Thursday March 12th 2026
Western Harbour area where the development has been approved for
Written by Local Democracy Reporter, Joe Sullivan
A controversial development on a ‘woodland oasis’ for an Edinburgh community has been signed off by a council committee.
Councillors at the city’s development management committee voted five to four to approve a 155-flat development in the Western Harbour area.
The site had long been planned for housing development, but over time residents had come to enjoy it as an area of natural woodland.
During a hearing at the meeting, councillors heard from concerned locals who shared the importance of the space for them.
One local told Edinburgh Live on Wednesday: “It’s the one pocket of nature, actual green nature with trees and flowers that come in the summer and fruits and berries and all the insects that brings and all the birds.
“It’s just a haven of flourishing nature, and nature has shown us how to do it really. We would say that the removal of what’s there currently is such a big destruction.”
The site will consist of two blocks of flats, with six floors at the south of the site and five floors at the north side.
Developers FMG Western Harbour are behind the application, with 54 units – some 35% of the total – marked as being affordable.
The rest will be marketed as build to rent units. Some 28 one-bed flats, 85 two-bed flats and 42 three-bed flats are to be constructed.
Council officers recommended councillors grant planning permission to the project’s developers in a report put before them.
SNP councillor David Key said he had come into the meeting expecting to side with the councillors’ recommendations.
But, he told his fellow councillors: “Over the years, something else has happened, and now there’s a dilemma what to do with it.
“Do we go through this use, or do we go for new use, because things have changed and environments naturally around it?
“We need to find the right type of housing. We have housing that’s in the right setting, and we need housing that is going to enhance our citizen’s lives.
“And I’m not sure for me that this development does that.”
Conservative councillor Joanna Mowat sympathised with the way local residents felt, but sided with officers’ recommendations.
She said: “I can entirely understand where the community is coming from. I lived very close to that area during Covid, and I probably walked down there every day.
“I think the affection has sort of taken place in the hearts of the people who are there, and I understand that.
“But this is a development management subcommittee, where it is absolutely clear what our job is to do, and that is to assess things against the [Local Development Plan].”
Cllr Mowat added that she objected to planned development there when the development plan was formed, calling it ‘a bit nuts’, but said it was the choice that was made.
She continued: “All we will do today, in my opinion, if we refuse this site is prolong the issue for residents.
“The applicant will go to appeal, and I would be very, very surprised if it was overturned on appeal.”
Green councillor Chas Booth argued against granting permission, saying the council does not have to ‘accept every application for housing that comes forward’ on the site.
He continued: “Normally I’m completely in favour of applications that come forward with low levels of car parking.
“But we can’t simply apply the thumb screws to people and say ‘you can’t park here’ unless we provide them with alternatives.
“That means high quality public transport, it means cycling, it means walking. There is a bus stop in pretty reasonable walking distance, that is true.
“It’s served by the 11, which is reasonably regular, but one bus does not a high quality public transport system make.”
He said the development did not comply with the city’s development policies on affordable housing and biodiversity, and moved a position to not grant the application.
Committee vice-convener and Conservative councillor Max Mitchell moved a position to grant permission for the development.
He said: “I have a huge amount of sympathy for the love of the corner of the plot, and how it has been rewilded.
“The difficulty, I suppose, is that there will be elements of conflict for certain policies. And again, it’s about balance as and how we manage to weight those as a subcommittee.
“It’s perfectly right to challenge applications, and different councillors are entitled to balance balance these policies.”
He told councillors that, on balance, the city is ‘very much in need of housing’, and that was a driver behind putting forward his position.
Cllr Booth then made a formal position to refuse granting permission, citing environmental and affordable housing issues.
Cllr Key backed up Cllr Booth, saying the committee should not be afraid of making decisions based on ‘what we think may be taken in the future by the [government]’.
Cllr Mitchell’s position won, with an additional requirement that more bike parking be provisioned in the development.
Tweet Share on Facebook
