Portobello High Street Telecoms Mast Installation Application

Posted on: February 25, 2022

The proposed telecommunications equipment would result in excessive visual clutter within the streetscape.

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

Internal and external alterations relating to Forth House

Posted on: February 10, 2022

The Cockburn believes alternative uses should be pursued before a change of use to a hotel is considered. We do not support this application.

Cockburn Response

The Association has studied the plans to convert Forth House into an apartment hotel. In examining the plans in detail, we can see some merit in the proposals but believe that alternative uses should be pursued before a change of use to class 7 is considered. As such, we do not support this application.

There are two main components to the site, the listed buildings on Forth Street and the modern intervention in Broughton Street Lane. The useful Heritage Statement makes clear the significant if not total removal of the historic fabric of the Georgian buildings which were essentially gutted in 1970 for a warehouse development. This included the removal of two entrance doors and associated platts on Forth Street.

Forth Street contains a mixture of use comprising mostly residential with small scale commercial/office use which is generally compatible with its domestic scale. Playfair House is a modern 1970s office block with little architectural merit.

Whilst on the face of it an apartment hotel seems a reasonable new use, the immediate area already has a proliferation of hotels and hotel proposals suggesting that it has reached a saturation point for such accommodation. Broughton Street Lane with its very narrow pavements and constrained access points at Union Street and Broughton Street make it unsuitable for any substantive increase in traffic. The proposals suggest all servicing and most customer access will be from the lane, which does not seem appropriate.

With regard to Playfair House, we appreciate the proposals to rework the structure as opposed to complete demolition. However, its scale and form remain alien in this narrow mews lane. The recent housing to the north of the site sits far better in terms of scale and mass. As such, we argue that the existing height of Playfair House should not be taken as the benchmark for new development. Instead, a reinstatement of a mews scale building would offer fair greater potential to preserve and enhance the character of this part of the New Town Conservation Area.

Preferred approach

The Cockburn suggests that a residential approach would be a more suitable us for this site. The loss of historic features and fabric within the listed building provides opportunities for new housing to be inserted creatively to the existing building. The internal reinstatement of individual feus widths on Forth Street with reintroduced entrance platts would enhance the character of the street and Conservation Area and reinforce its domestic use and scale.

There is considerable merit architecturally and in conservation terms for the removal of Playfair House and its replacement with mews buildings of a similar scale to the original buildings to the west and the new dwelling houses to the east.

Given current land values and the demand for housing in the city, such a scheme would be commercially viable and profitable.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Slavery and Colonialisation Review Consultation – Comments 19 January 2022

Posted on: January 19, 2022

Our response to the Council’s Legacy of Slavery and Colonialism consultation exploring Edinburgh’s slavery and colonialism legacy.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association welcomes this review and the work of the review group chaired by Professor Geoff Palmer.

This is a complex and challenging subject and has, in part, been driven by debates on the role of Henry Dundas, Lord Melville played in the abolition of slavery in Scotland and the international Black Lives Matters campaign fuelled by the killing of George Floyd in America. The events in Bristol with the toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston and subsequent trial has highlighted many issues associated with subject. However, here in Edinburgh, the issues are much wider and more contemporary than the case of Dundas.

Furthermore, we also need to acknowledge that slavery, in all its modern-day forms, continues. British companies and institutions may still be exposed to current slavery practices in their operations and supply chains both at home and abroad, the most common of which in contemporary society are forced labour, child labour and debt bondage.

The Review should aim to set in place a process that fills in gaps in the received history of the city, and in doing so reconciles past and present by recognising the contributions to Edinburgh’s development and prosperity made by people who were enslaved or colonised. Equally, it is important to recover and celebrate the voices of those who contested the institutions and individuals that sustained the injustices. The legacy of slavery and colonialism is multi-faceted and enduring, and the Review should be seen as a way of beginning to engage fully with it.

The Cockburn is also aware of other related challenges in the interpretation of people and events. The stellar work the Witches in Scotland group highlighting the huge miscarriages of justice, and the writings of Sara Sheridan on the lack of public commemoration of women in Edinburgh are but two. Therefore, we believe that the Slavery and Colonial Legacy Review should be considered as a catalyst for a new wider and inclusive reflection of the history of the city.

The Cockburn comments in the review consultation will concentrate on the wider principles and processes. An evidential approach focusing on awareness, communication and education about the history and key issues is the best way forward. In doing so, we will not address individual or specific issues regarding particular monuments or place names other than to argue that any proposed changes should be subject to a public consultation and education processes supported by a strong evidential basis.

In all of this, the need for recognition of the positive contribution to Edinburgh that many persecuted individuals and groups have made should be an objective. This is a forgotten and hidden history and the lived experience of the many, many individuals who through slavery and colonial oppression were forced to contribute to the development of Edinburgh, and wider Scottish society, remains, for the most part, deeply buried. In fact, the ways in which this forgotten history has been hidden and suppressed, and the reasons for this, are also something worthy of examination and exposure to contemporary scrutiny.

To facilitate this ongoing process, we suggest the following as our contribution to this current consultation:

Establish a centre of research and reconciliation supported by CEC and academic institutes to carry the work forward looking not only at major individuals, events, networks and institutions based in the city, but also at ways in which the general public were impacted by slavery and colonialism. An additional role should be to monitor current trends in the city to ensure that all citizens are benefitting from what Edinburgh offers.
Create a museum / interpretation centre on the theme of justice, preferably by reusing an existing building that had links with slavery and colonialism, such as the Custom House in Leith. It would highlight slavery and colonial issues, as well as other societal issues such as witchcraft, historic abuse of women and children etc., while also recognising those resisting such practices, and highlighting their relevance today.
Work with schools to help learners become aware of these issues.
If the current consultation and subsequent Review Report suggests there is a case for changes to monuments and/or place names, views should also be sought from local community and civic groups as well as any other representative or specialist groups, recognising practical issues that might be involved (e.g. changing a street name will have consequences for postal addresses, etc). Similarly, where monuments or buildings have listed or scheduled status, consideration will need to be given to whether that status needs to be reviewed or amended.
An interpretation policy using all modern techniques to highlight the issues and injustices should be established. This would need to include a prioritisation system (which is a major challenge).
Host an international conference/online event connecting Edinburgh to places overseas that were linked to the city through slavery and colonialism, to better reveal the legacies.

