Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Historic cinema faces threat of demolition

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: 24 October 2008
A FORMER cinema which has lain empty for the last five years is set to be partially demolished to make way for a new hotel.
The former Odeon on South Clerk Street, described as "the finest surviving cinema building in Edinburgh", would have its listed auditorium demolished to make way for a public courtyard under the proposals, despite objections from local residents and Historic Scotland.

Developer Duddingston House Properties (DHP) wants to create a hotel with 231 beds, as well as artists' studios and a restaurant.

Planning officials have recommended the plans be given the go-ahead, despite objections from campaigners.

A spokesman for heritage body Historic Scotland said: "We do not believe the current proposal represents an acceptable conservation strategy. The building is B-listed, may be of national significance, and its condition is fair.

"It remains possible that this level of intervention is the minimum necessary to prevent the building being lost altogether, but up until now we have not seen any information which demonstrates this clearly."

Built in 1930 and originally called the New Victoria Cinema, the cinema was later run by Odeon Cinemas. It closed in 2003 and apart from occasional use as a venue during the Festival has lain empty ever since.

DHP has been exploring different options for the building since it bought it for an estimated £2 million in 2003.

The firm says the partial demolition and redevelopment of the building is the only way to ensure its long-term future.

Alan Henderson, the council's head of planning and strategy, said: "

On balance, it is considered that the applicants have demonstrated that the merits of bringing the remaining part of the building back into use, restoring its Clerk Street facade and the remaining interior, and creating an active frontage on both Clerk Street and Buccleuch Street justify the demolition of the rear section."

The plans have also received the backing of the heritage watchdog the Cockburn Association, which has welcomed the retention of the building's iconic facade.

But the Theatres Trust said the plans would lead to the loss of "one of Edinburgh's cultural and architectural assets, and one of the UK's finest atmospheric cinemas".

And the Southside Community Council, which has said it is eager to see the building redeveloped after lying empty for five years, has also objected, saying the hotel is too large and demolition unacceptable.

The planning committee is expected to approve the plans on Wednesday.


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 24 October 2008 12:10 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Edinburgh planning issues
 
1

Buttress,

24/10/2008 12:20:37
Anti-heritage Alan strikes again?

Thank heavens he's going. His understanding of historic buildings and sound conservation seems to be zero. His siding with developers and their skewed cliams is appalling. Let's hope his successor isn't in the same mould.

Has the Cockburn welcomed the demolition, as well as the retention of the facade? Or is that a selective piece of quoting?

The interior of the auditorium is of importance. So is what HS has to say.

But - the planning committee hasn't a clue really, it will simply go along with anti-heritage Alan.

What a legacy for Edinburgh he will leave!



2

Amenemhat,

24/10/2008 12:28:29
This building should be A listed it's importance to this city is high, certainly higher than another bloddy hotel in a credit crunch. No doubt when it's half demolished they money for the hotel will suddenly dry up and it will just become a bunch of student flats
3

BobW,

Southside 24/10/2008 12:29:19
Alan Henderson will be the man remembered for knocking the heart out of Edinburgh and replacing it with glass boxes and fake sandstone blocks.

Historic Scotland and the local community are clearly not as impotant as some more glass boxes.
4

elayne,

24/10/2008 12:31:50
seems daft building another hotel in todays financial climate,why not renovate it and bring it back to its former glory and have some decent bands play there
5

Buttress,

24/10/2008 12:51:25
I understand Historic Scotland wishes to upgrade this to A listed status, but as the law in Scotland stands cannot while there is a planning application.

This wouldn't be happening south of the border.

If this goes ahead, the building won't even be worthy of its B listing.

Coun Leader J Dawe in yesterday's Scotsman:

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Stop-denigrating-our-city.4620510.jp

"The people I spoke to understood that this is a city which cares about its heritage but is a living place open to quality development..."

This isn't quality, and it isn't caring about heritage.

Historic Scotland appears to be toothless. Alan Henderson clearly knows best.

And sadly, the councillors on the planning committee in the main know nothing and care even less about heritage and conservation issues, and will rubber stamp this through along with other dreadful decisions of recent times.

Yes, another hotel! Soon there will be nothing worth visiting Edinburgh for, it will consist of conference centres,hotels and office blocks.
6

Seb,

24/10/2008 12:57:34
Sheesh, you don't really think Alan Henderson actually makes the decisions do you?

Cockburn support the proposals as they think the restoration of the entrance, cafe and crush hall, along with the high quality of new build, compensates for the loss of the auditorium. The AHSS took a similarish position. It's not exactly a facade retention.

Never actually liked the auditorium. seemed really tacky.
7

Seb,

24/10/2008 12:59:01
HS can upgrade listings when there is a live planning application, they just don't like doping it. There's no legal obstacle.
8

Seb,

24/10/2008 13:02:03
that should read "doing it". Dope is what HS is on.
9

Buttress,

24/10/2008 13:12:20
I think dope is what much of Edinburgh planning is on.

A cinema without its auditorium isn't any longer very interesting, is it?

There's adaptation and there's ruination.

This is the latter.

It's a joke.

