Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Blow for objectors as heritage body backs Old Town hotel plan

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: 10 January 2008
By BRIAN FERGUSON
SCOTLAND'S leading heritage watchdog has backed the controversial Caltongate development in Edinburgh city centre – just weeks before its fate will be decided by councillors.
Historic Scotland officials are supporting most of the key elements of Mountgrange's £300 million scheme in the city's historic Old Town.

The move has put the body at odds with both the Edinburgh World Heritage Trust and the Cockburn Association.

More than 300 objections have been lodged with the city council against the development, which would create a new five-star hotel, conference centre, bars and restaurants.

The scheme involves the demolition of one listed former school building, on New Street, and the partial demolition of another, a former hostel for homeless people.

Historic Scotland has decided not to object to either proposal, and offered its backing for the scheme, which it described as "generally acceptable".

Previously, the developer had wanted to bulldoze a block of tenements further down the Royal Mile and create a pedestrian link to a new public square and commercial quarter.

However, the proposal triggered a huge outcry and last year it emerged that an alternative option was being drawn up which would see two new arches created for the "breakthrough", with new flats built above.

In its official submission to Edinburgh City Council, Historic Scotland has said "significant progress" has been made by the developer to address previous concerns.

Principal inspector Andrew Martindale said the body was content to allow the council's planning committee to decide whether the economic arguments justify the demolition of the former school building and all but the frontage of the old Sailor's Ark building.

A spokeswoman for Historic Scotland added: "One of the historic characteristics of the Canongate, a key part of the Edinburgh World Heritage Site, is the sense of enclosure that the existing buildings create.

"We've always therefore raised our strong concerns over the proposed full height breach and greatly welcome the replacement by a pended passageway."

Manishe Chande, chief executive of Mountgrange, said: "We're pleased that Historic Scotland recognises the lengths to which we have gone."

However Julie Logan, spokeswoman for the Save Our Old Town campaign group, said: "We don't believe Mountgrange have made the case for this hotel development at all."



Page 1 of 1

 
1

Old Town Resident,

edinburgh 10/01/2008 09:52:35
See this link for more on the story
http://www.eh8.org.uk/whos_who
Save Our Old Town
2

Buttress,

10/01/2008 10:53:01
No, and not does EWHT - Historic Scotland has clearly sold out. Its report is scandalous, really, and is bending backwards to not be seen to be in conflict with the developer.

Now - is that because it really thinks the development is not going to be damaging, (which it clearly is - it is a dreadfully damaging plan, involving demolition of listed buildings and conservation area buildings, one which could put the city's World Heritage Site status at risk) or is it becaue it has to be, politically, to be seen to be 'developer friendly' or it will be accused of being in the way of 'progress'?

The devil is in the detail of the applications. As EWH Trust's Acting Director Jane Jackson has pointed out in the objection letters, the case for demolition of listed structures has NOT been made in the applications.

'In our previous objection letter, we highlighted the lack of a hard economic case that justified the requirement for demolition in the Canongate to ensure the long term life of the new development, but again there are no hard facts and figures to support the argument. Statements from consultants and agents are not backed by real evidence. The criteria to be considered for demolition in a conservation area, outlined in policy Env1 of the Finalised City of Edinburgh Local Plan (March 2007), do not support this application.'

Historic Scotland recognises this also, in its letter.

It's all in the detail. The law is the law, planning policies are not there to be ignored.

If this is allowed to go ahead, then other developers will think the city is a pushover. And World Heritage Site status can be removed. Is Mountgrange not interested in heriatge at all, only making money?

Why is Mountgrange so popular with this paper?




3

mad moo,

edinburgh 10/01/2008 14:39:57
Wait a minute!
Historic scotland's approach to development was reported in this paper on 20th dec regarding the proposed demolition of a 1960's house (by its owner who wants to build 3 apartments)in Merchiston.

"Historic Scotland has been rapped for entering Mr White's property without his permission to carry out an inspection of the building and giving the City of Edinburgh Council misleading and inaccurate information about the property. It has also been branded "inept and incompetent" by the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman.

Historic Scotland said it had changed its procedures in the wake of the case – but critics say a complete overhaul of the listings system is needed. The agency's inspectors have the final say on what buildings are given protected status and there is no right of appeal.

Penny Lewis, the editor of the architecture magazine Prospect, said: "Some decisions are being made purely on the prejudice of Historic Scotland inspectors. We live in an anti-development culture and we are sometimes too precious about architectural heritage. Historic Scotland is far too powerful."

