Community council lodges complaint to Edinburgh Council
The New Town and Broughton Community Council has lodged a formal complaint with The City of Edinburgh Council in relation to a planning decision for a new home on Blenheim Place.
The complaint centres on the council's Planning Local Review Body (LRB) and the way it dealt with an appeal heard on 2 April.
This was an appeal against the council's decision to refuse planning permission in October 2024 for a new house on the site between Greenside Parish Church and 12 Blenheim Place and it was heard by the LRB.
Council officers said in the 2 April papers that the proposal was unacceptable as it would have a 'detrimental impact on the New Town Conservation Area and the wider World Heritage Site'.
The community council says its members have reviewed the proceedings at the meeting on the recorded webcast and find that there were 'serious procedural failures, apparent bias, and lack of adherence to statutory requirements and council guidance during the review of the appeal'.
NTBCC claim that the convener and others on the quasi judicial body were casual in the way they examined the issues, failing to consider whether a building was suitable for the World Heritage Site. They also gave no consideration to the objections from four local representative organisations (including Edinburgh World Heritage) and 28 residents.
During the presentation at the LRB councillors heard that Historic Environment Scotland said there would be some visual impact on Greenside Parish Church and on some viewpoints from Calton Hill, but that the organisation considered these would be minimal. They confirmed no objection to the application.
Edinburgh World Heritage said they noted that 'significant efforts have been made to keep the building low minimising the impact on views however changing a historical landscape setting that contributes to numerous heritage values would have negative heritage impact'. They did not support the application.
This is a site of archaeological potential and the City Archaeologist said a condition about the need for investigation should be attached to any permission granted.
The key issues in the report of handing included this statement: 'The erection of a building on this site would create an unsympathetic and disruptive addition to the immediate streetscape.'
The LRB had the option to decide on the application before them for review or to ask for more information to be provided – including holding another hearing. The clerk advised that the LRB had to consider the Listed Building – the church – when making any determination.
Community Council
Peter Williamson, Chair of NTBCC, said: 'Community councillors were shocked at the conduct at the appeal meeting when they looked at the council's webcast. Quasi-judicial processes of this importance to local people need to be conducted in a proper manner.'
NTBCC has demanded that the appeal process is rerun, that the shortcomings of the original appeal are not repeated, and that safeguards for any future appeals are put in place.
At the meeting the LRB allowed an appeal paving the way for a Passivhaus standard flat-roofed two level five bedroom modern house with external area to be placed between the church, a modern office building and a Georgian terrace at 12 Blenheim Place. There will be windows on the elevation facing towards the church.
The site is currently clear, but would be used for the house which would be fitted with photovoltaic panels. The plans are for an eco-efficient house with a ground source heat pump.
The railings would be maintained on the street side of the site but a new entrance would be created for access to the home. This is a site which lies on a slope as viewed from the street with the church sitting higher than the terrace at Blenheim Place.
The majority of the roof would be a flat green roof with terrace.
Proceedings at the meeting
Cllr Tim Jones was the acting Convener of the LRB on 2 April when the decision was made. He commented that Blenheim Place is a beautiful Playfair terrace and a 'precedent' had been set by the building of the modern office block next door. He said: 'I think too much is made of the blocking of the view because this is really very low down.' He said he was of the mind to uphold the application and allow the planning permission to be granted.
Cllr Jones asked about the design and how it compares in relation to the height of the modern block of offices next to it. He was referred to the street elevation plans in the presentation pack where the roof of the offices was shown as 'significantly higher' than the proposal.
Cllr Key said that the church itself blocks any views of Calton Hill and said the low profile nature of the proposed building did not pose any problem for him.
Cllr Hal Osler opposed the application for review. She said: 'There is an important aspect here which is that the church has a definitive gap on either side that puts it in a particular setting. This removes that aspect and makes a continuation where no continuation existed beforehand. It does alter the church's setting which is the whole point of looking at impact on historic buildings. I feel that an opportunity has been taken to fill this site and I don't believe there is a necessity to fill this site. I think it is possible to reduce it further. I think it is too much.'
Cllr Ben Parker agreed with Cllr Key that it is a low level building and the views are unaffected. He said he believed the development was quite 'sensitive' but building right up to the church is inappropriate.
Cllr Key proposed that the permission was allowed, and it became clear that with Cllr Osler proposing the opposite (and to support the refusal) the LRB – with four members present – were equally divided.
