Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 28th August 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

'Spaceship' is cleared to land



View Video
Download Video

Video

Watch a video walkthrough of the controversial hotel
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: 26 June 2008
WORK to build two new hotels alongside shops and offices at Haymarket is expected to get under way within months after councillors gave the go-ahead for the controversial scheme.
During a lengthy meeting yesterday, councillors voted ten-five in favour of the £200 million plans, which include a 17-storey five-star hotel that will be visible for miles around.

While some politicians said the flagship building is "world-class" and will enhance Edinburgh's skyline, local councillor Charles Dundas said it looked like "an alien spaceship dropped in from Doctor Who".

Final approval from Scottish ministers is still required, because the council has a financial interest in the land, but this is expected to be a formality – and developers hope to start work later this year, with the hotels and main office block finished by 2012.

However, local councillor David Beckett, who opposed the scheme, today urged his SNP colleagues at Holyrood to scrutinise the council's decision. Fears were also raised today about the future of Edinburgh's world heritage status, coming just days after another controversial project – the £300m Caltongate development – got the go-ahead.

Councillors at yesterday's meeting admitted that future generations would either "damn" them or "congratulate" them for their decision.

City planning leader Jim Lowrie said: "Redevelopment of this site will create the opportunity to introduce a variety of new uses into the area, such as leisure, business and commercial facilities, which will bring positive benefits to the city's economy."

John Nesbitt, managing director of developer Tiger Developments, said: "The Haymarket will be of immense benefit to Edinburgh by transforming a site derelict for 40 years into a vibrant new quarter."

Under the plans, the car park at the former Morrison Street goods yard will be replaced by the 192-bedroom five-star hotel, a neighbouring three-star 245-bedroom Travelodge, plus offices, shops and restaurants. Luxury chain InterContinental is to run the main hotel, which includes a swimming pool and bar at the top.

The Edinburgh World Heritage Trust and the Cockburn Association objected at yesterday's meeting. Speaking for the Cockburn Association, former Scottish Office landscape consultant John Byrom said: "The new high-building policy has the capacity to do untold damage to this city in promoting in effect a second-generation of (Edinburgh University's] Hume and Appleton Towers, buildings once considered good of their type, but now thoroughly discredited."

But architect Richard Murphy pointed out that the Cockburn Association also opposed the creation of what is now the Balmoral Hotel.

"Things that are new shouldn't necessarily be seen as threatening" he said.

Councillors have forced a number of conditions on the developer, including further consideration of the location of public toilets and the establishment of a stakeholder group with residents.

Maria Kelly, chairwoman of the Dalry Colonies Residents Association, opposed the plans and accused the developers of failing to properly consult with the community. Afterwards, she said: "The result was expected."

Hotel passes on penalties in shoot-out
IT was standing room only as councillors cast their votes on what is certain to be the most talked-about building in Edinburgh for decades.
Opinion was truly polarised as the planning committee meeting debated the 17-storey five-star hotel.

Twice it was described as "alien", only to be labelled "world-class" moments later.

A verbal football match ensued, each side trying to keep mic possession for as long as possible. Indeed, as

councillors began their own debate and each in turn revealed their position, it was just like a penalty shoot-out.

Local councillors Joanna Mowat and Charles Dundas gave the developers an early fright, before the support from Maureen Child and Elaine Morris levelled the score.

Lib Dem Gary Peacock's calls for refusal were countered by Lesley Hinds, only for Colin Keir to put the "no" camp back in the lead.

But it all became clear when Cameron Rose, Rob Munn and Eric Milligan threw their support behind the scheme, to be joined by convener Jim Lowrie who called the final vote. Result: ten-five.


The full article contains 677 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Foo,

ejinbara 26/06/2008 12:23:50
Needs more gargoyles in my opinion.
2

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 12:27:33
Tabloid nonsense. Grow up the lot of you.
3

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 12:28:08
Not you Foo.. It needs a rollercoaster round the top and a big neon flashing sign for booze.
4

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 12:32:26
"it was just like a penalty shoot-out in the euro 2008 competition except it was councillors and not footballerers, and it was about a building and not shiny trophy. People booed, pretty girls with flags on their faces in the crowd held their heads, as if praying for a miracle"

"Hurrah. the big building won"

"The building is 17 storeys tall. Experts said yesterday that people might only be able to withstand a few minutes at this height befor etheir head explodes"
5

The Chief,

26/06/2008 12:32:41
Another New St Andrew's House / St James centre.

