Options for Edinburgh ban on new student flats to go before council later this year
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info
Options for bringing in a ban on the development of new student accommodation units In Edinburgh are set to be brought before councillors later this year
City officers have been asked to explore options for a ban on controversial purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) projects, and present them to the city's Planning Committee in September for a decision.
A majority of councillors backed the motion calling for a ban to be explored, which was proposed by SNP councillor Danny Aston. But 10 opposed it, with one saying a ban would be 'premature'.
At the meeting, Cllr Aston said: 'It seems to me that developers aren't taking the changing circumstances into account.
'My concern is that if the council doesn't step in as the state body responsible as the planning authority to rein in the market here, our city may be left disfigured by white elephant PBSA developments that no-one wants.'
PBSA projects often draw significant protest from the communities they are built in. One recent development in Jock's Lodge, which went on to be approved, drew over 1,000 public objections.
Opponents say that PBSA projects add strain to, and harm the character of, local communities, as well as taking up development space for housing for the wider public.
Additionally, the rents in the developments are often higher than students can find on the private residential market, with rooms in shared flats within Edinburgh PBSA developments often starting at £800 or £900 per month.
But PBSA developments are rarely pushed back by councillors. They are usually compliant with planning regulations, which means there is often no legitimate reason for them to be rejected.
Glasgow City Council had its own moratorium on PBSA developments between 2019 and 2021, with new projects still effectively banned in parts of the city by planning regulations.
Conservative councillor Joanna Mowat filed an amendment that said a ban should not be implemented now.
Instead, it says that any decision on restricting student housing should be made as a part of creating the city's new Local Development Plan, which must be implemented by May 2026.
She told the council on Thursday: 'The main point of this is that we are going through a process to look at student housing, examining those numbers. And I think that whilst that is being undertaken, it's premature to ask for a moratorium.'
'The reality is we are supposed to have this information later this year, and I think asking planners to do another report into this, at this point, when they're undertaking that work for the new Local Development Plan is overburdening them.
'I think the points Cllr Aston makes are good ones, but I just want to try and get what we need to do done rather than having extraneous reports that I think will be difficult to accomplish.'
Councillors voted for Cllr Aston's motion over Cllr Mowat's amendment by 46 to 10, with the Conservative group voting against the motion.
A report compiled by officers on a possible ban will be considered by councillors at the next meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday, 10 September, which you can view here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Somerville made clear we have different priorities from rest of the UK
Shirley-Anne Somerville was excellent for the SNP: calm, measured and clearly stating that Scotland has very different priorities from the rest of the UK. She was clear, concise and to the point. She showed what Scotland could be, and is not ashamed to stand up and say it. Anas Sarwar only has his prepared script about SNP BAD. Once he recited that, he had nothing else to contribute. (The script is dulled through constant repetition by him and Labour politicians). I truly wonder if he has a conscience at all. He supported Starmer's 'reforms', which many Labour ministers clearly misunderstood. PIP and its equivalent in Scotland is to help disabled people to have a normal life, with help with travel costs etc that is needed because of their conditions. And never forget the debt left in Scotland from PFI and its descendants, which has left councils paying huge sums even yet and for many more years. READ MORE: Theatrics of Unionist duo on Question Time were cringeworthy Never forget the Waspi women – lauded until Westminster Labour abandoned them and Dame Jackie went into hiding about them. Never forget the women of Glasgow and their years of fighting with Labour over equal pay, which the SNP had to sort out and pay out. We may think this is old news, but unfortunately the debts incurred have not yet been paid off. Is it the case that it is only with rebellion that we can see a faint shadow of what Labour should be? Radio Scotland on Friday morning could get no-one from Scottish Labour and had to resort to an English Labour peer – Sarwar cannot even own his thinking and explain or humbly admit the U-turn. The BBC are certainly on the side of Reform. The way they promote them while ignoring the LibDems and the Greens, especially in Scotland, is a disgrace. One thing about Reform people is that they can talk, even if what they say is student politics and pie in the sky with no depth of thinking and no real answers to anything, just power-hungry millionaires. Mind you, that might just as well apply to the Labour Party. Winifred McCartney Paisley SUCH a moral victory for those Labour MPs who threatened to scupper the government's planned withdrawal of support for some disabled people. Will they now support the amended bill: a bill that merely delays the cruelty until next year? Apparently, the moral high ground is time-limited! Peter Barjonas Caithness IN response to Alexander Potts and his concerns for 'answers to a great number of questions before independence and not after it' (Jun 20), I can wholeheartedly recommend reading Lesley Riddoch's Thrive, if he hasn't done so, and her inspiring and multi-faceted approach to our constitutional crisis. For in the face of a widening gap between the Scottish people and their Scottish Government, we are heading for a crisis of democracy. Like a lot of independenistas, I also look forward to the day when