Pop-up Festival Village

Posted on: June 22, 2023

It remains our position that this application should be refused

It remains our position that this application should be refused

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn objects to this application.  It appears very similar to a previous application on this site which we objected to and which was refused planning permission.  The only significant difference from the previous application would appear to be that retail units and toilets have been removed. This, if anything, renders this application ever less acceptable given that the nature of commercial activity proposed inevitably requires more, rather than fewer, toilets. Waverley Market is located on a particularly congested part of Princes Street with vehicular and pedestrian traffic moving to and from major transport hubs. This proposal will inevitably make an already poor situation worse.  In addition, the structures  associated with this application will negatively impact on some of the city’s most iconic views.

It remains our position that this application should be refused.  The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the New and Old Town conservation areas and is therefore contrary to Section 59 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 and Local Development Plan Policy Env 6 (Conservation Areas – Development). It will also have an adverse impact on the setting of a number of nearby listed buildings and is therefore contrary to Section 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 and Local Development Plan Policy Env 3 (Listed Buildings – Setting).  As a result the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the Edinburgh World Heritage Site contrary to Local Development Plan Policy Env 1 (World Heritage Sites). In addition, the proposal does not represent a high-quality design that safeguards the historic environment and is therefore contrary to Local Development Plan policies Del 2 (City Centre), Ret 7 (Entertainment and Leisure Developments – Preferred Locations) and Des 4 (Development Design – Impact on Setting).

Should this pplication be refused planning permission, it may be appropriate for the Council’s Development Management Sub- Committee  to determine enforcement action.

Carlton Highland Hotel

Posted on: June 16, 2023

No information is supplied to enable an understanding  of  any potential impacts  on North Bridge and Market Street

No information is supplied to enable an understanding  of  any potential impacts  on North Bridge and Market Street

Cockburn Response

 

The Cockburn objects to this application. The proposed alterations to the hotel’s roofscape are clearly inconsistent with the architect’s original design concept for this side of North Bridge which requires clear separation between each of the façade elements to be maintained and carried through in the rooftop design.

Furthermore, no information is supplied to enable an understanding  of  any potential impacts  on North Bridge and Market Street  arising from this development as a result of an increase in  associated visitor and service access requirements.

Several hotel proposals are coming forward currently in and around Central Edinburgh.  The ad hoc nature of these applications makes it impossible to understand the potential cumulative impact arising from the additional access and service requirements of these developments.  The City of Edinburgh Council has an opportunity to take a pro-active approach to the development of a unified Servicing Plan for hotels and similar developments in consultation with Edinburgh residents and other stakeholders.

 

Part change of use, alterations, and erection of hotel /aparthotel

Posted on: June 15, 2023

This appears to be a good use of this site

This appears to be a good use of this site

Cockburn Response

This appears to be a good use of this site. External heritage features will be conserved, underused buildings will be brought back into productive use and most of the existing street level commercial units will be retained.

However, significant internal modifications are proposed. In the absence of a comprehensive Heritage Statement it has not been possible for us to fully assess the heritage impact of proposed downtakings.

More information is also required to understand the impact arising from this development with reference to associated visitor and service access requirements.

Several hotel proposals are coming forward currently in and around Central Edinburgh.  The ad hoc nature of these applications make it impossible to understand the potential cumulative impact arising from the additional access and service requirements of these developments.  The City of Edinburgh Council has an opportunity to take a pro-active approach to the development of a unified Servicing Plan for hotels and similar developments in consultation with Edinburgh residents and other stakeholders.

 

 

Proposed Hotel/Retail 104 – 106, 107 & 108 Princes Street

Posted on: May 19, 2023

We find that there is nothing in the current proposals which we can support. If consented this scheme will lead to the further erosion of what was once one of the finest streets in the world. We object in the strongest terms.

We find that there is nothing in the current proposals which we can support. If consented this scheme will lead to the further erosion of what was once one of the finest streets in the world. We object in the strongest terms.

Cockburn Response

Summary

The principle of hotel/retail use in this location is acceptable. We also support the proposed retention of an element of retail use and the maintenance an active street frontage. However, this application is not acceptable in its current form.   We find that there is little in the current proposals which we can support.  If consented this scheme will lead to a further erosion of what was once one of the finest streets in the world.  We object in the strongest terms.

The City of Edinburgh Council needs to seriously accelerate its stalled Waverley Valley exercise. In our view, leaving the future of such a prominent, world-renowned street to the vagaries of the market is not a way forward. There is a distinct possibility that Princes Street is evolving into a street of hotels, with all the issues that arise from that.

