Phoebe Anna Traquair Murals

Posted on: February 24, 2021

Planning application regarding Phoebe Anna Traquair murals in Sciennes, Edinburgh

Planning application regarding Phoebe Anna Traquair murals in Sciennes, Edinburgh

Cockburn Response

This application will be of concern to anyone with an interest in the artistic heritage of Edinburgh and Scotland. Having carefully reviewed it, the Cockburn Association intends to OBJECT.

Our objection relates to the conditions attached to the original planning permission granted for the redevelopment of the Sick Children’s Hospital site at Sciennes. This was subject to a specific condition that there should be care and protection of the mortuary chapel murals and long-term access by the public.

This new application only ensures the short-term protection of the building and murals and does not ensure the restoration of the murals, nor the long-term management of the building in which they are located nor arrangements for public access.

We believe that there are no current circumstances which would justify the request for the discharge of condition 8 of the original planning permission. This must not be allowed until the restoration of the murals and their future security is assured and arrangement for public access put in place.

Phoebe Anna Traquair was an Edinburgh-based artist who achieved worldwide recognition for her key role in the Arts and Crafts movement in Scotland, as an illustrator, painter and embroiderer. The first woman ever elected to the Royal Scottish Academy, Traquair is justifiably regarded by many experts as the first significant professional female artist of modern Scotland. Her mural painting for The Royal Hospital for Sick Children are among her most famous works.

It is imperative that these murals are saved for Edinburgh and for the Scottish Nation. We welcome the recent intervention made by Sir John Leighton, Director-General of the the National Galleries of Scotland, that re-emphasises the significance of the murals and we therefore call on the planning authority, the City of Edinburgh Council, to take action and enforce Condition 8 of the original planning condition.

You can view the application and post your own official comments at the link below (search for application number: 21/00331/LBC). Closing date: Fri 26 Feb 2021.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

New Town North Application

Posted on: February 18, 2021

Location: 34 Fettes Row Planning Application No: 20/03034/FUL Summary: Development comprising demolition of existing buildings and erection of mixed-use development comprising residential, hotel, office and other commercial uses, with associated landscaping / public realm, car parking and access arrangements.

Location: 34 Fettes Row Planning Application No: 20/03034/FUL Summary: Development comprising demolition of existing buildings and erection of mixed-use development comprising residential, hotel, office and other commercial uses, with associated landscaping / public realm, car parking and access arrangements.

Cockburn Response

Following regular, open and constructive engagement with the developers and their professional team, since the project inception to application stage, the Cockburn Association has opted to support this application.

The following represents our views developed as the scheme itself has developed through several iterations.

Overall development concept

First of all, we accept that this is a major development opportunity in the city. We recollect the previous scheme prepared by the Royal Bank of Scotland directly (Michael Laird Partnership) which in its first iteration was overly massive and insensitive to this important site on the northern edge of the World Heritage Site. In our view, it is essential that the opportunity is grasped to prepare a scheme which, in a contemporary and relevant manner, “completes” this north edge and provides a more suitable urban design link into adjoining neighbours such as Stockbridge and Canonmills.

In general, the Cockburn believes that the development team has responded well to this challenge, and has prepared a scheme that has great potential in helping to knit together the various environs, including George V Park.

We note that consideration is being given to the replacement of the hotel, originally proposed as part of this scheme, with further residential accommodation. The Edinburgh Hotel Association reported an oversupply of hotel spaces in March this year, and impact of Covid-19 has created significant uncertainty in the market. We would have no issues with this amendment, and indeed would support it fully.

Scale and Massing

There are two main components to this scheme:

The first are the buildings fronting Fettes Row and Dundas Street. We support the creation of a hard urban edge along Dundas Street; although it was not originally feued as part of the development of the neo-classical city as it spread northwards, establishing a strong urban edge here is appropriate. Turning the corner at Fettes Row is also an appropriate objective of development here and the proposal as last seen by us does this well. We are also very pleased with the direct link created to George V Park.

The second element is the new buildings north of Royal Circus. From the outset these have been a focus of discussion. The overall the scale has reduced, helping mitigate against the visual impact of the views looking down Dundonald Street. Two issues arise – the need to allow the architecture of these buildings to have their own presence and not be diminished to such degree as to not read as part of the urban ensemble. Secondly, the challenges in articulating what areas are public and what is private in a meaningful, clear manner. In both accounts, we feel that the design team has successfully achieved the right balance.

