Grassmarket Short Term Let Application

Posted on: June 8, 2021

Our objection to a plan to convert yet another residential home into a short term let holiday property

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn has studied this application and would wish to lodge a formal objection to it.

We do so in the context that we have great sympathy for local businesses who have been hardest hit by the lockdown restrictions and believe it is essential for the local economy get back on its feet.

It is our view that in this residential shared stair context the proposed change of use is not in accordance with Policy Housing 7 ‘Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas’ as it would have a materially detrimental effect on the living conditions of other residents of the main door accessed residential stair, and so should not be permitted.

In addition, the proposed change of use is not supportive of either Scottish Government Housing policy on More homes – “everyone has a quality home that they can afford and that meets their needs” or Scottish Planning Policy on “socially sustainable places” and “supporting delivery of accessible housing”.

The Old Town has been subjected to the most intensive pressures of overtourism for some time. It is essential that the city rebalances this pressure. Encouraging the shift from short-term holiday letting to more permanent housing is one way of achieving this.

We note that the applicant places significant importance to a recent appeal decision at Johnston Terrace where an application for change of use to STL was sustained. We believe that the issues are very different in the Grassmarket which retains a substantial residential community. Also, this appeal decision was very much an outlier and not consistent with the many, many cases where appeals have been dismissed due to their impact on neighbours and the wider community.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Winter Festival Consultation

Posted on: May 19, 2021

Our response to a Council consultation on the future of Edinburgh’s Festive Festivals

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association appreciates the popularity of the Winter Festivals. We have stated repeatedly over the past number of years that it adds vibrancy and vitality to the City. Edinburgh’s Hogmanay is now a global icon that, at the turn of each year, markets the city to a global audience on par with Melbourne and New York City to name a few.

However, both the Christmas Market and the various Hogmanay events are major commercial events rather than cultural festivities. The Xmas market has moved considerably from the German market that once occupied the Mound with largely authentic products and produce to such a scale that it now modifies the Princes Street Gardens to suit its purposes rather than sits respectfully within them.

Now, these festive events impose significant restrictions on residents and those working in the city. Both are now geared to the tourist market rather than the local, with 2018 official figures indicating that less than half attendees of the Xmas market were local residents, which falls even further to just 20% for Hogmanay.

Pre-Covid, the Winter Festivals have been an increasing cause of concern for residents and civic organisations through the city. The erection of a massive space deck in East Princes Street Gardens by the Council’s contractor Underbelly, together with other issues regarding the operation of Edinburgh’s Hogmanay events (such as attempts to exclude local residents from the city centre) were merely the straw that broke the back of civic interest. The City Council’s response to these issues was less than satisfactory and highlighted the conflicted interests that it has in such matters.

These issues prompted a joint response by the Cockburn and the five City Centre Community Councils prompted by the City of Edinburgh Council’s Policy and Sustainability Committee (Thursday 20^th August 2020).

Current Consultation

The Cockburn welcomes the consultation on the future of the Winter Festival. This was promised as a response to the unsatisfactory management and governance of recent festivals.

However, we are concerned with some of the information provided in the on-line consultation. For example, figures are put in the introduction with no links to the actual reports or data, which has been relatively unchallenged. Commercial confidentiality means that key information is unavailable for scrutiny.

Some issues were unexplored (environmental and carbon impacts), and others would benefit from further discussion and consultation. In this regard, we hope that the various stakeholder groups convened by the consultants would be re-established to receive the report from this consultation and have a chance to consider and discuss the findings.

Covid and Covid-secure challenges

The current uncertainty of restrictions and the general acceptance that we will be living with Covid and Covid-variants for some time needs to be reflected in any event post 2021.

An enhanced (and not just “adequate”) security and people management ?? policy for all aspects of the Winter Festivals will be an absolute priority with respect to public protection. It is clear that for years to come, the implications of Covid and the management requirements caused by Covid will continue. The Winter Festivals should have the high levels of management to prevent overcrowding, protect public health and ensure social distancing.

For this reason, together with concerns about previous Winter Festivals, suggests the need for a carefully considered attendee dispersal strategy post-2021. Bigger isn’t necessarily better.