Cllr Key said the development would not have a detrimental impact on the application site, it does have regard to the existing characteristics of the area, has minimal impact on the listed building next door and would not have a detrimental impact on the application site and the surrounding area.
Cllr Key and Cllr Jones both voted to allow the permission and Cllrs Key and Osler voted to refuse it. With his casting vote Cllr Jones overturned the officers' recommendations and the development was approved with a condition as provided by the City Archaeologist.
Other councillors due to appear at the LRB on 2 April included Cllr Lezley Marion Cameron who joined online but was too late for this item, Cllr Neil Gardiner (but Cllr Key substituted for him) Cllr Alys Mumford (but Cllr Ben Parker was in attendance for the Green Group) and Cllr Hal Osler.
All of the visualisations of the proposed home are included in this pack here:
Loading…
Cllr Tim Jones who convened the meeting
Like this:
Like
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
21 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Are clumsy streetscapes threatening Edinburgh's heritage status?
'Whilst we may not be under imminent threat of being considered a World Heritage Site in danger, there is this steady, slow creep of issues which need to be addressed to reinforce the city's commitment to its inscription and the value that being a World Heritage Site brings,' says Terry Levinthal, director of the Cockburn Association. Conservation of the city's architectural heritage and its landscape on a macro scale has been relatively good (with a few noted exceptions), but small-scale interventions have been slowly slicing at the overall look and feel of the city. 'Death by a thousand cuts,' says Levinthal. 'One thing Edinburgh does not do well is streetscape, or how it manages the surfaces and the spaces in between buildings in an urban context.' Charlotte Square (Image: GordonTerris_Herald&Times) (Image: GordonTerris_Herald&Times) The Cockburn Association, whose civic guardianship of Edinburgh hinges on heritage as civic responsibility rather than nostalgia, has sounded the alarm about the state of the city's streets. Two months on from the association's public forum, On the Road to Nowhere? Edinburgh's Streetscape and Heritage Places, Levinthal is cautiously optimistic. It would take a very long and substantial decline for the city to lose its World Heritage status, or for it to be considered endangered. But decades of 'chronic undermanagement' and an ethos that streetscape insertions have nothing to do with World Heritage when 'of course they do' has given heritage enthusiasts cause for concern. 'One of the one of the biggest risks in a historic city is not necessarily just to do with altering buildings or building new architecture, but it's actually making sure that you look after the historic streetscape, which is the setting for all of these beautiful buildings,' says Fiona Rankin, the head of public realm conservation at Edinburgh World Heritage (EWH). She explains that the city's streets don't have the same protections as listed buildings, which leaves them vulnerable to a lack of coherent design and maintenance standards. 'It's the cumulative effect of lots of small interventions that can really start to change the character of a place,' she adds. Modern times have brought a myriad of new street objects, like EV charging points, bins, defibrillators, phone charging stations, seating, bollards, planters, sandwich boards, cycle racks and more. They change how people see the street, plucking it out of its historic context and clashing with the Old and New Towns. 'We have to minimise the appearance of these interventions and design them so they coordinate well with each other,' says Rankin. 'It's really important that they're not just installed on a random basis, but the whole street design is taken into consideration, the positioning and design of such objects.' Frederick Street (Image: GordonTerris_Herald&Times) Frederick Street (Image: GordonTerris_Herald&Times) Piecemeal funding from local and national governments has resulted in a patchwork of streetscape elements. A project gets designed by one team; other teams are responsible for different areas. Working separately means they don't choose the same materials, the same style of seating or they might install signage under slightly different guidelines, and everything lacks continuity. Rankin points to Picardy Place as an example. Cycle lanes, tram lines, street lighting, and pedestrian crossings have created a confused urban landscape. 'You end up with a sea of poles,' Rankin says. 'Poles with signage, poles for crossing the road, poles for holding up tram lines. Areas like that, to me, have a negative effect on the heritage location.' Rather than just following engineering guidelines, she suggests that urban realm works begin with the aspiration to have as little intervention as possible and to find the option that suits the heritage best. 