Centrum House: proposed demolition and redevelopment

Posted on: December 8, 2022

The proposals are of limited quality and interest and represent a dated architectural architype without a clear ‘residential’ character. They do not reflect the quality, residential character and scale of adjacent properties and are, as such, quite inappropriate for this location.

The proposals are of limited quality and interest and represent a dated architectural architype without a clear ‘residential’ character. They do not reflect the quality, residential character and scale of adjacent properties and are, as such, quite inappropriate for this location.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to this application.

We acknowledge some subtle improvements to the proposals in terms of the articulation of the Dundas Street elevation as well as a slightly more satisfactory approach to the corner with Fettes Row, but none so much to address our main concerns.

In our delegation to the Development Management Sub-Committee at the time of the original decision, we advocated that the existing sub- and superstructure (which we assumed to be reinforced concrete) should be retained due to the significant amount of embodied and embedded carbon that it represents.  This continues to be our position although we accept that there is considerable scope for modification and indeed, extension.  We can see no hurdle in achieving this in terms of floor-to-ceiling heights, etc.  The scale of the building would be retained as well as its footprint, significantly lessening its impact on the local community.

As such, and considering carbon management in the round, we believe that an argument can be made that the proposals are inconsistent with Policy Des 6 Sustainable Buildings Planning permission will only be granted for new development where it has been demonstrated that: a) the current carbon dioxide emissions reduction target has been met, with at least half of this target met through the use of low and zero carbon generating technologies.

And to reiterate the main points in our comments on the original version of this application:

We believe that housing development on this site is acceptable in principle. However, the proposals are of limited quality and interest and represent a dated architectural architype without a clear ‘residential’ character. They do not reflect the quality, residential character and scale of adjacent properties and are, as such, quite inappropriate for this location.

In line with Edinburgh’s vision to be carbon neutral by 2030, we believe that demolition and redevelopment is not an appropriate response on this site. This is no apparent attempt to reuse or repurpose any of the existing structures and limited attempts to reduce the carbon footprint of the proposed structure.  We therefore advocate that the existing sub- and superstructure (which we assume to be reinforced concrete) be retained.  We can see no hurdle in achieving this in terms of floor-to-ceiling heights, etc.  The scale of the building would be retained as well as its footprint, significantly lessening its impact on the local community.

We find the architectural expression mundane and do not agree with the assertion that it responds to the neighbouring Georgian architecture.  It is typical of the bland commercial architecture that we see on speculative commercial developments in the city.  This is in stark contrast to the detailed investigations into the architectural expression of the New Town North development across Dundas Street, where considerable effort and care has been put into the elevational design.

The Cockburn strongly advocates that the existing setback from Dundas Street be retained.  We also believe that all efforts to retain the existing trees should be made.

In summary, the Cockburn sees little merit in the revised proposals, and recommend refusal

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Proposed 5G telecoms installation, Whitehouse Loan

Posted on: November 11, 2022

The proposed telecommunications equipment would result in excessive visual and physical clutter within the streetscape and would be detrimental to the setting of a Listed Building

The proposed telecommunications equipment would result in excessive visual and physical clutter within the streetscape and would be detrimental to the setting of a Listed Building

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn OBJECTS to this application.

This application has been brought to the Cockburn’s attention by concerned local stakeholders. The proposed telecommunications equipment would result in excessive visual and physical clutter within the streetscape and would be detrimental to the setting of a Listed Building

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.

The proposal would have a harmful impact on the setting of a Listed Building. The proposed location is immediately adjacent to the main gateway to Bruntsfield House, which forms part of the A-listing for the site.  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 a number of educational establishments, and this fact heightens the need to keep pavements as clear and unobstructed as possible.

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 a Listed Building 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.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Edinburgh Christmas Market 2022 – Comments on planning applications

Posted on: October 28, 2022

The Cockburn recognises the popularity of the Christmas Market and its contribution to the vibrancy of the city

The Cockburn recognises the popularity of the Christmas Market and its contribution to the vibrancy of the city

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association has examined the three interconnected applications for a Christmas Market submitted by Underbelly.  We offer the following comments.  In doing so, the Cockburn believes that there are common issues for each, and the separation of what is a single event into three different applications is unhelpful when considering the total impact of the proposals.

