Subdivision and building of a new house in Joppa Terrace

Posted on: August 13, 2021

Our objections to a proposal that will lead to an unacceptable loss of local garden space, local greenspace and community amenity in Joppa

Our objections to a proposal that will lead to an unacceptable loss of local garden space, local greenspace and community amenity in Joppa

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to this application.

Local stakeholders have made contact with the Cockburn Association in relation to this application and we are aware that similar proposals for this site have been refused in the past.

If is our view that this proposal represents an unacceptable loss of local garden space, local greenspace and community amenity and would detract from the distinctive Victorian character of the terrace. The loss of this local urban greenspace would also be incomparable with the Council’s stated aims of increasing tree cover and addressing the Climate Emergency.

In these circumstances Policy Env 18 (Open Space Protection) and Policy Env 6 Conservation Areas – Development should be considered relevant to the application site.

It must also be the case that approval of this application will help to set a precedent for the loss of similar spaces in the neighborhood and across the city.

Future Culture Edinburgh

Wed 1st September 2021 from 2pm to 5.30pm

A hybrid event to collectively reimagine Edinburgh’s cultural ecosystem and its future – taking place online and in-person on the afternoon of Wednesday 1st September, broadcast from Leith Theatre. Future Culture Edinburgh is intended to inspire creative thinking and collective action towards a more equitable and inclusive future of culture as we begin the journey to recovery post-pandemic. This FREE …

Book Here

Short-term Let Control Area in Edinburgh

Posted on: August 6, 2021

The Cockburn’s expression of support for the local Planning Authority’s efforts in establishing a short term let control zone in Edinburgh

The Cockburn’s expression of support for the local Planning Authority’s efforts in establishing a short term let control zone in Edinburgh

Cockburn Response

The Planning Act recently passed by the Scottish Parliament allows planning authorities to designate areas as Short Term Let Control Areas, whereby “the use of a dwellinghouse for the purpose of providing short-term lets is deemed to involve a material change of use of the dwellinghouse” provided the property is not a Private Residential Tenancy or the property in whole or in part is the only or principal residence of the landlord or occupier.

The Cockburn Association fully supports the creation of a Short Term Let Control Area (STLCA) in Edinburgh. Furthermore, we strongly support the recommendation that the STLCA should covers the whole city.

Almost no ward has no holiday lets in it, and it is essential that any designation does not simply displace issues with Short-term lets (STLs) from one street onto another.  We can see some merit in several areas being designated (providing whole authority coverage) as there may be different issues that need to be managed.  For example, flats in common stairs present different issues so different policies might be useful for tenement areas, colony developments and for bungalow areas.

Guidance needs to be prepared as a matter of urgency.  The Cockburn suggests that the expected CityPlan 2030 should contain robust policy proposals when it is released for public consultation later this year.

We would advocate that, in addition to individual property regulation, an area-based approach be considered with clear thresholds for STL in defined areas.  A maximum threshold could be imposed for streets (no more that 10% of properties can be used, for example).  This should be considered in the context of other tourist or transient person accommodation including hotels, guest houses and B&Bs.

The Council must put in place adequate enforcement and management resources and processes. We would expect a significant increase in applications for Change of Use to precede the creation of a STLCA as well as a corresponding number of enforcement actions assuming the current approach to refusing consent to flats in common stairs continues.

All registered STLs in a STLCA should also agree to a Code of Conduct seeking to minimise anti-social behaviour.  This might include access to contact details of owners/managers and a framework for addressing complaints including recommended time spans for dealing with them.

We accept that a balance needs to be struck between the right of people enjoying a property and the right of neighbours and others to not have their amenity affected.  A degree of tolerance is needed but currently, the onus of responsibility rests entirely on affected parties to prove a sustained impact on their amenity.  A review of the effectiveness of current powers to deal with anti-social behaviour is therefore recommended as part of this process.

Paris: The route to a smart, sustainable, COVID-resilient city – A Cockburn Conversation

Wed 1st of Sept at 7pm on Zoom

Book a ticket for our latest Cockburn Conversation! Join Prof Cliff Hague in conversation with noted urbanist Nicola Buchoud

Book Here

Cockburn Street: a case for concern?

POSTED ON  BY Prof Cliff Hague

A World Heritage Site should not be treated like Deadwood City circa 1870 – some reflections on local residential amenity concerns from our chairperson Prof Cliff Hague

A World Heritage Site should not be treated like Deadwood City circa 1870 – some reflections on local residential amenity concerns from our chairperson Prof Cliff Hague

Support the Cockburn

Donate
Join Us

Development application for 265 Morningside Road

Posted on: July 30, 2021

Our objection to a proposed development that fails to integrate sympathetically with the traditional streetscape in Morningside

Our objection to a proposed development that fails to integrate sympathetically with the traditional streetscape in Morningside

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to this application.

We support the redevelopment in principle but only if it is to again make a positive contribution to the life of the Morningside community and contributes positively to the character and streetscape of Morningside Road and the local area. This scheme fails to do that.