Detailed comments

The City Centre Princes Street Development Framework sets out a basis to address the decline in retail activity on Princes Street and to promote inward investment to this location.  Some of the underlying assumptions on which this framework is based are no longer valid. However, the ‘Building Analysis’ (p30) relating to the street block which is the subject of this development proposal remains valid. This block is now characterised by a varied and rolling roofline.

The front façade, as proposed, is simply too high and is based on the highest available reference datum point from adjacent buildings. As such this proposal actively works against the established varied and rolling  roofline which characterises this section of Princes Street.  We have reviewed  the current proposal with reference to the active floor levels of adjacent buildings and existing buildings on the redevelopment site. We have also examined the the characteristics of the rooflines on this section of Princes Street. As a consequence,  we suggest that the front façade requires to be reduced by at least two, and probably three, full stories in height.

A coordinated redesign and height adjustment of the rear facades will also be required to integrate  successfully the rear elevation with a lower front elevation and to maintain the essential character of the First New Town. The essential character of the New Town  consists of principal buildings on main streets and lower scale buildings on intervening streets such as Rose Street Lane. The scale and character of buildings on Rose Street Lane has changed over the years.  However, the essential character of the relationship between main and subsidiary streets of the first New Town is still legible on Rose Street Lane.

In general terms, it is own view that this proposal represents a considerable increase in development on a restricted site and the imposition of a massive and architecturally bland and mundane development in a highly prominent location in the New Town of Edinburgh. As such, it fundamentally does not support policy ENV World Heritage Sites. This policy ‘requires development to respect and protect the outstanding universal values of the World Heritage Sites and their settings. Setting may include sites in the immediate vicinity, viewpoints identified in the key views study and prominent landscape features throughout the city’.  We also note that the development site includes 106 Princes Street, originally a townhouse, it is essential that such remaining Georgian elements on Princes Street are retained and protected.

This development proposal includes a 300-bedroom hotel, with additional retail units.  The servicing requirements of the proposed hotel/retail operation will be quite different and significantly more onerous to achieve than the requirements of the former retail units which used to operate from this site.  These retail operations used the site in a much less intensive way than is now being proposed.    It is likely that considerably more traffic will be generated, and that this will be both frequent and varied.  This development will also attract a considerable number of occupants.  We do not accept that the nearby tramline will alleviate potential access pressures.  It is likely that a considerable number of taxi-led journeys will be generated. Yet, vehicular movements in Rose Street Lane are constrained, Rose Street is pedestrianised, and the City Centre Transformation Plan seeks to reduce vehicular movements in the city centre.  A revised servicing and access plan is needed to directly address these current and emerging contextual issues.

Rose Street Lane has a residential population and adjacent street also retains a residential character to a degree.  Although it is unclear if all current residential uses are fully regulated, it is likely that Rose Street Lane will retain a residential character. Daylighting in Rose Street Lane is not good. However, we do not accept that this is a reason to risk degrading the quality of daylighting for residents further.

Edinburgh Festival Fringe venues: Meadows

Posted on: May 12, 2023

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

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

Cockburn Response

We object this application. 

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 similar infrastructure has been erected on this site in the past and that the Meadows has a long history of hosting events.

However, we have frequently voiced our concerns in relate to large wholly commercial developments that use a public open space year-round’

There is a critical need to preserve Edinburgh’s open spaces and greenspace 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 to the proposed development causes further concern due to the potential compaction of root systems leading to long-term decay or even loss.  Root systems at both Middle Meadow Walk and Boy’s Brigade Walk may be affected. The absence of a tree protection plan to secure he long-term health of the trees adjacent the proposed venue is unacceptable.

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.    

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 application, independent monitoring processes should form part of conditions for approval, and include tree and noise management as key elements. 

At the Culture and Communities Committee on 11th May 2023 additional protection and monitoring was secured for trees in relation to the events taking place in Princes Street Gardens.  We would encourage the city of Edinburgh Council to promote similar protection and monitoring regime for events in all situations where trees are present.

Edinburgh has an ambitious target to become a Million Tree City by 2030 as part of its commitment to be net zero by the end of the decade.  The meaningful and effective protection of the city’s mature trees must be a major part of this commitment. Our mature trees currently provide invaluable well-being and ecological benefits, but these benefits cannot be taken for granted.

 

Edinburgh Festival Fringe 2023 venue: George Square

Posted on:

The absence of a tree protection plan to secure the long-term health of the site’s trees is simply unacceptable.

