Craigleith/Blackhall

The majority of planning applications in Craigleith/Blackhall are householder applications and generally do not raise issues of concern to the Community Council.

Nevertheless the proposal by the Scottish Government to simplify the planning system further by taking most single storey rear extensions out of the planning system ie they would not require a planning application and they would be treated as permitted development provided they met specified criteria, may lead to unintended consequences.  The changes also cover other related matters including a 1 metre bubble and an increase in site coverage by development.

The Scottish Government consultation paper on which consultation ends on 14 January 2011, sets out a extensive technical detail on how the proposed change can be delivered.  The objective to make householder development easier may be laudable, as part of the Scottish Government's streamlining agenda for the planning system and we do not dissent from the general principles proposed.

Craigleith/Blackhall Community Council has however one major reservation.  There do not appear to be any safeguards built into the proposed changes, including neighbour notification, should adjoining residents feel affected or disadvantaged by the proposed alterations/extensions proposed by their neighbour.  In exceptional cases there may also  be wider community or design related issues.  The Community Council is therefore of the view that there should be scope to bring forward a planning application where a proposed extension raises difficult or sensitive issues.  Generally we would expect this would only arise in a small number of cases.  We recommend that the new arrangements should therefore provide more explicitly for safeguards for neighbours and wider community interests.

One further concern.  The proposal to increase plot development to 50% of a plot may make sense in recent housing developments where plot sizes have been relatively small, but in an area like Craigleith and Blackhall plots of some inter-war houses are long (and narrow) and could lead to over-development of a site.  Retaining the 30% figure would seem to make more sense  in such circumstances.

We would also acknowledge that one of the costs will be a reduction in fee income for the Council.

A Denham

On behalf of CBCC