Edinburgh Museums Collection Centre: Making Edinburghers Gallus Again
Nov 20
Relive your memories
Relive your memories
Protect Atholl Crescent’s heritage; reject intensive transient pods, favour residential.
Protect Atholl Crescent’s heritage; reject intensive transient pods, favour residential.
The Cockburn Association wishes to begin by acknowledging the constructive engagement provided by the applicant. We are grateful for the opportunity to visit both the Atholl Crescent buildings and a completed example of the developer’s work on Victoria Street. These visits helped clarify the design intent and allowed useful discussion around the challenges of adapting historic fabric.
We also recognise the wider policy context and the need to broaden the city’s accommodation offer, particularly in terms of affordability and accessibility. Edinburgh benefits when visitor provision is diverse, inclusive, and sensitively integrated into the life of the city. Ensuring that people of varying incomes and mobility needs can stay in central Edinburgh is a legitimate aim, and one we do not dismiss.
However, following detailed review of the proposals, we must object. The buildings at Atholl Crescent are of the highest architectural and historical significance, forming part of a distinguished early nineteenth-century terrace within the New Town Conservation Area and the UNESCO World Heritage Site. While we acknowledge that some modern alterations have taken place internally, the terrace retains important elements of its original plan form, spatial hierarchy. The proposed intensive subdivision of principal spaces, installation of pod-style units and new services throughout, and associated physical interventions would, in our view, result in substantial and irreversible harm to the special architectural and historic interest of these Category A listed structures. This would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Historic Environment Policy for Scotland, which places great weight on protecting and enhancing cultural significance.
We are equally concerned about the high-density transient use proposed. Atholl Crescent and Atholl crescent Lane retain a residential character. The scale of occupation, turnover of guests, servicing needs, and late-night activity associated with this model of accommodation would introduce significant intensification into a location planned and built as a quiet domestic street. We do not believe that a pod-style hotel aligns with the character, amenity, or lived environment of this part of the New Town. In our view, this conflicts with policies in City Plan 2030 which require development to safeguard residential amenity and maintain balanced, sustainable communities.
A crucial material factor in this case is the existence of extant consent for a lower-density residential scheme. That consent demonstrates that a viable, heritage-appropriate future for these buildings already exists, one that restores their domestic character, supports a living community, and avoids the physical and operational pressures of intensive transient use. Our concern is therefore not an abstract wish to retain every former office building as housing, but the real-world comparison between two clearly identified paths: a settled residential restoration aligned with the historic form and community fabric of the Crescent, or a significantly more intensive visitor use with greater operational impacts and less obvious benefit to the character and wellbeing of the surrounding neighbourhood.
In this context, the key public-interest question remains unanswered: why should a far more intensive transient scheme be considered preferable to a viable consented residential use that would better sustain the New Town’s historic function as a lived-in community? We have not seen compelling evidence that such a shift would enhance the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site or contribute positively to the long-term stewardship of these buildings.
We also note the absence of clear long-term heritage management and maintenance proposals, which are essential for buildings of such national importance.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the applications be refused. We would be pleased to see revised proposals that protect the architectural integrity of the interiors, avoid over-intensification, and support the Crescent’s continued role as part of a living residential quarter. The Cockburn remains willing to work constructively with the applicant to explore a conservation-led scheme that secures the buildings’ future and maintains the character and community balance of this important part of the New Town.
Call for contextual, sustainable, and community-focused redesign of Western Harbour
Call for contextual, sustainable, and community-focused redesign of Western Harbour
The Cockburn Association acknowledges the urgent need for new homes in Edinburgh and supports, in principle, the residential redevelopment of this long-vacant brownfield site within the Western Harbour area. However, having reviewed the current submission, we remain unable to offer support at this stage. The proposal, as it stands, does not demonstrate the design ambition, contextual awareness, or public-realm quality required for such a prominent waterfront location.
The architecture and overall layout continue to appear overly generic, with monolithic massing and limited articulation across the elevations. The design does not respond convincingly to its immediate context or to the distinctive maritime character of the area. We question the continuing tendency to reference the industrial or warehouse styles of Leith when this part of the harbour lies geographically and visually closer to Newhaven, with its more traditional maritime vernacular. The current design language feels misplaced in a residential context and risks producing a development that is neither rooted in its surroundings nor reflective of the waterfront’s authentic identity.
The original Robert Adam masterplan for Western Harbour, upon which this site and the adjoining parcels (A2–C) were based, at least attempted to respect a more traditional maritime design history, employing varied densities, rooflines, and visual interest to create a legible sense of place. This proposal abandons much of that ambition. As Site A1 will inevitably set the tone and design precedent for subsequent phases at the northern tip of the harbour, it is essential that this stage is handled with far greater care and imagination.
Equally concerning is the absence of reference to the derelict Lighthouse building, one of the few remaining physical reminders of the area’s nautical heritage. This application represents an ideal opportunity to explore its restoration and repurposing for community use, thereby delivering tangible public benefit while preserving a key element of the site’s maritime legacy. Its omission is a significant missed opportunity, particularly given the building’s prominence and deteriorating condition.
The handling of landscape and ecology remains weak. The proposal lacks a convincing ecological or landscape framework that demonstrates how the existing ponds, woodland, and wetland habitats will be retained and enhanced. These natural features are valuable assets that contribute to biodiversity and climate resilience, and their protection should be central to the development concept. Similarly, the public-realm strategy remains underdeveloped and fails to show how the site will provide meaningful connections to the waterfront, high-quality open space, and safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists.