So if AH doesn't make those decisions - name names... his name is on the report, are you saying somone else is pulling his strings? Shurely that cannot be? All at the cooncil love their heritage, J Dawe says so. It must be true.

"The Odeon is, in the words of Historic Scotland, "an outstanding example of the work of the most famous British cinema specialists" WE Trent and JW Jordan. Originally with one large auditorium and a stage, fly tower and dressing rooms (making it suitable for live performance as well as film), the Odeon has been much altered and sub-divided over the years, but always with a view to full restitution to its original form at a later date. All Trent and Jordan's work lies intact under the later developments.The Odeon has everything the Filmhouse could wish for: the spectacular original auditorium for big Film Festival occasions, smaller auditoria for use outside the festival, a large cafe/bar, an imposing entrance for those red-carpet occasions, some development space, and a vibrant central location only yards from the Festival Theatre.

Forty years ago, Edinburgh created the infamous "hole-in-the-ground" for the opera house which would never be built, when the perfect location lay under everyone's noses – at the old Empire Theatre, eventually restored as the Festival Theatre.

Could history be about to repeat itself? Let us hope not.

The council planning committee will meet soon to discuss Duddingston's application. If refused, Historic Scotland is expected to upgrade the Odeon's listing from B to A grade (not possible while a planning application is pending), and provide a critical breathing space for Edinburgh's last big city centre picture house."

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opinion/Odeon-is-ideal-for-ci
10

Buttress,

24/10/2008 13:13:34
link in full:


http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opinion/Odeon-is-ideal-for-city.4481176.jp





11

Boy Wonder,

24/10/2008 13:14:39
The building has to be retained and turned into a performance centre!!!
12

Hmm?,

24/10/2008 13:22:47
Ah yes, yet another hotel. Clearly what edinburgh needs. It's not as if we didn't have a huge number of hotels already or anything...

Not to mention being overun with bloody tourists.
13

Seb,

24/10/2008 13:24:58
#2 "This building should be A listed it's importance to this city is high"

A listing requires national or international importance. Is it?
14

Dorian,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 13:25:21
Build the courtyard, with covered seating, then we can move the junkies and drunkies from Nicholson Square.
15

Buttress,

24/10/2008 13:26:19
Morally skint indeed.

I wonder when the hole in the ground created by the demolition of the bus garage for Caltongate will have anything done with it?

There is cash to landscape it, in the interim...

I note that EWH and CEC is to have a conservation statement drawn up for the Tron Kirk. I therefore presume the council hadn't so far bothered to consider its significance before passing the plans which it seems now won't be going ahead?

http://www.ewht.org.uk/Finding-a-future-for-the-Tron-Kirk.aspx

Well then Historic Scotland - if there is no real legal reason not to upgrade the cinema, I strongly suggest you do it... although of course your political masters won't like that. So you won't. You will keep your noses clean and your funding secure. Just like Caltongate.



16

Heartfelt,

EDINBURGH 24/10/2008 13:34:22
"PREVIEW SCREENING: How the courtyard will look if the hotel plans by DHP get the go-ahead"

No it wouldn't. Rose-tinted, enhanced, gaudily coloured, idealised & stylised by self-serving architects. It would be a dreary rain, tramp, p*ss & litter saturated dark & dank dead zone.

So there.
17

Buttress,

24/10/2008 13:36:32
And really - is that fine quality architecture I see, or another anyplace lump?

18

Buttress,

24/10/2008 13:41:50
Property WeeK;

"Bruce Hare is an Edinburgh architect who specialises in buying difficult buildings for conversion.

But even he may not have imagined the dramas that lay ahead when he bought the redundant Odeon cinemas in South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, and Renfield Street, Glasgow, in March 2003.

Two months later, Historic Scotland, the government’s conservation body, granted each cinema a category B listing, equivalent to a grade ll listing in England.

Hare runs Duddingston House Properties, named after the Edinburgh house where his architectural practice is based. Kwik-Fit founder Sir Tom Farmer is one of Duddingston’s financial backers..."

Kwik-Fit, eh?



19

Linmal,

Livingston 24/10/2008 13:42:50
I have many happy memories of the Odeon from when I was growing up in the City. I saw the sound of music, Nicholas and Alexandra and many more films I can't remember, there. But the highlight for me was seeing my hero - Cliff Richard there on several occasions. Once with Olivia Newton John in the early seventies. It is sad to see it in its present state of decay. It was a beautiful building inside and out but better to be demolished than to be allowed to decay and be remembered in this sad state. I wish someone would be brave enough to renovate it to its former glory as has happened at the Playhouse and the Festival Theatres.
20

Buttress,

24/10/2008 13:45:03
Worth looking at:

http://www.scottishcinemas.org.uk/edinburgh/newvictoria/index.html
21

Craigie Boy,

Carluke (ex Edinburgh) 24/10/2008 14:14:02
#4 is right. This could be Edinburgh's Carling Academy. Every other big city has one - why not Edinburgh?
22

Buttress,

24/10/2008 14:16:59
Why not Edinburgh?

Because you have an architect and developer who will make more money from a hotel scheme, and a council which is in thrall to developers who want to build them (and conference centres).





23

Delivery Boy,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 14:38:02
What a waste of a great picture house.

