Canongate Student Housing

Posted on: May 20, 2022

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

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

Cockburn Response

We have lodged a neutral comment on this application.

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

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

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

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

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Fringe venue in the Meadows

Posted on: May 19, 2022

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

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

Cockburn Response

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

 We would wish to object this application. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevant development plan policies are: 

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

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

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

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

Policy ENV18 Open Space Protection states, “Proposals involving the loss of open space will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that: a) there will be no significant impact on the quality or character of the local environment and b) the open space is a small part of a larger area or of limited amenity or leisure value and there is a significant over-provision of open space serving the immediate area and c) the loss would not be detrimental to the wider network including its continuity or biodiversity value and either there will be a local benefit in allowing the development in terms of either alternative equivalent provision being made or improvement to an existing public park or other open space or e) the development is for a community purpose and the benefits to the local community outweigh the loss.” 

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

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

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

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

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

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

West Shore Road ‘Arts Hub’

Posted on: May 13, 2022

We support this application by social enterprise Edinburgh Palette for a new sea front ‘arts hub’ with business incubation and market facilities.

We support this application by social enterprise Edinburgh Palette for a new sea front ‘arts hub’ with business incubation and market facilities.

Cockburn Response

We support this application by social enterprise Edinburgh Palette for a new sea front ‘arts hub’ with business incubation and market facilities.

The development has the potential to transform  a vacant industrial unit into a vibrant creative and community hub providing affordable shop and studio space for local businesses, arts and third sector organisations.

We urge that every opportunity is taken to enhance the site’s public realm and greenspace , to link the site to the adjacent promenade and to support active travel to and through the site.

 

 

Image: Taken from planning application, copyright may be reserved.

Back to Listings

Application for Planning Permission Ocean Terminal

Posted on: April 20, 2022

Overall, we support this application but would advocate for improvements such as improving the
harbour edge to create a more amenable public space as well as offer some thoughts on wider
sustainability and climate impact issues.

Overall, we support this application but would advocate for improvements such as improving the
harbour edge to create a more amenable public space as well as offer some thoughts on wider
sustainability and climate impact issues.

Cockburn Response

 

Overall, we support this application but would advocate for improvements such as improving the
harbour edge to create a more amenable public space as well as offer some thoughts on wider
sustainability and climate impact issues.

Although only a few decades old, Ocean Terminal has not lived up to its potential due to several
factors. We appreciate that bricks and mortar retailing is changing rapidly with traditional
department stores seeing the most significant change. The loss of Debenham’s therefore creates a
major impact on the viability of OT. We agree that a substantial and radical restructuring is
required. We have no objection therefore to the partial demolition in development terms but do
raise serious concerns regarding the huge carbon impact that this will have as a result. We advocate
that the embodied carbon loss of the demolished buildings be calculated and features on the “loss”
side of the carbon management equation for the whole site, including the future redevelopment
area to the east of the site. In this way, whole-life carbon counting can form part of the
sustainability assessment for the scheme.

In addition to the retail issues, the original concept of OT also creates problems. Fundamentally, it
turns its back on one of the main assets – the harbour. The terminus for cruise liners was planned to
integrate into the centre – it was not built. The Royal Yacht Britannica (RYB), a very clear asset for
the area, was planned in such a way as to limit flexibility. These are all challenges that any
restructuring should seek to address. Whilst we appreciate that the RYB’s curatorial approach is, in
part, designed into the OT, consideration should be given to its relocation elsewhere in Leith Docks
(possibly nearer to the former Forth Port Authority’s HQ).

The partial demolition of OT with the removal of the north car park and Debenham’s store is not
controversial in itself. We are glad that arrangements for the retention of VUE cinema are in place
as this provides a useful cultural facility for the area.

A key objective should be the creation of much needed civic space in the area and with a principal
aim being the integration of the harbour edge with the wider environment. An animated area to the
north-east end of the site will not address the fact that the current harbour edge acts as a service
lane for the retail centre and visitor attraction. This are needs to become the “front door” to the
development, inverting the current arrangements. In this end, we support the new “book-end”
structure with its active ground floor and linkages through the site. Its scale, massing and
architectural treatment are logical and well-considered.
The landscaping scheme has clearly been considered integral to the success of this proposals, and it
is encouraging to see creative, well-formulated proposals are part of the application. Respecting the
palate of the industrial landscape of the harbour area is important and we feel this has been handled
skilfully.

Although we accept that this does not form part of these proposals, the area for redevelopment
created by the loss of the Blue multi-storey car park is integral to the overall development proposals.
For the record, we are not convinced by the proposed high-rise housing proposals and believe that
neighbouring proposals such as the Skyliner scheme should not be taken as a benchmark for massing
on this site. A more dense, lower-scale development on par with the new book-end building is
more suitable.

