QUEENSFERRY AND DISTRICT COMMUNITY COUNCIL         BACK       

REPORT : CHAIRMAN

1. On Tuesday 26 February I attended the West Community Safety meeting at Corstorphine Police Station. Jimmy Brown was confirmed as QDCC representative. Having a second QDCC representative would be useful.

2. On Thursday 28 February I attended a SPYS meeting to progress the YPMP and skateboard park.

3. On Monday 3 March members of QDCC met with Evans to discuss future development at Ferrymuir.

4. I attended a meeting of EACC on Thursday 6 March.

5. On Monday 10 March I attended a meeting to discuss the building of an ‘earth ship’ at Dalmeny Primary School.  A QDCC member willing to engage in this project is sought.

6. I was at a meeting on Wednesday 19 March at QHS of persons interested in developing a skatepark.   

T Martin

Chairman

QDCC

March 2008

 REPORT : SECRETARY

SUMMARY :  11 ITEMS: 10 IN, 1 OUT

Martin D. Gallagher

Secretary

 24 March 2008

                                report - Councillor Norman Work

On Wednesday 27^th February, I chaired the Hawes/Longcraig users meeting.

On Thursday 28^th I attended the Planning committee to see through a report I commissioned to have the affordable housing in Rural West Edinburgh in line with the rest of the City of Edinburgh council area at 25% for developments under 500 houses.

That evening I attended a meeting of S.P.Y.S. in Queensferry High School

On Friday 29^th I accepted a petition against the Orocco Peir.

On Saturday 30^th I attended the presentation of the Fair trade Royal Burgh ceremony and attended the coffee morning afterwards.

On Monday 3^rd March, all three Almond Ward councillors met to discuss ward issues.

Later that evening I held my monthly surgery for Queensferry at Echline Primary School.

On Wednesday 5^th I attended a reception at Queensferry Boat club to celebrate the end of their 50^th anniversary celebrations

On Thursday 5^th March Murray Black, West Neighbourhood Manager and I went on a walk/drive to look at issues in the Almond Ward. As far as Queensferry is concerned we noted the parking problem and witnessed the street lights that are on all day and some other points were noted.

Along with Cllr Kate MacKenzie, we met the Chair of the Friends of Ferry Glen for an information gathering walk about in the Back Braes and Ferry Glen on Monday 10^th March. Later the same day I presented a cheque for £180.50 to QCCC for my Loony Dook exploits.

I was informed that the fault which kept the lights on all day around the Hopetoun Road area have been fixed.

On Wednesday 12^th I met with Inspector Alan Duthie to discuss issues in the Almond Ward.  Later that morning I attended the funeral of Rev John Carrie.

On Friday 14^th I attended the RNLI fundraiser cheese & wine evening.

I attended the Friends of the Ferry Glen AGM on Tuesday 18^th March.

On Wednesday 19^th Cllr MacKenzie and I attended the planning meeting and spoke against the proposed development at 13 Edinburgh Road. The committee decided on a site visit before they decide.

On Thursday 20^th I met with developers wishing to build on the Dundas estate

On Wednesday 26^th March, all three Almond ward councillors met with planning officials to discuss the Agilent site.

     Planning Conveners Report

Applications

Over the last five weeks seven applications have been lodged with the Planning Authority for extensions and alterations to properties.

The two applications noted below continue.

Application 07/04626/FUL Residential Single Dwelling at 13 Edinburgh Road SQ in the Queensferry Conservation Area. I met with Mr & .Mrs John Shaw and discussed this application as we learnt that the application was being presented to committee on the 19^th March 2008. I petitioned the Almond Ward Councillors as did the Shaws and Kate and Norman made representation to the Planning Committee and outlined our concerns. The application has been put on hold and a decision will be made after a site visit.

Application 07/05014/FUL Install a 5KW Wind Turbine 6 Builyeon Road South Queensferry

Our letter of objection has been acknowledged as being material to the application. No progress to report.

Application 08/00574/Full New shared resources building to house, new plant and staff gym

at Agilent Technologies

The Community Council is registered as a consultee and I have had the period of consultation extended to the 4^th April 2008. Maryanna our planning consultant has studied the planning officers report and advises that it is unlikely that any objection to this application would be successful. Copy attached for information.

Planning Decisions

The Planning Authority granted seven applications by delegation the application to erect the Forth Bridge Memorial Stone in Newhalls Road – Hawes Promenade was granted.

Echline Development PfP and CCG

I was asked to write to PfP at our February meeting and Susan Davies of PfP along with Tom Gracie of CCG will be attending the March meeting.

Jacobs Ladder

The meeting planned for February was cancelled as Network Rail representative could not attend.

Residential Development Scotstoun Avenue – Agilent

I have prepared and issued a report to the three Almond ward Councillors Grubb, McKenzie and Work and look forward to receiving some feedback at our meeting.

How Planners Make Decisions – Seminar

Merchiston CC held a seminar on the 18^th March 2008 in Polwarth Parish Church. I have an electronic copy of the power point presentation should anyone be interested.

Queensferry Fairtrade – 1^st March 2008

I was pleased and honored to be asked to receive the fairtrade award on behalf of Queensferry the first Royal Burgh to receive such an award.

Keith Giblett

Planning Convener

26^th March 2008

Agilent Application Planning Consultants Report.