A point of continued discussion, however, is the physical link on the Dundonald axis into the site – specifically, if it should be public or private. We appreciate the desire to have this as a private connection for the flats to be erected here. However, we also believe that an increase in connectivity to George IV Park and the various path networks is highly desirable. That said, the approach taken to address this complex space with its significant height changes and relationships to the emerging proposals is highly creative and potentially very exciting. The interface between the garden spaces and the car parking, however, would benefit from further refinement.

Connectivity, Trees and Landscaping

The Cockburn believes that it is essential for the existing tree cover along Fettes Row to be retained and maintained. We appreciate that this is the intention and welcome it. A detailed landscape methodology should be prepared as part of the consenting process. The loss of trees along Dundas Street was not considered in discussions but we are aware that there is local concern about this. We could see some benefit for a replacement strategy here.

As noted elsewhere in these comments, the enhancement of the pedestrian network and increased connections to George V Park are key requirements in our view. The proposals have met this objective so far. We are particularly supportive of the new link to Dundas Street from the park. The link through the crescent blocks to Dundonald Street/Royal Crescent is more challenging as already noted.

Elevational Treatment and Materiality

From our discussions, it is very clear that the design team has invested considerable energy into the analysis and development of an architectural language for this site which is informed by the surrounding neo-classical buildings on Fettes Row and Royal Crescent but interpreted in a contemporary form. We appreciate that further development of the architecture is underway but we have been impressed with the careful and thoughtful approach, and support the outcome as seen so far.

END

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Comely Bank Cemetery

1A Craigleith Road, EH4 2DL
Email: bereavement@edinburgh.gov.uk

Virtual visits only this year


Visit Virtually

Back to Listings

Edinburgh and East Lothian Doors Open Days is supported by:

Arnold Clark Community FundHinshelwood Gibson TrustEuropean Heritage DaysScottish Civic TrustUrwin Studio Edinburgh Web Design

Event Sponsor

The Filmhouse – Proposals for a new venue in Festival Square

Posted on: February 10, 2021

Our response to the proposal to build a Centre for Moving Image in Festival Square

Our response to the proposal to build a Centre for Moving Image in Festival Square

Cockburn Response

The Association  OBJECTS to this proposal.

In doing so, we recognise that the Filmhouse is an institution that is well-established and well-loved. We recognise that it is well used by residents and it is a positive cultural and community asset.

Our objection is based on the use of Festival Square as a development site. The proposals are contrary to Local Development Plan Policy Env. 18 Open Space Protection which states:

“Proposals involving the loss of open space will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that:

a) there will be no significant impact on the quality or character of the local environment and 
b) the open space is a small part of a larger area or of limited amenity or leisure value and there is a significant
over-provision of open space serving the immediate area and
c) the loss would not be detrimental to the wider network including its continuity or biodiversity value and
either
d) there will be a local benefit in allowing the development in terms of either alternative equivalent provision
being made or improvement to an existing public park or other open space or
e) the development is for a community purpose and the benefits to the local community outweigh the loss.”

In our view, this development would result in a significant impact to the local area and would undermine the character and potential of an existing civic space. There would be a significant loss of open space, which would not be retrieved elsewhere. It would also set an undesirable precedent, and create expectation of development, for other open spaces
within the city.

The implications of Covid-19 in the short, medium and long-term is a factor that should be considered relevant for this application. The huge impact on the hospitality sector of the city questions the need for new development with additional hospitality provision. Cultural venues demanding large audiences in crowded venues will take time to recover, if they do.

The enormous shift to digital platforms could have a significant impact on the business case for this proposal, which we assume will be reliant on public support for a substantial part of its build cost. We also understand that the city is “over-screened” with underused cinemas across the city.

The global pandemic has illustrated the huge importance of civic space in the City. The Streets for People initiative sought to reclaim space for pedestrian and civic use. It would be ironic in the extreme for the City of Edinburgh Council to support the loss of open space which it owns.

