Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Sparks fly over plan to develop blaze site

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 26 November 2008
IT WAS the scene of one of the worst fires in Edinburgh in living memory: a blaze which destroyed a host of historic buildings and created a gaping hole in the heart of the capital.
Now the site of the Cowgate fire of 2002 is set to become the latest battleground between a major developer and heritage groups in the capital.

The £40 million SoCo scheme – which is planned to become home to the city's latest upmarket hotel – is
facing a string of objections over claims its modern design will be out of place in the Old Town.

The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland (AHSS), Edinburgh World Heritage and the Cockburn Association have lined up to condemn the scheme, designed by Allan Murray, the same Edinburgh architect whose plans for the nearby Caltongate development have provoked much criticism.

His designs, which include entrances off both South Bridge and the Cowgate, have been branded "disappointing" by critics, who say they have fallen "well short" of the standards expected for the site.

Developer Whiteburn has also been criticised for rejecting large parts of an approved development blueprint for the site, particularly a call for new housing be prioritised.

In a letter to the council, the Cockburn Association said Whiteburn's scheme had failed to rise to the expectations set out by the council in its planning brief for the site, and has called for the entire scheme to return to the drawing board, branding many of the proposed buildings as "monotonous" and describing a proposed courtyard as likely to end up being "cold and hostile".

Euan Leitch, a spokesman for the AHSS, said there was a danger that a proposed wood effect on the panels of a tower at the heart of the hotel would look "cheap" and said there had not been enough effort made to replicate the number of mixed uses that had previously been on the site.

Edinburgh World Heritage's submission has major concerns about the design and massing of the Whiteburn scheme and the impact on the area.

More than 150 fire appliances from all over central Scotland helped tackle the Cowgate fire on 7 December 2002. The blaze, blamed on a faulty fuse box, destroyed 12 different properties, including Edinburgh University buildings, the Gilded Balloon comedy club, the Bridge Jazz Bar and a string of other nightspots like Loca and Living Room.

Whiteburn struck a deal to buy out the various owners almost three years ago after protracted legal negotiations.

John Shepherd, chief executive of Whiteburn, said: "During the preparation of our planning application, we worked closely with planners at the council, consulted widely on all aspects of the proposal, and commissioned an independent heritage report, all of which informed our approach.

"We believe that our plans will vastly improve the environment whilst recognising its historical importance, and create a prime destination for people to stay, work and relax in the city."



Page 1 of 1

 
1

Guga II,

Rockall 26/11/2008 03:17:33
They won't be content till they have destroyed Edinburgh, and turned it into a glass and concrete jungle.
2

Old Town,

Edinburgh 26/11/2008 07:23:24
So they worked closely with the council, well no doubt they will get what they want and the old town will end up getting the heart ripped out of it bit by bit, why was this council ever elected.
3

eric,

Lothian 26/11/2008 07:44:01
Blackpool o the north.
4

dba,

HAYMARKET 26/11/2008 08:09:48
Given the LAMENTABLE conduct of the present SNP/Lib Dem Council leadership,this looks like YET ANOTHER badly designed and badly thought through scheme.

The developers commissioned an 'Indepedent Heritage Report which informed our scheme'...Would the developers care to publish it and identify the authors, their qualifications, their previous activities and the fees they were paid.

IT REALLY IS TIME that both the Scottish Parliament, Audit Scotland and others started a full and independent inquiry into the staffing, structure and conduct of the City of Edinburgh Planning Department, it's Panning Committee and the apparent inability to recognise. preserve and protect the UNIQUE architectural heritage of the city.

We have one inquiry pending into the monstrous plans for Haymarket with a SEVENTEEN storey structure planned to blight the area...now after several years ONE developer has 'acquired' the site and has chosen to use an architect who has already demonstrated a cavalier disregard for the feelings of the local community as opposed to fat fees from developers...

Only, only in Edinburgh with a highly politicised and emasculated Council could this happen!
5

Seb,

26/11/2008 08:35:15
Where's Buttress?

#4 D2, The Cockburn recently supported the proposal to redevelop the Odeon into a hotel. And they got grief for that. Seems they can't win.
6

Buttress,

26/11/2008 09:09:12
Yes the Cockburn did support that - a very odd decision really.

But as rather roo many planning applications in the city are bad, crass commercial schemes without much architectural merit, then thank heavens there are those able and willing to make informed comment. I suggest that people take the trouble to read them.

And the council did the right thing this time and produced a planning brief, which has been ignored. Not good.

7

Buttress,

26/11/2008 09:13:02
5 - that's part of the problem - these 'independent' heritage reports are frequently anything but. There are those very happy to be paid to say what the developers wish.

And 'consultation' - we ask then we ignore the objections, but we can say we consulted.



8

Buttress,

26/11/2008 09:39:56
Re an investigation - I would add Historic Scotland to that. Its conduct over Caltongate leaves many questions unanswered.

