Author: Planning Democracy

Kevin Stewart MSP,

Minister for Local Government & Housing

28th May 2018

Dear Minister,

Delivering a fairer planning system for Scotland’s communities

We are writing to urge you to strengthen the Planning Bill by putting forward proposals to deliver a fairer planning system for Scotland that empowers our communities of place and interest.

We wholeheartedly agree that the places we live and work are key to our identity and wellbeing. Scotland is our land, it defines us and gives us a sense of identity. The way it is developed is hugely important to us all. We want to build a strong and successful nation, but this aspiration can only be realised if our planning system is fair and inclusive.

Research conducted by the Scottish Government demonstrates clearly that there is a significant lack of public confidence in planning. It is therefore imperative that amendments are introduced to the Planning Bill to give communities a greater say and better rights over how Scotland is developed in future and restore our trust in the planning system.

Collectively, we, the signatories to this letter have been involved in all aspects of planning, including the preparation of local and strategic development plans across Scotland and responding to planning applications. The one key emerging theme from our collective experience is that people feel very strongly that there is a need to change the current planning system which leaves them feeling disempowered and disregarded, particularly with respect to rights of appeal.

The fact that applicants can appeal when planning permission is refused but communities have no such right of appeal against a decision to allow development, no matter what the impact on their lives and environment, is viewed as one of the most unfair and inequitable aspects of planning.

Despite consistent calls from communities throughout Scotland for appeal rights to be considered the issue was not debated during the planning review and did not become part of the Planning Bill. This is a source of considerable disappointment to community groups and others who see the value of a balanced system of planning, where both developers and communities have equal rights to influence decision-making.

The Planning Bill is a once in a generation opportunity to consider the positive benefits of community appeals. We firmly believe that providing people with equal rights can help to build a stronger, more effective planning system that commands public trust. Equalizing appeal rights will encourage more positive and early engagement in planning, ensure stronger and better planning decisions and provide strong incentives to deliver appropriate development in keeping with the aspiration for a plan led system. A system of planning that allows communities to appeal decisions is a reflection of strong and democratic governance and public confidence in that system is far more likely to thrive.

We urge the Scottish Government to reconsider their stance on Equal Rights of Appeal and bring planning in line with the spirit of a fairer Scotland and community empowerment initiatives, which aim to really empower communities to protect and nurture their local environments.

Yours sincerely 

Midlothian Federation of Community Councils

Edinburgh Association of Community Councils

Professor Mark Stephens Save Our Landscapes (Lanark)

Granton & District Community Council

North Edinburgh Fights Back

Professor Emeritus Sir Thomas M Devine, The University of Edinburgh

Save East Linton From Excessive Expansion

Cluny, Midmar & Monymusk Community Council

South West (Edinburgh) Communities Forum

Monklands Residents Against Pyrolysis Plant

Brightons Community Council

Polmont Community Council

Reddingmuirhead & Wallacestone Community Council

Save Woodhall & Faskine Greenbelt

Professor Michael Pacione

Blackness Community Council

Leith Links Community Council

Friends of Burghlee Park Midlothian

Cockburn Association

Tollcross Community Council (Edinburgh)

Community Action North, Edinburgh

Pencaitland Community Council, East Lothian

Strathblane Community Council

Dumgal Against Pylons Dumfries and Galloway

Biofuelwatch

John Muir Trust

Clyde River Action Group

Duneaton Community Council (South Lanarkshire)

Kilmacolm Residents Association

Culter Community Council

Sustainable Shetland

Fairlie Community Council

Save Meadowbank Campaign

Jackton and Thorntonhall Community Council

Scone North Study Group

Scotland Against Spin

Ceres and District Community Council

Cupar and North Fife Preservation Society

Stop Scolty Redevelopment Aberdeenshire

Scottish Wild Land Group

Grassmarket Residents Association

Dunbar Community Council

West Barns Community Council

Charlestown, Limekilns and Pattiesmuir Community Council

Halfway Community Council in Cambuslang East

Save Bishopriggs Canal Greenspace

Canonbie and District Residents Association

Scottish Wildlife Trust

Thainstone Resident Group, Aberdeenshire

Frackwatch

Residents Against Greenbelt Erosion Dunblane

Denny & District Community Council

Avonbridge & Standburn Community Council

Bonnybridge Community Council

Grangemouth (including Skinflats) Community Council 

Maddiston Community Council 

Shieldhill & California Community Council

Friends of the Earth Scotland

Woodland Trust Scotland

The Cairngorms Campaign

Froglife

Ramblers

Archaeology Scotland

Buglife

North Lanarkshire Greens

Group to Stop Development at Culloden

Leith Links Residents Association

RSPB

Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland

Not Coull (Coull Links campaign)

