Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Developer accused of misleading public

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: 05 June 2009
A FORMER judge and solicitor general for Scotland yesterday accused a developer and council officials of producing "deliberately misleading" evidence about the impact of a towering hotel planned for Edinburgh's West End.
Lord McCluskey, who lives near the proposed development site in the Haymarket area, claimed a picture postcard he had bought provided a more accurate picture of the impact the 17-storey hotel would have than dozens of official pictures.

The vetera
n legal figure, who told a public inquiry he had lived in Lansdowne Crescent for more than 26 years, said Irish developer Tiger had "effectively concealed the appalling impact on the neighbourhood" the hotel would have.

He said both the developer and the council had used photographs which "deliberately present a wholly misleading picture of the iconic views of Edinburgh."

Lord McCluskey, one of several local residents to speak at the inquiry yesterday, said there was widespread belief in the area that the council and its officials had been "corrupted by the overwhelming desire to raise money somehow in order to fill the gap in the city's finances."

Intercontinental has agreed a deal to run the five-star tower hotel, while Travelodge will be operating on the site. It emerged yesterday that a car park operator, Q-Park had also signed up.

In a lengthy diatribe against modern buildings, and the proposed development in particular, Lord McCluskey said "too much of the architecture of the last few decades bears comparison with the worst anywhere."

He launched an outspoken attack against Richard Murphy, the Edinburgh architect who has designed the proposed hotel, accusing him of laughing off criticism of the scheme.

Lord McCluskey said: "The city belongs not to architects laughingly dismissive of public opinion and hoping to make a personal impact on the city, or to officials or councillors – desperate to find money to fill a black hole in the finances.

"It belongs to its citizens, to the people of Scotland, whose capital it is, and to all who respect our history and its built heritage. It also belongs to our descendants."

Lord McCluskey accused council officials of performing a U-turn over the proposed development, saying they had opposed to a 12-storey hotel there.

Lord McCluskey said he had brought the inquiry reporter, Dannie Onn, a "present" of a 60p postcard from the lobby of the Holiday Inn, the Corstorphine hotel where the hearing is being held, to demonstrate the impact of the hotel development.

"You can see from this postcard that the hotel would totally obscure views of St Mary's Cathedral."

Tiger's lawyer, Roy Martin, QC, disputed Lord McCluskey's assertion, a claim dismissed as "nonsense" by the peer. "I should know. I've lived there for 26 years," he declared.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Buttress,

05/06/2009 00:05:24
From Building Design, interview with Richard Murphy:-



"BD: The hotel has already generated a lot of interest.

Richard Murphy: It’s no big deal to me. Virtually every building I’ve done in Edinburgh has been subject to campaigns to stop it happening. I’ve now got an incredibly thick skin about it and I just laugh."

"Edinburgh New Town was conceived as a city and it generally has some unity about it. Unfortunately, that New Town mentality has spread to the whole of Edinburgh. There’s no place for individual buildings, everything has to blend in with the building next door."

"The Haymarket is a part of the city which has been terribly down at heel, and potentially it could become very interesting. It’s almost like La Défense in Paris.

BD: Do you mean as a location for a cluster of tall buildings?

No, it’s like a sort of satellite. The Haymarket is not in the centre of Edinburgh, it’s not even in the world heritage site, it’s right on the western edge of the city.

Our hotel will breach the skyline, and a jolly good thing too. It will probably become the third most important hotel in Edinburgh. We also think something important should happen at the top of the building — so that it’s not just a plant room but a beacon with a lot of the public activities located at the top. If you happen to drive into town from the west, it will be positioned at the moment the city really gets going, that’s quite deliberate."

"As far as Unesco is concerned, I’m rather suspicious of it. What is Unesco? Who is Unesco? My experience of Unesco is some brand, a conservation mafia."

"Apart from building my own house, my ambition in Edinburgh is to build one big public building before I die."
2

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 05/06/2009 01:24:47
-- a "present" of a 60p postcard from the lobby of the Holiday Inn ...to demonstrate the impact of the hotel development

De minimis non curat lex.

Having repared my iconic racing dinghy, I've ambitions too for a supersleek carbon-fibre multihull.

I tend to agree with architect Murphy re Haymarket.
3

Buttress,

05/06/2009 08:18:23
But then, you don't have to live in its shadow, presumably.
4

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/06/2009 08:46:53
McCluskey's comments are pure self-interest, and yet he has the self-importance to suppose that he is speaking on behalf of "the people" and even "our descendants"! Reminds me of when Keith O'Brien got hot under the collar about a Morningside development. Why should their words carry more weight than those of any other resident?

