Does Edinburgh Deserve Caltongate?

Edinburgh is Being Vandalised yesterdays posting found us this great image, source unknown....and got us here in the Republic thinking, is Caltongate merely a reflection of the self obsessed, greedy times we have been living in for the past decade or so? Maybe now that those times are coming to an end....so will the threat of Caltongate ...

This article Architect Hits Back in Edinburgh UNESCO Row in Building Design "The Architect`s Website" on the 29th Aug 08 the following comments on it are worth more of a look than the article ....

Edinburgh is being Vandalised

Nothing Less Than Vandalism

Above is one possible emblem for Edinburgh, replacing the UNESCO

World Heritage Emblem which the city looks set to lose....

Joanna Blythman on built heritage in today`s The Sunday Herald

Thanks to the unique blend of medieval and neo-classical architecture in its old and new towns, Edinburgh holds a coveted international listing as a Unesco World Heritage Site, an accolade only awarded to places of exceptional architectural and historical merit.

Read here why

This is a huge honour, so you might think that all the councillors and officials who passed through the portals of the city chambers would be circumspect enough to realise that even if the finer points of architecture were beyond them, you don't imperil such a listing. No such luck. Koichiro Matsuura, the director-general of this UN cultural body, has had to warn Edinburgh that if it proceeds with certain new developments (of which more below), its world heritage status may be threatened. He has requested that the city puts these plans on hold, pending Unesco's investigation, or risk having its Unesco status stripped from it.

Man from UNESCO, he say no


The alarm has been sounded, but smug Edinburgh Council shows no signs of taking heed. In the past it would have. For decades, conservatism and preservation of the status quo were the order of the day. Thanks to the vigilance of groups such as the Cockburn Association, most of the lunatic plans advanced for the city were thwarted, with the prominent exception of the St James Centre. Not bad going when you think that Glasgow got saddled with a motorway that savaged its Victorian grid.


Unfortunately in recent years Edinburgh has been plagued by councillors who, though their politics differ, have one thing in common - their egos are bigger than their brains and their judgement is wanting. Puffed up and romanced by developers and modernist architects who feed them the pretentious, self-aggrandising vocabulary of "iconic buildings", "signature architecture", "architectural statements" and "iconoclastic, brave development" - like teenage vandals carving their initials on the ancient stones of the Acropolis - they yearn to leave their hubristic mark on the city for posterity. Hence the spate of fatally misconceived plans that are being given the go-ahead, even though they perpetuate old mistakes and grind their killer heels in the face of Edinburgh's handsome heritage.


How on Earth was the capital's number one vandal, Edinburgh University, allowed to squeeze yet another architecturally meritless, oversized concrete block into Bristo Square? With its track record of flattening three sides of Georgian George Square and erecting the monstrous David Hume Tower, it should have been placed on a Gary Glitter-style register of recidivist architectural offenders never to be trusted.


Just next to abused George Square, the city's Quartermile development is partially completed. A riot of U-PVC and tinted glass that spurns more vernacular, sustainable materials like wood and stone, its overpriced, aspirational yuppie condominiums add only to our housing stock of exclusive, soulless, ever-so-slightly sinister compounds for the very rich.


Then there's the scandal of Caltongate, where two listed buildings on the historic Royal Mile are to be demolished to make way for a five-star hotel and conference centre - as if Edinburgh needs another. But the most monstrously inappropriate scheme yet given approval is the 17-storey (yes, that's right, 17-storey!) hotel and office development at Haymarket. This has been sold by its promoters as "a gateway of blade-like sharpness in the form of a tower" that will "act as a beacon at night" and function as "a gateway building marking the entry into the World Heritage Site from the west". What preposterous and fanciful nonsense.


I happen to agree, on the whole, with Leon Krier, guru of the New Urbanism school of architecture, who said that "the most beautiful and pleasant cities which survive in the world today have all been conceived with buildings of between two and five floors". Even those who go for all that "street in the sky" rhetoric spouted by ideologues of modernism ought to admit that Edinburgh is not Manhattan. However bored architects may be with working in the confines of a conservation-minded city, a philistine should see that 17 storeys are brazenly out of scale among Edinburgh's traditionally low-rise buildings.

It's hard to see Haymarket's proposed tower (above) as anything other than a grotesquely super-sized, overbearing monument to architectural arrogance and civic stupidity. Worse, I interpret it as a declaration that it is now open season on Edinburgh's outstanding urban heritage, one that ratifies the Caltongate precedent.


