Our response to the City Plan 2030 Consultation

POSTED ON December 20, 2021

Some Cockburn reflections on the Council’s City Plan 2030 as the public consultation closes

Some Cockburn reflections on the Council’s City Plan 2030 as the public consultation closes

Support the Cockburn

Donate
Join Us

Back to Listings

City Plan 2030 Consultation

Posted on:

Our detailed response to City of Edinburgh Council’s consultation on CityPlan 2030

Our detailed response to City of Edinburgh Council’s consultation on CityPlan 2030

Cockburn Response

General

Whilst there are many aspects of City Plan 2030 that we welcome and support, we find that it is weakest in those areas of greatest importance, namely Climate impact and preparedness, Covid and post-Covid resilience and Brexit where the implications of leaving the EU over the plan period are not considered and the implications to economic prosperity with a probable change in relative importance of certain sectors and approaches.

These omissions seriously weaken the Plan’s robustness and resilience especially in the later years of its life. The Cockburn therefore calls for meaningful revisions and policy statements on how the LDP will tackle these most significant of issues facing the city.

Edinburgh needs a City Plan which is fit for purpose not just at the beginning- period of the plan but also at its end-period. Therefore, the plan’s aspirations, outcomes and policies need to be in the language and aspiration of tomorrow not just in the language of today.

Regional Issues

Sustainable Carbon Neutral city (paras 2.28 – 2.32)

Further to our general comments, we believe that the framework for this policy subject is narrow and lacks any serious credibility. Land-use policy will need to change radically if net-zero carbon targets are to be met, including presumptions of growth and regional support and development.

The Cockburn calls for an examination and explanation of how this plan and its policies will directly influence this objective rather than a discussion on other legislative or statutory frameworks.

Well-being and Equalities

The unsubstantiated comments here on how the plan improves well-being is a strategic weakness of it. There is no strong indication of how public health and land-use planning will be framed in this plan, with unclear statements of the roll of 20minute neighbourhoods as a mechanism for achieving this. The Cockburn asks for much greater clarity and depth of initiatives to be set out here, so that policies can be judged against this most important objective.

City Plan Outcomes

In general, we welcome the proposed outcomes outlined in City Plan 2030. However, in many sections, there is no clear statement of outcome which undermines the usefulness of this section and weakens a focussed delivery of the plan. We offer some comments and observations below.

Built Environment (2.45-46)

No outcome statement is offered. The Cockburn suggests that a commitment be given that Edinburgh’s unique urban landscape will be improved through active conservation policies and innovative design policies so that the qualities of the city are improved by the end of the plan period.

World Heritage Site (2.47-48)

We recommend that commitment be given that the Management Plan for the WHS will be a material consideration (not “may”).

Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Archaeology, etc

We welcome the statements made here in City Plan 2030. Again, we would advocate a firm outcome statement to the effect that the city heritage assets will form a key part of the delivery of the plans economic and environment policies and the Plan commits to improvements to all assets where possible.

We would also advocate that an outcome statement makes clear that proposals affecting heritage assets and Conservations Areas considered by non-planning mechanisms such as Traffic Regulation Orders will be required by City Plan to meet the policy objects set out within it.

Green Belt (2.58-60)

The Cockburn welcomes the commitment to no new Green Belt releases in this plan period.

Countryside (2.61) and Blue-Green Network (2.62-64)

The Cockburn has concerns with some of the land removed from Countryside Policy where it pursues development proposals on the western approach corridors. In terms of meeting its net-zero carbon strategy, the loss of any green space should be avoided, and the policy commitment to protecting countryside land needs to be strengthened.

To this end, the Climate Change Risk Assessment referred to in 2.64 is crucial. The Cockburn supports the wider ambitions to develop and reinforce the Blue-Green network across the city. To this end, a new policy advocating protection of private green spaces such as the large, treed gardens in the inner suburbs should be established, enhancing existing policies.

Housing

Our comments will be covered under consideration of specific policies. We note the quantitative analyse of housing need and suggest that the narrative around growth and operational carbon requirements needs to expand to include embedded carbon and wider sustainability issues.

Qualitative assessment and outcomes for housing are largely missing, however. The Cockburn believes that the spatial standards for new housing must improve if the city is to build resilience into a post-Covid recovery city, where more and more home-working if likely to feature. The UK has some of the meanest space standards in Europe. We therefore advocate additional policies to be developed to enhance the existing array including the better minimum spatial standards and increased outdoor space for well-being and active family environments. 

Sustainable Energy (2.129-129)

The Cockburn believes that it is essential if we are to meet the net-zero Caron Strategy by 2030 that we move beyond a simple operational carbon/energy perspective of development and shift to a total carbon/energy assessment, taking into account life cycle costing and embodied energy in materials.

We also believe that new building including mass housing should include renewable generation technologies within the fabric, evidenced at the point of consent. Thus, the Cockburn advocates additional policies on the sustainability of building materials and building technologies as well as a policy on renewable energy generation in all new developments.

Place-based Policies

The Cockburn offers comments on some but not all place-based policies.

PLACE 1 – City Centre and Waverley Valley

The Cockburn is broadly supportive of the Ciy Centre transformation project and its various proposals. We do have concerns with renewal of the Ross Bandstand and other facilities in West Princes Street, and do not support the radical redevelopment vision of the Ross Development Trust to create a 4-6,000 seat venue in the heart of West Princes Street Gardens.  A number of ENV policies are relevant so this policy should be amended to include reference to other policy objectives such as protecting the special characteristics and outstanding universal values.

PLACE 2 – Fountainbridge

We are broadly supportive of the policy here, although we would strongly recommend an additional statement supporting the vertical integration of uses in each development area. Large, mono-use blocks should be avoided.  The policy should therefore be amended to encourage this.

PLACE 3 – Astley Ainsley

In general, we are supportive.  However, the first bullet point should be amended from “respects the mature landscape setting of the site” to “preserves the mature landscape setting of the site”.  This is to ensure that any development starts from the objective of conserving the character of the site.