The Pollokshields Trust

Pollokshields Community Council

Silverton & Overtoun Community Council

Badenoch and Strathspey Conservation Group

Protect Damhead’s Greenbelt

Save Jim’s Farm

North East Mountain Trust

Aberdour Community Council

Our Forth

Nick Kempe, Parkswatchscotland

Kirkton Community & Safety Partnership

Save Kingspark for the Community

Care for Caird

Kinross-shire Civic Trust

Stockbridge & Inverleith Community Council

Wallyford Community Council

Gilmerton Inch Community Council

 

Author: The Press and Journal

The Glenurquhart Rural Community Association (GURCA) has taken the first steps towards an asset transfer of the visitor centre, car park and land at the Loch Ness attraction, currently owned by Historic Environment Scotland (HES).

It is also bidding for a neighbouring tourist information centre, owned by the council and leased to VisitScotland, as well an area of parkland between Drumnadrochit and Lewiston.

Tourism chiefs said the buyout would allow the community to “control more of their destiny” and create the momentum for potential future buy-outs of sites such as Fort George.

Local residents have been invited to a meeting in Drumnadrochit next Tuesday to deliberate the proposals.

Local businessman Willie Cameron, spokesman for GURCA, said money generated from ticket sales could be used to repair crumbling local roads, facilities for young people, education bursaries and childcare facilities and to improved care facilities for older people.

He said: “The community is in a better position to run and identify what is required out of the proceeds of these assets. To my mind it’s a ‘no brainer.’”

The new plans, which could generate millions of pounds for the local economy, have emerged in the wake of the tiny island of Ulva being transferred to public ownership last week as part of a £4.5 million deal.

The latest figures show Urquhart Castle was visited by 487,000 people during the last financial year.

Mr Cameron added: “Why should many tourists and many people of the village suffer lack of amenities when there is a cash cow on our doorstep? We want to make a difference for the next generation of people and the elderly people living in our community.

“This could open the gates for other tourism areas that are requiring cash for infrastructure.”

Mr Cameron said that if locals are in favour, he believes raising funds would not be a problem given the prime location of the site.

Inverness Chamber of Commerce chief executive Stewart Nicol said an asset transfer would give the community the chance to “control more of their destiny.” He also stressed the need for a successful buyout in this case, to create a “positive momentum” which will encourage more future community buy-outs across the region.

He added: “I think future buy-outs may struggle when there is less of an obvious attraction, due to commercial challenges. The opportunities have to be carefully thought out but I would include Fort George as a potential opportunity.”

Glenurquhart Community Council vice chairman, David Fraser, said proposals are at an early stage but added: “It has the potential to transform the village going forward.”

A spokeswoman for HES said: “We were approached by the Glenurquhart Rural Community Association to discuss their broader plans for the area and have had two initial meetings, however there are no firm plans on the table.

“The group now intends to hold a public meeting to discuss these ideas further, as part of their wider plans under the community action plan, and we are continuing to hold dialogue with them.”

Asset transfer – how it works under the Act

Under the “asset transfer” section of the Community Empowerment Act (Scotland) 2015, which came into force in early 2017, communities can apply to transfer assets belonging to – or in some cases leased to – public bodies such as HES.

The Act itself states that community bodies have a right to make requests to all local authorities, Scottish ministers and public bodies for any land or buildings they feel they could make better use of.

HES’s policy and guidance on asset transfer criteria highlights five stages of progressing an asset transfer request.

The first of those is “development,” which involves the applicant identifying community needs, setting out the benefits of the project and testing the feasibility of the plans, then deciding on the purchase amount if seeking ownership.

The second stage is “submission,” which involves setting out all of the information needed as part of a request for the asset transfer.

The third stage involves “assessing” the evidence supplied for what benefits community use will bring, such as local jobs, increasing local educational benefits or improving health, social or environmental wellbeing.

Evidence will also be sought on how the project will bring in enough income to cover running costs, and about how the project will be managed in the long term based on the skills, experience and qualifications offered by those involved.

A decision will be made within six months of the asset transfer request being validated – and any appeal can be made within 20 working days.