It is our view that the Christmas Market, Hogmanay and associated events should not be held in East Princes Street Gardens or at least reduced to the extent that only the upper terrace is used. No space structure such as that erected on 2019 should be permitted.

Key Principles for the Winter Festivals post 2021

The principle of free access must underpin the Winter Festivals offer, especially for those activities that occupy public space. We accept that there will be some ticketed events (such as the Hogmanay Street Party) but these should be limited with a default position of no exclusive access to public areas.

No public or quasi-public areas with soft landscaped surfaces should be used for activities that require substantial infrastructure that might cause damage to those areas. For the Cockburn, it is unacceptable for a public space like east Princes Street Gardens to be unavailable for 6 months of the year to facilitate a commercial Christmas Market that operates for 6 weeks. There are other places and solutions available, such as integrating Waverley Bridge into the market, and using corporate sponsorship to fund entertainment activities.

There should be no loss of public circulation space resulting from measures put in place for these events. For the avoidance of doubt, such management and social distancing measures must not be a Trojan horse for increased commodification of public spaces including streets.

There must be a direct commitment from the Winter Festival management to contribute to Edinburgh’s carbon reduction targets. All contracts should explicitly reference to ISO 20121 on sustainable events as a benchmark for management. Travel to the events by attendees (including a full breakdown of EH postcodes) should be included in any carbon counting exercise in order to assess, and therefore manage, the full carbon impact of the Festivals.

It is vital that absolute priority is given to supporting existing local businesses and micro-businesses including local social enterprises (Edinburgh Social Enterprise is the most appropriate source of assistance) through all aspects of the events. The aim to create an Edinburgh Christmas Makers’ Market is welcome but important details will need to be developed.

Public interest and protection will be best served by scaling down the market. In 2019 67% of outlets in 2019 were non-local. There were also too many “repeat” stalls – i.e. stalls owned by the same retailer selling the same products, in many cases products available in traditional High Street shops. Clear reductions are needed in the number, as well as the proportion, of non-local exhibitors.

In particular, there should be no pop-up bars and food outlets, especially as these create direct competition, not additionality, to local all-year round businesses such as bars and cafes.

Dispersal of activities

A significant problem with the Winter Festivals pre-Covid was the desire of operators to concentrate activity is a small area. With the Xmas Market, this meant East Princes Street Gardens which were unable and unsuitable to cope with an ever-increasing activity.

Planning applications submitted in early 2020 proposed locating market stalls on High Street and George Street with possible other facilities located in streets will clearly have an impact on local residents for more than two months. We therefore ask that residents on all affected streets are consulted for a period of at least two weeks, before a decision is taken about where the market stalls will be located on the City Trail.

The Cockburn strongly advocates the creation of a Christmas City Centre Trail using sites across the City Centre in various locations for markets which could bring additional benefits to those areas. This should include existing markets, such as those in Stockbridge, Castle Terrace Car Park and the Grassmarket, as part of this trail. The maps below shows a comparison of relative distances between Munich’s famous Xmas market locations and suggested locations in Edinburgh. Edinburgh’s Festival Square and Conference Square provide an excellent location for the Winter Festivals which could be coupled with The Mound/Waverley Bridge and the possibly the High Street to form an excellent offer.

Summary

The 2019 Winter Festivals were a watershed moment where public concerns about the impact of the Christmas Market and the restrictions and impositions placed upon local residents and businesses for the Hogmanay events reached a tipping point.

This consultation is a direct result of the public disquiet at the approach taken by the Council in managing (or undermanaging) the impacts and the ambivalence of Underbelly, the City’s contracted partner for the delivery of the Winter Festivals to these issues. The damage caused to East Princes Street Gardens, effectively removing public access for half a year directly caused by the Christmas Market and its space deck erected without proper consents was a low point in history of the Festivals.

Fundamental to any event that happens post-2021 is the need for the City Council so show leadership in managing the special place and unique qualities of the city. The Council must no longer simply hand over control of significant parts of the public realm to a commercial operator because it is expedient to do so.

