Edinburgh Festival Fringe 2023 venue: George Square

Posted on: May 12, 2023

The absence of a tree protection plan to secure the long-term health of the site’s trees is simply unacceptable.

The absence of a tree protection plan to secure the long-term health of the site’s trees is simply unacceptable.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to this application.

The Cockburn Association has considered plans for the use of the George Square Gardens as a Fringe venue by Underbelly Ltd. We acknowledge the fact that similar infrastructure has been erected on this site in previous years. We also acknowledge that George Square Gardens in not a publicly-owned open space per se but it does function of one.    

This application lacks tree protection and monitoring plan. Issues relating to tree protection and tree health in relation to the use of George Square as an event space have been consistently flagged up by concerned stakeholders, including the Cockburn Association.  The absence of a tree protection plan to secure the long-term health of the site’s trees is simply unacceptable.

The Cockburn has advocated that soft surfaced areas such as parks and gardens should not be used for infrastructure-heavy events due to the damage they cause to the ground and to the loss of essential public amenity space, even for relatively short periods of time.

Local Development Plan Policy ENV12 on Trees states “Development will not be permitted if likely to have a damaging impact on a tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order or on any other tree or woodland worthy of retention unless necessary for good arboricultural reasons. Where such permission is granted, replacement planting of appropriate species and numbers will be required to offset the loss to amenity.”  The proposed development is likely to have a damaging impact on the root systems of trees in the Square and is therefore inconsistent with this policy.   

None of trees along the perimeter of the gardens are proposed for a protection zone despite the very heavy and damaging infrastructure proposed, which included chiller units, water tanks, toilets, site cabins, etc.  

The Cockburn strongly advises that all trees are properly protected from damage and root compression and the applicant must submit a tree protection plan to this effective.   

We can see no plausible reason why most of the infrastructure could not be placed around the Square.  This would reduce the impact on the soft-surfaces and trees in the Square considerably.  

As such, we advocate amendments before this application can be acceptable.  Specifically, tree protection arrangements for all trees and not just those in the middle section of the gardens; removal of ancillary infrastructure from the gardens to the hardstanding area surrounding the gardens. Also, we advise that consent be given for one year only, with suitable monitoring arrangements in place to ensure the long-term health of trees in George Square Gardens.

At the Culture and Communities Committee on 11th May 2023 additional protection and monitoring was secured for trees in relation to the events taking place in Princes Street Gardens.  We would encourage the city of Edinburgh Council to promote similar protection and monitoring regime for events in all situations where trees are present.

Edinburgh has an ambitious target to become a Million Tree City by 2030 as part of its commitment to be net zero by the end of the decade.  The meaningful and effective protection of the city’s mature trees must be a major part of this commitment. Our mature trees currently provide invaluable well-being and ecological benefits but these benefits cannot be taken for granted.

 

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Proposed 5G telecoms installation, Whitehouse Loan

Posted on:

The proposed telecommunications equipment would result in excessive visual and physical clutter within the streetscape and would be detrimental to the character of a a Conservation Area

The proposed telecommunications equipment would result in excessive visual and physical clutter within the streetscape and would be detrimental to the character of a a Conservation Area

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn OBJECTS to this application.

The proposed telecommunications equipment would result in excessive visual and physical clutter within the streetscape and would be detrimental to the Merchiston and Greenhill Conservation Area.

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 site is close to a number of Listed Buildings. It is our view that the application is not consistent with   Policy ENV3 – Listed Buildings which indicates that development within the curtilage or affecting the setting of a listed building will be permitted only if not detrimental to the appearance or character of the building, or to its setting

In addition, this proposal will add street clutter to a relatively narrow pavement close busy road junctions. This area of the city hosts several educational establishments, and this fact heightens the need to keep pavements as clear and unobstructed as possible.

