Edinburgh planning: Appeal lodged against councillors' refusal of controversial Jock's Lodge plans

There are fresh fears for the future of Edinburgh’s historic Jock’s Lodge after developers aiming to replace two pubs and a takeaway with a seven-storey student block lodged an appeal against city councillors’ “subjective” refusal.

The controversial plans have been put back on the table after being sent to the Scottish Government for reassessment – but local campaigners vowed to fight on and said they were “not planning on going quietly”. Meanwhile developers said they are “committed to a continuing dialogue with the local community”.

Six commercial units currently on the site, half of which are empty, will be demolished if the application gets the go ahead. A local councillor said this would “gut local amenities” and result in the loss of the “closest thing this area has to a high street”. Those in support have argued the units are ‘run-down’ and the area needs to be redeveloped to secure its future.

Proposals for the 191-bed student accommodation which would take their place include a bar and restaurant on the ground floor, which the owners of Limelite, one of the existing venues, have been offered to take-over. However, the Willow bar and Chennai’s Marina Indian takeaway would be lost.

In June, following a three-hour discussion on the plans which attracted over 1,000 objections, councillors voted 7-4 in favour of refusing due to the height of the proposed building and on the basis it would have a ‘detrimental impact on the function of the identified local centre’.

Kirsty Pattison, from the Save Jock’s Lodge campaign, said after the meeting representatives of developers, Alumno, approached the group and “said they’d be interested in having a dialogue,” however added they didn’t hear anything until after the appeal was submitted last week.

She said: “We had reached out because we were hoping they would speak to us prior to putting the appeal in. We’ve seen it with every student accommodation that’s been rejected, we’ve seen it going to appeal so we were prepared. We’d just hoped there maybe would have been a little bit more dialogue.”

Local councillor Danny Aston accused developers of “paying lip service” and said he was “deeply disappointed with the way they had handled things.

Ms Pattison said the campaign would now “try and raise awareness of the history of the area and also reiterate that whole point of what the councillors took on board during the meeting – the fact we would be losing six retail units”. She added: “We’re not planning on going quietly.”

In appeal documents to the Scottish Government, Alumno said council’s reasons for refusal “were a subjective judgement applied by elected members”. They said: “It is clear in this case that there is a significant amount of local opposition from nearby residents to the proposed development. This may have resulted in elected members making a decision that was influenced, at least in part, by local politics.

“The Appellant undertook a significant level of public engagement, well in excess of the statutory minimum, as part of the progression of the proposed development and prior to the submission of the planning application.”

The appeal also pointed out that on the day following the planning committee, a motions was passed at a full council meeting recognising there was a ‘student homelessness crisis’ in Edinburgh, with developers saying this “calls into question the basis on which the elected members exercised their planning judgement”.

A spokesperson for Alumno stated: “An appeal has now been submitted, and so we await a decision from the Scottish Government. However, we have recently had discussions with elected representatives and the local campaign group, and notwithstanding any appeal decision we are committed to a continuing dialogue with the local community.”

Councillor Aston said: “I’m still confident in the arguments we made on the day and that the committee heeded – this is the closest thing this area has to a high street and this development would gut local amenities.

“There’s nothing in their appeal statement that feels fresh or compelling to me – but their argument that because there were lots of objections from local people, councillors’ decision to refuse was unsound is particularly bizarre.”