PLACE 4 – Edinburgh Waterfront

We are increasingly concerned with the quality and quantity of development that is being placed in this policy area.  To this end, we do not support the first bullet point “comprehensively designed proposals which maximise the development potential of the area” in that maximising the development potential should not be a policy objective.  Instead, this might be merged with the second point – “provision of a series of mixed-use sustainable neighbourhoods that connect to the waterfront, with each other and with nearby neighbourhoods” – to emphasise that the delivery of sustainable neighbourhoods is the primary objective and one consistent with the 20 minute neighbourhood ambition.

Western Harbour and Central Leith Harbour policy areas need to fully explore the impact of rising sea levels on the suitability and feasibility of development.  This should not be considered as a remote possibility but integrated into a revised set of land-use allocations that actively plan for increased storm surges and sea-based flooding.  The statement carry out a flood risk appraisal to inform the design and layout of development proposals is wholly inadequate in this regard and objectionable as a result.

Granton and Granton Waterfront –  we are broadly in agreement with the principles, subject to the above comment on sea levels.  We welcome the development principle to create a new Coastal Park, but concerns with the principle Some small pavilion buildings and a larger focal building could be accommodated within the coastal park to provide places to meet, eat and enjoy activities, as these may eroded the positive values of the park in the first place.  Also, it would be likely that these would displace activity better directed towards existing businesses.  We therefore ask that this be amended.

PLACE 5 – Crewe Road South

This represents a significant development opportunity within the city.  We welcome the statement to Make iterative use of Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment to identify footprint, height and massing of built form, respecting existing townscape, landscape and conservation area setting and surrounding residential character.  We feel that this might be strengthened to ensure that the TVIA precedes any development proposal of scale coming forward with the aim of ensuring the deliver of this element.

Existing trees should be protected as a matter of principle.   We would also advocate the removal of large areas of hardstanding where not required and their return to green space. Substantial levels of new tree planting should form part of any development masterplan.

PLACE 7 – Stead’s Place & Jane Street

We welcome the commitment to retain the 2-storey building at 105 Leith Walk.  The plan does not reflect the proposed extension of the Leith Conservation Areas which proposes to add the former railway embankment and bridge abutments into the area, which we support.   We would strongly advocate a unified urban design framework be prepared to ensure the architectural and streetscape coordination of any new development coming forward.  The haphazard approach of allowing developments to come forward without an integrated vision is apparent in the nearby area.

PLACE 16 – West Edinburgh

We are concerned with the growth strategies for West Edinburgh and therefore require clarification of the mitigation measures which will address the negative environmental impacts identified in the Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Report related to this development expansion.

PLACE 17 – Edinburgh Airport

As with PLACE 16, we have concerns regarding the expansion of development in the airport area. Clarification of the mitigation measures which will address the negative environmental impacts identified in the Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Report is required before this policy should be adopted.

PLACE 30 – Redford Barracks

Overall, we welcome the general principles for the repurposing of this site.  However, all existing green spaces should be retained and enhanced for public and climate mitigation benefit and all existing trees should be protected as a matter of principle.   We would also advocate the removal of large areas of hardstanding where not required and their return to green space. Substantial levels of new tree planting should form part of any development masterplan.

Environment and Design Policies

In general terms, the Cockburn supports the policies as set out in this section of City Plan 2030.  We offer a number of specific comments on individual policies, as indicated below.

ENV2 Co-ordinated Development – Whilst we support this policy, it should be amended to not just ‘encourage’ but ‘require’ conformity to this objective.  Thus, advocate a rewording to “The Council requires a comprehensive approach to redevelopment and regeneration wherever possible, and the preparation of development frameworks, master plans, Development Briefs or Place Briefs to identify the full design potential for creating successful places.”

ENV5 Alterations, Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings – this policy should include an explicit indication against the development of front gardens for private car parking on the grounds that it damages character and affects streetscape.

ENV7 Sustainable Developments – We welcome the new policy requirement assess the embodied energy and life-cycle analysis of construction.  However, we object to the caveat for proposals involving the replacement of existing buildings the proposals should be accompanied by a carbon assessment setting out the ‘whole-life’ carbon footprint of the proposed development compared to the option of re-using the existing building to accommodate the proposed use. Where this comparative assessment fails to show an overall lower carbon footprint then it must be set out why the developer considers the proposal justified, for example because the new development provides additional floorspace and/or dwellings compared to the existing building.  The reasons for possible justification are spurious and unacceptable in the context of the purposes of the policy and would largely negate the reason for carrying out a carbon assessment in the first place.

ENV 5 – Alterations, Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings

This policy should include an explicit indication against the development of front gardens for private car parking on the grounds that it damages character and affects streetscape. 

ENV 7 – Sustainable Developments

We object to the caveat for proposals involving the replacement of existing buildings* the proposals should be accompanied by a carbon assessment setting out the ‘whole-life’ carbon footprint of the proposed development compared to the option of re-using the existing building to accommodate the proposed use**. Where this comparative assessment fails to show an overall lower carbon footprint then it must be set out why the developer considers the proposal justified, for example because the new development provides additional floorspace and/or dwellings compared to the existing building.

The reasons for possible justification are spurious and unacceptable in the context of the purposes of the policy and would largely negate the reason for carrying out a carbon assessment in the first place.

ENV8 New Sustainable Buildings – We support this policy but ask for clarification of the linkages between this policy and other policies within the plan which support and promote environment, social and economic sustainability.

ENV 9 – World Heritage Sites – We support this policy but advocate an amendment to the wording of para 3.108 requiring reference to the Management Plans in place rather than merely suggesting they should be referred to.  The purpose is to ensure awareness and compliance in all developments affecting WHSs in the city.

ENV13 Conservation Areas – Demolition of Buildings – We continue to support this policy.  However we are concerned with the subtle dilution of it in comparison to the current LDP policy, which makes indicates that where a building is proposed for demolition and it makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance, Policy ENV10 Listed Buildings – Demolition applies.  This adds clarity to the policy and grounds the assessment in national policy.  We strongly advocate this change.

