Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Unesco slates Caltongate scheme

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: 17 February 2009
By Brian Ferguson
A DOSSIER into Edinburgh's World Heritage Site has strongly criticised the handling of a controversial development in the heart of the Old Town.
The Unesco report, delivered to the city council on Friday, has singled out for criticism the way the £300 million Caltongate scheme was approved by the authorities despite protests from a host of heritage groups.

Councillors approved plans to kno
ck down two listed buildings to make way for a five-star hotel and conference centre less than a year after detailed plans were submitted.

The scheme had earlier been backed by Historic Scotland and was subsequently approved by the Scottish Government, after ministers ruled out a public inquiry.

Yesterday, the city council was facing fresh demands to urge the developer to produce new plans for the site. Criticism by bodies such as the International Council on Monuments and Sites, Edinburgh World Heritage and the Cockburn Association is widely believed to have triggered the Unesco investigation, which was ordered at the body's annual world heritage summit in Quebec last July.

The council is thought to have borne the brunt of criticism on Caltongate, although Historic Scotland and the Scottish Government are also believed to have come under fire from the inspectors, who visited the capital last year. One area of criticism is that the council and the developer both failed to pay enough heed to the protests over the development, or make substantial changes before a final planning decision was made.

About 2,000 jobs have been promised by Mountgrange, the developer of Caltongate, which includes 200 homes, a public square, office blocks and a new arts quarter. Last week the developer rebuffed claims the project was in danger of being shelved.

Jim Lowrie, the city council head of planning, said: "(The report] does criticise us over the Caltongate development. We are going to have to look at (that] before we respond in detail."

Edinburgh city council has several weeks to submit an official response to the report, which will be discussed at the next world heritage summit in Seville this summer.

However James Simpson, one of Scotland's leading conservation architects, said: "Too many developments in Edinburgh have been pushed through as a result of greed on the part of developers and fear on the part of councillors and officials.

"I sincerely hoped that the downturn will mean that developments like Caltongate do not go ahead and that it will give the council breathing space to rethink the whole approach."

Sally Richardson, the spokeswoman for the Save Our Old Town campaign, said: "Since this site is unlikely to be developed for the next few years, we would like to see the council encourage some kind of temporary use, such as community allotments or a new park."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 17 February 2009 12:27 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Caltongate development
 
1

Buttress,

17/02/2009 02:00:27
www.eh8.org.uk
2

Buttress,

17/02/2009 02:07:46
"REJOICE! Caltongate, Edinburgh's grandiose £300 million development project, looks dead in the water because the company behind it, Mountgrange, has run out of dosh. The company has clocked up a loss of £24m and is so indebted that there is "a material uncertainty that casts doubts over the company's ability to continue as a going concern". As someone who always thought the Caltongate project was a crock of ordure, I won't shed a tear if Mountgrange goes down the pan, taking its ill-conceived plan with it.
The Caltongate scheme, in the now-ubiquitous phoney language employed by puffed-up councillors, posturing architects who fancy themselves as latter-day Le Corbusiers, and Flash Harry speculators, was to contain "an eclectic mix of offices, retail, residential, leisure and hotel facilities". It was to add a "vibrant and attractive new business and cultural quarter" to the capital. What that meant, in practical terms, was historic buildings and people's homes being demolished to make way for five-star hotels, a second conference centre, more yuppie flats, the inevitable supermarket, a "signature" office building (spare us the pretension) and yet another coven of Claire's Accessories, Clinton Cards and Costas - as if we needed another dose of property developer's quack miracle regenerating formula."

Joanna Blythman

http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.2489244.0.grand_failure_offers_green_light_for_green_space.php

3

Harriet,

Aberdeenshire 17/02/2009 07:52:10
The Scottish Government did NOT approve the scheme. That was done by Edinburgh Council.
4

Seb,

17/02/2009 08:50:41
No mention of the tower on Morrison Street Goods yard?
5

Buttress,

17/02/2009 09:17:45
The government did 'approve' the scheme by refusing to call it in.

The tower is surely set for a public inquiry, which means that has not yet been approved.
6

AbandonAllHope,

17/02/2009 13:18:47
The councillors should be put under criminal investigation, the whole thing stinks of corruption, backhanders and promises of directorships.

