The planning department have said people have until the 5th April to put in further comments and objections on the new information. Here is our analysis on further docs submitted.

Remember – the plans have not changed so the planning department have said that your objections will all still be valid. However, if any of you didn’t manage to get your objection in for the last deadline – this is an opportunity to submit one now. You may also want to put in further comments of objection in addition to your original objection.

We will be putting in additional comments of objection to add to our original objection letter. If you put in additional comments we advise you make sure that you put a note to say that your original objection still stands and this is additional to your original objection.

A big concern is the continuing lack of proper financial information to justify the newbuild.  The developers have failed to prove the need for the new build or that it constitutes an “enabling development” under the guidelines the planning department are using.  So, we advise people people who can, to include the following in any further comments of objection you may have:

“The developer has failed to prove that the newbuild constitutes Enabling Development or that it is the minimum required. They have failed to show that the development is not viable without newbuild, let alone the excessive newbuild contained in these plans. Proper, detailed financial information must be released to the public including the conservation deficit calculation which should relate to the site, not the developer, and therefore cannot be considered commercially sensitive. This comment is in addition to my original objection which still stands.”

Add:   Craighouse campus Application nos: 12/04007/FUL and 12/04007/ LBC and include your  Name and Address and Date.

SEND TO: emma.wilson@edinburgh.gov.uk and add a second email address e.robertson@edinburgh.gov.uk to be sure.

Please cc the friends at Friendsofcraighouse (at) yahoo.com (Note,  insert “at” sign – we have to write it that way to avoid spammers). And also anyone else you wish to include like politicians and Community Councils. Details on our menu bar.

You may also submit your objection through the planning portal

• Google Edinburgh planning portal
•  put “Craighouse” in the search box
• you will see a list -the applications you want are 12/04007/FUL for the newbuild and 12/04007/LBC for the Listed Building Consent.
• We suggest you copy your objection in to both applications.

Here are some material planning considerations to include. Check out Alison Johnstone MSP’s letter for a very clear and comprehensive objection letter.

The deadline for new objections is 5th April (note not 29th March as previously stated on the planning portal) for both the Full Planning Consent and the Listed Building Consent. (See link on our analysis of docs for more on the Listed Building Consent and how to object)

 COUNCIL CONSULTATION PLEASE FILL IN SURVEY BY THE END OF THE MONTH. FOR OUR STATEMENT, LINK TO SURVEY AND FURTHER ADVICE CLICK HERE)

This proposal is contrary to the proposed strategic development SESplan policy 7.

The new build proposals in 12/04007/FUL are for housing outwith the identified Strategic Development Areas. The land is not zoned for housing in the local plan and the proposed development is large scale and not in keeping with the character of the local area which is identified as Victorian buildings against dramatic landscape backdrops in the Craiglockhart conservation character appraisal.

The proposals will also result in the following significant impacts and material considerations:

• A loss of open space contrary to the Council’s aim to protect and develop Edinburgh’s open space.
• A loss of public amenity – the proposed park is sited on an existing larger park; extra traffic and new roads will degrade the amenity.
• Significant traffic impact and congestion of local roads
• Significant new demand on local schools and other public services
• The removal of a significant number of trees from a site designated as a ‘Designated Conservation Area’; ‘Area of Great Landscape Value’; ‘Local Nature Conservation Site’ and ‘Local Nature Reserve’.
• Significant negative impacts on the biodiversity of the ‘Local Nature Conservation Site’ and ‘Local Nature Reserve’.
• Significant changes to the skyline and views.

I am concerned that the information available to the public, planners and Councillors was not adequate. The Council itself considered the accompanying environmental impact assessment to be “not competent” and concluded there were serious inaccuracies, incomplete drawings and images not representative of the development. The proposals do not contain a financial appraisal and the developer has not made the case for the necessity of the new build housing. Planning officials have considered the ‘enabling development’ case to be “weak at best and wholly lacking in other areas” and have noted the complete absence of a financial appraisal. This development cannot be determined without this important information.

Without prejudice to my objections, the developer must be required to come back with full, accurate and factually correct information to allow a fair decision to be made.

