Cammo Housing Development

Posted on: October 8, 2021

Our submitted objection to the proposed housing development on Edinburgh’s Green Belt at Cammo

Our submitted objection to the proposed housing development on Edinburgh’s Green Belt at Cammo

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn OBJECTS to this application for planning permission in principle to build on this 59-acre site west of Maybury Road and north of Craigs Road.

The area is currently designated as greenbelt in Edinburgh City Council’s local development plan, which places strict constraints on what can and cannot be built on greenbelt land.  Any argument drawn from the increasing historical and outdated 2008 Edinburgh Green Belt Study that this specific site is “of low intrinsic scenic quality”, and so should be considered for development, should be rejected.

The 2008 Edinburgh Green Belt Study is increasing irrelevant to the lived reality of life for many residents in this congested part of the city where a number of significant housing consents have been granted in recent years against the expressed wishes of local residents who value the retention of existing greenbelt provision in the immediate vicinity of their existing residential development and its associated infrastructure.

The proposed inclusion of 50% of affordable homes, trees and parkland should not be accepted as justification for the loss of existing greenbelt and greenspace which has become increasingly valued during the current Covid-19 pandemic.  There is a particular demand in Edinburgh for social housing, but it is unclear in the planning in principle application what percentage of the proposed affordable home will be available for social rent.

Policy Env 10 (Development in the green belt and countryside) of the local development plan sets out those circumstances where development would be permitted in the green belt. The application clearly does not meet any of the criteria listed under this policy.

Non-statutory guidance on “Development in the countryside and green belt”  (February 2019) provides more detailed guidance on where other development in the green belt would be acceptable. This makes clear that while new development, consistent with Policy Env 10, can bring several benefits assisting farm diversification, supporting the local economy and making beneficial use of an existing resource.

None of these justifications are relevant to this applications. But the guidance also affirms that the countryside and green belt need to be protected from unacceptable development which would weaken from the rural character and landscape quality of an area.

 

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Former Tynecastle High School

Posted on: October 1, 2021

Our submission to planning on this significant development at Tynecastle.

Our submission to planning on this significant development at Tynecastle.

Cockburn Response

This is a significant, well-connected yet potentially challenging site in relation to its location next to a distillery, stadium, and the Western Approach Road. In particular, the proximity of the distillery and road raises substantial design questions regarding the site’s environmental quality, safety and amenity for future residents. However, the successful redevelopment of this site would bring it back into active use and contribute to the neighbouring community.

Given that this is not a straightforward site to develop, we understand why its repurposing as student accommodation is considered both a viable and desirable option. If this application is approved, it should be considered the upper limit of what the local residential area can tolerate without seriously undermining its social fabric and cohesion. No further student accommodation proposals should be considered in this community.

If the application is approved. This should not be developed, in any sense, as a gated community. Residents from the surrounding community should be able to access new open space/ greenspace recreational opportunities proposed the site. The access to green and open spaces is seen as a priority by many as part of the ongoing recovery from the Covid 19 pandemic. The potential engagement of the charities LOVE Gorgie Farm and People Know as operators for community garden and community facilities on the site, should planning permission be granted, is a positive step in this regard.

Although we welcome the retention of the B listed main school building and janitor’s house.  We do not accept the assessment used to justify the demolition of the workshop block, which pre-dates the school and is of some historic significance and crucial to understanding the site.  These would seem to be ideal for repurposing as community facilities, on-site shops, bikes stores, storage areas or a wide variety of other utility functions associated with the proposed student development.

We are aware of the local community’s interest in the potential of the site for social, multigenerational and co-housing development and of its concern regarding the potential over provision of student accommodation in this community and of the potential dis-benefits associated with this. If this development represents over provision of student accommodation in this community, then the opportunity to provide a mix of uses, including business and community use, which could assist with integrating the site into the community should be reassessed in consultation with the local community.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Dunard Centre in St Andrew Square

Posted on: September 23, 2021

Our statement of support for the revised plans for the proposed Dunard Centre in St Andrew Square

Our statement of support for the revised plans for the proposed Dunard Centre in St Andrew Square

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association has studied and discussed this revised application by David Chipperfield Architects).  As with the earlier proposals (2018), we welcome and support these ambitious plans to create Edinburgh’s first purpose-built concert hall in over a century.