I too agree with Richard that it would be a very good thing to breach the skyline in Haymarket, which is currently quite down-at-heel. The way some folk talk you'd think the proposal was to demolish the castle and build a high-rise.
5

Buttress,

05/06/2009 08:53:26
No, I think McCluskey's comments are possibly shared by many people. It's good that he was prepared to stand up and be counted, although his comments will carry the same weight as anyone else's at the inquiry. I gather A+DS think the building is wrong also. Those comments, also, will be taken into account.

But then you would argue black was white Dunkie, about anything, so I take your comments in the spirit in which they were written, and I suspect others will also.

Have a nice day now Dunkie.
6

Buttress,

05/06/2009 08:55:30
And as for UNESCO:-

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Swinney-admits-planning-system-has.5332724.jp#4096034

It seems it, too, has a voice in the planning process.
7

roadstohell,

05/06/2009 08:56:39
Well said Lord McCluskey ! More power to your arm.
I lived for many years in Haymarket, in the wee cluster of "colony" houses there. It is a place of unique character within Edinburgh, and worthy of sensitive planning, it's not just a site at the west of Edinburgh.

My opinion of this hotel is that it would be a dirty great monolith and is really "just a way of making money", so please don't dress it up as anything else, or give it the pretense of altruism.

it stinks

8

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/06/2009 09:20:10
#5 This is the third article in this newspaper written about his opinions. You know fine well that these arguments are held as much in the media as in the enquiry. The man is using his public profile to push his private opinions. That's hardly an argument that black is white, dear.
9

Buttress,

05/06/2009 09:25:09
For those who think this a fine and sensitive addition:-

http://www.edinburgharchitecture.co.uk/jpgs/haymarket_rma_060508_10.jpg

http://www.edinburgharchitecture.co.uk/jpgs/haymarket_rma_060508_10.jpg
10

Buttress,

05/06/2009 09:30:07
Dunkie not so dear, it's not anyone's fault except this newspaper's that this is the third article. I also know that a public inquiry is not won or lost on what Brian Ferguson chooses to report in this paper about it.

This is a public inquiry, and anyone could have gone along and given their views. Thankfully, Lord McCluskey was one of those, and I happen to feel many will agree with him.

The architect, developers and the council also had the opportunity to push their views at the inquiry, and they were well reported here also. Mr Murphy has had a great deal of space in the national architecture press to push his views.
11

Buttress,

05/06/2009 09:50:38
While I have no electronic copy of A+DS written evidence for the inquiry to which to link, here is one of its reports on this devlopment:-

http://www.ads.org.uk/what_we_do/design_review/reports/215_morrison-street-goods-yard-the-haymarket-edinburgh
12

Prudence,

05/06/2009 10:11:16
Edinburgh already has a signature skyline in the Castle or "Kestle " as pronounced by some. An article about Tiger posted in uncategorized by gangbox on the January 5, 2009 the New York times

gangbox.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/taming-the-celtic-tigerthe-collapse-of-the-irish-building-boom/

is quite an eye opener . It goes on to say that Mr. Dunne, the developer , whose "brazen deal-making and Donald Trump-like lifestyle epitomized the country’s euphoric boom, might be going bankrupt. He is notorious for taking legal action against all who cross him, from local newspapers to rival property developers." George Sorial, the Trump Organisation executive said of Ms Storr Aberdeenshire councillor "She is a distraction. She is a nuisance – like a fly – and we merely swatted her out of the way."
The arrogance of some developers knows no bounds and any architect that says "Unesco " is a kind of brand and "conservation mafia" is in denial of architectural history .
13

Rap,

05/06/2009 10:29:38
It's not on the western edge of the city, it is included within the Central Edinburgh Local Plan, so it quite clearly considered central to the city, conceded by the Council. Daft argument.

There is a High Buildings policy (inch thick) that details acceptable areas for tall buildings, which is sight hill (the western edge of the city Richard), Leith, Granton, waterfront. So, his ego drives him to ignore all CEC policy and stick his own up where he fancies. Right next to a world heritage property and then he sticks his fingers up at UNESCO as well. For all of you who think he is right, do you really, truly think this building (height driven by commercial interest after all, not design since it started at 12 storeys) is sooooo good it should be able to contravene all CEC polcies and shaft the world heritage property conditions?