Sad day.
6

alex paterson,

edinburgh 26/06/2008 12:40:41
Spaceship is cleared to land,lets hope so and maybe take this piece of trash back to outer space where it should be.
7

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 12:42:55
"The Big Building also won The Next Mary Poppins Contest and is set to record an album with that little Fey Guy from West Lothian who won a contest a few months ago. Remember him ? Oh well , never mind, another one will be along soon".
8

Logie Almond,

26/06/2008 12:43:35
It's worth noting that the members for the Central ward all opposed this application. It is very depressing to see Labour councillors supporting this application. No wonder the Labour party now has no councillors in the Central area where once it had six. Through support for this and "Caltongate", Labour appears to have abandoned the communities it once represented.
9

Billy the Fish,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 12:46:59
SHAME ON EDINBURGH CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSENTING TO THIS 17 STOREY SKYSCRAPER MONSTER ON THE EDGE OF A WORLD HERITAGE SITE.

Great to have a new development but what on earth do they think they're doing consenting to the height of this thing.

Oh well, there goes Edinburgh's historic skyline. Good on you Councillors.

Unless of course the the Scottish Government come to the rescue: Please restore some sanity to this mess.
10

Andrew Kent,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 12:52:02
If we are going to have 17 story hotels built could we at least get something that looks nice?

I see its the usual suspects on the council voting to approve this monster.

No surprise that is going ahead I guess though because they will be given another 4 million for there stupid tram.
11

Statsman,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 13:00:06
Disgusting. These immoral councillors have sold us down the river for tram money. The council tax payer is going to keep having to fork out large sums of money in the future for environmental fines due to this. We also get a hideous overly-tall building.

All so they can make a fast and easy £4.14m for trams.

Shame on you slimeball councillors! Shame on you!
12

Louis Catorze,

26/06/2008 13:03:08
If you have to fill a gap site by all means do so.

If you want to fill it with yet another turgid rehash of all that passes for modern architecture these days then do so if you must.

But please, please, don't pretend that it is "world-class" and will enhance Edinburgh's skyline.."

We may be electorally impotent, unable to change much, but for gods sake please don't take the p!ss out of us as well...
13

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 13:09:25
12 In all seriousness , i totally agree.

I dont like being lied to either.

BUt where do we think this is ? Ground Zero , downtown Frankfurt am Main or Sheikh Zayed Road , Dubai ? What did you expect - a Norma Foster ?

It's not, It's Haymarket. It's been a brownfield site for 40 years. A Car park, an ex Good Yard that has progressed not a jot since the railway was removed - 40 YEARS AGO.

To me , it's not a BAD building - and it certainly isnt a skyscraper.

It's still shorter than the cathedral. It will mean jobs, it will mean renovation of what is, in my book a very down at heel area.

If you dont like it , look on the bright side, these buildings arent meant to last forever.
14

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 13:10:11
I dont know who Norma Foster is either by the way , before you start on me.
15

Destroy the Planet,

26/06/2008 13:13:50
Its a pile o' mince
16

Statsman,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 13:15:05
14 The Genuine Mario Antoinette

Is someone paying you for this spam? The council perhaps?
17

Statsman,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 13:18:36
The only thing "World Class" about this development was the £4.14m inducement from the developers.
18

Louis Catorze,

26/06/2008 13:19:34
Yep...you're right Mario.

The site has to be filled. It's not like they're tearing down Georgian terraces like they once used to. At least we have moved on from that (it's just Victorian housing that tends to get it these days...)

But do architects not have any fresh ideas? Are they not embarrassed at the total lack of innovation in their field?

Concrete and steel frame, onto which is hung glazing and sandstone cladding. Chuck on a circular roof feature and you're almost done.

World class my ar5e
19

Bob 2,

26/06/2008 13:22:20
bizarre as someone commented, the owners of the "new town" buildings shown in the picture can hardly change the colour of there doors, never mind there windows.

Needing to keep there buildings in-line with surrounding buildings so as not to spoil the hertitage and keep edinburghs world hertitage site status intact.

Double standards, as some have commented, nothing to do with the £4.1m donation to the trams.

And Edinburgh needs more hotels !!!!!!!!!
20

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 13:23:57
Its not world class. BUt I live in the land of lego - holland. It's not a bad thing at all. I actually believe that statsman. Nobody in Edinburgh seems to mind all the grey depressing tenement buildings most of which are only 100 years or so old.

I'd be up for tearing those boggers down.
21

Concerned Citizen,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 13:31:00
It is pointless having any planning consideration in Edinburgh if the City Council can be bought and the local people concerns ignored. Very sad day for Edinburgh and the people of Haymarket.

The buildings looks just "world class" awful.


