Overscaled, ill-proportioned mansard roof harms the New Town Conservation Area, contrary to City Plan 2030 Policy Env 14 and NPF4 Policy 7, despite housing need
Overscaled, ill-proportioned mansard roof harms the New Town Conservation Area, contrary to City Plan 2030 Policy Env 14 and NPF4 Policy 7, despite housing need
The Cockburn Association objects to the planning proposal for 57 Henderson Row.
The site itself embodies a layered history that reflects both Edinburgh’s industrial evolution and a thoughtful alignment with its architectural context. Mid‑Victorian ambitions to extend the Second New Town gave way to industrial and commercial uses. Workshops, foundries, small factories and shops were built tightly to the pavements along Dundas Street and Fettes Row, adapting to a sloping site that could not have supported the regular street pattern of the Georgian New Town. A brief attempt in 1880 to re‑imagine the space for tenements, to designs by John Lessels, was abandoned. Instead, by the mid‑1880s, the site became home to a landmark cable‑tram depot, elegantly designed in ashlar stone by engineer William Hamilton Beattie, with a handsome two‑storey central engine house, wings providing staff housing. The depot served the tram system, later a bus garage, and was adapted in the 1920s into a police garage, a public wash‑house and electricity substation. In the late 1980s, Scottish Life acquired the site, carefully incorporating the depot fragment as the centrepiece of a granite‑toned “neo‑Second Empire” office development, sensitively balancing post‑modern flourishes with the memory of the historic depot.
Against this layered and thoughtfully adapted architectural fabric stands the current proposal: a lumpen, grossly ill‑proportioned double mansard roof extension that obliterates the composition of the building. It overwhelms the refined massing inherited from both its Georgian context and the carefully situated late‑20th century addition. Far from complementing the existing structure, the proposal crashes into its form with ill-considered bulk and bewildering scale. The effect is not only inelegant but jarringly discordant, detrimental to the harmony of the New Town Conservation Area.
This harm is compounded by the lack of verified visual assessments from critical vantage points such as Calton Hill or nearby Georgian and Edwardian streets. Without these, the full impact of this dissonant roofline on the Conservation Area and adjacent World Heritage Site and skyline cannot be judged. Experience and best practice underscore the necessity of such documentation in development proposals affecting sensitive heritage zones such as this.
City Plan 2030 Policy Env 14 requires that new development, extensions, and alterations within conservation areas must preserve or enhance their special architectural and historic character. Proposals must respect scale, form, materials, and setting, and avoid adverse impacts on the historic environment. The current proposal manifestly fails these requirements, as the double mansard roof would introduce a lumpen, ill-proportioned form that overwhelms the building’s composition and damages the character of the New Town Conservation Area. Policy Env 14 aligns with NPF4 Policy 7 (Historic Assets and Places), this is not just a local but also a national policy concern.
The Cockburn Association’s acknowledges, and supports, Edinburgh’s housing emergency. While we strongly advocate for quality, sustainable housing, and have repeatedly emphasised the urgency of delivering this, poorly conceived development that damages the character and setting of a heritage area cannot be tolerated. Approving this submission would send a damaging precedent: an invitation to sacrifice architectural integrity beneath the guise of delivering homes.
For these reasons, we oppose the application in its current form. We urge the Council to insist upon verified contextual views, substantial reduction in roof mass, and a redesign that harmonizes with both the original building’s scale and the composition of adjacent Georgian and Edwardian streets, thereby honouring the New Town’s heritage while still enabling appropriate housing delivery.
The histories, legacies, and repatriation of Edinburgh’s African skull collections
Surprising and touching experiences, specially curated for Edinburgh’s 900th year.
Malik Al Nasir explores Black and British history and his new book
A group wildlife recording excursion.
Explore four centuries of objects from the National Museum and NTS properties.
A free monthly tour of the exhibition in the University of Edinburgh’s Main Library.
The Cockburn Association objects to the planning applications 25/03537/FUL and 25/03538/LBC. Our concerns centre on the potential impact upon the character of the New Town Conservation Area, the integrity of the listed building, and the wider Edinburgh World Heritage Site.
Visual and Heritage Impact
The applications are not supported by adequate visual impact assessments, particularly verified views from key public vantage points such as Calton Hill and surrounding streetscapes. Views from Castle and glimpses from the Old Town also very important. Without these, it is not possible to assess the full implications of the proposals on the New Town Conservation Area or the setting of the listed building. We consider that the development risks eroding the established character and appearance of this highly sensitive historic environment. We therefore request that detailed visualisations are provided and assessed in line with relevant heritage policies.
Listed Building Integrity
We are concerned about the potential impact of additional roof loading and other alterations on the structural stability of the listed building. It is vital that any proposal demonstrates that the historic fabric of the building will not be compromised. We urge the planning authority to subject any structural assessments to rigorous scrutiny before determination.
Determination by Committee
Given the prominence of the site and its heritage sensitivity, we support the request made by Marks and Spencer that the application be determined by the Development Management Sub-Committee rather than under delegated powers. This will ensure appropriate public scrutiny and a full consideration of the heritage impacts.
For these reasons, we ask that the applications be refused in their current form.