The absence of a tree protection plan to secure the long-term health of the site’s trees is simply unacceptable.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to this application.

The Cockburn Association has considered plans for the use of the George Square Gardens as a Fringe venue by Underbelly Ltd. We acknowledge the fact that similar infrastructure has been erected on this site in previous years. We also acknowledge that George Square Gardens in not a publicly-owned open space per se but it does function of one.    

This application lacks tree protection and monitoring plan. Issues relating to tree protection and tree health in relation to the use of George Square as an event space have been consistently flagged up by concerned stakeholders, including the Cockburn Association.  The absence of a tree protection plan to secure the long-term health of the site’s trees is simply unacceptable.

The Cockburn has advocated that soft surfaced areas such as parks and gardens should not be used for infrastructure-heavy events due to the damage they cause to the ground and to the loss of essential public amenity space, even for relatively short periods of time.

Local Development Plan Policy ENV12 on 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.”  The proposed development is likely to have a damaging impact on the root systems of trees in the Square and is therefore inconsistent with this policy.   

None of trees along the perimeter of the gardens are proposed for a protection zone despite the very heavy and damaging infrastructure proposed, which included chiller units, water tanks, toilets, site cabins, etc.  

The Cockburn strongly advises that all trees are properly protected from damage and root compression and the applicant must submit a tree protection plan to this effective.   

We can see no plausible reason why most of the infrastructure could not be placed around the Square.  This would reduce the impact on the soft-surfaces and trees in the Square considerably.  

As such, we advocate amendments before this application can be acceptable.  Specifically, tree protection arrangements for all trees and not just those in the middle section of the gardens; removal of ancillary infrastructure from the gardens to the hardstanding area surrounding the gardens. Also, we advise that consent be given for one year only, with suitable monitoring arrangements in place to ensure the long-term health of trees in George Square Gardens.

At the Culture and Communities Committee on 11th May 2023 additional protection and monitoring was secured for trees in relation to the events taking place in Princes Street Gardens.  We would encourage the city of Edinburgh Council to promote similar protection and monitoring regime for events in all situations where trees are present.

Edinburgh has an ambitious target to become a Million Tree City by 2030 as part of its commitment to be net zero by the end of the decade.  The meaningful and effective protection of the city’s mature trees must be a major part of this commitment. Our mature trees currently provide invaluable well-being and ecological benefits but these benefits cannot be taken for granted.

 

Proposed 5G telecoms installation, Whitehouse Loan

Posted on:

The proposed telecommunications equipment would result in excessive visual and physical clutter within the streetscape and would be detrimental to the character of a a Conservation Area

The proposed telecommunications equipment would result in excessive visual and physical clutter within the streetscape and would be detrimental to the character of a a Conservation Area

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn OBJECTS to this application.

The proposed telecommunications equipment would result in excessive visual and physical clutter within the streetscape and would be detrimental to the Merchiston and Greenhill Conservation Area.

The proposal would have a harmful impact upon the visual quality of the wider street scene and so detract from the amenity and special character of the conservation area and from residential amenity. It is our view that the application is not consistent with Policy Env 6 Conservation Areas – Development as it does not preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the conservation area.

This site is close to a number of Listed Buildings. It is our view that the application is not consistent with   Policy ENV3 – Listed Buildings which indicates that development within the curtilage or affecting the setting of a listed building will be permitted only if not detrimental to the appearance or character of the building, or to its setting

In addition, this proposal will add street clutter to a relatively narrow pavement close busy road junctions. This area of the city hosts several educational establishments, and this fact heightens the need to keep pavements as clear and unobstructed as possible.

We also note the recent refusal of a similar application 22/04200/FUL further north on Whitehouse Loan, opposite No 108. This was for a mast 16m high (i.e. shorter than the 20m proposed for this site opposite No 171). In its Handling Report, explaining the refusal, the Case Officer wrote: “The development would disrupt the settled and mature character of the immediate vicinity, which is heavily influenced by soft landscaping and buildings formed in traditional and natural materials. It would erode the historic quality of the streetscape, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the conservation area. “The proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area and is unacceptable, having regard to Section 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.”

This application should certainly be refused if it is determined that the benefits of the proposed installation are deemed not to outweigh the harm caused to the conservation area and setting of Listed Buildings and if there is insufficient evidence that alternative sites or mast sharing opportunities have been adequately explored.

We understand the essential requirement for modern telecommunications infrastructure in our city and its importance to residents. However, we believe that, in consultation with local stakeholders, the proposed apparatus should be located in a more inconspicuous location or disaggregated into smaller, less conspicuous arrays if this is achievable.

