IT’S a brave soul, indeed, who would venture to suggest that the planning system should not be about giving people ‘agency’: the opportunity to influence the outcome of a planning application.

Except that - as the system is currently configured - there isn’t really much ‘agency’ being provided whatsoever.

Anyone who submits a comment about a proposal simply has to take their chances that a decision maker (a planning official or an elected member) will take any notice.

Anyone who has an alternative design has no obvious forum to take their ideas (except down the objections route), where a consensus might be agreed.

And anyone who has a question to ask faces no guarantee of an answer.

There might be nuances that mean a slightly different reality, but there does seem to be roadblocks at every turn.

The thing is, it really doesn’t have to be this way. And who is going to demur if a more constructive and transparent a system were to be implemented, instead?

For all the key stakeholders, the prospect is ‘much better outcomes’: (1) for the public and the city more widely, there is the alluring possibility of a design being ‘improved’ thanks to people’s input; and (2) for developers, there is the chance of a smoother ride towards an approval (as opposed to rejection and all the extra cost that might entail), with objections and controversy potentially having melted away.

Of course, some planning applications will never be happily resolved, no matter how well a communications / arbitration framework is constructed.

For instance, one cannot imagine any amount of constructive debate ever resolving the recent, controversial proposal to turn a row of former offices on Atholl Crescent into a ‘super hostel’ comprising 544 beds - approved on appeal by the Scottish Government.

But just because there will be some intractable disputes does not invalidate the basic premise that the planning system is crying out to be reformed.

Let’s begin with questions. There are at least three reasons why someone might have a question to ask of a planning application: (1) they have been unable to find an answer, even after wading through what might be a mountainous amount of documentation; (2) the volume of documentation - especially if couched in technical language - feels too impenetrable to even embark on an interrogation; and (3) the question is cover for a later objection.

There are at least two ways of providing answers: (1) provide applicants with a list of frequently-asked questions (a possible starting list can be found, here on BuildEdinburgh; which can be added to) that they are at liberty to answer or not (recognising the possible consequences of choosing not to); and (2) to provide a two-way channel of communication that allows for some sort of conversation to take place (probably requiring third party moderation, to ensure respect at all times).

If nothing else, a Q&A platform at the submission stage of an application should reduce the time taken by elected members to decide on an application, given how many of the questions asked at the relevant committee (usually the city council’s Development Management sub-committee) are often about design.

An example of there being a possible alternative design (to an albeit Traffic Regulation Order rather than a planning application) is the long-running saga that is the now just starting to be realised: the reconfiguration of West Crosscauseway into a more ‘civic space’ (TheCausey).

Two years ago, The Edinburgh Reporter website was reporting - here - the project had already endured 17 years of highs and lows.

But here’s the ‘kicker’. That same Edinburgh Reporter article said the estimated cost of the scheme was £2.1m. However, for the last nine years, there has been an alternative - designed by architect, Gordon Duffy (who has owned a property on the street for 22 years) and which attracted support from his neighbours - which he claims would cost almost nothing at all.

Duffy has been out and about, taking photographs of what has been happening since new road markings were recently laid down, following a 180 degree switch in the street’s one-way traffic system.

You have to wonder…

In summary, while Q&As can appear primarily online, there are occasions when nothing short of an in-person discussion has to take place.

On such occasions, the aim should always be to record what has been agreed, and to report proceedings in as transparent a way as possible.

In addition, community councils should be given the right to insist on a sit-down, in-person meeting with a planning proposal applicant, irrespective of whether they have an alternative scheme or not.

All of this is perfectly ‘do-able’ - perhaps with the help of Artificial Intelligence.

Between 2011 and 2018, some £1.4m of Scottish Government money was spent on 78 so-called ‘charrettes’, comprising place-based local design workshops.

One can draw one’s own conclusions as to why the programme was shut down. Maybe it was no longer the fashion.

In 2019, an evaluation of the scheme - to be found here - was at pains to say how people felt empowered following the opportunity to think about and discuss their locality, and how a charrette often served to highlight and clarify issues.

But as to the conversion rate between talk and implementation, there seems to be very little material in the public domain.

It’s anyone’s guess how much it might cost to implement the proposed reforms, above.

But it almost certainly would be a fraction of £1.4m.

