Western Harbour

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association acknowledges the urgent need for new homes in Edinburgh and supports, in principle, the residential redevelopment of this long-vacant brownfield site within the Western Harbour area. However, having reviewed the current submission, we remain unable to offer support at this stage. The proposal, as it stands, does not demonstrate the design ambition, contextual awareness, or public-realm quality required for such a prominent waterfront location.

The architecture and overall layout continue to appear overly generic, with monolithic massing and limited articulation across the elevations. The design does not respond convincingly to its immediate context or to the distinctive maritime character of the area. We question the continuing tendency to reference the industrial or warehouse styles of Leith when this part of the harbour lies geographically and visually closer to Newhaven, with its more traditional maritime vernacular. The current design language feels misplaced in a residential context and risks producing a development that is neither rooted in its surroundings nor reflective of the waterfront’s authentic identity.

The original Robert Adam masterplan for Western Harbour, upon which this site and the adjoining parcels (A2–C) were based, at least attempted to respect a more traditional maritime design history, employing varied densities, rooflines, and visual interest to create a legible sense of place. This proposal abandons much of that ambition. As Site A1 will inevitably set the tone and design precedent for subsequent phases at the northern tip of the harbour, it is essential that this stage is handled with far greater care and imagination.

Equally concerning is the absence of reference to the derelict Lighthouse building, one of the few remaining physical reminders of the area’s nautical heritage. This application represents an ideal opportunity to explore its restoration and repurposing for community use, thereby delivering tangible public benefit while preserving a key element of the site’s maritime legacy. Its omission is a significant missed opportunity, particularly given the building’s prominence and deteriorating condition.

The handling of landscape and ecology remains weak. The proposal lacks a convincing ecological or landscape framework that demonstrates how the existing ponds, woodland, and wetland habitats will be retained and enhanced. These natural features are valuable assets that contribute to biodiversity and climate resilience, and their protection should be central to the development concept. Similarly, the public-realm strategy remains underdeveloped and fails to show how the site will provide meaningful connections to the waterfront, high-quality open space, and safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists.

We also note with concern that the application does not include an Affordable Housing Statement, which remains a required component for a complete submission. While the plans reference a 35% affordable housing quota, this must be supported by clear evidence that at least 70% of that quota will be delivered as social housing by a registered provider. In the context of Edinburgh’s ongoing housing crisis, such provision is essential. The statement should also explain the rationale behind the differing proportions of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units across tenures and confirm compliance with the requirement for 20% of homes to be built to wheelchair-accessible standards. The absence of this information limits proper public and policy scrutiny.

Given the site’s scale, visibility, and strategic importance, the quality benchmark for design and delivery should be considerably higher. A development of this magnitude should aspire to create a coherent, distinctive, and sustainable neighbourhood that reflects its setting on the Forth and contributes positively to Edinburgh’s evolving waterfront identity. Without stronger design ambition, a clearer ecological framework, and a transparent affordable-housing strategy, there is a real risk that this project will fall short of its potential.

We therefore recommend that the planning authority require substantial revisions to the scheme before approval is considered. These should include a refined design approach grounded in the site’s maritime context; the preparation of a robust landscape and ecology plan that retains and enhances existing natural assets; a detailed Affordable Housing Statement addressing social-let provision and accessibility standards; and consideration of the restoration and community reuse of the Lighthouse building as a heritage and placemaking asset.

In summary, while the Cockburn Association supports the principle of new housing at Western Harbour, we believe that this proposal, in its current form, lacks the architectural distinctiveness, contextual sensitivity, and social commitment required to deliver a development of enduring value. We urge the applicant and the planning authority to work collaboratively to produce a scheme that realises the true potential of this important waterfront site,  one that honours its maritime legacy, meets the city’s social-housing needs, and contributes meaningfully to a sustainable and distinctive Edinburgh waterfront.