Why, for example, did it employ (at our vast expense...) a commercial outfit Drivers Jonas to write one of the most laughably biased and inept reports I have ever read to 'justify' the demolition of the Canongate Venture? That was in MAY this year - the plans had been passed in February? Was that to justify its own failure to robustly apply planning policy?



9

Mallory,

Edinburgh 26/11/2008 09:41:31
The these 'independent' reports are typical of vested interest comissioning stuff to appease the locals and provide a prop for council staff to hide behind.

We had one some years back that predicted a net increase of 12 car journeys per day would result from construction of a 2000 desk office block.

The 'consultants' on that one did a traffic survey on one wednesday during the school holidays and thus extrapolated these figures...

Sort of like expecting credit agencies (paid by the banks and hedge funds) to produce accurate assessments of company solvency. And we all know to where that has led.
10

Buttress,

26/11/2008 09:45:56
The Canongate Venture one took as its starting point the idea that the building coudn't be converted into the conference centre or hotel Mountgrange wanted, so it had to go... the fact is you don't buy a listed building in sound condition then decide to demolish it because it doesn't suit your plans. (Same with the Odeon...)

Why is Historic Scotland not doing its job - protecting heritage? Wonder what it has to say about SoCo?
11

Old Town Resident,

edinburgh 26/11/2008 10:31:50

Read the £11,000 so called independent report on how to demolish a listed building, if you want to make money for yourself, even though you happen to be on the board of English Heritage
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/independent_report_on_canongate#incoming-8524
12

Buttress,

26/11/2008 10:49:08
At an inquiry, that could have been dismissed as the nonsense it was. Yet it seems it was produced so that there was no inquiry?

It all smells of rat.

13

Seb,

26/11/2008 11:33:12
The heritage report for the SoCo site is excellent and it makes no comment on the proposals. Historic Scotland think that the buildings proposed for the Cowgate are a little too high but don't say much other than that. it's on the portal.
14

daveserviceman,

edinburgh 26/11/2008 11:39:34
it appears everyone wants to have old decrepit buildings of the past and live in the past I say leave the sights looking like a bombsite thats the only way these complainers will be happy Edinburgh the bomb sight of scotland, happy with that title cockburn?
15

Buttress,

26/11/2008 11:59:59
15 Do you mean site?

Actually no - people want the historic buildings of the past not to be decrepit, they want them to be retained though, that's why they are being repaired with grants from Edinburgh World Heritage - which also objected, in case you hadn't read that part?

When there is a gap site, they want quality architecture, not something built to make the max for the developer and to hell with any other considerations.

So, 15, you think any rubbish should be built, simply because it's new? You don't think it should be high quality?

Well, I wonder of Historic Scotland will pay eleven grand for a report to say that SoCo is fine as it did with Caltongate, when it realised the plans had been passed without such a report being submitted by the developer???

16

Buttress,

26/11/2008 18:04:39
HS:

"The Planning Brief notes that the lost gable of Kay’s South Bridge scheme be rebuilt in facsimile, an approach we would continue to support...The site itself is particularly important in relation to the topography of the World Heritage Site which here sets the eighteenth and nineteenth century streets of South Bridge and Chambers Street above the Cowgate, a sunken thoroughfare south of the High Street. The vista to Cowgate from the High Street is therefore important in understanding these relationships and was previously terminated by the C(S) listed 1820s tenement by Thomas Hamilton. Its 4-storey scale, set below the nineteenth century Chambers Street successfully revealed the layered roofscapes and topography of the site, emphasising the depth of the Cowgate. Although the heights of the new buildings on the Cowgate do not exceed the proposed buildings on South Bridge, they far exceed the previous buildings on the site and would obscure much of the roofscape of Chambers Street and Old College when viewed from the High Street. Whilst views of the Old College dome from High Street/Blair Street would appear to be maintained, we do therefore have concerns over a scale and architectural approach that intrudes on views of the dome and roofscape of this building..."

So - HS doesn't like the proposals on the grounds of the gable (not as planning brief) the scale of the proposals, and the roofscape.




17

Seb,

26/11/2008 18:13:32
The HS report doesn't actually object to the new gable (even if it is the illegitimate child of Robert Kay and Rafael Moneo as delivered by the architect) and they do seem to like the public realm treatment - it's gated.
18

Buttress,

26/11/2008 19:37:57
None of it actually 'objects' - but I think the meat is in the part quoted above.

"Throughout this, our involvement has been concentrated on the affect of the development on the setting of the A-listed Old College building and the impact it may have on the outstanding universal value of the Edinburgh Old and New Towns World Heritage Site."

"...however we welcome the re-use of the site and consider that the mixed-use scheme provides real opportunities to improve this part of the Old Town. We particularly welcome the proposed new public realm with connections and links through the site from surrounding streets and closes. This linkage is very much in the spirit of the Old Town, as well as the desires of the planning brief."

Well yes - surely everyone welcomes the re-use, and a mixed use, it's how it's done which counts.

Bit wishy washy Historic Scotland... but hey, we couldn't have you actually sticking your collective necks out could we?


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.