Category A-listed former Scottish Widows HQ

Posted on: October 19, 2022

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

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

Cockburn Response

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

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

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

Approach

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

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

Context

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

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

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

Architectural interventions –

Listed Building

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

New development –

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

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

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

Housing Tenure

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

 

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Telecoms Mast, Whitehouse Loan

Posted on: October 13, 2022

The Cockburn Association supports stakeholders’ objections to the installation of a telephone mast in the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area

The Cockburn Association supports stakeholders’ objections to the installation of a telephone mast in the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn OBJECTS to this application.

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

The proposal would have a harmful impact upon the visual quality of the wider street scene and so detract from the amenity and special character of the conservation area and from residential amenity. It is our view that the application is not consistent with Policy Env 6 Conservation Areas – Development as it does not preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the conservation area.

In addition, this proposal will add street clutter to a relatively narrow pavement which is already compromised by a disused police box and lamp standard immediately adjacent to the site proposed for telecommunications equipment.   This area of the city hosts a number of educational establishments, and this fact heightens the need to keep pavements as clear and unobstructed as possible.

This application should certainly be refused if it is determined that the benefits of the proposed installation are deemed not to outweigh the harm caused to the conservation area and if there is insufficient evidence that alternative sites or mast sharing opportunities have been adequately explored.  In particular, we would suggest that the disused police box and lamp standard adjacent to the site proposed for telecommunications equipment should be assessed as potential locations for the proposed equipment to protect the amenity of the conservation area and to avoid adding additional pavement obstructions.

We understand the essential requirement for modern telecommunications infrastructure in our city and its importance to residents. However, we believe that, in consultation with local stakeholders, the proposed apparatus should be located in a more inconspicuous location or disaggregated into smaller, less conspicuous arrays if this is achievable.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Telecoms Mast, Whitehouse Loan

Posted on: September 23, 2022

The Cockburn Association supports stakeholders’ objections to the installation of a telephone mast in the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area

The Cockburn Association supports stakeholders’ objections to the installation of a telephone mast in the Marchmont, Meadows and Bruntsfield Conservation Area

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn OBJECTS to this application.

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

The proposal would have a harmful impact upon the visual quality of the wider street scene and so detract from the amenity and special character of the conservation area and from residential amenity. It is our view that the application is not consistent with Policy Env 6 Conservation Areas – Development as it does not preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the conservation area.

In addition, this proposal will add street clutter to a relatively narrow pavement which is already compromised by a disused police box and lamp standard immediately adjacent to the site proposed for telecommunications equipment.   This area of the city hosts a number of educational establishments, and this fact heightens the need to keep pavements as clear and unobstructed as possible.

This application should certainly be refused if it is determined that the benefits of the proposed installation are deemed not to outweigh the harm caused to the conservation area and if there is insufficient evidence that alternative sites or mast sharing opportunities have been adequately explored.  In particular, we would suggest that the disused police box and lamp standard adjacent to the site proposed for telecommunications equipment should be assessed as potential locations for the proposed equipment to protect the amenity of the conservation area and to avoid adding additional pavement obstructions.

We understand the essential requirement for modern telecommunications infrastructure in our city and its importance to residents. However, we believe that, in consultation with local stakeholders, the proposed apparatus should be located in a more inconspicuous location or disaggregated into smaller, less conspicuous arrays if this is achievable.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Townhouses, Eyre Place

Posted on: September 2, 2022

We accept that townhouses may be appropriate for this location.
However, the current proposals require revision.

We accept that townhouses may be appropriate for this location.
However, the current proposals require revision.

Cockburn Response

We accept that townhouses may be appropriate for this location.

However, the current proposals require revision. In particular, the urban form and disposition of adjacent properties on Eyre Place Lane should be respected.  This specifically includes a more sympathetic response to varying ground levels on the site.

In addition, the stepped access to the proposed townhouses seems inconsistent with the principles of today’s accessibility requirements and aspirations for residential properties. Such access restricts their suitability to potential residents.

We have  also been alerted to detailed observations and comments  which have been made by local residents concerning both this development and a related proposal for student accommodation  on Eyre Place. These detailed observations require full consideration by planning officers.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Proposed student accommodation development, Eyre Place

Posted on:

The potential of the proposed development to adversely impact existing properties in terms of noise, overshadowing and privacy is clear. 

The potential of the proposed development to adversely impact existing properties in terms of noise, overshadowing and privacy is clear. 

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn OBJECTS to this application.

We acknowledge that student accommodation developments can bring many benefits to local communities. However, in this relatively small, constrained site the height, size  and scale of the proposed development is entirely unacceptable.

