Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Hotel will ruin famous views of city, inquiry told

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: 04 June 2009
By BRIAN FERGUSON
BUILDING a 17-storey hotel on the outskirts of Edinburgh's World Heritage Site will have a huge impact on famous views of the city and set a precedent for future developments, a public inquiry was told yesterday.
A key witness called by the heritage group fighting the five-star hotel development by Irish developer Tiger said it would "significantly" affect views of the likes of Edinburgh Castle and the Pentland Hills.

Mark Steele, a landscape planning and design expert hired by the Cockburn Association, said studies commissioned by the council established key views "fundamental to the city's image and of high sensitivity".

He said he disagreed with previous evidence from council officials that views were ranked in importance based on what people were doing at each viewpoint.

Mr Steele quoted from a council review of high buildings, which said: "If the essential qualities of the skylines of the World Heritage Site are to remain visible from around the city, any further upward creep of roof-top height will need to be prevented."

He added: "It is of particularly concern that the proposed (Haymarket] hotel tower block would not only breach the Edinburgh skyline, but would set a precedent for further tall buildings."

The inquiry continues.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Abel Magwitch,

04/06/2009 02:31:37
Poor old Edinburgh, trying to shoot itself in the foot for the umpteenth time.

This hotel, if approved, will open the floodgates for a circle of tall nondescript buildings around the "old" central area, obscuring views of (and from) the castle, Arthur's Seat etc.
2

Davy,

04/06/2009 03:17:38
We need a clear out of our council officials.
They are supposed to be working for the people, not against the citizens of that fine city.
They have practically declared war on us all.
They just do what they like.
3

Statsman,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 03:54:07
Quartermile has destroyed views of the city from the Meadows. I rather hope the new planning chief (John Bury) isn't like Alan Henderson. That man royally screwed up Edinburgh's planning system.
4

Statsman,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 04:05:07
2 Davy

They don't work for you. They work for whoever is paying nice big tram taxes.

An elected planning head for Edinburgh would be a nice idea. The councillors clearly have no control and seem, frankly, not to care.

Planning gain has turned the council into people that seem to ride roughshod over the will of the people for their own political aims. The system is idiotic and a farce.
5

Buttress,

04/06/2009 06:27:00
4 Couldn't agree more, and chickens are coming home to roost, with this inquiry showing exacly what is wrong with planning and CEC. Not sure if it is deliberate or it is simply incompetence, but those appearing haven't covered themselves in glory, have they? In fact, up to their ears in something else.

However, there are elected council officials, headed by Jim Lowrie, of whom more here:-

http://independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com/2009/06/london-calling.html

6

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 07:15:38
There should not be a single councillor who took office that wanted to ruin our skyline. However, they are all running scared of tram overspends and like the report earlier in the Scotsman last week, how much hidden subsidy to the tram would they demand for this project to be approved?

7

dba,

CALEDONIAN CRESCENT 04/06/2009 07:22:45
ALL of the previous posts ARE TOTALLY CORRECT.

In this case, however, BOTH the salaried officials AND the elected Councillors passed the 17 stories DESPITE well expressedand founded objections from a waide range of organisations INCLUDING LOCAL RESIDENTS: objections that were completely and utterly ignored.

I find it strangelyinteresting that the LOCAL Councillors have remained silent in this matter orarfe they merely 'obeying orders'

Salaried officials ARE SUPPOSED to work IN THE BEST INTERESTS of the CITIZENS who pay their dalaries. The post of planning chief does NOT grant licence to ride roughshod over locak electors or heritage organisations acting together to preserve a pricelss heritage.

As for 'Tiger Developments' fly to Dublin and see the half-finished and abandoned buildings in their new 'commercial zone'...sadly yet another lovely Georgian City blighted by acres of concrete and glass.