'I think it's very difficult to retrofit guidelines for a historic place when the guidelines are generally written for new places, new streets, new junctions,' she says. The EWH is currently working alongside the City of Edinburgh Council to develop a standalone Street Design Guidance Factsheet on Street Design in the Historic Environment, which will be added to the council's suite of Street Design Guidance Factsheets. Rankin has been seconded two days a week to work alongside the local authority's World Heritage officer to ensure that processes of thinking within the council are putting heritage first. 'Making it the starting point, the baseline,' she says. With the council, they are currently looking at coordinating the street furniture so that bins, cycle racks and seating all come from one design. 'We have a huge amount to learn from historic cities,' Levinthal says. 'We have an approach at the moment which is just not working with that outstanding heritage value that Edinburgh has.' (Image: GordonTerris_Herald&Times) (Image: GordonTerris_Herald&Times) Edinburgh's Waverley Station (Image: GordonTerris_Herald&Times) One of the biggest changes within the council is the introduction of statements of heritage significance commissioned by EWH. The key is not to try and take what they have done in say, Copenhagen or Amsterdam or Prague or Berlin and try to replant it in Edinburgh. The specific issues that the capital faces requires its own unique approach. The heritage statements are set to be given out at the very beginning of a project, defining the importance of a location and its history. The hope is that they will allow designers to develop a keen understanding and analysis of what they are dealing with right off the bat so they can carry out their work from start to finish in a sympathetic way. The first major heritage statement has been commissioned for Princes Street and the Waverley Valley ahead of its forthcoming redevelopment. 'This statement will give those designers information that tells them what the priorities are, what's important, and should steer the direction of their design so that it is compatible and complementary to the heritage,' says Rankin. 'We're all guardians of this wonderful city, and we have one chance to get it right.' The redevelopment of Waverley Station is one of the biggest concerns for the Cockburn Association at the moment. Levinthal is anticipating the launch of a master plan consultation 'sometime soon'. 'It is very much a wait and see what that brings with it,' he says. Previous plans involved demolishing large portions of the category A-listed station. At this point, Levinthal says, it's just speculation as to whether a consultation would 'alleviate any fears or give cause for concern.' A glaring issue with maintaining the decadent fabric of the historic streetscape comes down to cost. Council budgets are tight. Temporary fixes, like the tarmac on Frederick Street or the ramp at Charlotte Square, can easily become permanent when they serve a good enough purpose. But, as Levinthal points out, Edinburgh's UNESCO World Heritage City status is the 'golden goose' for both the city's and the country's coffers. Edinburgh'sGeorge Street looking west (Image: GordonTerris_Herald&Times) Edinburgh's Waverley Station. (Image: GordonTerris_Herald&Times) The city welcomes more than four million visitors annually who contribute £1.2 billion to the local economy. And the main reasons tourists flocked to the Lothians was for a castle or fort (42%) and to view architecture and buildings (32%), according to a 2023 survey by Visit Scotland. While it's difficult to pinpoint just how much heritage contributes to the figures or any heritage-specific revenue, it's clear that historic attractions play a key role in Edinburgh's tourism economy. 'Just for that reason alone, it really justifies the investment in it and its added protection,' Levinthal says. The Cockburn Association is optimistic about the forthcoming Visitor Levy, which came into law in September 2024. The tax on overnight accommodation is expected to raise up to £50m a year by 2028/9 which will be reinvested in Edinburgh to manage the burden of propping up a flourishing tourism economy in an ancient city. 'The income, if properly redeployed to help deal with deficiencies like streetscapes and the management of tourist parts of the city, will help deal with concerns the we have with the undermanagement and under maintenance of places,' says Levinthal. He hopes that over time, the trend of places being in slow decline will be transformed. Protecting Edinburgh as a small heritage city 'that punches well above its weight globally' will be on the forefront of civic and political thinking. 'A lot of those death by a thousand cuts could be healed with income that comes from the Visitor Levy, if properly spent and applied,' he adds. 'I think we are at a very exciting but critical point in time,' says Rankin. 