Mike Wilson is editor of BuildEdinburgh.com

Main image details: West Crosscauseway, now west-to-east one-way traffic; copyright Mike Wilson. The Causey ‘minimal’ scheme and the lorry, van and bin images: copyright Gordon Duffy, Studio Dub

TO walk the 400 metres or so that separates the relatively new housing in Muirhouse with the even newer housing just north, opposite the World of Football on Marine Drive, feels like traversing a Road to Damascus conversion.

The physical distance between the two neighbourhoods - Muirhouse and West Shore - might be relatively minimal, but the difference in their design could hardly be more different.

While the former is predominantly townhouses and quite low-rise, the latter is much more high-rise and therefore higher density.

It feels like a new generation of neighbourhood design has emerged.

But if West Shore has learned lessons from Muirhouse, so too should future neighbourhood designs learn from it.

Compared to Muirhouse, West Shore has little in the way of private gardens, presumably an acknowledgment that, unless people say otherwise, it’s probably safe to assume they are not into growing vegetables and pruning roses.

Instead, there is the opportunity to tend raised beds with one’s neighbours, in any of four almost fully-enclosed courtyards created, Marchmont-style, by the joining of the apartment blocks into an approximation of a rectangle (they are not fully enclosed, insofar as there is (code-controlled) gated access from the outside).

Not all of West Shore comprises courtyards.

Both neighbourhoods have lots of surface car parking - in West Shore, locals are understood to be concerned about a relative lack of bays. Clearly, underground (or semi-underground) car parking has been calculated to be more expensive than the value of the land that would be released by pushing car parking - securely - underneath people’s homes.

The paving in West Shore - paving surely as much a built environment ‘canary in the mine’ as anything - is high-quality, expertly installed. A litmus test will be how well it is looked after.

The trick is not necessarily to assume the worst of people but to not necessarily assume the best.

One can only speculate how the West Shore designers would have accommodated the siting of key institutions, such as health services, as they are already to be mainly found within walking distance in Muirhouse: Craigroyston Community High School, the Pennywell All Care Centre and the MacMillan Hub.

Which leads one to another possible question, worth considering: why did they have to be built standalone, as opposed to woven into the fabric of a coherent street?

Only yesterday, BuildEdinburgh was reporting a proposal for a further 275 new homes and a primary school, in Granton - here.

So, a shopping list of ‘serving suggestions’ for the next generation of city neighbourhoods (design being, arguably, partly about making sure one hasn’t forgotten anything) seems appropriate:

• Adjacent properties, for those with caring responsibilities;

• ‘Affordable’ homes;

• Apartment balconies;

• Bicycle parking;

• Bicycle secure storage;

• Bird boxes;

• Bird spikes;

• Bollard-controlled street access;

• Books, DVDs and seeds ‘pop-up’ libraries;

• Bouldering wall;

• Brise soleils;

• Bug ‘hotels’;

• Bus stops;

• Carbon-neutral design;

• Cycle lanes;

• Car and motorcycle parking;

• Car sharing;

• CCTV;

• ‘Chicane’ barriers on walking paths;

• Coherent streetscapes (rather than buildings placed like pick-up jacks);

• Common insurance (in apartment blocks);

• Community gardening, including the use of raised beds;

• Community noticeboard;

• Concierge support;

• Courtyards that are private, safe and a sanctuary;

• Dedicated car parking for people with a disability;

• Defibrillator and First Aid;

• Dementia-friendly design;

• Dog exercising park;

• Dog waste and cigarette butt bins;

• Easy-access conduits, both internally and externally;

• Easy-access underground pipes, drains and cabling;

• Emergency and delivery vehicle access;

• Energy efficiency;

• Energy generation, eg solar panels;

• Elevator access in all apartment blocks (mindful of people’s changing mobility, over time);

• EV charging points;

• Extreme weather mitigation - heat, cold, rain, wind, etc;

• Fire safety;

• Flag poles;

• Flower boxes and hanging baskets;

• Fully-enclosed courtyards; if not fully-enclosed then with controlled gate access;

• Garden ‘kit’, including tools shed, potting bench, cold frame, greenhouse, compost heap, etc;

• Gate access that is code-controlled and self-closing;

  

• Graffiti removal equipment;

• Greenery from every vantage point;

• Grit / salt boxes;

• Guest bedrooms;

• Gym equipment;

  

• High acoustic insulation (especially in an apartment block);

• High-speed broadband;

• High-quality paving and installation;

• Individual, private garden space only for those keen on gardening;