Former Lord Provost Lesley Hinds betrayed a rare flash of self-doubt after the Haymarket decision when she remarked that "we will be damned or we might be congratulated in the future".



I'll place my bet now. The Haymarket tower will be viewed as Edinburgh's biggest post-St James Centre planning gaffe and those who voted for it as dangerous idiots.

St James Centre

It's not just the odd bad building here and there. The plans for Edinburgh become ever more scarring and radical. Part of me wants to see the miscreants punished by losing Unesco status, but then Edinburgh suffers along with them.

Sean Connery who visited the capital last week, perhaps warning the first minister of the danger the city faces

Time for the grown-ups to step in. Alex Salmond must hold an inquiry into both the Caltongate and Haymarket follies before the council fouls up the city's heritage for posterity.

More on the vandalism of Edinburgh

Demand continues to Call-IN Caltongate

Latest News is that yes, the plans have been rubber stamped this afternoon!

Hear the city`s design champion Sir Terry Farrel speak of the problems facing Edinburgh on the BBC Radio Good Morning Scotland programme from earlier today Listen at 2 hrs 22 mins

STV will be covering it on thier local news programme Scotland Today at 6pm

BBC coverage

Groundhog Day at City Chambers

This afternoon the Caltongate Applications go to committee once again, six months late due to yet another council error!! It has been recommended again they be rubber stamped then referred to ministers once more. With the increased awareness of the potential damage to the capital from Caltongate and other proposed developments, the ministers will surely see reason and Call the Plans in. Otherwise its bye bye Athens of the North. See yesterdays post on repeated call-in request by Msps.

This excellent letter from Jim Johnson an architect for close on 50 years, and former Director of the Edinburgh Old Town Renewal Trust sums up why the plans should be called- in-

Alex Salmond MSP
First Minister
The Scottish Parliament
Holyrood
Edinburgh 20 August 2008


Dear Minister,

Caltongate Planning Applications: 07/01287/FUL, 07/04400/FUL, 07/01237/FUL, 07/01288/FUL, and 07/01241/FUL.

I received a letter from the City of Edinburgh dated 6 August giving the opportunity to objectors to make further representations about this application. A number of mistakes have been made by the planning department during the consultation and processing of these applications. Circumstances have changed since the Council made its decision. The importance of the site, the complexity of the issues and the conflict of interests between the Council as a partner in the development and as the planning authority, clearly shows the need for an independent, impartial review of the whole masterplan process and the subsequent determination of the planning applications.

I request that the applications be called-in by the Scottish Ministers for the following reasons:

1. The international concern over the potential damage to the Edinburgh World Heritage site has been demonstrated (subsequent to the determination of the applications by the City Council) by the decision of UNESCO to send a delegation to examine the position in Edinburgh. UNESCO has expressed concern that the Council may have acted wrongly in approving the development without referring to UNESCO before taking a decision. The threat to the City’s World Heritage status was highlighted by many who opposed the masterplan and the detailed planning applications, but their view was steadfastly rejected and rubbished by the Council. The objectors have been proved right.

2. The Council’s justification for the departure from the statutory Structure Plan and national planning policies is that the development will achieve economic and employment benefits. But the benefits listed are purely speculative and remain untested by any impartial expert assessment. Most of the benefits are based on highly contentious information provided by the developer and consultants employed by him. There is no evidence that they have been tested or analysed in any detail by the planning authority. Given the downturn in the economy since the original applications were lodged, the claimed benefits have become even more questionable and need to be re-examined.

3. The developer has demonstrated no commitment to a genuine consultation process. He has repeatedly stated that the scheme (particularly the hotel, its most contentious and damaging element) is an “all or nothing” development, and refused to consider a phased approach to this very large site. In addition, the setting up of a “consultation group” (invited and administered by the developer) only sought to manipulate the consultation process to the developer’s advantage and avoid the implementation of the National Standards for Community Engagement. The City Council has acquiesced to this sham.

4. The government’s commitment to a more sustainable future for Scotland (eg. by cutting carbon emissions) and the City’s aspirations to become an exemplar for sustainable city life, are both undermined by the Caltongate proposals. As presented the scheme is very far from an example of sustainable “best practice” despite the claims in the developer’s Sustainability Appraisal, which is no more than a “green wash” over the design (I submitted a detailed critique of this appraisal to the Council dated 7 May 2006). I can only conclude that the planning department lack the resources (or time) to analyse the veracity of the submitted proposals.

