Local plan inquiry: Needs of the city come before self-interest

IT is almost certain that when reporters begin hearing submissions today as the lengthy inquiry into the city's local plan begins that three issues will dominate proceedings – Meadowbank, the zoo's proposed land sale and development on the green belt.

It would be a shame if the whole process were to become hijacked by factions intent on putting their own narrow self-interest before the future needs of the city.

Just what the 1600 or so objectors to the council's plans to redevelop Meadowbank and sell off part of the land to fund other capital projects have to say that is new will be interesting. The saga has already lumbered on for years and there cannot be an argument or view that has not already been aired and taken into consideration. But having seemingly lost the battle for the retention of the crumbling stadium – despite being guaranteed that extensive sports facilities will be retained – protest groups are now objecting to new homes on a site already bounded on two sides by other residential property. The fine detail of the objections are awaited with interest.

The inquiry will also listen to umpteen pleas from builders keen to see various pockets of the city's green belt released for new homes and a great degree of flexibility will be needed. Development on sensitive sites should obviously be resisted and in the current economic climate the sums will not be anything like as attractive as even just a year ago.

But just as the fate of Meadowbank hangs in the balance so does another proposed land sale deal, this time by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland. The council has already changed its mind once over the zoo's ambitious plans to sell off part of its land for housing to fund its £72 million redevelopment programme. Firstly it was for it, now it is against it. But the zoo will challenge this decision at the inquiry and will clash with a legal team hired by residents adjoining the site. RZSS chief executive David Windmill says the charity which runs the Zoo has no other way of raising the cash to preserve the future of the facility. But that is unlikely to cut much ice with the reporters who will focus purely on the merits of whether the proposal meets the planing criteria.

And although that is a consideration too for the council – which is not bound by the recommendations of the inquiry – it does pose it a different dilemma. Can it afford to ignore the zoo's warning and put one of the country's top attractions at risk for the sake of what appears to be Nimbysm? Or does it seek a compromise solution which meets the demands of both sides. As Mr Windmill points out, Glasgow Zoo is no more, killed off by a lack of investment and a failure to move with the times. For Edinburgh the stakes are perhaps somewhat higher.