Used to stay just across the road from it and seen many great films and pop concerts there.
24

Jenny MacArthur,

24/10/2008 14:38:29
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The planning department hates Edinburgh's history and heritage. They hate tradition. They hate local idiom. They hate anything that real people love and which give us all identity.

The only thing these idiots care about is the latest faddish designs in international architectural journals. They would love nothing more than to demolish our entire city and build glossy people-hostile boxes cloned from the pages of their architecture-porn. Destroy everything local and traditional and turn Edinburgh into an identity-free megamall, in the hope the poor sad darlings might finally get their names into their architecture journals. Fire them before it's too late!
25

Captainofedinburgh,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 14:59:10
#24

I'll tell you why not Edinburgh. Because all in sundry would complain about it, that's why. This city is full of NIMBYs who want this that and the other done, but when it's proposed next to them suddenly crawl out of the woodwork to wail and moan about it. The old Odeon would make for a great gig/live event venue but it quite simply would never happen. It's smack in the middle of a densly populated area and the council would never grant it a licence.

It's very sad that this is just going to become another tacky facade retention with some bland old glass box behind it. And why ANOTHER hotel?! I'd love to see it renovated and either made into an Edinburgh Carling Academy or some other venue with the odd cinema screening. But Edinburgh being Edinburgh, no chance.
26

Buttress,

24/10/2008 15:20:30
I don't see that it would be much of a change of use, actually - both mass entertainment venues.

A very good re-use for a building of importance - retaining the auditorium.


27

Captainofedinburgh,

Edinburgh 24/10/2008 15:48:19
I'm sure it was proposed before in the early stages of this saga, but was thrown out as quickly as it was suggested. Which seems crazy to me. It would be a fantasic use of the building. And both cinemas and "dance halls" fall under the same use class (11), so that wouldn't provide a stumbling block. It would getting an entertainment and alchohol licence from the council. Which I doubt they'd be too enthusiastic about issuing.
28

Buttress,

24/10/2008 15:52:59
Of course not - another hotel is always welcome in Edinburgh(!!)

Bet that will get the licensing OK...
29

Seb,

24/10/2008 15:55:49
#28 is right. There is fierce local opposition to it being used for gigs or a nightclub. I have some sympathy. Talking of any place architecture - Art Deco is completely non contettual and the Hathernware tiles are an alien material. Bet the people that want to keep it would object if it were proposed now.
30

Buttress,

24/10/2008 16:01:02
But isn't the deco facade being kept?

It's a cinema, though, and the auditorium is important.



(The problems with a great deal being proposed and built in Edinburgh now is that basically it's not good... Quartermile, anyone? And yes I know who the architect is, it's still dismal.)
31

Sands,

24/10/2008 16:15:48
Remember as a child that beautiful sparkly ceiling, remember as a teenager seeing some of the best gigs ever, it is a part of our history
32

Seb,

24/10/2008 16:23:19
Yes, the Deco frontage, cafe and crush hall are retained but my point is that the criticism of "anyplace architecture" applies to a tremendous amount of architecture from Kallicrates to Adam to Foster.

If it's out as a venue for gigs, can Edinburgh sustain a 2008 seat independant cinema?
33

Seb,

24/10/2008 16:25:01
It should be noted that the conservation architect working on it is James Simpson. Wonder how he squares working on a project that invloves the destruction of historic fabric with such a high value...
34

Seb,

24/10/2008 16:31:25
Buttress, Herb Stovel (ICOMOS) had no criticisms of Historic Scotlands response to Caltongate despite being invited to by the Cockburn lecture audience.
35

roberto,

24/10/2008 16:34:38
is that morrissey on the wall in the picture?

edinburgh city council or whoever is involved should hold their heads in shame if this building gets knocked down
36

OscarDeutsch,

Glasgow 24/10/2008 16:39:33
I met with a few folk interested in buying the building for more sympathetic uses - one of the groups, headed by Dale Gibson and Grahame Wear, had the financial backing in place and made their intentions known to the planning department - but the owners of the building refused to sell. I get the impression the marketing campaign they ran was a box-ticking exercise, and any real expressions of interest were dismissed for vague and spurious reasons - unfortunately the council have taken it at the developer's word, despite Dale keeping them informed of his situation and his more than market value offer. The owners of the Rex cinema in Berkhamsted - who claimed only to find out about it a few days before the closing date for offers - so much for the building being marketed thoroughly! Do a websearch for the Rex in Berkhamsted and see what can be done with a building which was the subject of a lengthy conservation battle against demolition, which was eventually rescued after around 15 years of dereliction. Whatever your opinion of the auditorium of the Odeon, its loss WILL be seen as a huge mistake in the future.
37

OscarDeutsch,

Glasgow 24/10/2008 16:41:19
Sorry, gremlins crept in to the above post and lost the section where I said that the owners of the Rex Berkhamsted were interested too.
38

Buttress,

24/10/2008 16:41:30
I'm not Herb Stovel, and I think Historic Scotland's response was wishy washy in the extreme, (political pressure? Keen to show how it isn't 'holding the city back'? It's ok to allow 'lesser buildings' to be demolished, etc etc...) although it did in the end leave the final decision re demolition up to the investigative powers of CEC I believe?


