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

“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

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

The Filmhouse – Proposals for a new venue in Festival Square

Posted on: February 10, 2021

Our response to the proposal to build a Centre for Moving Image in Festival Square

Cockburn Response

The Association OBJECTS to this proposal.

In doing so, we recognise that the Filmhouse is an institution that is well-established and well-loved. We recognise that it is well used by residents and it is a positive cultural and community asset.

Our objection is based on the use of Festival Square as a development site. The proposals are contrary to Local Development Plan Policy Env. 18 Open Space Protection which states:

“Proposals involving the loss of open space will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that:

a) there will be no significant impact on the quality or character of the local environment and
b) the open space is a small part of a larger area or of limited amenity or leisure value and there is a significant
over-provision of open space serving the immediate area and
c) the loss would not be detrimental to the wider network including its continuity or biodiversity value and
either
d) there will be a local benefit in allowing the development in terms of either alternative equivalent provision
being made or improvement to an existing public park or other open space or
e) the development is for a community purpose and the benefits to the local community outweigh the loss.”

In our view, this development would result in a significant impact to the local area and would undermine the character and potential of an existing civic space. There would be a significant loss of open space, which would not be retrieved elsewhere. It would also set an undesirable precedent, and create expectation of development, for other open spaces
within the city.

The implications of Covid-19 in the short, medium and long-term is a factor that should be considered relevant for this application. The huge impact on the hospitality sector of the city questions the need for new development with additional hospitality provision. Cultural venues demanding large audiences in crowded venues will take time to recover, if they do.

The enormous shift to digital platforms could have a significant impact on the business case for this proposal, which we assume will be reliant on public support for a substantial part of its build cost. We also understand that the city is “over-screened” with underused cinemas across the city.

The global pandemic has illustrated the huge importance of civic space in the City. The Streets for People initiative sought to reclaim space for pedestrian and civic use. It would be ironic in the extreme for the City of Edinburgh Council to support the loss of open space which it owns.

Festival Square
Festival Square was created as part of the vision to redevelopment the former goods yard on Lothian Road. It was core to the development brief of the time, which saw its creation in the early 1980s. It formed an essential public space in the West Central Edinburgh Redevelopment Strategy of 1987 and was a core civic asset in the development of the conference centre masterplan in the early 1990s.

We acknowledge that the current Festival Square is not a hugely successful open space. The interaction of activities on its edges is not optimal and it can appear as a cold, wind-swept, purpose-less area. However, this should not be taken as a reason for its loss. We reject the argument that a poorly designed or managed space automatically means that it has no
value. Festival Square provides an opening along a very dense Lothian Road, a place where the eye can travel beyond the buildings framing it. As such, we are not convinced by the arguments put forward for its use as a development site.

The Cockburn believes strongly that the square can and should be improved, so that it could provide an excellent hard-surfaced civic space capable of hosting major events and festival activities. Alternatively, it could be redesigned or “greened” as a carbon/climate mitigation space to help the city meet its aspirations to be carbon-neutral by 2030.
It is for this reason that the proposals should be refused consent.

Alternatives
We note that the management of the Filmhouse does not feel that the existing building is fit for purpose but there appears to be some disagreement on social media from users. This needs to be fully appreciated and understood before any contemplation of sacrificing existing open space.

The Cockburn is aware of previous proposals to redevelop within the existing premises and believe that these should be revisited as part of a wider appraisal of alternatives. Indeed, our preference is the refurbishment of the existing Filmhouse building, accepting that there will need to be some compromise with the existing fabric of the listed building. This refurbishment approach might include attempting to secure the ground floor (or part of) Capital House to expand the front of house facilities, freeing up space within.

We have not seen a full options appraisal. There may be a range of other sites or approaches available. The restructuring of Princes Street from retailing to a wider leisure offering suggests opportunities too.

The proposals
The Cockburn commented on the emerging proposals as part of the PAN process. Whilst we acknowledge the cultural value of the Filmhouse and its role in Edinburgh’s civic life, we were not convinced of the case to use Festival Square. We accepted that the Square is not optimal in function but could be significantly improved. In terms of the proposals, we advised that the building should serve the square and not just be the outside of it. The narrow footprint and vertical disposition over 8 floors suggest major circulation issues and that we were not convinced that the proposals will function as well as argued. We were also concerned about the elevational treatment and suggested the need for a full Visual Impact Assessment of the scheme given its height.

Current proposal – headline issues
Whilst some of our points raised in the PAN have been addressed in part, the majority of these concerns remain. Fundamentally, the case has not been made to lose this civic space.

Whilst we appreciate the desire of the Filmhouse to create this new facility, we are not convinced of the need for it nor the requirement to include the scale of ancillary uses including offices for the CMI, which could be located elsewhere, thereby reducing the volume of new building required.

Current proposals – observations and views
We offer these comments without prejudice to our prima facie objection to the use of Festival Square in principle.

The reduction in height helps reduce the impact of the proposals in this setting but does not go far enough to reduce its visual impact to acceptable levels. There remains much concern about the visual intrusion that will result, especially from key views from the Castle and up and down Lothian Road. The height of the building will also affect the available daylight to surrounding buildings creating further difficulties for existing buildings to improve their energy consumption figures by increasing the need for artificial lighting during daylight hours at the very least. Additionally, it will greatly reduce the available light in the remaining parts of the square affecting both desirability, accessibility and the inherent safety open spaces provide for pedestrians at all times of the day or night.

The issue of internal circulation remains. Given the vertical emphasis of the building, the arrangement of stair and lift access seems inadequate, especially if the building is in full use. The servicing of numerous cafes, bars and restaurants from a basement kitchen by dumb waiters is questionable and poses issues of longer-term operational sustainability. For
example, we are aware that premises such as the Tower restaurant struggled with this arrangement.

The substantial amount of underground facilities creates challenging means of escape in emergency situations. There appears to be long distances to refuges and external escape routes. Whilst this will form part of the Building Warrant process, public safety must form a part of any planning assessment.

External arrangements – The building turns its back to the external spaces in most areas and does not help to animate remaining parts of the square. The problem with Festival Square is the lack of active engagement at ground floor level with the existing buildings. There does not seem to be any real improvement of this deficiency with this scheme. Indeed, the proposals could have the opposite effect, dividing the square into a series of smaller and less coherent spaces which would not have the scale to allow for other event activities. This is especially the case to the south where the space between Capital House and the proposal is very constrained, without real purpose and would by in shadow for much of the day. The introduction of raised planters/seating areas reduces the potential flexibility of the remaining spaces to accommodate markets, etc.

Elevational Treatment – The aspiration to create an iconic building of itself and not of the city is a clear objective of the client and the architect. If acceptable in this location (which we disagree with), and given the buildings that immediately surround the proposal, we acknowledge that there is no unified architectural language. However, we are not convinced
by the wide film screens as part of the elevational treatment and feel that they should be deleted. The desire for the client to “show off their wares” is understandable but if it is OK for the Filmhouse, why not all the other cultural venues in the city? This will set an unwelcome precedent.

Wider Priorities for Cultural Infrastructure Investment
Whilst we would not usually address wider financial/investment issues as part of a planning application, there is no doubt that this proposal will require substantial amounts of public money. There is also no doubt that existing cultural venues in the city require significant amounts of investment for repair and refurbishment to remain fit for purpose. In an era of constrained public investment, the Cockburn suggests the repair and maintenance of existing facilities should be given priority for access to the public purse than new projects.

The existing Filmhouse
Should this proposal be permitted, the abandonment of the existing well-loved buildings needs to be addressed. We argue that the CMI/Filmhouse as a moral responsibility to consider the future of these buildings, and they shouldn’t be left to the development market to decide. A design brief should be prepared to guide suitable and sensitive redevelopment.

Back to Listings

Commercial Quay

Posted on: February 5, 2021

Our objection to plans to infill a commemorative water feature in Leith

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to the proposed infilling of water features at Commercial Quay and their replacement with decking in a designated conservation area and area of public amenity.

It is our view that the loss of this water feature, which references the industrial heritage of the old Leith docks, and its proposed replacement with decking is totally inappropriate for the historic quayside setting and for the conservation area.

The City of Edinburgh Council’s guidance in Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas makes it clear that “when considering development within a conservation area, special attention must be paid to its character and appearance. Proposals which fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area will normally be refused”.

It is our view that these proposals fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area and therefore should be refused.

We find the application confusing, with poor diagrams and no design statement.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Centrum & Bupa Houses

Posted on: January 29, 2021

Location: 108, 114, 116 Dundas Street Planning Application No: 20/05645/FUL Summary: Applicant seeks permission to demolish Centrum and Bupa Houses and construct a mixed-use development.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to 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 lessoning 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.

The application is unclear as to the mix housing, and we struggled to determine the social housing elements in the scheme.

In summary, the Cockburn sees little merit in the current proposals, and recommend refusal if significant amendments are not forthcoming.

Back to Listings

Albert Dock Barriers

Posted on:

Forth Ports seeking planning permission to alter listed barrier at Albert Dock in Leith.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn Association OBJECTS to this application.

The proposed replacement barrier panels are completely out of keeping with the historical quayside setting of Albert Dock. We do appreciate the intent by Forth Ports to improve pedestrian safety around the dock, however we feel there are more sympathetic ways of achieving this.

We understand that there has been no meaningful consultation with the local community, including Albert Dock residents. We are disappointed by the lack of engagement shown by Forth Ports and its approach to implementing these works.

We note that the CEC has opened an Enforcement File having been altered to the ongoing works on this site, in the absence of planning permission and LBC.

UPDATE 1: Application for listed building consent refused by City of Edinburgh Council on 11 Feb 2021

UPDATE 2: Appeal to Scottish Govt Ministers dismissed and listed building consent refused by Scottish Govt Reporter on 27 May 2021. In her conclusion, Scot Govt Reporter Rosie Leven commented:

“While I understand the risk and the perceived sense of urgency in installing the barriers, I am not convinced that all of the options to find a suitable solution which balances the historic environment and safety issues, have been fully exhausted. Given my concerns about the adverse impact on the listed building and the conservation area, I therefore refuse to grant listed building consent.”

Read Ms Leven’s full report here. We are pleased that Leith’s dockland heritage has been recognised by DPEA and consent refused. Hopefully Forth Ports will now undo the changes that they made to this listed structure and speedily reinstate the chains.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Stead’s Place, Leith (Revised application)

Posted on: January 27, 2021

Cockburn response to revised application for Stead’s Place, a 1.5 hectare site at the foot of Leith walk, proposing the clearance of light industrial buildings, residential redevelopment and access improvements.

Cockburn Response

The Cockburn has studied this application and offers the following comments which should be read an as OBJECTION to the proposals on design grounds. We support the retention of the street front building and the redevelopment of the rear site in principle.

We recollect the previous proposals to clear the entire site, demolishing the two-storey sandstone and granite 1933 building for the London Midland & Scottish Railway Company by architect H Gildard White and erect student accommodation, hotel and a flatted development. This scheme was rejected at appeal largely due to the proposal largely to the demolition of the Gildard building which contributed positively to the character of the Leith Conservation Area.

We are pleased that the building is to be retained and re-used.

We support in principle the redevelopment of the single storey steel sheds to the rear of the 1933 building and agree that it is a very suitable site for housing. However, we find that the paucity of design aspiration and the banality and blandness of the proposed new tenements is so poor that the Cockburn would wish to object the proposals on design grounds citing Policy Des One: Design Quality and Context and Policy Des 3 Development Design – Incorporating and Enhancing Existing and Potential.

We would advocate a fresh start, taking some inspiration from developments underway in and around Bonnington. Whilst we do not object to the overall scale, a low-rise higher density approach might offer better solutions or a mixed-scale blend. Greater integration with the former rail line to the north would add value as would a reduction in hard landscape areas.

We would also wish to object to the very limited mix of house sizes in the proposal. The current and projected housing need in Leith walk area is for both one, two and three bedroom types providing for both single person and larger households. Indeed this location is ideally suited to a colony style as opposed to more of the existing and predominant 4/5 story tenement style, so catering for a broader mix of household types, which is after all such an important ingredient of high quality places.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings

Change of Use to Short Term Let in Johnston Terrace

Posted on: July 30, 2020

Our response to application for permission to turn another residential property in Edinburgh’s Old Town into a short term holiday let

Cockburn Response

We object to this application.

This application has been brought to our attention by a Cockburn stakeholder. 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”.

Further Details Here

Back to Listings