a living community

Objections to Planning Applications in respect of 2 West Port (Salovation Army Women's Hostel)

I would like to submit my objection to planning applications 09/03327/FUL and 09/03327/LBC to open up a door from the Art Roch hostel 2 West Port into Patrick Geddes Garden on the following grounds;

1) Loss of amenity for the local community
Local residents have been interested in gaining access to Patrick Geddes Garden for a long time. Only recently have St Thomas school been granted access to the garden for use in various eco projects, only to be stopped in their tracks by developers.

I think it is completely unfair that the hostel should have access to a community space which residents themselves have no access to. This would effectively be giving the hostel sole use of council owned land which should be used by the community not a private business.

Even if the local community were to be given access as well as the hostel I doubt residents would want to share a Sunday afternoon’s gardening with loud, drinking, barbequing stag dos.

It is clear that granting access to this vital pocket of green space would directly conflict with the CEC’s Edinburgh Public Parks and Gardens Strategy March 2006 which states amongst its goals;

• Foster participation and social inclusion by providing opportunities for voluntary and community activities within parks
• Promote community stewardship by encouraging participation in the design and care of parks
• Encourage the responsible use of parks and ensure that they are safe, clean, and free from litter, graffiti and dog fouling
• Conserve biodiversity in parks and protect ecosystems
• Ensure that there is an equitable distribution of parks so that everyone can have access to them

2) School projects
Giving Art Roch hostel access to the garden would put the school projects in jeopardy. The children would not be able to use the land if there are hazards from beer cans, broken glass, vomit or urine. All of which are common place wherever drinking takes place, especially stag dos which have been specifically advertised by the hostel.

And what if the children wanted to do some gardening while backpackers/ stag dos are using the garden? Would this even be possible from a child protection point of view?

3) Noise
People drinking and having barbeques are bound to make a large amount of noise and disturbance to the people living locally. Particularly on rugby match days which are already some of the loudest and most disruptive days for the area. This hostel has been advertising specifically for people coming to watch sporting events, and the rugby.

4) Biodiversity
It is unreasonable to expect such people would stay in one small area of the garden, leaving the rest in danger of being trampled or deliberately destroyed. This pocket of green space is vital for biodiversity in the area.

The Urban Habitats section of the CEC’s Biodiversity Action Plan (2004-2009) states;

“As well as the intrinsic importance of the habitats themselves, and the species which they support, urban habitats have the great benefit of allowing people direct contact with nature in the areas where they live, work and play. We therefore need to ensure that the whole of Edinburgh’s community has easy access to the city’s green spaces.”

The garden is a space which should be used to the benefit of all local people. I believe that allowing private access to this land would be detrimental to the local community and the environment in the ways outlined above and ask you to deny permission on these grounds. 

I would like to submit an objection to planning applications 09/03327/FUL and 09/03327/LBC on behalf of the fifteen owners who are represented by Browns Place Residents Association. The applications relate retrospectively to the opening up of a door from the Art Roch hostel 2 West Port into Patrick Geddes Garden. The Association has previously objected to planning application 09/02401/FUL on the grounds of disturbance to neighbours and loss of local amenity.

From my research and that of other local residents, the door would seem not to be a reinstatement but a new opening in a listed building. Historically the interior against that wall contained the pulpit area of the church. From surviving examples of that era an external door would have been very unlikely so close to the central preaching and communion spaces.

The only purpose of the new door is to give access to the garden as a barbecue and ‘chill out’ space. This can only increase the likelihood of late night disturbance to neighbours as was confirmed last Saturday when Browns Place residents were kept awake by a drunken party which was either emanating from the former church or the grounds behind it. The state of the Vennel Steps next morning told the usual story.

The plan is contrary to the spirit of the former uses of the grounds as a churchyard and as one of Sir Patrick Geddes’ open spaces. ‘In the derelict spaces left in the Old Town by wholesale demolition of the late nineteenth century, he created a network of gardens to be cultivated by school children.’ (Jardins Publics. Edinburgh International Festival 2007 Sofia Leonard). At a time when recognition of Geddes’ key contributions to urban planning and ecology is growing, it seems ironic to destroy one of the pieces of evidence on the ground of Geddes’ pioneering thinking. The garden is a stopping point on the Patrick Geddes Heritage Trail.

The proposal is particularly unfortunate given current plans by St Thomas of Aquin’s High School to realise Geddes’ vision by carrying out multi-disciplinary eco-projects on the land. Now that the Council’s’ ownership of the land has been resolved, it seems inappropriate that a private business should have sole use of a valuable community resource and one of the Old Town’s few green public spaces. It also conflicts with the Council’s stated policies in the Edinburgh Public Parks and Gardens Strategy 2006.and the Biodiversity Action Plan (2004-2009). The developer has already damaged the latter through the felling of mature trees and the scarce wildlife is as likely to be disturbed as local residents by partying to more permanent effect.
 
Real and parentally-perceived child protection issues arise given the school proposal and the proximity of the Vennel nursery. Already during the development phase when the wooden barricading of the arches was removed there has been an increase in drug dealing in the dark spaces around the hostel.

In conclusion we believe that the proposal is detrimental to neighbours and the wider community in terms of noise and loss of amenity. In approving it the Council risks throwing away an opportunity to make the garden a green space for all to enjoy including visitors to the city. We find it difficult to accept that Edinburgh and its Council values stag and hens and post-rugby partygoers over its local residents, some of whom have lived here for over 40 years, communities and that it is willing to swamp a resident population of 700 by over 200: bottom-end of the market tourists. Is a world heritage city that desperate for business?

Planning Applications 09/03327/FUL and 09/3327/LBC

I wish to object to these applications for the following reasons:

1. It has been established that the ground to the west of the hostel belongs to the City of Edinburgh Council, not the developer. Unless the Council is minded to allow access by the hostel’s owners (see 2 below for reasons why this should not be so) the door has no purpose. Why construct a useless door which will disfigure a listed building?

2. I understand that St. Thomas of Aquins school has made arrangements with the Council to use the site to the west of the hostel for educational purposes. Apparently the school has plans for using the garden for different aspects of the curriculum - five teachers from different departments are involved. This appears to be an excellent use of an area which has lain unused for several years. The school would have started this work already but cannot get access because of the hostel contractor’s continuing presence and rubbish he has left on site.

3. However if the new door is inserted in the west wall of the hostel garden and it can be opened, the school cannot go ahead because of possible risks to the health to students from needles and glass, as well as from the people using the hostel and opening the door.

4. The door cannot be used as a fire exit (should this is put forward as a reason) as it will only give access to a steeply sloping, cultivated and enclosed piece of land.

For these reasons I believe the Council should not only refuse these applications but insist that the opening the contractor has already made should be permanently in-filled with masonry. I believe that a locked door would not be adequate protection from the school’s point of view.