5. The Council claims the Caltongate development is “is of outstanding design quality” I would dispute this. I have been in practice as an architect for close on 50 years, latterly as Director of the Edinburgh Old Town Renewal Trust. I am not a “preservationist” - I believe that new developments in historic cities should be in a contemporary style, reflecting modern requirements and materials. But this proposal falls well short of the standard that should be aimed for in Edinburgh. I have rarely seen a more banal overall design, and am at a loss how the City can consider that “the quality of the urban design solution will enhance the Conservation area, the Edinburgh World Heritage site and the setting of listed buildings” – particularly as the developer intends to demolish the listed buildings!

Yours faithfully,

Jim Johnson
Dip. Arch. ARIAS

This excellent letter is in today`s Scotsman 27 Aug 08

Stand firm against those who would sacrifice capital's heritage status

I am disappointed by reactions to Unesco's comments about proposed developments within the designated world heritage site in Edinburgh (Focus, 26 August). I would have expected some fervour, yet have heard none.


We are talking about a world heritage site – not a Lothian heritage site nor even a British one – of such importance within the built and natural heritage of this planet that it has been picked out for an accolade and recognition as being among the finest things in the world. Yet to hear current debate it would appear little more than a nuisance.

I can imagine the clamour were other world heritage sites to come under such ill-considered attack. The Macchu Pichu Hilton? Go-karting amongst the chicanes of Stonehenge? BMX parks over the pyramids?

Yet here we are happy to see a prime site let to commercial developers in a way that would be hardly acceptable in a minor provincial town. This, too, with defence from the city fathers and the Chamber of Commerce. Members of the chamber, I would suggest, do not all work in offices, but are interested to see the premium visitors and companies attracted here because Edinburgh is still well worth visiting and living in. What Chamber has to say 25 Aug 08


Edinburgh is a lived-in and living city, and must never be frozen in time. It must, however, recognise that it is, like Prague and Florence, greater than the sum of its parts. To begin to erode and then to replace with dull, pedestrian – but no doubt commercially viable – buildings is not only cruel, it is shortsighted and shows a total misunderstanding of this place.

We should be proud of this city; it is unique. While current attitudes to Unesco's observations prevail, we can hardly complain about the tatty tourist shops, unweeded pavements and traffic chaos. These could be settled at a stroke. Beginning the destruction of a world heritage site in the name of commerce is no less than authorised vandalism and I am astonished that we are not out in our thousands marching to save our beautiful city from yet more misguided and substandard "developments".

There always is a stronger commercial argument, but many cities have recognised that this can be short-term gain for a very long-term loss, and have master-planned to save the blight.

Edinburgh more than justifies its Unesco recognition, and to many of us this matters. We are tenants of this city, not owner-occupiers; let's try not to mess it up too much for future generations.

DAVID GERRARD Spylaw Park Edinburgh


The pro-active role of the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce in promoting the development Caltongate Developer Manish Chande is head of the Chamber`s property portfolio group and in the past in The Evening News Ron Hewitt of Chambers Roots For Caltongate

But as we all can see from this Article Ron Hewitt likes writing fiction --

"It sounds bizarre, but Ron Hewitt, who took over the reins at the chamber earlier this year, writes novels about a murderer of paedophiles in his spare time."

Ministers to CAll - IN Caltongate?

Can these buildings be spared the wrecking ball?


"Lothians Green MSP Robin Harper, Scottish Nationalist Shirley-Anne Somerville and independent Margo MacDonald are all urging ministers to order an inquiry rather than rubber stamp the £300 million scheme when it comes before them."



Sounds familiar? Well, because it is -Remember This?


"The call for a public inquiry comes as councillors prepare to consider the plans once again tomorrow. A blunder by officials meant objectors were not given their statutory 14 days to comment on the council's decision earlier this year to approve the scheme."
Full article here - Eve News 26th Aug 08

Why a Public Inquiry is Needed

Demand for Public Inquiry for Caltongate

You may or may not have received a letter dated 6th August from Alan Henderson, Head of Planning, City of Edinburgh Council. See Evening News 7th Aug 08


Even if you did not object first time around, or receive this particular letter do take this opportunity to make your voice count. The more emails that the council and government receive, the more they can`t ignore the obvious mass public objection to Caltongate. And remember you can write even if you don`t live in Edinburgh, you can be any age, nationality and live anywhere to comment on a planning application and remember World Heritage Sites are everyone`s to enjoy and protect.