General comments

We acknowledge the significant challenges in delivering this year’s Christmas Market.  The failed procurement exercise with Angel Events should be reviewed urgently in the context of previous year’s controversaries with the Winter Festivals.  An independent process should be initiated looking at the failures of the procurement process.  This is essential to prove the public and elected Councillors the necessary insight to determine an appropriate way forward for any future Winter Festivals.

We strongly advocate that given the circumstances now, any approvals should be for one year only.  We acknowledge the challenges that Unique Assembly as a recent substitute contractor have faced in attempting to pick up someone else’s planning applications.

We also note that other cities such as Leeds and Glasgow decided to cancel their Christmas Markets or major holiday celebrations this year.

The Cockburn realises and sympathises with the continuing challenges that local businesses face.  It is therefore essential that any festive activity aims, first and foremost, to increase activity for the brick-and-mortar businesses in the city.  In our discussions with Unique Assembly, we appreciate their ambitions to seek, for example, 65% of stalls to be local traders.  This needs to be fully and properly assessed as part of the overall process.  As such, the Cockburn believes that a local economic study should be required as part of any consent (should it be given) to quantify the level of local economic value and of economic spillage outside the city.

It is essential for the Council, both political and administrative, and operators/applicants to fully appreciate that the winter festivals rely entirely on the use and exploitation of public assets like streets and gardens for their success.  Decisions taken on all accounts, must be open and transparent.

In general, the Cockburn recognises the popularity of the Christmas Market and its contribution to the vibrancy of the city.  However, we also note that they are major commercial events than cultural activities and the Christmas Market has moved from the German Market that occupied the Mound with largely authentic products and produce to a disruptive event that imposed significant restrictions on local residents, targeting the tourism market with 2018 figures indicating that less than 50% of attendees to the Christmas Market were locals (falling to just 20% for Hogmanay).  A fundamental shift in benefit is required – in effect the Christmas Market must serve the city, not the other way round.

In this, we continue to call for a greater dispersal of activities noting that the significant problem with the Winter Festivals pre-Covid was the desire of commercial operators to concentrate activity is a small area.  Although some movement has been made in this regard, further dispersal is required.  The Cockburn advocates the creation of a Christmas City Centre Trail using sites across the city centre in various locations for markets which could bring additional benefits to those areas. We suggest that this should include existing markets, such as those in Stockbridge, Castle Terrace Car Park and the Grassmarket.  Festival Square and Conference Square should be used as well and be well suited for the fairground elements of the market.

We are pleased that the concentration on East Princes Street Gardens alone has changed.

The Cockburn remains concerned with the proposals as they stand, and believe that greater efforts in terms of dispersal, further reduction in use of soft surfaced areas and a greater need to support local businesses is required.  Our assessment is and must be based upon the information in the planning applications as submitted, and not on any discussions we have had, however constructive, with Unique Assembly.

Overall, the Cockburn does not formally object to these applications, nor do we support them.  Our concerns would be lessened slightly if the applications were for this year only.  All three applications have major deficiencies in information and are inaccurate in many instances.  The planning statements do not articulate on any satisfactory way the impacts to heritage assets such as listed buildings, etc.  No detailed locational information is available for disposition of stalls, rides etc and the associated management of crowds.

We appreciate the special circumstances that Unique Assembly as “rescue applicants” find themselves in but there can be no excuses for a failed public procurement process given recent controversary and history of the Winter Festivals.

Specific Application comments

The Cockburn has no objection to the use of George Street for a dedicated ice rink with ancillary functions such as toilets and changing facilities.

However, we cannot support the application as no details of the actual structure to be erected have been submitted with the application.  There is no way of ascertaining the impact on the neighbouring businesses or listed buildings and Conservation Area without them, and strongly advise that no consent be issued until this information has been submitted.  It is essential that any development here respects the qualities of George Street and the World Heritage Site.