If the asset transfer request is successful, a legal agreement will be drawn up in order to make a formal offer. The asset transfer will normally be concluded within six months.

 

Author: SFLT

 

Farming is becoming increasingly disconnected from communities in Scotland, with farm sizes growing dramatically and short-term contracted labour becoming the norm.  We still don’t have a clear picture of where Brexit is likely to lead our agriculture sector, but reformulation/removal of farm subsidies is inevitable. 

At this critical time, the Scottish Farm Land Trust has been established to increase access to land for small-scale, ecological agriculture by purchasing land through Community Shares and other finance options, to be held in trust and rented fairly to new entrants and young people.   SFLT have evidenced that there is a massive demand from people wanting to start farming in this way.  Join them for their AGM on the 22nd of May where they will be launching as a Bencom and signing up members.

 

Author: Scottish Rural Action

The three-day Scottish Rural Parliament will take place in Stranraer in Dumfries and Galloway on 14-16 November 2018. The biennial event hopes to brings together 400 rural community participants to discuss their priorities and this year will focus on two key issues – rural policy post-Brexit and taking action.

Announcing the event, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said “It is important people have a say in decisions affecting them, and the Rural Parliament is an important part of that process, allowing rural communities from across Scotland to discuss and agree priority areas for development and local democracy.

“The Rural Parliament coming to Stranraer is a fantastic opportunity for the area to showcase its strengths and share ideas and good practice across Scotland’s communities.”

Welcoming the announcement, Amanda Burgauer, Chair of Scottish Rural Action said “We are delighted to be taking the Scottish Rural Parliament to Dumfries and Galloway this year and particularly to Stranraer, where an active community has already achieved much and has exciting plans for the future. The Rural Parliament will help bring attention to this effort and will leave a strong legacy in the area.

“The dual themes of action and influencing around Brexit will foster a dynamic event that will help define the future of rural Scotland as the UK approaches Brexit and in the years that follow. The event will offer an opportunity for 400 people from across rural Scotland to influence high level decision makers and ensure their community’s voice is heard.

“At previous Scottish Rural Parliaments, we have shaped much of our work on areas such as connectivity, transport and banking. Being the voice for rural communities is a role that Scottish Rural Action takes seriously, and I am very pleased to have seen significant progress driven by our work in these areas over the years.”

Peter Ross, Chair of the Stranraer Liaison Group said “We are delighted to be welcoming the Scottish Rural Parliament to Stranraer. The event has great cultural and political significance, and allows us to showcase our dynamic and thriving rural communities. We look forward to learning from other communities and working together in the future to share experiences and shape rural policy at both local and national level. We have seen the impact on previous hosts local economy and expertise, and we look forward to bringing the spotlight to Stranraer, which has lots to offer.

“Participants can look forward to a warm welcome from friendly people in a town with excellent facilities, set in lovely countryside. Stranraer has, in common with the rest of Dumfries and Galloway, a large vibrant community who gladly undertake lots of volunteering roles. There are lots of clubs, organisations and caring people who look out for each other.”

Bookings are now open for people from rural Scotland – visit www.scottishruralparliament.org.uk to reserve your place or find out more.

 

Author: COAST

Will our politicians surrender Scottish seas to development at any cost?

The Scottish people should be deeply concerned when one of their Cabinet Secretaries promises industrial growth in our seas at any cost. Fergus Ewing addressed salmon producers at the Seafood Expo in Brussels: ‘I’m determined to give what leadership I can to make sure that no matter what challenges are thrown at it, you double growth,’ ‘Let’s do it…let’s go Scotland!’

Ewing keeps avoiding his responsibility to manage the risks to our marine environment. Instead he encourages the growth of some of the most destructive or risky industries that benefit some but jeopardise the future of coastal communities, sustainable fishing and biodiverse seas. His portfolio of blunders keeps growing; as well as promising to double salmon production in Scotland, he has supported “scientific trials” for electrofishing of razor clams mostly across the West coast, and many within the network of Marine Protected Areas. This fishery has been illegal in the EU since 1998 as it can cause irreversible damage to marine ecosystems. He has also ignored the black hole of the unregulated wrasse fishery, driven by salmon producers to treat sea lice in their cages. This goes to show how little Marine Scotland has learnt from the lessons of the past 50 years of ineffectual marine management, the decline of the Firth of Clyde ecosystem being one of the main examples of this.