We also note the recent refusal of a similar application 22/04200/FUL further north on Whitehouse Loan, opposite No 108. This was for a mast 16m high (i.e. shorter than the 20m proposed for this site opposite No 171). In its Handling Report, explaining the refusal, the Case Officer wrote: “The development would disrupt the settled and mature character of the immediate vicinity, which is heavily influenced by soft landscaping and buildings formed in traditional and natural materials. It would erode the historic quality of the streetscape, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the conservation area. “The proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area and is unacceptable, having regard to Section 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.”

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 setting of Listed Buildings 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

Johnston Terrace Monopole

Posted on: April 20, 2023

The proposed Old Town location for this 17m high telecommunications monopole is unacceptable. 

The proposed Old Town location for this 17m high telecommunications monopole is unacceptable. 

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn objects to this application.  The proposed Old Town location for this 17m high telecommunications monopole is unacceptable. 

It will inevitably have significant and negative impacts on views to and from Edinburgh Castle and the Old Town.  The Castle is one of Edinburgh and Scotland’s most historic and iconic heritage sites and tourist destinations.  It is the subject of multiple heritage designations to conserve and protect its fabric and its setting. The Old Town Conservation Area forms part of the Old and New Towns of Edinburgh World Heritage Site which was inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage Site list in 1995.   The Old Town Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that: “A key element in giving Edinburgh its world – wide identity is the perception of the Old Town in approaches to the city. The topography of the Old Town makes it both very visible and provides a wide range of dramatic views. The Castle and the Old Town ridge dominate the Edinburgh skyline, not just from the present day city boundaries, but also in many more distant views and approaches to the city”.

In addition, this proposal will add street clutter to a busy pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfare subject to heavy tourist-related and residential usage at most times of the year. This fact heightens the need to keep pavements as clear and unobstructed as possible in and around this location.

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 Old Town Conservation Area and to Edinburgh Castle 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, visitors and businesses. 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

Arthur Street Student Accomodation

Posted on: February 10, 2023

This current application is unnecessary and unwelcome.

This current application is unnecessary and unwelcome.

Cockburn Response

Although we acknowledge that a housing scheme has only recently been consented on this site, and that the current proposals are broadly similar to that scheme, nevertheless, we do not believe that the building form and materiality enhances the character of the Conservation Area nor does it preserve its character.

We object to this proposal for PBSA on the grounds of intensification of use in a primarily residential area, bearing in mind also the density of PBSA’s in the nearby neighbourhood.   This seems contrary to Policy HOUSING 7 where uses will not be permitted in predominately residential or mixed use areas i.e. uses which would have a materially detrimental effect on the living conditions of nearby residents.  This might be particularly relevant if the proposed accommodation is potentially open to use as short-term holiday lets during non-term times.

The approved application is for 33 apartments, represent 68 bed spaces by our counting.  We see no reason why the approved development cannot be used to accommodate students, if such use is deemed accepted in this location..  This would address a particular need for non-first year students who are looking for traditional flats to share to friends.   Indeed, doing so may help diversity and improve the variety of student accommodation on offer across the city.

This current application is therefore unnecessary and unwelcome.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Student Accommodation Jock’s Lodge

Posted on: January 19, 2023

The Cockburn Association objects to this application.

The Cockburn Association objects to this application.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association objects to this application.

We recognise the historic context of Jock’s Lodge but acknowledge that the suitable redevelopment of this site may be acceptable and that the provision of student accommodation on this site may also be acceptable. However, we consider that the height, scale, and massing of the proposed development is inappropriate for this restricted and constrained site on a significant traffic artery to and from the city centre and near a busy junction.

This site, and the surrounding neighbourhood, urgently requires a masterplan and/or a Local Place Plan to guide and direct the appropriate future development of this site and to promote the assembly of coherent development opportunities that will ensure the social, economic, and environmental sustainability and integrity of the wider neighbourhood for the benefit of all residents and businesses.

As proposed the density of this development is too great for what is a rather restricted site. This will have a negative impact on amenity, both internally and externally, for future residents and for existing residents on surrounding streets. For example, as proposed the development has very little useable greenspace.