No information on the management of support infrastructure is provided.  We are concerned with the impact of generators, etc on the immediate environment.  Similarly, we are also concerned with the lengthy periods required for set up and take down of the temporary structures and the disruption that this will cause for pedestrians and businesses alike.

The site boundary runs up the curb line on both sides of the street.  The current relaxation for outdoor seating has seen many of the hospitality businesses exploit the opportunity with substantial outdoor dining arrangements especially on the north side of the street.  The implication of Underbelly’s application is that these facilities will need to be moved before the erection of the ice rink can begin.  As it seems likely that the relaxation of licensing will continue, this needs to be clarified as a matter of some urgency.  In addition, the potential crowding of restricted pavement space seems likely, and could make crowd management more challenging.

The Cockburn would wish to object to the proposed pop-up bars and retail shacks within the ice rink enclosure.  As already noted in our general comments, we believe that these represent unfair competition to existing businesses who are struggling to recover from the past 20 months of restrictions.  We understand that these views are also shared by the George Street Association which represents a wide of local interests.

We have no specific concerns regarding the use of The Mound for the Christmas Market.  This has been used for several decades now and if properly managed should present no issues.  But we do have concerns with pop-up bars, preferring trade to be given to permanent businesses who operate year-round.

Regarding the upper terrace in East Princes Street Gardens, we would prefer this to be deleted from the proposals and possibly moved to Waverley Bridge.  This would avoid damaging the soft surfaces and permitted other activities such as the remembrance garden greater time to be enjoyed.  It must be said that we have little confidence in either Underbelly or the City Council in restoring the area of ground post-damage or in preventing it in the first place.

Regarding proposals for  West Princes Street Gardens below these were  new in 2021, and our initial assessments based on site visits during its operation suggests that it was, in general terms, reasonably successful as a venue.  However, there were areas of significant deficiency, and these must be addressed, in particular,  the damage done to soft surfaced areas as part of Santa’s Grotto and Christmas maze, as well as damage to the grass on the fringes of the blaise area.

There is little information available to determine the potential negative impacts in these areas.  As a matter of principle, all soft surfaced areas should be avoided with all development contained in areas of hard surface.

The application suggests that the upper terrace will form part of the site but there are few details to explain how it will be used in the application. We have no objections to its “soft” use as a festively lit route between East and West Gardens and believe that there are some positive opportunities for the use of the existing shelters as points of interest along this path.

Whilst we appreciate the desire for this part of the Christmas Market to be open later than usual closing time (dusk), the implications of this need careful consideration and effective/active management.  Will this result in the erection of a barrier across the Gardens to prevent access to areas to the east of the Ross Fountain?  How will it look?  Will it be manned, and by whom?  This could present an unsightly and aggressive barrier which would affect open access during normal hours or would at least impact on the openness of this most important civic space. No information on this has been provided on this and should be before any consent is considered.

The use of St Cuthbert’s Graveyard for operational servicing should be avoided.  Experiences of other events recently suggests too great a conflict between vehicles and pedestrians as well as impacting on it as a heritage asset.  The management of the graveyard in the dark hours is also issue that requires attention.  There is no reason why it could not be made attractive.

Image: Pixabay

 

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Elgin House – proposed demolition and redevelopment

Posted on: October 26, 2022

In our view, the proposed buildings are too tall and architecturally insipid adding nothing to one of the gateways to the city centre

In our view, the proposed buildings are too tall and architecturally insipid adding nothing to one of the gateways to the city centre

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn OBJECTS to this application.

In the context of the ‘climate emergency’ and Edinburgh’s zero carbon ambitions, the applicant simply has not made the case for the complete demolition of a relatively modern office building.  An outline carbon assessment is provided as part of this application. But this does not appear to fully and comprehensively explore the carbon-related impacts of the demolition process, and the construction and management of the proposed office and hotel buildings, with the performance of a suitably refurbished and repurposed Elgin House. Complete evidence should be provided that the existing office block cannot be reconfigured to meet modern office working requirements and cannot be brought up to an acceptable energy performance standard so avoiding the significant carbon implications of demolition and rebuild.

