Tag Archives: Montgomery St

LCCC September 2021 meeting agenda 

1 Welcome, introductions, attendance, apologies

1.a Attendance

1.b Apologies

1.c to note: declarations of interest in any items on the agenda

1.d to agree: order of business below

2 Approval of Minutes of the Ordinary LCCC Meeting on 16 August 2021 meeting

3 Matters Arising from previous minutes (and not included on agenda below)

4 Policing Matters

4.a to note: Community Police Officer’s September Newsletter

4.b to note: antisocial behaviour in Montgomery Street area in early September (Edinburgh Live 6 September 2021)

4.c to note: Fire Service Area Commander’s response to LCCC queries regarding fire at Inchkeith Court on 30/31 May 2021

5 Transport & Clean Streets

5.a Trams to Newhaven

5.a.i to note: Tram Team’s response to LCCC protests about proposed narrow pavements on Leith Walk, with c. 250m not meeting minimum in Edinburgh Street Design Guidance

5.a.ii to note: inadequate signage and litter issues around tram works; potholes on Leith Walk running lane

5.a.iii to note: any issues that have arisen for local residents or businesses that have not been dealt with satisfactorily by the Tram Project Team

5.b to note: CPZ update

5.c to note: LCCC Engagement Group proposals for next Ward Walk and litterpicking

5.d to note: any other Transport & Clean Street matters relevant to LCCC area

6 LCCC Governance

6.a Future LCCC meetings

6.a.i to note: continuing unavailability of Nelson Hall

6.a.ii to agree: to redouble efforts to resume future LCCC meetings face to face at a suitable venue

6.b to note: need to review convenors and membership of LCCC committees and LCCC vacancies

6.c to note: verbal report on LCCC participation in Leith for Ever Event 18 Sep 2021

7 Planning

7.a.i to note: LCCC objection to 21/03828/FUL | Erection of 1.5 storey 4-bedroom dwelling house. | Land South Of 1 St Clair Road Edinburgh

7.a.ii to note: LCCC objection to 21/03965/FUL | Conversion and extension of building Existing garage Class 5 for Class 4 Business Office Light Industry | 27A Arthur Street EH6 5DA

7.a.iii to note: any other Planning matters relevant to LCCC area

8 Parks & Green Spaces

8.a to note: any Parks & Green Spaces matters relevant to LCCC area

9 Open Forum (local residents)[1]

10 AOCB (LCCC members)[2]

10.a Future Ordinary Meetings (usually 3rd Monday of the month) and meeting topics/presentations

10.b to note: future meetings on 3rd Monday of each month at 7pm (except July and December):

10.b.i 2021: 18 October, 15 November

10.b.ii 2022: 17 January, 21 February, 21 March, 18 April, 16 May (AGM)

10.c to note: future presentations and charrettes

10.c.i to agree: to invite Steve Kerr (chair EACC) and Simon Holledge (secretary EACC) for a talk and Q&A on the Future of Community Councils In Edinburgh


[1] this agenda point allows members of the public to raise issues of public interest; during online meetings, please raise your virtual hand

[2] this agenda point allows LCCC members to raise issues not covered by the agenda

LCCC May **DRAFT** 2021 minutes

These remain in draft status until approved at the next LCCC ordinary meeting. At that point, a full HTML post will be made.

We are objecting to the Montgomery Street Park mast

After listening to residents and objectively looking at the proposals, our Planning working group have lodged an objection to the City of Edinburgh Council over the proposals for a mobile phone mast next to Montgomery Street Park.

20/04148/PA: Objection from Leith Central Community Council

Prior notification for electronic communication code operators. | Telecommunications
Mast North East Of Montgomery Street Park Montgomery Street Edinburgh
Leith Central Community Council objects to the application and, in accordance with the
particulars listed below, the City of Edinburgh Council should refuse the application.

