[IMPORTANT NOTE: FOR HOW TO OBJECT AND SAVE THIS BEAUTIFUL SITE -GO HERE]

William Gray Muir and The Craighouse Partnership have been trying to claim the planning dept accept their financial case, in letters sent to the local community, and again, in last Friday’s packed Public Meeting arranged by Morningside Community Council.

Today, a letter from the planners to Montagu Evans, the Craighouse Partnership’s agent, which is public on the planning portal states that this is not the case in no uncertain terms:

“There are also a number of inaccurate statements. In the Planning Statement paragraph 5.35 you state that “…The various tests for the enabling development have been met and are accepted by the Planning Authority and Knight Frank LLP”. This is factually incorrect. No agreement has been reached in respect of any element of the proposal”

Indeed, it adds:

“It is noted that your application is not accompanied by any form of financial assessment”

The letter goes on to detail other deficiencies in The Craighouse Partnership’s application, such as off-site views:

“Off site views – I have tested a sample of the off site views submitted and consider the quality of the images are inaccurate and not representative of how the site is read by the human eye.”

Drawings:

“Drawing information – In general the drawings submitted are incomplete for an application of this size, and do not represent a coordinated set of information for the site and individual development areas.”

To be put on the ridge above Meadowspot

Landscape Setting:

“There is no assessment of landscape setting of the buildings”

The Conservation Plan:

“There is conflicting information in the executive summary and key conclusion of character assessment. The document also contains conflicting information in relation to how many sites could be developed with ‘discrete development’”

And, importantly, the Environmental Impact Assessment:

“The EIA submitted with the application is not considered to be a competent document…Overall it is considered that the information has not been presented in a clear, comprehensive and objective manner.”

“Drawings within the non- technical summary are not legible.”

“No mitigation measures have been put forward for the proposals – generic statements relating to good design, additional tree planting etc. contained within Table 5.6 are not acceptable.”

“the EIA does not show an accurate interpretation of what trees will be retained on the site which consequently will impact on the visual analysis.”

“The assessment of the Edinburgh Skyline Study is incomplete.”

Then, we come to the Enabling Development case,  about which the letter says:

“Your Planning Statement makes reference to policy criteria a – g, setting out your case in paragraph 5.31.  Your response to these criteria is considered weak at best and wholly lacking in other areas.”

The letter reminds The Craighouse Partnership of the English Heritage Guidelines on Enabling Development that say that the financial case must be made public.

The letter finishes:

“Clearly I am disappointed that this application is incomplete. I have attempted to identify the deficiencies and inaccuracies in your submission to assist you in submitted the required information.”

This is just some of the letter. It is on the portal as correspondence – last item on documents presently if you want to read the whole thing. The question why The Craighouse Partnership has submitted such a poor application remains to be answered.