A spokeswoman for Historic Scotland said: "The listing system exists to protect buildings of special architectural and historic interest. "

Now I understand
The prejudice of individual (high ranking) inspectors seems very apparant when a private 1960's house is protected from redevelopment to provide more residential units by the owner, yet publicly owned listed buildings and council flats can be demolished to facilitate a 5* hotel because of the speculative economic benefits the developer claims will result from the dodgy public to private land deal.


4

Buttress,

10/01/2008 15:39:51
The Ombudsman's report is available and, having read it, it didn't find in favour of a number of the complaints made. HS, did not,either enter his house. It's not such a big deal as is made out, some of the matters identified were more procedure than anything else. The building was listed on the recommendation of an independent expert in 20th century architecture, not simply on prejudice.

Simply because the shock horror reaction of one person is reported that doesn't make her views unprejudiced either. I disagree that we are 'too precious' about our architectural heritage. Development doesn't have to be at the expense of the historic environment. It all goes to show that Historic Scotland is basically between a rock and a hard place most of the time, and can please few. There is a right, if anyone believes a mistake has been made, to apply to have a building delisted. If the owner of the house wishes to redevelop the land and can make a compelling case, there is planning law and policy which can be followed.

Indeed it is true that the planning system is a complex one, and that wider economic benefit can at times be claimed in order to facilitate a development. That case and Caltongate are somewhat different.

That claim of economic benefit - jobs, regeneration - has been made for Caltongate, and as Historic Scotland has said, it is now not up to that body, it is up to the city planners to decide if a genuine case has been made which will override all other considerations. Edinburgh World Heritage Trust disputes that.

Historic Scotland has played this by the book, its response was not as enthusiatic as the above report makes out, but the claims made by the developers I think HS has fallen for more readily than it should. It seems to feel a Disneyland facadism is acceptable instead of the retention of buildings.

But of course had HS opposed the development it would be accused of holding back the economic regenertion of Edinburgh.

Much of the Calto
5

Buttress,

10/01/2008 15:40:29
Cont

Much of the Caltongate site is derelict land. What it requires is a less invasive development by a more sensitive developer, who has regard to the World Heritage Site and the listed buildings.
6

grantcat,

Old Town 10/01/2008 17:39:27
Malcolm Cooper, Director of Historic Scotland and Manish Chande, Director of Mountgrange are old friends. The same happened in Exeter about a shopping mall ther that Manishe Chande wanted to develop Malcolm Cooper made it OK for him when he worked in England. Manish Chand comes to Scotland to develop up here and guess who gets the Scottish Heritage job - yip Malcolm Cooper.

Its corrupt and pathetic.

TAlk about "not what you know but who you know"
7

Buttress,

10/01/2008 18:16:03
Well certainly HS's letter seemed to not be, let's say, best conservation practice,and glossed over a great deal of planning policy too. It was very surprising. That is set out more clearly in letters from other groups.

But maybe it just wants now to be 'developer friendly'. Possibly conservation is becoming a dirty word. Surely Mr Cooper can't be accused of corruption!

The integrity of the World Heritage Site isn't high on the agenda, clearly, as far as HS is concerned. Nor is the protection of conservation areas and listed buildings. What of the WHS management plan? Has that been forgotten too?


It's all a fine ideal with little legal protection.

http://www.eh8.org.uk/whos_who

http://independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com/


Both worth reading.









8

Buttress,

10/01/2008 18:27:39
This is worth reading too.

http://business.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=2833757

The problem is the man is an archaeologist, not a conservation specialist or an architectural historian.

With his sort of attitude, it's clear that that his approach isn't one of much sympathy to buildings seen as the lesser but supportive ones, which make the richness of historic places.

He wants a few choice buildings stuck like currants in a cake amongst a sea of modern dross.

There are alternative approaches, which can be very successful, where historic buildings are re-used and valued,and sensitive new build plced alongside, but clearly Mr Cooper isn't on the side of the buildings.










 

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 Edinburgh planning issues

More Edinburgh planning issues >>

Today's Vote

Are Edinburgh’s planning regulations too strict on the city’s business community?
Yes - everything should be done to help businesses in a recession
Yes - they pale into insignificance when compared to the tram works
No - the city’s heritage and appearance can’t be compromised

Web Links:

Featured Advertising



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.