible terms any allegation that the proposal will result in increased noises
and nuisance levels detrimental to the amenity of nearby residential propelties.
Proposal will damage fnule
Response - Whilst this is not a material planning consideration Policy ECON 5 of the
Council's Local Plan clearly implies that there continues to be an unmet demand for
tourist accommodation within the city.
Loss of dental practice
Derek Scott Plal/ning
13
Response - As noted in the planning officer's report this should not be regarded as a
material consideration in the determination of the planning application. In any event
there are other propelties within the general area which are entirely suitable to operate a
dental practice from.
'Cruise Ship Docket! fit Leitlr'
4.21 Having assessed the proposed development against the terms of the development plan
and other material considerations in accordance with the requirements of Section 25 of
the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) we are firmly of the
opinion that there are no grounds for refusing our client's planning application.
, Tire SllOre, Leitlr'
Derek Scott PlflIlllillg
14
5. COMMENTS ON REASON FOR REFUSAL
5.1 Our client's planning application was refused by elected members of the City of
Edinburgh Council's Development Management Sub-Committee against a
recommendation to approve by the Council's professional planning officer. Copies of the
decision notice and the Committee Reports are contained in Appendices 4 and 5
respectively. A copy of the approved minutes from the meeting on 09
01
November 2011
are contained in Appendix 6 and a copy of notes taken by our client's architectural agent
are contained in Appendix 7. We note from the Committee Report considered by
elected members on 23
rd
November 201 I that the Committee were minded to refuse the
application at its meeting on 09
1h
November 2011 for reason of:
(I) Overprovision of guesthouses in the area and impact on residential amenity; and
(2) Pressure on car parking.
At the subsequent meeting on 23
rd
November 2011 the Committee were presented with
suggested reasons for refusal by the same officer who had previously recommended the
application for approval. The reasons for refusal and our comments on them are outlined
below:
1. The proposal is contrQ/Y to Policy Hou 8, Inappropriate Uses in Residential
Areas, in that the use is expected to lead to a loss ofadjacent residential amenity.
Response - Comparing the reasons for refusal as expressed in the decision notice with
the recorded minute of the meeting on 09'h November 2011 it would appear that the
Council do not now consider there to be an overprovision of guest houses in the area as
no reference is made to this in either reason for refusal. The Council is respectfully
requested in its submissions on this appeal to confirm if this is the case. If this is not the
case the Council is respectfully requested to provide us with an Inventory of the existing
guesthouses and the extent of the area to which they are referring so that we can comment
objectively on the allegations made.
As far as the alleged impact on the residential amenity of the area is concerned we have
previously outlined that the area within which the site is located is mixed use in nature
with high ambient noise levels. Given the nature of the use we refute any allegation that
the residential amenity of nearby residential occupiers will be adversely affected by the
proposed guest house. This is a view which is shared by both the planning officer who
recommended the application for approval and by the Council's Services for
Communities Department. The Council is respectfully requested in its submissions on
this appeal to clearly outline why it considers that the proposed use is 'expected to lead to
a loss of adjacent residential amenity for reason of noise and disturbance' and to cite
references to problems associated with existing guesthouse establishments in the area
insofar as general residential amenity considerations are concerned.
2. The proposal is contrary to non-statutmy guidelines on Parking Standards in
that the required number of parking spaces would exceed the jive spaces
illustrated. '
Derek Scott Plal/I/il/g
15
Response - We have previously demonstrated that the number of car parking spaces
proposed in association with the use of the property as a guest house complies with the
Council's Parking Standards. We would again fUlther add that based on our client's
experiences with other guest houses operated by them that the five spaces proposed far
exceeds the actual requirement from customers; the majority of which travel via public
transport or private taxi having arrived in the city via air, rail or bus transport. We would
further add that Constitution Street is one of the major rotes connecting the city with the
waterfront area and is exceptionally well served by public transport services. The
Council is respectfully requested to advise in its submissions on this appeal the precise
reasons why it considers the proposal to be contrary to the Parking Standards and why the
number of spaces proposed are inadequate in number to service the proposed use.
Derek Scoll P/WI1Iillg
16
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6. J Having considered the proposed development against the terms of both the development
plan and other material considerations we are firmly of the opinion that the appeal should
be upheld and that planning permission should be granted for the proposal. We would
summarise our client's case in the following terms:
The application premises are located at the junction of Constitution Street
and Mitchell Street in Leith, Edinburgh and comprise of a four storey
Category B Listed Building which is presently occupied on the ground floor
by a dental practice and on the other three floors by offices. Two of the
office floors are presently vacant and the third is being used temporarily by
our clients as an office in association with their guesthouse and hotel
accommodation business.
The vacant parts of the premises have been vigorously marketed for office
use by J & E Shepherd - Chartered Surveyors but without success.
The planning application submitted to the Council seeks permission to find a
new use for the building as a guest house accommodating eleven suites for
patrons and an additional suite for a resident manager. There are a total of
thirteen bedrooms proposed within the guesthouse (which includes one 2
bedroom suite). In addition to a bedroom(s) each suite contains a living area
fitted with tea/coffee making facilities and a bathroom/shower room.
Communal facilities including a dining area, laundry room and guest
kitchen are also proposed.
The proposed guesthouse will be aimed at the tourist and business markets
given its prominent position within the centre of Leith and ease of
accessibility to the city centre. The provision of such accommodation in
Leith is supported by the Council's Local Plan.
The application premises are located in an area which is mixed use in nature
containing bars, restaurants, offices and residential properties where
ambient noise levels are high throughout the day and at night.
The luxurious space standards proposed, aiming at the high end of the
tourist market and business clients, combined with the mixed use
characteristics of the area will ensure that the residential amenity of nearby
residential property occupiers will not be adversely affected.
The application premises are located on one of the principal transportation
corridors between the city centre and the waterfront and as such are well
served by public transport facilities.
A total of five car spaces are proposed in association with the proposed
guesthouse. Whilst this number of spaces complies with the Council's
Parking Standards our client's experiences with other guesthouses in the
city demonstrates that the number of spaces proposed far exceeds the actual
Derek Scott Plal/I/il/g
17
requirement as the vast majority of patrons to establishments of this nature
travel via either public tr-ansport or private taxi.
6.2 In summary we do not consider that there are any justifiable reasons for refusing our
client's application and having regard to the above, it is respectfully requested that this
appeal be upheld and that planning permission be granted for the change of use of the
propelty trom a surgery/offices to a guesthouse. We reserve the right to expand on these
Grounds of Appeal once the Council has established its position and provided its
Statement of Observations.
Signed
Derek Scott
Date 24
1h
January 2012
Derek Scoff P/flllllillg
18