PLANNING & PLACE
- sillertonhill
- Sep 2
- 10 min read
Updated: 3 days ago
Here are links to two GPCC guides (April 2025) to community council involvement in the planning process:
View and comment on city planning applicatons here: Planning applications – The City of Edinburgh Council. Every individual has a voice on this.
21 Nov: The Planning System: Community Involvement
We are entering the early stages of the city’s next Local Development Plan, City Plan 2040. Community groups are being asked to express their early opinions, for example through Local Place Plans. The pace of development in the city is quickening. The scope for differences in opinion on what constitutes ‘good’ development is widening, across the scale.
For community groups pitched against planners and developers, the need is to be ‘up with events’ and current with how ‘the system’ works. (This is very much the case for community councils.) In particular, the hinge is what are to be regarded as ‘material planning considerations’.
Turn, please, to the help offered by Planning Aid Scotland and to the valuable information sheet resource on the website: https://www.pas.org.uk/resources/ Information sheet 3 covers ‘Material Considerations’.
In a wider context, you will also find helpful a Midlothian Council publication:
‘The Scottish Planning System – A Handbook (2022)
Note the current framework for community councils as a ‘consultee’.
From Highland Council (Guide to the planning system for community councils.)
“Community Councils are able to comment on any planning application. There are very specific circumstances in which the Community Council has a right to be a statutory consultee in the development management process.
These are: • Where the community council, within 7 days of receipt of the weekly list, informs the planning authority that it wishes to be consulted;
AND/OR • The development is likely to affect the amenity in the area of the Community Council.
Whether considered a statutory consultee or not your views are important to the process and will be taken into account regardless. The key difference for a Community Council as to whether it is a statutory or non-statutory consultee can be found in the Council’s Scheme of Delegation. This establishes, where a Community Council, as a statutory consultee, objects to a proposal it must be determined by Committee rather than by officers.”
EACC is in conversation with CEC on the provision of training on the planning system for community councils.
~~
18 Nov: Planning Application 25/05536/FUL: 67 Prestonfield Avenue: GPCC Submission: Neutral
We note past approvals for housing development on this disused site.
The measure and variety of the units to be offered within the design proposal contribute well to the need for residential accommodation in this area. The design itself appears to offer a pleasing fit within the site outline.
We offer the reservation that the facilities of the Prestonfield Neighbourhood Project (PNP), adjacent to the proposal, on Prestonfield Avenue, may well tend to be compromised by the proximity of the outside stairwell (on the north-west elevation of the site) to the boundary fence, a feature which will overlook the PNP building and garden.
There needs to be a good understanding of the welfare and therapeutic work undertaken by PNP with vulnerable adults, work which we understand can take place outdoors in the PNP garden area. We would not wish any development proposal to impinge, by way of actual or perceived threat to PNP’s security, on the beneficial neighbourhood service which PNP offers.
~~
14 Nov: Planning Application 25/03696/FULSTL: 11 Cobden Road: GPCC Submission: Objection
Grange Prestonfield Community Council, (GPCC), would offer the following comments and registers an objection.
The proposed development is aimed directly at providing facilities for tourists and other short-term visitors to the city. (Supporting Statement Page 3).
ENV 14 Conservation Areas – Development
The application explicitly avoids the recognition of the site as lying within the Waverley Park Conservation Area. In that context, Waverley Park is a residential suburb. The specific introduction of tourist accommodation facilities within the boundary line of the conservation area is a challenge to the conservation area’s character appraisal and to its public realm. The introduction should be denied.
HOU 6 Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas
The application pursues the inappropriate introduction of tourism-focused short-term let facilities, by way of two semi-detached units, demonstrably large in relation to their site space, to the Waverley Park Conservation Area, an almost exclusively residential area (excluding Mayfield Bowling Club).
The application blithely dismisses the prospect of more intensive vehicular traffic use by tourist visitors via the access lane from Cobden Road to the rear of 29 Mayfield Gardens.
The application asserts the prospect of a ‘pedestrian right of access from 29 Mayfield Gardens (a private property and flatted dwelling) to the proposed development’. This proposition is confected. This would be a new development in itself. This would necessarily be a de facto public right of access (with appropriate permissions and safeguards to be sought).