Although, the height of the proposed development has been reduced following community consultation, we consider that it is still too tall.  The lack of a set-back from the pavement on the London Road frontage will exacerbate the canyoning effect of this development on a busy traffic artery and so result in negative social and environmental consequences. This will not be ameliorated by the proposed active street frontage along London Road.  Similarly, the large elevation along  ‘Smokey Brae’ will tend towards the creation of a hostile environment for pedestrians.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Centrum House: proposed demolition and redevelopment

Posted on: December 8, 2022

The proposals are of limited quality and interest and represent a dated architectural architype without a clear ‘residential’ character. They do not reflect the quality, residential character and scale of adjacent properties and are, as such, quite inappropriate for this location.

The proposals are of limited quality and interest and represent a dated architectural architype without a clear ‘residential’ character. They do not reflect the quality, residential character and scale of adjacent properties and are, as such, quite inappropriate for this location.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to this application.

We acknowledge some subtle improvements to the proposals in terms of the articulation of the Dundas Street elevation as well as a slightly more satisfactory approach to the corner with Fettes Row, but none so much to address our main concerns.

In our delegation to the Development Management Sub-Committee at the time of the original decision, we advocated that the existing sub- and superstructure (which we assumed to be reinforced concrete) should be retained due to the significant amount of embodied and embedded carbon that it represents.  This continues to be our position although we accept that there is considerable scope for modification and indeed, extension.  We can see no hurdle in achieving this in terms of floor-to-ceiling heights, etc.  The scale of the building would be retained as well as its footprint, significantly lessening its impact on the local community.

As such, and considering carbon management in the round, we believe that an argument can be made that the proposals are inconsistent with Policy Des 6 Sustainable Buildings Planning permission will only be granted for new development where it has been demonstrated that: a) the current carbon dioxide emissions reduction target has been met, with at least half of this target met through the use of low and zero carbon generating technologies.

And to reiterate the main points in our comments on the original version of this application:

We believe that housing development on this site is acceptable in principle. However, the proposals are of limited quality and interest and represent a dated architectural architype without a clear ‘residential’ character. They do not reflect the quality, residential character and scale of adjacent properties and are, as such, quite inappropriate for this location.

In line with Edinburgh’s vision to be carbon neutral by 2030, we believe that demolition and redevelopment is not an appropriate response on this site. This is no apparent attempt to reuse or repurpose any of the existing structures and limited attempts to reduce the carbon footprint of the proposed structure.  We therefore advocate that the existing sub- and superstructure (which we assume to be reinforced concrete) be retained.  We can see no hurdle in achieving this in terms of floor-to-ceiling heights, etc.  The scale of the building would be retained as well as its footprint, significantly lessening its impact on the local community.

We find the architectural expression mundane and do not agree with the assertion that it responds to the neighbouring Georgian architecture.  It is typical of the bland commercial architecture that we see on speculative commercial developments in the city.  This is in stark contrast to the detailed investigations into the architectural expression of the New Town North development across Dundas Street, where considerable effort and care has been put into the elevational design.

The Cockburn strongly advocates that the existing setback from Dundas Street be retained.  We also believe that all efforts to retain the existing trees should be made.

In summary, the Cockburn sees little merit in the revised proposals, and recommend refusal

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Proposed 5G telecoms installation, Whitehouse Loan

Posted on: November 11, 2022

The proposed telecommunications equipment would result in excessive visual and physical clutter within the streetscape and would be detrimental to the setting of a Listed Building

The proposed telecommunications equipment would result in excessive visual and physical clutter within the streetscape and would be detrimental to the setting of a Listed Building

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn OBJECTS to this application.

This application has been brought to the Cockburn’s attention by concerned local stakeholders. The proposed telecommunications equipment would result in excessive visual and physical clutter within the streetscape and would be detrimental to the setting of a Listed Building

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.