But then I think Historic Scotland is an organisation with problems.

I can't speak for James Simpson - you'll have to ask him yourself.



39

Buttress,

24/10/2008 16:43:02
"unfortunately the council have taken it at the developer's word..."


No change there then!

As with Caltongate, 'all or nothing' etc etc....
40

Seb,

24/10/2008 16:43:37
Oscar, how much were DHP asking for it? I had a conversation early on in the process with a council planner who was v opposed to this proposal and they felt that they were asking too much to sell it on...
41

OscarDeutsch,

Glasgow 24/10/2008 16:44:37
Oh, and another thing I forgot to add - it's not strictly fair to criticise Simpson and Brown for their role here - they only compiled the conservation report, available to download on the council's planning website, which clearly identifies the auditorium as the most important element of this building, and suggests that its retention should be a priority in any redevelopment.
42

OscarDeutsch,

Glasgow 24/10/2008 16:47:38
Not sure if I'm at liberty to disclose exact figures, but DHP were offered a substantial 7-figure sum well above what the council considered the building worth, dithered for a bit, then said it wasn't enough. When asked what was enough, they got vague. Dale has a huge file of often bizarre and baffling correspondence about the issue.
43

Buttress,

24/10/2008 16:51:57
I believe that James Simpson (VP of ICOMOS-UK) has been very critical of Caltongate, and the demolitions.


Interesting stuff OscarDeutsch - maybe if enough fuss is made we could hope for a call-in?

Fat chance, I suspect. Developers rule in Edinburgh I fear. They know that there is little chance of opposition.


44

Seb,

24/10/2008 16:58:22
I'm lead to believe that S&B were very happy to work with MAKE on the project, in full knowledge of what was proposed.

I guess the only hope would be that at a presentation to the planning committee someone would be brave enough to reveal how much DHP were offered as they're purchase price will be a matter of record with RoS.

yeah Buttress, JS is a Johnny-come-lately to the Caltongate debate and he tried to get Herb to damn HS but failed. Herb thought that HS response was reasonable.
45

Buttress,

24/10/2008 17:00:54
I'm not so sure you are right, but I suspect that Herb Stovel had rather more sense than to damn HS in public, and before the UNESCO team arrives.



46

Seb,

24/10/2008 17:03:08
were you there???
47

Buttress,

24/10/2008 17:12:08
No, but Stovel isn't the UNESCO team, and UNESCO works with some diplomacy (having been invited by HS to visit...)

I don't actually much care what Stovel said about HS - Caltongate sucks IMHO. There is no excuse for the demolitions or tacky facade schemes.

The financial case was not made. Let's hope that the credit crunch does for that scheme.


48

Buttress,

24/10/2008 17:17:00
Two million was the purchase price?

http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?storyCode=3093017
49

Buttress,

24/10/2008 17:25:34
"I'm lead to believe that S&B were very happy to work with MAKE on the project, in full knowledge of what was proposed"

Can you back that up?

http://www.simpsonandbrown.co.uk/people/jarmstrong.html
50

OscarDeutsch,

Glasgow 24/10/2008 17:40:38
The conservation report was not yet finished when DHP presented the current plans at a small public consultation in the local area, and they were consequently submitted to CEC with no significant alterations after its completion - so its safe to say that the contents of the conservation report didn't really colour the outcome in any way - just another box ticked on the planning application checklist.

As essentially a hobbyist in the world of conservation, this building has taken up considerable amounts of my spare time in the last few years, so it's a bit galling that it's come to this, and there's much to be said that I can't say in a newspaper comments section, alas!
51

Buttress,

24/10/2008 17:46:09
In the end, planners tend to not bother to do the research, and as you say - another box ticked. Councillors haven't much idea, and some are positively pro-developers. Short sighted anfd ignorant.

And that's how we end up with a cr*p city and conservation is at the bottom of the heap. Unless there is a public inquiry, with opponents with deep pockets, to look at the details in depth, then sadly, developers win.

Worth asking for a call-in though... worth asking for a meeting with Historic Scotland too...


52

Think Tank,

24/10/2008 19:52:32
I suggest everyone reads the detailed report by the planning committee available on the council's website into the reasons why this was has been recommended for approval.

It's not as simple as saying- why not just restore the cinema hall and reopen it as a cinema/concert venue?

All these plans have been encouraged for coming on FIVE years now, and despite multiple expressions of interest, the simple fact is that nobody can make it a viable commercial venture within the constraints of the building.

I think it is a loss to Edinburgh, but there is also potential gain with the complete rejuvination of over half of the site.

Frankly it appears that Historic Scotland are once more behind the curve on this. Surprisingly (for once) the Cockburn Association appear to have recognised the pragmatic approach of the developers rather than living in a utopian make-believe land of multiple empty buildings and gapsites.

53

Buttress,

24/10/2008 20:31:56
Ah - Septic rears as usual, with the usual bile. I don't tend to actually place much faith in the City planning reports.

Seems to me HS is following accepted policy. Not much point in having policies if they are ignored.

