Merchiston Community Council — Minutes of Public Meeting (by Zoom)
Date: 21st January 2025
Chaired by Ian Doig, Chair of Merchiston Community Council (MCC)
Started: 19:00
Ended: 21:05
Present:
MCC Members: Ian Doig (ID, Chair), Joan Houston (JH), Bridget Stevens (BS), Raphael Uddin (RU, Minute taker), Roma Menlowe (RMe, Zoom Host), Frances Hawarden (FH), Klaus Glenk (KG), Ruben Manso (RMa), Daniel Cairns (DC)
Councillors: Cllr Ben Parker (BP, Ward 10, Green), Cllr Valerie Walker (VW, Ward 9, Labour)
Residents: Peter Stewart (PS), David Johnstone (DJ), David Key (DK), Dan Thompson (DT), Ian Pattison (IP)
1. Introduction, Apologies & Declarations of Interest
Apologies had been received from Vivien Kitteringham, John McKenna, Vanessa Meadu, Mairianna Clyde and Helen Zealley.
There were no declarations of interest stated.
2. Residents’ Issues Forum
Two residents in attendance raised the issue of the renewal of planning permission for 8a Napier Road. Cllr Parker stated he would not participate in the discussion as he declared that he is a member of the CEC Planning Subcommittee and therefore involved in making the final CEC decision about the permissions.
Correspondence and documents concerning this were circulated to all members prior to the meeting, to provide context and recall the initial planning application made in 2022.
PS read a letter on behalf of his mother, Eileen Stewart (attached as annex to these minutes), who is a resident of 8 Napier Road, which described her objections to an application to renew the previous CEC Planning Consent to build an additional house in the garden of 8 Napier Road. She objected to her loss of privacy (this later message was also circulated to all members but only received immediately before the meeting).
DJ, a resident of Lammerburn (10 Napier Road) spoke about how the front of his residence would be facing onto the proposed building site, visible past Lammerburn’s tennis courts. He said he believes the building plans contained false reasoning, the approval granted previously was a mistake by CEC, and that the design broke planning regulations, and views this as an opportunity to rectify this.
DK said he wished to speak, having been referenced by name in correspondence from Napier Road residents to MCC, in order to provide greater context. He explained that the proposed house was designed to accommodate disabled living facilities for his eldest child, for whom it was (at the time Planning Consent was approved) was becoming difficult to live in an upper flat. He said neighbours were made aware of this and their plans, and the proposal was submitted to CEC under DK’s wife’s name so as to avoid any suggestion that he was using his position as a CEC councillor to influence the outcome. Despite a number of objections being lodged against the proposals, the Development Management Sub-Committee unanimously approved the proposals in March 2022, taking account of all relevant policy and guidelines including those relating to the conservation area. Neighbours had however subsequently raised objections based on the provisions in property title deeds. The acrimony surrounding the development was such that DK and his family decided to move house rather than engage in protracted legal argument before the Lands Tribunal. He pointed out that, during the sale of 8a Napier Road, the planning permission was not advertised, but potential buyers were made aware of it.
Though DK’s residency at 8a Napier Road was historical information, DK considered it informed the present situation and the status of the permissions today, and so was relevant to the discussion.
ID explained that at the time of the initial application and objections, MCC had discussed the issues and taken a neutral stance on the situation, rather than take sides in a dispute between neighbours, and on the basis that CEC would be the statutory authority responsible for adjudicating on the Planning Consent, which was subsequently granted by CEC. ID stated that MCC’s role was to provide a forum for discussion, but that due to the absence of many MCC members (particularly Mairianna Clyde, MCC Planning lead, who has relevant knowledge and expertise to comment on this) he would prefer not to draw any conclusions at the moment, instead continuing discussion at the February MCC meeting. Having listened to the views of several residents, ID then invited MCC members’ their questions/comments.
RM inquired about the planning policies concerning the proposed building, asking the objecting neighbours whether there were any changes that had been made to guidelines or regulations that they were aware of – for if nothing had changed, then it would seem certain that the CEC councillors would come to the same conclusion as they had in 2022 and approve the planning permission.
DS said that the deadline for comments is the end of January, but BS explained that community councils can ask for an extension to submit later comments, with BP verifying that this was possible. BS also wanted to know about what changes, if any, had been made to policies that could affect the subcommittee’s decision.
DJ said he understood that following reviews, there had been changes to the specific names of the policies, but that materially they were the same as they had been previously. BS suggested consulting with Planning Advice Scotland, who would be able to confirm whether or not the policies had remained the same.
After considerable discussion and having heard views from several residents, MCC members attending agreed to continue discussion at 18th February MCC meeting, where it is hoped more members will be in attendance and therefore a conclusion (either for, against, or remaining neutral) can be reached regarding this renewal of this planning permission.
