East Lothian student flats rejected as car-free plans are described as 'fantasy'

Plans to build a six storey high student accommodation block in Musselburgh have been rejected after councillors said its future residents were being treated as ‘cash cows’.

Concern over the loss of ancient trees chopped down before the plans for the new development were lodged with East Lothian Council and claims it would be a ‘car free’ development were raised at a meeting of its elected members.

And they questioned the size of the building itself which would house 270 students in studios with only two accessible spaces for vehicles provided.

Local ward councillor Shona McIntosh said that while she backed the idea of a car free project, she could not accept the size of the building, planned for Newhailes Road, in the town, which was shown at just under 30 metres at its highest peak in drawing lodged with planners.

And she questioned claims by the council’s own economic development team that students could bring an additional £2million into the local economy.

She told the meeting: “The economic benefits have been vastly over egged, it assumes students will act the same as they would in a city centre.

“Edinburgh University students are currently protesting and dressing as cows because they feel they are being treated as cash cows and this development is also treating students as cash cows.”

Local councillors raised concerns that several centuries old trees were removed from the site before the application was submitted and were told by planners that they could not consider the loss because of the timing.

Musselburgh ward councillor Andrew Forrest told the meeting the application would never have made it to the planning committee stage if the trees were still there saying: “We would not have allowed 300 year old trees to have been chopped down for this development.”

The committee heard from the applicant’s representative that the development would be car-free with students required to sign a 51-week lease agreeing not to own or use a car while they stayed at the new accommodation.

They said the car free model had worked in cities like Glasgow and Edinburgh and would be policed by the building management with those who broke their lease told to leave.

However planning committee convenor Councillor Norman Hampshire said they were living in a ‘dream world’.

He told the committee: “Providing accommodation for 270 students and expecting none of them to have a car is a fantasy. I would expect about half to ave cars and use them.”

The plans to knock down a three storey high office block at Newhailes and replace it with a six floor accommodation block had been recommended for approval by the council’s planners but sparked a local campaign against it and received 70 objections as well as 26 letters of support when it was originally put forward and a further 20 objections and one additional letter of support for revised plans.

Campaigners accused the applicants Harbour Business Centres Ltd of trying to build a ‘city centre’ style building in an historic town and claimed there was no demand for the student rooms.

The nearest further education facility Queen Margaret University, which is on the outskirts of Musselburgh already has its own student village on campus and is not connected to the plans.

Musselburgh Community Council lodged an objection saying the building was an overdevelopment and inappropriate for the site, the student studio model proposed would fail to allow community integration and the impact on parking, traffic and local services would be too great.

Planners said the council’s economic advisers had said the new student accommodation could bring ‘significant’ benefits to the local area saying: “It could inject an estimated £1.7–£2m annually into the local economy.”

A representative for the applicant said there was a need for 14,000 additional student accommodation in the Edinburgh region while objectors insisted there was no demand from the local universities.

The planning committee voted by five votes to three to refuse permission for the development with its size and the lack of amenity and parking spaces included in their reasons.

Voting against the application were councillors Hampshire, Forrest, McIntosh and councillors Donna Collins and Jeremy Findlay. Voting for the plans were councillors Liz Allan, Neil Gilbert and John McMillan.