It would be interesting and informative to know the full story, the one which included substantial offers being made to the developers. Maybe not all who have supported the plans are aware of the full story.

"A spokesman for heritage body Historic Scotland said: "We do not believe the current proposal represents an acceptable conservation strategy. The building is B-listed, may be of national significance, and its condition is fair.

"It remains possible that this level of intervention is the minimum necessary to prevent the building being lost altogether, but up until now we have not seen any information which demonstrates this clearly." "








54

Young Gordon,

The Shore 24/10/2008 21:41:50
ALL I CAN SAY IS, I WENT TO DUDDINGSTON HOUSE DURING IT'S OPEN DAY AND THIS GUY BRUCE HARE APPEARS TO BE A PERVERTED ARTY FARTY WANNABE ARCHITECT.

HE DISPLAYS OVERSIZED PHOTOS OF NAKED WOMEN WITH WIGS ALL OVER THE INSIDE OF THIS HOUSE, AND HE HAS PAINTED THE ENTIRE EXTERIOR OF IT IN SHABBY MAGNOLIA.

HE IS A FRAUD AND DESCRIBED AS 'ABHORRENT AND EVIL' IN HIS GUEST BOOK. GOD HELP THE FUTURE OF ANY BUILDING BOUGHT BY HIM.
55

Seb,

25/10/2008 00:31:36
lol while Bruce may have questionable taste in art he's not to blame for the exterior paint job.

Buttress, when you post personal information I'll give you verification that S&B are comfortable working with MAKE. They subscribe to the Cockburn's view.

While I don't think the planners or the committee always get it right I accept that they are balancing a complex set of issues. Your frequent black/white approach with such sweeping condemnation of HS and the planning department often come across as juvenile, which I'm sure you are not.

56

Seb,

25/10/2008 00:34:47
Just wanted to add that Think Tank may not toe the line you want but his post expresses no bile. I hope you engage with the planning process in a more contructive way that just through the sniping on the EN or attending the occasional SPABiS meeting.
57

Buttress,

25/10/2008 01:34:08
When I post 'personal information'? Why on earth should I??

Septic is a troll - a clever(ish) one I grant you, who pretends he knows far more than he does, but not one whose views I would endorse. His biliousness towards the CA has pretty much expressed over many posts. he simply follow me around being rather unpleasant. Bit odd, really.

Me, I'm on the side of the building. I wonder how much those who are 'comfortable' have actually gone into genuine alternatives to destruction?

BTW - I've never been to a SPABIS meeting. :-)

Juvenile? Well, I reckon you've been on the sauce. But I do think HS is right in this case. There are usually alternatives to destruction, it's just those with the alternatives tend to be rubbished as it's not in the interest of the developer to consider those.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Battle-declared-over-39unforgivable39-plan.3990640.jp

Who do you work for then Seb?







58

Buttress,

25/10/2008 01:43:45
Seb,17/04/2008 14:21:45
I like the way Make have retained the brick and pierced it with windows - horses for courses I guess.

8 more years of dispute and disuse would be unfortnunate - clearly no one else lives next door to it! Agreed that raising the debate is always good, as long as it doesn't result in stagnation.


You live next door Seb???

59

COLINTON.MAINS,

Oakville Ontario 25/10/2008 02:47:30
EDINBUGH,must.have,more,hotels..than.VEGAS.now
60

grantcat,

Old Town 25/10/2008 11:21:41
Edinburgh seems to be mad about hotels! Hotel this, hotel that. It's a bit like "Let them eat cake" syndrome, not enough social and affordable housing in Edinburgh but the Planning Department gets itself tied up with every planning application for a hotel and falls over itself to promote them. Has anyone noticed that the economy is shrinking and with peak oil on the horizon who are going to be staying in all these hotels?

Alan Henderson has proven that he has no vision - we need a city architect again, we need a planning department with competent town planners who also understand conservation and that concrete contributes to between 7-10% of CO2. There is no planning in the Planning Department - they need to be done under the trade descriptions.

Perhaps facadism is the only way to preserve the old Odeon however a façade is no longer a building - its a façade.

I suppose on this one Historic Scotland have not said "there are lots of cinemas in Edinburgh, losing one more won't matter" or done an economic report pointing out that it can be knocked down for economic reasons. Do we have another 1930s cinema/theatre/dance hall standing in Edinburgh?
61

Buttress,

25/10/2008 12:19:23
As far as I can see no real justification has been forthcoming for the demolition of the auditorium, if there have been sensible offers made which the developers have refused. I do know the saga/conservation battle of the Rex in Berkhamsted. That's still going strong. So this really should not be recommended by planning to be passed until there is no shadow of doubt. I can't think the Cinema Theatre Association will be pleased, I do wonder if the Cockburn Assocation was aware of the full details when it gave its support? I suspect that the scenario presented was that without this scheme the whole building would have to go, there was no alternative.

Of course there is an alternative, it's just it takes some work and some will to seek it out, and the planners simply aren't up to it. Astonishing that the conservation statement seems to have been simply ignored. Councillors in the main haven't a clue of the ins and outs of conservation policy. The move to allow Edinburgh Council to decide all B listing applications is going to be a bonanza for developers I fear, as it's obvious the council has no sympathy for heritage, and it seems little expertise.