We also note with concern that the application does not include an Affordable Housing Statement, which remains a required component for a complete submission. While the plans reference a 35% affordable housing quota, this must be supported by clear evidence that at least 70% of that quota will be delivered as social housing by a registered provider. In the context of Edinburgh’s ongoing housing crisis, such provision is essential. The statement should also explain the rationale behind the differing proportions of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units across tenures and confirm compliance with the requirement for 20% of homes to be built to wheelchair-accessible standards. The absence of this information limits proper public and policy scrutiny.
Given the site’s scale, visibility, and strategic importance, the quality benchmark for design and delivery should be considerably higher. A development of this magnitude should aspire to create a coherent, distinctive, and sustainable neighbourhood that reflects its setting on the Forth and contributes positively to Edinburgh’s evolving waterfront identity. Without stronger design ambition, a clearer ecological framework, and a transparent affordable-housing strategy, there is a real risk that this project will fall short of its potential.
We therefore recommend that the planning authority require substantial revisions to the scheme before approval is considered. These should include a refined design approach grounded in the site’s maritime context; the preparation of a robust landscape and ecology plan that retains and enhances existing natural assets; a detailed Affordable Housing Statement addressing social-let provision and accessibility standards; and consideration of the restoration and community reuse of the Lighthouse building as a heritage and placemaking asset.
In summary, while the Cockburn Association supports the principle of new housing at Western Harbour, we believe that this proposal, in its current form, lacks the architectural distinctiveness, contextual sensitivity, and social commitment required to deliver a development of enduring value. We urge the applicant and the planning authority to work collaboratively to produce a scheme that realises the true potential of this important waterfront site, one that honours its maritime legacy, meets the city’s social-housing needs, and contributes meaningfully to a sustainable and distinctive Edinburgh waterfront.
Steven Veerapen discusses 1605’s Gunpowder Plot
An evening of conversations with the authors of “Campaigning for Edinburgh
Cockburn objects: overdevelopment, heritage harm, community imbalance, and unsustainable demolition
Cockburn objects: overdevelopment, heritage harm, community imbalance, and unsustainable demolition
The Cockburn Association welcomes the opportunity to comment on this revised proposal for 50 Gillespie Crescent. We recognise that the applicant, S Harrison Developments Ltd in partnership with Sight Scotland, has sought to address the reasons for refusal of the earlier 2023 scheme (references 23/06623/FUL and 23/06624/CON) and the subsequent appeals dismissed by the DPEA in 2024. While the design revisions represent a modest improvement in terms of articulation and materiality, the Association remains unable to support the application.
The existing building, although altered and of limited individual distinction, contributes to the established rhythm, height and grain of the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area. Its demolition can only be justified if the proposed replacement demonstrably enhances the townscape. The revised design, despite the introduction of a mansard roof and a more refined fenestration pattern, continues to read as an assertive and monolithic intervention that fails to respect the delicate proportions and roofline character of Gillespie Crescent. In our view, the proposal would erode the area’s historic coherence and would not achieve the enhancement required under NPF 4 Policy 1 and City Plan 2030 Policy ENV 10.
Although the applicant’s design team has worked to reduce the overall massing, the new block remains visually dominant when viewed in context with its tenement neighbours. The relationship between scale, height and plot width remains unconvincing, and the building’s apparent bulk is likely to harm the character and appearance of the conservation area, contrary to NPF 4 Policy 28 and City Plan 2030 Policy DES 1. We acknowledge the improved use of stone and the reuse of materials from the existing structure, but these measures do not overcome the fundamental issue of overdevelopment.
The Association is also concerned about the continuing over-concentration of purpose-built student accommodation in this part of Bruntsfield and Marchmont. The cumulative impact of repeated PBSA developments is increasingly evident in the erosion of community balance, the displacement of permanent residents and the narrowing of housing diversity. The present proposal would further intensify this pattern, running counter to the objectives of NPF 4 Policy 16(c) and City Plan 2030 Policy HOU 8, which seek to sustain balanced communities and promote a mix of housing types and tenures. While the need for well-managed student housing is recognised, it should not come at the expense of local character or social cohesion.
Although the proportion of external amenity space has been increased from 13 per cent to 43 per cent, the quality and usability of these areas remain uncertain. The submitted drawings suggest that overshadowing and privacy impacts for both future residents and existing neighbours may persist, particularly along the rear boundary. The building’s proximity to adjoining gardens and the scale of its rear elevation appear likely to compromise residential amenity and reinforce the sense of overdevelopment within a constrained site.
The Cockburn welcomes the applicant’s stated commitment to achieving BREEAM ‘Excellent’ and the inclusion of renewable technologies such as air-source heat pumps and photovoltaic panels. However, NPF 4 Policy 1 sets a clear presumption in favour of building retention and retrofit wherever feasible. While we note the feasibility study submitted in support of demolition, we believe that the economic arguments for replacement should be independently verified to ensure that all realistic options for adaptive reuse have been properly explored. Retention and sensitive adaptation would be inherently more sustainable than complete demolition and new construction, even with offsetting measures.
In conclusion, the Cockburn Association recognises the applicant’s effort to respond to the findings of the DPEA Reporter and to improve aspects of design and sustainability. Nevertheless, we remain unconvinced that the proposed development represents an enhancement of the conservation area or a responsible contribution to a balanced community. The proposal continues to present concerns relating to excessive scale, heritage impact, loss of embodied carbon, and further saturation of PBSA within this part of the city. For these reasons, the Association objects to planning application 25/02255/FUL and respectfully requests that the Council refuse permission. Should the authority be minded to approve, we urge that any consent be subject to conditions requiring a reduction in overall height, strengthened landscaping and boundary treatment, a comprehensive Construction Management Plan to protect neighbour amenity, and a robust Student Management Plan ensuring active engagement with the local community.
