Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Developer drove hard bargain and saved £1.5m for trams

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 May 2009
By SHÂN ROSS
EDINBURGH City Council was bargained down by the developer of a controversial £200 million building project on the edge of the city's World Heritage Site, it emerged at a major public inquiry yesterday.
The council originally wanted more than £4 million from Tiger Developments as its contribution to the city's tramline before granting planning permission for the project, which includes a controversial 17-storey hotel, at Morrison Street goods yard n
ext to Haymarket station.

Businessman Ken Murray, who presented to the inquiry a 2,000-signature petition against the development, asked Elaine Robertson, a principal planner and council witness: "Have the developers agreed to give money to the council?"

The inquiry was told the developer's tram contribution would be £2.5 million.

Papers lodged with the inquiry show that last May the council said consent should not be issued until the developer entered into a "legal agreement for a sum of £4,137,258 towards the Edinburgh Tram Line".

Mr Murray, chairman and chief executive of Blue Planet Investment Management, then asked: "Is getting the money contingent on (giving] planning permission?"

Ms Robertson confirmed this was so and Mr Murray asked: "Do you feel comfortable with a system where the judge gets a bonus for sending you to jail?"

Ms Robertson said she would not answer questions which called into doubt her and colleagues' integrity.

Contributions from developers are part of planning legislation, but the £4.14 million figure is believed to be one of the highest figures requested.

Plans for the development, backed by the council last June, were later called in by the Scottish Government because the site had been council-owned.

The two-week inquiry enters its second week on Monday.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Buttress,

30/05/2009 06:55:33
All the reasons for the call-in are here:-

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/212606/0079309.pdf

Not because the site had been council owned.
2

Goat Boy,

30/05/2009 07:21:39
I’ve often wondered how much sway these large financial “contributions” have in the planning process. Having seen the original plans for this monstrosity, I suspect the more you pay, the more assured you are of having a design approved. May be it's my sheltered upbringing, but something doesn't look right.
3

Thomas the Tank,

Edinburgh 30/05/2009 07:59:43
#2, Yep, agree. There is a distinct stench of 'broon envelope' about this. In principle, does it makes a difference if the well-stuffed receptacle is given to a corrupt cooncillor, a ditto official or to the cooncil itself, if permission is contingent on receipt of same? "Just to make sure your project doesn't 'accidentally' burn to the ground". A forced 'contribution' to this useless monument to political vanity is 'protection money'.
4

dba,

HAYMARKET 30/05/2009 08:36:12
SOME ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS

Who owned the land that the development is to be built on? - THE COUNCIL!
Who had expectations of a £4 MILLION payment TOWARDS THE COST OF THE CONTROVERSIAL TRAM SCHEME? THE COUNCIL!
WHY was such a payment demanded? ASK THE COUNCIL!
Why was there NOT just a 'straight sale' of the site on a normal commercial basis and the cash raised paid into the 'Council General Account' - ASK THE COUNCIL!
WHO is paying for this inquiry - WE ARE!

THE MUCH CRITICISED TRAM SCHEME AND THIS PROJECT have been surrounded by obfuscation and deceit...as for 'not answering questions'... that, surely IS CONTEMPT!

Mind you we've had NOTHING BUT CONTEMPT from the developers, their archictects, the Planning Committee,Council Officials AND THE COUNCILLORS WHO WERE ELECTED TO REPRESENT the INTERESTS of their consitutents.

PLEASE, PLEASE REMEMBER THIS SITUATION - The next Local Elections are NOT THAT FAR AWAY and we really DO need a BALLOT BOX REVOLUTION. NOT ONE of the people concerned in the mysterious saga of the Planning Consent in this case LIVE OR HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE HAYMARKET AREA...yet it would appear thay have nearly committed the worst case of archictectural Vandalism since Birmingham New Street Station!
5

Buttress,

30/05/2009 08:41:22
"Assessment:

1.
This application was notified to Scottish Ministers due to Edinburgh City Council having a financial interest in the proposal, through the terms of the council’s sale of the land, and also because the proposal was subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment.

2.
The City of Edinburgh Council, through its arms-length development company EDI, purchased the site in the mid 1990s and intended to develop the site itself. However, it has been reported in the press that the Council chose to sell the site in order to finance a £33 million equal pay deal deficit. Irish firm Tiger Developments was the winning bidder and paid over £40 million for the site."
6

Goat Boy,

30/05/2009 09:28:29
Is there not a conflict in interests when the council wants to sell land for development, and it is also the planning authority that will authorise development of that site?

Could internal politics and the influence of elected members help sway a decision, like The Waterfront development for example?

Surely not, that would be dishonest.
7

Buttress,

30/05/2009 09:34:50
That's usually when a call-in happens and an inquiry, but it's not always the case and yes, there has to be some element of bending over backwards to help a developer who has bought the land, hasn't there? Otherwise why are planning policies bent and ignored?