the UN agrees that we are a colony of England. That day could be a lot closer than might be expected if only the alleged Cabinet Secretary responsible for the constitution would decide to act in the interests of Scotland's citizenry rather than play the lackey to his tartan Sir Humphrey. READ MORE: Labour accused of 'breath-taking hypocrisy' over English oil refinery rescue Whilst I've no problem supporting Alexander's plea for a rerun of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, the correspondence in The National Conversation demonstrates there is plenty of will but there appears no clear way of achieving our goal. The UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, however, is a clear route as the Covenant is unambiguous, in Part 1, Article 1: 'All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.' The only minor difficulty is that the Cabinet Secretary of the party of Scotland's independence declines to support the petition to have the covenant adopted into Scots law. Those behind the petition have defeated the argument spouted by the English civil service that adoption of the covenant is an infringement of reserved powers in the Scotland Act and while the petition PE2135, with 6931 signatories, is still under consideration at Holyrood's Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, it needs support. In particular, it needs the support of independenistas in Edinburgh Central and constituents of the said Cabinet Secretary, so that they might have an MSP who better reflects their views on our country's independence. Iain Bruce Nairn I WAS delighted by Roger Mullin's review in the Sunday National of a long overdue biography of my friend Neil MacCormick, whose distinguished career spanned so much in the fields of law, academia, politics and university life (This telling of my old friend's life can best be described as a joyful challenge, Jun 29). About a week before I was privileged to conduct his funeral in a packed Greyfriars Church in Edinburgh, I visited him at home. He was very frail, but the first thing he said was to ask how my two-week-old grandson was doing. That showed the true measure of a great and generous humanity, which undergirded all his public achievements and inspired his political service. Would that today, in a dark world, we would see this quality in public life. Iain Whyte (Rev Dr) North Queensferry
Scotsman
3 hours ago
- Scotsman
How Keir Starmer's biggest mistakes have revived the SNP from the dead
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It was thanks to Sir Keir Starmer's general election victory in July 2024 that the SNP became a zombie party in Scotland, falling from 45 to only nine MPs. Now, after a desperately poor performance in his first year of government, Keir Starmer has brought the walking dead nationalists back to life. Within another year, we shall know the result of the Scottish Parliament elections (and for the Welsh Senedd too). The SNP will still decline but Starmer remains the political defibrillator that keeps their hopes alive. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Rather than help achieve a stunning win for Anas Sarwar as the largest party in parliament, as things stand the best Labour can hope for is being the largest UK-supporting party in parliament. If Starmer has another year like his first, even that is not even assured. Keir Starmer's U-turns over benefits reform have created multi-billion-pound holes in the government's budget for Chancellor Rachel Reeves to fill (Picture: Oli Scarff) | AFP via Getty Images The Hamilton by-election was a face-saving and morale boosting fillip to Scottish Labour, but as the Westminster rebellion of his own backbenchers shows, there is still a great deal of anger at the choices Starmer and his lieutenants keep making. The truth for Labour is his sidekicks are no better, for it is the likes of Rachel Reeves, Ed Miliband, Angela Rayner, Wes Streeting and David Lammy who have sold him hospital pass policies. With lengthy A&E waiting times still a problem don't expect a political recovery in time to save Sarwar. For every U-turn Starmer orders, his Chancellor has to find the cost of that policy change. Back in October when Reeves cut the winter fuel allowance (and introduced other very unpopular policies), she claimed it was vital to save the public finances. It was meant to save £1.3 billion this past winter and £1.5bn every year thereafter, but that saving has now been reduced to an estimate of only £450 million a year. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The same goes for the planned cuts in disability benefits; originally expected to save £5bn a year – again vital to shoring up public finances – Starmer's latest U-turn reduces the saving to only £2bn – so where will the other £3bn be found? 'Tax the rich' I hear someone shout… would that be the 10,800 millionaires that left the UK last year or the 16,500 expected to leave this year? Then there are the 12 billionaires that left last year, equivalent to another 12,000 millionaires. No, what Starmer's reversals mean is there will be real increases for ordinary taxpayers, pushing up the cost of living for those who can least afford it. By the time the next budget comes (expected in October), tax revenues will have underperformed so much I expect tax rises will simply not raise enough to balance the Treasury's books. That means there will be more borrowing, either disguised in some way (such as through new forms of private-finance initiatives already being used by the EU) or by changing Reeves's fiscal rules designed to buttress market confidence in the government. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Long-suffering and previously patient, analysts' confidence in public finances is gossamer thin. By failing to bring about any significant welfare reform, Starmer's Labour is signalling that even with a huge majority it cannot keep to its targets. Labour is about to cannibalise itself unless it presses the reboot button and changes direction – but will that reassure markets any better? A general election could yet come long before 2029. Add to that the continued adoration of net-zero policies from Miliband that forces up both industrial and domestic energy prices – pricing whole sectors, such as our once world-leading chemical manufacturers, out of business – and now Rayner is looking to adopt French-style net-stupid regulations on house building that will literally send the costs through the roof. Still, Streeting proceeds with his Tobacco and Vape Bill that will introduce a ridiculous escalating minimum age-ban on smoking tobacco – and now he's proposing to ban alcohol advertising. It won't be too long before we have plain-packaging rules for bottles and cans so they only show post-mortem photos of livers pickled by excessive alcohol intake. The Tobacco Bill will undoubtedly be subject to a legal challenge as legal opinion by former Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland KC suggests it's in conflict with both the Windsor Framework and Belfast Good Friday Agreement. Yet politically deaf Streeting still presses ahead. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Labour puritans will not save lives but they will lose their party votes as others, especially Reform UK, appeal for the bully state to get off our backs. We can console ourselves with the unchallengeable fact the UK is still world class for diplomatic ineptitude. What other country that had previously paid £148m to remove any future claims on its territory would then pay an unreliable neighbour an estimated £30bn over 99 years to keep a military airbase run by the US? Even more absurd is the agreement stipulates the UK or US will be obliged under the deal to give notice if there are plans to launch an attack from the Diego Garcia military base, despite critics raising security concerns over the close ties between Mauritius, China and Russia. The Chagos islanders evacuated to London in the 1960s were not even consulted. Does that approach not suggest to nationalists there's a bargaining price to be put on the UK keeping Faslane were there to be Scottish independence? Would the UK have to tell an independent Scotland about its subs movements in Faslane? Lammy's concession removes a significant argument from pro-UK supporters and provides a bounty that would help finance independence – a more ridiculous policy cannot be conceived. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So it is in the light of all these (and many more policy failures) that Starmer has seen his satisfaction ratings plummet and those of the SNP revive. Starmer really needs to up his game, but the alternatives don't look any better.
Glasgow Times
4 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
'Glaswegians are sick and tired of paying more to get less in return'
Perhaps Mr Franklin could also see into the future where left-wing Scottish and UK governments under the SNP and Labour have gone out of their way to ensure that more and more of our hard-earned money ends up in their pockets and not our own. In Scotland, we are taxed at a UK level but also let's not forget that the devolved parliament at Holyrood has chosen to exercise its tax powers many times. Unsurprisingly, this has led to a situation in which ordinary hard-working Scots are taxed at a higher level than others in the UK. I'm not talking about millionaires. This income tax gap between Scots and their counterparts south of the border is hitting people like retail managers, tradespeople, police officers, nurses and teachers; all of whom, and more, are taxed more than their colleagues in England. It is for the Scottish people to decide at next year's Holyrood elections if they are happy with this situation, though, in as far as I see, this extra taxation hasn't resulted in any improvement in public services such as education or health. Glaswegians are sick and tired of paying more to get less in return. I mention this as a segue into the explanation for my vote in favour of a visitor levy tax in Glasgow at last week's City Administration Committee. As a Conservative, I don't like to vote for increases in taxes or, just as bad, the introduction of new ones. However, we have a situation in Scotland where the woeful SNP administration, now nearly two decades old nationally and almost a decade in power here in Glasgow, has taxed hard-working Glaswegians to pip squeaking proportions, while at the same time delivering sub-par services and a city that looks dirty and unloved. Only in February did the same SNP in cahoots with their far-left Green colleagues increase council tax by an eye-watering 7.5%. The SNP government, in an attempt to mitigate their own raiding of local authority funding to pay for giveaways, has allowed such council tax increases but also has given councils powers to raise more funding of their own in order to pay for services. The Visitor Levy is one such scheme, allowing accommodation providers to charge a 5% tax on rooms to those choosing Glasgow as a destination, with the added bonus (for local authorities at least) that the provider will be responsible for the collection and administration of this levy. My concern has always been that already hard-pressed residents would not find themselves burdened by further taxation. The LEZ (Low Emission Zone) is proving to be a bit of a pot of gold for this administration, with the promise of a congestion charge to come. So, it seemed not unreasonable that visitors to Glasgow should pay a contribution to the amenities they enjoy while here. I received assurances that small businesses would be helped with administration difficulties, and the promise that they would be able to hold on to 1.5% of the take to help cover costs (something the anti-business Greens wanted to remove after a period). This satisfied me that the "hit" to local businesses, particularly those running small B&Bs as well as Airbnb providers, would not be significant enough to cause harm to their long-term futures with the policy being constantly reviewed. Opportunists like Reform UK will promise Glaswegians the world but they do not have a plan about how to pay for it. To Glasgow Conservatives like me, who live in the real world, the lesser of two evils was to vote for a levy on visitors, following the path of cities around the UK and the world. That way I hope we can minimise some of the damage the SNP have done to our local services and protect the wallets of already way overtaxed Glaswegians.