This is an important historic Edinburgh site of city-wide significance. The open green space and woodlands of Craighouse have been used by the local and wider Edinburgh community for generations and it is essential to preserve public amenity and ensure that current levels of access are maintained, not eroded. The quite excessive amount of new-build being proposed would result in a massive increase in residential traffic for the area. We must hold onto green sites such as this which really make our neighbourhoods special.

Yours faithfully

Alison Johnstone MSP

If you put in an objection to the Craighouse development, you should have received an email from planning.

This email informs you that there is more information that has been submitted by the developer after the planners wrote to them on the 10th December about inadequate information and factual inaccuracies in their application. The developers were supposed to submit this by the 11th Jan, but failed to do this. They have now submitted something and there is now until the 29th March to submit any further comments/additional objections.

The Craighouse Partnership claim the landscape should be sacrificed: the Friends believe the buildings set in the beautiful landscape is what makes this site special

Please note: The actual plans have not changed and so the original objections sent in should still stand.

We will be looking at this further information in detail. Presently, it appears to be very unsatisfactory – particularly as they have – yet again – failed to release proper financial information to the public, despite the fact that enabling development is viewed as a public subsidy and therefore should be open to public scrutiny.

However there are a number of interesting points:

There is no evidence that they won’t make a profit on simply converting the existing listed buildings. The information fails to show the excessive newbuild is necessary to make the scheme viable. To be considered “enabling development” they must show there what is called a “conservation deficit”. A “conservation deficit” calculation is supposed to prove that that a site cannot be converted to a new use in a financially viable way. We have always argued that this site can be converted to a new use in a financially viable way. This calculation has been submitted to the council, but is completely secret, with not even a summary released to the public. So there is no evidence provided that the excessive newbuild is necessary or a minimum or that site can’t be profitably converted that the developers are prepared to put to any public scrutiny at all!

They say that the buildings are more important than the landscape and therefore the landscape can be sacrificed for the sake of the listed buildings. (I think the local community would disagree about that. The Friends’ view is the buildings and the landscape are part and parcel of what is special about Craighouse – and both are part of the Historic Scotland Listing and both are covered in protections at a local and national level. Surrounding listed buildings with ugly newbuild is also to the severe detriment of the listed buildings themselves.) It is also not made clear how the development serves to protect the listed buildings, as they have given no figures to evidence the new development being necessary or being a true enabling development.

Interestingly, the documents make clear that a grant for the Category-A listed buildings would normally be available from Historic Scotland – but not in this case because the developers are making too much profit.

They want to pay themselves £7.5m in “professional fees” in addition to the profit they are taking. (Ie, this is in addition to the profit being made on the scheme, the profit on the construction being paid to those doing the development (undisclosed), the chunk of profit given to Napier University (not mentioned) and the profit made by Mountgrange (quoted as being £7-10 million). This, also, despite the fact a huge amount of this work should have been undertaken already for the application with William Gray Muir claiming they have already spent a million – so what is this money for exactly?

More of the newbuild designs

They say the cost of the scheme is £58 million, despite the fact the construction costs of the listed buildings should be well under £22million. From written information obtained from William Gray Muir the listed buildings conversion should be a lot less than £22m (going on the figures he has quoted – around £18 million). New-build should be cheaper than old, so these figures should be broken down properly and released for public scrutiny. Happily, it is easy to see a very easy way for the developers to reduce the costs at a stroke – by taking away the excessive new-build!

housing type proposed for the sprawling housing estate

Interest on the borrowing. Now, despite claiming to have the cash and despite insisting that they would not need to borrow for the development when we met them last year, there is an unexplained bank loan included for borrowing what appears to be described as “100% of the development costs”. This simply makes no sense because they simultaneously say this borrowing will be £10 million – which (according to their summary) is only a sixth of their construction costs.

So, how is this working?

If they borrow only £10 million and then do a small part of the new-build and sell on and then use the money for the next part and so on and so forth – this results in a massive return for Mountgrange (nearly 100% return on an initial low investment.) Such a system would result in great results for Mountgrange but huge risks for the site and will take years to complete – whilst the site remains a mess. As we know, their plan is to leave the important, biggest building New Craig, until last – putting this important building at risk for potentially years. Indeed, the question remains – if, as they want us to believe, the listed buildings are not profitable on their own, what is the incentive to even complete the project after the “profitable” parts are done?