3. Minutes of Public Meeting of 19th November 2024; Matters Arising
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.
4. Chair’s Report
ID spoke to his report (circulated), discussing several issues:
- Community Council Elections 2025
- ID explained that CC elections are fast approaching, highlighting that the nominations window will take place in February with the required elections and appointments being held in in March. He spoke about the nomination process and the election rules, stating that MCC is the fifth largest of 46 Community Councils in Edinburgh, with 16 elected positions available. If Merchiston Community Council had less than 8 members proposed in the elections, it could not continue.
- ID said it is expected that several existing members will not be seeking re-election, meaning that new members will be required for MCC to continue, saying that this would be an opportunity to provide MCC with new ideas, skills and energy. At the end of March 2025, the new term for MCC will begin and Office Bearers will be appointed, and it is likely that projects and their teams will need time to reconfigure and consider how they will move forward.
- CEC are holding drop-in events about Community Councils, however ID pointed out that none of these are within the MCC area. MCC is hosting a “Thank You” event on Sunday 16th February, and ID intends to mention the elections to those present. VW will have an article on Community Councils in the Edinburgh Evening News published when nominations open. ID invited member’s questions/comments on the upcoming elections.
- RU explained that he is unable to attend the “Thank You” reception as he will be away, but being able to work remotely he offered to help raise the profile of MCC in the lead up to the elections. He expressed the importance of a localised approach specific to MCC, particularly at this late stage just before the elections, and that this is something that should be focused on at this point, in addition to taking full advantage of CEC resources offered to Community Councils. The importance of a real-world presence for MCC at this time, rather than a purely virtual campaign, was also discussed, as only those already aware of MCC would be following their online activity.
- RU offered to send a draft poster that could be displayed online and around the local area, and ID agreed to this and said he would request leaflets from CEC. VW expressed support for a localised campaign and encouraged MCC to use local noticeboards. ID repeated his uncertainty about the number of members interested in continuing with MCC and suggested that perhaps a private email to members to inquire about this would help. BS suggested that since there will be general local news stories about Edinburgh CC elections overall, MCC could also perhaps write/request personalised articles about MCC in addition to this.
- Visitor Levy
- ID recapped progress made by CEC on the proposed Visitor Levy, saying that while it seems clear that most residents and other parties support the principle of the levy, opinions are more divided about how the money it will provide to CEC will be spent. BP confirmed that the final version of plans for this will be decided by CEC on Friday 24th January, with further discussion about the details of the ways in which it will be spent for each area (e.g. housing) to take place in the relevant committees in the Council. This will then hopefully be implemented by Summer 2026, and then run for a period of 3 years. VW highlighted that CEC are the first council to go ahead with a Visitor Levy, and so after the 3 years it will be reviewed, and it will be decided how it goes forward and any changes that might be made to it.
5. Planning Report
MC, Planning Lead for MCC, was unable to attend and had sent her apologies.
The only item she wished to report being the PAN (Proposal Application Notice) for 2 Artificial Grass Pitches by George Watson’s College. ID was unsure about the location of this, meaning it might lie outwith MCC’s area – later confirmed to be within MCC. The application was noted, and it can be discussed at the next MCC meeting in more detail, with Mairianna present.
ID enquired about Dalton’s Scrapyard site, and whether there had been any news about rumours about redevelopment of the site for students’ flats. RMa said he had heard that the development had previously come to a halt as there was an inability to find a funder, but a funder has now apparently been found. MCC was unsure of who now owns the site and whether the site has planning permission. ID will ask Mairianna for any updates if and when they arrive. Cllr VW has also asked for updates on this, and will pass any news on to ID.
6. Licensing Report – Bridget Stevens, Licensing Lead
BS had no new applications or complaints to report. BS has established new connections contacts between the Licensing Department and MCC, so will remain well informed in future.
7. Polwarth Project – Roma Menlowe
RMe encouraged members to see circulated reports for more detailed updates and spoke briefly about progress being made by CEC and the MCC team.
CEC should have their designs completed within the next month or so, at which point they will begin a consultation with local businesses at the roundabout. Once CEC has obtained their views, they will look to MCC engage with local residents, seeking the community’s views on the proposed designs.
Other MCC steps include encouraging residents to sign up for updates, and having the designs translated into visualisations by Jenny Elliot (landscape artist commissioned by MCC) for residents to view during the consultation. This visualisation will cost £850, and because it needed approving at short notice, it was discussed as a matter of urgency via email between meetings and agreed by members. However, a formal decision at this public meeting was required to confirm the decision, and the decision to approve this payment was duly ratified.