And all this public space at the top of the hotel. It's not a free viewing room for us all to claim our view, it's a members lounge and meeting rooms and a very expensive bar.
14

Buttress,

05/06/2009 10:32:53
But it will be lit up at night so you can see it, acting as - well, an advert for Tiger Tower really.
15

Rap,

05/06/2009 10:38:33
From A&DS website :-
http://www.ads.org.uk/what_we_do/design_review/reports/215_morrison-street-goods-yard-the-haymarket-edinburgh

"We were not opposed in principle to the introduction of high buildings, or even object buildings, but their existence, position, scale and profile needed to be considered both in relation to the concept of Haymarket as a ‘place' and to the wider context of the city."
16

Buttress,

05/06/2009 10:41:31
Nov 2007:-

'We remain of the view that the Haymarket area, and gateway to the World Heritage Site, requires a major spatial intervention of a scale that is commensurate with its location within the city and the buildings around it. These proposals, submitted as designs are being prepared for the Haymarket Interchange, are a constituent part of a one-off opportunity for the City to co-ordinate and deliver a major intervention of a quality that befits a European capital city and gateway to a World Heritage Site. It requires a major urban move, and an approach that considers the wider area and is not constrained by land ownership boundaries. In its current form, the proposal for the Morrison Street Goods Yard site would not assist in the delivery of such.'
17

Rap,

05/06/2009 10:41:54
From 29th May 2008 :-
http://www.ads.org.uk/what_we_do/design_review/reports/404_morrison-street-goods-yard-the-haymarket-edinburgh

"We welcome that a masterplanning exercise is being conducted, but remain concerned that the project is proceeding without having first established a strategic overview which sets out a vision for the wider Haymarket area and how it integrates into its broader context."

"We recognise that grand scaled spaces require height to contain the space, yet we remain to be convinced that the location proposed is necessarily the right one for a tall building. The outcome of a wider consultation study might identify more appropriate locations, and settings, for tall built form in this area. "
18

Rap,

05/06/2009 10:44:06
Indeed light pollution was an issue several people brought up, but funnily enough visual assessments and skyline analysis don't include night time views, so regardless of it appearing (and the 3* star hotel) acting is a beacon at night, that's okay.
19

Rap,

05/06/2009 10:45:01
Hey Dunk, did you write in with your supporting letter and give evidence? I don't remember seeing you there.
20

Buttress,

05/06/2009 10:48:26
Conclusion to the 29th May 2008 report:-

'CONCLUSION
We continue to welcome the project team's ambition for high design quality, and recognise improvements to what was previously consented. As the design has not significantly altered since November 2007 our previous comments still largely apply.

We welcome the preparation of a strategic framework, tested through a consultation process, which is commercially viable but not unduly influenced by commercial imperative, to set out a vision for the wider Haymarket area.

We recommend that the Council formalises advice on the location of tall buildings before the current masterplan exercise and the wider urban design framework are finalised.'

21

Rap,

05/06/2009 10:49:37
Seems only fair that someone has a coherent plan for Haymarket doesn't it?
22

Rap,

05/06/2009 10:51:11
http://www.edinburgharchitecture.co.uk/jpgs/haymarket_rma_060508_10.jpg

This view featured quite highly. Several attempts were made to ask how a gateway and entrance to Haymarket works if a lump of concrete is blocking the view. Wonder if they have to pay airspace charges like Primark?
23

Buttress,

05/06/2009 10:51:41
Well, I would have thought so, but clearly CEC is in some disarray over planning matters.
24

Buttress,

05/06/2009 10:56:57
Do you think that view is an accurate representation of what 17 storeys in reality will look like? It still looks a little short to me in the developer's images. Possibly only persons of restricted height will be staying there?
25

Rap,

05/06/2009 11:04:34
Well this is the 17 storey version because the 16 storey version didn't have the little glass boxes on the top. And to give you an idea I think the nasty grey hotel in front of it is 6 storeys. So, it looks just over twice the 6 storey hotel height doesn't it? So perhaps people are taller who stay in 3* hotels than 5*? Lord M is quite small after all.
26

Buttress,

05/06/2009 11:18:35
Hmmm. I'm not very tall either, but I don't think I'd want to stay there regardless.

There was a blog which did a far more accurate representation of the height (towering!) but I can't now find the link, which was posted here last year.