This is a largely residential neighbourhood which is not particularly close to any academic centre. The area’s existing architectural context and residential character must inevitably be adversely impacted by a development of the proposed height, mass and scale given its proximity to established residential properties. The potential of the proposed development to adversely impact existing properties in terms of noise, overshadowing and privacy is clear.  Policy ENV6 and HOU5 seem particularly relevant to the consideration of this development.

We have  also been alerted to detailed observations and comments  which have been made by local residents concerning both this development and a related proposal for townhouses  on Eyre Place Lane. These detailed observations require full consideration by planning officers.

The lack of a fully up-to-date and comprehensive assessment of both student accommodation demand and existing or approved provision across the city is unhelpful when assessing this or similar applications for student accommodation.  In addition, the continuing loss of small industrial sites in the community, such as this development site , actively works against the achievement of the 20 Minute Neighbourhood concept being actively  promoted by the City of Edinburgh Council and the Scottish Government.

 

Image: Taken from public Planning Application – copyright may be restricted

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Scottish Widows redevelopment

Posted on: July 28, 2022

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

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

Cockburn Response

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

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

Image: Terry Levinthal

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Cameron Toll Hotel Proposal

Posted on: July 22, 2022

it seems entirely reasonable to conclude that there is a real potential for a hotel of the proposed scale, height, and proximity to have an undesirable and unacceptable impact on Dunedin School

it seems entirely reasonable to conclude that there is a real potential for a hotel of the proposed scale, height, and proximity to have an undesirable and unacceptable impact on Dunedin School

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association objects to this application.

We do not accept that individual elements of the planned redevelopment of Cameron Toll can be properly assessed until a comprehensive masterplan for the whole site has be published fully consulted on and approved.

There are many issues which are relevant to this planning application for a new hotel on the Cameron Toll site which can only be adequately considered and addressed in the context of the site as a whole. These include, but are not limited to:  How is site-wide and  community connectivity to be achieved? How are active travel, Tramline  3 and ‘red light’ routes to be integrated or protected? What is the nature of wider civic connections and services to the neighbouring communities? What is the future of the current retail offering at Cameron Toll? Where is the data on current pattern of use/travel at Cameron Toll and how is this informing future use? How is the concept of a 20-minute neighbourhood being integrated into proposals for the whole Cameron Toll redevelopment? How will the new Cameron Toll, and its individual components, contribute to the city’s ambitious 2030 climate targets?

In addition, Cockburn stakeholders have raised concerns about the potential negative impact of the proposed hotel development on the setting, essential educational ambiance, and functionality of Dunedin School. This unique educational establishment, of some historical interest, is a close neighbour of the proposed development. However, reference to Dunedin School in the materials posted in support of the current planning application are very limited. Indeed, a meaningful consideration of the potential impact of the proposed hotel on the school is not possible as things stand. Although  it seems entirely reasonable to conclude that there is a real potential for a hotel of the proposed scale, height, and proximity to have an undesirable and unacceptable impact on the school.

Image: Planning Application

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Old Royal High School

Posted on: June 22, 2022

We understand that this application is essentially the same set of proposals for the scheme consented previously.  The Association fully supported the previous scheme, and we continue to do so with this application.

We understand that this application is essentially the same set of proposals for the scheme consented previously.  The Association fully supported the previous scheme, and we continue to do so with this application.

Cockburn Response

The Association has studied the plans for the conversion of the former Royal High School on Regent Road into a new music school.  We understand that this application is essentially the same set of proposals for the scheme consented previously.  The Association fully supported the previous scheme, and we continue to do so with this application.

From our study of the plans, the main changes are:

  • revisions to car parking and landscaping – We find these generally positive with the reduction in car park numbers. Although several existing trees at the western entrance are lost, we understand that these were landscape additions by PSA for the 1979 Parliament House scheme.  At the 2018 Public Inquiry into the hotel proposals, these were not considered to be particularly important or valuable.  Overall, the landscape proposals in general are improved as a result, with more publicly access space made available.
  • Proposed new café at the West Pavilion – although there will be some excavation and re- grading of levels to provide disabled access and form new terrace, we do not feel that this is a significant issue in the context of the overall scheme.
  • New School Entrance with reconfigured school/practice room elements. The new school arrangements extend the new building further westwards so that instead of terminating behind the Hamilton building, they extend beyond it towards the West Lodge.   The introduction of a new Post-modern interpretation of a pavilion as the new school entrance will affect the legibility of the ORHS from views from Waterloo Place although this would appear to have a minor impact.  The visuals are inadequate to make much sense of this, so the Cockburn would advocate a visual impact assessment as part of the application process to properly assess this element of the scheme.
  • Proposed handrails and balustrades within the main Portico – this involves cutting a new glazed slot in the main portico as well as introducing a bronze and glass balustrade for safety issues. Although small in scale, this does affect the main architectural element of the school, namely the central processional portico.  In our assessment, the issue is increased light and access for the new scheme, and the impact on the very sublime composition of the central architectural feature.  Overall, we think that a suitable balance has been struck and that this will have a minor impact on the historic fabric of the building.  The set back of the new balustrade will also reduce its visual intrusion.  As such, we are happy to support this change.
  • Changes to the main hall – the substitution of cast iron columns with brackets as per Hamilton’s original drawings present a possible improvement to the scheme.

We also note several other changes such as the deletion of the moveable stage in the main Hall, shifting plant rooms about, etc. None of these are significant.

Overall, the current proposals represent a modest maturation of the consented scheme.  Some cost engineering has taken place and inevitably more will follow.  The Association remains firmly supportive of the proposals.

 

Image:  From planning application documentation, copyright may be reserved.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Demolition and development near 139 Leith Walk

Posted on: May 20, 2022

Although we find much to support in this scheme, the overdominance of student housing against formal policy and excessive height of some of the blocks means we cannot support the proposals as they stand.

Although we find much to support in this scheme, the overdominance of student housing against formal policy and excessive height of some of the blocks means we cannot support the proposals as they stand.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association has reviewed these proposals for a student housing development with additional housing and offer the following comments.

We accept that this is a development opportunity and are aware of the Halmyre Street Development Brief that was prepared by the City Council recently.  We are also aware that the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel reviewed these proposals (comments are on the planning portal) and noted their concern that the proposal appears out of context and advocated a design approach which integrates with the city. They also expressed concern at the proposed land use of residential and student accommodation and advocated that the proposed height, mass and scale should be reconsidered. The Panel did not consider it appropriate to use the Mecca Bingo building as a datum level to set heights on the site.

We agree with the points raised and whilst we think that some amendments have been made since the EUDP considered the proposals, these do not go far enough to make this scheme acceptable.

Firstly, we have strong reservations about the uses.  In relative terms, the scheme is dominated by student housing where the need is for mainstream housing, especially affordable.  The proposed 235 student flats and only 45 flats is not acceptable and falls far short of guidelines which suggest a minimum of 50% housing for such a site as this.  On this ground alone, the application should be refused consent.

In terms of scale and massing, we believe that the proposed 6-storey high block B is too large for this site.  A reduction in height would be more in keeping with the character of the area.

Against these concerns, the overall layout has produced some very interesting internal spaces and the landscape architecture is well-considered and developed.  We also find the architectural disposition and composition positive with much to commend it.  Perhaps the exception to this is the affordable housing block with its monopitch roof and generally bland elevational treatment.

In summary, whilst we can see positive elements in these proposals, the overconcentration of student accommodation versus mainstream housing coupled with the excessive height means we cannot support this application.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Installation of venues in George Square Gardens

Posted on:

We have offered a NEUTRAL comment on this application as there are certain planning conditions we would like to see attached before permission is granted.

We have offered a NEUTRAL comment on this application as there are certain planning conditions we would like to see attached before permission is granted.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association has considered these plans for the use of the George Square Gardens as a Fringe venue by Assembly Festival Ltd.  We acknowledge the fact that the applicant has erected similar infrastructure 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.    

The Cockburn is also aware that, with the exception of last year (2021), no planning consent has ever been sought for operations in George Square Gardens despite it being a very clear Change of Use to Class 11 (Assembly and Leisure).  As such, the past history of occupation should not be taken as a material consideration in this application and should be given minimal weight.  

Whilst we do not object to this application, we feel that it would be inappropriate at this stage to grant consent for 3 years, as requested.  We feel that proposed arrangements for tree safety are inadequate, and the requirement for a Noise Impact Study, which we understand the Council have asked for, should be available before any consent is considered.  A full and proper independent monitoring regime should be put in place as a planning condition, and the outcome of this should be used to consider if consent should be considered in future years.   

 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.  We are very concerned with the impact to the trees in the Square due to the proximity of the large tented structure, hospitality kiosks and related infrastructure to the trees, resulting in potential damage to the root systems.  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 develop is likely to have a damaging impact on the root systems of trees in the Square and is therefore inconsistent with this policy.   

The submitted tree safety plan is not adequate or comprehensive.  For example, the protection of root systems needs to extend well beyond the canopy, which in many instances does not.  We are also very concerned with the selective use of tree protection zones on the site.  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 revised protection plan to this effective.   

We can see no plausible reason why most of the infrastructure could not be placed around the Square, reserving the more open section for the large-tented structure if absolutely necessary.  This would reduce the impact on the soft-surfaces and trees in the Square considerably.  

As such, we advocate a number of amendments before this application can be acceptable.  In summary, these include: 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; and the delivery of a noise impact study as part of the publicly available information with this application.  Also, we advise that consent be given for one year only, with suitable monitoring arrangements in place.  

Further Details Here

Back to Listings