Housing Policies

HOU1 Housing Development –  In some instances, the sites allocated are not genuine effective housing sites as constraints may mitigate against development.  We would therefore advocate that the policy makes clear that in addition to the statement “Development should accord with the Place

Polices and development principles set out in Place 1-Place 36 and Appendix D” that development should also be accordance with the other policies as set out in the plan.  This is remove any doubt.

HOU 2 Affordable Housing – In supporting this policy, we suggest the deletion in para 3.193 of the phrase “or as far as possible” which refers to providing 35% affordable housing for developments over 12 units in scale.  The need for affordable housing over the plan period is very clear and should not be delighted by caveats that suggest otherwise.

HOU 4 Housing Land Supply – We do not support this policy as the wording suggests that it may be used as a ‘trojan horse’ for development of greenbelt land.  The allocation of housing numbers includes a 20% Generosity Allowance over and above that required.  No further allocations should be accepted. 

HOU 6 Student Accommodation – The Cockburn is unsure about this policy.  Whilst we accept that there is some need for additional accommodation, the policy provides no position on over-provision in areas of existing concentrations of student housing. We would therefore advocate a return at a threshold policy as used to exist in previous LDPs.

We also query the suitability of a area-based threshold in the context of housing and affordable housing provision.  A threshold based on numbers and density might be better.  The design of student accommodation should be capable of adaption to mainstream housing in order to ensure long-term carbon benefits and greater flexibility in changing circumstances.  This should be built into this policy.  Finally, we ask for clarification of the criteria with will be used to determine no adverse impact on established character of an area.

HOU 7 Loss of Housing – We welcome and support this policy.  However, we would advocate a policy statement in enforcement in areas of significant STL concentrations which have no consent.  Also, the policy should include the proposed STL Control Area currently under consideration and outline a policy-basis for considering Change of Use applications associated with it.

Hou 8 Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas – We welcome this policy and its stated intention.  However, we would advocate the retention of the policy in the existing LDP HOU7 which states, “the intention of the policy is firstly, to preclude the introduction or intensification of non-residential uses incompatible with predominantly residential areas and secondly, to prevent any further deterioration in living conditions in more mixed-use areas which nevertheless have important residential functions. “  This provides greater clarity for decision-making and reinforces the need to support housing in mixed-use areas.

Infrastructure Policies

INF1 Access to community facilities – Whilst we support this policy, the facilities and infrastructure referred to in para 3.203 needs to be considered in separate guidance and open to public consultation.

INF5 Location of Major Travel Generating Development – We support this policy but ask that clarification of what criteria to be used to determine ‘very good accessibility by sustainable transport’ be included in the plan.

INF9 City Centre Public Parking – Further clarification of provision for accessible parking is required.

Economy

Econ 1 Supporting inclusive Growth, innovation and culture – We support the intention of this policy subject to inclusion of a reference to lifelong learning.  We particularly welcome the requirement that “Developers will have to demonstrate that proposals are not just associated with the five key criterion but meet other relevant LDP policies such as heritage and environmental policies.”

Econ 6 Hotel Development – We do not support his policy.  Clarification is required on the relationship between the objectives of Econ 6 and those of Econ 2 for which seeks to ‘create sustainable communities, maximise opportunities for housing and avoid large mono use developments”.  We also note that in February 2020, the Edinburgh Hotel Association reported an oversupply of bedspaces in the city.  This does not align to the suggestion in para.3.253 noting that “it is unclear at this time what the long-term implications will be” in a post-Covid city.

Retail Policies

RE9 Entertainment, Leisure and café/restaurant Developments (Preferred locations) – We support this policy and in particular the caveats that proposals must be integrated satisfactorily into its surroundings to a high quality of design that safeguards existing character and will not lead to a

significant increase in noise, disturbance and on-street activity at unsocial hours

to the detriment of living conditions for nearby residents.  We would advocate that suitable criteria be set down in guidance for added clarity.

RE 10 Entertainment, Leisure and café/restaurant Developments (Other Locations) – As with RE9, Clarification of the criteria for determining “a significant increase in noise, disturbance and on-street activity at unsocial hours to the detriment of living conditions for nearby residents” will be required.

RE 11 Food and Drink Establishments – Clear criteria for determining ‘an unacceptable increase in noise, disturbance, on-street activity or anti-social behaviour to the detriment of living conditions for nearby residents’ will be required.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Commercial Hospitality Space at 36-38 Victoria Street

Posted on: December 16, 2021

Our comments objecting to an application to erect a commercial hospitality space on the Common Good land in the Old Town.

Our comments objecting to an application to erect a commercial hospitality space on the Common Good land in the Old Town.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn has considered this application and would wish to OBJECT to it on the grounds that it would involve the quasi-privatisation of public urban space; would affect the wider amenity of neighbouring residents and businesses; is poorly designed in the context of the specific location and negatively impacts on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

We have no objection to the current tabling licensing system in place, whereby a small number of tables are placed discretely beside the operator’s premises.  Licensing conditions require tables and chairs to be removed each evening, restoring the area back to unfettered public use.  This flexible and temporary system works well.

Our concern lies with the erection of a PERMANENT structure, which would effectively privatise a portion of the Common Good land in Edinburgh’s High Street.

It is also important to recognise the likely cumulative impacts of this application if other neighbouring businesses seek to do the same in front of each of their properties too.

A senior Council officer recently reported their concerns about these structures to the Council’s Regulatory Committee (2 Dec 2021). This officer suggested that some of these permanent trading areas could potentially start “limiting the ability to stage” certain civic and cultural activities and events in the city.

The officer went further, noting that once granted a permanent license to operate these new trading areas, “the license holder would have protections” that “exposes the council to the risk of legal challenge” if the local authority requested the business owner to remove the structure and cease trading there.

We set out our own concerns about this type of commercial development in greater detail below.

Overall context – The Cockburn has outlined its general concerns about the unregulated proliferation of outdoor seating developments on numerous occasions while also noting the context of COVID and COVID recovery for hospitality businesses.