"4.
It is the detailed nature of the proposal – in particular its layout and scale – which has given rise to the concerns and objections expressed above. In this respect there are four principal matters to consider: the impact of the development on neighbouring properties and the Haymarket area; wider impact on the city’s townscape; relationship with planning policy; and how the Council has processed and considered this application."

"13.
The Council’s Guideline for the Protection of Key Views was approved by the Planning Committee on 19 June 2008. The Development Management Sub Committee held its hearing into this application on 25 June. The Committee Report covered the impact of the 5* hotel on the key views identified in this document, but without specific reference to its own detailed policy guidance on how the impacts on these views should be considered. Nor is there reference to the special qualities and characteristics which define the World Heritage Site and the Conservation Areas adjacent to the site. In relation to the local impacts of the hotel, the Report does not address in any detail the townscape impact of the hotel from locations close to the site such as Grosvenor Place and the Haymarket junction."
8

Buttress,

30/05/2009 09:36:22
"14.
The consultation draft of the Haymarket Urban Design Framework states that its development principles are the first step in articulating how a successful gateway to the city can be achieved at Haymarket, and that further detailed briefs for Haymarket will be required. In considering this application, the Committee was aware that the emerging Framework had been approved for public consultation on 15 May, but there is no analysis in the Committee Report to demonstrate whether the application is consistent with the principles in the Framework."

"19.
The local authority has a significant financial interest in this proposal being approved and has not provided sufficient evidence that it has given full consideration to all relevant issues, particularly the council’s own recent and emerging policies on the protection of key views and on wider development principles for the Haymarket. This raises a question of whether the City of Edinburgh Council’s conflict of interests could have unduly influenced its assessment and decision. While we are certainly not claiming there has been any impropriety on the part of the council, it is in exceptional circumstances such as this that we consider it appropriate for Scottish Ministers to call in an application to ensure a fair and transparent scrutiny of the development."
9

Rap,

30/05/2009 11:46:32
I wonder if there is a sliding scale of tram tax :-

http://news.scotsman.com/edinburghs-new-tram-network/New-Princes-Street-hotel-checks.5242460.jp

Why would this developer, on Princes St, only be charged £0.5m but at the Haymarket be charged £4m? I assume because the site is larger, although it is further away from a tram stop. And I know this is all under Section 75, but can we really expect a single body (CEC) to be able to make an objective decision about developments when they stand to gain financially?
10

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 30/05/2009 11:46:59
This £2.5M could have been demanded for general use by the council - spent more wisely on education or policing.

This is just one way of Edinburgh council covering up the tram overspend, how many others? How much money that could have been spent for good of Edinburgh has been transferred to the trams and covered up?

Why are SNP Executive allowing this?
11

Rap,

30/05/2009 11:53:24
Graham, I believe Section 75 only allows funds to be levied on developers to be spent on associated development costs, ie a new roundabout, traffic lights, signage, etc. Not just anything the Council fancies spending it on, because how on earth can you justify demanding £2m for new text books for schools from a hotel development? And this figure was defined well before the tram work began. So, while I question how a body can be expected to turn down the prospect of £2m - £4m, this isn't a tram coverup. It will certainly help balance out the tram overspend, but let's not get our conspiracies mixed up because they will lose their impact.
12

Buttress,

30/05/2009 12:00:27
A google search:-

tram contribution Edinburgh

brings several interesting documents as a result.
13

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 30/05/2009 18:57:19
If they hadn't have gone ahead with the trams against the will of the people they would have saved £600million of taxpayers money (it will end up costing twice that I am sure) and Tiger Developments would have saved £2.5million ... everybody is happy.

Instead what do we have ?

The MSP's, councillors and senior council staff should be investigated and after a fair trial put in jail to rot for for a VERY long time for defrauding the taxpayer and business people over the tram affair.

A £600million statue of Gordon Brown would be more 'useful' and cause less disruption than this white elephant they are building. Don't worry though I'm sure it won't be long until we hear Jenny Dawe and some of the other Lib/Lab swine are planning statues of themselves to adorn George Street to celebrate their victory over common sense and the destruction of democracy in Edinburgh.
14

Julian.,

edinburgh 31/05/2009 23:13:33
Voldermort,

Could you just remind me of the source which concluded that the trams were against the will of the people?

Rap,

How exactly is this site further away from a tram stop? The stop will be at Haymarket station which is right next to it. I think there's even a plan to build a bridge across Dalry Road to it.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Edinburgh planning issues

More Edinburgh planning issues >>

Today's Vote

Are Edinburgh’s planning regulations too strict on the city’s business community?
Yes - everything should be done to help businesses in a recession
Yes - they pale into insignificance when compared to the tram works
No - the city’s heritage and appearance can’t be compromised

Web Links:



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.