This project has potential to make a positive contribution to the artistic life of the city and to act as a transformative catalyst for the economic, social and artistic revitalisation of the streets, lanes and businesses that surround it.

Within the constraints of the available site, the proposed concert hall continues to use the space in a an effective manner.  It provides the opportunity to link the new St James Quarter into not only to St Andrews Square but the wider city centre.

Our comments are predicated on the above support, and we hope that further refinements to the design will continue.

Site and Context

  • The opening of access through the site, including outside the operational hours of the concert hall is an important objective. We believe that it would be appropriate to put in place a legal mechanism to ensure the public permeability through the site is secured in the long term.
  • We remain of the view that it is essential for the floorscape around the new concert hall be integrated with the Registers and wider environment. This should respect the limited palette of paving materials in the New Town and be designed so that the pedestrian environment appears seamless to users who will approach the building from the various access points.  Linkages to St James Quarter should follow this approach if possible.
  • We continue to advocate that access to the several garden areas by the Registers of Scotland be undertaken at the same time (although we appreciate that there seems some reluctance on the RoS to do so). This could be through a discrete new opening in the existing wall (for the Physician’s Garden) and possibly through a new gate in the railings (for the small grassed area to the south).  In essence, there is an opportunity to create a new, interesting and intimate pedestrian quarter, which places the concert hall in the centre of it.
  • The single mature beech tree currently extant on the site is most likely a remnant of the former garden landscape of Dundas House and should be retained.

Building

  • We have been unable to access the site due to neighbouring construction work so have not been able to assess how well the original test panels have weathered (if they are still on site). Our understanding is that the same highly finished concrete panels are proposed.  Based on our discussions with the architects at the time of the first application, we accepted this material given the uniqueness of the proposals and the very high specification of finish proposed.  We would therefore suggest that a suitable condition against any planning consent be applied here to give the Planning Authority long-term control over this.
  • With the original proposals, the elliptical concert hall itself is shown to have a distinctive façade modelling different from the “edge” blocks. We welcomed this as it helped break down the mass of the building and created additional visual interest within what will be an intimate pedestrian environment.  However, as the scheme has contracted and simplified, this juxtaposition has been reduced also, especially at the north-east where the angle is very obtuse.  Greater distinction between the elliptical hall section and the northern “edge” block would be beneficial. As such, this appears unresolved, as does the treatment of window openings and the junction of eaves and ground floor levels.
  • Similarly, the views to the building from the western entrance to the St James Quarter are important. The blank façade with vertical striations from almost top to bottom and virtually not fenestration presents a hostile frontage from this perspective.  Further work is needed to address the massiveness here.

Wider Opportunities and issues

  • Unlike the original scheme, the physical connection with the Category A-listed Dundas House is direct and substantial. Whilst we acknowledge that this doesn’t affect the original 18th Georgian property, it is a more significant impact to the listed fabric.
  • We continue to believe that consideration should be given to the creation of a ‘processional route’ through the current RBS building with the long-term objective being the integration of Dundas House into the centre, providing all the necessary “front of house” facilities required by a modern concert hall.
  • In the wider context of performance venues in the city, we acknowledge that this proposal will not address the needs of the festival and events sectors. The Council have prepared in the past an assessment of need – this should be renewed.
  • The use of the hall once built may generate traffic impacts on neighbouring areas including the residential New Town to the north. Large volumes of private vehicles using these streets after the 6:30pm Zone 2 parking restrictions end could result in negative impacts.

SUMMARY

The Cockburn Association continues to support this proposal.  The creation of a new cultural building is welcome, and we acknowledge the skills of the design team in integrating the sizable building into a very constrained site. We recommend some further revisions and believe especially that the wider floorscape needs to be developed to include the Registers and connections into St James and St Andrews Square, and beyond.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Fly Open Air Music Festival in West Princes Street Gardens

Posted on: August 23, 2021

Our response to the Council’s request for comments about another commercial event being held Princes Street Gardens

Our response to the Council’s request for comments about another commercial event being held Princes Street Gardens

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn through its long history has campaigned to protect Edinburgh’s parks and open spaces including West Princes Street Gardens. We appreciate the desire of the hospitality and events sectors to get back into operation following the enforced closure due to Covid. However, Covid as allowed us to reassess the importance of open spaces to the health and well-being of the city for its residents and visitors.