Festival Square
Festival Square was created as part of the vision to redevelopment the former goods yard on Lothian Road. It was core to the development brief of the time, which saw its creation in the early 1980s. It formed an essential public space in the West Central Edinburgh Redevelopment Strategy of 1987 and was a core civic asset in the development of the conference centre masterplan in the early 1990s.

We acknowledge that the current Festival Square is not a hugely successful open space. The interaction of activities on its edges is not optimal and it can appear as a cold, wind-swept, purpose-less area. However, this should not be taken as a reason for its loss. We reject the argument that a poorly designed or managed space automatically means that it has no
value. Festival Square provides an opening along a very dense Lothian Road, a place where the eye can travel beyond the buildings framing it. As such, we are not convinced by the arguments put forward for its use as a development site.

The Cockburn believes strongly that the square can and should be improved, so that it could provide an excellent hard-surfaced civic space capable of hosting major events and festival activities. Alternatively, it could be redesigned or “greened” as a carbon/climate mitigation space to help the city meet its aspirations to be carbon-neutral by 2030.
It is for this reason that the proposals should be refused consent.

Alternatives
We note that the management of the Filmhouse does not feel that the existing building is fit for purpose but there appears to be some disagreement on social media from users. This needs to be fully appreciated and understood before any contemplation of sacrificing existing open space.

The Cockburn is aware of previous proposals to redevelop within the existing premises and believe that these should be revisited as part of a wider appraisal of alternatives. Indeed, our preference is the refurbishment of the existing Filmhouse building, accepting that there will need to be some compromise with the existing fabric of the listed building. This refurbishment approach might include attempting to secure the ground floor (or part of) Capital House to expand the front of house facilities, freeing up space within.

We have not seen a full options appraisal. There may be a range of other sites or approaches available. The restructuring of Princes Street from retailing to a wider leisure offering suggests opportunities too.

The proposals
The Cockburn commented on the emerging proposals as part of the PAN process. Whilst we acknowledge the cultural value of the Filmhouse and its role in Edinburgh’s civic life, we were not convinced of the case to use Festival Square. We accepted that the Square is not optimal in function but could be significantly improved. In terms of the proposals, we advised that the building should serve the square and not just be the outside of it. The narrow footprint and vertical disposition over 8 floors suggest major circulation issues and that we were not convinced that the proposals will function as well as argued. We were also concerned about the elevational treatment and suggested the need for a full Visual Impact Assessment of the scheme given its height.

Current proposal – headline issues
Whilst some of our points raised in the PAN have been addressed in part, the majority of these concerns remain. Fundamentally, the case has not been made to lose this civic space.

Whilst we appreciate the desire of the Filmhouse to create this new facility, we are not convinced of the need for it nor the requirement to include the scale of ancillary uses including offices for the CMI, which could be located elsewhere, thereby reducing the volume of new building required.

Current proposals – observations and views
We offer these comments without prejudice to our prima facie objection to the use of Festival Square in principle.

The reduction in height helps reduce the impact of the proposals in this setting but does not go far enough to reduce its visual impact to acceptable levels. There remains much concern about the visual intrusion that will result, especially from key views from the Castle and up and down Lothian Road. The height of the building will also affect the available daylight to surrounding buildings creating further difficulties for existing buildings to improve their energy consumption figures by increasing the need for artificial lighting during daylight hours at the very least. Additionally, it will greatly reduce the available light in the remaining parts of the square affecting both desirability, accessibility and the inherent safety open spaces provide for pedestrians at all times of the day or night.

The issue of internal circulation remains. Given the vertical emphasis of the building, the arrangement of stair and lift access seems inadequate, especially if the building is in full use. The servicing of numerous cafes, bars and restaurants from a basement kitchen by dumb waiters is questionable and poses issues of longer-term operational sustainability. For
example, we are aware that premises such as the Tower restaurant struggled with this arrangement.

The substantial amount of underground facilities creates challenging means of escape in emergency situations. There appears to be long distances to refuges and external escape routes. Whilst this will form part of the Building Warrant process, public safety must form a part of any planning assessment.