In summary, the Cockburn would encourage the Review to recommend a number of practical steps designed to fill gaps in past understandings of Edinburgh’s history by promoting rigorous research, and to identify ways to share that new understanding widely.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

City Plan 2030 Consultation

Posted on: December 20, 2021

Our detailed response to City of Edinburgh Council’s consultation on CityPlan 2030

Cockburn Response

General

Whilst there are many aspects of City Plan 2030 that we welcome and support, we find that it is weakest in those areas of greatest importance, namely Climate impact and preparedness, Covid and post-Covid resilience and Brexit where the implications of leaving the EU over the plan period are not considered and the implications to economic prosperity with a probable change in relative importance of certain sectors and approaches.

These omissions seriously weaken the Plan’s robustness and resilience especially in the later years of its life. The Cockburn therefore calls for meaningful revisions and policy statements on how the LDP will tackle these most significant of issues facing the city.

Edinburgh needs a City Plan which is fit for purpose not just at the beginning- period of the plan but also at its end-period. Therefore, the plan’s aspirations, outcomes and policies need to be in the language and aspiration of tomorrow not just in the language of today.

Regional Issues

Sustainable Carbon Neutral city (paras 2.28 – 2.32)

Further to our general comments, we believe that the framework for this policy subject is narrow and lacks any serious credibility. Land-use policy will need to change radically if net-zero carbon targets are to be met, including presumptions of growth and regional support and development.

The Cockburn calls for an examination and explanation of how this plan and its policies will directly influence this objective rather than a discussion on other legislative or statutory frameworks.

Well-being and Equalities

The unsubstantiated comments here on how the plan improves well-being is a strategic weakness of it. There is no strong indication of how public health and land-use planning will be framed in this plan, with unclear statements of the roll of 20minute neighbourhoods as a mechanism for achieving this. The Cockburn asks for much greater clarity and depth of initiatives to be set out here, so that policies can be judged against this most important objective.

City Plan Outcomes

In general, we welcome the proposed outcomes outlined in City Plan 2030. However, in many sections, there is no clear statement of outcome which undermines the usefulness of this section and weakens a focussed delivery of the plan. We offer some comments and observations below.

Built Environment (2.45-46)

No outcome statement is offered. The Cockburn suggests that a commitment be given that Edinburgh’s unique urban landscape will be improved through active conservation policies and innovative design policies so that the qualities of the city are improved by the end of the plan period.

World Heritage Site (2.47-48)

We recommend that commitment be given that the Management Plan for the WHS will be a material consideration (not “may”).

Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Archaeology, etc

We welcome the statements made here in City Plan 2030. Again, we would advocate a firm outcome statement to the effect that the city heritage assets will form a key part of the delivery of the plans economic and environment policies and the Plan commits to improvements to all assets where possible.

We would also advocate that an outcome statement makes clear that proposals affecting heritage assets and Conservations Areas considered by non-planning mechanisms such as Traffic Regulation Orders will be required by City Plan to meet the policy objects set out within it.

Green Belt (2.58-60)

The Cockburn welcomes the commitment to no new Green Belt releases in this plan period.

Countryside (2.61) and Blue-Green Network (2.62-64)

The Cockburn has concerns with some of the land removed from Countryside Policy where it pursues development proposals on the western approach corridors. In terms of meeting its net-zero carbon strategy, the loss of any green space should be avoided, and the policy commitment to protecting countryside land needs to be strengthened.

To this end, the Climate Change Risk Assessment referred to in 2.64 is crucial. The Cockburn supports the wider ambitions to develop and reinforce the Blue-Green network across the city. To this end, a new policy advocating protection of private green spaces such as the large, treed gardens in the inner suburbs should be established, enhancing existing policies.

Housing

Our comments will be covered under consideration of specific policies. We note the quantitative analyse of housing need and suggest that the narrative around growth and operational carbon requirements needs to expand to include embedded carbon and wider sustainability issues.

Qualitative assessment and outcomes for housing are largely missing, however. The Cockburn believes that the spatial standards for new housing must improve if the city is to build resilience into a post-Covid recovery city, where more and more home-working if likely to feature. The UK has some of the meanest space standards in Europe. We therefore advocate additional policies to be developed to enhance the existing array including the better minimum spatial standards and increased outdoor space for well-being and active family environments.

Sustainable Energy (2.129-129)

The Cockburn believes that it is essential if we are to meet the net-zero Caron Strategy by 2030 that we move beyond a simple operational carbon/energy perspective of development and shift to a total carbon/energy assessment, taking into account life cycle costing and embodied energy in materials.

We also believe that new building including mass housing should include renewable generation technologies within the fabric, evidenced at the point of consent. Thus, the Cockburn advocates additional policies on the sustainability of building materials and building technologies as well as a policy on renewable energy generation in all new developments.

Place-based Policies

The Cockburn offers comments on some but not all place-based policies.

PLACE 1 – City Centre and Waverley Valley

The Cockburn is broadly supportive of the Ciy Centre transformation project and its various proposals. We do have concerns with renewal of the Ross Bandstand and other facilities in West Princes Street, and do not support the radical redevelopment vision of the Ross Development Trust to create a 4-6,000 seat venue in the heart of West Princes Street Gardens. A number of ENV policies are relevant so this policy should be amended to include reference to other policy objectives such as protecting the special characteristics and outstanding universal values.

PLACE 2 – Fountainbridge

We are broadly supportive of the policy here, although we would strongly recommend an additional statement supporting the vertical integration of uses in each development area. Large, mono-use blocks should be avoided. The policy should therefore be amended to encourage this.

PLACE 3 – Astley Ainsley

In general, we are supportive. However, the first bullet point should be amended from “respects the mature landscape setting of the site” to “preserves the mature landscape setting of the site”. This is to ensure that any development starts from the objective of conserving the character of the site.

PLACE 4 – Edinburgh Waterfront

We are increasingly concerned with the quality and quantity of development that is being placed in this policy area. To this end, we do not support the first bullet point “comprehensively designed proposals which maximise the development potential of the area” in that maximising the development potential should not be a policy objective. Instead, this might be merged with the second point – “provision of a series of mixed-use sustainable neighbourhoods that connect to the waterfront, with each other and with nearby neighbourhoods” – to emphasise that the delivery of sustainable neighbourhoods is the primary objective and one consistent with the 20 minute neighbourhood ambition.

Western Harbour and Central Leith Harbour policy areas need to fully explore the impact of rising sea levels on the suitability and feasibility of development. This should not be considered as a remote possibility but integrated into a revised set of land-use allocations that actively plan for increased storm surges and sea-based flooding. The statement carry out a flood risk appraisal to inform the design and layout of development proposals is wholly inadequate in this regard and objectionable as a result.

