Cockburn Response
We ask that planning and listed building consent be refused.
The Association has studied the proposals at 94-96 Grassmarket (Scotsman Group, Convery Prenty Shields Architects) for the removal of render and exposure of stonework at ground and first floor and reinstatement of side elevation window and introduction of clock feature on corner, 2 new hanging signs and lettering above the ground floor window and door – 24/03209/FUL .
We wish to object to this proposal in the strongest of terms. The proposals risk compromising the authentic character and historical integrity of one of the few remaining historic structures in the Old Town.
The buildings subject to this application are listed with the corner tenement block being listed Category A. The proposal sits within the Old Town Conservation Area which forms part of the World Heritage Site. We disagree completely that the proposals represent a “sensitive alterations” to these important buildings in a highly prominent area. Instead, they are an insensitive, ill-judged set of proposals that exhibit little understanding of the architectural form of this important building and does not meet the statutory, policy or guidance tests for such developments.
The Statutory List description describes this set of buildings as “Early 17th century with later alterations and additions. 5-storey and attic tenement with gabled stair tower to left and 4-bays with nepus gable to Grassmarket and 2-bay gable with wallhead stack to West Bow. Yellow harled with stone margins.” A key feature of the listing is the wall finish.
Firstly, we object to the proposed stripping of harling of this building and its replacement with roughcast rendering, which we presume will be cementitious. The nature of this type of historic wall structure was for it to be harled with a lime-based material to protect the random rubble and to provide a permeable and somewhat sacrificial weather proofing layer. This gives the building a distinctive quality in both colour and texture. The proposed stripping of the harling at ground level is inappropriate and objectionable as it exposes the rubble walling and serious undermines both its historic integrity and visual appearance. Also, the replacement on upper levels by a uniform render further impacts on the quality and characteristics of to the building, much to its detriment. If it is a cement-based render, its impervious nature will prevent necessary moisture flow through the masonry, leading to increased moisture levels in the walls and interior spaces which could lead to other problems like dry rot. Additionally, the resulting “banding” across the elevation serious affects its legibility as a single building. The proposals suggest , a fundamental lack of understanding of the heritage importance of the buildings and of historic building conservation.
Secondly, we also object to the proposed projecting clock and signs, which have no historic precedent in their proposed form. The City’s advertisement guidelines suggest that high level overhanging signs, as here, are not normally considered acceptable, and if so should be no more that 0.5m2 in size. Illuminated signs, as proposed, are also unacceptable. The proposed clock is out of keeping with the area and has no historic precedent. Overall, the appearance of these features is more Disney/Toytown than World Heritage Site and represents, in our view, serious impact on the authentic character and historical integrity of the structure.
The statutory tests for alterations to listed buildings can be found in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)(Scotland) Act 1997. Sections 14 and 59 apply and require any proposals to “have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.” In terms of Conservation Area management, section 64 requires that “special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.”
In each of these, the Association’s view is that the proposals fail the statutory tests as they pay no special regard to the historic interest of the listed buildings and is ill-considered in its impact on the special architectural characteristics. In terms of its impact on the character of the Conservation Area, the loss of the historic rendering and intrusive signage and external interventions have a negative impact on the character of the Area. As such, they fails the statutory tests for proposals in a Conservation Area. The proposals also undermine the authenticity and Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site and is therefore contrary to CEC policy ENV1.