All eyes are now on the Rural Economy and Connectivity (REC) Committee’s inquiry into the development of salmon farming in our seas. Will the REC Committee MSPs pay heed to the Parliament’s own Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee letter and report that concluded: “The status quo [of salmon farming] is not an option”? Will they listen to the hundreds and thousands of people represented by 27 fishery, environmental and community groups (see list of signatories and press release here) who have asked for an immediate moratorium on salmon farm development?

Let the REC Committee MSPs know what you think about this issue.

The public is clearly concerned. Over 30,000 people have signed a petition asking the government to test wastewater from salmon cages in Scotland for pathogens and diseases. They expect our parliament and government to work hard to leave the Scottish people a legacy of a healthy and diverse marine ecosystem, that will support a sustainable economy. COAST will continue to hold any government to account.

 

Author: The National

ISLANDERS on Ulva and neighbouring north-west Mull have concluded negotiations to buy the 4900-acre Ulva Estate.

Ownership will transfer to the North West Mull Community Woodland Company (NWMCWC) on June 21. It is aiming to “bring about social and economic development” of Ulva to benefit the current community and for future generations.

NWMCWC chairman, Colin Morrison, said: “To say we are extremely grateful to all our supporters and to the various funding agencies, organisations and individuals would be an understatement.

 “We cannot thank everyone enough, not just for the financial support, but also the encouragement we’ve been given throughout the process.

“We have been heartened by the degree of interest and depth of support we have received from official agencies, commercial organisations and also private individuals at home and abroad.”

The community buyout bid was launched a year ago when its owner, Jamie Howard, put the estate on the market after it had been in his family for more than 70 years.

Most of the £4.4 million purchase price and help with project management during the first two years of community ownership will come from the Scottish Land Fund.

Ulva was the birthplace of Lachlan Macquarie, who is seen by many as the “Father of Australia” and the National Trust for Australia has offered to help promote the tourism opportunities for visiting his birthplace.More than 500 individuals from around the world contributed to it through the Ulva Buyout JustGiving crowdfunding page. Community fundraising efforts – such as jumble sales and pop-up cafes – also played their part in raising money and awareness of the project.

Support also came from a range of local and national organisations, including Mull and Iona Community Trust, Mull Fishermen’s Association, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Woodland Trust Scotland, Community Land Scotland, Rural Housing Scotland and the Community Woodlands Association.

Ulva has a population of just six people, including three children, but the buyout includes residents of north-west Mull.

John Addy, a director of NWMCWC, told The National that redevelopment was one of their main aims: “One of the things we’ll be doing is launching a recruitment campaign for a development manager. The land fund grant also helps us manage the project for the first couple of years including a development manager post.

“The top priority is renovation of the existing housing stock. There are six modest houses on the island all of which need renovation. There’s the big house of course, Ardalum House, which was a hostel, so there’s a lot of properties to be done up and we’ll have to get on to that as fast as we can. Our population is microscopic, but once we get these six existing houses done up then potentially we can get it up to around 20 people. We’re hoping to get planning set up for new-builds as well so we can see it reaching 20 to 30 in the short-term, but in the long-term 50 plus would be a reasonable target.”

Addy said another priority was re-population of Ulva: “It’s very difficult for young people to get access to land here because of the holiday market, so under community ownership we can make land and property available. We’re not motivated by profit. As long as the venture washes its face and we can meet our commitments for maintenance and things, we’ll be happy.”

Land Reform Secretary, Roseanna Cunningham, said: “This is ground-breaking news, not just for the local communities on Mull and Ulva, but for community empowerment across Scotland … The community group can now press ahead with their ambitious plans to repopulate the island, and regenerate the local economy.” More than 500 individuals from around the world contributed to it through the Ulva Buyout JustGiving crowdfunding page. Community fundraising efforts – such as jumble sales and pop-up cafes – also played their part in raising money and awareness of the project.

Support also came from a range of local and national organisations, including Mull and Iona Community Trust, Mull Fishermen’s Association, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Woodland Trust Scotland, Community Land Scotland, Rural Housing Scotland and the Community Woodlands Association.

 

Author: UCL

To watch a short video explaining the concept

To read the full report

The UK should provide citizens with free housing, food, transport and IT to counter the threat  of worsening inequality and job insecurity posed by technological advances, a report launched by the Insitute for Global Prosperity recommends.