Firstly, I should draw your attention to the relevant legislation which enables local planning authorities to enter into legal agreements with developers in respect of planning gain/developer contributions:

Circular 12/1996

LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

2. Section 50(1) of the 1972 Act (as amended) provides that "a planning authority may enter into an agreement with any person interested in land in their area (in so far as the interest of that person enables him to bind the land) for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of that land, either permanently or during such period as may be prescribed by the agreement .....". Section 50(2) provides that if the agreement is recorded in the Register of Sasines or registered in the Land Register of Scotland, as appropriate, it will be enforceable by the planning authority against successors in title. Such agreements therefore offer advantages over other statutory agreements which are in the nature of personal contracts.

THE USE OF PLANNING AGREEMENTS: GENERAL POLICY

4. The Government believes that planning agreements have a limited but useful role to play in the development control process but they should only be sought where they are required to make a proposal acceptable in land use planning terms. Such agreements can be used to overcome obstacles to the grant of planning permission; in this way development can be allowed to proceed, the quality of development can be enhanced and potentially negative impacts on land use, the environment and infrastructure can be reduced, eliminated or compensated for.

5. A planning authority should not, however, treat an applicant' s need for planning permission as an opportunity to obtain a benefit, financial or environmental, which is unrelated in nature, scale or kind to the development proposed; planning authorities should only require planning agreements to be entered into if, in land use planning terms, it would be wrong to grant planning permission without them. The presence or absence of extraneous inducements or benefits should not influence the decision of a planning authority on an application for planning permission; unacceptable development should never be permitted because of the offer of unrelated benefits. ning authorities should not be influenced by offers of inducements to refuse applications for planning permission.

As discussed, now that the Committee has made its decision on the agilent application and presumably has added nothing further to the heads of terms listed under informatives in the officer's report (best to check the committee meeting minutes to confirm this), i think at this late stage, there is little scope for the CC to go back to the Council in respect of additional heads of terms for inclusion in the S75.  Further, it would be extremely difficult for the Council itself at this stage to enter into further negotiations with agilent (whether in the form of land or commuted payments), given that the committee has already made its decision on the application.  The Committe's decision was based on the scheme as proposed and S75 contributions as listed in the officer's report.  Technically, the Council is not really in a position now to negotiate with the developer (although the exact wording of the heads of terms already agreed, may be negotiated) and to attempt to do so, would be bad practice to say the least.

On balance, I would agree however, that the contributions, particularly in relation to the provision of community facilities (£70,000 towards resurfacing 4 synthetic seven a side football pitches) do seem a bit meagre.  At a minimum, the developer should be tied into an obligation to provide play facilities within the application site.  A % for public art contribution could have also be included in the heads of terms.  The affordable housing obligation (25%) is in accordance with council wide policy - so no scope for increasing this.  I also think the contributions under the broad heading of 'transportation' are reasonable for a development of this scale and nature - i think your suggestion of gifting a portion of land to park and ride facilities would by virtue of Circular 12/1996 is unrelated in nature and scale to the development proposed.  Equally, the education contributions are calculated on a set council wide formula which has been worked out well in advance and in consultation with the Council's education dept, so who are we to argue   It is also likely that agilent will have to make a contribution to Scottish Water in relation to water and waste water infrastructure - depends on existing capacity in SQ.   Agilent would have to make an application to SW (this is called a development impact appraisal or DIA) in order to determine the exact contribution, if any contribution is due at all.  When all of the above (plus other matters such as ground conditions etc) are considered, a residual site valuation may be obtained.  There is nothing in planning law however, to equate the contribution payable to the site value - the Govt was going to introduce such a mechanism via the proposed Planning Gain Supplement but this was abandoned in the last 6mths.

Re the planning officer's report, I cannot add anything credible to his comment re. ''no adverse impact on industrial land supply''  or his attempt to dismiss part loss of the agilent industrial site to housing as I would have to look in great detail at the employment land supply and that is not a small task.   The question you may also wish to ask yourself is; do you really want to see large scale employment land uses in SQ with their associated traffic impacts or would you prefer to have employment sites situated on the outskirts of SQ eg at Ferrymuir etc as the officer states.  I can see an argument for the latter myself.

In relation to loss of Open Space, equally I cannot make any credible comment as I would have to look in great detail at the SQ open space audit info - again a large task. The fact that Sports Scotland has not objected to the proposal, doesn't help your case.  I can add to the officer's report however as strictly speaking this is not a loss of public open space but rather is a loss of ancillary private open space tied to the primary use of the site, which is that of employment. Technically speaking, the authorised use of all land in agilent's ownership with be employment.   At appeal, the case for loss of open space would probably not hold any weightl.  This is unfortunate as I know the community actively and continually used this space - perhaps if demonstrated that through the passage of time, the community had come to rely on the open space and its associated facilities, a better case could have been made for its protection........but this is all hindsight as the scheme more or less now has an approval, pending completion of the S75.  

The Council's solicitors and Agilent's solicitors will at this point be in the process of drafting the S75 agreement and its associated heads of terms.  My advice is to now keep a look out for the detailed planning application - there may be scope to get the developer to incorporate a play park in the detailed scheme and/or perhaps some public art etc, if desired.  Unless the scheme changes substantially eg if agilent or its successor in title increases the number of residential units, then there will be little scope for the CC to lobby the Council for more developer contributions.

Its worth asking CEC if it is in the process of drafting a S75 development guide - it if is, then i suggest the CC gets involved in the process asap.

                                                                                                                                                                BACK