The Cockburn would welcome the return of the Winter Festivals but only if past failures are rectified. No soft surfaced public space should be used for infrastructure. East Princes Street Gardens should be largely off-limits for use, but a more creative and dispersed approach could yield significant benefits for the city in a way that does not overwhelm more fragile neighbourhoods and localities.

Other cities in the world operate just such events in much more sustainable ways without the negative impact of the repeated damage caused here. There is no reason why Edinburgh cannot follow suit.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Virgin Hotel Roof Terrace

Posted on: April 14, 2021

Our objection to the proposed roof garden on Edinburgh’s new Virgin Hotel

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to this application.

This application has been brought to our attention by Cockburn stakeholders resident in the Grassmarket area.

It is most unfortunate that this proposal was not part of the original planning application for this hotel which would have been the appropriate opportunity to fully scrutinize its potential impact in the context of the development as a whole.

We are particularly concerned that, if approved, the proposed roof garden will generate an unacceptable negative impact on local residential amenity from noise, disturbance and light pollution. And we note that it overlooks both the Edinburgh Central Library and Greyfriars Kirkyard, both relatively quiet and peaceful locations in the heart of the already busy and congested Old Town.

Given the various uses and users proposed for this roof garden. It seems not unlikely that the roof garden will be a potential source of disturbance throughout much of the year, night and day.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of apartments and associated development at 27 Arthur Street

Posted on: April 7, 2021

Our objection to the proposed demolition of a building at 27 Arthur Street, Leith

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to this application.

27 Arthur Street is actively used as an affordable artistic and venue space that demonstrably diversifies and promotes a vibrant cultural identity and cultural activities at local community level outside the confines of the city centre.

Our objection is consistent with our call in the Association’s ‘Our Unique City‘ statement and in recent City of Edinburgh Council consultations to move the concentration of event and cultural activity away from the city centre and to disperse such activity across Edinburgh’s communities, for the amenity and benefit of those communities.

In ‘Our Unique City‘ we have stressed the importance of a holistic view which looks at the functions of buildings as well as the buildings themselves. Such a consideration is even more important now given the City of Edinburgh Council’s interest in and stated commitment to the concept of the 20-minute City.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Spaces for People

Posted on: April 2, 2021

Our response to the City of Edinburgh’s “Spaces for People” public consultation

Cockburn Response

General Comments

The Cockburn Association welcomes this opportunity to comment on the Spaces for People scheme. However, as this scheme consists of many on the ground projects with directly impacts on the lives and amenity of local residents in a variety of ways. In respect of the current consultation on the Spaces for People scheme we are unable to comment on points of detail or on the local merits or otherwise of individual initiatives within the overall programme.

We offer the following comments as a contribution to the lively ongoing debate within the city on the merits of the programme. But we are disappointed that the current consultation does not provide an opportunity to discuss and comment on the wider transport, planning and place policy issues which are relevant to the Spaces for People scheme. It is to be hoped that further consultation on the Spaces for People scheme will allow a debate on relevant issues within this wider policy environment.

The recently approved City Mobility Plan 2030 as well as initiatives such as the Central Edinburgh Transformation Project, George Street proposals and the Meadows to George Street Cycleway project All signal a shift in emphasis and desire to move away from automotive strategies into more civic-based ones. The Cockburn supports this approach in principle but will scrutinise the content of actual proposals as they are published for consultation and comment.

Better facilities to encourage walking, wheeling, and cycling are required to making Edinburgh the great walkable city that it should be. But they must be the right initiatives in the right place and be consistent with the needs and wishes of residents and local businesses.

Challenges and Issues

The Spaces for People was a rapid rollout scheme that benefited from huge displacements of traditional road traffic due to the Stay at Home regulations of the Scottish Government. As normal activity resumes over the coming weeks and months, competing pressures of road and civic space will result. Any assumptions of success or impact will need to be reassessed, in some cases from first principles, before any temporary schemes can be deemed workable, appropriate or relevant to the everyday experiences and needs of residents and businesses post-pandemic.

The increase in on-line retail was an stablish and growing trend before the pandemic has been significantly accelerated by the lockdown. The shift from People moving to the Shop to the Shop moving to the People will continue, meaning an increase in delivery traffic through the city and all times of the day. A particular feature of this shift is the requirement for localised loading bays for delivery vehicles in all parts of the city, but particularly on residential streets. Any Street for People initiative must be able to accommodate this trend.