Granton and Granton Waterfront – we are broadly in agreement with the principles, subject to the above comment on sea levels. We welcome the development principle to create a new Coastal Park, but concerns with the principle Some small pavilion buildings and a larger focal building could be accommodated within the coastal park to provide places to meet, eat and enjoy activities, as these may eroded the positive values of the park in the first place. Also, it would be likely that these would displace activity better directed towards existing businesses. We therefore ask that this be amended.

PLACE 5 – Crewe Road South

This represents a significant development opportunity within the city. We welcome the statement to Make iterative use of Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment to identify footprint, height and massing of built form, respecting existing townscape, landscape and conservation area setting and surrounding residential character. We feel that this might be strengthened to ensure that the TVIA precedes any development proposal of scale coming forward with the aim of ensuring the deliver of this element.

Existing trees should be protected as a matter of principle. We would also advocate the removal of large areas of hardstanding where not required and their return to green space. Substantial levels of new tree planting should form part of any development masterplan.

PLACE 7 – Stead’s Place & Jane Street

We welcome the commitment to retain the 2-storey building at 105 Leith Walk. The plan does not reflect the proposed extension of the Leith Conservation Areas which proposes to add the former railway embankment and bridge abutments into the area, which we support. We would strongly advocate a unified urban design framework be prepared to ensure the architectural and streetscape coordination of any new development coming forward. The haphazard approach of allowing developments to come forward without an integrated vision is apparent in the nearby area.

PLACE 16 – West Edinburgh

We are concerned with the growth strategies for West Edinburgh and therefore require clarification of the mitigation measures which will address the negative environmental impacts identified in the Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Report related to this development expansion.

PLACE 17 – Edinburgh Airport

As with PLACE 16, we have concerns regarding the expansion of development in the airport area. Clarification of the mitigation measures which will address the negative environmental impacts identified in the Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Report is required before this policy should be adopted.

PLACE 30 – Redford Barracks

Overall, we welcome the general principles for the repurposing of this site. However, all existing green spaces should be retained and enhanced for public and climate mitigation benefit and all existing trees should be protected as a matter of principle. We would also advocate the removal of large areas of hardstanding where not required and their return to green space. Substantial levels of new tree planting should form part of any development masterplan.

Environment and Design Policies

In general terms, the Cockburn supports the policies as set out in this section of City Plan 2030. We offer a number of specific comments on individual policies, as indicated below.

ENV2 Co-ordinated Development – Whilst we support this policy, it should be amended to not just ‘encourage’ but ‘require’ conformity to this objective. Thus, advocate a rewording to “The Council requires a comprehensive approach to redevelopment and regeneration wherever possible, and the preparation of development frameworks, master plans, Development Briefs or Place Briefs to identify the full design potential for creating successful places.”

ENV5 Alterations, Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings – this policy should include an explicit indication against the development of front gardens for private car parking on the grounds that it damages character and affects streetscape.

ENV7 Sustainable Developments – We welcome the new policy requirement assess the embodied energy and life-cycle analysis of construction. However, we object to the caveat for proposals involving the replacement of existing buildings the proposals should be accompanied by a carbon assessment setting out the ‘whole-life’ carbon footprint of the proposed development compared to the option of re-using the existing building to accommodate the proposed use. Where this comparative assessment fails to show an overall lower carbon footprint then it must be set out why the developer considers the proposal justified, for example because the new development provides additional floorspace and/or dwellings compared to the existing building. The reasons for possible justification are spurious and unacceptable in the context of the purposes of the policy and would largely negate the reason for carrying out a carbon assessment in the first place.

ENV 5 – Alterations, Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings

This policy should include an explicit indication against the development of front gardens for private car parking on the grounds that it damages character and affects streetscape.

ENV 7 – Sustainable Developments

We object to the caveat for proposals involving the replacement of existing buildings* the proposals should be accompanied by a carbon assessment setting out the ‘whole-life’ carbon footprint of the proposed development compared to the option of re-using the existing building to accommodate the proposed use**. Where this comparative assessment fails to show an overall lower carbon footprint then it must be set out why the developer considers the proposal justified, for example because the new development provides additional floorspace and/or dwellings compared to the existing building.

The reasons for possible justification are spurious and unacceptable in the context of the purposes of the policy and would largely negate the reason for carrying out a carbon assessment in the first place.

ENV8 New Sustainable Buildings – We support this policy but ask for clarification of the linkages between this policy and other policies within the plan which support and promote environment, social and economic sustainability.

ENV 9 – World Heritage Sites – We support this policy but advocate an amendment to the wording of para 3.108 requiring reference to the Management Plans in place rather than merely suggesting they should be referred to. The purpose is to ensure awareness and compliance in all developments affecting WHSs in the city.

ENV13 Conservation Areas – Demolition of Buildings – We continue to support this policy. However we are concerned with the subtle dilution of it in comparison to the current LDP policy, which makes indicates that where a building is proposed for demolition and it makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance, Policy ENV10 Listed Buildings – Demolition applies. This adds clarity to the policy and grounds the assessment in national policy. We strongly advocate this change.

Housing Policies

HOU1 Housing Development – In some instances, the sites allocated are not genuine effective housing sites as constraints may mitigate against development. We would therefore advocate that the policy makes clear that in addition to the statement “Development should accord with the Place

Polices and development principles set out in Place 1-Place 36 and Appendix D” that development should also be accordance with the other policies as set out in the plan. This is remove any doubt.

HOU 2 Affordable Housing – In supporting this policy, we suggest the deletion in para 3.193 of the phrase “or as far as possible” which refers to providing 35% affordable housing for developments over 12 units in scale. The need for affordable housing over the plan period is very clear and should not be delighted by caveats that suggest otherwise.

HOU 4 Housing Land Supply – We do not support this policy as the wording suggests that it may be used as a ‘trojan horse’ for development of greenbelt land. The allocation of housing numbers includes a 20% Generosity Allowance over and above that required. No further allocations should be accepted.

HOU 6 Student Accommodation – The Cockburn is unsure about this policy. Whilst we accept that there is some need for additional accommodation, the policy provides no position on over-provision in areas of existing concentrations of student housing. We would therefore advocate a return at a threshold policy as used to exist in previous LDPs.

We also query the suitability of a area-based threshold in the context of housing and affordable housing provision. A threshold based on numbers and density might be better. The design of student accommodation should be capable of adaption to mainstream housing in order to ensure long-term carbon benefits and greater flexibility in changing circumstances. This should be built into this policy. Finally, we ask for clarification of the criteria with will be used to determine no adverse impact on established character of an area.

HOU 7 Loss of Housing – We welcome and support this policy. However, we would advocate a policy statement in enforcement in areas of significant STL concentrations which have no consent. Also, the policy should include the proposed STL Control Area currently under consideration and outline a policy-basis for considering Change of Use applications associated with it.