Of course once the cinema has lost its auditorium, it will no longer be worthy of its listed building status.

How long before the other parts of the building are demolished in that case?

I agree with you grantcat - Historic Scotland's stance on Caltongate was a mistake, but let's not forget the expressed views of Malcolm Cooper who apparently told the Chamber of Commerce that it's OK to demolish 'lesser' buildings. It's not actually what conservation areas and listing was supposed to be about, but there you have it; scared to be accused of 'holding back' the 'economic progress' of the city. The loudmouths at the C of C (hand in glove with Mountgrange) have much to answer for. The fact that historic buildings can be sensitively adapted for re-use seems to have been forgotten in this. The fact that the gahastly Ca
62

Buttress,

25/10/2008 12:21:24
Cont

The fact that the ghastly Caltongate scheme is actually demolishing a sound listed building (and making mockery facade schemes of others) in use is pretty shocking, really. Sustainabiity? Not when there's a fast buck to be made.

No, nothing illegal, just immoral. No doubt they will all be justifying their stance to the UNESCO mission in November.



63

Seb,

25/10/2008 15:09:45
Grantcat, yes there is another '30s cinema in Edinburgh - The Dominion. But it's not an "atmospheric" cinema like the Odeon. The only other example of that in Scotland is in Campbletown.

64

Think Tank,

25/10/2008 18:12:31
#59

What a simply disgusting post.

I don't 'pretend to know more than I do', hence why I pointed out that I'd simply read the planning department's official document on the reasons for recommendation of the scheme. It's available for ANYONE to read.

Your statement that the developer has refused sensible offers to keep the cinema hall is just utter tosh. You have no evidence to back this up other than your utter obsession with conspiracy theories.

Heritage Scotland is a mockery of an organisation. As has been pointed out many times on this site, they are "inept and incompetent"- not my words but those of the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman. Once more, questions have to be raised as to why this building was only deemed worthy of Listed Status AFTER a developer was involved in it. I think most people would agree that it deserved it whilst it was still running as the Odeon Cinema at least.

I've been highly critical of the Cockburn Association previously and I believe with very good reason on other developments. However, I'm prepared to accept that for once they've taken a sensible line over this scheme.

And for the record, this is not a facade-retention scheme. For those that remember the old cinema hall, everything up to the main auditorium is being restored, including the old first floor cafe. Restoration is actually a huge part of the development.

But as I said on Caltongate and I'll say it again- new developments simply have to be commercially viable. There's no point sitting in a make-believe world where millions of pounds of private money is used to invest in restoration of buildings for 'community projects'.

Either put up the money yourselves, or stand for election on the basis of spending taxpayers money on building a public property empire.

I wouldn't hold your breath about getting your deposit back.



65

Think Tank,

25/10/2008 18:15:39
Oh and as for this 'odd' statement that I:

"simply follow me around being rather unpleasant. Bit odd, really."

Three words for you:

Delusions of Grandeur.



Quote from the planning sub-committee's report:

"Whilst there is a compelling argument to retain the listed building based on its existing condition, its architectural merits and its historic interest, the case for partial demolition and redevelopment of the building has been carefully considered against the heritage impact. On balance, it is considered that the applicants have demonstrated that the merits of bringing the remaining part of the building back into use, restoring its Clerk Street facade and the remaining interior, and creating an active frontage on both Clerk Street and Buccleuch Street justify the demolition of the rear section of the building."
66

Buttress,

25/10/2008 21:55:28
Really Septic?

Odd how many times you turn up AFTER I have posted stuff to be bilious.

Really more than a bit odd. In fact, obsessive. You've done it in the past to others.

Yeah - a compelling argument to retain.

Seems the case really hasn't been made economically, if someone has offered to buy at more than the going rate.





67

Buttress,

25/10/2008 22:37:48
Actually Septic - most of your post at 66 is the usual disgusting stuff, utter tosh, repeating so much which has been refuted in the past.

The 'inept and incompetent' statement was for ONE incident, and it's actually one which was rather less of an incident than the Ombudsman made it out to be, and it was one department of a large organisation. I belive HS did not agree with that,I also recall you calling HS 'corrupt', but someone must have complained and your post was removed, as so many are. It's only you who keep harping on. HS has altered its listing procedures. I have read the full report. Have you? Or just Brian Ferguson's report on it?

As Seb said when the incident was reported in the Scotsman:

"Seb,Pluto 21/12/2007 12:09:39
Correct Rob, it's the Planning Dept that give consent,HS just advise.

Mr White is an interesting man - vicious correspondant. You should read the letter with the planning application in whish he catalogues his grievances, climaxing in blaming HS for the death of a parent. Interestingly, the letter's been removed from the portal...

I believe HS erred, not in entering his property, but standing on his land."

Do you actually know when the building was listed Septic? Proof positive? Or going by a press report?

Whenever - listing is an ongoing process. But I'm sure you know that.

The main feature of a cinema is an auditorium. Same as a theatre. Take that away, and the context and meaning of the rest is gone. Historic interest gone. You may be able to look up a few things on the internet and post so it sounds like you have somne vague idea what you are talking about, but it's clear you haven't to anyone with mudch idea of historic buildings and conservation.