We continue to sympathise with businesses that have struggled during the periods of prolonged lockdown, unexpected social distancing and other necessary public health measures. We are not surprised that some traders now hope to permanently retain structures that were put in place temporarily and that other traders are coming forward with applications for entirely new structures.

These newly built ad hoc decks, gazebos and sheds significantly expand each premise’s trading area and, with the current uncertainty over the rapid spread of COVID variants, provide a timely extension to existing indoor operations, in addition to any previously licensed outdoor seating.

We accept TEMPORARY spatial and regulatory extensions to existing licensing footprints that keep businesses trading and the public safe. However we are opposed to PERMANENT planning permissions being granted for ad hoc BUILT structures that:

  • Permanently alter access rights to and other existing uses of public lands,
  • Potentially impact pedestrian movement through the streetscape,
  • Radically alter the character of conservation areas,
  • Negatively affect residential amenity,
  • Potentially inhibit access for necessary service and emergency vehicles.

Need for unified, design-led approach – Being a novel introduction to the city’s streetscape, Edinburgh Street Design Guidance is largely silent on these outdoor seating areas, although many broader principles apply including the need to reduce street clutter and the importance of uncongested, clear from obstruction pedestrian zones.

The Cockburn believes that interventions into Edinburgh’s streetscape, especially within Conservation Areas across the city, must be unified (i.e., consistent across a wider area), design-led and developed in such a manner as to enhance the character of streets. It should not be left to individual businesses to create their own visions for the public realm.

A revised and updated policy framework is required that takes on board all the City of Edinburgh’s Council’s pledges and commitments.

Street Clutter – At a recent meeting of the City of Edinburgh Council, Councillors reaffirmed their support for Transport for All’s Equal Pavements Pledge. This acknowledges that being able to move around the urban environment freely is a right that should be allowed to all those who live in, work in and visit Edinburgh, including those with complex needs. Outdoor seating areas such as that proposed here complicates the facilitation of free and unfettered access across the city.

We note the abolition of A-boards across the city as an example of the Council’s commitment to unimpeded pedestrian access.

Privatisation/Appropriation of public space – The Cockburn has frequently voices concerns about the ongoing privatisation of public spaces across the city. We have spoken out against the trend of the City of Edinburgh Council increasingly using the city’s existing public spaces, parks and green spaces to raise funds, by making their land available to private companies who charge for ticketed events and restrict access to parks and green spaces for extended periods.

We are not against all use of public and quasi-public spaces, particularly parks and greenspaces, for events and associated activities. But such events and pop-ups for al fresco dining and drinking, including those on and in association with streets, must be assessed and open for review and comment within a relevant and up-to-date policy and regulatory framework. Edinburgh lack such a policy framework currently.

Wider Amenity Impacts – We note that at recent meeting of the City of Edinburgh Council councillors agreed that the Council would write to the Scottish Government to ask for powers to deal with problems associated amplified busking and street entertainment across the city and to facilitate the engagement of residents who are concerned about related noise disturbances.

This suggests that the policy and practice framework relating to the consideration of noise from on-street eating and drinking installations is likely to be subject to change and be the subject of restriction in the near term, certainly that the Council is minded to take a more restrictive view of actions, activities and potential sources of street noise such as on-street eating and drinking facilities.

We have no objections to the current table licensing arrangements that require their removal at the end of each trading period, partly in order to reduce potential negative impacts on nearby residents. Permanent structures that provide 24 hour cover and seating facilities, however unintentionally, are already causing repeated anti-social problems for central Edinburgh residents as these structures become gathering places for after-hours drinking and eating, once business owners have long-since locked up and headed home. This will only increase in the spring and summer months.

Assessment of outdoor seating against current LDP policies – Notwithstanding the comments above, it is our view the city’s current planning policy framework does not support on-street al fresco dining and drinking as uncoordinated individual planning applications.

In our view, the proposals are not consistent with Policy ENV 6 – Conservation Areas (Development), Policy ENV18 Open Space Protection, Policy Del 2 City Centre – Development, Policy Des 1 Design Quality, Policy Des 5 Development Design – Amenity,  and Policy Des 8 Public Realm and Landscape Design.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Commercial Hospitality Space at 119 High Street

Posted on:

Our comments objecting to an application to erect a permanent commercial hospitality space on the Common Good land of the High Street.

Our comments objecting to an application to erect a permanent commercial hospitality space on the Common Good land of the High Street.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn has considered this application and would wish to OBJECT to it on the grounds that it would involve the quasi-privatisation of public urban space; would affect the wider amenity of neighbouring residents and businesses; is poorly designed in the context of the specific location and negatively impacts on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

We have no objection to the current tabling licensing system in place, whereby a small number of tables are placed discretely beside the operator’s premises.  Licensing conditions require tables and chairs to be removed each evening, restoring the area back to unfettered public use.  This flexible and temporary system works well.

Our concern lies with the erection of a PERMANENT structure, which would effectively privatise a portion of the Common Good land in Edinburgh’s High Street.

It is also important to recognise the likely cumulative impacts of this application if other neighbouring businesses seek to do the same in front of each of their properties too.

A senior Council officer recently reported their concerns about these structures to the Council’s Regulatory Committee (2 Dec 2021). This officer suggested that some of these permanent trading areas could potentially start “limiting the ability to stage” certain civic and cultural activities and events in the city.

The officer went further, noting that once granted a permanent license to operate these new trading areas, “the license holder would have protections” that “exposes the council to the risk of legal challenge” if the local authority requested the business owner to remove the structure and cease trading there.

We set out our own concerns about this type of commercial development in greater detail below.

Overall context – The Cockburn has outlined its general concerns about the unregulated proliferation of outdoor seating developments on numerous occasions while also noting the context of COVID and COVID recovery for hospitality businesses.

We continue to sympathise with businesses that have struggled during the periods of prolonged lockdown, unexpected social distancing and other necessary public health measures. We are not surprised that some traders now hope to permanently retain structures that were put in place temporarily and that other traders are coming forward with applications for entirely new structures.