Our view is that West Princes Street Gardens is a public park, not a private events space. We hold no position on the type of activities or events that are or are not appropriate.  The issue is the impact on a public civic space in terms of accessibility, suitability and well-being in the widest sense.  All public attitude surveys since the late 1990s have shown that the two characteristics of West Princes Street Gardens valued the most by the public are its green-ness and its tranquillity.  This event, and others similar to it, are not consistent with these values.

We therefore object to this event (FLY Open Air) on the grounds that it takes over one of the capital’s premier public spaces, barring entry to it for a substantial and significant period (with set up and take down times added to the event itself) to all except those whom a commercial operator decides can gain access.  Ultimately, it is a private event that has at its core the need to offer exclusivity to ticket purchasers at the expense of public access and enjoyment.

In addition to this principle, we have several concerns which we outline below:

  • The use of the central part of WPSG will result in the inability of the public to move across the gardens unimpeded.  The proposals will effectively divide WPSG into two disconnected sections during times of operation.  This should be avoided with the public able to move from one area to another as freely as possible.
  • No times of operation are shown, thereby allowing the operator to restrict access for periods that are unnecessary.
  • The suggestion that concert users will be required to undertake a Lateral Flow test, stationed on King Stables Road suggests significant queuing issues off site, for which no management information is available.
  • The main access points, proposed for Lothian Road, presents substantial congestion issues during peak use.  Lothian Road is a major route with important bus stances beside the proposed main entrance.  Pedestrian congestion could be a safety issue.
  • There is no information on tree management or restoration requirements post the event.  A tick box asking if the applicant is aware of the Council’s policies is wholly inadequate and provides no assurance that these will be enforced given experience elsewhere in the City. Details should be included in the application.
  • We object to the proposed pop-up food and drink facilities.  It is essential that as part of the City’s Covid recovery strategy that we support existing local businesses who operate 365 days a year in the city, and not allow unfair competition from operators who are only tied to this event.
  • The event will be heavy in infrastructure, which will damage the soft landscaping. The site plan also suggests that structures will be placed over tree root systems, causing soil compaction and possible significant damage to the treescape.  This needs to be assessed before any consent can be granted.

Whilst we appreciate that the events sector is keen to hold such events for its customers, the Council should not allow land that is held as a Public Good to be used in this way.

 

Back to Listings

Short-term Let Control Area in Edinburgh

Posted on: August 6, 2021

The Cockburn’s expression of support for the local Planning Authority’s efforts in establishing a short term let control zone in Edinburgh

The Cockburn’s expression of support for the local Planning Authority’s efforts in establishing a short term let control zone in Edinburgh

Cockburn Response

The Planning Act recently passed by the Scottish Parliament allows planning authorities to designate areas as Short Term Let Control Areas, whereby “the use of a dwellinghouse for the purpose of providing short-term lets is deemed to involve a material change of use of the dwellinghouse” provided the property is not a Private Residential Tenancy or the property in whole or in part is the only or principal residence of the landlord or occupier.

The Cockburn Association fully supports the creation of a Short Term Let Control Area (STLCA) in Edinburgh. Furthermore, we strongly support the recommendation that the STLCA should covers the whole city.

Almost no ward has no holiday lets in it, and it is essential that any designation does not simply displace issues with Short-term lets (STLs) from one street onto another.  We can see some merit in several areas being designated (providing whole authority coverage) as there may be different issues that need to be managed.  For example, flats in common stairs present different issues so different policies might be useful for tenement areas, colony developments and for bungalow areas.

Guidance needs to be prepared as a matter of urgency.  The Cockburn suggests that the expected CityPlan 2030 should contain robust policy proposals when it is released for public consultation later this year.

We would advocate that, in addition to individual property regulation, an area-based approach be considered with clear thresholds for STL in defined areas.  A maximum threshold could be imposed for streets (no more that 10% of properties can be used, for example).  This should be considered in the context of other tourist or transient person accommodation including hotels, guest houses and B&Bs.

The Council must put in place adequate enforcement and management resources and processes. We would expect a significant increase in applications for Change of Use to precede the creation of a STLCA as well as a corresponding number of enforcement actions assuming the current approach to refusing consent to flats in common stairs continues.