'The city is aspiring to grow and transition, and for that reason, we have to proceed carefully. We can't just forge ahead.' In due course, Charlotte Square will be levelled out, as it was before the 1960s, and the unsightly ramp will no longer be needed. The crusty black tarmac on Frederick Street will ultimately be replaced with granite setts. (Image: GordonTerris_Herald&Times) 'For all projects and wider work carried out in the UNESCO World Heritage Site, we take great care to ensure that it respects and where possible, enhances the special character of the area,' says Councillor Stephen Jenkinson, transport and environment convener at City of Edinburgh Council. 'This is in conjunction with making sure that project considerations are properly taken into account, including both the specific and cumulative impacts. 'Under our City Centre Transformation strategy, we're committed to improving our streets and public spaces, creating safer conditions for walking, wheeling, and cycling, along with reducing air and noise pollution. We're taking these goals forward with ambitious projects such as the Low Emission Zone (LEZ), George Street and First New Town and improving the setted streets in the Old Town. Occasionally, we need to make emergency temporary repairs to ensure the safety and usability of streets and spaces. In these instances, permanent solutions will be brought forward as soon as possible. 'We work closely with partners such as Edinburgh World Heritage and Historic Environment Scotland, along with other key stakeholders, including the Cockburn Association, to achieve this consistency and respect for our World Heritage Site – and we'll continue to do so in the future.' Marissa MacWhirter is a columnist and feature writer at The Herald, and the editor of The Glasgow Wrap. The newsletter is curated between 5-7am each morning, bringing the best of local news to your inbox each morning without ads, clickbait, or hyperbole. Oh, and it's free. She can be found on X @marissaamayy1
Belfast Telegraph
3 days ago
- Belfast Telegraph
‘A giant issue': Coins to be removed from Giant's Causeway amid call for tourists to stop wedging tokens into cracks
The National Trust has confirmed it expects to remove all coins wedged into cracks of the basalt rock of Co Antrim's famous Giant's Causeway. It follows a report by the British Geological Survey that found that coins left by visitors from across the globe were having detrimental effects on the World Heritage Site. While the coins celebrate the wide ranging from tourists that come to Northern Ireland to enjoy the natural landmark, they subsequently will rust and expand causing the rock to crumble as well as stain. The National Trust had urged people to refrain from further damaging some of the site's 40,000 columns last Wednesday. However, after completing a recent trial to remove the coins safely, the National Trust have confirmed they plan to proceed with their overall removal, which is expected to cost upwards of £30k. 'A giant issue with coins has emerged at the Giant's Causeway,' a National Trust spokesperson said. 'The causeway, said by legend to have been created by the giant Finn McCool, is one of Antrim's most loved landmarks, and attracts visitors from across the globe. 'Wedging coins into the cracks in the basalt rock columns here has become a tradition for some visitors. 'But this seemingly harmless action is causing damage to the World Heritage Site. As the coins rapidly corrode they expand, causing the rock to flake and leaves rust coloured streaks. 'We're pleased to say that a recent trial to remove the coins safely has been successful and now it is hoped the coins – from all over the world – will be removed across the causeway.' The National Trust, in partnership with Causeway Coast and Glens Heritage Trust, deployed specialists in stone conservation to 10 test locations at the site and remove coins without causing further damage. Dr Cliff Henry, National Trust nature engagement officer at the Giant's Causeway, urged visitors to preserve the natural site for future generations. 'When coins start to corrode, the steel often corrodes faster and separates from the different metal of the outer layer. This delamination causes the basalt to flake,' he said. 'The coins here also have accelerated corrosion because they are often soaked in saltwater spray and the mixture of metals means they break down faster.' Dr Henry added: 'We know that visitors really love and cherish the Giant's Causeway, and many form deep personal connections to this special landscape. 'We know some may want to leave a token of their visit, but the coins are causing damage and we are urging people to stop the practice and to leave no trace so this natural wonder remains special for future generations.' The Giant's Causeway was formed between 50 and 60 million years ago when lava erupted from cracks in the earth which cooled and broke into hexagonal columns. However, the popular tourist spot is steeped in mythology with Irish legends stating that it was formed by Irish giant Finn McCool to cross the sea battle a Scottish Giant.
