Edinburgh sports bar saved after plans to demolish building for 87 student flats rejected

Controversial plans to demolish an Edinburgh sports bar to make way for student flats have been rejected by the Scottish Government.

Concerns about the proposed six-storey block being unsafe for occupants in the event of serious flooding have been upheld, temporarily saving Gorgie’s much-loved Murrayfield Sports Bar from demolition.

However, the community’s view that 87 additional rooms would cause an “excessive” local student population was not shared by a senior planning official tasked with reviewing the case.

READ MORE – Moment Midlothian thieves break into shed before making off with £12,000 worth of bikes

READ MORE – Plans to demolish Edinburgh offices for hundreds of student homes

Gorgie and Dalry Community Council argued that the area – which has seen several similar developments granted planning permission in recent years – was “already saturated with purpose-built student accommodation” (PBSA).

They said one of the 57 objections submitted to the council giving the go-ahead to the Westfield Road project could lead to a “doubling of the student population since 2011, excluding those living in standard flats or HMOs”.

Independent Sighthill-Gorgie councillor Ross McKenzie agreed that “there has been a lot of student accommodation approved in recent years without proper scrutiny”.

Councillor McKenzie welcomed the news and lashed out at the “dodgy entrepreneurs” at EH1 Students (Gorgie) Ltd who he said were “out to make a quick buck”.

Last year he criticised the company behind the plans after it was reported that two board members were involved in the collapse of the Tayside flying school, which resulted in students paying for qualifications they did not receive and debts estimated at £2.5m.

Planning agents working for EH1 Students (Gorgie) Ltd have been contacted for comment.

The council’s development management sub-committee originally refused planning permission in February after the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) objected on the grounds of flood risk.

Planning officials said that if severe flooding occurred, safe access to the building would be blocked, making it “effectively an island”.

Councillors voted to reject the plans, although views on the flood risk differed. Some residents, particularly those with disabilities living on lower floors, were concerned that they could be put in danger.

Others suggested the building may be “safer” than its neighbours and that vulnerable occupants “would be safe as long as the flood waters came and went”.

Upholding her decision after an appeal, planning reporter Ailie Callan said there was a “lack of demonstrable design solution to achieve safe egress from the building” in the event of a 1 in 200 flood, with the impacts of climate change considered.

In the decision issued on Tuesday, July 16, Ms Callan said: “A number of objections were made, including from Gorgie and Dalry Community Council, relating to the potential detrimental impacts on the area that could result from the proposed increase in student population.

“There is some disagreement between the parties regarding the proportion of the student population in relation to the total population, ranging from 19% to 45%.

“I accept that an increase in the student population has occurred in the locality, and that this proposal would increase that. However, I do not consider that the additional student numbers proposed would make such a significant contribution that it would result in the student population of the area becoming excessive or dominant.”

Councillor McKenzie said: “I am delighted that this appeal has been dismissed.

“From the beginning, it was clear that this was a lazy app from dishonest developers looking to make a quick buck on Gorgie.

“The area has seen a lot of student accommodation approved in recent years without proper scrutiny. In some cases, local councillors have actively pushed through developments against the advice of planning officers and in the face of strong local opposition. This has now stopped.

“Since I was elected, I have sought to represent the views of the local community, not the interests of student housing developers. I hope the outcome of this case gives residents hope that sharing their views on planning applications is a worthwhile exercise.”