Hou 8 Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas – We welcome this policy and its stated intention. However, we would advocate the retention of the policy in the existing LDP HOU7 which states, “the intention of the policy is firstly, to preclude the introduction or intensification of non-residential uses incompatible with predominantly residential areas and secondly, to prevent any further deterioration in living conditions in more mixed-use areas which nevertheless have important residential functions. “ This provides greater clarity for decision-making and reinforces the need to support housing in mixed-use areas.

Infrastructure Policies

INF1 Access to community facilities – Whilst we support this policy, the facilities and infrastructure referred to in para 3.203 needs to be considered in separate guidance and open to public consultation.

INF5 Location of Major Travel Generating Development – We support this policy but ask that clarification of what criteria to be used to determine ‘very good accessibility by sustainable transport’ be included in the plan.

INF9 City Centre Public Parking – Further clarification of provision for accessible parking is required.

Economy

Econ 1 Supporting inclusive Growth, innovation and culture – We support the intention of this policy subject to inclusion of a reference to lifelong learning. We particularly welcome the requirement that “Developers will have to demonstrate that proposals are not just associated with the five key criterion but meet other relevant LDP policies such as heritage and environmental policies.”

Econ 6 Hotel Development – We do not support his policy. Clarification is required on the relationship between the objectives of Econ 6 and those of Econ 2 for which seeks to ‘create sustainable communities, maximise opportunities for housing and avoid large mono use developments”. We also note that in February 2020, the Edinburgh Hotel Association reported an oversupply of bedspaces in the city. This does not align to the suggestion in para.3.253 noting that “it is unclear at this time what the long-term implications will be” in a post-Covid city.

Retail Policies

RE9 Entertainment, Leisure and café/restaurant Developments (Preferred locations) – We support this policy and in particular the caveats that proposals must be integrated satisfactorily into its surroundings to a high quality of design that safeguards existing character and will not lead to a

significant increase in noise, disturbance and on-street activity at unsocial hours

to the detriment of living conditions for nearby residents. We would advocate that suitable criteria be set down in guidance for added clarity.

RE 10 Entertainment, Leisure and café/restaurant Developments (Other Locations) – As with RE9, Clarification of the criteria for determining “a significant increase in noise, disturbance and on-street activity at unsocial hours to the detriment of living conditions for nearby residents” will be required.

RE 11 Food and Drink Establishments – Clear criteria for determining ‘an unacceptable increase in noise, disturbance, on-street activity or anti-social behaviour to the detriment of living conditions for nearby residents’ will be required.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Commercial Hospitality Space at 36-38 Victoria Street

Posted on: December 16, 2021

Our comments objecting to an application to erect a commercial hospitality space on the Common Good land in the Old Town.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn has considered this application and would wish to OBJECT to it on the grounds that it would involve the quasi-privatisation of public urban space; would affect the wider amenity of neighbouring residents and businesses; is poorly designed in the context of the specific location and negatively impacts on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

We have no objection to the current tabling licensing system in place, whereby a small number of tables are placed discretely beside the operator’s premises. Licensing conditions require tables and chairs to be removed each evening, restoring the area back to unfettered public use. This flexible and temporary system works well.

Our concern lies with the erection of a PERMANENT structure, which would effectively privatise a portion of the Common Good land in Edinburgh’s High Street.

It is also important to recognise the likely cumulative impacts of this application if other neighbouring businesses seek to do the same in front of each of their properties too.

A senior Council officer recently reported their concerns about these structures to the Council’s Regulatory Committee (2 Dec 2021). This officer suggested that some of these permanent trading areas could potentially start “limiting the ability to stage” certain civic and cultural activities and events in the city.

The officer went further, noting that once granted a permanent license to operate these new trading areas, “the license holder would have protections” that “exposes the council to the risk of legal challenge” if the local authority requested the business owner to remove the structure and cease trading there.

We set out our own concerns about this type of commercial development in greater detail below.

Overall context – The Cockburn has outlined its general concerns about the unregulated proliferation of outdoor seating developments on numerous occasions while also noting the context of COVID and COVID recovery for hospitality businesses.

We continue to sympathise with businesses that have struggled during the periods of prolonged lockdown, unexpected social distancing and other necessary public health measures. We are not surprised that some traders now hope to permanently retain structures that were put in place temporarily and that other traders are coming forward with applications for entirely new structures.

These newly built ad hoc decks, gazebos and sheds significantly expand each premise’s trading area and, with the current uncertainty over the rapid spread of COVID variants, provide a timely extension to existing indoor operations, in addition to any previously licensed outdoor seating.

We accept TEMPORARY spatial and regulatory extensions to existing licensing footprints that keep businesses trading and the public safe. However we are opposed to PERMANENT planning permissions being granted for ad hoc BUILT structures that:

Permanently alter access rights to and other existing uses of public lands,
Potentially impact pedestrian movement through the streetscape,
Radically alter the character of conservation areas,
Negatively affect residential amenity,
Potentially inhibit access for necessary service and emergency vehicles.

Need for unified, design-led approach – Being a novel introduction to the city’s streetscape, Edinburgh Street Design Guidance is largely silent on these outdoor seating areas, although many broader principles apply including the need to reduce street clutter and the importance of uncongested, clear from obstruction pedestrian zones.

The Cockburn believes that interventions into Edinburgh’s streetscape, especially within Conservation Areas across the city, must be unified (i.e., consistent across a wider area), design-led and developed in such a manner as to enhance the character of streets. It should not be left to individual businesses to create their own visions for the public realm.

A revised and updated policy framework is required that takes on board all the City of Edinburgh’s Council’s pledges and commitments.

Street Clutter – At a recent meeting of the City of Edinburgh Council, Councillors reaffirmed their support for Transport for All’s Equal Pavements Pledge. This acknowledges that being able to move around the urban environment freely is a right that should be allowed to all those who live in, work in and visit Edinburgh, including those with complex needs. Outdoor seating areas such as that proposed here complicates the facilitation of free and unfettered access across the city.

We note the abolition of A-boards across the city as an example of the Council’s commitment to unimpeded pedestrian access.

Privatisation/Appropriation of public space – The Cockburn has frequently voices concerns about the ongoing privatisation of public spaces across the city. We have spoken out against the trend of the City of Edinburgh Council increasingly using the city’s existing public spaces, parks and green spaces to raise funds, by making their land available to private companies who charge for ticketed events and restrict access to parks and green spaces for extended periods.