The proposal for ‘Universal Basic Services’ represents an affordable alternative to a so-called ‘citizens’ income’ advocated by some economists, according to the expert authors working for UCL’s Institute for Global Prosperity.

Building on the ethos that saw the establishment of the NHS and public education – that essential services should be free at the point of need – the plan would “raise the floor” of basic services all citizens can expect, providing better protection for workers in the face of rapid advances in technology and automation.

Outlining the research, Professor Henrietta Moore, Director of the UCL Institute for Global Prosperity, said: “If we are to increase cohesion, the sense that we are ‘all in it together’, we must act where we can have the greatest impact and that is on the cost of basic living.”

The recommendations include a massive expansion of social housing, free bus travel, meal provision for those most at risk of food insecurity and basic phone and internet access. The total cost of £42bn – representing just 2.3% of UK GDP – could be fully funded through changes to the Personal Allowance, making the proposal fiscally neutral.

The services themselves might be provided publicly, by private companies, or by the voluntary sector and would need to be democratically accountable locally to prevent state monopolies.

Those in the lowest income decile would benefit the most – saving the equivalent of £126 per week in costs as a “social wage” if they accessed all the Basic Services. A “social wage” is the value of a public service to an individual citizen, expressed as replacement for financial income.

Critically, the report demonstrates clearly that UBS would be a far more affordable response to the changing nature of the labour market than a ‘citizens’ income’, also known as Universal Basic Income (UBI).

A UBI paid to all UK citizens at the current modest Jobseekers Allowance level of £73.10 per week would cost just under £250bn per year – around 13% of total GDP, or 31% of all current UK public spending. By contrast, the transformative effects of UBS are accessible with relatively minor changes to the fiscal structure of the UK economy: additional UBS spending represents only 5% of existing budgets.

Most plans for basic income include keeping the existing public services in place, and distributing cash in addition to the cost of services. Focusing on more comprehensive provision of services rather than giving cash handouts also means there remains a strong incentive on citizens to work.

Professor Moore and the report’s co-authors – Professor Jonathan Portes of King’s College London, Andrew Percy of the IGP and Howard Reed, director of the economic research consultancy Landman Economics – add that an important aspect of UBS would be the opportunity it could give to rejuvenate local democracy and local involvement in the design, financing and delivery of local services. And they also suggest that UBS could be complementary to a modest basic income.

One recent report by McKinsey estimated that almost half (49%) of the activities people are paid almost $16 trillion in wages to do in the global economy have the potential to be automated by adapting currently demonstrated technology in robotics, machine learning and Artificial Intelligence.

Professor Henrietta Moore, Director of UCL’s Institute for Global Prosperity, said “Without radical new ideas that challenge the status quo, we face a future where the changing shape of our society and labour market leaves more and more people struggling simply to achieve the basics – let alone having the resources and mental energy to allow themselves and their families to flourish.

“As a society, we already accept that certain services like health and education should be provided free at the point of use to the whole population, because we understand that all of society benefits as a result. The concept of UBS is a logical extension of this principle.”

Andrew Percy, the IGP’s citizen sponsor for the research, added “The safety net of a society must be just as modern as its economy. Universally available public services have the potential to provide the flexible, need-specific, and responsive support that could replace much of our current, conditional benefits, while also preserving the value of paid work, conforming with public attitudes, and building social institutional fabric at the same time.

“It cannot be sufficient to excuse hungry school children or an uncared-for elderly population with a notion of ‘unaffordability’ in a society that is as rich as any that has ever existed.”

Professor Jonathan Portes of King’s College, London, said “The role of the state is to ensure an equitable distribution of not just money, but opportunity to participate and contribute to society. For that to be meaningful, there are likely to be certain services everyone should be able to access.

“UBS, like basic income, has the potential to improve work incentives, especially for lower paid workers. It reduces the cash income required, through the benefit system or from savings, for individuals or families to survive at an acceptable standard of living if they have little or no income from labour; and if services are provided to all regardless of work status, then there is no disincentive effect from the loss of access as people move into work or increase their earnings.”

Responding to the launch of the UBS report, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer John McDonnell said “Rapid technological changes are a profound challenge for our economy and society. This report offers bold new thinking on how we can overcome those challenges and create an economy that is radically fairer and offers opportunities for all. It makes an important contribution to the debate around Universal Basic Income, and will help inform Labour’s thinking on how we can build an economy that truly works for the many not the few.”