Why do architects NOT realise that far too often - their visions tend to be other people's NIGHTMARES
8

Andrew Scalloway,

Caledonian Crescent 04/06/2009 07:30:15
Completely disagree with you all. The Haymarket area needs a boost. There's nothing special about it and you cannot see the castle from there anyway.
9

Buttress,

04/06/2009 07:38:11
I think you've lost the plot.
10

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 08:18:37
Davy/dba - It used to be that Council officials were public servants but I understand that a subtle change was made to their code of conduct in that they are now there to help councillors delivery policy.

So, if councillors consider, for example, the building of a 17-storey hotel or a tram line to be politically desirable, then it is now the responsibility of officials to help deliver that - no matter what their professional judgement may be.
11

Mallory,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 08:21:29
Try Dundee Street and Fountainbridge for examples of really messing up Edinburgh's skyline.

#7 dba - you didn't really expect a local councillor to pay attention did you? Remember they don't face elections for two years
12

Mallory,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 08:23:11
An example of the planning process underway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTmsuJBwlVk
13

Buttress,

04/06/2009 08:25:59
10 And, it seems, no matter how against adopted policies it is! It's a pity more developments are not given the sort of scrutiny this is one is getting at the inquiry, it might concentrate minds a little.

I gather none of those appearing on behalf of the council were involved in the original decision. They have all 'moved on'.
14

Rap,

04/06/2009 08:39:50
As a local resident I'd like to set the commnts straight here. 5 elected representatives on the planning committee voted against development (the two from the city centre ward included, whilst one from Gorgie/Dalry voted for it because he can't see it from where he lives). Both Cllr David Beckett and Donald Wilson spoke up passionately at the planning hearing, but 10 fellow Cllrs still voted for the development.

At the public inquiry today Cllr Dundas and Beckett have made written submissions and are expecting to give evidence. So, they aren't all shafting us, some really do listen and do care. On top of this Sarah Boyack and Alastair Darling wrote to the reporter on resident's behalfs. So, whilst I am as unbelievably annoyed and disgusted with the failed process as anyone, I don't want people to make sweeping generalisations about all Councillors and MP/MSPs because some do their job.
15

Rap,

04/06/2009 08:42:35
Today we will be hearing from the Cockburn Assocs witness on planning policy (saying 23 policies have been contravened) and Bill Cantley reminding everyone of the good the Cockburn Assoc do (I'm not a member before anyone accuses me of it, but I have read his written submission). Then the third parties (ie community groups, residents, Councillorsm etc) will be giving evidence.
Holiday Inn, Corstorphine (next to the zoo), 5th Floor, look for SEIRU on the meeting room listing
16

Rap,

04/06/2009 08:53:17
Here's a list of the Councillors who voted for this development, check to see if yours is on there :-

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/latestnews/Council-votes-in-favour-of.4219610.jp
17

Buttress,

04/06/2009 09:02:50
A reminder also that the Cockburn Association is fighting this NOT with public cash as the council is, but is relying on its own funds and donations. A public inquiry is a very costly affair, and I have no doubt it will be delighted to receive any further donations, great and small, to help with its costs for this inquiry.

http://www.cockburnassociation.org.uk/default.asp?page=152

18

Buttress,

04/06/2009 11:01:25
As for some others on the planning committee, see comments section on this story also:-

http://news.scotsman.com/edinburghplanningissues/Historic-Edinburgh-cinema-wins-.5332706.jp
19

Buttress,

04/06/2009 11:05:08
From Rap's link to a previous news report:-

'But community leaders and local councillors all voiced their opposition. The Cockburn Association compared the 17-storey hotel to Edinburgh University's unpopular Appleton Tower building, while Edinburgh World Heritage Trust deputy director Jane Jackson said: "The proposed tower is alien".

SNP city centre councillor David Beckett, who was speaking as a local representative, said: "This is completely inappropriate in the heart of one of the most beautiful cities in the world."

However, planning committee member and Labour councillor Maureen Child said: "I think this will be a contribution to the skyline.

"If we were to refuse it, it would be an opportunity badly missed."

Lending her support, former Lord Provost Lesley Hinds admitted: "We will be damned or we might be congratulated in the future."