The proposal would have a harmful impact on the setting of a Listed Building. The proposed location is immediately adjacent to the main gateway to Bruntsfield House, which forms part of the A-listing for the site.  It is our view that the application is not consistent with   Policy ENV3 – Listed Buildings which indicates that development within the curtilage or affecting the setting of a listed building will be permitted only if not detrimental to the appearance or character of the building, or to its setting

In addition, this proposal will add street clutter to a relatively narrow pavement close busy road junctions. This area of the city hosts a number of educational establishments, and this fact heightens the need to keep pavements as clear and unobstructed as possible.

This application should certainly be refused if it is determined that the benefits of the proposed installation are deemed not to outweigh the harm caused to the conservation area and setting of a Listed Building 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

Edinburgh Christmas Market 2022 – Comments on planning applications

Posted on: October 28, 2022

The Cockburn recognises the popularity of the Christmas Market and its contribution to the vibrancy of the city

The Cockburn recognises the popularity of the Christmas Market and its contribution to the vibrancy of the city

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association has examined the three interconnected applications for a Christmas Market submitted by Underbelly.  We offer the following comments.  In doing so, the Cockburn believes that there are common issues for each, and the separation of what is a single event into three different applications is unhelpful when considering the total impact of the proposals.

General comments

We acknowledge the significant challenges in delivering this year’s Christmas Market.  The failed procurement exercise with Angel Events should be reviewed urgently in the context of previous year’s controversaries with the Winter Festivals.  An independent process should be initiated looking at the failures of the procurement process.  This is essential to prove the public and elected Councillors the necessary insight to determine an appropriate way forward for any future Winter Festivals.

We strongly advocate that given the circumstances now, any approvals should be for one year only.  We acknowledge the challenges that Unique Assembly as a recent substitute contractor have faced in attempting to pick up someone else’s planning applications.

We also note that other cities such as Leeds and Glasgow decided to cancel their Christmas Markets or major holiday celebrations this year.

The Cockburn realises and sympathises with the continuing challenges that local businesses face.  It is therefore essential that any festive activity aims, first and foremost, to increase activity for the brick-and-mortar businesses in the city.  In our discussions with Unique Assembly, we appreciate their ambitions to seek, for example, 65% of stalls to be local traders.  This needs to be fully and properly assessed as part of the overall process.  As such, the Cockburn believes that a local economic study should be required as part of any consent (should it be given) to quantify the level of local economic value and of economic spillage outside the city.

It is essential for the Council, both political and administrative, and operators/applicants to fully appreciate that the winter festivals rely entirely on the use and exploitation of public assets like streets and gardens for their success.  Decisions taken on all accounts, must be open and transparent.

In general, the Cockburn recognises the popularity of the Christmas Market and its contribution to the vibrancy of the city.  However, we also note that they are major commercial events than cultural activities and the Christmas Market has moved from the German Market that occupied the Mound with largely authentic products and produce to a disruptive event that imposed significant restrictions on local residents, targeting the tourism market with 2018 figures indicating that less than 50% of attendees to the Christmas Market were locals (falling to just 20% for Hogmanay).  A fundamental shift in benefit is required – in effect the Christmas Market must serve the city, not the other way round.

In this, we continue to call for a greater dispersal of activities noting that the significant problem with the Winter Festivals pre-Covid was the desire of commercial operators to concentrate activity is a small area.  Although some movement has been made in this regard, further dispersal is required.  The Cockburn 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. We suggest that this should include existing markets, such as those in Stockbridge, Castle Terrace Car Park and the Grassmarket.  Festival Square and Conference Square should be used as well and be well suited for the fairground elements of the market.

We are pleased that the concentration on East Princes Street Gardens alone has changed.

The Cockburn remains concerned with the proposals as they stand, and believe that greater efforts in terms of dispersal, further reduction in use of soft surfaced areas and a greater need to support local businesses is required.  Our assessment is and must be based upon the information in the planning applications as submitted, and not on any discussions we have had, however constructive, with Unique Assembly.

Overall, the Cockburn does not formally object to these applications, nor do we support them.  Our concerns would be lessened slightly if the applications were for this year only.  All three applications have major deficiencies in information and are inaccurate in many instances.  The planning statements do not articulate on any satisfactory way the impacts to heritage assets such as listed buildings, etc.  No detailed locational information is available for disposition of stalls, rides etc and the associated management of crowds.