External arrangements – The building turns its back to the external spaces in most areas and does not help to animate remaining parts of the square. The problem with Festival Square is the lack of active engagement at ground floor level with the existing buildings. There does not seem to be any real improvement of this deficiency with this scheme. Indeed, the proposals could have the opposite effect, dividing the square into a series of smaller and less coherent spaces which would not have the scale to allow for other event activities. This is especially the case to the south where the space between Capital House and the proposal is very constrained, without real purpose and would by in shadow for much of the day. The introduction of raised planters/seating areas reduces the potential flexibility of the remaining spaces to accommodate markets, etc.

Elevational Treatment – The aspiration to create an iconic building of itself and not of the city is a clear objective of the client and the architect. If acceptable in this location (which we disagree with), and given the buildings that immediately surround the proposal, we acknowledge that there is no unified architectural language. However, we are not convinced
by the wide film screens as part of the elevational treatment and feel that they should be deleted. The desire for the client to “show off their wares” is understandable but if it is OK for the Filmhouse, why not all the other cultural venues in the city? This will set an unwelcome precedent.

Wider Priorities for Cultural Infrastructure Investment
Whilst we would not usually address wider financial/investment issues as part of a planning application, there is no doubt that this proposal will require substantial amounts of public money. There is also no doubt that existing cultural venues in the city require significant amounts of investment for repair and refurbishment to remain fit for purpose. In an era of constrained public investment, the Cockburn suggests the repair and maintenance of existing facilities should be given priority for access to the public purse than new projects.

The existing Filmhouse
Should this proposal be permitted, the abandonment of the existing well-loved buildings needs to be addressed. We argue that the CMI/Filmhouse as a moral responsibility to consider the future of these buildings, and they shouldn’t be left to the development market to decide. A design brief should be prepared to guide suitable and sensitive redevelopment.

Back to Listings

Commercial Quay

Posted on: February 5, 2021

Our objection to plans to infill a commemorative water feature in Leith

Our objection to plans to infill a commemorative water feature in Leith

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to the proposed infilling of water features at Commercial Quay and their replacement with decking in a designated conservation area and area of public amenity.

It is our view that the loss of this water feature, which references the industrial heritage of the old Leith docks, and its proposed replacement with decking is totally inappropriate for the historic quayside setting  and for the conservation area.

The City  of Edinburgh Council’s guidance in  Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas makes it clear that “when considering development within a conservation area, special attention must be paid to its character and appearance. Proposals which fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area will normally be refused”.

It is our view that these proposals fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area and therefore should be refused.

We find the application confusing, with poor diagrams and no design statement.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Centrum & Bupa Houses

Posted on: January 29, 2021

Location: 108, 114, 116 Dundas Street Planning Application No: 20/05645/FUL Summary: Applicant seeks permission to demolish Centrum and Bupa Houses and construct a mixed-use development.

Location: 108, 114, 116 Dundas Street Planning Application No: 20/05645/FUL Summary: Applicant seeks permission to demolish Centrum and Bupa Houses and construct a mixed-use development.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to this application.

We believe that housing development on this site is acceptable in principle. However, the proposals are of limited quality and interest and represent a dated architectural architype without a clear ‘residential’ character. They do not reflect the quality, residential character and scale of adjacent properties and are, as such, quite inappropriate for this location.

In line with Edinburgh’s vision to be carbon neutral by 2030, we believe that demolition and redevelopment is not an appropriate response on this site. This is no apparent attempt to reuse or repurpose any of the existing structures and limited attempts to reduce the carbon footprint of the proposed structure.  We therefore advocate that the existing sub- and superstructure (which we assume to be reinforced concrete) be retained.  We can see no hurdle in achieving this in terms of floor-to-ceiling heights, etc.  The scale of the building would be retained as well as its footprint, significantly lessoning its impact on the local community.

We find the architectural expression mundane and do not agree with the assertion that it responds to the neighbouring Georgian architecture.  It is typical of the bland commercial architecture that we see on speculative commercial developments in the city.  This is in stark contrast to the detailed investigations into the architectural expression of the New Town North development across Dundas Street, where considerable effort and care has been put into the elevational design.

The Cockburn strongly advocates that the existing setback from Dundas Street be retained.  We also believe that all efforts to retain the existing trees should be made.

The application is unclear as to the mix housing, and we struggled to determine the social housing elements in the scheme.

In summary, the Cockburn sees little merit in the current proposals, and recommend refusal if significant amendments are not forthcoming.