These newly built ad hoc decks, gazebos and sheds significantly expand each premise’s trading area and, with the current uncertainty over the rapid spread of COVID variants, provide a timely extension to existing indoor operations, in addition to any previously licensed outdoor seating.

We accept TEMPORARY spatial and regulatory extensions to existing licensing footprints that keep businesses trading and the public safe. However we are opposed to PERMANENT planning permissions being granted for ad hoc BUILT structures that:

  • Permanently alter access rights to and other existing uses of public lands,
  • Potentially impact pedestrian movement through the streetscape,
  • Radically alter the character of conservation areas,
  • Negatively affect residential amenity,
  • Potentially inhibit access for necessary service and emergency vehicles.

Need for unified, design-led approach – Being a novel introduction to the city’s streetscape, Edinburgh Street Design Guidance is largely silent on these outdoor seating areas, although many broader principles apply including the need to reduce street clutter and the importance of uncongested, clear from obstruction pedestrian zones.

The Cockburn believes that interventions into Edinburgh’s streetscape, especially within Conservation Areas across the city, must be unified (i.e., consistent across a wider area), design-led and developed in such a manner as to enhance the character of streets. It should not be left to individual businesses to create their own visions for the public realm.

A revised and updated policy framework is required that takes on board all the City of Edinburgh’s Council’s pledges and commitments.

Street Clutter – At a recent meeting of the City of Edinburgh Council, Councillors reaffirmed their support for Transport for All’s Equal Pavements Pledge. This acknowledges that being able to move around the urban environment freely is a right that should be allowed to all those who live in, work in and visit Edinburgh, including those with complex needs. Outdoor seating areas such as that proposed here complicates the facilitation of free and unfettered access across the city.

We note the abolition of A-boards across the city as an example of the Council’s commitment to unimpeded pedestrian access.

Privatisation/Appropriation of public space – The Cockburn has frequently voices concerns about the ongoing privatisation of public spaces across the city. We have spoken out against the trend of the City of Edinburgh Council increasingly using the city’s existing public spaces, parks and green spaces to raise funds, by making their land available to private companies who charge for ticketed events and restrict access to parks and green spaces for extended periods.

We are not against all use of public and quasi-public spaces, particularly parks and greenspaces, for events and associated activities. But such events and pop-ups for al fresco dining and drinking, including those on and in association with streets, must be assessed and open for review and comment within a relevant and up-to-date policy and regulatory framework. Edinburgh lack such a policy framework currently.

Wider Amenity Impacts – We note that at recent meeting of the City of Edinburgh Council councillors agreed that the Council would write to the Scottish Government to ask for powers to deal with problems associated amplified busking and street entertainment across the city and to facilitate the engagement of residents who are concerned about related noise disturbances.

This suggests that the policy and practice framework relating to the consideration of noise from on-street eating and drinking installations is likely to be subject to change and be the subject of restriction in the near term, certainly that the Council is minded to take a more restrictive view of actions, activities and potential sources of street noise such as on-street eating and drinking facilities.

We have no objections to the current table licensing arrangements that require their removal at the end of each trading period, partly in order to reduce potential negative impacts on nearby residents. Permanent structures that provide 24 hour cover and seating facilities, however unintentionally, are already causing repeated anti-social problems for central Edinburgh residents as these structures become gathering places for after-hours drinking and eating, once business owners have long-since locked up and headed home. This will only increase in the spring and summer months.

Assessment of outdoor seating against current LDP policies – Notwithstanding the comments above, it is our view the city’s current planning policy framework does not support on-street al fresco dining and drinking as uncoordinated individual planning applications.

In our view, the proposals are not consistent with Policy ENV 6 – Conservation Areas (Development), Policy ENV18 Open Space Protection, Policy Del 2 City Centre – Development, Policy Des 1 Design Quality, Policy Des 5 Development Design – Amenity,  and Policy Des 8 Public Realm and Landscape Design.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Application for change of use in Grassmarket

Posted on: December 15, 2021

Our objection to a proposal to introduce a new leisure and bar operation in the Grassmarket which we believe will negatively impact the amenity of local residents

Our objection to a proposal to introduce a new leisure and bar operation in the Grassmarket which we believe will negatively impact the amenity of local residents

Cockburn Response

The Association has been approached by a number of members and stakeholders about this development.  We note that a similar scheme in 2019 had been withdrawn.

The Grassmarket is an area of the city that has been subject to intense pressures from the tourism/hospitality sector for some.  It is essential, therefore, that any proposed Change of Use and development scheme be considered in the context of the cumulative impact on local residents.

These pressures have been so significant that the viability of the Grassmarket as a residential community could be seen to be under threat.

The property has a long history of retail of use.  We appreciate the challenges in marketing such premises during a global pandemic and note that it has been available since February 2019.  Nevertheless, we believe that a change from Class 1 to Classes 3 & 11 as proposed on the grounds that would affect the amenity and to an extent the viability of the Grassmarket as a mixed community.  In addition, it would create additional late evening footfall, adding to existing noise and intrusion in the area.  In this, we note that at recent meeting of the City of Edinburgh Council councillors agreed that the Council would write to the Scottish Government to ask for powers to deal with problems associated amplified busking and street entertainment across the city and to facilitate the engagement of residents who are concerned about related noise disturbances

Policy Hou 7 Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas – states that developments, including changes of use, which would have a materially detrimental effect on the living conditions of nearby residents, will not be permitted. It notes that the intention of the policy is firstly, to preclude the introduction or intensification of non-residential uses incompatible with predominantly residential areas and secondly, to prevent any further deterioration in living conditions in more mixed-use areas which nevertheless have important residential functions.  We believe that this proposal is inconsistent with this policy.

The proposed City Plan 2030 proposes new policies aimed at protecting residential amenity.  These reinforce HOU7 and might be considered a material consideration.

As such, we feel that the proposals are inconsistent with Policy Des 5 Development Design – Amenity in that it fails to meet the first criteria namely “the amenity of neighbouring developments is not adversely affected and that future occupiers have acceptable levels of amenity in relation to noise, daylight, sunlight, privacy or immediate outlook.”