We appreciate the special circumstances that Unique Assembly as “rescue applicants” find themselves in but there can be no excuses for a failed public procurement process given recent controversary and history of the Winter Festivals.

Specific Application comments

The Cockburn has no objection to the use of George Street for a dedicated ice rink with ancillary functions such as toilets and changing facilities.

However, we cannot support the application as no details of the actual structure to be erected have been submitted with the application.  There is no way of ascertaining the impact on the neighbouring businesses or listed buildings and Conservation Area without them, and strongly advise that no consent be issued until this information has been submitted.  It is essential that any development here respects the qualities of George Street and the World Heritage Site.

No information on the management of support infrastructure is provided.  We are concerned with the impact of generators, etc on the immediate environment.  Similarly, we are also concerned with the lengthy periods required for set up and take down of the temporary structures and the disruption that this will cause for pedestrians and businesses alike.

The site boundary runs up the curb line on both sides of the street.  The current relaxation for outdoor seating has seen many of the hospitality businesses exploit the opportunity with substantial outdoor dining arrangements especially on the north side of the street.  The implication of Underbelly’s application is that these facilities will need to be moved before the erection of the ice rink can begin.  As it seems likely that the relaxation of licensing will continue, this needs to be clarified as a matter of some urgency.  In addition, the potential crowding of restricted pavement space seems likely, and could make crowd management more challenging.

The Cockburn would wish to object to the proposed pop-up bars and retail shacks within the ice rink enclosure.  As already noted in our general comments, we believe that these represent unfair competition to existing businesses who are struggling to recover from the past 20 months of restrictions.  We understand that these views are also shared by the George Street Association which represents a wide of local interests.

We have no specific concerns regarding the use of The Mound for the Christmas Market.  This has been used for several decades now and if properly managed should present no issues.  But we do have concerns with pop-up bars, preferring trade to be given to permanent businesses who operate year-round.

Regarding the upper terrace in East Princes Street Gardens, we would prefer this to be deleted from the proposals and possibly moved to Waverley Bridge.  This would avoid damaging the soft surfaces and permitted other activities such as the remembrance garden greater time to be enjoyed.  It must be said that we have little confidence in either Underbelly or the City Council in restoring the area of ground post-damage or in preventing it in the first place.

Regarding proposals for  West Princes Street Gardens below these were  new in 2021, and our initial assessments based on site visits during its operation suggests that it was, in general terms, reasonably successful as a venue.  However, there were areas of significant deficiency, and these must be addressed, in particular,  the damage done to soft surfaced areas as part of Santa’s Grotto and Christmas maze, as well as damage to the grass on the fringes of the blaise area.

There is little information available to determine the potential negative impacts in these areas.  As a matter of principle, all soft surfaced areas should be avoided with all development contained in areas of hard surface.

The application suggests that the upper terrace will form part of the site but there are few details to explain how it will be used in the application. We have no objections to its “soft” use as a festively lit route between East and West Gardens and believe that there are some positive opportunities for the use of the existing shelters as points of interest along this path.

Whilst we appreciate the desire for this part of the Christmas Market to be open later than usual closing time (dusk), the implications of this need careful consideration and effective/active management.  Will this result in the erection of a barrier across the Gardens to prevent access to areas to the east of the Ross Fountain?  How will it look?  Will it be manned, and by whom?  This could present an unsightly and aggressive barrier which would affect open access during normal hours or would at least impact on the openness of this most important civic space. No information on this has been provided on this and should be before any consent is considered.

The use of St Cuthbert’s Graveyard for operational servicing should be avoided.  Experiences of other events recently suggests too great a conflict between vehicles and pedestrians as well as impacting on it as a heritage asset.  The management of the graveyard in the dark hours is also issue that requires attention.  There is no reason why it could not be made attractive.