Design and Place Emphasis

The Cockburn argues that Spaces for People must prioritise making places for people. Its focus should be place led, not transport led. The introduction of safer cycling facilities is important but in many instances is a traffic management issue. An while it may be possible to reach a balance between the competing needs of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, this will not always be the case. In addition, the specific requirements of facilitating efficient deliveries to local business and deliveries and services to residents must also be fully integrated into an acceptable, workable, permanent version of the Spaces for People scheme.

A wider, more inclusive urban design approach through a focused agenda of quality design inputs will yield more appropriate results in many places. In this, we also emphasise the need to enhance the DESTINATION element of local centres in order to support local businesses post-Covid, noting the important role that they have played in supporting their neighbourhoods during and before the pandemic. Such an approach will also anticipate and address the potential unintended negative consequences of local Spaces for People infrastructure such as creation of new local ‘rat runs’.

Narrative and Discussion

Spaces for People in Edinburgh was initiated to put in place several measures that specifically try to:

help parents/carers and children to physically distance near schools;
help people to physically distance while using high streets, some city centre streets, and while exercising; and
provide protected cycle lanes on main roads, so that people can consider cycling for trips that they might otherwise make by public transport.

It is the Cockburn’s View that the Council has an opportunity, in terms of transport and travel, to make sure that residents and business owners can move about the city more safely and more efficiently, with a reduced impact on the local environment, than was the case before the pandemic.

However, any Spaces for People schemes that become permanent must:

be acceptable to residents and businesses;
improve the streetscape;
be safe for all users (particularly vulnerable residents).
improve accessibility for all users (particularly vulnerable residents).;
be efficient and effective;
be environmentally acceptable;
provide for walking, cycling and public transport consistent with the Transport Hierarchy.

The Spaces for People projects which have already been put in place or are in the process of being put in place, across the city may be fit for purpose and relevant to the needs of residents, businesses, and local communities.

However, the restrictions on movement during the pandemic certainly present challenges and uncertainties in forming a complete picture of the needs and requirements of residents and established businesses post-pandemic.

What is certain is that all schemes which are to become permanent should only become so if they conform to the Transport Hierarchy. If they do not conform, they should not become permanent or should only do so after significant modification.

Emphasising the Transport Hierarchy

The Scottish Government’s Transport Hierarchy strategy places the needs and requirements of pedestrians at the top (including the access requirements of people with disabilities), followed by cyclists, then public transport, then shared transport with private car users last. The aim of the hierarchy is to ensure that the movement needs of the most vulnerable groups are fully considered in all new transport and mobility schemes. This does not necessarily give priority to pedestrians and cyclists in every location. This will depend on local circumstances.

Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that the current Space for People projects have the potential to affect hard-to-reach or vulnerable groups disproportionally and adversely, such as those with mobility issues. We note and agree with the concerns expressed by the Edinburgh Access Panel. Our own stakeholders have raised very similar concerns relating to pedestrians safely at ‘floating bus stops’ and in any situation where pedestrians are forced to cross a cycle lane to get to their bus or their parked car.

A particular concern is any proposed loss of parking provision for blue badge holders caused by the roll-out of cycle lanes. Of necessity, blue badge holders must be allowed to park close to their destination. This is not a question about the total number of blue badge parking bays in the city. But it is it a question about having blue badge parking bays where they need to be to meet the requirements of blue badge holders. In some situations, it may not be possible to meet the competing requirements of blue badge holders and, for example, cyclists. In such circumstances the legitimate needs of blue badge holders cannot and must not be compromised.

Local businesses will also have their own unique concerns. The Council’s transport teams need to engage effectively with local businesses and their representative beyond the passive and somewhat leading digital consultation portal. Information should be disseminated and presented locally in a way likely to be accessible and useful to the various local stakeholders with a substantial interest in the changes being put in place. Local businesses will only be able to survive and thrive post-pandemic if they have safe and secure access for incoming and outgoing deliveries to and from their places of businesses. At this point, it is not clear to us that this have been established in all the temporary Spaces for People schemes currently in place or proposed. The economic sustainability of local businesses is dependant on the Spaces for People programme being fit for purpose in this respect. This is more than a simple decision about the number and location of loading bays, important as they are.

