Princes Street Advertising

Posted on: June 28, 2024

We consider it highly likely that it have a negative impact

We consider it highly likely that it have a negative impact

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn objects to this application.

The proposed advertising will have an extremely prominent position in the World Heritage Site and Conservation Area.  It  will be in place for an extended period of time.

We accept that the proposed shrouding will incorporate an image of the building’s façade.  Nevertheless, given  the scale and prominence of the proposed advertising we consider it highly likely

that it have a negative impact on the perception and experience of  Edinburgh’s historic city centre and one of its most iconic streets by many visitors and tourists to the city.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Finance House

Posted on: April 28, 2024

In our view the approved residential redevelopment should go ahead

In our view the approved residential redevelopment should go ahead

Cockburn Response

We do not support this application.

This former office block has already achieved planning permission  for part change of use and part redevelopment to mainstream residential use.  In our view this approved redevelopment should go ahead.

In November 2023, Councillors during a Full Council meeting in Edinburgh overwhelmingly voted to recognise and seek to address the scale of Edinburgh’s housing crisis by officially declaring a Housing Emergency.

In view of this declaration we believe that it would be inconsistent with this declaration for the Council to approve this new application.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Makars’ Court gazebo

Posted on: April 27, 2024

We understand that Makars’ Court is a Common Good asset

We understand that Makars’ Court is a Common Good asset

Cockburn Response

We object to this application which, in our view, represents the commercialisation of an important area of public space which provides heritage interest, amenity and access in the heart of the Old Town.  We cannot support this proposed change of use.

The City of Edinburgh Museums Service  describes Makars’ Court as ‘an evolving national monument’ with ‘famous words of great Scottish authors inscribed in the flagstones’.  This application does not support the court’s continuing development as al literary heritage asset.

We understand that Makars’ Court is a Common Good asset.  Under Part 8 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, Local Authorities as required to carry out a consultation exercise when seeking to change the use, or sell, any properties forming part of the Common Good. This application includes an area of commercial space and represents a change of use, in our view, and, as such, representation should have been sought on this proposal through an appropriate consultation. exercise in the terms of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 .

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Proposed Student Accommodation Dunedin Street (Revised)

Posted on: April 19, 2024

An opportunity to engage residents in the preparation of a Local Place Plan

An opportunity to engage residents in the preparation of a Local Place Plan

Cockburn Response

We acknowledge that this revised application seeks to address issues of concern raised in relation to the original, similar application on this site including overdevelopment, lack of sympathy with local built character, lack of internal/external amenity space, lack of private/public greenspace, poor integration of waste and recycling facilities.
However, our comments in relation to the original application remain relevant.
This part of Edinburgh is in danger of being redeveloped through ad hoc market driven development.
There is an ideal opportunity here to engage residents in the preparation of a Local Place Plan to enable the local community to submit ideas and proposals for their own local area. Introduced by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, Local Place Plans are a way for communities to think about how to make their place better, to agree priorities, and to take action to make change happen.
In preparing their own community-led Local Place Plan, the local community in this part of Edinburgh could express its aspirations and priorities for the future through the submission of ideas and proposals for the development or use of land and buildings.
Once registered, the Local Place Plan could then be taken into account by The City of Edinburgh Council a material consideration when planning applications are being considered.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Mecca Bingo Hall Manderston Street

Posted on:

A new Edinburgh-wide  student needs assessment is now urgently required

A new Edinburgh-wide  student needs assessment is now urgently required

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association supports this application.

 

We acknowledge that this  is a constrained site with development challenges.  Bearing this in mind, PBSA redevelopment is an acceptable use of the site which will secure much of the remaining external heritage interest.

 

This former mill has been extensively modified over its history and most of its heritage features have been lost.  However,  we would ask that an effort be made to salvage any remaining  art deco features of interest either for reuse on site or for incorporation into other projects elsewhere.

 

We are generally supportive of PBSA developments which feature cluster flats in their design since these offer a better student living environment and are more likely to offer future opportunities for conversion to mainstream housing should market demand  for student housing diminish.

 

We are aware of local concerns regarding this and nearby student accommodation developments in the context of the city’s ongoing housing emergency.   It is now essential that the City of Edinburgh Council commissions an independent data-driven student needs assessment for Edinburgh  to inform the Council’s current and  future  planning  position on student housing needs in the City.

 

It is clear that Edinburgh has a significant and varied housing need  with many permanent and transitory residents facing real challenges  in their search for  suitable and affordable accommodation.  A growing student population runs the risk of exasperating an already difficult balance of housing needs and supply.

 

A new Edinburgh-wide  student needs assessment is now urgently required  to provide a robust evidence base from which consideration can be given to how to manage student accommodation now and in the future, including reviewing the threshold for the numbers of university students living outside of managed accommodation; and policies for the delivery of purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA).