The proposed development is unacceptable in its current form. It fails to draw architectural elements from surrounding tenements. It fails to integrate sympathetically with the traditional streetscape and with the scale and fabric of the nearby buildings of the Morningside community and conservation area. The large flat roof and unconvincing attempt to create a “roofscape” with a change of material, and the unsuccessful turning of the corner into Hermitage Terrace all require attention.

We are also concerned with the number of single aspect flats being proposed, which believe to be substandard accommodation. The spatial dimensions of the flats could also be improved, enabling increased amenity and offering better conditions for home-working that might be expected post-Covid.

An alternative proposal, developed with due consideration to its setting and materiality of the surrounding streetscape may be acceptable. However, there is a clear opportunity to masterplan this section of Morningside Road and to create a new section of street which is fully consistent with the traditional character of the conservation area and adds value to the street life of the community.

Application to infill a gap site on Morningside Road

Posted on:

Our comments on a proposal to partially demolish existing architectural elements and fill this significant site

Our comments on a proposal to partially demolish existing architectural elements and fill this significant site

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to this application.

We agree with the principle of infilling this longstanding gap site with a modern interpretation of a traditional tenement.

However, the proposed development is unacceptable. It fails to draw architectural elements from adjoining buildings or to align with the windows of surrounding tenements and is in all respects unsympathetic to the traditional streetscape of the Morningside community and conservation area.

The façade which has been partially retained to the south end of the site represents an opportunity to consider the sympathetic incorporation of this retention into any new proposal for this site. The removal of this element of historical streetscape should be avoided if at all possible.

An alternative proposal, developed with due consideration to its setting and incorporating the retained façade, may be acceptable. But this proposal has nothing to recommend it.

The Jordan Burn, which is of local interest, may be culverted under this site. If so, suitable street-level interpretation of this historical landscape feature should be considered.

Ruminations from the Director – Are events now exempt from planning?

POSTED ON July 23, 2021 BY Terry Levinthal

Some reflections from the Director of the Cockburn on World Heritage Site status and festival events and planning consents

Some reflections from the Director of the Cockburn on World Heritage Site status and festival events and planning consents

Support the Cockburn

Donate
Join Us

Proposed extension at to listed building on Ravelston Dykes Road

Posted on: July 22, 2021

Our reasoned objections to the proposed alterations to one of Edinburgh’s significant 20th century listed buildings

Our reasoned objections to the proposed alterations to one of Edinburgh’s significant 20th century listed buildings

Cockburn Response

Number 65 Ravelston Dykes Terrace is a Category B-listed building by the notable Edinburgh architectural practice of Morris and Steedman.  Built between 1961-64, No.65 forms part of a stepped pair of identical 2-storey flat-roofed villas, built on a joint site, which slopes to N; No 67, built by Robert Steedman for himself and another owner at No 65.

The practice’s buildings from this period are some of the most iconic post-war modernist structures in the city. Other notable houses built by the practice includes Avisfield at Cramond (1957) and the Sillito House on Blackford Hill in 1959.

We appreciate the efforts made by the architects in seeking to produce a scheme that respects the design integrity of the listed building. However, it is essential that the impact is assessed against the interrelated buildings and takes cognisance of the intentions of the design architect.

We note that HES states, “In our view, the proposed extension’s position and height allows the original building to retain its visual prominence, as seen from the principal garden elevation, and the choice of materials appears to protect the listed building’s character and appearance. Furthermore, the extension’s physical connection to the main house appears reversible and is limited to a small section of the garden elevation, which has been previously altered, helping reduce the level of intervention to the existing house and therefore further mitigating adverse impacts to its special architectural and historic interest.”

In contrast, we have seen the Twentieth Century Society’s comments on this application, lodged as a formal objection.

On balance, the Cockburn agrees the Twentieth Century Society’s view and their assessment that this building was designed carefully in context with its immediate neighbour.  The imbalance that results from the proposed extension has an impact on the other and in our view does not preserve the setting of the listed buildings (s.14 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas)(Scotland) Act 1997 in the context of the listed building application or s. 59 of the same act, in the context of the planning application.  We do accept that the interventions are sensitive in the form and content of No.65 as noted by HES but feel the integrity of the whole site rather than a single house is the dominant issue.

We also note the impact on mature trees on the site, which suggests the plans are not consistent with Policy ENV 12 (Trees) which states:

“Development will not be permitted if likely to have a damaging impact on a tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order or on any other tree or woodland worthy of retention unless necessary for good arboricultural reasons”

For these reasons, the Cockburn Association objects to this application.

A Tale of Two Cities: World Heritage in Edinburgh and Liverpool

POSTED ON July 21, 2021

Our reaction to the troubling news today that the City of Liverpool lost its UNESCO status as a World Heritage Site

Our reaction to the troubling news today that the City of Liverpool lost its UNESCO status as a World Heritage Site

Support the Cockburn

Donate
Join Us