In summary, whilst we appreciate the challenges in marketing retail premises during a pandemic, the intensification hospitality and leisure developments in the Grassmarket will have a negative impact on residents and would result in further deterioration of living conditions.

The Cockburn, therefore, OBJECTS to this application.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Events and Filming in Public Space Consultation

Posted on: December 13, 2021

Our formal response to this Local Authority consultation on events and filming activities that take place in public spaces

Our formal response to this Local Authority consultation on events and filming activities that take place in public spaces

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn participated in a Stakeholders Forum organised by the Council and chaired by Councillor Donald Wilson, Convenor of the Culture and Communities Committee.  It included event and filming organisers, community councils, residents’ groups, business groups, friends’ groups, Council officers and interested individuals, and collaboratively engaged in an exercise to develop and recommend key principles for the use of public open space.

The current consultation is on these principles, and will inform the preparation of a Management Plan which will set out how Edinburgh will manage public open spaces (parks, greenspace, roads, plazas, squares under Council control) for events and filming.

The following is the Association’s response to the online consultation exercise.

Recommended Key Principle:

The Application and Approval for events and filming will be based on the scale of the activity, the impact it will have, both short and long term.

Q3. To what extent do you agree that decisions on events and filming should be based on the impact they will have on people and places?

Cockburn’s response – AGREE

Q4. Please Offer comments

This open-ended question makes giving a coherent and helpful comments difficult.  The Cockburn agrees that the approval of events and filming applications should be based on its impact first and foremost to the wider amenity of the city.

Fundamental to this should be the principle that the public have an absolute right of access to public land (parks, gardens, civic squares, streets) and any impact or dilution of this by events or filming activity must be considered carefully and cumulatively.

Scale of the event is only one contributor to impact and whilst the general thinking that smaller events have smaller impacts may hold true, this may not always be the case.  Similarly, a large-scale event, such the Edinburgh Marathon, due to how it operates, may not.

Nevertheless, an impact-based approach is welcome.

We would add a particular caveat on public spaces held on the Common Goods Register.  These spaces should also be framed in a wider public benefit principle, whereby access to these spaces by commercial events should start from the principle of no loss of access or enjoyment.  Thus, if a commercial event requires exclusive access or has specific safety requirements suggesting that access rights should be suspended, even temporarily, then the default position is that space is unsuitable for that event.

It is essential that the application process builds into it a proportionate and clear enforcement dimension.  Conditions attached to events must be monitored and adhered to in all circumstances.  There should be a presumption against relaxation of standards for temporary activities, and mitigating requirements should be put in place as part of any consents issued.  For example, permanent hospitality businesses with amplified music are required to have sound monitors and comply with strict conditions, including processes that cut power if agreed levels are exceeded.  Similar conditions with appropriate enforcement measures should be in place for public spaces.

Recommended Key Principles:

Events and filming deliver beneficial social value and support a lasting positive legacy for Edinburgh. Events and filming provide net positive economic, social and community benefits.

Q5. For Edinburgh – for an individual event or filming, what do you feel is important? Please select the level of importance for each of the below.

Financial benefit – not important

Social Benefit – important

Community Benefit – Very Important

Q6. For your local area – for an individual event or filming, what do you feel is important? Please select the level of importance for each of the below.

Financial Benefit – not important

Social Benefit – very important

Community Benefit – very important

Q7. Please use the space below for any comments or suggestions on the above.

Firstly, the assumption that events bring positive and lasting benefits needs to quantified and in many cases, challenged.  Very little analysis of the negative impact of filming and events has been undertaken.  Assertions of positive value can derive from untested or incomplete information that may overstate positive values and understate negative ones.  For example, a paper considered by the Policy and Sustainability Committee on 10 January 2021 on filming noted that a specific event generated less than £250,000 in income for the city but was required to be spent on the variety of traffic regulation and management, meaning the actual value of the filming was cost neutral. The paper highlighted the brand and marketing value but ignored the fact that the vast majority of tourists come to Edinburgh because of its historic architecture and townscape.  No analysis of the derivate added-value was undertaken.

The benefit of allowing public spaces to be used for private ventures should be required to demonstrate a direct benefit to the City.

Economically, the direct value to the City may be small in comparison to the value extracted by event operators.  For example, the Council’s published price list for holding events in Princes Street Gardens states a price of only £2,820 per day for a major event.  Gross ticket sales might be in excess of £250,000 for each day, and given no net profit information is available for study, it seems clear that use of public spaces is heavily discounted in comparison to the value of the use of that space to operators.  There are no published data sets that outline how much value from an event stays within the city.  It is entirely possible that the net value is quite small.

Many events are locally organised for local people.  These are a direct public benefit and are supportable.  However, it is important to differentiate between local and city-wide benefits, and to ensure that an event that might have wider positive value does not occur at a negative or disproportionate scale for those local neighbourhoods who might need to bare the most immediate impacts.

Recommended Key Principle:

The use of council-owned or public good sites for commercial events should be framed within a Community wealth building approach.

Q8. To what extent do you agree that ‘The use of council-owned or public good sites for commercial events should be framed within a Community wealth building approach.’?

Cockburn’s response – AGREE

Q9. Please use the space below for any comments or suggestions on the above.

In principle, we welcome this approach.

The Council should seek in all instances to ensure that any use of public space should be to the benefit of the public.

Recommended Key Principle:

Information on events and filming will be as open and transparent as confidentiality allows and proportionate to the scale of the activity and the impact it will have. It will be provided at the earliest opportunity, to all those who may be interested in it, in appropriate and accessible formats.

Q10. At what stage would you like to have information on events and filming?

Cockburn’s response – When a full application is made

Q11. Please use the space below for any comments or suggestions on the above.

Whilst we would encourage as open and transparent a process as possible, this may not be possible in all instances.   The use of public space for commercial events or filming should not be seen as a right.  Indeed the emerging Management Plan should make clear that using public assets for private commercial benefit is a privilege.  Therefore, we believe that confidentiality should be a secondary consideration to whether information is made available. Certainly, proportionality is accepted, but any attempt to conceal information on the scale or impact under the vail of confidentiality should be avoided at all costs.  This should be made clear in any application process.