The five councillors who opposed the development were the Lib Dem's Charles Dundas, Tory Joanna Mowat, Green councillor Steve Burgess, the SNP's Colin Keir and Lib Dem Gary Peacock.

Councillors Lowrie, Hinds, Child, Alastair Paisley, Stuart Roy McIvor, Eric Milligan, Elaine Morris, Rob Munn, Cameron Rose and Marjorie Thomas all voted in favour.'

'City planning leader Jim Lowrie said: "This is a superb development and will bring vitality to this area.

"The high building isn't too obtrusive. It's a world-class building, and we need (it] for this city." '

20

Seb,

04/06/2009 11:23:49
Careful Rap, you're bringing balance to the comments section, you might get censored for lack of invective.

Poor Appleton Tower, it always get's dragged in and yet it's rather crisp grids and stair tower are quite interesting...
21

Buttress,

04/06/2009 11:29:57
Really, Seb? How interesting. It's not very popular though, for others reasons. Maybe you can expand on why the good citizens of Edinburgh, in the main, seem not to have warmed to it, and explain to them why they are wrong?

What is your own view of the claimed architectural merits of the proposed Haymarket Tower?
22

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 12:07:43
Did anyone else see the size of that Brown envelope !! The Planning departments christmas party will be a good one this year !!! Extra Gravy for everyone !!
23

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 12:50:43
The planning department needs serious looking into. It has never ceased to amaze me how Mrs Miggins can't put up a conservatory or you can't build a modest house in a field that you own but crud like this goes through ....

Have you also noticed how the planning department ALWAYS refuses the first copy of a submission ... they do this systematically so they 'create' more jobs for the boys ...

Incompetent or corrupt? -- you decide then vote for someone who will shake them down !
24

Rap,

04/06/2009 17:19:49
Oooh, disappear for a few hours and I get charged with balance. Can't have that! I'll point out Cllr Beckett (SNP, who I don't vote for) did a storming job for his constituents. Elected representatives can, and often, do stand up for their residents and he really was impressive. His Council colleagues couldn't really say much after that.

Seb, the nature of the development (and I'm not just talking design and architecture here) is inappropriate in my opinion, which I am entitled to. But that does not mean I'm not fair. I would say that this public inquiry does give the appearance of fairness which I didn't think the planning hearing did. People are accountable and third parties can ask questions, so at least they seem to feel they are more satisfied that they are getting the answers they want.
25

Rap,

04/06/2009 17:23:15
Voldemort, I wonder when exactly planning and city development merged into one dept. This seems to be the point at which real planning decisions were made in isolation without any pressures from financial interests associated with developments.
26

Buttress,

04/06/2009 18:00:39
Yes, it's wonderful what comes out at public inquiries, pity that there aren't more of them.

But Seb has gone very quiet about the architectural merits of a couple of towers? Or has he returned to his own ivory one, appalled at the sudden break out of balance and a failure of invective?
27

Rap,

04/06/2009 18:44:25
I was told today that more non-Cockburn Assoc members contributed than members, what does that say about this development?
28

Rap,

04/06/2009 18:45:11
Oooh, storey was just on BBC Reporting Scotland, with the lovely Mr Murphy given a say as well as a Colony resident
29

Buttress,

04/06/2009 18:47:21
Oh, but public condemnation means nought. We may know what we like, but we have to have what we are given.

Anyhow, Coun Lowrie likes it, so it must be fine :-)

30

Buttress,

04/06/2009 18:48:10
Did Mr Murphy say how lovely it would all be?
31

Seb,

04/06/2009 18:53:56
The Haymarket Intercontinental seems unexceptional to me. It's not dreadful and I have no objection to the impact of the height on views to the castle from the west. As I've said before, I'm not keen on it forming part of a St Mary's steeple cluster when seen from the north, but I could live with it. And yes, I can imagine the hotel being popular with visitors for the views it will permit from the upper floors. A bit like the Balmoral, kind of clumsy but well positioned for a party.