• Indoor safe deposit boxes (for passports, birth certificates, etc);

• Information boards, eg history, nature, etc;

• Juxtaposed buildings, for ‘break-out’ visual interest;

• Laundry machines, eg Morrisons car park, Hunters Tryst;

• Library and music rehearsal space;

• Litter bins (including compacting and ‘talking bins’, as reported here, by the BBC);

• Meeting, crafting, young people, cafe, relaxing, micro pub, performance, exhibiting, etc space;

• Moat-like protection around buildings, eg on Harrison Road?;

• Mobile phone signal strength and equipment (eg masts);

• Narrow, ‘slow-down’ intimate and ‘characterful’ streets (as in Medieval village centres?);

• Natural light - lots of it;

• Neighbourhood website / eNewsletter / WhatsApp / etc communication channel(s);

• Outdoor seating and tables;

• Outside power sources, for outdoor lighting;

• Outside water sources, for gardening and even street washing;

• Pavement lighting;

• Pipes properly lagged against sub-zero temperatures;

• Playparks, age-diverse;

• Possible prohibitions: short-term letting, drive-through fast food, etc;

• Power and water sources;

• Power tools sharing;

• Public art;

• Public telephone box(es);

• Raised beds, including hugging walking paths;

  

• Repair and maintenance regime, including a rolling log of spare parts sources and materials;

• Resident decision-making, including during the design stage of the development;

• Resident handbook - welcome pack and useful information;

• Road junctions;

• Roof gardens and seating;

• Underground or semi-underground car parking;

• Underground refuse and recycling bins - with enough capacity to avoid having to draft in wheelie bins (pictured, below, at the back);

  

• Secure letter and parcel boxes;

  

• Shop front design guidance;

• Shop occupancy ‘test’ (giving preferential treatment to ‘social good’ operators);

• ‘Social capital’ infrastructure, such as ‘healthy eating’ cooking classes;

• Sports facilities; eg bowling green, basketball / football cage, padel tennis court, pétanque court, table tennis, etc (‘World of Football’ is close to both Muirhouse and West Shore);

• Spring flowers;

• Storm drainage, including downpipes and ‘sustainable’ drainage systems (SuDS);

• Street lighting;

• Street signage poles (kept to a minimum?);

• Super-secure door entry systems;

• Telecom boxes and cabling;

• Trees: for shade, wildlife habitat, visual interest and storm weather management;

• Video door entry;

• Walk-in showers (mindful of people’s changing mobility conditions, over time);

• Washing lines, including rectractable lines fitted to apartment balconies;

• Weed-suppressant planting or fabric;

• Wildflowers;

• Wildlife-friendly habitats: butterflies, bees, hedgehogs, etc;

• Workshop, warehousing and studio space - within walking distances of workers; and

• Young people services, social activities, hobbies, agency, etc.

Mike Wilson is editor of BuildEdinburgh

What to add? Email editorialbuildedinburgh [at] gmail [dot com]

All images: copyright Mike Wilson

FORGIVE the crude mathematics.

There’s a property on Princes Street - being advertised here, online, if not boards on the building itself - with an asking price of at least £3m.

The advert is revealing, insofar as it says that an annual rent of £250,000 is being charged for two ground floor units in the building, which - and here’s where the crude mathematics come in - is comfortably more than the cost of servicing a £3m loan.

As well as the two ground floor units, there are upper floors, which could - following refurbishment - be turned into visitor apartments, to deliver even more of a return (which could be used towards purchasing even more property on the street).

It’s not known whether the city council or a possible ‘Three streets consortium’ (Princes Street, Rose Street and George Street) are considering a bid.

But if either entity were to succeed in acquiring the property, it could signal the start of a slow and steady reconfiguration of Princes Street, to turn it into the ‘world-class’ boulevard that everyone - locals and visitors, alike - would wish it to be.

We might not quite know what ‘world-class’ looks like; but we definitely know ‘poor quality’ when we see it. And Princes Street - and its adjoining streets - is unquestionably less than ‘world-class’. Much less.

All three streets are Edinburgh’s ‘show-off’ streets and, arguably, they together constitute the single most urgent built environment issue among Edinburgh residents - it’s what is most mentioned whenever BuildEdinburgh comes up in conversation.

To own property is to have several options at one’s disposal, including being able to decide who can make use of it and its look. Conversely, to not own property can limit room for manoeuvre, reduced - in the main and in the absence of strict regulation - to having to ask nicely.