It is also our view, that the proposed buildings are too tall and architecturally insipid adding nothing to the urban feel of one of the gateways to the city centre.  The current proposals will negatively impact on views to and from adjacent conservation areas and the World Heritage Site.  The rooflines of the proposed office and hotel appear to have made no attempt to reflect the diverse rooflines which typify the Haymarket area.

Refurbishment must now be the starting point of any significant office redevelopment if Edinburgh’s commitment to tackling the climate emergency and achieving carbon neutrality by 2030 is to have any meaning. Successful refurbishment and reuse may have the potential to deliver some or all of the stimulus to the growth of the local, regional and national economy and opportunities for employment in Edinburgh.

If the principle if demolition is accepted (and we believe that there is insufficient evidence to support this) then redevelopment in this location should be limited to around four stories with a sympathetic roof structure in keeping with the surrounding cityscape, rooflines and residential character of much of this area.

 

Image: Planning Application

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Category A-listed former Scottish Widows HQ

Posted on: October 19, 2022

The quality of any new development must respond to the site in the same way that the listed building does and be of matching  quality and scale.  In this regard to the proposals require significant modification before they can be acceptable.

The quality of any new development must respond to the site in the same way that the listed building does and be of matching  quality and scale.  In this regard to the proposals require significant modification before they can be acceptable.

Cockburn Response

The Association has studied the plans for the redevelopment on this Category A-listed building which involves the partial demolition and construction of new housing.  We thank the developers and their architects for facilitating a site visit as part of the early phases of development.

We appreciate the significant challenges that this building, and this site, presents.  It also represents a major opportunity to reinvigorate the site and make it fit for purpose and we can see merit in the approach adopted.

However, in considering the totality of the development, we have concluded that there are sufficient deficiencies with the scheme for us to lodge a formal objection to it.  These concentrate mostly on the redeveloped sections of the site. We feel that a scheme for the partial demolition and renovation  of this site  is possible. But such a scheme would be a radical departure for what is currently being proposed.

Approach

We appreciate that the proposals would involve the demolition of a significant portion on a Category A-listed building.  This is contrary to a range of policies including  Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas –  Section 59 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Action 1997,  Section 64 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland), Action 1997, NPF4 Policy 7 c), NPF4 Policy d) and Local Development Plan policies ENV2, ENV3 and ENV4.  However, we accept that without significant interventions to the site, the buildings will have little ongoing economic or use value, largely due to its unique form and construction.

As such, we are willing to accept the proposed demolitions of sections of the main building subject to certain pre-conditions being met.  The acceptance of the scale of demolition being proposed is dependent on the quality and design of the new structure or structures proposed as replacements for  demolished sections of A-listed original structures…  In this regard, we have considerable concerns regarding the scale, materiality and massing of the proposed new housing, which serious affects the context of the site.

Context

The iconic visual imaging of the buildings comes from two main viewpoints, in our view.  The first is from Dalkeith Road where the layering of the hexagonal forms with the reflection pools is most dominant.  The proposals preserve this aspect, which is to be welcomed.

Second, is the view looking down on the buildings from Holyrood Park.  This best illustrates the important landscape setting and planting scheme at the eastern edge, which contrasts with the harder architectural forms on Dalkeith Road.  There is no doubt that the current proposals are a change in the context and the impact is negative due to the scale, materiality and massing on the new housing blocks.

Also important is the view glimpsed from Dalkeith Road down Parkside Terrace to the Arthur’s Seat and the Salisbury Crags.  The ability to see over the top of the current buildings and view the Park is an important part of the context and unique character of this part of Edinburgh.  As we understand it, the original building was designed as to exploit this prospect.  The large housing blocks up to 7+ storeys high serious affects this visual relationship to the extent that Arthur’s Seat is no longer visible.  We find this a negative aspect of the development and regard it as unacceptable.