I like the fenestration of Appleton and the expressed stair tower particularly when the sun's in the west. It's not perfect and the poorly adhered mosaic tiles are unfortunate but I'd sooner it was restored grey, crisp and simple than reclad in god knows what as I expect it will be. The Informatics building has improved the setting infinitely too.
32

Buttress,

04/06/2009 18:55:04
And as Seb seems not to wish to defend the delights of the Appleton Tower any further, here it is, with a few comments about it:-

http://www.blitzandblight.com/appleton-tower

Mr Murphy should take note.



33

Buttress,

04/06/2009 18:55:49
Oh dear Seb, you posted just as I did, and I didn't read that before I posted the blitzandblight link...
34

Seb,

04/06/2009 18:57:59
Hmmm... the tastes of Country Life really are the acme of criticism.
35

Buttress,

04/06/2009 18:58:28
Ah well,I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. Maybe you need to get out of that ivory tower more...
36

Buttress,

04/06/2009 18:59:40
Oh, I dunno, Country Life has its moments. Nice pics and a few decent architecture articles every now and again, although of course possibly not of the sort of buildings you like.
37

Seb,

04/06/2009 19:01:04
Or readership...
38

Buttress,

04/06/2009 19:02:24
Really? I read it on occasions. Some of the architecture articles are really quite good.

39

Buttress,

04/06/2009 19:06:43
I also read BD and the AJ. And Private Eye.
40

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 04/06/2009 20:10:19
Rap:- Don't try and distract with details .. you know exactly what I mean and so does everyone else ...

We know that they are corrupt and inconsistent. We know that they would rather give planning permission to a purple hotel with yellow spots than grant the 'wee' man a place to live on his own land. We know that they are a sham and that city development and planning are about as independent as hands from a finger. We know that many planning officials are a bit more wealthy than their salary would allow. We know they stink to high heaven!
41

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 04/06/2009 20:13:28
I don't approve of the new hotel BUT I can aslo see the problem. We want to encourage all forms of tourism, and there is a palce for 5* tourism in Edinburgh. Now I have taken out my (admittedly old) maps of Edinburgh & have used my imagination, but I can't find a suitable place for a large 5* hotel. It must have good views & be reasonably close to all the attractions of the city centre, but I cannot see a single space where it could reasonably go - but perhaps somewhere down near the Leith Docks there is a suitable place? Could a denizen of Edinburgh comment?
42

Buttress,

04/06/2009 20:19:00
It could go on the Haymarket site. Or the former Caltongate hole in the ground. It just doesn't have to be 17 storeys tall, and an ugly lump to boot.

Or indeed, if one person's evidence from the inquiry is to be believed, possibly the castle should be demolished and it could go there?


43

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 04/06/2009 20:22:12
Haymarket Intercontinental aside, please support the Black Sheep's proposal of turning the Old Royal High School into a "Pantheon of Great Scots", devoted to showing the world what Scots have achieved over the centuries. There is sufficient space to cover engineers, writers, artists, architects, doctors, explorers etc. - you name the Scot! Talks on individual great Scots could be held in the debating chamber each hour. Scotland needs something like this, the Old Royal High School has the perfect setting and atmosphere, and it's brilliantly positioned for tourists. So please support the "Pantheon of Great Scots" in the Old Royal High School!
44

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 04/06/2009 20:25:10
#43 Buttress: Well that's OK then. Could you do a drawing of what you mean, more or less (more more than less please), and submit it to the Laird Provost? Thank you!
45

Buttress,

04/06/2009 20:29:52
Old Royal High School? Pah! That old tasteful clasical architecure! Outdated! Why not add clad it in coloured squares, add several extra storeys and make it into a five star hotel also?
46

Buttress,

04/06/2009 20:55:00
And as I said on the other thread you posted on about the Great Scot idea:-

Possibly not Thomas Bouch however, although he may not qualify, being born in Cumbria (although he resided in Edinburgh, and is buried in Dean Cemetary).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bouch

47

Rap,

04/06/2009 21:01:25
#41 Sorry, were my facts distracting you there? I think the people you are whinging about are not elected representatives and that's the problem. And having planning in the same dept as one that needs to make money can not result in an impartial outcome.
48

Buttress,

04/06/2009 21:10:58
Hmmm... the elected representatives are the ones who make the final decision though. Some of those are really not too great, although I do appreciate some are magnificent.