The Guardian
5 days ago
- The Guardian
Australia to lobby Unesco over barring of ancient rock site from world heritage list due to Woodside emissions
The Albanese government will launch a lobbying campaign in a bid to reverse a Unesco recommendation that an ancient rock art site in Western Australia can't go on the world heritage list until damaging industrial emissions linked to a controversial Woodside gas development are stopped. Government officials were aiming to meet Unesco next week after its advisers said the nomination of the Murujuga Cultural Landscape in north-west WA – home to more than a million petroglyphs, some almost 50,000 years old – should be referred back to Australia until nearby 'degrading acidic emissions' were halted. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) advised Unesco the main requirements for world heritage nomination had been met, but pollution from nearby industry 'makes the integrity and the authenticity of key attributes of the nominated property highly vulnerable'. The main source of emissions, the ICOMOS report said, was Woodside's Karratha gas plant, which last week was conditionally awarded a 40-year extension by the environment minister, Murray Watt, to operate until 2070. The Unesco recommendation is due to go before the 21-country world heritage committee at its next meeting on 6 July in Paris. A government spokesperson told the Guardian it was now 'actively engaged in the process' and would make 'strong representations at every opportunity' to have Murujuga listed as a world heritage site at the Paris meeting. Sources told the Guardian that Australian government department officials were also aiming to meet Unesco officials over the nomination during next week's UN oceans conference in Nice. Last week, Watt said he was disappointed Unesco had been influenced by 'factual inaccuracies' but did not provide further detail on what those inaccuracies were. Most of the pieces of rock art were created by hitting the rocks with harder rocks to remove a top layer, revealing lighter colours beneath – a technique known as pecking. Scientists expressed concern that emissions of nitrous oxide and sulphur oxide were working to slowly dissolve the top layers of the petroglyph rocks. A summary of a state government-commissioned monitoring report on the state of pollution and the petroglyphs, released last month, claimed observed damage to some of the rocks was likely related to a power plant that ran in the 1970s and 1980s. But leading rock art expert Prof Benjamin Smith, of the University of Western Australia, said the body of the 800-page report was clear that current industrial emissions were also damaging the petroglyphs. He said: 'If [the federal government] is trying to say the damage was done in the 70s and 80s, then they're on a hiding to nothing. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 'I don't think emissions are damaging the rock art, I know they are.' He said the official monitoring report showed current emissions at the site were likely between four and five times higher than during the 1970s and 80s. Smith said: 'The 800-page report makes it clear they are being damaged in the areas closest to industry. If [Australia] tries to blame that power plant in the 1970s, then the implication is that that emissions are damaging it five times more now.' The ABC has reported a scientist leading the monitoring report has privately complained the report was altered to remove a line on a graph that would have shown 'five of the monitoring sites were experiencing pollutant levels above the interim guideline'. The ICOMOS evaluation report said it had received information from a 'third party' drawing its attention to the extension of Woodside's Karratha gas plant to 2070. That information, the Guardian can reveal, was a detailed letter from the Australian Conservation Foundation, which pointed to several studies raising concerns about emissions and the rock art. The Guardian has revealed the Australian government has previously carried out a long and sustained lobbying campaign to keep the Great Barrier Reef off the world heritage list of sites in danger. Gavan Macfadzean, climate and energy program manager at ACF, said he expected the Australian government would now be lobbying Unesco and the world heritage committee up to the meeting. 'Our role is to make sure that when sites are nominated [for world heritage status], we're reassured that the values for which it's being evaluated are protected,' he said. 'We support the listing, but we have to make sure that it's not a greenwashing exercise. We want to see the nomination happen in a way that protects the values. He said emissions of nitrous oxide and sulfur oxide from local industry – including from Woodside's gas processing facility – needed to be 'fully addressed'. In a statement, the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation (MAC), which has worked with government to nominate the site, said it was 'deeply disappointed' by the ICOMOS recommendation. The chair of MAC, Peter Hicks, said the ICOMOS report had made clear the site should be on the world heritage list. He said: 'The evaluation report provides the pathway to finalising world heritage listing and while the referral adds another small step to our journey, it is a positive outcome and not a rejection. 'While we are disappointed, we are determined to finish our journey and see the Murujuga Cultural Landscape included on the world heritage list as soon as possible.' A spokesperson for Woodside said the final decision on the nomination would rest with the world heritage committee. They said: 'Woodside will continue to support the leadership of traditional custodians, including the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation (MAC), which holds cultural authority, and work with the commonwealth and state governments as they prepare their responses to the [ICOMOS] recommendation.' The statement said the findings of the monitoring report 'show that emissions are below risk thresholds, and the data does not support the theory that acid rain damages the petroglyphs.' They said: 'Woodside has taken proactive steps over many years – including emissions reductions, data sharing and ongoing support for [the monitoring report] – to ensure we manage our impacts responsibly. 'We believe the world heritage nomination should proceed on the strength of the evidence and stand as proof that cultural heritage and industry can responsibly coexist when collaboration, transparency, and rigorous scientific monitoring are in place.'