UBS in detail:

The Universal Basic Services (UBS) modelled in the report build on existing universal healthcare, education and legal services. They would enable every citizen to live a ‘larger life’ by ensuring access to safety, opportunity, and participation. Reducing the Personal Allowance to £4,300/year (leaving the current benefits system in place as is) would make UBS revenue neutral, and be highly progressive.

Shelter: doubling the existing social housing stock by funding the building of 1.5 million new social housing units using 30-year Treasuries at current market rates. The new units would be offered on a needs basis at zero rent. All social housing would be exempted from Council Tax, and include a utilities allowance. With a seven-year building schedule the costs start at £6.1bn and finalise at £13bn from the 7th year onwards.

Food: A food service would provide one third of the meals for the 2.2 million households deemed to experience food insecurity each year. This would add to existing programs such as free school meals and meals on wheels, providing 1.8 billion meals at a cost of £4bn per year.

Transport: Extending the existing Freedom Pass (currently for citizens over the age of 60) to everyone for bus services, providing access to free local public transport services that enable citizens and residents access to jobs, education, healthcare and participate fully in their community – all of which are currently under threat. Assuming an increase in use of 260% the cost would be £5bn per year.

Information: To promote digital inclusion, this covers the cost of basic phone, Internet and the BBC TV licence fee. This would enable access to work opportunities and other services, as well as participation in our democracy as informed citizens. This is the most expensive service considered, with an annual budget of £20bn, however it also delivers universal value across all income groups and keeps all citizens connected in our increasingly digital world.

 

Author: SCDC

Knowledge is Power – Executive Summary

In recent times, the benefits of independent community-led action have increasingly been recognised and, across social policy in Scotland, we now speak the language of ‘community empowerment’.

But where do ideas start? How do communities equip themselves with the knowledge they need to make sure their efforts make the most valuable differences? And how can they get the information, they need to help public agencies and funders make the best use of their investments?

Would support for community-led action research be one way of empowering communities to determine their own futures? We wanted to find out.

The power of community-led action research

“Community-led action research is not research for the sake of it, to prove a theory or to satisfy the curious. It is about people asking their own questions about the issues they experience, getting the information, and evidence they need, and testing actions for change.”

From June 2016 to October 2017, SCDC and the Poverty Alliance worked alongside ten community organisations from across Scotland to identify what a support resource, designed for communities to undertake their own action research processes, would look like.

Together we identified what impacts community-led action research can lead to, what more might be needed to embed action research processes and help them work well, and where challenges might lie. In short, we began to design an action research support project, from the ground up.

 

Author: OTCC

“We need to recognise that there has been a breakdown in trust between the residents of Edinburgh and their elected representatives on the Council. That relationship needs to be repaired. This new contract with the capital marks a fresh start, with a Council willing to listen to local people and work together with local communities… A council where cooperation, fairness, accountability and responsibility really matter… The City will be able to judge the Council against this promise.”

City of Edinburgh Council (2012 – 2017)

Introduction

Among many, many accolades, the ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ of Edinburgh, with her magnificent natural setting, association to The Enlightenment, twin World Heritage and recognition as the 1st World ‘City of Literature’, is honoured and inscribed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Having come to be regarded among the most beautiful cities in the World, besides millions of marvelling visitors Edinburgh’s exceptional plaudits have attracted considerable interest, for better or worse, from ‘inward investment capital’, also referred to as ‘Foreign Direct Investment’.

In an age of globalisation where such ubiquitous financial investment exerts considerable influence, in seeking to maximise return this capital insidiously favours weak, obsequious governance. Disparagingly referred to as ‘predatory’/ ‘zombie’ capital, this inward investment is typically precarious, without fundamental sensitivity and loyalty to place, which can have devastating consequences for the long term well being of local communities.

Exacerbated by the imposition of ‘austerity’ in the current economic climate, Edinburgh Council has become weak and demoralised by high levels of debt following a catalogue of blunders relating to ill conceived and ill fated infrastructure projects. Consequently, in what appears an attempt to reconcile the City’s dire financial predicament, the Council has attracted significant inward investment by offering prime public assets for the purpose of private development. Of particular note are the major developments featured in the ‘Edinburgh 12’ so called ‘initiative’.

In spite of Council promises regarding “cooperation, fairness, accountability and responsibility”, the inauspicious list of public assets (including listed buildings, brownfield sites, priceless greenbelt, and former Royal High School, a national monument), have been disposed of WITHOUT ANY public consultation to discuss alternative options. Associated development pressure has then been such as to overwhelm Citizens, civic organisations and evidently government agencies.