Possibly one of the magnificent ones would be better as Planning Convenor?!

49

Rap,

04/06/2009 21:19:34
Yes, some of the elected ones are as useful as a chocolate fireguard, and they did make the final decision. But they were advised by a rabble of planners. Perhaps each Cllr should have been asked - would you live next to this......
50

Rap,

04/06/2009 21:21:05
I was shocked about how much planning on the fly was being done during the inquiry of the Haymarket station. Yes we'll knock this chinese restaurant down, and we'll open this up and do this. If this isn't argument enough for a proper sodding framework before the ugly ones get their mitts on it, nothing is!
51

Rap,

04/06/2009 21:22:48
I just think someone without a smug grin, who does a good jobk, and offers NO opinions on the development (unlike at Caltongate....) is what is needed. That's all, no brain cells
52

Buttress,

04/06/2009 21:27:16
Still, the murky world of architecture in Scotland gets more and more interesting:-

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=436&storycode=3141462

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3141957&channel=426&c=1

Come friendly bombs...
53

Buttress,

04/06/2009 21:30:45
'We suffer from the worst combination of neo-con surrender to big business and statist micro-management: privatise everything, while trying to control the resulting processes through policy, regulation, quangos, “design advice” and new-paradigm mediocrity box ticking.'

I need a drink. And a dictionary.

54

Rap,

04/06/2009 21:33:29
"civic primacy of architecture" - oh yeah, that's straight from the school of I don't care if you don't like it and you live near it, what do you know about architecture?

And oh dear....is it a good thing he is going? It is a frustrated move because of the new restrictions imposed?

Oh and forgot to say, EWH didn't talk at inquiry because they had been told not to - told ya.
55

Buttress,

04/06/2009 21:35:37
If the inquiry had needed EWH, it could have demanded it spoke.

However, the inquiry got Herb Stovel.

God moves in mysterious ways.

56

Rap,

04/06/2009 21:35:37
"'We suffer from the worst combination of neo-con surrender to big business " - what??????
57

Buttress,

04/06/2009 21:36:18
I know. Is it any wonder Mr Tombs has resigned?
58

Rap,

04/06/2009 21:37:14
Indeed. Although the point was made today that no local organisation had spoken against the development, and this was corrected to "none appearing today". And then they delved into the A&DS statement a little closer.....
59

Buttress,

04/06/2009 21:40:29
Do you think there is a case re Perverting the Cause of Justice?

60

Rap,

04/06/2009 21:44:08
As you say, Herb played a cracking game so it's hard to say what could have added to that. But it must appear a little strange that the local team didn't turn up but a Canadian did.
61

Rap,

04/06/2009 21:44:51
'We suffer from the worst combination of neo-con surrender to big business - so what do you think this means? Did it come from one of those online bs generators you can use?
62

Buttress,

04/06/2009 21:48:36
Is it ended? Still time to demand!

As for Malcy, not a bleedin clue.

63

Buttress,

04/06/2009 21:50:04
'a little strange'

I suspect it has been noted, and won't have gone down well.

64

Rap,

04/06/2009 21:57:34
Evidence giving had ended. Just a conditions meeting next week and final submissions. Lord M will be getting his headlines again.
65

Buttress,

04/06/2009 22:00:22
Was he good?
66

Buttress,

04/06/2009 22:03:33
'And then they delved into the A&DS statement a little closer.....'

But do tell, I won't tell another soul... just for the benefit of those who haven't been able to read this?
67

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 04/06/2009 22:09:21
The Appletown Tower stands OK. It's the rest of the University development that's truely hidiously appalling. I think a high building at Haymarket would sit fine. Why is it worse than a dumpy one?