Unfortunately this section simply doesn’t make sense or add up. Despite two years on this project, the Craighouse Partnership have yet again shown they are incapable of providing a proper worked-out financial argument.

They say they pay corporation tax of £2.5 million. This, despite being registered off-shore in the Isle of Man.

The documents also say the developers would be able to make more profit by making more apartments out of the listed buildings – They originally proposed splitting the buildings into about 90 units, but as their financial argument has changed, the numbers in the listed buildings have dropped to 66 (as opposed to over 80 newbuild properties). They say that it would be more financially advantageous to them to split the listed buildings into more units but claim they are not doing this due to sensitivity to the buildings. Well, two things here: if this was the case, then obviously the protected landscape and setting of the Listed Buildings should not be sacrificed for such a reason. And secondly, according to the Craighouse Partnership elsewhere in their documentation, they are valuing on square footage – NOT by numbers of units. So, none of this adds up (as usual) or makes any sense.

(NOTE: LISTED BUILDING CONSENT REOPENING FOR COMMENTS ALSO) It is worth noting that the Listing Building Consent is also being readvertised and is open for objection and comment once more. Whilst people don’t object in theory to the development of the Listed Buildings, I myself put in an objection to this saying that as the scheme was being considered as a whole and claimed to be interdependent – that therefore the LBC should not be granted unless the whole thing made sense. Councillor Gavin Corbett was astute in picking up that the Listed Buildings issue should be looked at again if the developer was claiming that they could only have a few units. If the Craighouse Partnership are maintaining that they should be allowed to destroy and exploit more green space for this reason – the Listed Building Consent should be refused and the break-down and division of the listed buildings and their conversion looked at again. See base of this article for more info on the LBC).

The conservation deficit calculation should be released for public scrutiny

We cannot see any kind of conservation deficit calculation being presented to the public. As “enabling development” is seen as a public subsidy, the assumption is that the value of the site must be marked as zero and the financial information released for public scrutiny. (Note – Enabling development is an idea that can help derelict sites that have no other options whatsoever. Even then, care has to be taken not to destroy landscape and amenity. Craighouse – having had many bids and much interest and being set in a prime residential area – is NOT in this position. ) Craighouse received numerous bids, a  number of 10million+. Its value is certainly not zero but many millions.

The infamous “boilerhouse villas” now called North Craig

Enabling Development is not to be used to give easy additional profits to developers by pushing through planning policy. You cannot pay anything you like for a site and then claim you must be given enabling development. Think about it, if the system let this happen then unscrupulous developers could outbid other more reasonable developers who have reasonable plans. Such a system would reward speculators and the irresponsible. And that is what the rules surrounding enabling development seek to avoid for our most sensitive sites.

Yet more Inconsistencies between the Enabling Dev argument and the Craighouse Partnership’s application

It is strange to see that after the financial argument changed three times over the past two years, we are back to square one with The Craighouse Partnership claiming that excessive newbuild is needed for factoring fees – using evidence and arguments inconsistent with what they have said at public meetings and elsewhere in their own application! For example:

“the management and maintenance buildings, their landscape setting and Easter Craiglockhart Hill will be by a factor acting on behalf of the joint owners. It
will be managed as if from a single organisation as it is currently. The owners of the
apartments and houses will all be required to contribute money to a fund”

However, this is completely inconsistent with what  The Craighouse Partnership have said elsewhere in the application, in press releases and to the general public at large when they have claimed that Easter Craiglockhart Hill and other parts of the grounds will be in public or community ownership – which would remove all financial burden from any future residents for these areas. So why are they stating that Easter Craiglockhart Hill (the nature reserve) will be owned and managed by the future residents? Again, this does not add up.

And we find another old chestnut turning up (this time hidden away in the small print):

“Both the NHS and Napier University ultimately came to the same decision that the site was unaffordable and not fit for purpose. The White Young Green report stated an annualised cost of £700,000 per annum.”