Oh sure - you've been critical of the CA, repeatedly, but without really the first idea of what you are talking about, and when challenged to provide facts you simply vanish for a while.

No-one is suggesting 'community projects' Septic - people are talk
68

Buttress,

25/10/2008 22:38:21

No-one is suggesting 'community projects' Septic - people are talking real, commercially viable projects. These are perfectly possible, juat takes the right developer. It happens all over the UK. You should get out more.

It seems that as far as the Odeon was concerned, serious people with a serious interest have made offers which have not been accepted. The reasons why would be interesting to know in depth. Until that is all thoroughly investigated (look up the Rex at Berkhamsted, talk to the CTA) then no financial case has been made for demolition. It's not even enabling development - it's just a ruse to build a hotel.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - you are a troll without the in depth knowledge and intellect to write anything useful.

"Your statement that the developer has refused sensible offers to keep the cinema hall is just utter tosh. You have no evidence to back this up other than your utter obsession with conspiracy theories."

Another long running piece of Septic's obsession. What conspiracy theories then Septic?

And what of the posts above telling of offers to the developer? Is that all 'tosh' also?


69

Buttress,

25/10/2008 22:59:04
By the way Septic the Edinburgh Odeon cinema was listed (mainly I believe because of the auditorium) on the 12th December 1974.

Described as 'an outstandinng example of the work of the most famous British cinema specialists'.
70

Buttress,

25/10/2008 23:14:16
Objection from the Theatre's Trust:

"The New Victoria is a large ciné-variety cinema constructed with a stage, fly tower and backstage facilities for live performance. The building is Statutorily Listed Category B, and described in the List Description as ‘An outstanding example of the work of the most famous British cinema specialists’. The Theatres Trust Guide to British Theatres, 1750-1950, edited by John Earl and Mike Sell (2000) lists approximately 50 Super Cinemas of the 1930s but only the Finsbury Park Astoria (Listed Grade II*) and the Brixton Academy (Listed Grade II*) survive with any significant interiors of an ‘atmospheric style’. The decorative internal scheme at New Victoria is particularly fine, featuring the muses of art, music and drama beneath a ‘blue plaster sky and twinkling stars’. And we understand that Historic Scotland is to recommend that the building be upgraded to A, something that The Theatres Trust has supported. The New Victoria is a landmark building within the town and as such it is something the Council should be keen to preserve.
We are therefore surprised by the referred plans as they include the total loss of auditorium and therefore object to the application in its current form on heritage grounds.
The Trust would point you to the advice of NPPG 18 Planning and The Historic Environment, paragraph 47, which states: ‘In all cases of demolition prior consideration should be given to the scope for recycling buildings which have clear historic or architectural significance. With respect to the demolition of listed buildings, it is Government policy that no such building should be lost to our environment unless it is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that every effort has been exerted by all concerned to find practical ways of keeping them……… All applications for the demolition of a listed building will need to be supported by a report on the condition of the building along with a feasibility study which explores the viability
71

Buttress,

25/10/2008 23:15:28
cont

of retaining the building in active use.’
Furthermore, the Trust is surprised that the marketing report submitted as part of the application is particularly concise. From the information submitted we remain unconvinced that the auditorium could not be restored and regenerated to provide an important heritage cultural venue for Edinburgh as part of a larger scheme.
We also understand there is local concern about the loss of this building for community benefit. It is important that needs of the local community are accommodated by the possible use of this building for entertainment and cultural activities. It would retain a sense of tradition and provide the community with a valuable facility. It is not part of our brief to suggest that the building must now be reopened and returned to strict theatre use but at the very least it should be possible to find an alternative cultural use that will preserve the rare architectural interior."

"In circumstances where the building’s main interest appears to be predominantly as a cinema, The Theatres Trust would refer you to the specialist expertise of the Cinema Theatre Association (CTA). We have seen the letter from the CTA (dated 09 February 2008) and endorse its objection.

To summarise, the Council should not be allowing the partial demolition of this important listed building for short-term gain. The New Victoria is one of Edinburgh’s cultural and architectural assets and one of the UK’s finest ‘atmospheric cinemas’. We are surprised that the Council are not ensuring that the building is retained as an important part of the town’s cultural and social history"

http://www.theatrestrust.org.uk/store/assets/0000/0835/20080311_Henderson_response.pdf
72

OscarDeutsch,

Glasgow 26/10/2008 12:58:35
Extract from the Cinema Theatre Association's original objection:

Marketing of the building: Success or Failure ?

