Some personal insights about living in the Old Town from long-term Grassmarket resident and local author Elspeth Wills.
Some personal insights about living in the Old Town from long-term Grassmarket resident and local author Elspeth Wills.
Our comments on the latest proposals for the future of George Street
Our comments on the latest proposals for the future of George Street
The Experimental TRO conducted several years ago showed an appetite for change to George Street and its shift from a trafficked street to a destination for civic living. Key was increased pedestrian space, facilitating the east-west cycle route and generally producing a more amenable place whilst respecting and enhancing the qualities and characteristics of the World Heritage Site. We endorse all of these objectives and feel that the designs have generally reflected these well.
In addition, we offer these specific comments:
On the subject of trees, we acknowledge the significant public interest in introducing trees into the street. Indeed, we also acknowledge that throughout the history of the Association, we have been long-standing advocates for street trees, having campaigned for them in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
Since this time, our understanding of the significance of George Street as one of the centrepieces of the World Heritage Site, inscribed in 1995, has grown hugely. George Street was not designed as a boulevard but as a set-piece along a strong axis from Charlotte Square to St Andrew’s Square, with the intervisibility of each crucial to its urban form. The current proposals have evolved to respect this key feature, which we welcome. If trees were to be introduced, it is important that this key element of the street is not undermined.
There are also challenging design issues including a substantial amount of undersurface voids including cellars and service tunnels, which not only introduce planting and technical hurdles but also legal and ownership ones too. These would need to be fully explored and considered, with additional consultative programmes put in place if it were to advance.
Similarly, not all trees are equal. There is a very real difference between ornamental species versus “forest” species are considerable, and clarity of thought in this is required. If underground planting is not possible, and large plant pots required, this would limit the scale of trees possible, which would also limit carbon, biodiversity and other benefits accordingly. Finally, and as already noted, a long-term management and maintenance regime specific to this street would be required.
Our comments on proposals to introduce a sauna on Portobello Prom
Our comments on proposals to introduce a sauna on Portobello Prom
Firstly, the location of the proposed mobile sauna unit is at a heavily used, and congested, part of the Portobello Promenade. Although the hard-standing suggests a suitable area for such a facility, it is in direct conflict with the need for space for people. It would effectively privatise this small area of public space, which would be larger than the mere footprint of the structure with space for queuing, power, etc. For this reason alone, it would not be suitable to grant a license for this facility.
Secondly, the proposed use of wood-burning heaters could cause considerable local air pollution. Other fuel forms might also cause amenity impacts.
Thirdly, placing temporary facilities in this location would create a precedent that would make it harder for the licensing authority to refuse other applications.
That said, we appreciate the intention behind the operator of the mobile sauna is to support an increased interest in “wild swimming”, which has become more popular over the past decade or so. We can understand the merit of the proposal in supporting increased access to the water and the benefits of wild swimming. Whilst the nearby Portobello Baths provides some support facilities relevant to this interest, they may not be ideally placed for wild swimmers.
This requires a much more strategic approach than this opportunistic application provides. Enhanced beachside facilities would perhaps increase the enjoyment and experience if well-managed and deployed sensitively.
Indeed, there might be other areas along the coastline which could also benefit from such enhancements. The City Council or its arm’s length organisation Edinburgh Leisure are well-placed to develop a strategic framework to carry this forward.
Council Decision: We were contacted by the Council Licensing Dept on 19th May 2021 to inform us that the application had been refused in terms of Paragraph 5(3)(c)(i) of Schedule 1 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982).
This part of the Act specifies:
Where the licence applied for relates to an activity consisting of or including the use of premises or a vehicle or vessel, those premises are not or, as the case may be, that vehicle or vessel is not suitable or convenient for the conduct of the activity having regard to—
Our comments on the Council proposals for controlled parking in parts of the city.
Our comments on the Council proposals for controlled parking in parts of the city.
Residential gardens form a major part of Edinburgh’s streetscapes, helping to improve air quality, support biodiversity, improve health and wellbeing, and enhance the traditional sense of place of communities across the city. They are also important because they help surface water management as garden vegetation acts as a “sponge” by soaking up rainfall and filtering pollution. This fact will become increasingly important as out local climate changes in the years to come.
However, many gardens across Edinburgh have already been covered by hard paving by residents to create off-street parking. Replacing natural vegetation with impermeable surfaces reduces the amount of rainfall that can infiltrate naturally into the ground and increases the rate and volume of runoff flowing to the city’s drainage systems. During storm events, this can cause the system to become overwhelmed and lead to localised flooding and storm events are expected to become much more common in the future.
The further expansion of on-street parking may encourage the further conversion of gardens to driveways. It is entirely understandable why householders would seek to repurpose their front gardens in this way, especially to avoid parking permit costs when including within a Parking Control Zone. However, this represents the semi-privatisation of adjacent public streets with new dropped curbs and potentially more roadside restrictions preventing the new driveway from being blocked by street parking. In most places, this will result in a significant further reduction in on-street parking, exacerbating the problem of supply rather than alleviating it. It is also important to flag up that that a proliferation of dropped kerbs can present addition problems for pedestrians and wheelers, especially those with mobility or sight issues and with young children.
Without urban planning controls and design guidance, further restrictions to on-street parking run the risk of promoting more unsustainable garden to driveway conversions. If Parking Control Areas are being expanded and the associated increased pressure to form private drives in increasing. Then it is essential that the City of Edinburgh’s guidance for parking in front gardens is up-to-date and fit for purpose. It also needs be consistent with other Council traffic and transport policies and initiatives.
A brief response to a recent Scotsman article about the Cockburn’s view on Edinburgh’s tourism and events sector
A brief response to a recent Scotsman article about the Cockburn’s view on Edinburgh’s tourism and events sector
