A planning application to build two 3-bedroom mews flats on NW Cumberland Street Lane has been refused because the new structures would unacceptably overshadow neighbouring properties to the detriment of residential amenity (Ref. 13/0528/FUL; Breaking news, 7.1.14).
The scheme has attracted controversy from the outset, and was the subject of 36 letters, 34 of them objecting. Material grounds included: setting an undesirable precedent, out of keeping in a conservation area and World Heritage site, loss of privacy, impact on listed buildings, loss of car parking spaces and impact on traffic, loss of boundary wall and garden, inappropriate design and materials, loss of trees.
The Fettes Row Association was in favour of the proposal, whilst the New Town and Broughton Community Council gave it qualified support so long as natural slate and stone were used. NTBCC was against any further development behind nearby 20 Fettes Row.
Report
Following a number of revisions to the original plan (including roof height, materials and the number and style of windows), all these objections had been addressed, according to a report by a Council official to the Development Management Subcommittee on 8 October:
The proposals comply with the development plan and the infringement of the non-statutory guideline regarding overshadowing is justified in this case. The proposal is acceptable in this location and is of an appropriate scale, form and design. The proposal will have no adverse effect on the character or appearance of the conservation area or the setting of the listed building. The proposal will not result in any traffic or road safety issues, subject to an appropriate condition.
The agent has demonstrated by using the 25 degree calculation method that the profile of the proposed mews in terms of overshadowing to neighbouring properties on the opposite (south) side of the lane would be marginal and would not be unacceptable in terms of current policy guidelines.
The report recommended approval of the application. However, the Subcommittee – which had gone to inspect the site a few days earlier – instead refused it.
Spurtle is rather impressed that councillors preferred to trust the evidence of their own eyes over the 'marginal' breaching of a 25 degree test guideline. However, we would not be at all surprised if there were an appeal.