All registered STLs in a STLCA should also agree to a Code of Conduct seeking to minimise anti-social behaviour.  This might include access to contact details of owners/managers and a framework for addressing complaints including recommended time spans for dealing with them.

We accept that a balance needs to be struck between the right of people enjoying a property and the right of neighbours and others to not have their amenity affected.  A degree of tolerance is needed but currently, the onus of responsibility rests entirely on affected parties to prove a sustained impact on their amenity.  A review of the effectiveness of current powers to deal with anti-social behaviour is therefore recommended as part of this process.

Back to Listings

Development application for 265 Morningside Road

Posted on: July 30, 2021

Our objection to a proposed development that fails to integrate sympathetically with the traditional streetscape in Morningside

Our objection to a proposed development that fails to integrate sympathetically with the traditional streetscape in Morningside

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to this application.

We support the redevelopment in principle but only if it is to again make a positive contribution to the life of the Morningside community and contributes positively to the character and streetscape of Morningside Road and the local area. This scheme fails to do that.

The proposed development is unacceptable in its current form. It fails to draw architectural elements from surrounding tenements. It fails to integrate sympathetically with the traditional streetscape and with the scale and fabric of the nearby buildings of the Morningside community and conservation area. The large flat roof and unconvincing attempt to create a “roofscape” with a change of material, and the unsuccessful turning of the corner into Hermitage Terrace all require attention.

We are also concerned with the number of single aspect flats being proposed, which believe to be substandard accommodation. The spatial dimensions of the flats could also be improved, enabling increased amenity and offering better conditions for home-working that might be expected post-Covid.

An alternative proposal, developed with due consideration to its setting and materiality of the surrounding streetscape may be acceptable. However, there is a clear opportunity to masterplan this section of Morningside Road and to create a new section of street which is fully consistent with the traditional character of the conservation area and adds value to the street life of the community.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Application to infill a gap site on Morningside Road

Posted on:

Our comments on a proposal to partially demolish existing architectural elements and fill this significant site

Our comments on a proposal to partially demolish existing architectural elements and fill this significant site

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to this application.

We agree with the principle of infilling this longstanding gap site with a modern interpretation of a traditional tenement.

However, the proposed development is unacceptable. It fails to draw architectural elements from adjoining buildings or to align with the windows of surrounding tenements and is in all respects unsympathetic to the traditional streetscape of the Morningside community and conservation area.

The façade which has been partially retained to the south end of the site represents an opportunity to consider the sympathetic incorporation of this retention into any new proposal for this site. The removal of this element of historical streetscape should be avoided if at all possible.

An alternative proposal, developed with due consideration to its setting and incorporating the retained façade, may be acceptable. But this proposal has nothing to recommend it.

The Jordan Burn, which is of local interest, may be culverted under this site. If so, suitable street-level interpretation of this historical landscape feature should be considered.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Proposed extension at to listed building on Ravelston Dykes Road

Posted on: July 22, 2021

Our reasoned objections to the proposed alterations to one of Edinburgh’s significant 20th century listed buildings

Our reasoned objections to the proposed alterations to one of Edinburgh’s significant 20th century listed buildings

Cockburn Response

Number 65 Ravelston Dykes Terrace is a Category B-listed building by the notable Edinburgh architectural practice of Morris and Steedman.  Built between 1961-64, No.65 forms part of a stepped pair of identical 2-storey flat-roofed villas, built on a joint site, which slopes to N; No 67, built by Robert Steedman for himself and another owner at No 65.

The practice’s buildings from this period are some of the most iconic post-war modernist structures in the city. Other notable houses built by the practice includes Avisfield at Cramond (1957) and the Sillito House on Blackford Hill in 1959.

We appreciate the efforts made by the architects in seeking to produce a scheme that respects the design integrity of the listed building. However, it is essential that the impact is assessed against the interrelated buildings and takes cognisance of the intentions of the design architect.

We note that HES states, “In our view, the proposed extension’s position and height allows the original building to retain its visual prominence, as seen from the principal garden elevation, and the choice of materials appears to protect the listed building’s character and appearance. Furthermore, the extension’s physical connection to the main house appears reversible and is limited to a small section of the garden elevation, which has been previously altered, helping reduce the level of intervention to the existing house and therefore further mitigating adverse impacts to its special architectural and historic interest.”