We are not against all use of public and quasi-public spaces, particularly parks and greenspaces, for events and associated activities. But such events and pop-ups for al fresco dining and drinking, including those on and in association with streets, must be assessed and open for review and comment within a relevant and up-to-date policy and regulatory framework. Edinburgh lack such a policy framework currently.

Wider Amenity Impacts – We note that at recent meeting of the City of Edinburgh Council councillors agreed that the Council would write to the Scottish Government to ask for powers to deal with problems associated amplified busking and street entertainment across the city and to facilitate the engagement of residents who are concerned about related noise disturbances.

This suggests that the policy and practice framework relating to the consideration of noise from on-street eating and drinking installations is likely to be subject to change and be the subject of restriction in the near term, certainly that the Council is minded to take a more restrictive view of actions, activities and potential sources of street noise such as on-street eating and drinking facilities.

We have no objections to the current table licensing arrangements that require their removal at the end of each trading period, partly in order to reduce potential negative impacts on nearby residents. Permanent structures that provide 24 hour cover and seating facilities, however unintentionally, are already causing repeated anti-social problems for central Edinburgh residents as these structures become gathering places for after-hours drinking and eating, once business owners have long-since locked up and headed home. This will only increase in the spring and summer months.

Assessment of outdoor seating against current LDP policies – Notwithstanding the comments above, it is our view the city’s current planning policy framework does not support on-street al fresco dining and drinking as uncoordinated individual planning applications.

In our view, the proposals are not consistent with Policy ENV 6 – Conservation Areas (Development), Policy ENV18 Open Space Protection, Policy Del 2 City Centre – Development, Policy Des 1 Design Quality, Policy Des 5 Development Design – Amenity, and Policy Des 8 Public Realm and Landscape Design.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Commercial Hospitality Space at 119 High Street

Posted on:

Our comments objecting to an application to erect a permanent commercial hospitality space on the Common Good land of the High Street.

Cockburn Response

Our concern lies with the erection of a PERMANENT structure, which would effectively privatise a portion of the Common Good land in Edinburgh’s High Street.

It is also important to recognise the likely cumulative impacts of this application if other neighbouring businesses seek to do the same in front of each of their properties too.

A senior Council officer recently reported their concerns about these structures to the Council’s Regulatory Committee (2 Dec 2021). This officer suggested that some of these permanent trading areas could potentially start “limiting the ability to stage” certain civic and cultural activities and events in the city.

We set out our own concerns about this type of commercial development in greater detail below.

We accept TEMPORARY spatial and regulatory extensions to existing licensing footprints that keep businesses trading and the public safe. However we are opposed to PERMANENT planning permissions being granted for ad hoc BUILT structures that:

Permanently alter access rights to and other existing uses of public lands,
Potentially impact pedestrian movement through the streetscape,
Radically alter the character of conservation areas,
Negatively affect residential amenity,
Potentially inhibit access for necessary service and emergency vehicles.

A revised and updated policy framework is required that takes on board all the City of Edinburgh’s Council’s pledges and commitments.

We note the abolition of A-boards across the city as an example of the Council’s commitment to unimpeded pedestrian access.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Application for change of use in Grassmarket

Posted on: December 15, 2021

Our objection to a proposal to introduce a new leisure and bar operation in the Grassmarket which we believe will negatively impact the amenity of local residents

Cockburn Response

The Association has been approached by a number of members and stakeholders about this development. We note that a similar scheme in 2019 had been withdrawn.

The Grassmarket is an area of the city that has been subject to intense pressures from the tourism/hospitality sector for some. It is essential, therefore, that any proposed Change of Use and development scheme be considered in the context of the cumulative impact on local residents.

These pressures have been so significant that the viability of the Grassmarket as a residential community could be seen to be under threat.

The property has a long history of retail of use. We appreciate the challenges in marketing such premises during a global pandemic and note that it has been available since February 2019. Nevertheless, we believe that a change from Class 1 to Classes 3 & 11 as proposed on the grounds that would affect the amenity and to an extent the viability of the Grassmarket as a mixed community. In addition, it would create additional late evening footfall, adding to existing noise and intrusion in the area. In this, we note that at recent meeting of the City of Edinburgh Council councillors agreed that the Council would write to the Scottish Government to ask for powers to deal with problems associated amplified busking and street entertainment across the city and to facilitate the engagement of residents who are concerned about related noise disturbances

Policy Hou 7 Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas – states that developments, including changes of use, which would have a materially detrimental effect on the living conditions of nearby residents, will not be permitted. It notes that the intention of the policy is firstly, to preclude the introduction or intensification of non-residential uses incompatible with predominantly residential areas and secondly, to prevent any further deterioration in living conditions in more mixed-use areas which nevertheless have important residential functions. We believe that this proposal is inconsistent with this policy.

The proposed City Plan 2030 proposes new policies aimed at protecting residential amenity. These reinforce HOU7 and might be considered a material consideration.

As such, we feel that the proposals are inconsistent with Policy Des 5 Development Design – Amenity in that it fails to meet the first criteria namely “the amenity of neighbouring developments is not adversely affected and that future occupiers have acceptable levels of amenity in relation to noise, daylight, sunlight, privacy or immediate outlook.”

In summary, whilst we appreciate the challenges in marketing retail premises during a pandemic, the intensification hospitality and leisure developments in the Grassmarket will have a negative impact on residents and would result in further deterioration of living conditions.

The Cockburn, therefore, OBJECTS to this application.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Events and Filming in Public Space Consultation

Posted on: December 13, 2021

Our formal response to this Local Authority consultation on events and filming activities that take place in public spaces

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn participated in a Stakeholders Forum organised by the Council and chaired by Councillor Donald Wilson, Convenor of the Culture and Communities Committee. It included event and filming organisers, community councils, residents’ groups, business groups, friends’ groups, Council officers and interested individuals, and collaboratively engaged in an exercise to develop and recommend key principles for the use of public open space.

The current consultation is on these principles, and will inform the preparation of a Management Plan which will set out how Edinburgh will manage public open spaces (parks, greenspace, roads, plazas, squares under Council control) for events and filming.

The following is the Association’s response to the online consultation exercise.

Recommended Key Principle:

The Application and Approval for events and filming will be based on the scale of the activity, the impact it will have, both short and long term.

Q3. To what extent do you agree that decisions on events and filming should be based on the impact they will have on people and places?

Cockburn’s response – AGREE

Q4. Please Offer comments

This open-ended question makes giving a coherent and helpful comments difficult. The Cockburn agrees that the approval of events and filming applications should be based on its impact first and foremost to the wider amenity of the city.

Fundamental to this should be the principle that the public have an absolute right of access to public land (parks, gardens, civic squares, streets) and any impact or dilution of this by events or filming activity must be considered carefully and cumulatively.

