LHNCC minutes 2014_05_07 FINAL Page 1 of 7 Minutes of the Leith Harbour and Newhaven Community Council ordinary meeting, held at Holiday Inn Express, Ocean Drive on Wednesday 7 May 2014 at 7.30pm Actions and decisions are RED ITALIC UNDERLINED SMALLCAPS. NEM CON means that no-‐one spoke or voted against a decision. URLs added by minutes secretary. 1 Recording At the request of 2 members, the chair directed that this meeting was not recorded. 2 Introductions 2.1 Attendance Jan Brown Sandra Burns Heather Ford George Johnston Denise Jones John Langton Allan Mackie Evie Murray Maureen MacGregor Robert Weir Neil Wilson 3 LHNCC (secretary) LHNCC (treasurer) LHNCC LHNCC LHNCC LHNCC LHNCC (chair) LHNCC LHNCC LHNCC LHNCC (FOWLB rep) Bruce Ryan Ron Cattell Graham Chapman Heather Milligan Don Giles Jim Scanlon Cron Mackay Cllr Chas Booth Cllr Adam McVey Cllr Gordon Munro minutes secretary resident resident resident FOWLB Leith Links CC (chair) Marketing Leith Leith ward (Green) Leith ward (SNP) Leith ward (Labour) Apologies for Absence Malcolm Chisholm MSP Edinburgh North & Leith (Labour) Alex Wilson Leith Business Association 4 Minutes of last meeting 4.1 Adoption The minutes were adopted nem con 4.2 Matters arising All matters arising were dealt with under items 7 & 8 of agenda 5 Police report No police representative, hence no report 6 Treasurer LHNCC account balance Special Events account balance 7 £ 957·∙50 £70·∙58 Donations It was noted that CCs are only allowed to make minor donations from their administration grants but that no upper limit has been stated. (See guidance for treasurers in Appendix 1.) It was suggested that there are no limits on donations made from other monies CCs raise for themselves. It was noted that other CCs do make donations. For example Leith Links CC has made annual donations to a local cause for many years. It was suggested that donations could be used to promote LHNCC, e.g. donating a whiteboard that has LHNCC’s contact details. This could be funded from LHNCC’s putative publicity budget. It was asked why problematic donations were not picked up at annual audit. It was also suggested that LHNCC needs to be careful how it spends its grant, especially now this issue has been raised, and that applicants should be LHNCC minutes 2014_05_07 FINAL Page 2 of 7 directed towards the funding available from Neighbourhood Partnerships (e.g. http://www.edinburghnp.org.uk/about-‐nps/funding/external-‐funding-‐updates/) and helped to use such sources. DECISION: LHNCC WILL MAKE DONATIONS AS IT SEES FIT (NEM CON) 8 Old Port Road Chair reported that considerable improvements have occurred, thanking Edinburgh Councillors for their support, but noted that a problematic chemical container is still present. Cllr Booth reported that no-‐through-‐road signs st have been installed, and that he is chasing up installation of an NTR sign on the 1 lamp-‐post. Also, a team is trying to catch fly-‐tippers. 9 Floating/eco homes and lodges 9.1 Planning application 14/01061/FUL The chair stated that last meeting’s decision was to submit a comment (the document does not say objection) about this specific application, based on this application’s technical faults*, and that such comment had to be submitted within a tight deadline. He stated that CCs are obligated to comment on applications they believe to be faulty or inappropriate. He saw no need to revisit this decision. * N Wilson stated that these included not meeting fair-‐notice criteria, including irrelevant future plans, lack of clarity about the type of solar panels to be installed, how long the experiment described in the application would last. Other members stated that they had not agreed with this decision (there had been no show-‐of-‐hands vote) because they had not known the detail of the application. The chair also mentioned an email from Edinburgh Council’s planning department, listing the reasons why people had objected to and supported this application. (See appendix 2.) The application will be referred to EC’s Development Management Sub-‐Committee. It was stated that the decision was strictly about this application – no other applications have been submitted. Should other applications be submitted, LHNCC will consider them separately and appropriately in due course. However, subsequent email debate has included thoughts about the principle of floating/eco homes. Also, this application has forewarned LHNCC of the developers’ future intentions. G Johnston stated FOWLB ‘had residents in membership in virtually every block on the river, some of whom are office-‐bearers in their residents’ associations' and that ‘all of their Business Associates (e.g. architects, pubs/bistros, cafés/restaurants, solicitors, art dealers) felt it would undermine Leith, tourism and their businesses’. It was stated that any developer needs both planning permission and either ownership of the relevant land (i.e. the land on which Mr King wishes to build) or the actual owner’s permission before developments can proceed. In this case, the relevant land is owned by Forth Ports. 