Lime tree

On 6 June 2018, an application was made to fell the tall lime tree by the front boundary wall. The reason stated was "to eliminate overshadowing of house".

We lodged a comment on 8 June concerning the proposal to remove this imposing lime tree, requesting that a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) be considered.

The application was withdrawn on 21 August.

Also on 21 August 2018, a new application was submitted to fell the tree. This time the application was accompanied by a report giving the sole reason as the risk of failure of the wall. It stated:
"The above issues indicate the damage caused by the proximity of this particular tree to the stone boundary wall. Despite attempts to mitigate [...] damage to the wall [the] damage and instability of the wall is likely only to increase over time as the tree continues to grow. Proposed removal of the tree is to be carried out to reduce risk of structural failure of the wall and / or any consequent damage to pedestrians. Removal of the tree is to be carried out carefully to reduce risk of any further damage."

We lodged a further comment on the revised application, contesting the applicants’ new assertion that the front wall was in any serious or immediate danger from the tree and suggested that the Council might have applied a TPO given the tree’s significant contribution to the pleasing streetscape of Lauder Road.

This revised application was nonetheless approved on 24 August 2018 and the tree was removed the following week. We are greatly saddened by this loss of amenity to the street.

Double garage and new driveway entrance

On Monday 27 August 2018, following the granting of approval on Friday 24 August for the tree removal, a further application was submitted for a new double garage on the south side of the property, complete with architect's drawings. This will involve opening of the boundary wall at the site of the felled lime tree to facilitate a new driveway. The existing driveway entrance will be closed up and its open metalwork gates will be removed. The new relocated driveway entrance will be 3.8m wide and will have solid powder-coated metal gates. If approved, this view from the street will be replaced by this.

The Grange Association has lodged this objection.

The application closes for comments on 28 September 2018.

It would very interesting to get a view officially whether solid gates (obscuring what’s inside but equally hiding any ne’er-do-wells from view) or see-through gates (letting passers-by see if someone’s breaking in but equally allowing ne’er-do-wells a view as to whether someone’s “in” or not).

I think open and/or see-through gates are better for security, personally.

The application for the new driveway and double garage was granted on 11 January 2019. In its decision notice, the planning department stated:

"The proposal, by way of its scale and positioning, will maintain the existing rhythm of the street, preserving its open and spacious character and punctuation between buildings. The layout and scale of this proposal is in keeping with the spatial pattern of the surrounding area, and the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.It would not have a detrimental effect on neighbouring amenity. It complies with Policies Des 12 and Env 6 of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan and the non-statutory Guidance for Householders."

The decision notice, together with the accompanying handling report, can be viewed and downloaded from the Council's planning portal here. The handling report does acknowledge our request that the permeability of the boundary should be maintained to allow the 'glimpse views' referenced in the Conservation Area Character Appraisal. The granting of permission has two welcome conditions:

• "...full details of the material and design of the proposed new pedestrian and vehicular gates shall [be] submitted to, and agreed by, the Planning Function."
• "Excavation of the garden area ..........shall not exceed .....400mm in depth....."

These conditions were placed to ensure that the 'glimpse views' are retained, and "..to protect the root system of a landmark tree in a conservation area."

The remaining lime tree is still not the subject of any Tree Preservation Order (TPO) but any application for work to it would have to be notified to the Council who could elect to make a TPO at that time.

Relevant quotes from the handling report include:

"The amended scheme is of a design that would sit adequately within the side elevation of the application property. The proposal, set back from the front elevation, is sympathetic in design terms, being formed in dressed stone to the front elevation with a stone cope to match the existing house. The repositioning of the garage will retain a 3.5 metre gap between it and the neighbouring garage. Due to the slope of the street, it will project between 61 and 90 cm above the stone boundary wall; there is no structure above, helping to preserve the sense of separation between properties. At 68.2 square metres, the garage will represent only 5% of the total site area. It would not therefore overwhelm or dominate the original house and its character and appearance would not be adversely changed as a result."

[....]

"The proposed materials are acceptable in the context, with salvaged stone being used to infill the original vehicular opening and the existing pillars being relocated. The amendment to the proposed width of the new vehicular opening conforms to nonstatutory guidance. The revised location of the vehicular access is intended to help protect the remaining American Lime tree on the boundary but a condition is imposed with respect to maximum depth of excavation for hard landscaping, to protect its root system. The amendment of the vehicular and pedestrian openings from solid wood to powder coated metal gates is appropriate but a condition is imposed seeking agreement on the actual detail and form, in order to retain glimpse views into the property."

In relation to the relocated vehicle entrance and the effect on the S1 zone parking bays, the report notes:
"... the application does not approve a dropped kerb as this is a separate process and the matter of parking bays is for Network Services to consider."

I must say they have done a magnificent job of moving the entrance and replacing the stone where it once was - perfect.

Quote from Planning on June 15, 2019, 18:03

There is now another planning application to amend the approved width of the driveway entrance from 3.0m to 3.4m.

The original planning application sought an entrance of 3.8m. The Grange Association and others objected to this, requesting that less of the stone wall be destroyed and that the Council's Householder Guidance (page 19) should be enforced, which states that access should not be wider than 3 metres. The applicants altered the proposals and the approved plans show an entrance of 3.0m.

The driveway has now been repositioned and the builders should be commended for the high quality of the work to protect and reinstate the original pillars and to fill in the gap from the original driveway. However, the pillars have been reinstated to create a driveway entrance of 3.4m, which is not compliant with the approved planning drawings which show 3.0m.

The new application, 19/02683/FUL therefore requests a change in the approved entrance width to 3.4m. There is no justification provided for why the entrance needs to be wider than the maximum of 3.0m stated in the Householder Guidance. If successful, the current application would authorise the entrance as currently configured. If refused, one of the pillars will need to be moved 400mm closer to the other.

The closing date for comments or objections to the Council is 12 July 2019.

This is a curious one.

They felled the tree on the basis it was damaging the wall.
They applied to move the entrance to where the tree had been.
They were told 3.8m was too wide, and 3m was the maximum.
They did a magnificent job of moving the entrance but created the entrance too wide - 3.4m - let's call it "split the difference", and are now applying to have that allowed?

Is this "asking for forgiveness, rather than permission" ?

I'm uncomfortable with this.

There are two applications for 'non-material variations' that have been submitted on 12 July 2019, neither of which yet has any documents uploaded with it to enable scrutiny by neighbours or the public. 17/06051/VARY relates to an additional roof light in the extension approved under 17/06051/FUL in 2018.

Application 18/04707/VARY relates to the planning permission 18/04707/FUL for the double garage approved in 2019, together with the revised driveway entrance width of 3.0m.

We have sent this e-mail to the Case Officer requesting that the documents associated with these variation applications be uploaded to the Council's portal so that we can see what is being requested. Specifically, we have asked that the application process already under way in 19/02683/FUL should not be circumvented to approve an increase in the driveway entrance width as a 'non-material' variation.

TRO/21/18 has been issued for first stage consultation, including a number of minor changes to parking restrictions throughout Edinburgh. It includes this change to the parking bay in the S1 CPZ to the east side of Lauder Road, to accommodate the new vehicle entrance at 13 Lauder Road.

Comments can be submitted to TRO.Consultations@edinburgh.gov.uk by 25 February 2022. In the light of comments, the Council's Roads team will decide whether to proceed to advertise the order, in which case it will move to the list of advertised orders.