Retrospective Planning Application 43 Inverleith Row
Posted on: October 27, 2021
Concerned at this request for retrospective permission for additional unconsented building works we have objected to this application
Address: 43 Inverleith Row Edinburgh EH3 5PY
Proposal: Retrospective permission sought for the installation of an external staircase and balustrade (which were “not considered acceptable” in a previously submitted application).
Reference No: 21/05118/LBC
Closing date for comments: Fri 05 Nov 2021
Determination date: Mon 29 Nov 2021
The Cockburn has been informed by a local stakeholder of this application.
We note that the current extension was granted planning and listed building consent in 2017. The Report of Handling for 17/03771/LBC states, “Scheme 3 has been revised to omit a number of external alterations to the property which were not considered acceptable, including the formation of a new access and off street parking area, formation of rear dormer window and formation of an access from the replacement rear extension” [our emphasis].
No changes to planning policy has taken place since the consenting of the original scheme in 2017.
The current retrospective application clearly seeks to implement part of the rejected scheme (formation of access from the replacement rear extension). No compelling evidence has been submitted to argue for such a change and we can see no reason why, after only 4 years, something that was not acceptable in listed building terms can be considered acceptable now.
We are also concerned with the retrospective nature of this works. The Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas)(Scotland) Act 1997 makes it clear that unauthorised alterations to a listed building is a breach of control under section 8(1)(2) and no defence can be taken from the exclusions to this per section 8(3). Section 8(4) makes it clear that such unauthorised works are a criminal, not civil, offence. As such, we would expect to the local authority to treat the matter with the utmost seriousness.
We therefore recommend that the application be refused consent. In addition, we would advocate enforcement action to the authorised at the same (assuming refusal) seeking to have the balcony and stair removed and the building reinstated as per the 2017 consent.