It was almost seven months to the day when the city council’s Planning committee (here) sent a proposed ‘Princes Street and Waverley Valley Strategy’ back to the ‘drawing board’, amid concerns about ‘timidity’.

Little has been heard about the strategy since.

If there has been any ‘progress’ these last few months, it’s hardly being advertised.

Previously, this website has suggested (here) what might end up a 25 year-long strategy (it was around 25 years ago when Dynamic Earth was opened) that sees Princes Street becoming predominately cafes and visitor accommodation, Rose Street predominately food and drink and George Street predominantly retail.

It was an idea that fell mostly on deaf ears, the same fate that met another proposal: to host an open design competition for, specifically, Princes Street (here).

Princes Street is not just an Edinburgh street. It’s our shop window to the world, it’s the street that local people should be able to feel most proud about.

One person who clearly thinks a lot about Princes Street is local, renowned architect, Richard Murphy, who last year was advocating a broad new vision for it, here.

This year, he was at it again, this time musing (here) about one of the two corner sites where Princes Street meets Hanover Street, which had a planning application (here, ref: 25/04852/LBC) - to turn it into serviced apartments - recently rejected.

One option for Princes Street is rerouting buses (as happened when the tram tracks were being laid), to enable a narrowing of the street to two vehicular lanes (trams and taxis sharing, maybe with one passing place) and a widening of the northside pavement.

In other words, it does not envisage burrowing under the Princes Street Gardens embankment - as Murphy’s main, above, vision does.

But a difference of opinion is the stuff of lively debate, which could be hosted by an ambitious, entrepreneurial, transparent, hungry-for-ideas standalone organisation.

I move.

And might anyone have a spare £3m?

Mike Wilson is editor of BuildEdinburgh

Image details: copyright Mike Wilson

THERE are patches of municipal grass in Oxgangs which - were local residents of a mind - could be turned into communal gardens, with all the food and mental health benefits that could potentially follow.

But they haven’t - notwithstanding the existence of a group of local residents that go by the name, Oxgangs Community Gardeners - and it’s not difficult to speculate why.

It can feel quite exposing for individual households to pipe up with an idea for their locality, the possibility of ridicule and finger-pointing being too much to contemplate.

It most likely requires a third party to parachute in with a project and just get on with it or to have a set of pre-conditions set in stone at the get-go.

If the latter, it’s instructive to reflect on the near universal observance of the ban (introduced 20 years ago) on smoking cigarettes in indoor spaces. If there was a fear of people simply sticking two fingers up at the regulation, it almost entirely never happened.

So, in a similar vein, it could be that whenever the city council embarks on its next ‘affordable’ housing scheme, it thinks beyond any already existing requirements of residents, by adding a handful more.

As frequently mentioned on BuildEdinburgh, residents could potentially save themselves hard cash by sharing stuff.

This culture could be easily built into the bricks.

People could share cars - and BuildEdinburgh has explored how this could be practically achieved, here - power tools and even washing machines (again, BuildEdinburgh has advice on this topic too, here).

And of course, depending on what - if any - spare land there is, residents could run a communal garden (with accompanying potting shed, raised beds, cold frame, greenhouse, compost heap, rainwater harvesting, etc kit).

It all depends on what stage of a housing development residents begin to get involved.

At the end, when properties are being allocated (which is the assumption of this writer), or at the beginning (which is the hope)?

Administratively, there should not be much difference between placing residents at the start of the process to having them at the conclusion.

Maybe a workshop or two, the serving of tea and coffee and a facilitator (who could be part of a voluntary network, in the same vein as the charity, MCR Pathways, provides volunteer mentors for young people).

All the facilitators would require to have to hand is a menu of the options: car and bike sharing, recycling and refuse, a residents’ handbook (as in here, on BuildEdinburgh), communal gardening, power tools sharing, gym facilities, ‘later living’ requirements, communal laundry facilities, litter picking, storage space, social and meeting space, repair and maintenance, wildlife havens, acoustic and thermal insulation, elevator access, bowling greens and tennis and pétanque courts, acoustic and thermal insulation, super-secure door entries, outdoor seating and lighting, secure car and bike parking, guest bedrooms, children’s play park, bulk buying of provisions, adjacent properties for extended families (not least for those with caring responsibilities), trees, common insurance, dedicated indoor space for young people, book clubs, crafting space, spring flowers, sanctuary courtyard, solar panels, balconies, ground floor retail, co-working space, treatment rooms and offices, etc, etc.