First, the argument for Napier offloading Craighouse was not just about costs but because of all Napier’s sites it had the “greatest potential realisable value”. (As quoted in minutes of the Scottish Funding Council when Napier asked them for permission dispose of Craighouse).

As to the White Young Green report (a forward-projection report done for Napier), the Friends have already shown, the vast majority of the costs shown were nothing to do with maintaining the buildings or the grounds but were electrical and mechanical costs – ie costs associated with running a university.  If you remove those costs you come up with the historic maintenance costs of Napier  that were finally obtained under an FOI – i.e. approx £150,000.  So why are The Craighouse Partnership quoting the White Young Green without making that breakdown clear?

Friends will Continue to Push for Proper Information

We will continue to push for the proper release of financial information – as it should be – to the general public. The developers are trying to argue “commercial confidentiality” but the conservation deficit should relate to the site itself, not the individual developer, therefore there is no reason of “commercial confidentiality” why this financial information should be being withheld from the public.

We will be submitting additional comments to our original letter of objection based on a close reading of the new information including some of the above.

Remember – your objections will all still be held to be valid according to planning. However, if any of you didn’t manage to get your objection in in time last time – this is an opportunity to submit one now. Email emma.wilson@edinburgh.gov.uk. Here are some material planning considerations to include.

The deadline for new objections is 5th April (note not 29th March as previously stated) for the full planning consent and 5th April for the Listed Building Consent. In light of their claims about units (see above), it would be worth putting in objections to this also.

People enjoying the snow in front of the stunning view to Blackford – which would be destroyed by the 4 storey housing, carparking and roads proposed

another excuse to wheel out this picture of a fabulous beech tree at Craighouse

The Council are running a consultation on the possibilities of Community or Council ownership of some parts of the Craighouse Site.

As we have stated before, concerns have been voiced to us about the map and the areas outlined and the boundaries – which seems rather closely modelled on the development application. Large parts of Myreside Woods, Craighouse Woods and the East Lawn are being kept away from discussion.

We have been assured by Councillors that the development and this in principle consultation are not directly linked in the Council’s eyes and that the map is for illustrative purposes. We would like to encourage people who care about the site to answer this consultation and not to let the limits/boundaries of the map be a limitation on our positive aspirations for the site.  There is a comments section on the consultation – check out our advice below on what you might include to help with this point, if that is useful for you.

At a meeting of Friends of Craighouse held on 06-Mar-13, the options for ownership of land at Craighouse were discussed and the following position was reached:

 Statement:

Without any prejudice to our opposition to the unacceptable newbuild development proposed on the Craighouse site, the Friends of Craighouse would support either community or public ownership or a combination of the two for all the wooded, green and open spaces currently on the site of Craighouse campus as long as this did not lead to excessive newbuild elsewhere on the site.

The Friends of Craighouse feel that there is sufficient expertise, numbers and commitment within the group to make community management a viable option, or to lend active support to the ranger service, if the site was taken into public ownership.

We are willing to work with Edinburgh City Council and other community groups on the prospect of land transfer and the on-going form of ownership. We wish to state that this commitment does not reflect any acceptance of the boundaries of the five areas shown on the map presented by the Council in their consultation, but does indicate a willingness and firm commitment to work with the Council to achieve long term protection of all the wooded, green and open spaces on the Craighouse site for the benefit of the local communities around the site and the wider public of Edinburgh.

Building on protected open space, woodland and areas of Great Landscape Value and Nature Conservation Sites is against planning policy and the whole of the important and spectacular Craighouse site has enjoyed historic public access for decades, so a long-term management solution for the landscape needs to be found.

Whilst we believe that community or public ownership is in the long-term public interest,  it should be recognised that the community or Council would be taking on the liabilities of the present or future owner and this would also be in the interests of any new residents on the site. Therefore, this should not be used to justify excessive newbuild on the site.

Whether in public or community ownership, the long-term protection of these areas must be legally secured and we are willing to work with the Council on securing this also.

We believe community or public ownership would be both in the long-term public interest and in the interests of any new residents on the site. We are happy to work with the Council towards a workable and positive ownership solution.