The purpose and nature of the application (in essence a tourist facility for ‘larger groups’) is incompatible with the principle of the conservation area, with the character of the neighbouring residential setting and with the ‘place’ and amenity of immediate residents in Cobden Road." (GPCC Secretary)
~~
16 Oct: Causewayside Lads Institute: 27-29 Ratcliffe Terrace: GPCC Submission
In respect of the building's social welfare history and preserved architectural character, and recognising the Category C importance ascribed to it by Historic Environment Scotland, GPCC today requests that the City of Edinburgh Council now issue a Building Preservation Notice for the building at 27-29 Ratcliffe Terrace, under Section 3 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas (Scotland)) Act, 1997.
~~
14 Oct: Planning Democracy: Scotland's Planning System: Time for a radical overhaul
On 27 November (6 to 8.30pm) Planning Democracy launches a powerful manifesto to transform Scotland's planning system in order "to truly serve (the country's) people and places"; to re-shape it to deliver "stronger community power, rights-based planning, environmental protections, affordable sustainable housing, and land reform". There will be a host of expert speakers presenting the case at Augustine Church, 41 George IV Bridge, Edinburgh EH1 1EL. Here is the Sign-up Form. Here is the Manifesto Summary Here is the Planning Democracy Site.
This looks to be a very strong initiative. It's a standard complaint of community councils that they don't have a loud enough voice in planning debates. This event could open new opportunities. You should patch into this.
~~
8 Oct: More on the Ratcliffe Terrace Planning Refusals
From the Blacket Association:
"Two applications were submitted by two different applications for the adjacent sites, but working closely together to produce a unified scheme. ... We objected on the basis of the scale of the development and the demolition of some appealing local buildings... The Council refused the two proposals for slightly different reasons - but essentially because of the overdevelopment of the site in terms of height, scale, massing and built form; the lack of amenity for occupants; the impact on the Blacket Conservation Area (in terms of the rear development of the site at 4 South Gray Street), and the failure to justify the demolition of the existing buildings in terms of the whole life carbon footprint. ... This is quite a list so it looks like the developers will have to have a substantial rethink about this. ..."
~~
3 Oct: Planning Decision 25/02258/FUL
33-41 Ratcliffe Terrace: Purpose Built Student Accommodation.
Refused. Refer to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning
~~
3 Oct: Planning Decision 25/02904/FUL
27-29, 31 Ratcliffe Terrace; 4 South Gray Street: Purpose Built Student Accommodation.
Refused. Refer to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning
~~
29 Sep: Planning Application 25/04488/FUL: 140 Causewayside: GPCC Submission: Neutral
From Grange Prestonfield Community Council
"This is a response to the Request for Consultation of 8 September 2025.
GPCC has followed the sequence of planning applications for this site.
We have no substantial comment on the detailed proposals for this development.
Outwith that confine, we would offer the material comment that, in tandem with the high number of other PBSA developments in the locality, this proposal looks set to impose an added burden on the resilience of the neighbourhood.
This burden is cast in respect of the shifting balance of the neighbourhood's mixed community sense of 'place' (where PBSA is now a dominant characteristic) and in terms of its 'amenity', in particular the likely adverse impact on local health and social welfare service provision.
We have no indication of planned reinforcement of essential service provision as student residence numbers continue to expand in the locality.
While apparently outside the consideration of this planning application on its own, there has to be a channel where such concerns can be expressed.
We also stand with a number of other commentators in questioning the robustness now of the (high-end) PBSA development model in the city and so the consequences of serious setback." (GPCC Secretary)
~~
25 Sep: CEC Planning publishes new Design Guidance
New non-statutory planning guidance to support the policies on City Plan 2030 and National Planning Framework 4 is now live. The new suite is of fundamental importance in considering planning applications and developments.
From the CEC Planning Team:
Edinburgh Design Guidance – this should be used for the planning and design of new development proposals and for street design.
Guidance for Householders - this is for people considering altering or extending their home, and for professionals involved in the application process.
Guidance for Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas – this is for anyone considering repairing, altering or extending a listed building or an unlisted building in a conservation area.
Student Accommodation Guidance – this is for professionals and developers involved in the provision of purpose-built student accommodation including new build, change of use and conversion.
Developer Contributions and Infrastructure Delivery Guidance – this will be used to assist in assessing planning applications including the provisions to include legal agreements requiring contributions towards delivering infrastructure associated with development.
You can see all our Planning Guidance and Planning Quick Guides here
~~
8 Sep: Planning Application 25/04488/FUL: PBSA at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh. Request for Consultation by GPCC
'The above application was registered with the Council on 1 September 2025.
I would be grateful for your views, in your capacity as a consultee, on this proposal.
Your comments on this proposal should be returned within 21 days of the date of this letter.