Back to Listings

Albert Dock Barriers

Posted on:

Forth Ports seeking planning permission to alter listed barrier at Albert Dock in Leith.

Forth Ports seeking planning permission to alter listed barrier at Albert Dock in Leith.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to this application.

The proposed replacement barrier panels are completely out of keeping with the historical quayside setting of Albert Dock.  We do appreciate the intent by Forth Ports to improve pedestrian safety around the dock, however we feel there are more sympathetic ways of achieving this.

We understand that there has been no meaningful consultation with the local community, including Albert Dock residents.  We are disappointed by the lack of engagement shown by Forth Ports and its approach to implementing these works.

We note that the CEC has opened an Enforcement File having been altered to the ongoing works on this site, in the absence of planning permission and LBC.

 

UPDATE 1: Application for listed building consent refused by City of Edinburgh Council on 11 Feb 2021

UPDATE 2: Appeal to Scottish Govt Ministers dismissed and listed building consent refused by Scottish Govt Reporter on 27 May 2021. In her conclusion, Scot Govt Reporter Rosie Leven commented:

“While I understand the risk and the perceived sense of urgency in installing the barriers, I am not convinced that all of the options to find a suitable solution which balances the historic environment and safety issues, have been fully exhausted. Given my concerns about the adverse impact on the listed building and the conservation area, I therefore refuse to grant listed building consent.”

Read Ms Leven’s full report here. We are pleased that Leith’s dockland heritage has been recognised by DPEA and consent refused. Hopefully Forth Ports will now undo the changes that they made to this listed structure and speedily reinstate the chains.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Stead’s Place, Leith (Revised application)

Posted on: January 27, 2021

Cockburn response to revised application for Stead’s Place, a 1.5 hectare site at the foot of Leith walk, proposing the clearance of light industrial buildings, residential redevelopment and access improvements.

Cockburn response to revised application for Stead’s Place, a 1.5 hectare site at the foot of Leith walk, proposing the clearance of light industrial buildings, residential redevelopment and access improvements.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn has studied this application and offers the following comments which should be read an as OBJECTION to the proposals on design grounds. We support the retention of the street front building and the redevelopment of the rear site in principle.

We recollect the previous proposals to clear the entire site, demolishing the two-storey sandstone and granite 1933 building for the London Midland & Scottish Railway Company by architect H Gildard White and erect student accommodation, hotel and a flatted development. This scheme was rejected at appeal largely due to the proposal largely to the demolition of the Gildard building which contributed positively to the character of the Leith Conservation Area.

We are pleased that the building is to be retained and re-used.

We support in principle the redevelopment of the single storey steel sheds to the rear of the 1933 building and agree that it is a very suitable site for housing. However, we find that the paucity of design aspiration and the banality and blandness of the proposed new tenements is so poor that the Cockburn would wish to object the proposals on design grounds citing Policy Des One: Design Quality and Context and Policy Des 3 Development Design – Incorporating and Enhancing Existing and Potential.

We would advocate a fresh start, taking some inspiration from developments underway in and around Bonnington. Whilst we do not object to the overall scale, a low-rise higher density approach might offer better solutions or a mixed-scale blend. Greater integration with the former rail line to the north would add value as would a reduction in hard landscape areas.

We would also wish to object to the very limited mix of house sizes in the proposal. The current and projected housing need in Leith walk area is for both one, two and three bedroom types providing for both single person and larger households. Indeed this location is ideally suited to a colony style as opposed to more of the existing and predominant 4/5 story tenement style, so catering for a broader mix of household types, which is after all such an important ingredient of high quality places.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Public Space Management Plan – Pre-consultation Exercise

Posted on: January 20, 2021

The Cockburn Association welcomes the development of a Public Spaces Management Plan, seeking to amalgamate and improve existing policies, plans and guidelines into a single unified document and process. However, we note that the Public Space Management Plan offers no strategic insight or assistance with the controversial issue of the commodification of open space.  Instead, it proposes a set of …

The Cockburn Association welcomes the development of a Public Spaces Management Plan, seeking to amalgamate and improve existing policies, plans and guidelines into a single unified document and process. However, we note that the Public Space Management Plan offers no strategic insight or assistance with the controversial issue of the commodification of open space.  Instead, it proposes a set of …

Cockburn Response

A precis of the issues

It is generally accepted that this is not a management plan for public spaces per se, but an operational guide for the management of events (including filming) in a limited number of Council-controlled public spaces.

