The Cramond Association
Aim – To promote the amenity of the community of Cramond, Cammo and Barnton and safeguard its heritage
570, Queensferry Road,
Edinburgh,
EH4 6AT
20th. April 2010
Mr. Ian Tame,
Graduate Planner,
City Development Department,
Business Unit G2,
Waverley Court
4 East Market Street,
Edinburgh, EH8 8BG
Dear Mr.Tame,
Ref 10/00857/FUL, 174, Whitehouse Road, Edinburgh
On behalf of The Cramond Association, I write to object to the planning application.
In respect of the proposal to demolish the house and detached double garage, I would say that
Havenwood House is one of the few iconic houses in Whitehouse Road and its loss would
seriously detract from the local character and residential amenity.
With regard to the proposal to erect two three-storey flatted blocks, I would make the following
points :1. The application refers to a Design Statement but this is not evident on the Portal. No PreApplication Discussion has taken place.
2. The application states that the area of the plot is 3734 square metres, i.e 0.923 acres.
Thus the density is 11.9 units per acre and is such that garages are proposed for only nine
of the eleven units. This is surely an indicator of a developer pushing far too hard to cram
in units!
3. The density corresponds to 29.40 units per hectare, and in respect of 10/00146/FUL,
Barnton Avenue West, it was deemed that a density of 27.5 units per hectare was
excessive.
4. Traffic generated by such a development could cause a much greater risk of accidents.
The access is at the apex of a right hand downward sweep (going North) and emerging
cars have no view of cars going North down Whitehouse Road until they appear on the
brow of the hill, often at speed.
5. Policy Hou 4 (Density) of the Edinburgh City Local Plan states that the Council will seek
an appropriate density of development on each site having regard to its characteristics
and those of the surrounding area, and presumes against proposals which would damage
the character of established residential areas.
6. SPP3 Paragraph 34, Infill Sites, sets out the guidelines this development fails to meet
..‘Planning authorities should ensure that infill development respects the scale, form and
density of its surroundings and enhances rather than detracts from the character and
amenity of existing residential areas. Care should be taken that the individual and
cumulative effects of infill can be sustained by the social and economic infrastructure and
do not lead to over-development. These principles apply equally to development in the
gardens or grounds of existing houses or on backland sites in urban, suburban or village
locations’.
On more general points, the vast majority of local residents have , whenever the opportunity has
been given, been against the further growth in numbers of flats in the area which have altered the
character of the district. For example, in Barnton Avenue West, the overwhelming view recorded
in Appendix 2 of the Design Brief was against flatted development. Again over-development has
been recognized even by architects, and in support of his application 08/03457/FUL, less than
100 metres away, Richard Hall wrote ‘The site also sits on the edge of the Cramond
Conservation Area. The character of this area has been eroded by replacement houses and flats
and the general grain is much tighter as a result. The application site now appears as an obvious
development site within the tightness of that grain. ’ It really is a question of where should
development stop. It is not as if there is a proven demand for even more flats; only two out of
seven have been sold at the neighbouring 176, Whitehouse Road and a number of flats and
houses are unsold at Quality Street, Davidson’s Mains (though given the uninspired architecture
is that surprising?).
In conclusion I would ask that this application be rejected.
Yours sincerely,
Harvey W. Cooke,
Planning Adviser
CC. Cllr. Kate Mackenzie,
Cllr. G Grubb,
Cllr. N.Work