Reasons

The application is contrary to the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy RS 7 Telecommunications

● It would not have been demonstrated that all practicable options and alternative sites
have been considered, including the possibility of using existing masts, structures and buildings and/or site sharing.
● Such evidence, including any reasons for rejection, would not have accompanied the application.
● The visual impact of the proposed 20m mast would not have been minimised through
careful siting, design and, where appropriate, landscaping.
● The application would not have demonstrated that all practicable options to minimise
impact have been explored, and the best solution identified.
● The proposal would be considerably taller than all nearby buildings and would
overwhelm the adjacent listed church at 121 Montgomery Street, Calton Centre,
Formerly Kirk Memorial Evangelical Union Church.
● The proposal would harm the natural heritage of Montgomery Street Park as it would be 5m taller than the park’s mature tree canopy..
● The application would not have provided a detailed assessment of the impact of
telecommunication waves on the health of the adjacent mature trees.
● The proposal would harm the built heritage of the city by being located on the New Town Conservation Area boundary.
● The proposal would comprise a large cluster of apparatus at its top which would add to the visual impact it would have on the New Town Conservation Area.
● The City of Edinburgh Council’s Mast Register would not have been used to check for a suitable site (“it was felt that the industry database was a more up-to-date source of
information – Planning justification statement – p1).
● A valid operational justification would not have been provided.
● An assessment of the cumulative impact of individual proposals where other
telecommunications developments are present nearby or are proposed to be located
nearby would not have been provided. Such an assessment would describe how the
cumulative effects have been considered and any negative visual impact minimised.
● The application would not have demonstrated that the site is wide enough to
accommodate the proposed equipment without impacting upon pedestrians traffic
provision.

The application is contrary to the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Env 6 Conservation Areas

● The proposal would not have demonstrated that it does not adversely affect the setting
of the New Town Conservation Area.
● The application would not have provided a sufficiently detailed form for the effect of the
development proposal on the character and appearance of the area to be assessed.
● The application is not including visuals or photomontages to demonstrate the minimal
impact of the proposal.

The application is contrary to the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Policy Env 16 Species Protection

● The application, by its very nature may have a detrimental effect on European Protected
Species (EPS) covered by Habitats Regulations. Bats are often sighted in Edinburgh
parks and a full bat survey of the current status of the species and its use of the site has
not been provided.
The application is contrary to Section 59 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997
● The proposal would not have demonstrated that a special regard has been given to the
desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting or any features of special
architectural interest which they possess.
● The proposal would not have been advertised as affecting the setting of a Listed Building
(121 Montgomery Street, Calton Centre, formerly Kirk Memorial Evangelical Union
Church)

The application is contrary to Planning Advice Note: PAN 62 Radio Telecommunications

● The application would ignore the opportunities that exist in urban areas to use small
scale equipment, to disguise and conceal equipment and sensitively install equipment on buildings and other structures.
● The application would be in a visually sensitive location within an urban area where it is particularly necessary to take positive steps to disguise or conceal equipment. Such
locations include conservation areas, scheduled ancient monuments and their settings,
listed buildings and their settings and recreational areas, eg public open spaces.

The application is contrary to National Planning Policy Guideline NPPG 19: RADIO TELECOMMUNICATIONS

● The proposal would not have demonstrated that the operators have explored alternative siting and design. Information about these enquiries should accompany every planning application. Operators should thoroughly explore alternative sites to find the solution with the least landscape impact, which may help allay public concern. Where difficulties in site acquisition arise code system operators have powers of compulsory acquisition. Although due to the time involved in compulsory acquisition operators will generally seek another site.

The pre-application consultation process has not been completed

● The application is not providing evidence or data from the public consultation.
● The pre-application consultation with the Council, with regards to the siting of masts
would not have been completed. The Planning justification statement notes that the
applicant has not received a reply from the Council before proceeding to a formal
application.

For all the reasons listed above, Leith Central Community Council objects to the application and, in accordance with the particulars listed below, the City of Edinburgh Council should refuse the application.

Community Councils Together on Trams/Trams Team meeting, 25 June 2020

Minutes of the Community Councils Together on Trams/Trams Team meeting
(Construction Phase) via Google Meet on Thursday 25 June 2020 at 5:30pm Continue reading

Trams to Newhaven newsletter, 19 June 2020

Unfortunately, the newsletter was not published with a link to a version viewable in a browser. LCCC has replicated the text and links in the newsletter, for the information of its online followers.
Continue reading