PLANNING issues were to the fore in Merkinch throughout June, with one public inquiry, a site meeting and the Local Plan on show.
The inquiry was an important one, insofar as that if councillors lose this one, they may well be wary of making decisions which could lead to another.

Under scrutiny was the planning committee’s refusal to give local builder Ewen Gillies permission for a block of nine 2-bedroom flats in Dunabban Road on the site of a bungalow and a former warehouse.
The committee’s case, not one agreed with by planning official Keith Gibson who had recommended acceptance, was that it constituted over-development and was too high, being on three floors. Their argument, put by Catriona Macdonald of the Legal Department and Richard Brown of the Roads Department as well as local Councillor Chrissie Cumming, was that there was insufficient parking in an area where the streets were at saturation already. It was also said that not enough provision was made for open/play areas.
The builder’s case was made by architect John Marr and a high-powered team from Edinburgh, consisting of legal expert John Farningham, planning and transport consultants Colin Smith and Andy Watt. At the outset the Reporter, Maurice O’Carroll, was presented by the appellants with an amended set of plans, which had neither been seen by the Reporter nor discussed by the committee.

The council argued that there were so many changes on these plans that they would require a fresh planning application.
The builders’ team argued that the height of the flats would be a bridge between the 1960s four-storey block across the road and the one and two-storey buildings elsewhere in the area. The architect argued that it was not over-development as the proportion of the site covered by the actual building was around 23%, the average.
There was considerable discussion about the number of parking places per flat, with the builder’s lawyer describing Dunabban Road as a “city-centre” site.
Their transport expert also said that because there were bike parking places, not so many would be needed for cars - besides this was social housing which tended not to have such a high level of car ownership.

But this argument was thought to be specious, as no-one could say that would still be the case in 20 years time, even if it were true now.
In winding up the builder’s team said the Council were not showing the flexibility that they had in the past. They also claimed that as the Council had acted “unreasonably” in rejecting the planning application, that they should be required to pay costs.

Mr O’Carroll is expected to give his decision in the matter of both planning appeal and expenses early in August.