Hopefully the visuals will be ready for the “Thank You” event, providing an opportunity to hear views of those attending. ID thanked RMe and the rest of the Polwarth team for the exciting progress being made on this project.
8. Local History Project – Raphael Uddin and Frances Hawarden
RU spoke about the progress made in recent meeting of the project, saying that he would be stepping back from the project now that FH was intending to focus on the write-up for the website herself and that the talks were providing a culmination of research done in recent months.
FH then described possible ideas for the format of the updated history section of the website, noting that someone able to devote themselves to reworking and redesigning the website will be required to enable such changes to be made, and to have proposed designs discussed with them. FH then discussed plans for the “Thank You” reception. Three speakers were suggested, though due to date changes one is unable to attend on the 16th February. FH said she intends to find a replacement speaker in time but would need confirmation of the facilities available for the presentations. JH said she had received correspondence from Polwarth Parish Church, inviting them to check what facilities were available and to test them.
ID agreed that someone with expertise with the website would be required and suggested that perhaps Neil Anderson would be interested in taking on this smaller piece of website work, or MCC could look to employ someone to help with the website. IP suggested contacting Napier university to see if anyone would be interested in helping with the website, with ID adding that perhaps the local high schools might be able to help. FH suggested that any grant application to accomplish this should involve the entire website, rather than just the history section, and ID added that all of these suggestions would need further discussion re resources available, but most likely only after the elections because of how busy this next month or two will be for MCC.
9. Trees Issues – Klaus Glenk
KG updated members on progress made so far, explaining that the proposed study to assess tree volume was circulated to several Higher Education Institutions, and an interested student has come forward, who may want to take the study forward. They might explore various aspects including tree suitability, policy effectiveness and data from older records, if they are interested KG will supervise the student, who would start the project in May. The team has also corresponded with CEC to hear their feedback.
RMe added that analysis of the data will likely be laborious should the student choose to take this on, as the records are not held in a database but instead loaded individually onto the planning portal. BP said he would check this to see if there was an easier way to view all the data at once, and had come across a Neighbourhood Ecosystem Fund, providing up to £13500 for early-stage projects involving nature restoration if that might be of interest. BP also mentioned that Leamington Terrace residents are looking to increase green space on their streets, and will be meeting soon to discuss this. RU enquired about correspondence with CEC regarding the upcoming 2025 iTree survey by CEC, which seems to be a city-wide study of tree volume, perhaps in comparison to the 2013 survey.
RMe said that they will follow up with that initiation and find out more about the survey and how the work by CEC could support/be supported by MCC’s proposed Tree Study. JH said that she came across a weeping ash tree on Colinton Road that she feels needs taken down because it isn’t structured properly. She has approached the residents and taken photographs, which BP said she could send to him and he could then pass it on to the relevant department, who could determine whether anything needs to be done.
10. “Thank You” Reception – Joan Houston
JH met with Helen to discuss invitations to be sent, preferring ID’s invitation to be sent in a separate email. RMe confirmed that she would be inviting those involved in the Polwarth Project, and ID said he would invite MCC’s ward councillors, MP and MSP.
ID expressed concerns about time constraints within the event and the risk of attempting to cram in too many different themes, and it was suggested that the History Project could have a separate event to avoid this and to do justice to the History Project, which would also enable a date suitable for all FH’s speakers to attend. FH said that when considering an alternative time for talks, either online at a meeting or in person, an in-person presentation would certainly be preferable, but felt that a standalone event may not be enough and may need to be alongside something else to draw enough attention. RU mentioned that online presentations had been done in the past, and could encourage residents to log in, but have to be brief to accommodate the rest of the MCC public meeting agenda, which makes it difficult. It was agreed that the History Project talks would require more thought in the coming months regarding particular ideas and speakers’ availability, but that some sort of event will be discussed following the 2025 elections in February and March.
11. Treasurer’s Report – Frances Hawarden
FH reported a bank account balance of over £3800, with the latest cheque issued and the cheque to Jenny Elliot, Landscape Architect, for £850 yet to be sent, funds for which have been taken from the Polwarth Project’s allocated £1,200 community grant received.
MCC’s bank account with Bank of Scotland is going to begin charging £6 a month, with ID reporting that this has been discussed at EACC, where Virgin Money or RBS is a suggested alternative that is currently free.
FH will also be working on switching to digital banking. ID thanked Frances for the work she does as Treasurer. With a healthy balance, ID welcomed ideas on constructive ways MCC funds could be put to good use, with this perhaps being a discussion for after the elections.
