Cockburn Response

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.