A related point, it the facilitation of deliveries and services to local residents. The point has already been made that the ongoing growth in online shopping has led to an increase in deliveries to residents, at all times of the day. The Spaces for People programme must accommodate this need and the related needs of the many service providers that are used on a regular basis by residents throughout the city.

The Need for a Place Hierarchy

Missing from the Spaces for People initiative is an understanding of the needs of the particular place or local neighbourhood into which the interventions are being located.

Much of central Edinburgh is covered by Conservation Area designations, each of which has its own Conservation Area Character Appraisal that sets out those characteristics that need to be preserved or enhanced. We acknowledge that traffic interventions are technically excluded from Conservation Area Management by Class 30 of the General Development Order (Work by the local authority) but we argue that there is a duty of care by all sections of the local authority to ensure the highest design standards in a Conservation Area.

Any interventions should reinforce the particular character and functions of that place. For example, if a street acts as a local neighbourhood centre (a parade of shops, pubs, cafes, etc), the priority is to enhance the pedestrian environment with gathering spaces to support these places as local destinations. It should be explicit that if in achieving this, the ability to insert a segregated cycleway is curtailed, that should be accepted.

Maintenance

A point which we have raised in previous consultations such as that for the City Mobility Plan 2030 is the issue of ongoing maintenance. An example is the condition of some of the city’s pre-pandemic cycling infrastructure of painted on-road cycling lanes and on-road waiting areas. In many instances, these have not been maintained although some have now been overlain by Spaces for People infrastructure. The Council has not yet made it clear if and how future resources will be provided to maintain permanent Spaces for People projects in a safe and appropriate condition to secure the needs of those walking, wheeling, and cycling. Put simply, funding appears to be available for capital works. But will funding be available to secure the adequate maintenance of completed projects in the future?

Consultations and the Consultation process

A recent opinion piece in the Evening News declared that implementation is not consultation. We agree with that sentiment. At the height of the pandemic, normal consultation requirements were set aside for the necessary infrastructure to be put in place as quickly as possible whilst the pandemic was at its peak. This meant that some residents had controversially little, or no notification of planned Spaces for People changes and only found out when the implementation works started.

Now, the Council is considering whether to keep some Spaces for People measures in place, either on a trial basis or more permanently. Before deciding whether to go through the legal processes necessary to keep projects in place, the Council want to hear residents’ and businesses’ views. The current process is an online consultation. It is not one based on the ground, in local communities, talking face-to-face with residents and local businesses. Whilst we appreciate that many schemes will be advanced under a temporary or experimental basis, it can be assumed that permanent retention is an objective.

As the pandemic restrictions ease, the Council must take the opportunity to expand and extend its consultation process to capture a full range of views from stakeholders affected by the Spaces for People projects. An opportunity to discuss and comment on the wider transport, planning and place policy issues which are relevant to the Spaces for People scheme should also be provided. The Cockburn Association would certainly strongly encourage the Council to search out and take up all further consultation opportunities as they become possible.

It is also essential that the Council recognises that the views and lived experience of stakeholders may change as pandemic restrictions are eased and the city fills up again with traffic, visitors, and events. It is a sad reality that as commercial life returns to community ‘High Streets’ across the city, the local streetscape of shops and businesses, the way people shop, use services and meet friends and neighbours may have all have undergone significant change. Locals may have discovered new ways of using their local streets and neighbourhoods and the Spaces for People initiative will need to support and facilitate local community vitality post pandemic and not hinder it.

The Council’s consultation processes will need to be agile enough to capture this changing reality. Indeed, as the city moves back to ‘normal’ life the results of the Council’s current consultation, given the unique circumstances under which it is being carried out, may come to be quite irrelevant to the reality of life in only a few months’ time. And, of course, the views of residents, business, services providers and utility companies may be quite different and may need bespoke consultation processes.