Architectural interventions –

Listed Building

Overall, in accepting the concept of partial demolition, we find the solution to the refurbishment of the remaining Spence building acceptable and supportable. The introduction on new “light wells” will help with the deficiency of light penetration and will not materially affect the character of the listed building.  We also welcome proposals to refurbish the landscaping associated with the building as an integral part of its landscape setting.  The restoration of the reflecting pool is particularly welcome.

New development –

We support the creation of new housing here, but have considerable concerns regarding the proposals form, materiality, scale and massing.  The attempt to use the strong geometric forms as a guiding layout principle is interesting but unconvincing.  It creates a confusion between “back” and “front” with no clearly discernible distinction between public and private spaces.  The proximity of footpaths to ground floor dwellings is also a concern with potentially significant impact on amenity and overlooking.

We believe that substantial modifications need to be made to make the new elements acceptable.  A reduction in height would help ameliorate the visual impact especially on the northern parts of the site on Parkside Terrace.  This might be achieved by reducing the height on the perimeter with slightly higher sections in the centre of the site.  The existing buildings also step down towards Holyrood Park – a continuation of this approach with any new development would also reduce the visual impact

The “blockiness” in terms of materiality and fenestration pattern of the L-shaped buildings accentuates their impact.  Breaking up the elevations and avoiding competition with the retained Scottish Widows building would be advisable.  Also, whilst we appreciate the use of green roof technology, a varied planting programme would help breakdown the massing as seen from above.

Housing Tenure

It is commendable that the developer is proposing that 35% of all housing will be affordable as this reflects the growing need for this form of housing and corresponds with the proposed change from the current 25% requirement in the next City Development Plan.

The Affordable Housing Statement included in the planning application highlights that negotiations are ongoing with one provider of affordable housing, namely Places for People Group (PfP). While the precise tenure split of this affordable housing is not specified, it is disappointing that this statement fails to acknowledge that the greatest outstanding need and demand in Edinburgh is for new additional social housing in the City as most recently highlighted by the Edinburgh Poverty Commission.

It is also concerning that the developer states that there is a significant gap between the costs of construction and the available capital grant (Housing Association Grant – HAG – in this case). If the size of this gap continues there is some considerable risk that the developer and PfP will provide very little if indeed any social housing at all on this site and instead seek to provide other forms of affordable housing including mid-market rent and/or low-cost home ownership forms and which this housing provider has a track record of providing much more frequently than new social housing in the past.

This situation highlights yet further evidence of the significantly inadequate levels and volumes of HAG being made available to social landlords operating in the city, making it ever more difficult to meet the most acute need for social housing and creating the desired, sustainable mixed tenure neighbourhoods of the future.

Summary

The Cockburn acknowledges the significant challenges that this site presents.  The Scottish Widows building by one of Scotland’s most influential modern architects, Basil Spence, merits its Category A-listing as a building of national and international standing.  It is also a building with major deficiencies in terms of usability and functionality.  In ideal circumstances, we would prefer the entirety of the building to retained and refurbished but we can accept the loss of part of it to facilitate a new lease of life for a large portion of it fronting Dalkeith Road, which we feel is the most important section of the building.   The quality of any new development must respond to the site in the same way that the listed building does and be of matching  quality and scale.  In this regard to the proposals require significant modification before they can be acceptable.

 

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Telecoms Mast, Whitehouse Loan

Posted on: October 13, 2022

The Cockburn Association supports stakeholders’ objections to the installation of a telephone mast in the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area

The Cockburn Association supports stakeholders’ objections to the installation of a telephone mast in the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn OBJECTS to this application.

This application has been brought to the Cockburn’s attention by concerned local stakeholders. The proposed telecommunications equipment would result in excessive visual and physical clutter within the streetscape.

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.

In addition, this proposal will add street clutter to a relatively narrow pavement which is already compromised by a disused police box and lamp standard immediately adjacent to the site proposed for telecommunications equipment.   This area of the city hosts a number of educational establishments, and this fact heightens the need to keep pavements as clear and unobstructed as possible.

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 if there is insufficient evidence that alternative sites or mast sharing opportunities have been adequately explored.  In particular, we would suggest that the disused police box and lamp standard adjacent to the site proposed for telecommunications equipment should be assessed as potential locations for the proposed equipment to protect the amenity of the conservation area and to avoid adding additional pavement obstructions.