As regards the architects, dont make me laugh, 4*4 metal grid squares and some glass claddding, a two year old with a lego set and there mum with a building parts catalogue could do the same.
7

Rap,

17/02/2009 13:19:19
The tower is definitely set for a public inquiry in June.
8

Rap,

17/02/2009 13:24:41
If anyone finds more details of the report anywhere, please post the links! Must make very interesting reading. I'd be very surprised if Haymarket was not also criticised.
Excellent news!!!
9

Think Tank,

17/02/2009 17:38:48
The Haymarket Tower is in the "buffer zone" not the world heritage site. Presumably the UN now realise how ridiculous that concept is and hence haven't commented on Haymarket.

It's clear that market considerations will impact on the timescale for Caltongate- it's a real shame that the multiple delays in the planning process have prevented this development from starting earlier.

I think given the delays in the planning process it's simply inconceivable that the plans for the site will be altered. Even if Mountgrange cannot fund the development, I suspect any new developer would want to continue with plans that have permission to build.

The office/shop development on the South side of St Andrew's Square has now changed hands 3 times but using the same plans.
10

Kilbride,

Seattle 17/02/2009 18:39:11
Why do architects think that anything, just anything, is good architecture just because its new? And if you don't agree with them then you are some kind of Flat-Earther opposed to anything new.
In another article elsewhere in the Scotsman a comment is made that the proposed Caltongate development 'is better than what it is replacing' - is this the best criteria for approving a development in a historic and sensitive area of the city?
Can anyone point to any post WW2 building in Edinburgh that in a hundred years from now a group of people will be fighting to preserve? It seems to me that architecture in Scotland is a lost art and a failed profession.
11

grantcat,

Old Town 17/02/2009 19:46:50
Well Think Tank you are not so the big man (or woman now) is your gas at a peep.

The issue is Caltongate never needed to get to this - the whole thing was ego driven and ridiculous. Consultations that were propoganda exercises and no listening to concerned groups. The plans might be there but where is the funding? Is it the correct plans. It is my own opinion that the planning officials and the planning committee were neglectful in their duty.

There is no Heritage Mafia - I live in a council next tot he site - I have nothing to gain from being against Caltongate indeed it has taken up an awful lot of my time and been very stressful.

I just hope the council, architects, planners and developers learn from this lesson.

Its a case study in how NOT to do a development.

There is no schudefreden in this - I only hope that something better can come into place.
12

Buttress,

17/02/2009 20:14:09
Ah - Septic spouting ill-informed nonsense again.

Indeed UNESCO did meet and listen carefully to representatives of those opposed to the dreadful Haymarket scheme. However, the scheme has not yet been given permission.

Multiple delays - despite past claims by Septic, the delays were all of the council's making.

Yes grantcat - how NOT to do a developement. Far too much rubbish being built in Edinburgh, when far better schemes could have ensued had it not all been developer profit driven. Planners and councillors and Historic Scotland should all be put in the public pillory over this.

SoCo is also bad, but at least nothing historic to be demolished.

13

Think Tank,

17/02/2009 20:16:22
Grantcat

I GENUINELY haven't got a clue what the first sentence of your post means.
14

Buttress,

17/02/2009 20:42:48
Pit his gas at a peep - Show him in an unflattering light.
15

mad moo,

edinburgh 19/02/2009 00:12:43
Maybe think tank not from the Canongate where the Edinburgh gas and light company originated, we all saw it revealed when the bus depot was demolished.

Fniest bit in this story is jolly Jim who now thinks
"(The report] does criticise us over the Caltongate development. We are going to have to look at (that] before we respond in detail."

Maybe he should have 'looked at' the huge opposition to Caltongate and the well informed comments presented by objectors at committee, or even 'looked at ' the development again when UNESCO wrote to ask the application be put on hold..... but NO what was his response again?
OH yes remember - we are the planning authority and we'll decide!
see the man in action at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTmsuJBwlVk

16

Think Tank,

19/02/2009 23:29:25
"we are the planning authority and we'll decide!"

Factually correct.

Or would you rather a UN quango had the final say on Edinburgh planning decision, rather than locally elected officials?
17

Buttress,

24/02/2009 10:22:53
Wrong again Septic - UNESCO is NOT a UN quango, and of course it doesn't decide local planning matters. It can, however, be critical of the handling of Caltongate. As we are members (the UK) of UNESCO then really we should take some note.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Caltongate development

More Caltongate development >>

Today's Vote

Should the Old Town’s Caltongate development be revived in its original form?
Yes, it was an innovative and stylish proposal
No, it was not in fitting with the Old Town
Yes, but it needs to be done more cheaply

Web Links:



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.