Summary

We would encourage all local residents, businesses and stakeholders to participate in the Council’s current consultation. But we believe that this should not be the end but rather the start of a more significant and locally engaging consultation exercise or series of consultations.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

“George Street – First New Town” Proposals

Posted on: March 26, 2021

Our comments on the latest proposals for the future of George Street

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn has been involved in this project since the outset and has seen the designs evolve and mature.

The Experimental TRO conducted several years ago showed an appetite for change to George Street and its shift from a trafficked street to a destination for civic living. Key was increased pedestrian space, facilitating the east-west cycle route and generally producing a more amenable place whilst respecting and enhancing the qualities and characteristics of the World Heritage Site. We endorse all of these objectives and feel that the designs have generally reflected these well.

In addition, we offer these specific comments:

Materials need to reflect the recognised palette of stone used throughout the New Town and as articulated in the Street Design Guide.
The desire to add the small sections of planters with seating etc should not come at the price of reducing circulation space. In addition, careful management of street licenses to hospitality venues needs to be put in place with effective and clear guidance so that, again, pedestrian space is not lost.
A clear events strategy must be developed and enforced to ensure clarity of use.
It is essential that a long-term maintenance strategy is put in place for the street and especially the planters, with dedicated financial resources to ensure a rigorous cleaning and planting regime.

On the subject of trees, we acknowledge the significant public interest in introducing trees into the street. Indeed, we also acknowledge that throughout the history of the Association, we have been long-standing advocates for street trees, having campaigned for them in the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries.

Since this time, our understanding of the significance of George Street as one of the centrepieces of the World Heritage Site, inscribed in 1995, has grown hugely. George Street was not designed as a boulevard but as a set-piece along a strong axis from Charlotte Square to St Andrew’s Square, with the intervisibility of each crucial to its urban form. The current proposals have evolved to respect this key feature, which we welcome. If trees were to be introduced, it is important that this key element of the street is not undermined.

There are also challenging design issues including a substantial amount of undersurface voids including cellars and service tunnels, which not only introduce planting and technical hurdles but also legal and ownership ones too. These would need to be fully explored and considered, with additional consultative programmes put in place if it were to advance.

Similarly, not all trees are equal. There is a very real difference between ornamental species versus “forest” species are considerable, and clarity of thought in this is required. If underground planting is not possible, and large plant pots required, this would limit the scale of trees possible, which would also limit carbon, biodiversity and other benefits accordingly. Finally, and as already noted, a long-term management and maintenance regime specific to this street would be required.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Portobello Beach Sauna

Posted on:

Our comments on proposals to introduce a sauna on Portobello Prom

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association has had the proposed license application for a mobile sauna unit brought to its attention by local civic bodies. Whilst we do not usually comment on licensing applications, this proposal brings forward several issues of amenity and precedent.

Firstly, the location of the proposed mobile sauna unit is at a heavily used, and congested, part of the Portobello Promenade. Although the hard-standing suggests a suitable area for such a facility, it is in direct conflict with the need for space for people. It would effectively privatise this small area of public space, which would be larger than the mere footprint of the structure with space for queuing, power, etc. For this reason alone, it would not be suitable to grant a license for this facility.

Secondly, the proposed use of wood-burning heaters could cause considerable local air pollution. Other fuel forms might also cause amenity impacts.

Thirdly, placing temporary facilities in this location would create a precedent that would make it harder for the licensing authority to refuse other applications.

For these reasons, the Cockburn feels that this is unsuitable and that the licensing application should NOT be granted.

That said, we appreciate the intention behind the operator of the mobile sauna is to support an increased interest in “wild swimming”, which has become more popular over the past decade or so. We can understand the merit of the proposal in supporting increased access to the water and the benefits of wild swimming. Whilst the nearby Portobello Baths provides some support facilities relevant to this interest, they may not be ideally placed for wild swimmers.

This requires a much more strategic approach than this opportunistic application provides. Enhanced beachside facilities would perhaps increase the enjoyment and experience if well-managed and deployed sensitively.

Indeed, there might be other areas along the coastline which could also benefit from such enhancements. The City Council or its arm’s length organisation Edinburgh Leisure are well-placed to develop a strategic framework to carry this forward.