The consultation runs to the 31st March. Please fill it in here and circulate to friends and family:

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/495/parks_gardens_and_open_spaces/1929/easter_craiglockhart_hill_local_nature_reserve_and_adjacent_lands

Here for going direct to the online survey:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/6NJKKLS

OUR ADVICE:

·         say No to option 1.
·         choose preferred option.
·         think about including a second option in addition to the preferred option.
·         make it clear in the comments section that  map should be  illustrative rather than upper limit
·        make it clear that you oppose the current development plans and that any transfer should not be allowed to justify excessive newbuild on the rest of the site.

You may also refer to our statement and back that up if you wish.

Anyone who didn’t attend the Council’s consultation meeting on this issue at Meggetland (or who did, but remained confused!) there is a second Council Consultation meeting on this issue on the

21st March 2013 at 7pm

Morningside United Church Hall,

15 Chamberlain Road, EH10 4DH

The purpose of the event is to provide information and an opportunity for the public to ask questions.

If you would like to find out more about community ownership there is a very useful page on the Woodland Trust website here:

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/campaigning/woodwatch/woods-under-threat/Pages/communitypurchase.aspx#.UUB5hlcs41k

It is estimated that over 1000 individual letters of objection have been submitted to the planning department. The planning department have been putting them onto the portal over the last few weeks so the final number is yet to be verified but this is absolutely fantastic!

This fabulous picture of the castle from Craighouse was taken by Stephen L D’Agostino – click to see his set of Craighouse photos on Flickr. Thanks, Stephen, for kindly letting us reproduce this here!

It is extremely unusual to get these kind of numbers for a planning application and from the letters that have been forwarded to the Friends, the overall quality of the objections has been very high, with many long and detailed letters – which is even more impressive. Many knowledgeable groups and organisations have also written in.

In addition, thousands signed the petition which has been submitted.

Thank you everyone who wrote in and all who spread the word!

This is an overwhelming demonstration of the value of this site to people as well as its great importance in terms of the wider city and nationally in terms of its landscape, buildings, history, status as one of Edinburgh’s seven hills, wildlife habitat and as an Area of Great Landscape Value. We will keep you updated on any news.

COUNCIL CONSULTATION AND DATE FOR THE DIARY

A Council consultation is taking place about whether people would like to see community/Council ownership of some areas at Craighouse. Some local people have had letters through their doors – and others haven’t, even though they live right next to the site, so the consultation is rather patchy at the moment. However, there is a meeting arranged by the Council looking at this issue on Thursday 21 February 2013 from 7.30 – 9.30pm at Meggetland Sports Complex, Function Suite, 60J Colinton Road, Edinburgh, EH14 1AS. So we look forward to more discussion of these issues there.

Some people have expressed concern to us that the information being put out by the Council (particularly the map of areas under discussion) seems to presuppose the present plans. Councillor Gavin Corbett assures on his blog that this is not the case. The motion that set this consultation in motion, put forward by Councillor Andrew Burns and passed by the Council, also made it clear that is not the case. (Both Councillor Corbett and Councillor Burns have objected to the current scheme.)

The Friends have always supported the idea of community or community and Council ownership and will be writing in to that effect and with our comments. We will try to put that letter on the website. However, we think the map the Council is using is unfortunate and don’t believe the Council should be limiting discussion to a map based on the Craighouse Partnership’s current plans. These unpopular and unacceptable plans shouldn’t be the limiting factor on the in-principle discussion and offer from Council and community.

We will study the information in more detail and try and write it up on the website in more detail and send out further info to members as soon as we can and if people have comments for us that might be helpful – let us know. Thanks so much!

A picture of part of what was proposed for Caltongate: new devs want old consents renewed

This is not about Craighouse but we have been asked to inform people about what is happening over Mountgrange’s notorious plans for Caltongate in the Old Town.

The old consents are up for renewal by the new owner of the site and the deadline for comments/objections is this Friday.

As most of you will know, these plans provoked huge controversy and large numbers of objections from all over Edinburgh and beyond. They included the demolition and partial demolition of historic buildings in or around the Old Town.