Details of the application can be viewed on the Planning Portal. If no comments are
forthcoming the Council will exercise its powers to determine the application as it stands, on
the information provided. Responses can be e-mailed to the case officer (please attach as a
word document).'
'If you wish to discuss this proposal please contact Julie Ross directly at
~~
18 Jul: Planning Application 25/02904/FUL: PBSA at 27-29, 31 Ratcliffe Terrace and 4 South Grey Street, Edinburgh: GPCC Submission: Objection
"1] CP 2030 Env 14: The development is completely surrounded by Conservation Areas (Craigmillar to the south, Grange to the west, and Blacket to the East. The proposals in toto do not respect the current built environment context and ignore the value of the local townscape place.
2] CP 2030 Env 3: The proposed demolition is the easy option. The opportunity to incorporate and enhance the existing and potential features of the (MacLeod and de Spiganovicz) redbrick building of careful Edwardian design (by way of conversion and restoration) is ignored. The building is ‘assessed to be of low importance’ (Planning Statement, Page 17). GPCC would dispute that.
3] CP 2030 Env 1: The proposed plans have no regard for the existing building context of the area. They would deliver a demonstrable and detrimental change to part of the site's worth existing architectural features and characteristics. This would serve to accelerate the change in locality appearance as well as locality resident make-up, to the damage of the area's setting, character and appearance. Positive public realm features (in the broad context of surrounding conservation areas) are jeopardised.
4] CP 2030: Inf 3; Re 5: There is implicit acknowledgement that the current pace of the PBSA model must be questioned. It is fair to call for a fresh ‘needs assessment’ in respect of PBSA. It is fair to ask for tangible reassurance that developer contribution recourse in respect of (healthcare) infrastructure delivery (CP 2030: Inf 3) is in play and is meaningfully impactful. It is fair to challenge ‘PBSA concentration’ against the detrimental impact to this local centre (CP 2030: Re 5).
5] CP2030: Hou 5 (S. 3.196) The Planning Statement for 25/02904/FUL explicitly pairs (Para 1.11) this planning submission with that for 25/02258/FUL, speaking of 'co-ordinated development' of 'blocks B and C' (02904) with 'block A' (02258). The development is part of a collaborative ‘strategy’ (Planning Statement, Page 19).
The declared site size for blocks B and C is 0.135 Ha. The declared site size for block A is 0.17 Ha. The proposal completes a de facto PBSA development with a site size of 0.305 Ha. There is no provision for a (required) mix of student accommodation and housing on a combined and integrated site setting that is in effect greater than 0.25 Ha. For practical purposes, this opportunistically contravenes LDP Hou 5.
The pace of recent and proposed / pending developments in the Causewayside / Ratcliffe Terrace local area serves to deliver another concentrated ‘Pollock Halls’ (linear) community there (notwithstanding the withdrawal of measured ‘concentration ratios’ under new Edinburgh Design Guidance). That progressively shifts the existing community setting and serves to imbalance it.
We are persuaded by the Cockburn Association assessment that ‘the continued expansion of purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) in this area lacks a robust, up-to-date student needs assessment and risks damaging the local housing mix and community balance’." (GPCC Secretary)
~~
24 June: City officers have been asked to explore options for a ban on controversial purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) projects, and present them to the city’s Planning Committee in September for a decision.
A majority of councillors backed the motion calling for a ban to be explored.
(Edinburgh Live)
~~
27 - 29, 31 Ratcliffe Terrace, 4 South Gray Street, Edinburgh
Ref. No: 25/02904/FUL | Received: Wed 04 Jun 2025 | Validated: Thu 12 Jun 2025 | Status: Awaiting Assessment
Last date for comments 18 July
~~
50 - 52 Ratcliffe Terrace Newington Edinburgh EH9 1ST
Ref. No: 25/02938/FUL | Received: Thu 05 Jun 2025 | Validated: Thu 05 Jun 2025 | Status: Awaiting Assessment
Last date for comments 7 July
~~
33 - 41 Ratcliffe Terrace Edinburgh EH9 1SX
Ref. No: 25/02258/FUL | Received: Thu 01 May 2025 | Validated: Tue 06 May 2025 | Status: Awaiting Assessment
Last date for comments 11 June
~~
140 Causewayside Sciennes Edinburgh EH9 1PR
Ref. No: 25/02125/PAN | Received: Wed 23 Apr 2025 | Validated: Wed 23 Apr 2025 | Status: Consultation Approved
Public viewing of proposals at Newington Trinity Church on 17 July from 3.30pm to 7.30pm.