Image: Pixabay

 

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Elgin House – proposed demolition and redevelopment

Posted on: October 26, 2022

In our view, the proposed buildings are too tall and architecturally insipid adding nothing to one of the gateways to the city centre

In our view, the proposed buildings are too tall and architecturally insipid adding nothing to one of the gateways to the city centre

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn OBJECTS to this application.

In the context of the ‘climate emergency’ and Edinburgh’s zero carbon ambitions, the applicant simply has not made the case for the complete demolition of a relatively modern office building.  An outline carbon assessment is provided as part of this application. But this does not appear to fully and comprehensively explore the carbon-related impacts of the demolition process, and the construction and management of the proposed office and hotel buildings, with the performance of a suitably refurbished and repurposed Elgin House. Complete evidence should be provided that the existing office block cannot be reconfigured to meet modern office working requirements and cannot be brought up to an acceptable energy performance standard so avoiding the significant carbon implications of demolition and rebuild.

It is also our view, that the proposed buildings are too tall and architecturally insipid adding nothing to the urban feel of one of the gateways to the city centre.  The current proposals will negatively impact on views to and from adjacent conservation areas and the World Heritage Site.  The rooflines of the proposed office and hotel appear to have made no attempt to reflect the diverse rooflines which typify the Haymarket area.

Refurbishment must now be the starting point of any significant office redevelopment if Edinburgh’s commitment to tackling the climate emergency and achieving carbon neutrality by 2030 is to have any meaning. Successful refurbishment and reuse may have the potential to deliver some or all of the stimulus to the growth of the local, regional and national economy and opportunities for employment in Edinburgh.

If the principle if demolition is accepted (and we believe that there is insufficient evidence to support this) then redevelopment in this location should be limited to around four stories with a sympathetic roof structure in keeping with the surrounding cityscape, rooflines and residential character of much of this area.

 

Image: Planning Application

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Category A-listed former Scottish Widows HQ

Posted on: October 19, 2022

The quality of any new development must respond to the site in the same way that the listed building does and be of matching  quality and scale.  In this regard to the proposals require significant modification before they can be acceptable.

The quality of any new development must respond to the site in the same way that the listed building does and be of matching  quality and scale.  In this regard to the proposals require significant modification before they can be acceptable.

Cockburn Response

The Association has studied the plans for the redevelopment on this Category A-listed building which involves the partial demolition and construction of new housing.  We thank the developers and their architects for facilitating a site visit as part of the early phases of development.

We appreciate the significant challenges that this building, and this site, presents.  It also represents a major opportunity to reinvigorate the site and make it fit for purpose and we can see merit in the approach adopted.

However, in considering the totality of the development, we have concluded that there are sufficient deficiencies with the scheme for us to lodge a formal objection to it.  These concentrate mostly on the redeveloped sections of the site. We feel that a scheme for the partial demolition and renovation  of this site  is possible. But such a scheme would be a radical departure for what is currently being proposed.

Approach

We appreciate that the proposals would involve the demolition of a significant portion on a Category A-listed building.  This is contrary to a range of policies including  Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas –  Section 59 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Action 1997,  Section 64 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland), Action 1997, NPF4 Policy 7 c), NPF4 Policy d) and Local Development Plan policies ENV2, ENV3 and ENV4.  However, we accept that without significant interventions to the site, the buildings will have little ongoing economic or use value, largely due to its unique form and construction.

As such, we are willing to accept the proposed demolitions of sections of the main building subject to certain pre-conditions being met.  The acceptance of the scale of demolition being proposed is dependent on the quality and design of the new structure or structures proposed as replacements for  demolished sections of A-listed original structures…  In this regard, we have considerable concerns regarding the scale, materiality and massing of the proposed new housing, which serious affects the context of the site.

Context

The iconic visual imaging of the buildings comes from two main viewpoints, in our view.  The first is from Dalkeith Road where the layering of the hexagonal forms with the reflection pools is most dominant.  The proposals preserve this aspect, which is to be welcomed.

Second, is the view looking down on the buildings from Holyrood Park.  This best illustrates the important landscape setting and planting scheme at the eastern edge, which contrasts with the harder architectural forms on Dalkeith Road.  There is no doubt that the current proposals are a change in the context and the impact is negative due to the scale, materiality and massing on the new housing blocks.

Also important is the view glimpsed from Dalkeith Road down Parkside Terrace to the Arthur’s Seat and the Salisbury Crags.  The ability to see over the top of the current buildings and view the Park is an important part of the context and unique character of this part of Edinburgh.  As we understand it, the original building was designed as to exploit this prospect.  The large housing blocks up to 7+ storeys high serious affects this visual relationship to the extent that Arthur’s Seat is no longer visible.  We find this a negative aspect of the development and regard it as unacceptable.

Architectural interventions –

Listed Building

Overall, in accepting the concept of partial demolition, we find the solution to the refurbishment of the remaining Spence building acceptable and supportable. The introduction on new “light wells” will help with the deficiency of light penetration and will not materially affect the character of the listed building.  We also welcome proposals to refurbish the landscaping associated with the building as an integral part of its landscape setting.  The restoration of the reflecting pool is particularly welcome.

New development –

We support the creation of new housing here, but have considerable concerns regarding the proposals form, materiality, scale and massing.  The attempt to use the strong geometric forms as a guiding layout principle is interesting but unconvincing.  It creates a confusion between “back” and “front” with no clearly discernible distinction between public and private spaces.  The proximity of footpaths to ground floor dwellings is also a concern with potentially significant impact on amenity and overlooking.

We believe that substantial modifications need to be made to make the new elements acceptable.  A reduction in height would help ameliorate the visual impact especially on the northern parts of the site on Parkside Terrace.  This might be achieved by reducing the height on the perimeter with slightly higher sections in the centre of the site.  The existing buildings also step down towards Holyrood Park – a continuation of this approach with any new development would also reduce the visual impact

The “blockiness” in terms of materiality and fenestration pattern of the L-shaped buildings accentuates their impact.  Breaking up the elevations and avoiding competition with the retained Scottish Widows building would be advisable.  Also, whilst we appreciate the use of green roof technology, a varied planting programme would help breakdown the massing as seen from above.

Housing Tenure

It is commendable that the developer is proposing that 35% of all housing will be affordable as this reflects the growing need for this form of housing and corresponds with the proposed change from the current 25% requirement in the next City Development Plan.

The Affordable Housing Statement included in the planning application highlights that negotiations are ongoing with one provider of affordable housing, namely Places for People Group (PfP). While the precise tenure split of this affordable housing is not specified, it is disappointing that this statement fails to acknowledge that the greatest outstanding need and demand in Edinburgh is for new additional social housing in the City as most recently highlighted by the Edinburgh Poverty Commission.

It is also concerning that the developer states that there is a significant gap between the costs of construction and the available capital grant (Housing Association Grant – HAG – in this case). If the size of this gap continues there is some considerable risk that the developer and PfP will provide very little if indeed any social housing at all on this site and instead seek to provide other forms of affordable housing including mid-market rent and/or low-cost home ownership forms and which this housing provider has a track record of providing much more frequently than new social housing in the past.

This situation highlights yet further evidence of the significantly inadequate levels and volumes of HAG being made available to social landlords operating in the city, making it ever more difficult to meet the most acute need for social housing and creating the desired, sustainable mixed tenure neighbourhoods of the future.

Summary

The Cockburn acknowledges the significant challenges that this site presents.  The Scottish Widows building by one of Scotland’s most influential modern architects, Basil Spence, merits its Category A-listing as a building of national and international standing.  It is also a building with major deficiencies in terms of usability and functionality.  In ideal circumstances, we would prefer the entirety of the building to retained and refurbished but we can accept the loss of part of it to facilitate a new lease of life for a large portion of it fronting Dalkeith Road, which we feel is the most important section of the building.   The quality of any new development must respond to the site in the same way that the listed building does and be of matching  quality and scale.  In this regard to the proposals require significant modification before they can be acceptable.

 

Further Details Here

Back to Listings