Mountgrange subsequently went into administration, but the site was bought by a new set of developers who are now looking to keep permission for the old plans despite the fact the Caltongate plans did not get built within the time-limit of the associated permissions. The consents for Mountgrange’s old plans should lapse in Summer of this year if they are not renewed. The new developer, Artisan, is supposed to be putting forward new plans, but say they want to renew these old plans in order to maintain the value of the current sites. This included the demolition or partial demolition of historic buildings. And Artisan doesn’t own all of the site as Mountgrange never fully paid the council for all of the individual sites before it went into administration.

The destruction to Edinburgh’s heritage was argued on the basis of “economic development” and various other promises of improvements to the area. However the “economic development” and “regeneration” was a disaster for the area, leaving the site derelict for years and Bank of Scotland with huge unpaid debts. The council lost quite a bit of money on this scheme as well. So, why renew these old consents for land the developer doesn’t even own (in some cases)? The developer is already negotiating to reduce conditions attached to these consents and reduce the financial contributions considerably (for example, tram contributions have gone from around£1m to £50,000). So should developers be allowed to have cakes and eat them too? How does this help the local community ensure that a good development scheme happens in this area?

Objecting to these failed consents will not prevent a good new regeneration scheme being approved, because there is a strategy for the area to enable regeneration.

Those concerned about what happened at Caltongate might want to know that there is now an application in to renew these consents and may want to comment.

Some of the planning consents proposed to be renewed for a further 3 years that you might be interested in include demolition of listed building The Canongate Venture, partial demolition of the Old Sailor’s Ark and Macrae Tenements. The applications are below

Demolition of the historic Canongate Venture

Full demolition of the historic Canongate Venture Building including raised podium playground together with supporting walls and boundary railings to be demolished: 13/00106/FUL

Old Sailor’s Ark

Sailor’s Ark on the Royal Mile: Demolition of building apart from retained facade

Demolition of the listed building, Old Sailor’s Ark, apart from a retained facade: 13/00101/LBC

.

.

.

.

.

.

Macrae Tenements

Macrae Tenements on the Royal Mile

Demolish buildings on Royal Mile with part-retained facade: 13/00106/FUL, extend consent: 07/01206/CON. All associated curtilage and out-buildings will be demolished.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

You can click on the above links to object to the demolition of historic buildings in this important historic area. There are also numerous other related consents you may want to c object to/ comment on. We cannot list them all but more information is available here. We would encourage anyone who cares about historic buildings and our city to look at these proposals and ask if they are the best we can do for our city and ask why we are extending past consents that would allow historic buildings to be demolished for no reason when other plans are supposed to be being drawn up.

NEW DEADLINE: 4th JAN
(due to portal problems). Click for:  HOW TO OBJECT.

Opposition to the plans is growing apace.  Politicians report that their inboxes are awash with objections. But we can’t know the true number until well into the New Year so we can’t be complacent –   Please spread the word and please keep the objections coming. As awareness grows, people from all over the city are starting to realise what’s going on – and are horrified about what is proposed for Edinburgh’s seventh hill. The more people who know about this the better and the more who write in the more the impact there will be on planners and politicians. Let’s show how cared about this site is!

Morningside Community Council Vote to Object
On Wed night, Morningside Community Council voted decisively to oppose the plans – voting on a list of objections based on planning policy. Community Councils have a statutory duty to represent the community and the community made their views overwhelmingly clear at the packed public meeting and through a survey (where over 80% opposed the plans).

Morningside Parents Vote to Object
The parents  of Morningside Primary have also decisively voted to oppose the development being in the catchment area of the already overwhelmed South Morningside Primary. Over 90% of the parents that responded to a survey were opposed on these grounds so the parents council will be submitting an objection on behalf of the school community.

Cockburn Association Objects
The Cockburn Association, Edinburgh’s Civic Society, has sent in an objection letter saying they “strongly object to these proposals”. They say:

As the whole scheme hangs on the requirement for enabling development and the City of Edinburgh Council will be referring to the English Heritage policy on Enabling Development and Conservation of Significant Places we would draw your attention to paragraph 3.8.2

But if applicants are unwilling to supply the very information that is the foundation of their case for overriding normal planning policies, refusal becomes all but inevitable.