27

SNAFU,

Edinburgh 05/06/2009 11:28:58
Which part of Haymarket's architectural history are we getting so het up about? The DSS building in Clifton Terrace? Perhaps the billboards hiding the wasteground opposite the Premier Travel Inn?
We tore down an attractive brewery HQ to build the parliament. Why not see if a new building in Edinburgh can be attractive? It may even provide customers for the trams.
28

Buttress,

05/06/2009 11:29:23
Friday 11th July 2008:-

http://www.gardyloo.org/
29

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/06/2009 11:51:57
#27 Quite, quite.
30

Buttress,

05/06/2009 11:55:46
Duncan, did you put forward evidence and go along to the inquiry, as Rap asked? Just wondering.

It seems that many highly qualified people and august bodies think this tower sucks, but of course what can they know.
31

Buttress,

05/06/2009 12:09:16
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Former-law-chief-blasts-inquiry.5338593.jp#4096855
32

SuperSaint,

05/06/2009 12:14:02
In terms of height, I think the Exchange Tower (at the other end of Morrison Street) is 13 stories so picture that plus 30%.
33

tommytommy,

05/06/2009 12:48:05
Lord McCluskey is absolutely correct in his assertion that profit and greed are the motivating factors behind this project.

The wishes and needs of the people of Edinburgh are being disregarded by ambitious ignorant small minded politicians.

Whose judgemnt do we take.?

The peoples who are in it for profit and political gain or the assessments of people like Lord McCluskey whose views are based on the general good of the city.?
34

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/06/2009 13:56:06
#30 Having received a range of different threats on this website I don't answer questions which could lead to my real world identity being linked to my login, sorry.

I am nonetheless entitled to express my view on this site, and for you to suggest that being "highly qualified" is a reason to be listened to, given the very highly qualified people you regularly dismiss on these threads, is pure hypocrisy.

Frankly I think you are habitually dishonest in the way you set out your opposition to various developments. You will attack the design of this building as out of character when there would never be any way to build a 17-storey hotel *in* character with its surroundings, and nobody has ever claimed it was meant to be in character. You talk about sympathetic development but ignore the reality that this building is to sit in a largely redeveloped area, and with the right vision could kick-start a genuine rebirth of Haymarket. To do such things needs daring, and mould-breaking. But you simply want Edinburgh to stultify.

Demanding "better" design is like demanding a "better" oil painting. Your opinion does not define what is and is not good design, and neither does mine. Architecture by committee is almost always doomed to failure. If this building gets built it would at least be an example of daring amongst a sea of mediocre office blocks. If it doesn't, the likelihood is we will just get another mediocre office block.
35

Buttress,

05/06/2009 13:59:59
Oh yawn Dunkie. So the answer is no, you didn't put forward your case or go along, but you attack those who did for doing so.

The rest is twaddle. It doesn't have to be 17 storeys, does it? And frankly, in my opinion, its mediocre.

Does A+DS want Edinburgh to 'stultify' also?

36

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/06/2009 14:15:43
#35 Ah yes, "twaddle". You do have a uniquely unpersuasive style.

I don't know what you are trying to prove by repeating the names of people and organisations who have expressed criticisms of this plan, but it is completely orthogonal to my point.
37

Buttress,

05/06/2009 14:27:09
But I don't need to persuade you Dunkie, it's clear you won't be persuaded (is Murphy a friend of yours? Weren't you supportive of bis Hart St House too?) and I could throw the dictionary at you, but twaddle is the word I think best fits.

So you had the opportunity to put forward your views at the inquiry, and appear, and cross examine as Lord M did.

Yet when he exercises his legitimate right, you are critical of him. Why is that?

38

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/06/2009 15:03:02
#37 Are you actually asking why I am critical of McCluskey? Despite me have said in my initial post, fairly clearly I think, what my criticisms are?

'McCluskey's comments are pure self-interest, and yet he has the self-importance to suppose that he is speaking on behalf of "the people" and even "our descendants"'.

39

Buttress,

05/06/2009 15:05:48
As I said Dunkie, twaddle.
40

Buttress,

05/06/2009 15:09:02
"The city belongs not to architects laughingly dismissive of public opinion and hoping to make a personal impact on the city, or to officials or councillors – desperate to find money to fill a black hole in the finances.

"It belongs to its citizens, to the people of Scotland, whose capital it is, and to all who respect our history and its built heritage. It also belongs to our descendants."


I think many will agree with that.

It's Murphy who is acting out of pure self-interest, he and Tiger.
41

Seb,

05/06/2009 16:21:34
Lord M certainly had us wee people in mind when (in relation to altering British Summer Time) he said

"For far too long, the interests of a small number of people who live in the north of Scotland, whether they are farmers, crofters or whatever, have taken precedence over the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom as a whole."