Scale of the event is only one contributor to impact and whilst the general thinking that smaller events have smaller impacts may hold true, this may not always be the case. Similarly, a large-scale event, such the Edinburgh Marathon, due to how it operates, may not.

Nevertheless, an impact-based approach is welcome.

We would add a particular caveat on public spaces held on the Common Goods Register. These spaces should also be framed in a wider public benefit principle, whereby access to these spaces by commercial events should start from the principle of no loss of access or enjoyment. Thus, if a commercial event requires exclusive access or has specific safety requirements suggesting that access rights should be suspended, even temporarily, then the default position is that space is unsuitable for that event.

It is essential that the application process builds into it a proportionate and clear enforcement dimension. Conditions attached to events must be monitored and adhered to in all circumstances. There should be a presumption against relaxation of standards for temporary activities, and mitigating requirements should be put in place as part of any consents issued. For example, permanent hospitality businesses with amplified music are required to have sound monitors and comply with strict conditions, including processes that cut power if agreed levels are exceeded. Similar conditions with appropriate enforcement measures should be in place for public spaces.

Recommended Key Principles:

Events and filming deliver beneficial social value and support a lasting positive legacy for Edinburgh. Events and filming provide net positive economic, social and community benefits.

Q5. For Edinburgh – for an individual event or filming, what do you feel is important? Please select the level of importance for each of the below.

Financial benefit – not important

Social Benefit – important

Community Benefit – Very Important

Q6. For your local area – for an individual event or filming, what do you feel is important? Please select the level of importance for each of the below.

Financial Benefit – not important

Social Benefit – very important

Community Benefit – very important

Q7. Please use the space below for any comments or suggestions on the above.

Firstly, the assumption that events bring positive and lasting benefits needs to quantified and in many cases, challenged. Very little analysis of the negative impact of filming and events has been undertaken. Assertions of positive value can derive from untested or incomplete information that may overstate positive values and understate negative ones. For example, a paper considered by the Policy and Sustainability Committee on 10 January 2021 on filming noted that a specific event generated less than £250,000 in income for the city but was required to be spent on the variety of traffic regulation and management, meaning the actual value of the filming was cost neutral. The paper highlighted the brand and marketing value but ignored the fact that the vast majority of tourists come to Edinburgh because of its historic architecture and townscape. No analysis of the derivate added-value was undertaken.

The benefit of allowing public spaces to be used for private ventures should be required to demonstrate a direct benefit to the City.

Economically, the direct value to the City may be small in comparison to the value extracted by event operators. For example, the Council’s published price list for holding events in Princes Street Gardens states a price of only £2,820 per day for a major event. Gross ticket sales might be in excess of £250,000 for each day, and given no net profit information is available for study, it seems clear that use of public spaces is heavily discounted in comparison to the value of the use of that space to operators. There are no published data sets that outline how much value from an event stays within the city. It is entirely possible that the net value is quite small.

Many events are locally organised for local people. These are a direct public benefit and are supportable. However, it is important to differentiate between local and city-wide benefits, and to ensure that an event that might have wider positive value does not occur at a negative or disproportionate scale for those local neighbourhoods who might need to bare the most immediate impacts.

Recommended Key Principle:

The use of council-owned or public good sites for commercial events should be framed within a Community wealth building approach.

Q8. To what extent do you agree that ‘The use of council-owned or public good sites for commercial events should be framed within a Community wealth building approach.’?

Cockburn’s response – AGREE

Q9. Please use the space below for any comments or suggestions on the above.

In principle, we welcome this approach.

The Council should seek in all instances to ensure that any use of public space should be to the benefit of the public.

Recommended Key Principle:

Information on events and filming will be as open and transparent as confidentiality allows and proportionate to the scale of the activity and the impact it will have. It will be provided at the earliest opportunity, to all those who may be interested in it, in appropriate and accessible formats.

Q10. At what stage would you like to have information on events and filming?

Cockburn’s response – When a full application is made

Q11. Please use the space below for any comments or suggestions on the above.

Whilst we would encourage as open and transparent a process as possible, this may not be possible in all instances. The use of public space for commercial events or filming should not be seen as a right. Indeed the emerging Management Plan should make clear that using public assets for private commercial benefit is a privilege. Therefore, we believe that confidentiality should be a secondary consideration to whether information is made available. Certainly, proportionality is accepted, but any attempt to conceal information on the scale or impact under the vail of confidentiality should be avoided at all costs. This should be made clear in any application process.

Recommended Key Principle:

Area Conditions will have information available on the area including stakeholders, facilities, capacity, toilets, key contacts.

Q12. What’s important for you, that you feel organisers should have local information on when they are planning an event or filming in your area? (select all that apply)

Key people to contact (e.g. local suppliers, community / friends groups) ✅

Local facilities (e.g. toilets, electricity and water supply, storage)

Capacity (number of people who can attend at one time) ✅

Local suppliers and trades

Parking arrangements

Public transport

Access for deliveries

Access for care and health services

School activities and routes to schools

Q13. Please use the space below for any comments or suggestions on the above.

We appreciate that each area or site will have particular conditions are issues that are special to it, as well as wider more common conditions. We would advocate that the Council, working with local groups, civic organisations and event representatives work together to determine those core conditions and information for each site as a useful guide for local and organisers alike.

Missing from this list is the carrying capacity of the public space to able to host a particular event. Soft landscaped areas may be unsuitable for heavy infrastructure activities and could damage the public space to such an extent as to limit public access post-event. An analysis of specific site conditions including tree and root systems, ground conditions, etc would be valuable in determining the acceptability or otherwise of a particular event at a particular site.

Common Good Land should appear as a separate condition. If a public space is included on the Common Goods Register and is therefore a Common Goods Asset, this constraint should feature as local information.

Finally, when activities take place in parks or gardens, it is essential that the area conditions emphasis that the greenspace is the predominant characteristic to be considered. These areas should not be considered venues within a landscaped setting, but are landscapes where events might be tolerated.

Recommended Key Principle:

A digital platform will hold:

an events and filming calendar
planned disruption to an area such as road works or construction
Area conditions
an application template with a guide to what’s required for a successful application, including notification of stakeholders likely to be impacted.
record and communicate the positive benefits events and filming provide, as well as the negative impacts, to ensure balanced analysis.

Q14. How useful to you would be being able to see information on events and filming, both proposals and approved, on a web platform?

Cockburn’s response – Very Useful

Q16. Please use the space below for any comments or suggestions on the above.

We would welcome a new digital platform for events and filming in the city.

Access restrictions should be included under Area Conditions, especially if the Council promotes a section 11 exclusion under the Land Reform Act effectively extinguishing the public’s legal right of access to public land.