They add:

The Craighouse Campus on Easter Craiglockhart Hill combines landscape and architecture that are of national importance and the process is therefore under intense public scrutiny. The Association wishes to see the future of Dr Clouston and his architect Sydney Mitchell’s outstanding architectural contribution to Scotland’s heritage secured with a minimum of intervention required, for future generations to continue to enjoy the exceptional qualities of Edinburgh’s seventh hill. In light of the foregoing we strongly object to these proposals.

[their bold]

Craiglockhart Community Council Objects
Craiglockhart Community Council have also put in a letter of objection. Viewable on the portal.

SEPA OBJECTS
SEPA have also put in an objection. A letter released on the portal today makes it clear that the Craighouse Partnership have not done enough work on the drainage. Residents of Balcarres Street are particularly concerned about flooding, understandably since the nightmare they have faced in recent years. Residents in Meadowspot are also very vulnerable to water run off. This letter  would seem to show, yet again, that The Craighouse Partnership, have submitted inadequate information.

Politicians Stand up to be Counted
The public meeting arranged by Morningside Community Council a fortnight ago included a presentation from William Gray Muir for The Craighouse Partnership and another by Rosy Barnes of the Friends of Craighouse, was chaired by Ian Murray MP and attended by a number of politicians.   Jim Eadie SNP MSP and Alison Johnstone Green MSP showed real leadership on the issue. Jim Eadie emphasised the importance of the site and his concern about the lack of financial transparency that has since turned into such a big issue for this development. Alison reminded the assembled audience of why she went into politics in the first place. The community had compromised already – she said – over Meggetland. We had to draw a line and there was no point “if Craighouse was no longer Craighouse”. Councillor Mark McInnes (Conservative) also expressed concern from the floor saying he believed the community’s major concern was the amount of newbuild and that was the real issue.

Councillor Gavin Corbett (Green) wrote an open letter to the Evening News in which he brings up the lack of financial case submitted and the way things seem to change on the hoof, saying “credulity is being stretched as the process 
continues.”

It’s good to see politicians prepared to voice the serious concerns for the people they represent.

Jim Eadie followed up with a letter to residents after the results from his own survey (over 90% of respondents opposed the plans). He wrote: 

“I do not agree that the developers have shown that we cannot both preserve these buildings and maintain the wonderful greenspace that surrounds them. This site is highly protected by planning policies, and rightly so. If we ride roughshod over these planning policies to build on Craighouse – where is next? I firmly believe, having carefully considered all of the arguments, that it is time to say enough is enough.”

We must think about what’s at stake.

Craighouse is one of the seven hills: others are Blackford and Braid, Corstorphine Hill, Calton Hill, Arthur’s Seat and the Castle Rock.

Craighouse is an Area of Great Landscape Value. Others are Arthur’s Seat, Hermitage of Braid, Corstorphine Hill and the Botanical Gardens. (And Corstorphine Hill is already battling development!)

Craighouse is Open Space in a Conservation Area – the only protection that keeps so many of our City’s parks from development…

And apart from the appalling precedent that would be created – shouldn’t we demand better for this stunning important historic site on Edinburgh’s seventh hill?  At the public meetings, excitement about other options is growing – hotel with the villas residential, conference centre, flats for the active older market. There is a very lucrative wedding business at Craighouse – The Craighouse Partnership themselves were impressed with the figures…

There were many bidders for this site and a lot of interest and many alternatives. What the Craighouse Partnership proposes will ruin this exceptional site and stunning hilltop setting of Category A Listed Buildings and exploit protected green space and woodland for profit.

So, please. We know it’s Christmas. But spare two minutes to join the growing numbers of people, of organisations and groups who are objecting to what is happening at Craighouse. The deadline has been extended to the 4th Jan – so if you haven’t already, you still have time to object – here’s that link again: https://friendsofcraighouse.com/how-to-object/

Thanks so much!

DEADLINE 4th JAN

NEW DEADLINE: 24th December

Breaking News: MSP Jim Eadie expresses dismay at the “cavalier” treatment of the planning process by The Craighouse Partnership and says the lack of care taken by The Craighouse Partnership over preparing this application has “been laid bare for all to see”. Please read the article and then scroll down for full details of how to object.