12. City Councillors’ Reports
Cllr Val Walker
– VW spoke about roadworks taking place outwith MCC’s area but which have caused “diversion” congestion around Shandon in MCC’s area. She drew further attention to the issue of road safety around Craiglockhart Primary School, and the need for same pedestrian crossings there, especially for school children. Lothian Buses have objected to a proposed raised crossing on Cowan Road, due to potential damage to buses.
Issues with streetlights were also mentioned, with VW urging residents to get in touch with their local CEC councillor if they see a street light needing fixed, as CEC will see to it even if it takes some time to do so.
Cllr Ben Parker
– BP made members aware of two city-wide consultations that may be of relevance to MCC. One regarding planning and design guidance and another on Purpose Built Student Accommodation Guidance. BP also mentioned that the next round for the Local Traffic Improvement Programme, where the Polwarth Project has received its funding, is open for proposals, as MCC has been very successful in their delivery of the project and there may be other areas within MCC’s boundaries which could benefit from similar support. RMe said that the Polwarth Team would happily help any members come up with their own proposal but have their hands full with their current project. ID agreed that MCC has more than enough going on at the moment.
13. Other Reports & Correspondence
There were no other reports or correspondence.
14. Any other business
– ID mentioned that the Lord Provost is holding a civic reception celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Community Councils, which he and BS will be attending on behalf of MCC.
– ID reported that RU will be stepping back from some MCC activities this year, inviting him to explain his plans further. RU told members that he would be away now and again for the next month or so, and so would be stepping back specifically from the project teams this year. However, he explained that he will remain default minute-taker for MCC and will be happy to continue to help MCC either in person or remotely when he can, including helping to raise MCC’s profile in the upcoming elections.
– IP inquired about the possible redevelopment of Edinburgh Napier University’s Merchiston Campus, which had been mentioned as “rumours” at previous MCC meetings several months ago. ID said that no new information has been heard by MCC about this, and that Mairianna would report on any applications if they are submitted. ID therefore encouraged IP to forward any new information if it arises, and the issues will perhaps be discussed at a future meeting.
– ID thanked all members for their cooperation and support at what was a heavily discussion-based meeting, closing the meeting at 9:05pm.
15. Future Meetings: 18th Feb, 18th Mar, 20th May, 17th June, 16th Sept, 21st Oct, 18th Nov
ANNEX – Letter received by MCC from Mrs Eileen Stewart re 8A Napier Road.
Eileen Stewart
8 Napier Road
Edinburgh
EH10 5BD
21.1.25
Merchiston Community Council
Ian Doig Chair
Planning Application Number 24/06142/FUL
Dear Community Council,
I can only say to you that this situation and the consequences of building a large house in the garden grounds adjacent to my flat, have caused me considerable sleepless nights and anxiety.
Regretfully the planning application was granted regardless of the numerous objections by fellow neighbours.
Within a year the home and grounds were sold with planning permission in place.
I was reassured when the new owners informed me that they have no intention of building in the grounds when they initially bought the property. Regretfully, it appears that they have changed their minds as a renewal application was made in mid-December 2024, prior to the original application lapsing in March this year. Potentially indicating that they either wish to build in the grounds or benefit financially from the renewal application by selling. This seems likely as they have recently purchased a similar large property nearby.
As immediate neighbours, we will be most affected by this development. In particular, our privacy, daylight, immediate outlook as well as potential noise, combined causing significant impact on amenity.
Additionally, any ongoing residents of 8A Napier Road; flat above, living in a four bedroomed family flat will be effected, having their garden shrunk to a fraction of original size, resulting in considerable loss of amenity and green space.
It is simply not enough for the planning officer to explain the garden space is ‘adequate’. This proposal would result in any outdoor activities, BBQs, social events, children playing, all being concentrated to the northerly aspect in front of the windows of my living room at 8 Napier Road. This significant loss of amenity will be amplified by the introduction of a nearby dividing garden wall between 8A and the proposed development. This can all be seen on the Design Statement recently sent to the Chairman.
Has anything changed in circumstance or planning criteria, since the original application?
The original ethos for the planning application was to provide an environment suitable for a disabled child. This was well documented; and still is, in the current Design Statement creating a very strong case for this material consideration to override concerns and objections voiced by neighbours. This inclusion was the main reason for referencing the previous applications family and situation. One could ask, is this no longer the case?
Additionally, the Local Development Plan has been updated and the introduction of National Planning Framework 4, which strengthens policies and gives further weight to reject the application.
Lastly, these new policies alongside Historic Environment Scotland concerns, are in place to protect Lammerburn, the adjacent A listed building, including it’s listed wall that the intrusive property will be attached to.
All of these factors combined are very strong, new reasons to view this new application, with compelling reasons to comment with a critical eye.
Signed: Mrs Eileen Stewart.