The Canongate Community Forum (CCF) suggest that you email the following people letting them know your views on the scheme, our letter is below which we have sent to the council and government.

You can take guidance from this, although do not just copy and paste, put what you feel is important , you are welcome to say that you support the points raised by the Canongate Community Forum in their letter to ministers and council officials, in response to Alan Hendersons letter of 6th August 2008.


People to Email


All Cabinet Ministers includes Alex Salmond, use the following email address and mark top of email for attention of all Scottish Ministers. Remember to include your name and postal address in the body of this email otherwise it may get ignored or lost.

scottish.ministers@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

and copy c.c. this email to the Director of Planning in Scottish Government, CEC head of planning, CEC Caltongate case officer, the leader of council and the Forum , emails below -

jim.mackinnon@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

alan.henderson@edinburgh.gov.uk

bruce.nicolson@edinburgh.gov.uk

jenny.dawe@edinburgh.gov.uk

canongatecommunityforum@yahoo.co.uk

then send the same email to

The following MSPs who have already expressed the need for a public inquiry.

shirley-anne.somerville.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
margo.macdonald.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
robin.harper.msp@scottish.parliament.uk


You should also write to your own Msps, MP and MEPS use this link Write to them Scottish ones are listed even although it doesn't say on home page, you just enter your postcode and they will appear)

Letter to Scottish Ministers

The Canongate Community Forum
19th August 2008

Dear Minister


Caltongate Call- In


The Canongate Community Forum received a letter dated 6th August 2008 from Alan Henderson, Head of Planning and Strategy of CEC.

This letter should have been sent immediately following the Planning Committee’s decision on the 6th February 2008, not six months later.

As objectors to the Caltongate planning applications, we have been invited make comments on whether we consider our previous comments were properly dealt with, to provide comments on the statements of reasons for approving the applications and present any new evidence we believe should be considered.

The omission of the final consultation/feedback on statement of reasons is only one example of the mistakes made during the consultation and processing of these proposals (e.g. applications were never advertised as developments potentially contrary to the Development Plan) and demonstrates the lack of suitable resources and expertise of CEC to deal with such a large and complex proposal.

In light of this latest council error we demand that the proposed demolitions be halted. The notices are now void as they were applied before this part of the process was carried out. So the council should revoke these demolition notices as soon as possible. Given the current economic climate the demolitions could go ahead, whilst work on this particular scheme not undertaken. Only when the economy picks up the developer may sell on this cleared site with full planning consent?

The Statements of Reasons provided by the council do not provide adequate planning justification to breach National Planning policy and best practice (for listed buildings and conservation areas in particular).

The Canongate Community Forum would therefore like to take this opportunity to request the CALL-IN of the Caltongate Planning Applications.



Why a “Call – In” of Caltongate Plans by Scottish Ministers is required

The complexity of the issues and the ongoing conflict of interests between the Council as a developer and as the Planning Authority clearly demonstrate the need for an impartial independent review of the whole Caltongate masterplan process and subsequent determination of the planning applications. This can only be done through a Public Inquiry or Hearing undertaken by Reporters.

Reasons why -

1. The Planning Authority, The City of Edinburgh Council has a significant financial interest in the proposed development and as such cannot maintain the level of impartiality required to make an unbiased decision.

2. There is international concern. The Caltongate plans are potentially so damaging to the World Heritage Site that UNESCO decided at their Quebec Meeting in July this year, to send a delegation to the capital. UNESCO has expressed concern that CEC may have acted wrongly in agreeing to the development without, referring it first of all to UNESCO before a decision was taken. The proposed demolitions and design of replacement buildings will have a significant negative impact on the World Heritage Site and has been highlighted by many experts from impartial heritage organisations as well as the general public.

3. The land to be sold on East Market Street was not subject to fair and open competition and was sold for less than market value. The land on Calton Road was not identified as surplus to requirements by the council or offered on the open market for housing (which would have also required a contribution of 25% affordable housing in line with existing policy). Complaints have been made to both the Competition DG and the Internal market DG of the EU Commission, because of the extent that Mountgrange Caltongate Ltd may have been provided with privileged access and offered exclusive consideration in pursuance of its commercial objectives, it follows that competing bidders, both actual and potential, have been unlawfully discriminated against, and public resources unlawfully exposed to risk in this case. The office of the Secretariat-General of the European Commission, the executive branch of the EU are to decide shortly whether to start an "infringement procedure" – which could lead all the way to the European courts.