It’s not hard to object – the easiest is probably to just drop a quick email to Emma Wilson:

• Email planner Emma Wilson at: emma.wilson@edinburgh.gov.uk

Or else e.robertson@edinburgh.gov.uk

Otherwise:

• Write to: Head of Planning, Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street
  EH8 8BG
• Use the Edinburgh Planning Portal online at: https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk  .Find Simple Search  put in the application number: 12/04007/FUL and it will come up. Click on “log in” and follow instructions and write your comments.

Remember: put the planning reference no: 12/04007/FUL  address: Napier Campus  Craighouse  as well as your name, address and the date. The portal can have gremlins so please be persistent.

WHAT TO WRITE

Just express your opinion in your own words on why you object. If you can include some of the material planning considerations that we have set out below – it will have more power in planning terms.

SIMPLE OBJECTION

Example of a simple objection:

‘I would like to object to the development at Craighouse (12/04007/FUL). The newbuild development goes against planning policy and is against The Edinburgh Local Plan. [name and address]’

MATERIAL PLANNING OBJECTIONS

1. Contrary to Policy: Contrary to the Edinburgh Local Plan and other Scottish Gov planning policies.

2. Excessive & Unjustified New Build Sprawl: the site is heavily protected for its beauty, historic significance, and support of wildlife. They should not be putting new-build across it.

3. Ruining Setting of Grade-A Listed Buildings: the new build spoils the setting of the existing Grade-A listed buildings. Old Craig will be obscured by a housing estate and New Craig and the villas dominated by blocks. The site’s character as a city landmark will be spoilt from viewpoints around the city.

4. The Character of the Conservation Area will be Spoilt. The Craighouse site is a significant part of the character of the area – epitomises the Craiglockhart conservation character appraisal, which talks of Victorian buildings against dramatic landscape backdrops. The amount and style of new build is out of keeping with the listed buildings and surrounding area and highly detrimental to the character of the conservation area.

5. Public Amenity: The public will lose their much-loved open space, beautiful woodland and views. Areas where children play football will be destroyed, along with open parkland and many traditional walks. The high numbers of traffic and more roads will make it less safe, peaceful and natural.

6. Loss of Open Space. Craighouse is not designated for housing in the Local Plan and is a highly protected site of Open Space. Edinburgh Council are obliged to protect Open Space whether publicly or privately owned. So, according to policy, Craighouse should not be built on.

7. Craighouse is an Area of Great Landscape Value and Nature Conservation Site. These plans do not enhance the landscape – quite the contrary: they destroy the landscape character.

8. Local Traffic and Parking: 323+ extra vehicles will cause congestion on local roads already at capacity.

9. Cars/Parking onsite: roads/car-parks for 323 cars will turn green Open Space to tarmac against policy. This plus the traffic on site will spoil the character of the site, contrary to the conservation area policy.

10. Schooling: the new residential development will create an unsustainable strain on local schools, for which there is no possibility of enlargement (even with further funding, which is rarely sufficient from any new developments).

11. Flooding on Balcarres St: The extra car-parks and buildings will lead to increased flood-risk.

12. Trees: the plans see significant removal of mature trees and woodland, protected in a Conservation Area

13. Wildlife: The site is the habitat of local wildlife and the development proposal areas are the habitat of protected species such as bats and badgers. As a Local Biodiversity Site, the wildlife should be especially protected here.

14. Views and Skyline: The proposals will spoil the spectacular views into and out of the site. Protected views from the orchard to the castle will be foregrounded by sprawling housing estate with more housing ruining the views to the East. Views from outside of the site (such as from Blackford Hill or Arthur’s Seat) will be spoilt with new buildings obscuring or overwhelming the current Grade A listed buildings.

15. Precedent: This amount of new-build is in contravention of the Local Plan, the numerous protections and policies creates a dangerous precedent for Edinburgh’s other historic sites and green spaces.

REMEMBER:   Write to the Council Planners by letter, email or by the Planning Portal and object to application number:  12/04007/FUL by the 24th of December.

Thanks so much!