Johnston Terrace Monopole

Posted on: April 20, 2023

The proposed Old Town location for this 17m high telecommunications monopole is unacceptable. 

The proposed Old Town location for this 17m high telecommunications monopole is unacceptable. 

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn objects to this application.  The proposed Old Town location for this 17m high telecommunications monopole is unacceptable. 

It will inevitably have significant and negative impacts on views to and from Edinburgh Castle and the Old Town.  The Castle is one of Edinburgh and Scotland’s most historic and iconic heritage sites and tourist destinations.  It is the subject of multiple heritage designations to conserve and protect its fabric and its setting. The Old Town Conservation Area forms part of the Old and New Towns of Edinburgh World Heritage Site which was inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage Site list in 1995.   The Old Town Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that: “A key element in giving Edinburgh its world – wide identity is the perception of the Old Town in approaches to the city. The topography of the Old Town makes it both very visible and provides a wide range of dramatic views. The Castle and the Old Town ridge dominate the Edinburgh skyline, not just from the present day city boundaries, but also in many more distant views and approaches to the city”.

In addition, this proposal will add street clutter to a busy pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfare subject to heavy tourist-related and residential usage at most times of the year. This fact heightens the need to keep pavements as clear and unobstructed as possible in and around this location.

This application should certainly be refused if it is determined that the benefits of the proposed installation are deemed not to outweigh the harm caused to the Old Town Conservation Area and to Edinburgh Castle and if there is insufficient evidence that alternative sites or mast sharing opportunities have been adequately explored. 

We understand the essential requirement for modern telecommunications infrastructure in our city and its importance to residents, visitors and businesses. However, we believe that, in consultation with local stakeholders, the proposed apparatus should be located in a more inconspicuous location or disaggregated into smaller, less conspicuous arrays if this is achievable.

Arthur Street Student Accomodation

Posted on: February 10, 2023

This current application is unnecessary and unwelcome.

This current application is unnecessary and unwelcome.

Cockburn Response

Although we acknowledge that a housing scheme has only recently been consented on this site, and that the current proposals are broadly similar to that scheme, nevertheless, we do not believe that the building form and materiality enhances the character of the Conservation Area nor does it preserve its character.

We object to this proposal for PBSA on the grounds of intensification of use in a primarily residential area, bearing in mind also the density of PBSA’s in the nearby neighbourhood.   This seems contrary to Policy HOUSING 7 where uses will not be permitted in predominately residential or mixed use areas i.e. uses which would have a materially detrimental effect on the living conditions of nearby residents.  This might be particularly relevant if the proposed accommodation is potentially open to use as short-term holiday lets during non-term times.

The approved application is for 33 apartments, represent 68 bed spaces by our counting.  We see no reason why the approved development cannot be used to accommodate students, if such use is deemed accepted in this location..  This would address a particular need for non-first year students who are looking for traditional flats to share to friends.   Indeed, doing so may help diversity and improve the variety of student accommodation on offer across the city.

This current application is therefore unnecessary and unwelcome.

Student Accommodation Jock’s Lodge

Posted on: January 19, 2023

The Cockburn Association objects to this application.

The Cockburn Association objects to this application.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association objects to this application.

We recognise the historic context of Jock’s Lodge but acknowledge that the suitable redevelopment of this site may be acceptable and that the provision of student accommodation on this site may also be acceptable. However, we consider that the height, scale, and massing of the proposed development is inappropriate for this restricted and constrained site on a significant traffic artery to and from the city centre and near a busy junction.

This site, and the surrounding neighbourhood, urgently requires a masterplan and/or a Local Place Plan to guide and direct the appropriate future development of this site and to promote the assembly of coherent development opportunities that will ensure the social, economic, and environmental sustainability and integrity of the wider neighbourhood for the benefit of all residents and businesses.

As proposed the density of this development is too great for what is a rather restricted site. This will have a negative impact on amenity, both internally and externally, for future residents and for existing residents on surrounding streets. For example, as proposed the development has very little useable greenspace.

Although, the height of the proposed development has been reduced following community consultation, we consider that it is still too tall.  The lack of a set-back from the pavement on the London Road frontage will exacerbate the canyoning effect of this development on a busy traffic artery and so result in negative social and environmental consequences. This will not be ameliorated by the proposed active street frontage along London Road.  Similarly, the large elevation along  ‘Smokey Brae’ will tend towards the creation of a hostile environment for pedestrians.