Finally, we note the variable climatic conditions in this area. As such, we appreciate the vision and
ambition but suspect that for most of the year, the exposed position will make this less attractive for
regular outdoor activity. Similarly, current climate impact reports suggest rising sea levels will be
inevitable with increased storm surge events and related impacts. An analysis of this should be
considered both at this stage and in any further proposals that might come forward.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

National Planning Framework 4

Posted on: March 31, 2022

Our response to the Scottish Government consultation on its NPF4 draft document

Our response to the Scottish Government consultation on its NPF4 draft document

Cockburn Response

(The following is a summary of our response to this consultation, read or download our full submission HERE).

These comments have been developed from substantial debate and deliberation led by the Cockburn’s Policy & Development Committee as well as in discussion and collaboration with the Edinburgh Civic Forum, which is a network organisation of over 100 civic groups, amenity societies, residents’ associations and community councils within the City of Edinburgh Council area.  The Forum is administered by the Cockburn Association.

The Cockburn Association acknowledges the challenges in making a national spatial strategy relevant on a local level.  It believes that the strategy, policies and projects that derive from the Framework will have a direct impact on local decision-making and local place-making.

Our main area of interest is the Central Urban transformation section of NPF4 and other areas of specific interest to Edinburgh – both city and city region.  In addition, we have taken special interest in Part 3 of Framework, covering the National Planning Policy Handbook.  Comments on Part 3 are covered is a separate document.

Overall, the Cockburn Association welcomes the general thrust and overall sentiment of NPF4.

In particular, the strategic ambitions to pioneer low-carbon, resilient urban living; reinvent and future-proof city centres; accelerate urban greening; rediscover urban coasts and waterfronts; reuse land and buildings; invest in net zero housing solutions; grow a wellbeing economy; reimagine development on the urban fringe; and improve urban accessibility are welcome.

Against this support for the generalised strategic thrust of NPF4, we are concerned with the lack of evidential assessment of delivery of NPF3.  Without very clear analysis of the success or otherwise of NPF3, it is very difficult to consider the likelihood of success of NPF4.  Also, whilst the positive rhetoric and narrative is compelling, polices and strategies are generally too caveated in terms of precision and language to give confidence in delivery.

In general terms, there is a lack of clarity on several key issues such as those noted below.

  • Growth model and approach seems incompatible with zero-nett carbon/climate mitigation requirements, community wealth-building and other policy drivers. It is not clear how these potentially conflicting policy drivers are aligned to ensure support rather than conflict.
  • No explanation in spatial or geo-political terms of the emphasis on Edinburgh City Region for population growth and enhanced development proposals, especially housebuilding. Edinburgh City is expected to deliver almost double the number of new houses as Glasgow (41,300 v 21,300) which rises to almost 3.5 times across the Edinburgh City Region (c.75,000). The linkages to infrastructure needs, land-use conflict (eg Urban Edge/Green Belt issues) and sustainable travel are not explored and are, in part, contradictory.
  • Circular economy needs to focus more on Community Well-being and less of waste management. The core principles of “reduce, reuse and repair” are not strongly articulated across all aspects of the Framework.  There is an opportunity to create far better connections between the circular economy, zero waste ambitions and the planning system.  Policies should make more of positive carbon capture and management.
  • Tourism features as an important sector for NPF4 to address. We would advocate that this policy should shift the emphasis towards ‘responsible tourism which amongst other things, seeks to minimise negative economic, environmental and social impacts; and generate greater economic benefits for local people and enhances the well-being of host communities.  In this regard, we find the emphasis on Cruise tourism on the Edinburgh Waterfront national project unsupportable.

Delivery

NPF4 is very light on the “how” as opposed to the “what”.  It is also couched in a language the weakens delivery in terms of policy commitments.  For example, strong statements like “‘We must embrace and deliver radical change so we can tackle and adapt to climate change” are undermined by non-directive words such ‘Encourage’ when referring to low- and zero-carbon design.’  The preparation of a National Action Plan with clear allocation of resources to achieve the strategies and policies contained within NPF4 will be required.

Edinburgh-specific issues

Although we appreciate that NPF4 is a national strategy and not meant to cover the ground occupied by Local Development Plans and strategies, it is a material consideration in planning matters and will have considerable influence.

We welcome that statement in the Framework, “as a capital city with a World Heritage Site at its core, it will be crucial that future development takes into account the capacity of the city [of Edinburgh] itself and its surrounding communities and makes the most of its exceptional heritage assets, places and cultural wealth.”  In making this workable, it is therefore essential that an analysis of what is meant by “capacity” and how it is measured and defined is developed as part of NPF4.  The concept of carrying capacity is embedded in ecosystem analysis but has not been developed as a useful tool for urban management.  There is a very positive opportunity to create such a policy tool here which should be grasped, otherwise this statement will be little more than positive rhetoric.

We have already mentioned concerns about the emphasis of the Edinburgh City Region for population growth and housing building.  The City of Edinburgh is expected over the next 10 years to accommodate an additional 41,300 new houses with the wider City Region taking 75,800.  In comparison, Glasgow City is required under NPF4 to take on 21,300.  There are concerns that this could lead to overdevelopment and might well undermine the delivery of related Scottish Planning Policies such as prevention of loss of prime agricultural land or Policy 29 on Urban edges and Green Belt, which will be subject to consider pressure from the private market-led housebuilders who might exploit this quantitative target as a means of justifying loss of prime land or Green Belt.

Strategic Approaches and Projects

In our internal and external discussion, the Cockburn has articulated these seven areas of strategic land-use or resourcing issues that should have greater emphasis in the framework or needs to be included as a major issue.

Maintenance & Repair as National Strategic project – the need to ensure existing places are fit for purpose and resilient completely missed in NPF4. It has been estimated that 72% of the buildings in the historic centre of Edinburgh are in need of significant repair due to a backlog of neglected maintenance work and the cost of basic road maintenance (potholes) is estimated to now cost £71m.  Keeping our buildings and neighbourhoods in reasonable condition should be a firm objective of this Framework.

Sea Level rise as impact from Climate Change needs to be considered as a strategic land-use constraint in Spatial Strategy.  The recent IPCC Report has suggested that it is now a matter of when, not if, that sea levels will rise.  There is no indication of this significant issue featuring as a major land-use challenge.  In supporting the development of Edinburgh’s Waterfront as a national development, it is essential for this to be factored into it.

Housing (Quality) – concern with emphasis on Built to Rent; no quality initiatives other than bland statements and reliance on Place Standard.  Cost of Living pressures and affordability not addressed.  Need to increase internal space standards and internal/external spaces to cope with emerging blended work patterns.  Over reliance on commercial housebuilding sector to determine market need and land-use determinations suggests need to review definition of effective land supply.

Housing (Quantity) – major concern is concentration on City of Edinburgh/Edinburgh City Region for housing expansion with too great an emphasis on peripheral, suburban housing types.  Weak links to infrastructure first approach.  Lack of regional planning framework to ensure coordination.  Poor link to 20-minute neighbourhood concept.  Need to increase delivery of affordable and social house types in Edinburgh which suggests a different approach to the current market-led model.  Current 25% threshold should not be reduced.

Food Security and Food deserts – Will be a significant issue in plan period; prefer an outright ban from using prime agricultural land for development, which implies fundamental review of spatial strategy within Central Urban Transformation area.  Need to emphasise localism and links to poverty and food.

Energy Security – greater emphasis of integration of “passive house” standards in all housing developments; innovative renewals rollout including PV, micro-wind, etc. Development of Heat Networks as key national project.

Resources to deliver – there is no denying the fact that financial pressures on local authorities will inhibit delivery.  The City of Edinburgh Council is one of the poorest resourced in Scotland, yet it is expected to shoulder significantly higher levels of national developments than others.  Good planning requires adequate resources.  National resources might be allocated to assist in upskilling planning authorities especially in areas of carbon management and climate preparedness.

View our full submission by clicking the box below.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Demolition and redevelopment at New Market Road

Posted on: March 25, 2022

We object to this proposal which would adversely impact historic auction mart buildings and livestock sheds, some of which are over 120 years old.

We object to this proposal which would adversely impact historic auction mart buildings and livestock sheds, some of which are over 120 years old.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association objects to this application.

The development site includes listed and unlisted auction mart buildings and livestock sheds some of which are over 120 years old. These are an important part of the commercial history of Chesser and of Edinburgh and every effort should be made to secure their retention.

The current proposals do not achieve that aim and should be revised to secure a more significant retention of the site’s cultural and historical interest.  Heritage considerations should drive the revision of plans for this site. The scale, mass, and materiality of any new structures on this site should reflect and be sympathetic to those original structures which are retained.

Any development on this site needs to be integrated successfully and fully into the existing local community and environment. As proposed, current plans lack through routes, linkages to active travel routes and sufficient greenspace and landscaping.

Existing football and bowling facilities will be lost under the current proposal. These are valuable recreational resource for the local area and the city.

We note the car-free nature of this development.  However, if new restrictions are not placed on future residents with respect to car ownership.  The potential for congestion on neighbouring streets due to off-site parking is considerable.  This is not a city centre location. A car-free development may not be suitable.

Back to Listings

Forth Bridge Experience

Posted on: March 4, 2022

The Cockburn Association has been consistent in its support for all aspects of the ‘Forth Bridge Experience’

The Cockburn Association has been consistent in its support for all aspects of the ‘Forth Bridge Experience’

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association has been consistent in its support for all aspects of the ‘Forth Bridge Experience’.

We support this LBC application as for the first time in the bridge’s history, the public will be able to access this world-famous structure, to explore its heritage and to  access outstanding, world-class views.

Suitable assessments  and safeguards must be put in place to secure the bridge’s historic fabric for future generations.

We also support the refreshed proposals are for a  a single-storey reception hub to the east of the Forth Bridges which echoes the industrial heritage of the area.  But particular care is required to ensure that the stated aim of sympathetically positioning the proposed hub in the existing landscape while minimising the impact on the surrounding environment is achieved.

Proposals for new active travel and accessible access provision require ongoing consultation with appropriate local and amenity stakeholders.

Image taken from Planning Application 22/00358/FUL and copyright remains with the owner 

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Jenner’s Department Store

Posted on:

Overall, the Cockburn is strongly supportive of these proposals to bring back to life one of Edinburgh’s most iconic buildings.

Overall, the Cockburn is strongly supportive of these proposals to bring back to life one of Edinburgh’s most iconic buildings.

Cockburn Response

The Association has studied the plans for the redevelopment of the former Jenner’s Department Store and wishes to give its full support the proposals developed by AAA United A/S with David Chipperfield Architects.

Over the past year, the developers and their professional teams have engaged fully with the Cockburn at all stages and shared their thinking as the proposals emerged.  This open, positive and constructive discussion gives us the confidence that scheme proposed is well-considered, sensitive and respectively of this iconic building but also creative and exciting in both ambition and vision.

In terms of use, we are delighted with the retention of retail on basement, ground and first floor levels.  The restoration and re-use of the main hall or Grand Saloon as the premier retail space is particularly welcome.

We have no objection to the hotel use, noting the original dormitories for staff in the original building as a possible precedent for this change of use.  Again, the proposals are sensitive to the historic fabric and make good use of spaces in more modern interventions.  Our one issue here is the use of Rose Street as the main entrance into the hotel with the potential for vehicular conflict on a pedestrian retail and hospitality street.  This is not an insurmountable problem but will need special attention.

In terms of elevational treatment, we support the remodelling of the later Princes Street elevation, which will open up the glazing to create a ‘double-height’ shopfront and support the change from a curved to straight window head. Similarly, the major works to the Rose Street building involve the adaption of an already insensitive building thereby improving its presentation to the street.  We were particularly impressed by the response by the architects to this part of the development, taking a strong lead from the building itself.

We are confident that the design team will deliver sensitive stonework repairs to the highly decorate facades.  In terms of elevational alterations, the most controversial element is the new turret at the corner of Rose Street and South St David Street.  This will be highly visible across St Andrew’s Square and nearby environs.  Like Historic Environment Scotland, more could have been borrowed from the existing facades, but we have confidence in the architects to prepare a well-proportioned, coherent intervention here.

Overall, the Cockburn is strongly supportive of these proposals to bring back to life one of Edinburgh’s most iconic buildings.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Cameron Toll Redevelopment

Posted on: March 3, 2022

Some initial questions about the proposed redevelopment of the Cameron Toll retail park

Some initial questions about the proposed redevelopment of the Cameron Toll retail park

Cockburn Response

Some outstanding questions for the developer before the next consultation event:

  • How is site and  community connectivity to be achieved?
  • How are active travel, Tramline  3 and ‘red light’ routes to be integrated or protected?
  • What is the nature of wider civic connections and services to the neighbouring communities?
  • Is there not an opportunity for a more radical shift in site and civic amenity planning than is proposed?
  • What is the future of the current retail offering at Cameron Toll?
  • Where is the data on current pattern of use/travel at Cameron Toll and how is this informing future use?
  • How is the concept of a 20-minute neighbourhood being integrated into proposals for Cameron Toll?
  • How will the new Cameron Toll contribute to the city’s ambitious 2030 climate targets?

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Proposed installation of a telephone mast in the Morningside Conservation Area

Posted on: February 25, 2022

The Cockburn Association supports stakeholders’ objections to the installation of a telephone mast in the Morningside Conservation Area

The Cockburn Association supports stakeholders’ objections to the installation of a telephone mast in the Morningside 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 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.

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.

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