4. Private gain seems to be taking precedent over the legitimate public interest.

5. The total demolition of the Grade C Listed Canongate Venture is against planning policy.

6. Edinburgh World Heritage Trust believes that this was a development which should not happen, and CEC is a signatory to the Management Plan for the World Heritage Site. Historic Scotland and CEC are both represented on the Board of Directors of Edinburgh World Heritage - conflict of interest?

7. Facade schemes are not in accordance with sound principles of conservation and remove much historic and architectural interest from a building, and so the claimed benefits could as easily be gained by a far more sympathetic development, retaining listed buildings and thus the authenticity of the World Heritage Site.

8. It is suggested in the statement of reasons that the justification for departing from the statutory Structure Plan and National planning policies and guidance is the achievement of certain benefits – but the economic and employment benefits listed are purely speculative and remain untested by any impartial expert assessment. Most of the benefits highlighted are based on highly inaccurate information provided by the developer and not through detailed analysis or research undertaken by the Planning Authority.

9. The Planning Authority cannot be seen to have behaved impartially - they have not given equal weight to material objections raised from numerous community and heritage organisations and objectors but have chosen to favour the heavily biased opinion, and purely speculative benefits, provided by the developer and a local business organisation shortly after the developer Manish Chande was appointed Chair of their Property Policy Group (Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce).

10. No consideration was given to any alternative plans, either during the Council's consideration of the developer's masterplan or at the detailed planning application stage, despite requests from local stakeholders to allow consultation on alternative proposals.

11. No consideration was given to emerging local or national policy regarding growing community assets, the shortage of affordable workshops space and start up business premises in the city, heritage led development policies, community led development planning and policy, or to alternative funding streams available for public realm improvements and traffic management.

12. Many of the benefits attributed to the proposed development could be achieved through retention and development of public assets, and would be required of any development in the area which adheres to existing and emerging statutory plans and policies.

13. The provision of affordable housing does not address the needs of the area (particular lack of larger, 3 and 4 bed family housing) and what has been proposed has been offset to publicly owned land on Calton road rather than being met on site by the developer.


14. There are no safeguards in place (or conditions imposed to ensure the controlled phasing of development) to ensure the masterplan area is developed in such a way to ensure the suggested benefits will be fully realised (or even delivered) should a recession slow down development.

15. The developer has demonstrated no real commitment to the consultation process by repeatedly stating that the scheme is an all or nothing development and a phased approach to this enormous site is not an option. In addition, the setting up a 'consultation group' (administered by the developer and had membership limited to those stakeholders invited by the developer) only sought to manipulate the consultation process to the developer's advantage and avoid the implementation of the National Standards for Community Engagement.

16. The size location and facilities required (including direct access to a public square and the close proximity to exclusive luxury residential properties) by the hotel have been clearly stated as being key to securing a specific client for a hotel, however all applications require assessment against approved and adopted policy. No planning justification has been provided to warrant setting aside National Policy and Guidance with regard to the demolition of structurally sound listed and unlisted buildings in an Outstanding Conservation Area.

17. Senior members of CEC's Planning Committee and Planning Department have mishandled various elements in the processing of both the masterplan and the applications, ignored expert advice and opinion, behaved inappropriately and at times with prejudice towards members of the community and local community organisations.


18. The development does not accord with the Development Plan and was never advertised as a potential departure.

19. The decision is potentially prejudicial to the emerging Local Plan - it was identified in the finalised draft of the City Local Plan, due to be considered later this summer, following a request for Caltongate to be included in the emerging local plan by the developer. Its inclusion has sparked a significant number of objections to the inclusion of this oversized planning application as a Local Plan policy/proposal and objectors have also raised concerns that the finalised local plan has insufficient protection for listed buildings and the World Heritage Site.

20. The size and complexity of the technical information requires detailed analysis which is not available within the existing resources of CEC City Development Department. An Inquiry would allow evidence to also be presented from impartial and independent expert witnesses.

21. The plans conflict with National Policies NPPG18, NPPG5, SPP2, SPP1 and SPP3 and also memorandum of Guidance for Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas

22. The processing of the supplementary guidance (masterplan) and the planning applications is not in accordance with advice contained in PAN41, PAN81, PAN 82, PAN 71, or PAN 74

I look forward to your acknowledgement of our letter and your subsequent call-in of these detrimental proposals for our capital.

Yours sincerely
Sally Richardson
Secretary
Canongate Community Forum