The cumulative impact of repeated activities is an important issue that should be addressed here. In many circumstances, it is not a single activity that causes an impact but repeated events in a single space – for example, damage to soft surfaced areas like lawns. A digital platform should be able to reflect changing circumstances that might reflect the suitability of use, or otherwise, of a site capability to host an event.

Recommended Key Principle:

Organisers must demonstrate that events and filming respect and contribute to the city’s cultural identity, reputation and quality of life for residents. They will be expected to join with Edinburgh residents in taking responsibility for the good appearance of the city.

Q16. To what extent do you agree that events and filming organisers should respect and contribute to the city’s cultural identity, reputation and quality of life for residents?

Cockburn’s response – strongly agree.

Q17. Please use the space below for any comments or suggestions on the above.

We would support the second aspiration of the principle, namely sharing with residents (and other sectors too) responsibility for the appearance of the city. Therefore, there should be a requirement for events and filming operations to articulate their specific positive contribution to this principle including an aspiration/expectation that public spaces are left in at least the same if not better condition than when the event took place. For significant activities, this might mean a condition survey is undertaken prior to approval to set a benchmark for management and reinstatement, if needed.

With the first element, we would support this. Guidance will be necessary to help organisers understand what is expected of them, including expections of local residents for their amenity. We would advocate that the Council improves its Environmental Health monitoring and enforcement systems, controls and capacity, providing a simple portal for any concerns regarding impacts on the quality of life.

Clear and unambiguous guidance on noise and access/travel disruption is needed. Similarly, organisers must ensure that they adhere to other regulatory frameworks, policies and guidelines. For example, in many instances operators have undertaken significant events without the necessary planning consents in place. Clear information on when consents are required is necessary including timescales for the appropriate consideration of information or applications. We believe that the core environment policies in the Local Development Plan should be made clear to organisers as a set of agreed principles for spatial management in the city. This would include information at the point of application on whether planning consent is required. In this regard, a more integrated, joined-up Council service will be required.

Recommended Key Principle:

Events and filming must comply with Edinburgh’s Sustainability Approach to be ‘net zero’ by 2030 and events with the principles of ISO 20121.

Q18. How important for you is it to have information on the carbon impact of events and filming?

Cockburn response – Very important

Q19. How important for you is it to have information on what organisers of events and filming are doing to reduce their overall carbon impact?

Cockburn response – Very important

Recommended Key Principle:

Applications will be expected to follow the principles and guidelines. In exceptional circumstances an applicant may seek modification or departure from these principles but will be required to present their case, including mitigations, to impacted stakeholders and for scrutiny by the Council. The Council, after due consideration and taking account of comments, will not be obliged to grant the exception.

Q20. In exceptional circumstances, do you think it would be OK for an event or filming to deviate from these principles, where it would have a clear positive benefit for Edinburgh?

Cockburn response – Yes

Q21. Please use the space below for any comments or suggestions on the above.

The nature of “exceptional” and “clear positive benefit” will need to be defined. Any decision-making process needs to have proportionate and transparent mechanism for such exceptions.

We would suggest that the request to extinguish access rights under section 11 of the Land Reform Act be considered an exceptional circumstance by definition. Only in the most significant applications should denying access to public space be considered acceptable. If a commercial event requires such exclusivity, then it is mostly likely an unsuitable event.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Commercial Hospitality Space at 23 Elm Row

Posted on: December 7, 2021

Our comments objecting to a proposal to erect a wooden gazebo structure and decked area on the public footpath at Elm Row.

Cockburn Response

Our concern lies with the erection of a permanent structure, which would effectively privatise in the region of two-thirds of the current public space available to this business into its control.

It is important to recognise that the possible cumulative impact if other neighbouring businesses seeking to do the same.

We set out our general and detailed views on this type of development in greater detail below.

Overall context – The Cockburn has outlined general concerns about the proliferation of outdoor seating developments on numerous occasions but notes the context of Covid and Covid recovery for hospitality businesses. We continue to sympathise with businesses who have struggled during the enforced lockdown period. However, with the ongoing easing of Covid restrictions, the reasoning for such relaxation of licensing and planning restrictions is also diminishing. Where on-street out-door eating and drinking installations have already been put in place under a relaxation of planning restrictions, we understand that the temporary arrangement for such provisions is coming to an end.

We are not surprised that some traders wish to retain structures that are already in place and that other traders are coming forward with applications for entirely new structure. This increases the number of covers available and with the current uncertainty of Covid and government guidance, provides a basis for continued, safe operations.

Need for unified, design-led approach – Edinburgh Street Design Guidance is largely silent on these outdoor seating areas although many broader principles apply including the need to reduce street clutter and the importance of uncongested, clear from obstruction pedestrian zones.

A revised and updated policy framework is required that takes on board all the City of Edinburgh’s Council’s pledges and commitments.

Street Clutter – At a recent meeting of the City of Edinburgh Council, Councillors reaffirmed their support for Transport for All’s Equal Pavements Pledge. This acknowledges that being able to move around the urban environment freely is a right that should be allowed to all those who live in, work in and visit Edinburgh, including those with complex needs. Outdoor seating areas such as that proposed here complicates the facilitation of free and unfettered access across the city.

We note the abolition of A-board across the city as an example of the Council’s commitment to free access.

Privatisation/Appropriation of public space – The Cockburn has frequently voiced its concern about the ongoing privatisation of public spaces across the city. We have spoken out against the trend of the City of Edinburgh Council increasingly using the city’s existing public spaces, parks and green spaces to raise funds, by making their land available to private companies who charge for ticketed events and restrict access to parks and green spaces for extended periods.

We are not against all use of public and quasi-public spaces, particularly parks and greenspaces, for events and associated activities. But such events and pop-ups for al fresco dining and drinking, including those on and in association with streets, must be assessed and open for review and comment within a relevant and up-to-date policy framework. Edinburgh lack such a policy framework currently.

For completeness, we have no objections to the current table licensing arrangements subject to the adherence of the guidelines associated with any specific licencing conditions.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Commercial Hospitality Space at 45 Cockburn Street

Posted on:

Our comments on an application seeking to permit construction of a private commercial structure on publicly-owned Common Good land

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn OBJECTS to this application on the grounds that it would involve the quasi-privatisation of public urban space; would affect the wider amenity of neighbouring residents and businesses; is poorly designed in the context of the specific location and negatively impacts on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The platform area extends into the existing street making access to service vehicles and pedestrians complex and difficult. The existing table licensing area (to which we have no objection) compounds this issue, making the pavement narrow, affecting pedestrian flow. We also note that the development, which has been erected, has timber panels erected to the height of the roof, meaning that the drawings do not reflect what has actually been built.