Council Decision: We were contacted by the Council Licensing Dept on 19th May 2021 to inform us that the application had been refused in terms of Paragraph 5(3)(c)(i) of Schedule 1 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982).

This part of the Act specifies:

Where the licence applied for relates to an activity consisting of or including the use of premises or a vehicle or vessel, those premises are not or, as the case may be, that vehicle or vessel is not suitable or convenient for the conduct of the activity having regard to—

the location, character or condition of the premises or the character or condition of the vehicle or vessel;
the nature and extent of the proposed activity;
the kind of persons likely to be in the premises, vehicle or vessel;
the possibility of undue public nuisance; or
public order or public safety;

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Edinburgh City-wide Parking Phase 2 Consultation

Posted on:

Our comments on the Council proposals for controlled parking in parts of the city.

Cockburn Response

Our concerns mainly focus on managing the amenity and environmental impacts of these proposed parking controlled zones.

Residential gardens form a major part of Edinburgh’s streetscapes, helping to improve air quality, support biodiversity, improve health and wellbeing, and enhance the traditional sense of place of communities across the city. They are also important because they help surface water management as garden vegetation acts as a “sponge” by soaking up rainfall and filtering pollution. This fact will become increasingly important as out local climate changes in the years to come.

However, many gardens across Edinburgh have already been covered by hard paving by residents to create off-street parking. Replacing natural vegetation with impermeable surfaces reduces the amount of rainfall that can infiltrate naturally into the ground and increases the rate and volume of runoff flowing to the city’s drainage systems. During storm events, this can cause the system to become overwhelmed and lead to localised flooding and storm events are expected to become much more common in the future.

The further expansion of on-street parking may encourage the further conversion of gardens to driveways. It is entirely understandable why householders would seek to repurpose their front gardens in this way, especially to avoid parking permit costs when including within a Parking Control Zone. However, this represents the semi-privatisation of adjacent public streets with new dropped curbs and potentially more roadside restrictions preventing the new driveway from being blocked by street parking. In most places, this will result in a significant further reduction in on-street parking, exacerbating the problem of supply rather than alleviating it. It is also important to flag up that that a proliferation of dropped kerbs can present addition problems for pedestrians and wheelers, especially those with mobility or sight issues and with young children.

Without urban planning controls and design guidance, further restrictions to on-street parking run the risk of promoting more unsustainable garden to driveway conversions. If Parking Control Areas are being expanded and the associated increased pressure to form private drives in increasing. Then it is essential that the City of Edinburgh’s guidance for parking in front gardens is up-to-date and fit for purpose. It also needs be consistent with other Council traffic and transport policies and initiatives.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Phoebe Anna Traquair Murals

Posted on: February 24, 2021

Planning application regarding Phoebe Anna Traquair murals in Sciennes, Edinburgh

Cockburn Response

This application will be of concern to anyone with an interest in the artistic heritage of Edinburgh and Scotland. Having carefully reviewed it, the Cockburn Association intends to OBJECT.

Our objection relates to the conditions attached to the original planning permission granted for the redevelopment of the Sick Children’s Hospital site at Sciennes. This was subject to a specific condition that there should be care and protection of the mortuary chapel murals and long-term access by the public.

This new application only ensures the short-term protection of the building and murals and does not ensure the restoration of the murals, nor the long-term management of the building in which they are located nor arrangements for public access.

We believe that there are no current circumstances which would justify the request for the discharge of condition 8 of the original planning permission. This must not be allowed until the restoration of the murals and their future security is assured and arrangement for public access put in place.

Phoebe Anna Traquair was an Edinburgh-based artist who achieved worldwide recognition for her key role in the Arts and Crafts movement in Scotland, as an illustrator, painter and embroiderer. The first woman ever elected to the Royal Scottish Academy, Traquair is justifiably regarded by many experts as the first significant professional female artist of modern Scotland. Her mural painting for The Royal Hospital for Sick Children are among her most famous works.

It is imperative that these murals are saved for Edinburgh and for the Scottish Nation. We welcome the recent intervention made by Sir John Leighton, Director-General of the the National Galleries of Scotland, that re-emphasises the significance of the murals and we therefore call on the planning authority, the City of Edinburgh Council, to take action and enforce Condition 8 of the original planning condition.