Sounds familiar sort of argument to the one developers often give...

apologies to Buttress for stealing her copy/paste technique.
42

Buttress,

05/06/2009 17:03:38
Oh, its a normal sort of academic thingy Seb, to quote from relevant sources.

I see Prof David Walker has been awarded a Europa Nostra Award this week. There's a picture of hi here, and a rather lovely skyline:-

http://www.europanostra.org/news/50/


43

Rap,

05/06/2009 18:07:07
Duncan, I wrote in to object, twice, and wrote to my MSP and my MP and my Councillor. See I'm not that worried about paranoia because I would happily stand up in public and express my concerns. I attended the planning hearing and sat through the inquiry. Now, because I am prepared to do something to back up my very strong opinions I think I have more brownie points than you, because you just waffle on here. It was a perfectly fair questions to ask you, and you have shown you didn't feel very strongly about this issue (or any other scheme I assume), so you are amongst the chattering majority who do nowt.

As for Lord M, yes he did steal the limelight of the community councils who have been working alongside the developers on this site for 2 years. They represent a lot more people than he does and I think followed the careful guidelines for writing their submissions and whey they said when cross examining. However, Lord M got the Scotsman interested, as they should be in such a story in the capital. If that's what it takes, no-one is begrudging him that. Several other groups gave evidence but weren't quoted by Brian Ferguson. Going to whinge about them as well?
44

Rap,

05/06/2009 18:17:16
And this doesn't have to be a 17 storey hotel, with 7 storey office blocks and a 6 storey 3* hotel. They all contravene planning policy. And the site is not in the middle of a largely developed area. One side of the site and a corner have been built upon as the first phase of this scheme. This isn't in the centre of the Exchange district, it fronts on to the Station (listed), Ryries (listed), Clifton Terrace (listed), Grosvenor St (listed), and sites on the egde of the World Heritage Property. You talk about Buttress being dishonest by why are you any different in your selective rendering of the site?

The point of the inquiry is that it hears both sides of the argument. Yes so many of the witnesses gave evidence which by their nature had an element of subjectivity in them - on both sides - but they were experienced witnesses and prepared to stand up and be questioned as to their integrity and expertise. You don't even have the balls to write in to support a scheme you say you support.

And this isn't just about a 5* hotel, it's the whole site. Do you support the scheme because it is likely to prevent the horrible air particles from dispersing properly? Do you support the elderly in the sheltered car home (which the developers didn't know about) which would have to sit in their garden facing the srvice yard entrances and car park entrance? Do you support the small, local businesses who will undoubtedly struggle when a licensed supermarket opens? Do you support all the people who use the public loos but will now have to track inland to find them on the scheme? Do you really think you can comment on the development without all the facts? And all this is without the need to refer to a planning policy. Do you know what the relevant policies are?
45

Buttress,

05/06/2009 18:22:46
It was clearly OK for Murphy and his friend who thought the castle overrated to be splashed all over this paper and the architectural press, though.

Developers usually play as dirty as they can get, and I bet they threw a vast pot of cash at this inquiry also. Ask them how many tens of thousands their barrister cost. The Cockburn had to have a public appeal. Many gave freely of their own time.

Yes, Duncan whinges, Seb tells us he 'works in conservation' while he can't decide which side of the fence to be on.

Now Seb, what do you think of this story?

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Swinney-admits-planning-system-has.5332724.jp#4096034

I think you told us you had gone to meet UNESCO, was a defence of the Tiger Tower part of that then?

46

Rap,

05/06/2009 18:29:49
Yes, we spoke to UNESCO on their mission to Edinburgh which was originally only intended to cover Leith docks, St. James centre and your favourite, Caltongate. Once we knew they were coming we all wrote in and they added Haymarket to the list. And they were not complimentary in it in the brief minutes of the mission visit released during the inquiry. Finally, some sense!
47

Buttress,

05/06/2009 18:32:40
Sorry Rap, I knew you were there, I meant Seb! Did he turn up and defend the developments under discussion? Or is it only when it's Allan Murray? When it's Murphy it's OK?

48

Buttress,

05/06/2009 18:35:17
Full UNESCO report released very soon. It will be interesting to compare it with the apologist report from Peter Marsden at the DCMS sent from the UK government last spring, about Edinburgh and other WH sites.
49

Buttress,

05/06/2009 21:45:41
47 No that didn't read as I meant it!

Did Seb go along and be supportive of Tiger Tower then? Or not?

Is it a case of Allan Murray bad, anyone else good, even when in reality they aren't?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

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

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.