And then walk people through each of them.

It is a simple choice: set the parameters at the beginning or hope for the best after the ‘ship has effectively sailed’.

And out of the whole exercise might emerge that most valuable of commodities: trust.

Imagine the bonds of trust that could emerge if residents were to sit down together and agree how their housing might be designed (of course, there could be fallings out; but at least being forewarned is to be forearmed).

From the state’s perspective: potential savings in repair and maintenance bills, in policing budgets (reduced anti-social behaviour?) and health budgets (the mental and physical health benefits from ‘cohesive’ communities).

And with recent research from The David Hume Institute (here) suggesting that cost-of-living worries are the single biggest concern among Scots, the sharing culture underpinning this proposal could save households quite a bit of money too.

Mike Wilson is editor of BuildEdinburgh

Image details: copyright Mike Wilson

THIS is not really a Big Idea at all. In fact, it’s a very tiny one - at least in terms of its practical implications, were it to be implemented.

The city council’s determination to be as transparent as possible in its deliberations - not least when its elected members gather to take part in any of several committee meetings - is a bit like justice: not …

Read more

A FRIEND’S scepticism got me thinking.

Without sharing exactly the expletives attached to his email, he did have a point when suggesting my article (here) about ‘Woonerfs’ (described here on Wikipedia) in Amsterdam amounted to a re-heating of an old story.

For those of you who have still to read the article, in summary it was about narrow streets hugged b…

Read more

IT might well be that the battles that often take place around a major planning application are, to coin a phrase, ‘water off a developer’s back’ - where the sometimes huge costs of preparing a plan, and any rejection, are absorbed into successful later applications and prices.

But that’s not to say that developers are glad of the rough ride that they mi…

Read more

THEY pretty much always find a way, on Amsterdam’s ‘Woonerf’-style streets in the city’s Old Town districts.

Whether small van, car, sit-up-and-beg bicycle, cargo bike or fat-tyred electric bike, the weaving in and out seems to just work.

If there is anything to be concerned about, it is most likely with the electric bikes, which can be ridden at some spe…

Read more

THE word, ‘prevention’, appeared at least once in the letters pages of the Guardian newspaper, the other day.

It was in response to an article (here) by the columnist, Polly Townbee, who was considering a commission on adult social care (here), being chaired by Baroness Louise Casey.

Said Townbee: “With her trademark brutal honesty, [Baroness Casey] laid …

Read more

THIS is an idea that needs people’s help; needs people willing to share their expertise.

And maybe even their labour.

While many cities operate their own architecture and design centres - eg London, Milan, etc - Edinburgh has only intermittently come close (indeed, the chief executive of the London centre recently wrote about it, for BuildEdinburgh, here).

Read more

THERE is no obvious reason why the city council does not require development proposals for ‘significant’ sites in the capital - say all those over one acre in size - to be the subject of a design competition.

Maybe developers have consistently and successfully lobbied against it, because they have done the numbers and the numbers tell them that a design …

Read more

THERE are quite a few parts of Edinburgh just crying out for what you would call ‘masterplanning’, imagining what might be for a whole area.

BuildEdinburgh has already advanced the idea of thinking comprehensively (here) about the acres and acres of land to the west of Seafield (for which there is a masterplan) that is currently being, developed bit by b…

Read more

VIEWED from the air, the layout of the housing estate bounded by Stenhouse Drive and Saughton Road is almost skeletal, such is the volume of mostly unloved ‘municipal grass’.

In a city where land is at such a premium, the solution seems a no-brainer: fill the gaps with new housing, not least because, almost certainly, the land belongs to the council.

A fe…

Read more

TO watch a football match taking place on the artificial surface 11-a-side pitch at Saughton Arena involves having to stand on the other side of a high fence.

It is not the only experience that is less than optimal, the lack of decent spectator facilities joined by a nearby changing rooms block that is definitely showing its age.

Meanwhile, a stone’s thro…

Read more

IDEAS are not cheap - as some might be tempted to claim: they are the foundation stones of prosperity and progress.

And with regard to the ambitions of BuildEdinburgh, they are central to its very being.

Without ideas, BuildEdinburgh would be just a gathering of news links, with several ideas having already been aired in the site’s Saturday column section.

Read more