Planning appeal information for The Grange Club in Stockbridge: EIR release

Information requested

Information relating to a planning appeal for the installation of two tennis courts covered by an air supported dome; 2 padel tennis courts covered by steel frame structures and associated development at the Grange Club, 7 Portgower Place, Stockbridge, Edinburgh.

Response

As the information you have requested is 'environmental information' for the purposes of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs), we are required to deal with your request under those Regulations. We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA.

This exemption is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes. This is essentially a technical point and has no material effect on the outcome of your request, which we have sought to answer fully as below.

Response to your request

The information you requested is set out below.

What was the brief for procuring this piece of work?

The right to appeal certain decisions made by a planning authority is contained within statute - the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The vast majority of appeals, as in this case, are decided by reporters from the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) of the Scottish Government. The reporter is required by law to decide the appeal in accordance with the development plan and NPF4, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The reporter is required to take into consideration submissions made by all parties, including any representations from members of the local community. The reporter was appointed by Scottish Ministers to examine this proposed development and decide whether, or not, planning permission should be granted.

What qualifications were required to carry out the brief?

DPEA has a cohort of salaried reporters who are civil servants employed by the Scottish Government. In addition to this, DPEA has a panel of self-employed reporters who are employed on a case by case basis to deal with peaks in DPEA's workload. The reporter in this case was from the panel of selfemployed reporters. Reporters are required to hold a degree in Town and Country Planning or equivalent, Royal Town Planning Institute accreditation or a qualification and accreditation in a related profession such as law, architecture, surveying or environmentalist.

Did anyone check that the brief was carried out as instructed and what were their findings?

The reporter appointed to decide a case is solely responsible for deciding how an appeal is handled and for their final decision. DPEA carries out an annual assessment of a self-employed reporters work and regular training and support is in place for all reporters.

Did the reporter appointed have experience and knowledge of the importance of the Conservation Area and of UNESCO World Heritage and of the impact this monstrosity would have on A listed building directly opposite?

Reporters are appointed to cases based on their experience; the skills and knowledge required to deal with a case; their availability; and ensuring that there is no conflict or perception of conflict of interest in dealing in the specific circumstances of a case. As a general principle Reporters are not allocated cases involving a site within three kilometres of their home in an urban area and in rural areas the distance is eight kilometres. In addition, we try to ensure that those with a background in a particular planning authority are not allocated cases that could be said to call into question their independence and impartiality. The reporter in this case has decided 166 appeals across Scotland since 1 June 2018, of which 72 appeals were in the City of Edinburgh Council area. These appeals in Edinburgh included listed building and conservation area consent appeals. It is our view that the reporter had the necessary experience and knowledge to decide this appeal.

It was said that the reporter carefully weighed all the submissions - what was his criteria and scoring mechanism for doing this?

There is no scoring mechanism in the assessment of a proposed development in an appeal. The reporter is appointed to decide an appeal and, as above, has to do so on the planning merits of the case. The reporter has to assess whether a proposal is in accordance with the development plan including NPF4 and, if it is, whether there are any material considerations that would mean planning permission should be refused. The reporter has set out the determining matters in the assessment of this appeal as well as the conclusions on these matters and they are clearly set out in the decision notice, a copy of which can be found at Scottish Government - DPEA - Case Details. The decision notice found that whilst the proposal did not accord with development plan policy Env 12, it did accord with policies 1,2, 4, 6, 7, 13,14, 21, and 22 of NPF4 and policies Env 3, Env 6, Env 8, Env 9, Env 16, Env 18, Env 21, Des 1, Des 3, Des 4, Des 5, Des 6, Tra 3 and Tra 4 of the local development plan. The reporter therefore found that the proposed development accorded overall with the development plan and NPF4 and there were no material considerations that justified refusing planning permission. The reporter’s decision was consistent with the recommendation to grant planning permission by professional planners at the City of Edinburgh Council.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.