The RBS has submitted an amended application for Planning Permission in Principle for a mixed use development on Dundas Street, Fettes Row and Royal Crescent.
Included is a proposal to build four x four storey blocks of flats in Royal Crescent on the south boundary of the park and construct four x five storey blocks to the south west of the park in Fettes Row. These features of the application have the potential to change the nature of a very special park irrevocably. SO PLEASE DO COMMENT.
Deadline for comments – Monday 15th January 2018
To view the application go to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planningcomments
and key into the Search box 16/05454/PPP.
The most helpful documents to look at are:
1. Environmental Statement Addendum Vol 1, main text, chapters Built Heritage and Socio-Economics (Dec 2017)
2. Design and Access Statements 2 and 5 ( Dec 2017)
3. Environmental Addendum Vol 2 Part 3 Photoviewpoints 6, 7 and 8 (Dec 2017)
4. Historic Environment Scotland ElA response (Dec 2017)
MAIN IMPACTS ON PARK
1. Height of proposed built development. Previous application December 2016 was for four x eight storey buildings on the south boundary of the park (Royal Crescent). The amended application proposes four x four storey buildings. Instead of four x six storey buildings to the south west (Fettes Row) the current proposal is four x five storey buildings. Furthermore, the already consented four storey building to the west of the park rises to five storeys at the junction with its proposed east-west wing.
An amendment to the previous application was suggested by Historic Environment Scotland (the Government’s influential advisory body on heritage matters) of four x two storey buildings to the south and four x four storey buildings to the south west (ie. in this case no higher than the existing building). The Friends of the Park welcomed this suggestion.
Of course, this is a better planning application, but is it the best? Does it sufficiently negate the damaging impact of buildings on the edge of the park? We urge all park users to think about it and, please, let the Council know their views.
2. Density of proposed development. This remains at 400 housing units, bringing a potential 765 new residents into the area immediately bordering the park. The park is already only half the size recommended by the Council’s Open Space Strategy. Could this place undue pressure on a limited and precious green resource? Again – do, please, let the Council know what you think.
Park users who responded to the previous version of this application should know that the comments they made then will still stand and will be taken into account. No need to repeat them if they are unchanged, but it might be wise to refer to them.
There was a big response to the application in its previous form. Help us create a similar response this time round. We need the best possible outcome for the park.