The case of the Royal High School alone has required such dedicated scrutiny as to divert critical attention from other contentious planning proposals, thereby precipitating deleterious development across the City which has typically failed to ‘enhance’ Outstanding Universal Value, as is otherwise stipulated in accord with the World Heritage status.

In spite of the duty of Edinburgh World Heritage Trust and Historic Environment Scotland to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of the City, UNESCO have expressed ‘strong concerns’ about the cumulative effects of development, stating that “the quality and pervasiveness of development projects being pursued without due consideration for conservation is deeply worrying”. Following similar concerns of UNESCO regarding the City of Liverpool (now featured on the ‘World Heritage In Danger’ list), this puts the future status of Edinburgh in doubt.

In the Old Town, with overbearing pressure from hotel and student developments, combined with the hundreds of homes lost to the short term ‘Buy to Let’ holiday market, all local councillors have voiced serious concerns regarding the future of this historic neighbourhood, at the heart of the nation. Residents of the Old Town are now enduring considerable stress and unable to maintain a decent quality of life. Many residents have now left in despair, exacerbating the decline of the community, exposing the Council as fundamentally failing in its civic duty to honour the Principles of Public Life; of always acting in the best interests of Citizens, safeguarding community, culture, heritage and natural resources.

In representing the voice of local residents, it is the opinion of the Old Town Community Council (OTCC), that the situation has become so serious as to have reached crisis point.

Proposed India Buildings Hotel

Of recent developments in the Old Town perhaps most contentious is the proposed India Buildings hotel on Victoria St, extending to the Cowgate, on land otherwise long set aside for the benefit of Edinburgh Central Library.

Besides further threatening the fragile local community, the OTCC considers this development so serious as to imperil the future of the Library; a building whose national and international importance as a ‘Beacon of Civilisation’, of greater public worth than castles and palaces, is key to Edinburgh’s reputation as a City of Literature and Enlightenment.

With no public consultation, the decision of Edinburgh Council to dispose of the land otherwise intended for the Library’s future development (Cowgate gap site), fundamentally compromises the ability of the Library to “grow in usefulness” and “provide the services expected of the principal library for a capital city in the 21‘ century”, while satisfying fire safety and disability access requirements. Having granted consent for the hotel, as a further insult the proposed development would overshadow the Library, whose motto with the bitterest irony is “Let There Be Light”, significantly blocking natural light and prime views of Edinburgh Castle. This assuredly condemns the Central Library to an ignoble, and potentially terminal fate and in so doing desecrates the finest gift to the nation of founder Andrew Carnegie, ruining his enlightened vision, carried through the ages, for the Common Good.

The developer claims the impact of the hotel on the Library will be’neutral’and that associated service vehicles will have only a “minor impact on air quality… and can be adequately serviced from the existing access from the Cowgate”, even though the Cowgate, as a major arterial medieval road, is already excessively in breach of Air Quality regulations.

Disregarding the concerns of the local community and the thousands of supporting objectors, the Council’s Planning Report, in support of the hotel development, concluded:

“The design of the new building is respectful and reflects the historic context and grain of this part of the city… There will be no adverse impact on the character or appearance of the conservation area or the setting of adjacent listed buildings. It will not significantly impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and it will not introduce any implications in terms of road or pedestrian safety… There are no material considerations which outweigh this conclusion. It is recommended that this application be Granted.”

A cursory look at the developer’s townscape visual impact assessment, both in regards to the setting of the A listed Central Library and threat to public health and safety due to the proposed service access at the narrow lane abutting the Library, off the overburdened polluted Cowgate, reveals the Council’s planning judgement to be seriously flawed, evidently relying exclusively on the Applicant’s data and favouring economic development above all other consideration.

 Considering the potentially devastating impact of the proposed development, the Application was firmly rejected by the OTCC and surrounding community council’s, all local ward Councillors, MSP’s and MP, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, Cockburn Association, Edinburgh Old Town Development Trust, Old Town Association and others, an opinion now supported by over 5000 Citizens through an on-line petition. Local MSP Andy Whitemen is quoted in the press as stating “it feels as if this one is the straw that broke the camel’s back”.