You can view the application and post your own official comments at the link below (search for application number: 21/00331/LBC). Closing date: Fri 26 Feb 2021.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

New Town North Application

Posted on: February 18, 2021

Location: 34 Fettes Row Planning Application No: 20/03034/FUL Summary: Development comprising demolition of existing buildings and erection of mixed-use development comprising residential, hotel, office and other commercial uses, with associated landscaping / public realm, car parking and access arrangements.

Cockburn Response

Following regular, open and constructive engagement with the developers and their professional team, since the project inception to application stage, the Cockburn Association has opted to support this application.

The following represents our views developed as the scheme itself has developed through several iterations.

Overall development concept

First of all, we accept that this is a major development opportunity in the city. We recollect the previous scheme prepared by the Royal Bank of Scotland directly (Michael Laird Partnership) which in its first iteration was overly massive and insensitive to this important site on the northern edge of the World Heritage Site. In our view, it is essential that the opportunity is grasped to prepare a scheme which, in a contemporary and relevant manner, “completes” this north edge and provides a more suitable urban design link into adjoining neighbours such as Stockbridge and Canonmills.

In general, the Cockburn believes that the development team has responded well to this challenge, and has prepared a scheme that has great potential in helping to knit together the various environs, including George V Park.

We note that consideration is being given to the replacement of the hotel, originally proposed as part of this scheme, with further residential accommodation. The Edinburgh Hotel Association reported an oversupply of hotel spaces in March this year, and impact of Covid-19 has created significant uncertainty in the market. We would have no issues with this amendment, and indeed would support it fully.

Scale and Massing

There are two main components to this scheme:

The first are the buildings fronting Fettes Row and Dundas Street. We support the creation of a hard urban edge along Dundas Street; although it was not originally feued as part of the development of the neo-classical city as it spread northwards, establishing a strong urban edge here is appropriate. Turning the corner at Fettes Row is also an appropriate objective of development here and the proposal as last seen by us does this well. We are also very pleased with the direct link created to George V Park.

The second element is the new buildings north of Royal Circus. From the outset these have been a focus of discussion. The overall the scale has reduced, helping mitigate against the visual impact of the views looking down Dundonald Street. Two issues arise – the need to allow the architecture of these buildings to have their own presence and not be diminished to such degree as to not read as part of the urban ensemble. Secondly, the challenges in articulating what areas are public and what is private in a meaningful, clear manner. In both accounts, we feel that the design team has successfully achieved the right balance.

A point of continued discussion, however, is the physical link on the Dundonald axis into the site – specifically, if it should be public or private. We appreciate the desire to have this as a private connection for the flats to be erected here. However, we also believe that an increase in connectivity to George IV Park and the various path networks is highly desirable. That said, the approach taken to address this complex space with its significant height changes and relationships to the emerging proposals is highly creative and potentially very exciting. The interface between the garden spaces and the car parking, however, would benefit from further refinement.

Connectivity, Trees and Landscaping

The Cockburn believes that it is essential for the existing tree cover along Fettes Row to be retained and maintained. We appreciate that this is the intention and welcome it. A detailed landscape methodology should be prepared as part of the consenting process. The loss of trees along Dundas Street was not considered in discussions but we are aware that there is local concern about this. We could see some benefit for a replacement strategy here.

As noted elsewhere in these comments, the enhancement of the pedestrian network and increased connections to George V Park are key requirements in our view. The proposals have met this objective so far. We are particularly supportive of the new link to Dundas Street from the park. The link through the crescent blocks to Dundonald Street/Royal Crescent is more challenging as already noted.

Elevational Treatment and Materiality

From our discussions, it is very clear that the design team has invested considerable energy into the analysis and development of an architectural language for this site which is informed by the surrounding neo-classical buildings on Fettes Row and Royal Crescent but interpreted in a contemporary form. We appreciate that further development of the architecture is underway but we have been impressed with the careful and thoughtful approach, and support the outcome as seen so far.

END

Further Details Here

Back to Listings