The whole gamut of town planing, rating and financing + public transport needs an entire rethink for scottish cities. You'd need to be as old at Pat Geddes and brim full of youth and enthusiasm. Please apply. Do we want a city for people to live and WORK in? Not just hotels, flats, offices? What about Princes Street?
68

Buttress,

04/06/2009 22:12:07
Ask Malcy. You might get on with Malcy.

69

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 04/06/2009 22:13:43
God moves through the Quantum Aether.
70

Rap,

04/06/2009 22:16:07
Lord M? A little surreal at times, a little woo a little wey, but made some good points. He appeared to have a freedom some of the other third parties didn't appear to have, but I think everyone was too scared to set him straight. Told the CEC Counsel off for not trying to set Lord M straight after accusations of corruption. Interesting anyway.

A&DS - on the surface it looks as if they were just saying " we love tall buildings normally, but we're not convinced this one is in the right place", so it was being bandied around as sort of half a support letter. But looking further in to their earlier comments and their letter to the inquiry it was clear they were saying "we don't rule out tall buildings normally, but not there, not that tall, not that design, just no ok". Nothing more exciting than that.
71

Rap,

04/06/2009 22:17:51
Yes Yok, we do need a place to live and work in, not just hotels and offices, that's why a tall SLABLIKE (quoting experts now) building isn't appropriate.
72

Buttress,

04/06/2009 22:19:27
OK. You might be better posting on the Odeon thread.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Minister-calls-in-plans-for.5333682.jp#4095266
73

Buttress,

04/06/2009 22:23:53
'but I think everyone was too scared to set him straight'

Well, you wouldn't would you?


SLABLIKE. That's sort of like a slab, right? Is that what Malcy would say? It sounds too descriptive to be sort of technical and expert.

74

Rap,

04/06/2009 22:30:45
A town planner used it, so it must be correct. slab slab slab slab slab.
75

Buttress,

04/06/2009 22:36:46
Ah, but would a famous Edinburgh architect use it? Would A+DS use it? Or is it only something used by planners?

And is the Appleton Tower not more SLABLIKE even? Or should the fenestration and the expressed whatever mitigate the slabbiness?

(It still looks like a Premier Inn at Docklands to me...)


Me, you see, I read Country Life, sometimes, so have no idea about architecture post c1800...


76

Rap,

04/06/2009 22:42:14
No, a famous edinburgh architect pays QCs to defend against the use of the world slab like and block like, and even the word block. Takes a great offense. But then a suitable expert steps up and uses it, and defends it use, and apparently fancy fenestration and stuff hanging off don't mitigate from the slabbyness. So, it's official, it's a slab. And apparently a slab is rectangular and not square. It's a been a surreal couple of days.....
And yes, from that definition, Appleton Tower is indeed slabby.
77

Buttress,

04/06/2009 22:43:02
Actually, at least this is in a sea of nothing much, so it doesn't matter, but I still think Mr M must have stayed there:-

http://www.milesfaster.co.uk/london-hotels/travel-inn-london-docklands-excel.htm
78

Rap,

04/06/2009 22:43:20
I think A&DS definitely said block, not sure from memory whether slabs were mentioned. But even block like was offensive apparently.
79

Rap,

04/06/2009 22:44:39
Ah, now that a slab. Two in fact. With red tops. Definitely slabs though. And slabs are bad, wicked.
80

Buttress,

04/06/2009 22:50:31
Then there's the overhanging roof thingy. Bit like Bath busometer.

http://www.bathheritagewatchdog.org/churchill.htm

There'a a picture there if you scroll down. Be interesting to hear UNESCO's views on that one too.
81

BahBah,

Edinburgh 27/10/2009 21:16:13
Simply put and I know #80 will agree (I think I know who you are now!) The CEC stink to high heaven and brown paper envelopes still exist metihnks. In fact, I can smell them from here.
Not long to go til the odeon, so fingers crossed the Ministers make the same decision as Haymarket. Well done giving a kick to CEC. Well bleedin done.


 

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:



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.