In spite of the strength of objection and the guiding Principles of Public Life, with ‘a presumption in favour of sustainable economic development’ embedded at the core of current planning legislation and a developer right of appeal, ensuring that private commercial interests typically prevail, councillors on the Development Management SubCommittee (DMSC) voted narrowly, by 8 votes to 6, in favour of the hotel.

Following this outcome, the OTCC and others repeatedly appealed to Scottish Ministers to intervene. However, in spite of the Library’s undoubted national, and indeed international importance, this request was declined, with a mere stock reply that “no issues of national significance would justify using the power of call-in in this particular case”.

With NO community right of appeal a Judicial Review was then actioned. However, in spite of the so called ‘independence’ of the Judiciary, under the current constraints of process, where only the legality, rather than the merits or the facts, are considered the Court repeatedly deferred to the conclusion of the Council’s planning judgement that “there would be no adverse impact”. Consequently, in spite of the very serious nature and evident glaring injustice of the case the Court declined to quash planning permission.

Though a statutory body, the Court declined to consider this assessment of Application 15/04445/FUL by the OTCC, which reveals key evidence, obtained through Freedom of Information requests since planning consent was granted, indicating that councillors were ‘significantly misled’. Endorsed by local MP Tommy Sheppard, the Assessment further reveals a clear conflict of interest, serious dereliction of government agencies to uphold the Principles of Public Lifeand failure of Edinburgh Council to honour coalition promises.

Having failed to achieve a satisfactory outcome through Judicial Review, the OTCC now considers it ‘expedient’, under exceptional circumstances, for Edinburgh Council/ Scottish Parliament to enact Section 65 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1997) Scotland, which would allow planning consent for Application 15/04445/FUL to be revoked.

Having comprehensively considered this case, the OTCC concludes that, while the proposed hotel could readily be relocated elsewhere, the only realistic option in safeguarding the future of Edinburgh Central Library would be to develop the Cowgate gap site for the benefit of the Library, as always intended, realising the aspiration of founder Andrew Carnegie and architect George Washington Browne.

Inspired by the recent award winning extension to Dunfermline’s Carnegie Library, alternative proposals could then be developed, as outlined in Appendix C, realising a world class re-visioning of Edinburgh Central Library as a ‘Beacon of Civilisation’, further enriching the City’s cultural reputation, investing in the enlightenment of future generations.

If the Council, having previously failed to safeguard the best interests of Edinburgh Central Library, declined to pursue such a vision for the Library, the local community would seek the opportunity using the Community Empowerment Act.

Given the international legacy of Carnegie and the widespread support of those who love this City, including JK Rowling (whose children’s books, inspired by the Old Town, have become the most popular in the history of publishing), the community is confident that sufficient funds can be raised through philanthropic endeavour to realise such a vision.

If common sense and decency will not prevail at a local level, having sought clarification regarding numerous related matters at a local level (Appendix A), in safeguarding the best interests of the public, the local community, the Library and UNESCO titles, the OTCC intends to pursue this matter with the European Commission and UNESCO.

Old Town Community Council – March 2018

 

Author: Margaret Wheatley

What This World Needs

This world does not need more entrepreneurs.

This world does not need more technology breakthroughs.

This world needs leaders.

We need leaders who put service over self, who can be steadfast through crises and failures, who want to stay present and make a difference to the people, situations, and causes they care about.

We need leaders who are committed to serving people, who recognize what is being lost in the haste to dominate, ignore, and abuse the human spirit.

We need leaders because leadership has been debased as those who take things to scale or are first to market or dominate the competition or develop killer apps. Or hold onto power by constantly tightening their stranglehold of fear until people are left lifeless and cowering.

We need leaders now because we have failed to implement what was known to work, what would have prevented or mitigated the rise of hatred, violence, poverty, and ecological destruction. We have not failed from a lack of ideas and technologies. We have failed from a lack of will. The solutions we needed were already here.

Now it is too late. We cannot solve these global issues globally. We can see them clearly. We can understand their root causes. We have evidence of solutions that would have solved them. But we refused to compromise, to collaborate, to persevere in resolving them as an intelligent, creative species living on one precious planet.

Now it’s up to us, not as global leaders but as local leaders. We can lead people to create positive changes locally that make life easier and more sustainable, that create possibility in the midst of global decline.

Let us use whatever power and influence we have, working with whatever resources are already available, mobilizing the people who are with us to work for what they care about.

As President Teddy Roosevelt enjoined us: Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.

To read an introduction to the book, click here