9.2 Invitation to Tom King of SRT? The chair stated that Mr King had not asked to meet LHNCC until 3 May (see appendix 2) despite having earlier implied that LHNCC had refused to meet with him. It was suggested that no invitation should be extended until the current application had been decided upon. It was asked whether meeting with Mr King would pre-‐empt future applications, and suggested that LHNCC prepares itself to deal with any that are made. It was noted that there are precedents for inviting developers to speak about their master-‐plans. An example is inviting Port of Leith to speak about a big development. Cllr McVey suggested that PoL may have been obliged to consult widely due to the size of this development, but that the floating/eco-‐homes master-‐plan may be composed of small steps that would not automatically need such consultations. DECISION: INVITE MR KING, BUT ONLY AFTER THE CURRENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN DETERMINED (9 VOTES FOR, VOTES AGAINST NOT COUNTED BUT LHNCC HAS 11 VOTERS) LHNCC minutes 2014_05_07 FINAL 9.3 Page 3 of 7 Circulation of pictures of Water of Leith on social media The secretary had circulated some photographs of issues with the Water of Leith that had been sent to her – see appendix 3 for examples. These photos are reported to be circulating on social media. It was asked whether the photos had been taken on different dates, thus creating a false impression. It was noted that the lower basin is owned by Water of Leith 2000, who cannot afford large clear-‐up operations. The upper basin is owned by Bluefield. FOWLB representatives noted that sea-‐locks are used to maintain the basins’ water-‐levels; that if heavy rain upstream is anticipated or occurs, water levels are allowed to fall to create capacity for the incoming flow; that at such times, the middle basin can appear very silted – the photos may have been taken on such occasions. FOWLB representatives noted that there is an on-‐going debate about de-‐silting and cleanup of the basins. They will meet with SEPA and Edinburgh Council later in May. The bodies hold different views on the likelihood of flooding. It was stated that no-‐one is taking responsibility for the basins’ cleanliness, and that rubbish generally comes from upstream and is hence an on-‐going problem, although the river is cleaner than it used to be. Cllr McVey noted that a report on options will go to committee, but that he believes the basins should be dredged. 10 Transparency, connecting and engaging discussion E Murray suggested that it would be useful to for experienced CC members to buddy newer members. This idea had been raised at the CCllr training Edinburgh Council ran in January 2014. It would, inter alia, help new members understand the reasons behind CCs’ actions and modi operandi. EM suggested that the recent email debate showed some lack of clarity of CCs’ roles. It was noted that Planning Aid (http://www.planningaidscotland.org.uk) training will occur on 27 May, 7 June. It was stated that CC membership carries a duty of going to meetings and other events, some of which may be boring. However, many (e.g. Leith Feeling Safe Forum) can be positive and very worthwhile. 11 Capacity Building The chair noted that LHNCC should help new members, and that it needs to look to the future. Because of this, he gave notice of his intention to resign in June due to his increasing commitments, and asked members to think about who could take on this role. However, he would try to arrange a capacity-‐building meeting before resigning 12 AOCB Newhaven Gala will take place on 24 May 12:30 at Newhaven harbour. The secretary noted that a resident of Craighall Road (Trinity CC area) hadn’t had his refuse collected by Edinburgh Council. She had contacted EC ; the refuse was collected within 48 hours. However, the non-‐collection had recurred last week, despite an EC operator saying that the resident’s address would be added to the collection routine and the resident using an online collection-‐request mechanism. It was suggested that the resident should contact his Edinburgh Cllrs. It was noted that a restaurant had left out much refuse for 2 days. Hence the refuse was being attacked and scattered by seagulls. It was suggested that this should be reported to EC’s Environmental Health officers, who would then enforce uplift arrangements. It was noted that there are similar problems at many places in Leith, and that there is an un-‐enacted bylaw that businesses should store refuse indoors until refuse-‐collection days. This bylaw is now being enacted incrementally, starting with Leith Walk and Rose Street, according to Cllr Munro. C Mackay stated that the Leith Business Improvement District arrangements are still progressing. Meanwhile a series of ‘pop-‐up museums’ would occur (at Ocean Terminal, Coburg House, Foot of the Walk). These will be themed exhibitions that will move around locations. Also, LHNCC was asked to contribute content to the forthcoming Leith Lives website. Leith Dragon Boat race will occur on10 June. 13 Date of next meeting th 4 June LHNCC minutes 2014_05_07 FINAL 14 Page 4 of 7 Appendix 1: excerpt from Duties of the CC treasurer