This is evidenced by the objective of the plan, which will “set out how we can manage public open spaces (parks, greenspace, roads, plazas, squares under City of Edinburgh Council control) for events, filming and festivals”.  The PSMP continues to assume that the commodification of open space is an acceptable public objective.

The starting point for plan should be a “first principles” review and consideration of the scale and nature of the use of public spaces.  Many if not most events and activities are relatively modest and limited in their impact. An analysis of existing activity would be very useful in preparing the PSMP.

We accept that activities in public spaces can be positive and indeed desirable.  They can contribute to interest and vitality and can support local communities.  They can also be divisive, exclusive/restrictive and anti-community as well introduce disruptive and intrusive activities in places most appreciate for peace and tranquillity. It is this paradigm that the development of the plan should concentrate, and a criteria-based approach developed.  At the moment, it is left to the event organiser to determine how the event is to be delivered.  Whilst this might seem logical from an events management perspective, from a civic perspective, the Council should set criteria to which the operator must adhere to.  For example, a default position against the use of amplified music would mean that any event which wishes it, must justify the need against set criteria (e.g. impact on residents) and outline management and mitigation measures before consent is considered.  Similarly, the closure of streets for filming should be an unreasonable disruption and justification would need to put forward.

The current processes exclude civic engagement.  This should change.  Of course, very small activities over short periods of time could be exempt but some form of public signposting is needed much in the same way as a planning application.

The information that is required to be submitted for event approvals at the moment is very light.  The Cockburn Association has participated in a consultation forum for events in key public spaces such as Calton Hill and has seen just how poor the level of information required to gain consent is.  This Plan provides a very positive opportunity to address this, and we would advocate the creation of a task group to help define what types and levels of information should be required.

Future imperatives

The current premium on open space as a result of Covid-19 isn’t reflected in this paper.  Covid has helped society understand and appreciate the value of open spaces, providing places for well-being activities. Whilst we might question to the implementation of schemes such as Streets for People, the sentiment encouraging greater civic use of streets is a fair one and reflects a changing attitude to civic space and civic amenity.  Commodifying open space is counter to this and the Plan should reflect this.

Various consultation surveys show that the most valued attributes of parks and gardens are their tranquil and green nature (West Princes Street Gardens, for example).  These qualities can be shared and experienced by all visitors, whether residents, workers or tourists.  The default position for the PSMP must be the retention of these qualities.  Commercial events with an element of exclusive ticketing or branding should be avoided or kept to a minimum.  The Summer Session concerts illustrated the conflict between open space as a performance arena and open space as a civic amenity, especially for commercial ventures that require a high degree of exclusivity.  Hoardings, crowd-control gates and threats of street closures to management public safety are all illustrations of the unsuitability of such activities in public parks.

A paper considered by the Policy and Sustainability Committee on 10 January 2021on filming noted that this activity generated less than £250,000 for the city although it highlighted the brand and marketing value. The benefit of allowing public spaces to be used for private ventures should be required to demonstrate a direct benefit to the City. At the moment, there is little in the way of meaningful consultation with residents and civic groups on the impacts of street closures, etc, only noting that local businesses impact may be able to negotiate compensation from filming companies.

This suggests an Activity for Activity’s sake ideology behind the initiative.  A more strategic approach considering the carry capacity of places to absorb events and activities is needed, where civic and amenity requirements are equal to tourist and cultural economic activities.

Need for overarching Strategy

In agreeing with the need for effective operational management of events, there is a need for a more strategic management plan for the wider use of streets and other public spaces and going well-beyond event management.   The impact on public spaces due to construction and development activities can bring significant issues including pedestrian disruption, noise, etc.

It is the nature of many spaces that they are unable to take significant pressures of major events.  The damage to East Princes Street Gardens caused by successive Winter Festivals/Christmas Markets highlights all too well the issue.  In 2019, for the 6 weeks operation of the enhanced market with its large space deck, the gardens were closed for a total of 6 months (including set-up, take down and landscape repair/recovery time). Thus, a civic asset was unavailable for public use as a result of a commercial venture for a significant period of time.  This cannot be acceptable.