The summary documents claim that “every effort” has been made to market the building
in its current form for a variety of potential uses. It also claims this marketing has been
unsuccessful, leaving as the only way forward the plan currently submitted.
However, examining in detail the evidence provided in Appendix F and H about those
people who have toured the building and attempted to buy it, it is clear that the marketing
of the building has in fact been very successful; it is only when interested parties have
attempted to actually agree a reasonable purchase price that there have been problems.
As noted in the letter from [City of Edinburgh Council's] valuation in Appendix J, the price requested by DHP
increased dramatically and unreasonably in a very short period of time; every time the
interested potential purchaser queried DHP, the price went up again. This very much
supports the idea that the owners are not wishing to sell, even if a reasonable and viable
offer was received. While the owners agents claim this valuation is too low, not taking
into account the planning permission for flats on the gap site, such a consideration would
not be relevant to those attempting to lease the building.
The Schedule of Interest of those persons who have viewed the building over the years
makes interesting reading as well; many people's interests are dismissed as 'Use not of
interest or appropriate' - but there is no information on what basis this value judgement is
being made: why is DHP making this determination? Not of interest to who?
Many also note that the 'Price offered was too low' - which appears to be something of a
running trend. There is lots of interest, until people try to actually buy; at which point DHP
claims the offer is too low.
Additionally, several applications have been made to let building for an (initial) period
73

OscarDeutsch,

Glasgow 26/10/2008 13:01:34
[cont.]

period of 12 months - e.g. the ‘Green Media Ent. Gp. ‘- who were refused as a 'short term let is not
viable'. Why not? Surely this is a good way to test interest in building for that usage, which allows
for the option to extend lease later if successful; if it’s not successful, then it helps make the argument for demolition.

Finally, it is odd that multiple occupier use is discarded by DHP as an option when several
different people express interest in different parts of the site for their differing needs!

Despite the suggestion from the provided timeline that by the September 2007 closing
date there was no interest in in the building for cinema use, and only one bid worth
following up on, the detailed information in Appendix H shows quite clearly the high level
of interest in the building.
In particular, one of the bids for a lease for the building is for Cinema use - from the
operators of the Rex Cinema in Berkhamstead. Personal correspondence with the people
involved suggests that they only found out that the Odeon was on the market around two
weeks before the September 2007 closing date - clearly the earlier marketing of the
building to potential cinema operators was not as thorough as DHP claim in their
submission.
This is also interesting because in several places in the planning submission, in terms of
interest of cinema use, DHP claim that there have been “no enquiries in 4 years” (e.g.
Planning & Design Statement, p. 40). Given other portions of the submission highlight the
interest of the Rex Cinema operators, surely this raises questions about other statements
made in the application about the lack of interest of other, more sensitive uses for the
building? In particular, compare and contrast the statement that “No formal offers
received to lease whole building” with the list of two such offers in Appendix H of the
Marketing statement.

74

OscarDeutsch,

Glasgow 26/10/2008 14:39:27
I'd forgotten till I reproduced the above stuff about the former Granada in Clapham Junction - again, derelict for many years, but the auditorium is now being restored with an imaginative enabling development of flats in the former stage space and over the roof - the restoration being part of the conditions of getting permission for the flats - this illustrates the huge difference in attitude between the planning authorities here compared to those in England, in my experience:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.jhtml?xml=/property/2007/10/18/lpcinemas118.xml
75

Buttress,

26/10/2008 16:19:58

Well, if this plan is passed on Wed I think a concerted effort by a number of groups is required to seek a call-in... I can't think it would stand up to legal scrutiny either.

I suggest that the CTA contacts HS with the details...

I presume the CTA national casework committee has been informed of the this Planning Report?

No idea what CEC is playing at. I won't suggest buff coloured paper thingys as Septic always chokes on that.

I like cinemas. I'm involved with another cinema rescue (ongoing). I cannot think that a building of this importance would be so readily ruined in England either.
76

OscarDeutsch,

Glasgow 27/10/2008 01:25:42
The CTA's national casework committee have indeed been informed, although it's largely in the hands of their overworked, handsome and entirely volunteer Scottish casework fellas ;-)

And an HS call-in will indeed be requested, a very reliable source informs me!

Be interested to hear about your cinema rescue, Buttress, indeed, our paths may have crossed in some way already - contact details at the website mentioned in #21!
77

Buttress,

27/10/2008 10:16:36
Well, I will do a bit of seeing who I can gee up today, also.

I don't think our paths have crossed, but I do know some on the national committee... ;-)



78

Buttress,

27/10/2008 12:34:24
Right - have done a bit of contacting others and I hope that some more national (ie UK) support will be forthcoming!
79

OscarDeutsch,

Glasgow 29/10/2008 13:12:49
My eyes and ears out east report that this was just granted, the vote was split 6-4.
80

Seb,

29/10/2008 17:53:48
Too bad. Should have hire Buttress as a sniper from the gallery to take the 6 out.
81

Buttress,

01/11/2008 23:16:39
Not a surprise.

The planning report was unbelievably inept.

Not much point really in bothering to have planning policies when they can be ignored.

Any indication of who voted for this?

82

OscarDeutsch,

Glasgow 04/11/2008 15:25:52
I know who voted against it - Councillors Childs, Burgess, Peacock and Hinds.

Apparently Eric Milligan was quite vocal in his support of the plans.
83

OscarDeutsch,

Glasgow 04/11/2008 15:27:22
Oh, and Cameron Rose voted for it, he explains why on his blog:

http://cameronrose.blogspot.com/2008/10/odeon-plan-approved.html
84

Buttress,

11/11/2008 11:59:29
Well no surprise there then!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

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.