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Ratcliffe Terrace Demolition and PBSA Development

Posted on: April 13, 2024

The continued demolition of perfectly sound and usable buildings is simply unsupportable

The continued demolition of perfectly sound and usable buildings is simply unsupportable

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn objects this application.

The proposed demotion  of the current building on Ratcliffe Terrace cannot be justified.  This quirky,  distinctive and highly  original building is clearly suitable for continued use or  for imaginative conversion.  It is of some local heritage interest and  a valuable survivor of a Newington streetscape that has lost many similar features of interest and distinction over the years.  In the current climate emergency the continued demolition of perfectly sound and usable buildings such as this  is simply unsupportable.

We consider that the proposed six-storey purpose-built student residential development has nothing to recommend it.   It  is of a poor architectural design  whose  height, scale, bulk, massing, horizontal pattern and materiality are odds with the prevailing streetscape.   We question whether this proposal has appropriate levels of internal and external amenity space, external greenspace and adequate access and servicing arrangements.

The design of the proposed building seems to anticipate the potential for future expansion onto adjacent light industrial areas should these become available for redevelopment.

We also note local concerns regarding the increasing concentration of student accommodation  blocks in this area of the city.  These concerns underline the need  for objective, comprehensive and data-driven student needs assessments to accompany every PBSA application.

 

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Planning Consultation Jock’s Lodge, Edinburgh

POSTED ON September 2, 2022

We acknowledge that this may be a suitable site for student accommodation and that such developments can bring many associated benefits. However, we do not support the current proposals as it stands and, without significant amendments, we are likely to object to the associated planning application when it is lodged.

We acknowledge that this may be a suitable site for student accommodation and that such developments can bring many associated benefits. However, we do not support the current proposals as it stands and, without significant amendments, we are likely to object to the associated planning application when it is lodged.

Support the Cockburn

Donate
Join Us

Back to Listings

Planning Consultation Jock’s Lodge, Edinburgh

Posted on:

We acknowledge that this may be a suitable site for student accommodation and that such developments can bring many associated benefits. However, we do not support the current proposals as it stands and, without significant amendments, we are likely to object to the associated planning application when it is lodged.

We acknowledge that this may be a suitable site for student accommodation and that such developments can bring many associated benefits. However, we do not support the current proposals as it stands and, without significant amendments, we are likely to object to the associated planning application when it is lodged.

Cockburn Response

Back to Listings

Canongate Student Housing

Posted on: May 20, 2022

We are supportive of this scheme’s intention to maintain the character of this historic gasworks site through the retention of key features such as the perimeter wall and workshop.

We are supportive of this scheme’s intention to maintain the character of this historic gasworks site through the retention of key features such as the perimeter wall and workshop.

Cockburn Response

We have lodged a neutral comment on this application.

We are supportive of this scheme’s intention to maintain the character of this historic gasworks site through the retention of key features such as the perimeter wall and workshop.  Although attention to detail during the implementation  of this scheme will be crucial to its success.

And we also accept that this appears to be a suitable location for student accommodation.

However,  the number of recently built and consented student housing schemes across the city is a concern.  An updated socio-economic impact assessment is now urgently required to understand the actual or potential impact of existing and future student housing development on local residents and neighbourhood civic life and to provide a complete context for the assessment of new applications.

Image: taken from planning application, copyright may be protected.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Fringe venue in the Meadows

Posted on: May 19, 2022

We believe this development is inconsistent with Local Development Plan policies and with the Council’s obligations to manage Common Good Assets for the public benefit. Read more below.

We believe this development is inconsistent with Local Development Plan policies and with the Council’s obligations to manage Common Good Assets for the public benefit. Read more below.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association would wish to offer the following comments on this application.  We do so in the context of the previous consent for use of the site by the same applicant (21/02736/FUL), which was the first ever formal planning decision for the use of the Meadows for a major event.  That consent was issued for a short duration only and in the context of the Covid emergency.  In discussing that application, the Development Management Sub-Committee expressed reservations about the use of such a soft-surfaced public park, although it did approve the application. 

 We would wish to object this application. 

As the direct impact of Covid begins to recede, we continue to believe it is essential for the local economy get back on its feet and to get the iconic Festivals back in operation.  However, we do so in the context of our continued opposition to the use of public parks and gardens for “gated” heavy infrastructure events such as this.  

The Cockburn acknowledges that the applicant has erected similar infrastructure on this site having secured a contract from the City Council to do.  The “Lady Boys of Bangkok” operated from here for several years.  Other events such as the Meadows Festival and Moonwalk use the Meadows, and historically, the 1886 International Exhibition of Industry, Science and Art was sited here where a temporary dispensation to the erection of buildings was allowed. 

However, until last year, no planning consent had been sought for their operation in The Meadows despite it being a very clear Change of Use to Class 11 (Assembly and Leisure) and operates for longer than the 28 days in any year.  We continue to believe that the implications of such a change of use are considerable.  It would permit large wholly commercial developments to use a public open space year-round and could set a dangerous precedent for other open spaces in the city.  