Recommended Key Principle:

Area Conditions will have information available on the area including stakeholders, facilities, capacity, toilets, key contacts.

Q12. What’s important for you, that you feel organisers should have local information on when they are planning an event or filming in your area? (select all that apply)

Key people to contact (e.g. local suppliers, community / friends groups) ✅

Local facilities (e.g. toilets, electricity and water supply, storage)

Capacity (number of people who can attend at one time) ✅

Local suppliers and trades

Parking arrangements

Public transport

Access for deliveries

Access for care and health services

School activities and routes to schools

Q13. Please use the space below for any comments or suggestions on the above.

We appreciate that each area or site will have particular conditions are issues that are special to it, as well as wider more common conditions.  We would advocate that the Council, working with local groups, civic organisations and event representatives work together to determine those core conditions and information for each site as a useful guide for local and organisers alike.

Missing from this list is the carrying capacity of the public space to able to host a particular event.  Soft landscaped areas may be unsuitable for heavy infrastructure activities and could damage the public space to such an extent as to limit public access post-event.  An analysis of specific site conditions including tree and root systems, ground conditions, etc would be valuable in determining the acceptability or otherwise of a particular event at a particular site.

Common Good Land should appear as a separate condition.  If a public space is included on the Common Goods Register and is therefore a Common Goods Asset, this constraint should feature as local information.

Finally, when activities take place in parks or gardens, it is essential that the area conditions emphasis that the greenspace is the predominant characteristic to be considered.  These areas should not be considered venues within a landscaped setting, but are landscapes where events might be tolerated.

Recommended Key Principle:

A digital platform will hold:

  • an events and filming calendar
  • planned disruption to an area such as road works or construction
  • Area conditions
  • an application template with a guide to what’s required for a successful application, including notification of stakeholders likely to be impacted.
  • record and communicate the positive benefits events and filming provide, as well as the negative impacts, to ensure balanced analysis. 

Q14. How useful to you would be being able to see information on events and filming, both proposals and approved, on a web platform?

Cockburn’s response – Very Useful

Q16. Please use the space below for any comments or suggestions on the above.

We would welcome a new digital platform for events and filming in the city.

Access restrictions should be included under Area Conditions, especially if the Council promotes a section 11 exclusion under the Land Reform Act effectively extinguishing the public’s legal right of access to public land.

The cumulative impact of repeated activities is an important issue that should be addressed here.  In many circumstances, it is not a single activity that causes an impact but repeated events in a single space – for example, damage to soft surfaced areas like lawns.  A digital platform should be able to reflect changing circumstances that might reflect the suitability of use, or otherwise, of a site capability to host an event.

Recommended Key Principle:

Organisers must demonstrate that events and filming respect and contribute to the city’s cultural identity, reputation and quality of life for residents. They will be expected to join with Edinburgh residents in taking responsibility for the good appearance of the city.

Q16. To what extent do you agree that events and filming organisers should respect and contribute to the city’s cultural identity, reputation and quality of life for residents?

Cockburn’s response – strongly agree.

Q17. Please use the space below for any comments or suggestions on the above.

We would support the second aspiration of the principle, namely sharing with residents (and other sectors too) responsibility for the appearance of the city.  Therefore, there should be a requirement for events and filming operations to articulate their specific positive contribution to this principle including an aspiration/expectation that public spaces are left in at least the same if not better condition than when the event took place. For significant activities, this might mean a condition survey is undertaken prior to approval to set a benchmark for management and reinstatement, if needed.

With the first element, we would support this.  Guidance will be necessary to help organisers understand what is expected of them, including expections of local residents for their amenity.  We would advocate that the Council improves its Environmental Health monitoring and enforcement systems, controls and capacity, providing a simple portal for any concerns regarding impacts on the quality of life.

Clear and unambiguous guidance on noise and access/travel disruption is needed.  Similarly, organisers must ensure that they adhere to other regulatory frameworks, policies and guidelines.  For example, in many instances operators have undertaken significant events without the necessary planning consents in place.  Clear information on when consents are required is necessary including timescales for the appropriate consideration of information or applications.  We believe that the core environment policies in the Local Development Plan should be made clear to organisers as a set of agreed principles for spatial management in the city.  This would include information at the point of application on whether planning consent is required.  In this regard, a more integrated, joined-up Council service will be required.

Recommended Key Principle:

Events and filming must comply with Edinburgh’s Sustainability Approach to be ‘net zero’ by 2030 and events with the principles of ISO 20121.

Q18. How important for you is it to have information on the carbon impact of events and filming?

Cockburn response – Very important

Q19. How important for you is it to have information on what organisers of events and filming are doing to reduce their overall carbon impact?

Cockburn response – Very important

Recommended Key Principle:

Applications will be expected to follow the principles and guidelines. In exceptional circumstances an applicant may seek modification or departure from these principles but will be required to present their case, including mitigations, to impacted stakeholders and for scrutiny by the Council. The Council, after due consideration and taking account of comments, will not be obliged to grant the exception.

Q20. In exceptional circumstances, do you think it would be OK for an event or filming to deviate from these principles, where it would have a clear positive benefit for Edinburgh?

Cockburn response – Yes

Q21. Please use the space below for any comments or suggestions on the above.

The nature of “exceptional” and “clear positive benefit” will need to be defined.  Any decision-making process needs to have proportionate and transparent mechanism for such exceptions.