A Public Spaces Management Strategy should also include other issues affecting public space, such as street closures facilitating construction work, etc.  These need not be managed through any central department but the criteria for use of civic assets should be set out in a coherent manner.  This should also include spaces not under the control of the City Council but also those under institutional or private management.

Pseudo-public space

Pseudo-public spaces – large squares, parks and thoroughfares that appear to be public but are owned and controlled by developers or private interests are a feature of Edinburgh.  The criteria used for assessing suitability for events or other activities should be applied these spaces as well.  Although they are seemingly accessible to members of the public and have the look and feel of public land, these sites – also known as privately owned public spaces or “Pops” – are not subject to ordinary local authority bylaws but rather governed by restrictions drawn up the landowner and usually enforced by private security companies.  For example, Bristo Square and George Square are owned by the University and host large scale events but would not be covered by the PSMP despite the potential impacts and the perceived civic nature of the space.

Other examples of Pops would be the various New Town gardens.  Charlotte Square has become synonymous with the Book Festival, but its management sits outside the PSMP as it is a private space.  Concern has been expressed over many years about the physical state of the land post the festival, which has visual amenity impact borne by many. As such, its regulation through the PSMP would be beneficial to the city.

Such spaces need to be included in the PSMP because their use as event spaces can have significant impact on public amenity.

Overlap with other consenting regimes

Following on from this point, it is important that the PSMP articulates the wider consenting regime.  The scandal of the space deck being erected in East Princes Street gardens without planning consent illustrates this issue perfectly.  The Cockburn has undertaken a very quick review of other open spaces and has found that major events have operated without planning consent, or so it seems.

Common Goods Land

In 1491, the Scots parliament passed the Common Good Act affirming that the land and property of Scotland’s royal burghs “be obseruit and kepit to the commoune gude of the toune and to be spendit in commoune And necessare thingis of the burgh. From that year until the Burgh Reform Act of 1833, the landowners and the commercial bourgeois class controlled all burghal administration of the common lands and controlled it in such a way that vast areas of common lands were quietly appropriated.

Much of Edinburgh’s public space is Common Good Land.  It is held for the benefit of citizens.  As such, a separate vehicle for oversight should be required as part of the management process.  This might be built into the PSMP and should require special attention to the played.

Summary and Some Cockburn suggestions

The following represents some ideas and thoughts which we feel should be considered as part of this exercise:

  • All events, in all public spaces including streets should be covered by any emerging plan;
  • The remit of the PSMP should include all public spaces, and not be limited CEC owned and/or controlled spaces is too limiting and not acceptable;
  • Common Good Land is not CEC property – this requires a separate process for management and event approval and management;
  • Commercially exclusive events which require restriction of public access for even relatively short period of time should be discouraged;
  • For major events that require ticketing, the assumption should be that most tickets should be free to users, allowing a small percentage of sold tickets for VIP and commercial reasons. As in New York City, the assumption should be use of a public space is for public benefit and enjoyment;
  • Community events and major commercial events require different and bespoke registration and management processes and fee structures;
  • The acceptability of holding major events in public spaces at times of year when access to public spaces are in high demand for informal recreation, rest and well-being should be heavily restricted;
  • The PSMP must have city-wide and community-wide climate mitigation, climate adaptation, biodiversity, tree expansion and sustainability issues at its heart. ISO20121 should be the minimum standard required.
  • Future events in public spaces should be required to clearly express how they will add to or detract from the quality of life in the city as a whole and their host residential communities.
  • All collateral impacts of events in public spaces e.g. noise, pollution, policing costs must be identified, and mitigation frameworks brought forward and incorporated into events approval and management processes. The cost of meeting these and remedying any impact must fall wholly to the event and not the public purse.

The Cockburn Association would be delighted to assist in the development of this ideas and the furtherance of effective management policies for the city’s public and quasi-public open spaces.

Back to Listings

Whose Festival is it Anyway? A Cockburn Conference

Saturday 30th January 2021

A Cockburn Conference exploring Edinburgh’s Festivals – past, present and future

Book Here

Back to Listings