The City of Edinburgh Council pays an annual grant to community councils. The principal purpose of the grant is to cover administrative expenses: postage, photocopying, production of leaflets and newsletters and any other means of consulting with or expressing the views of the community. Examples of such costs are detailed below: • • • • • • • • • Hall/meeting room hire Photocopying Stationery Postage Production of community council newsletter, annual report or community directory Design or maintenance of community council website Involving local people in local decision making (eg surveys or consultations on local issues) Participation in local community planning activities Developing links with other groups (eg any costs incurred from joint working with organisations such as minority groups, youth groups, local history society, pathways/environment group etc) • Publicity and promotion -‐ advertising meetings, purchase of notice boards, production of leaflets and flyers, stand at community gala day • Membership/affiliation fees • Auditor's Fee • Conference attendance Community councils may incur minor expenditure on donations to local charitable and community activities but this is not the true purpose of the City of Edinburgh Council grant. 15 Appendix 2: Email from Tom King This email was circulated by the secretary on 5 May 2014 19:05:17 BST From: Tom King [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 May 2014 12:32 To: [email protected] Subject: FW: Development at Rennie's Isle (ref: 14/01061/FUL) Below is a list of objections submitted in respect of my planning application. I will of course be replying to planning, but I would very much like to meet with LHNCC and FOWL to go through this list and discuss further to enable me to answer these objections. I look forward to hearing from you. Tom King. From: Elaine Watson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 May 2014 11:56 To: Tom King Subject: Development at Rennie's Isle (ref: 14/01061/FUL) Dear Mr King, The representation period for the above application has expired and the application attracted 27 letters of representation: 15 objecting; nine supporting and three comments. The application will therefore be referred to the Development Management Sub-‐Committee for a determination. Objection / General comments • overdevelopment of the site • loss of open space • harm the character and appearance of the area • harm the historic character of the area LHNCC minutes 2014_05_07 FINAL Page 5 of 7 • harm character and appearance of the conservation area • piecemeal development that does not have regard to the Leith Docks Development Brief Framework • loss of natural light to neighbouring properties • obstruct access through the site • poorly defined public and private spaces • no assessment of flood risk or surface water drainage • poorly clarified research proposal • lack of information concerning the proposed materials • provision of substandard housing • parking • failure to integrate ancillary facilities, i.e. external waste storage • effect on Scheduled Ancient Monument • noise • adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties • impact on otters, a protected species, has not been assessed • object to any reference to future development on the Water of Leith, including houseboats, water fountain • the applicant's integrity • disturbance from construction works • challenges the eco credentials of the proposal • no evidence to demonstrate the proposal is sustainable • discrepancies in the application form and design statement, including the provision of housing • queries the consultation period and procedural issues concerning notice to owners • concerns about the information contained in the application form • Environmental Statement and Environmental Impact Assessment required • images contained in the Design Statement are misleading Support comments • general support for the proposal • enhance the area and built environment; • support for green / low carbon development and research • benefits of research opportunities to the area and city I have consulted the Council’s Natural Heritage Team and Historic Scotland because of the proximity of the site to Local Biodiversity Site, Local Nature Conservation Site (the Water of Leith) and a Scheduled Ancient Monument (Dock Place, swing bridge and lock, Leith Docks). If further assessment is required, i.e. the effect on otters, I will advise you accordingly. For your information the proposal is not a schedule 1 or 2 development described by the EIA regulations and therefore an EIA, in my opinion, is not required. If you have any questions or anything is unclear please contact me. Elaine Watson | Planning Officer | Planning and Building Standards | Services for Communities | The City of Edinburgh Council | Waverley Court (G2), 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG | Tel 0131 529 3478 | Fax 0131 529 6207 | [email protected] | LHNCC minutes 2014_05_07 FINAL 16 Page 6 of 7 Appendix 3: examples of photos of Water of Leith LHNCC minutes 2014_05_07 FINAL Page 7 of 7
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