We would suggest that the request to extinguish access rights under section 11 of the Land Reform Act be considered an exceptional circumstance by definition.  Only in the most significant applications should denying access to public space be considered acceptable.  If a commercial event requires such exclusivity, then it is mostly likely an unsuitable event.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

An exploration of syphilis at the Surgeons’ Hall Museum

Mon, 14 February 2022 at 7pm in the Surgeons' Hall Musuem

The Great Pox was rarely talked about in the nineteenth century but its effects were everywhere. Primarily sexually transmitted, it’s devastating effects could last a lifetime, leading to the saying “One night with Venus, a lifetime with Mercury”. Human Remains Conservator Cat Irving will show specimens from Surgeons’ Hall’s collections demonstrating what this dreaded disease does to the body, how …

Book Here

Back to Listings

Dr. Robert Knox: More Than the Boy Who Bought the Beef

Thu, 27 January 2022 at 7pm in the Surgeons' Hall Museum

Dr. Robert Knox is often associated with Burke and Hare. Join the Surgeons’ Halls Museums as they delve a little deeper and uncover some of his lesser known tales. Most people’s opinion of Robert Knox is entirely one-dimensional, superficial and prejudiced by the standard narrative of the Burke and Hare affair. Knox was vilified in the press yet the 10 …

Book Here

Back to Listings

Surgeons’ Hall Museums Conservation Workshop

Tues 25 January 2022 from 13:00 – 16:00 - Event is included in the price of a standard museum admission

Have you ever wondered how the Surgeons’ Hall Museums maintain their vast collection of specimens? Join Cat Irving, Human Remains Conservator, as she explains how anatomical specimens are prepared and preserved, through different methods of treatment. You’ll see first-hand, maintenance work taking place on the Supernumerary limb in our Wohl Pathology Museum. The conservation drop-in is included in the price …

Book Here

Back to Listings

Commercial Hospitality Space at 23 Elm Row

Posted on: December 7, 2021

Our comments objecting to a proposal to erect a wooden gazebo structure and decked area on the public footpath at Elm Row.

Our comments objecting to a proposal to erect a wooden gazebo structure and decked area on the public footpath at Elm Row.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn has considered this application and would wish to OBJECT to it on the grounds that it would involve the quasi-privatisation of public urban space; would affect the wider amenity of neighbouring residents and businesses; is poorly designed in the context of the specific location and negatively impacts on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 

We have no objection to the current tabling licensing system in place, whereby a small number of tables are placed discretely beside the operator’s premises.  Licensing conditions require tables and chairs to be removed each evening, restoring the area back to unfettered public use.  This flexible and temporary system works well. 

Our concern lies with the erection of a permanent structure, which would effectively privatise in the region of two-thirds of the current public space available to this business into its control.

It is important to recognise that the possible cumulative impact if other neighbouring businesses seeking to do the same. 

We set out our general and detailed views on this type of development in greater detail below.

Overall context – The Cockburn has outlined general concerns about the proliferation of outdoor seating developments on numerous occasions but notes the context of Covid and Covid recovery for hospitality businesses. We continue to sympathise with businesses who have struggled during the enforced lockdown period. However, with the ongoing easing of Covid restrictions, the reasoning for such relaxation of licensing and planning restrictions is also diminishing. Where on-street out-door eating and drinking installations have already been put in place under a relaxation of planning restrictions, we understand that the temporary arrangement for such provisions is coming to an end. 

We are not surprised that some traders wish to retain structures that are already in place and that other traders are coming forward with applications for entirely new structure. This increases the number of covers available and with the current uncertainty of Covid and government guidance, provides a basis for continued, safe operations. 

Need for unified, design-led approach – Edinburgh Street Design Guidance is largely silent on these outdoor seating areas although many broader principles apply including the need to reduce street clutter and the importance of uncongested, clear from obstruction pedestrian zones.

The Cockburn believes that interventions into Edinburgh’s streetscape, especially within Conservation Areas across the city, must be unified (i.e., consistent across a wider area), design-led and developed in such a manner as to enhance the character of streets. It should not be left to individual businesses to create their own visions for the public realm.

A revised and updated policy framework is required that takes on board all the City of Edinburgh’s Council’s pledges and commitments. 

Street Clutter – At a recent meeting of the City of Edinburgh Council, Councillors reaffirmed their support for Transport for All’s Equal Pavements Pledge. This acknowledges that being able to move around the urban environment freely is a right that should be allowed to all those who live in, work in and visit Edinburgh, including those with complex needs. Outdoor seating areas such as that proposed here complicates the facilitation of free and unfettered access across the city. 

We note the abolition of A-board across the city as an example of the Council’s commitment to free access. 

Privatisation/Appropriation of public space – The Cockburn has frequently voiced its concern about the ongoing privatisation of public spaces across the city. We have spoken out against the trend of the City of Edinburgh Council increasingly using the city’s existing public spaces, parks and green spaces to raise funds, by making their land available to private companies who charge for ticketed events and restrict access to parks and green spaces for extended periods. 

We are not against all use of public and quasi-public spaces, particularly parks and greenspaces, for events and associated activities. But such events and pop-ups for al fresco dining and drinking, including those on and in association with streets, must be assessed and open for review and comment within a relevant and up-to-date policy framework. Edinburgh lack such a policy framework currently.

Wider Amenity Impacts – We note that at recent meeting of the City of Edinburgh Council councillors agreed that the Council would write to the Scottish Government to ask for powers to deal with problems associated amplified busking and street entertainment across the city and to facilitate the engagement of residents who are concerned about related noise disturbances. 

This suggests that the policy and practice framework relating to the consideration of noise from on-street eating and drinking installations is likely to be subject to change and be the subject of restriction in the near term, certainly that the Council is minded to take a more restrictive view of actions, activities and potential sources of street noise such as on-street eating and drinking facilities.

Assessment of outdoor seating against current LDP policies – Notwithstanding the comments above, it is our view the city’s current planning policy framework does not support on-street al fresco dining and drinking as uncoordinated individual planning applications.   

In our view, the proposals are not consistent with  Policy ENV 6 – Conservation Areas (Development), Policy ENV18 Open Space Protection, Policy Del 2 City Centre – Development, Policy Des 1 Design Quality, Policy Des 5 Development Design – Amenity,  and Policy Des 8 Public Realm and Landscape Design.

For completeness, we have no objections to the current table licensing arrangements subject to the adherence of the guidelines associated with any specific licencing conditions. 

Further Details Here

Back to Listings