Covid has also demonstrated the critical need to preserve open spaces for well-being, both physical and mental.  The enclosure of a sizable part of the Meadows will have a material impact on space available for informal recreation and enjoyment, and should be resisted.  

Fundamentally, the Cockburn believes that soft landscaped areas should not be used for events that require heavy infrastructure due to the damage that they cause.  The proximity to trees causes further concern due to the potential compaction of root systems leading to long-term decay or even loss.  We dispute the assessment by the applicant that no trees are affected by the application.  Root systems at both Middle Meadow Walk and Boy’s Brigade Walk will be affected, especially the former with the hospitality elements located adjacent to the existing avenue.  We also understand that a Noise Impact Assessment has been requested by the Council but is not included in the application documents.   

We note that the Edinburgh Improvement Act of 1827 expressly stipulates that no buildings may be erected in the Meadows or Bruntsfield Links.  The Meadows are also Common Good Assets, requiring the Council to manage them for the benefit of residents.  We believe that this development is contrary to the spirit, if not fact, of the 1827 Act and to the use as an enclosed, exclusive event space is not consistent with Common Good land.  Also, section 104 of The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 requires the local authority to consult with the local community when it is planning to dispose of common good property or change its use. Additionally, the local authority must publish details of the proposed disposal or change of use of common good property and notify and invite representations from community councils and community bodies.  This suggests that a s.104 consultation needs to take place before any planning decision is taken.  

The Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area Character Appraisal notes that the Meadows is the largest urban recreational parkland in the city and affords panoramic views to the north and east. It also notes the importance of the recreational open space at Brunstfield Links and Meadows as one of the premier open spaces in the city.  The appraisal indicates that it is designated a Millenium Park, which means that the Council will ensure that the park is protected in perpetuity as community open space. The appraisal also notes the occasional use by festival temporary venues. 

The Cockburn continues to believe that there are other sites in the city more suitable to this event.  Festival Square and the related Conference Square provides a hard surfaced area more than capable of hosting this event this year, close to Princes Street and a variety of public transport corridors.  Large car parks such as Meadowbank Retail Park might also be alternatives.    

In addition, we strongly advocate that pop-up food and drink facilities should be deleted from the proposals.  It is more important that established, permanent year-round neighbouring pubs and restaurants benefit from any trade associated with this type of use.  Almost half the site is given over to its use as a licensed premise.  We liken this to be similar to a cruise ship – self-contained with the objective of reducing off-site sales to a minimum.  Whilst this might be good for the operator, it does little to support the local economy. 

Relevant development plan policies are: 

Policy ENV 6 – Conservation Areas (Development) states, “Development within a conservation area or affecting its setting will be permitted which: a) preserves or enhances the special character or appearance of the conservation area and is consistent with the relevant conservation area character appraisal b) preserves trees, hedges, boundary walls, railings, paving and other features which contribute positively to the character of the area and c) demonstrates high standards of design and utilises materials appropriate to the historic environment.” 

Our view – the CACA makes it clear that its character is an open space and its appearance is as an open parkland.  The erection of a temporary building to host a commercial event with gated access is not consistent with its special character. 

Policy ENV12 Trees states “Development will not be permitted if likely to have a damaging impact on a tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order or on any other tree or woodland worthy of retention unless necessary for good arboricultural reasons. Where such permission is granted, replacement planting of appropriate species and numbers will be required to offset the loss to amenity.” 

Our view – the development is likely to have a damaging impact on the root systems of trees along Middle Meadow Walk and is therefore inconsistent with this policy. We do not agree with the assertion made by the applicants that there will be no damaging impact on the trees to the east and west of the site.  

Policy ENV18 Open Space Protection 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 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.” 

Our view – The proposals will result in the loss of open space due to its restrictive enclosure.  We believe that it will have a significant impact on the Meadows overall and will reduce its use for amenity and recreational activity as a result.    

Policy ENV22 Pollution and Air, Water and Soil Quality states, “Planning permission will only be granted for development where: a) there will be no significant adverse effects for health, the environment and amenity and either b) there will be no significant adverse effects on: air, and soil quality; the quality of the water environment; or on ground stability c) appropriate mitigation to minimise any adverse effects can be provided.” 

Our view – there a substantial negative impact on soil compaction and therefore soil quality.  it is clear that the turf is struggling to regenerate over much of the area covered by the application despite no activity in 2020.  

The Association is therefore of the view that the proposed development is inconsistent with Local Development Plan policies and with the duties of the local authority to manage these Common Good Assets for the benefit of the public. 

Should the Committee be minded to approve this, we would strongly advocate that any consent be time limited for this year only and be made personal to the applicant only.  Independent monitoring processes should form part of conditions for approval, and include tree and noise management as key elements.  This could then inform any future policy or guidelines for the use of public space in their area.  

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