In contrast, we have seen the Twentieth Century Society’s comments on this application, lodged as a formal objection.

On balance, the Cockburn agrees the Twentieth Century Society’s view and their assessment that this building was designed carefully in context with its immediate neighbour.  The imbalance that results from the proposed extension has an impact on the other and in our view does not preserve the setting of the listed buildings (s.14 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas)(Scotland) Act 1997 in the context of the listed building application or s. 59 of the same act, in the context of the planning application.  We do accept that the interventions are sensitive in the form and content of No.65 as noted by HES but feel the integrity of the whole site rather than a single house is the dominant issue.

We also note the impact on mature trees on the site, which suggests the plans are not consistent with Policy ENV 12 (Trees) which 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”

For these reasons, the Cockburn Association objects to this application.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Henderson Place Lane Development

Posted on: July 8, 2021

Our initial response to developer about their plans to demolish existing buildings in Henderson Place Lane and build new apartments

Our initial response to developer about their plans to demolish existing buildings in Henderson Place Lane and build new apartments

Cockburn Response

We welcome the redevelopment of this site for housing. But clarification of the justification for the demolition of this relatively modern building rather than its repurposing is required. This would appear to be a more sustainable option in a part of the city dominated by heritage designations. In addition, and importantly, renovation and repurposing of usable buildings must be an essential first consideration if the City of Edinburgh is to reach its stated target carbon neutrality by 2030. conversion.

The original Silvermills masterplan restricted the scale and density of development in this area. Clarification should be given be on whether and how the current redevelopment proposal is consisted with original masterplan’s aims.

Further information is also required on the proposed housing mix, tenure types and social rented housing component is also required.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Old Tynecastle High Redevelopment

Posted on: June 11, 2021

Our comments on a Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) for a development at this significant site in Tynecastle

Our comments on a Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) for a development at this significant site in Tynecastle

Cockburn Response

This is a significant, well-connected yet potentially challenging site in relation to its location next to a distillery, stadium, and the Western Approach Road. In particular, the proximity of the distillery and road raises substantial design questions regarding the site’s environmental quality and amenity for future residents. However, the successful redevelopment of this site would bring it back into active use and contribute to the neighbouring community.  In such a congested part of the city this is an ideal location for a car free development although the sites potential impact on public and active travel provision will also require assessment. The active interest of the local community in the future of this site is of note.

It is acknowledged that this will be challenging site to develop given the many site constraints. Nevertheless, this is a large site which has the potential to actively engage with the surrounding residential community in several ways. This should not be developed, in any sense, as a gated community. Residents from the surrounding community should be able to access new open space/ greenspace recreational opportunities on the site. The access to green and open spaces is also seen as a priority by many as part of the Covid 19 recovery. The potential to develop the site for a range of land uses and public access to the courtyard and to the site more generally should be advised by local feedback and community aspirations for the site and the city’s 2030 climate change and climate adaptation agenda.

The retention of the B listed main school building is welcomed although the potential demolition of the workshop block, which pre-dates the school and is of some historic significance,  and of the janitor’s house is of concern. These demolitions need to be fully justified and should be reconsidered in the context of the historical development of the site and their relevance to the history of the local community past, present and future.  The repurposing of retained buildings and any facade alterations should also respect the historical character of the buildings and site.

This may be an appropriate site for student accommodation development. However, the local community’s interest in the potential of the site for multigenerational and co-housing buildings, should also be considered as part of this development. This would energise and diversity the site and contribute to the provision of more local social housing and affordable housing.

In addition, a thorough assessment of the current and consented student developments in the neighbouring locality is required before any further student accommodation can be considered. Over provision of student accommodation in any single locality or community in the city runs a concomitant rise of undermining the social and community fabric of that community.  If this development represents over provision of student accommodation in this community, then the opportunity to provide a mix of uses, including business and community use, which could assist with integrating the site into the community should be reassessed.

In addition, a thorough assessment of the current and consented student developments in the neighbouring locality is required before any further student accommodation can be considered. Over provision of student accommodation in any single locality or community in the city runs a concomitant rise of undermining the social and community fabric of that community.  If this development represents over provision of student accommodation in this community, then the opportunity to provide a mix of uses, including business and community use, which could assist with integrating the site into the community should be reassessed.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings