Henderson Row
Posted on: August 22, 2025
Overscaled, ill-proportioned mansard roof harms the New Town Conservation Area, contrary to City Plan 2030 Policy Env 14 and NPF4 Policy 7, despite housing need
Address: 57 Henderson Row Edinburgh EH3 5DL
Proposal: Change of use from Class 4 office to residential apartments with removal of mansard roof space and erection of new double mansard roof to accommodate new apartments all with ancillary uses and works, facade refurbishment, new windows, landscape works and creation of south facing balconies at ground floor level.
Reference No: 25/03716/FUL
Closing date for comments: Fri 22 Aug 2025
Determination date: Mon 24 Sep 2025
Result: Pending

Cockburn Response
The Cockburn Association objects to the planning proposal for 57 Henderson Row.
The site itself embodies a layered history that reflects both Edinburgh’s industrial evolution and a thoughtful alignment with its architectural context. Mid‑Victorian ambitions to extend the Second New Town gave way to industrial and commercial uses. Workshops, foundries, small factories and shops were built tightly to the pavements along Dundas Street and Fettes Row, adapting to a sloping site that could not have supported the regular street pattern of the Georgian New Town. A brief attempt in 1880 to re‑imagine the space for tenements, to designs by John Lessels, was abandoned. Instead, by the mid‑1880s, the site became home to a landmark cable‑tram depot, elegantly designed in ashlar stone by engineer William Hamilton Beattie, with a handsome two‑storey central engine house, wings providing staff housing. The depot served the tram system, later a bus garage, and was adapted in the 1920s into a police garage, a public wash‑house and electricity substation. In the late 1980s, Scottish Life acquired the site, carefully incorporating the depot fragment as the centrepiece of a granite‑toned “neo‑Second Empire” office development, sensitively balancing post‑modern flourishes with the memory of the historic depot.
Against this layered and thoughtfully adapted architectural fabric stands the current proposal: a lumpen, grossly ill‑proportioned double mansard roof extension that obliterates the composition of the building. It overwhelms the refined massing inherited from both its Georgian context and the carefully situated late‑20th century addition. Far from complementing the existing structure, the proposal crashes into its form with ill-considered bulk and bewildering scale. The effect is not only inelegant but jarringly discordant, detrimental to the harmony of the New Town Conservation Area.
This harm is compounded by the lack of verified visual assessments from critical vantage points such as Calton Hill or nearby Georgian and Edwardian streets. Without these, the full impact of this dissonant roofline on the Conservation Area and adjacent World Heritage Site and skyline cannot be judged. Experience and best practice underscore the necessity of such documentation in development proposals affecting sensitive heritage zones such as this.
City Plan 2030 Policy Env 14 requires that new development, extensions, and alterations within conservation areas must preserve or enhance their special architectural and historic character. Proposals must respect scale, form, materials, and setting, and avoid adverse impacts on the historic environment. The current proposal manifestly fails these requirements, as the double mansard roof would introduce a lumpen, ill-proportioned form that overwhelms the building’s composition and damages the character of the New Town Conservation Area. Policy Env 14 aligns with NPF4 Policy 7 (Historic Assets and Places), this is not just a local but also a national policy concern.
The Cockburn Association’s acknowledges, and supports, Edinburgh’s housing emergency. While we strongly advocate for quality, sustainable housing, and have repeatedly emphasised the urgency of delivering this, poorly conceived development that damages the character and setting of a heritage area cannot be tolerated. Approving this submission would send a damaging precedent: an invitation to sacrifice architectural integrity beneath the guise of delivering homes.
For these reasons, we oppose the application in its current form. We urge the Council to insist upon verified contextual views, substantial reduction in roof mass, and a redesign that harmonizes with both the original building’s scale and the composition of adjacent Georgian and Edwardian streets, thereby honouring the New Town’s heritage while still enabling appropriate housing delivery.