It is important to recognise that the impact on this location is potentially increased by other neighbouring businesses seeking to do the same. The cumulative impact of similar proposals needs to be considered first and foremost and whilst we accept that an individual applicant is only concerned with their proposal, the potential total impact is significantly greater on a streetscape level.

We set out our general and detailed views on this type of development in greater detail below.

Existing tabling licensed areas – We have no objection to the current tabling licensing system in place, whereby a small number of tables are placed discretely beside the operator’s premises. The addition of a separate platform placed apart from the licensed area causes additional concerns with the need for service staff to cross through pedestrian areas to service the extension. In some instances, especially where the separating space is small, this creates not along a significant impediment to pedestrian flow but creates a psychological barrier as well, suggesting that the public are crossing an area of semi-private space.

If outdoors seating extensions are to be acceptable, streets with site specific challenges like Cockburn Street with its sloping topography, busy footfalls and parking and servicing challenges require a bespoke solution which all proprietors would need to conform and which would need to respond to the total streetscape environment, not just what is outside a businesses’ door. The amenity and welling-being of residents must be respected.

Street Clutter – At a full meeting of the City of Edinburgh Council councillors recently reaffirmed their support for Transport for All’s Equal Pavements Pledge. This acknowledges that being able to move around the urban environment freely is a right that should be allowed to all those who live in, work in and visit Edinburgh, including those with complex needs. Outdoor furniture for al fresco dining has only further complicated the facilitation of free and unfettered access across the city.

We note the abolition of A-board across the city as an example of the Council’s commitment to free access.

We are not against all use of public and quasi-public spaces, particularly parks and greenspaces, for events and associated activities. But such events and pop-ups for al fresco dining and drinking, including those on and in association with streets, must be assessed and open for review and comment within a relevant and up-to-date policy framework. Edinburgh lack such a policy framework currently.

Policy ENV 6 – Conservation Areas (Development) – 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.

Cockburn view – the use of timber decking material and the associated fencing undermines the character of the area and does damage to the visual integrity of the street. The creation is enclosures with associated fences undermines the open character of the High Street, the historic marketplace for the city. The attempt to create a level platform on a sloping surface further exacerbates this incongruity. We note that the existing “shop-side” tabling noted in the application simply places tables and chairs on the sloping pavement. The proposals fail to preserve the main feature within contributes to character of the area, namely to the sloping street and does not demonstrate a high standard of design.

Policy ENV18 Open Space Protection – 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.

Cockburn view – Fundamentally, streets are open spaces with the city. The proposed use as an outdoor extension of a pub or restaurant is not public use, although we can appreciate the ambience and vibrancy that a café culture can bring to areas. This emphasises the need for a civic design plan that goes beyond the interests and boundaries of individual businesses.

Policy Del 2 City Centre – Development which lies within the area of the City Centre as shown on the Proposals Map will be permitted which retains and enhances its character, attractiveness, vitality, and accessibility and contributes to its role as a strategic business and regional shopping centre and Edinburgh’s role as a capital city. The requirements in principle will be for:
a) comprehensively designed proposals which maximise the potential of the site in accordance with any relevant development principles, development brief and/or other guidance
b) a use or a mix of uses appropriate to the location of the site, its accessibility characteristics and the character of the surrounding area.
c) Where practicable, major mixed-use developments should provide offices, particularly on upper floors. At street level, other uses may be more appropriate to maintain city centre diversity, especially retail vitality on important shopping frontages.
d) the creation of new civic spaces and traffic-free pedestrian routes where achievable.

Cockburn view – It is our view that none of the al fresco drinking and dining installations which have come forward in recent month and which continue to proliferate across the city centre can be said to maintain and enhance the character of the city centre. All applications coming forward should clearly demonstrate how, if granted planning permission, their proposed installations would add to the quality and character of the centre.

Policy Des 1 Design Quality and Context – Planning permission will be granted for development where it is demonstrated that the proposal will create or contribute towards a sense of place. Design should be based on an overall design concept that draws upon positive characteristics of the surrounding area. Planning permission will not be granted for poor quality or inappropriate design or for proposals that would be damaging to the character or appearance of the area around it, particularly where this has a special importance.

Cockburn view -All applications coming forward should clearly demonstrate how, if granted planning permission, their proposed installations would create or contribute towards a sense of place. It is not clear to us how any of the installations which we have seen coming forward actually achieve this. The positive additional character benefits from proposals should be clearly demonstrated.

Policy Des 5 Development Design – Amenity – Planning permission will be granted for development where it is demonstrated that:
a) the amenity of neighbouring developments is not adversely affected and that future occupiers have acceptable levels of amenity in relation to noise, daylight, sunlight, privacy or immediate outlook.
b) the design will facilitate adaptability in the future to the needs of different occupiers, and in appropriate locations will promote opportunities for mixed uses.
c) community security will be promoted by providing active frontages to more important thoroughfares and designing for natural surveillance over all footpaths and open areas.
d) a clear distinction is made between public and private spaces, with the latter provided in enclosed or defensible forms.
e) refuse and recycling facilities, cycle storage, low and zero carbon technology, telecommunications equipment, plant and services have been sensitively integrated into the design.

Cockburn View – All al fresco drinking, and dining proposals should clearly demonstrate that they do not adversely impact upon the amenity of their neighbours. Residents and other local business must have their rights to amenity and well-being respected. Again, we highlight the Council’s expressed wish to curtain acoustic pollution and to facilitate the engagement of residents on this issue.

Policy Des 8 Public Realm and Landscape Design – Planning permission will be granted for development where all external spaces, and features, including streets, footpaths, civic spaces, green spaces boundary treatments and public art have been designed as an integral part of the scheme as a whole, and it has been demonstrated that:
a) the design and the materials to be used are appropriate for their intended purpose, to the use and character of the area generally, especially where this has a special interest or importance.
b) the different elements of paving, landscaping and street furniture are coordinated to avoid a sense of clutter, and in larger schemes design and provision will be coordinated over different phases of a development.
c) particular consideration has been given, if appropriate, to the planting of trees to provide a setting for buildings, boundaries and roadsides and create a robust landscape structure.
d) a satisfactory scheme of maintenance will be put in place.

Cockburn View – It is difficult to understand how potential negative impacts arising for proposed on-street installations can be mitigated or avoided in the absence of a relevant policy framework, monitoring regime and enforcement structure. Again, we highlight the Council’s commitment to providing safe, accessible streets and walkways for City residents, workers, and visitors.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings