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

Planning Consultation Jock’s Lodge, Edinburgh

POSTED ON

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

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

Support the Cockburn

Donate
Join Us

Back to Listings

Planning Consultation Jock’s Lodge, Edinburgh

Posted on:

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

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

Cockburn Response

Back to Listings

Short Term Lets 2022 – consultation 2

POSTED ON August 3, 2022

It is essential for the Council in implementing this regime to ensure that adequate resources are made available for its effective operation. Coordination with Police Scotland on enforcement and the reporting of complaints will be an important to the management of the system and should be made open and transparent.

It is essential for the Council in implementing this regime to ensure that adequate resources are made available for its effective operation. Coordination with Police Scotland on enforcement and the reporting of complaints will be an important to the management of the system and should be made open and transparent.

Support the Cockburn

Donate
Join Us

Back to Listings

Short Term Lets 2022 – consultation 2

Posted on:

It is essential for the Council in implementing this regime to ensure that adequate resources are made available for its effective operation. Coordination with Police Scotland on enforcement and the reporting of complaints will be an important to the management of the system and should be made open and transparent.

It is essential for the Council in implementing this regime to ensure that adequate resources are made available for its effective operation. Coordination with Police Scotland on enforcement and the reporting of complaints will be an important to the management of the system and should be made open and transparent.

Cockburn Response

Tenement properties – comments on options proposed

The simplest regulatory approach is option 1, being a universal position of the unsuitability of tenements for commercial uses such as STL. Tenements have many different forms in the city, and it is important to understand that ‘tenement’ refers not to an architectural type but to a form of tenure of vertical ownership (refer Tenement Scotland Act).

We would suggest that for clarity, the policy includes main door flats in tenements as well, as these tend to have direct access to private garden spaces which hold a premium for family accommodation in the city. Given that option 1 allows an owner to challenge a decision, this ensures fairness in the decision-making process. Guidance on what might be accepted as a rebuttal presumption might be helpful.

We do not support option 2 for several reasons. Firstly, there are many properties in the city where all, or almost all, flats are used for STL uses. In these instances, the vested interests of operators would suggest no real independence in terms of policy presumption. Secondly, it is not clear enough to address situations where only one or a minority of owners object to the granting of a licence where other STL operators might support. This would need a clear presumption in favour of residents even if they are in the minority. Thirdly, it might be expected that an applicant would suggest an exemption based on hardship or other personal circumstances which if accepted, results in negative impacts on others. Fourthly, it might result in undo pressure being placed on owners to consent. Fifthly, there are buildings in the city where all the flats are owned/managed by a single operator who would effectively be arguing for their own applications to be approved. Finally, there a consent process might need to be extended to tenants as well, and not just owners, as they would experience any anti-social behaviour that might result from a STL in a common stair

Overall, no specific instance in option 2 cannot be remedied by the rebuttal process suggested in option 1.

Home letting– proposals to set limitations on number of nights

To be consistent with the current planning regulations and temporary uses, a maximum of 4 weeks (28 days) should be set as the limit. However, we accept that there might be instances where home letting for longer periods might be required (eg. an owner has work contract in another location for, say, 3 months, or has a job that requires work a remote location on a regular and timed basis such as a worker on an oil rig. In such instances, rebuttal presumption enabling an applicant to justify why their application should be granted as an exemption to this policy is reasonable where they can demonstrate personal circumstances.

Licensing policy – comments on proposed policy

It is essential for the policy to set out very clear management criteria for STL operations as to what is acceptable and what is not. Notice of Application – there are issues with the current notification process for hospitality businesses in that the posting of an application notice by the applicant “on or near” the premises is too vague. Given the potential impact on neighbouring properties, we believe that adjacent properties should be notified separately much akin to the Neighbour Notification procedures for planning consent, albeit with the responsibility placed on the applicant’s shoulders to ensure the information has been distributed. Evidence of this included in the certificate required (para 4.5).

Temporary exemptions – comments on proposed policy

It is a feature of the events and tourism industry in Edinburgh that large numbers of visitors enter into the city at any given time, whether for a Festivals or sporting events like the Six Nations Rugby. As such, it should not be necessary for many temporary exemptions to be permitted. However, if so, then we agree that they should be subject to the same mandatory and additional conditions as other applications.

Additional licence conditions – comments on proposals

If the licencing regime permits STL in tenements, the issue of density of use and the vertical disposition of rooms becomes an issue. Significant problems arise with STL when communal areas are used as sleeping spaces through the use of sofa beds, etc. This was recognised in the early consultations by the Scottish Government and we feel that this should be something included in the licencing application assessment especially if information such as a layout plan is required (ref para 4.2). This is less of an issue if STL are not permitted in common stairs.

Enforcement – any regulatory/licencing scheme is only as good as the enforcement given to it. The Policy must set out firm and clear guidelines on compliance and enforcement and include provisions when a licence might be revoked due to substantial or continual breaches of regulations. Whilst this is highlighted in para 4.41, threshold criteria should be considered for clarity. For example, a set of guidelines on what might constitute a variation, suspension of revocation of a licence would be helpful to both operators and neighbours alike – something like three complaints for disturbance to the Police would result in an enforcement action.

Enforcement fees – we have no objection to the proposals set out in para 4.38. However, we advocate a sliding fee scale for repeat offenders – other property-based and host – rising with each enforcement action that takes place.

Conditions – Overall, the Cockburn finds the additional conditions sset out in Appendix 2 acceptable. However, we offer the following comments on some specific points.

  • STL 3 suggests that hosts must provide a key-holding service when guests arriving between 9pm and 7am. We understand the reasoning for this, but disruption can occur outside these hours. Also, if tenemental properties are not to be used for STL purposes, then the significant impact of out-or-hour access is obviated.
  • STL5 – we welcome the requirement for hosts to take reasonable steps to deal with anti-social behaviour. Guidance on these ‘reasonable steps’ should be prepared and included in each STL property, setting out some basic requirements for guests. This links to STL 7 as well.
  • STL 6 – Key boxes. Again, if STL are to be permitted in tenements, specific guidance is required. In this instance, consent must be required from all proprietors without exception.
  • STL 7 – In addition to the points made in the conditions, license holders should also be required to ensure that the use of a STL property should not disturb the right of neighbours to enjoy their properties peacefully.
  • STL 11 – We are not clear on the purpose of the condition to insist on carpeting of rooms in secondary lets. If it is for the purposes of sound insulation, acoustic underlay is more important. Again, some guidance and technical specifications for material might be useful.

Additional Comments

It is essential for the Council in implementing this regime to ensure that adequate resources are made available for its effective operation. Coordination with Police Scotland on enforcement and the reporting of complaints will be an important to the management of the system and should be made open and transparent.

Finally, the register of licences STLs should be made public with a searchable archive.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Scottish Widows redevelopment

Posted on: July 28, 2022

We are supportive of progress so far. But we would like to see more detail illustrating the impact of this development (height, landscape, removals etc) on key views to and from Arthur’s Seat.

We are supportive of progress so far. But we would like to see more detail illustrating the impact of this development (height, landscape, removals etc) on key views to and from Arthur’s Seat.

Cockburn Response

The successful repurposing of the existing building and its setting clearly presents some challenges. But the current office accommodation on the site  is clearly not fit-for-purpose.

We are supportive of progress so far. But we would like to see more detail illustrating the impact of this development (height, landscape, removals etc) on key views to and from Arthur’s Seat. Much of the existing landscape, although not necessarily well maintained, significantly screens the current buildings from Arthur’s Seat.  And it is a concern that the potential height of the proposed residential blocks with obscure views to Arthur’s Seat from nearby main roads, so significantly altering the character of the surrounding area.

Image: Terry Levinthal

Further Details Here

Back to Listings