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.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Picardy Place Central Island design proposals

Posted on: October 5, 2022

We suspect that significant changes will need to be made at key junctions and crossing points

We suspect that significant changes will need to be made at key junctions and crossing points

Cockburn Response

 

 

The Association appreciates the opportunity to examine the developing proposals for the central area of Picardy Place.  We understand that the process is well advanced and the scope for both change and further dialogue is limited.  We are disappointed that this is the case.

We also appreciate that, for the purposes of this specific exercise, the wider context for the central island at Picardy Place is fixed.  The Cockburn is firmly of the view that the current arrangements and disposition of the various movement corridors is significantly deficient, in terms of quality of place and in terms of traffic/movement across the site.

For example, there appear to major congestion issues and modal conflict at the top of Broughton Street, which will only be exacerbated by the opening of the new Trams stop on the north side.  A recent site visit by our Policy & Development Committee counted at least 24 sign poles for traffic regulation.  Similarly, the pedestrian/cycleway conflict at the eastern side by the Playhouse is palpable especially when crowds access and egress the building during performances.

As such, our comments on the central island proposals are in the context of concerns, some very significant, regarding the operation and quality of the wider Picardy Place environment.

Broad concept – a non-civic space

It is inescapable that the environment within which the central island sites is a hostile one.  It remains a heavily trafficked, controlled roundabout designed to cater for high volumes of vehicles with up to four lanes of roadway intervening between the central island and the perimeter footpaths.  Many active travel access points are two-phase crossings.  The new tram stop will introduce sequencing issues for pedestrian and cycle movement (as well as road traffic) which makes access to the area less seamless than needed and more of a barrier.

Although it might be argued that these same characteristics can be found in places like St Andrew’s Square, our view is that the density of traffic and remoteness from active edges suggests that this will not be a successful destination or dwell-space.  Its main function will be to connect active routes across the site to Leith Walk, Leith Street, Broughton Place and York Place.

The central island is a small site, only 0.2ha in area (the size of a large house site).  It is the Cockburn’s view that the central island of Picardy Place does not have the scale or qualities to be destination in its own right.

Looking forward – key objectives

Noting the above constraints, the central island can still provide some positive civic benefits.  The first key objective is the facilitation of effective connections across Picardy Place, especially from the north-west corner across towards the Playhouse and from the tram stop to the main areas of activity especially the St James Quarter and Omni Centre.

Secondly, the provision of cloudburst management and ecosystem services should be the next key objective.  The significant levels of hard ground surfaces in Picardy Place will present problems for water run-off management.  Using the central island to help offset this would be positive.  Relating to this, the provision of planting for both biodiversity and amenity benefits would also be positive.  A link to the planting schemes being developed for the George Street Transformation project could provide some landscape design continuity and might be considered.

Additionally, there are opportunities for space to be used for new statues and cultural displays.  The north-east apex has been earmarked for such, but a recent site visit shows a serious congestion of traffic-control paraphernalia.  Adding to this clutter might not be a good strategy.

Finally, it should be possible to provide some dwell spaces and other opportunities (such as locations for statutes or other cultural edifices) but these will need to be integrated into the access/ecosystem infrastructure as a secondary benefit.

Beyond implementation

In both our assessment of the proposals and the current environs of Picardy Place, we are clear that some potentially significant alterations will be required in the medium term, if not sooner.  As already noted, the junction at York Place/Broughton Street/Picardy Place remains very dangerous in terms of pedestrian and vehicular conflict.  At the same junction, street clutter abounds, with 24 signposts for traffic management clearly visible without taking a single step.

It is our understanding that the space in front of St Mary’s Cathedral encompasses the southern section of Broughton Street and remains usable for vehicles including access for worship, weddings and funerals.  Access to York Lane via Picardy Place is also maintained.  The potential for conflict is considerable and efforts should be made now to add both clarity and safety at his point.  We also think that there is an opportunity to add a new cycle lane at this point, linking the east-west cycleway as it joins Picardy Place to Leith Street/Little King Street running parallel to the road between it and the Paolozzi sculptures.

At Leith Street, the mixture of pedestrian footpaths and cycleways will (does) result in increased conflict between active travel modes.  The narrow footpath outside the Playhouse (the largest capacity venue in the city) results in major congestion at showtimes with crowds spilling over into the cycleway.  There will no doubt be a clear desire line from the tram stop to the Playhouse not catered for in the current layout.  These are some of the issues that will need to be resolved in the future.  The implications for the landscape of central area could be significant, and it might be more effective to consider amendments now rather than later.

Back to Listings

Telecoms Mast, Whitehouse Loan

Posted on: September 23, 2022

The Cockburn Association supports stakeholders’ objections to the installation of a telephone mast in the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area

The Cockburn Association supports stakeholders’ objections to the installation of a telephone mast in the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn OBJECTS to this application.

This application has been brought to the Cockburn’s attention by concerned local stakeholders. The proposed telecommunications equipment would result in excessive visual and physical clutter within the streetscape.

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.

In addition, this proposal will add street clutter to a relatively narrow pavement which is already compromised by a disused police box and lamp standard immediately adjacent to the site proposed for telecommunications equipment.   This area of the city hosts a number of educational establishments, and this fact heightens the need to keep pavements as clear and unobstructed as possible.

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 if there is insufficient evidence that alternative sites or mast sharing opportunities have been adequately explored.  In particular, we would suggest that the disused police box and lamp standard adjacent to the site proposed for telecommunications equipment should be assessed as potential locations for the proposed equipment to protect the amenity of the conservation area and to avoid adding additional pavement obstructions.

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.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Townhouses, Eyre Place

Posted on: September 2, 2022

We accept that townhouses may be appropriate for this location.
However, the current proposals require revision.

We accept that townhouses may be appropriate for this location.
However, the current proposals require revision.

Cockburn Response

We accept that townhouses may be appropriate for this location.

However, the current proposals require revision. In particular, the urban form and disposition of adjacent properties on Eyre Place Lane should be respected.  This specifically includes a more sympathetic response to varying ground levels on the site.

In addition, the stepped access to the proposed townhouses seems inconsistent with the principles of today’s accessibility requirements and aspirations for residential properties. Such access restricts their suitability to potential residents.

We have  also been alerted to detailed observations and comments  which have been made by local residents concerning both this development and a related proposal for student accommodation  on Eyre Place. These detailed observations require full consideration by planning officers.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Proposed student accommodation development, Eyre Place

Posted on:

The potential of the proposed development to adversely impact existing properties in terms of noise, overshadowing and privacy is clear. 

The potential of the proposed development to adversely impact existing properties in terms of noise, overshadowing and privacy is clear. 

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn OBJECTS to this application.

We acknowledge that student accommodation developments can bring many benefits to local communities. However, in this relatively small, constrained site the height, size  and scale of the proposed development is entirely unacceptable.

This is a largely residential neighbourhood which is not particularly close to any academic centre. The area’s existing architectural context and residential character must inevitably be adversely impacted by a development of the proposed height, mass and scale given its proximity to established residential properties. The potential of the proposed development to adversely impact existing properties in terms of noise, overshadowing and privacy is clear.  Policy ENV6 and HOU5 seem particularly relevant to the consideration of this development.

We have  also been alerted to detailed observations and comments  which have been made by local residents concerning both this development and a related proposal for townhouses  on Eyre Place Lane. These detailed observations require full consideration by planning officers.

The lack of a fully up-to-date and comprehensive assessment of both student accommodation demand and existing or approved provision across the city is unhelpful when assessing this or similar applications for student accommodation.  In addition, the continuing loss of small industrial sites in the community, such as this development site , actively works against the achievement of the 20 Minute Neighbourhood concept being actively  promoted by the City of Edinburgh Council and the Scottish Government.

 

Image: Taken from public Planning Application – copyright may be restricted

Further Details Here

Back to Listings