22

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh (Looking towards the future and not bogg 26/06/2008 13:36:21
#19 Bob 2

"bizarre as someone commented, the owners of the "new town" buildings shown in the picture can hardly change the colour of there doors, never mind there windows."

Well Bob, that's 'conservation' for you (or perhaps consipation would be a better description).

This new hotel will fit in well with the other modern buildings in the general area, e.g. the ICC in Morrison Street, Standard Life, the Clydesdale Bank in Lothian Road, etc.

Who knows, perhaps these poor souls in the New Town houses shown may eventaully be allowed to paint their front doors in colours they would prefer, rather than the colours dictated by the Local Authority and associated 'groups'.

I hope that this building and the new Caltongate project herald many new and stimulating developments in Edinburgh.

Long live Freedom of Choice!!

23

Statsman,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 13:40:08
21 Concerned Citizen

The stewardship of Alan Henderson has been a disaster. This is one of his final insults to the city. He has just persuaded councillors to defecate on Haymarket.
24

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 13:43:38
Very refreshing from you Peter and I mean that in a nice way.

All the best cities arent static or Museum pieces. Perhaps we might join them one day.
25

Scotish Exile,

26/06/2008 13:43:54
#23

come on, Haymarket is a bit of a sh*t hole anyway
26

20something,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 13:45:57
YAY!
27

Rap,

Haymarket 26/06/2008 13:46:17
#22
paid any real attention to the site? How does the 3* hotel compare to any you listed? Still think all things new are wonderful?
28

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 13:52:15
Okay, It's not built to last , it's reasonably pleasing on the eye. It won't win any awards but if you light it up properly it will look quite pleasant and calming in the evening.

It's the times we are living in. Unless you are the centre of the universe, unless you can afford something stunning that makes a statement -

you will get Ikea.
29

alex patersons English teacher,

26/06/2008 13:58:18
A 17 storey building eh.

Yesterdays one and todays, 15 to go then.
30

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 14:04:01
29

Bay !
31

eric,

lothian 26/06/2008 14:12:06
Glasgow is building several of these buildings and it doesnt look out of place .but this we will regret in edinburgh.it looks ugly.
32

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 14:13:08
#20 The Genuine Mario Antoinette

"Nobody in Edinburgh seems to mind all the grey depressing tenement buildings most of which are only 100 years or so old."

Indeed Mario, many/most of Edinburgh's older buildings are in a very dirty and unclean state, one of the reasons why I have always queried Edinburgh's 'right' to be a WHS.

But I also feel that many of the 'heritage' and associated groups are really acting to defend the vested interests of business/property owners in (for instance) the New Town. These people may feel that any modernisation might adversely affect their property values, etc. and hence are doing their best through apparent 'conservation' activities to prevent/slow down progress in Edinburgh.
33

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 14:17:17
How about a big Gailporteresque poster of Jenny Dawes bare behind embossed onto it.
34

I love to eat Sellotape,

26/06/2008 14:18:25
I don't see the "spaceship" thing at all. What kind of films feature 17-storey hotels flying through the air?

Answer if you dare, lackeys!
35

Craigie Boy,

Carluke, South Lanarkshire (ex Edinburgh) 26/06/2008 14:19:03
Other British cities are putting up buildings twice this height and very imposing and impressive they are too. Look at Liverpool's new skyline at the waterfront as seen from the Mersey - no-one could possibly say that their new skyscrapers detract from this well known and classic view of their city - and, their waterfront is a World Heritage Site. Edinburgh must move with the times instead of relying on the old shortbread tin image.
36

Rap,

Haymarket 26/06/2008 14:20:18
You feel wrongly Peter. Property prices will go up with the trams and a redeveloped car park. The issues if you really paid attention was not that a development should go ahead (everyone agrees it should) but the quality of the development. Why should we expect anything but the best for one of the best cities in the world?
37

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 14:23:45
(cause its not one the best cities in the world)

sorry , but one day you will have to accept it.
38

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 14:25:47
Wait until you see the waterfront hotel.. jeezoo..

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=46190

Ok i promise to shutup now.
39

I love to eat Sellotape,

26/06/2008 14:27:02
"Edinburgh must move with the times instead of relying on the old shortbread tin image."

Edinburgh has an image of a tin of shortbread? That's bizarre.
40

alex patersons English teacher,

26/06/2008 14:32:32
34
im brave enough, hear goes then... lackeys!

do i win a prize.
41

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 14:39:46
Its true .. Have a look at this picture from goggle maps

http://www.kinnairdbagpipes.com/imagethumb.php?s=product_image/shortbread%20finger%20tin.jpg

42

Rap,

Haymarket 26/06/2008 14:53:19
#37
Those of who live in Edinburgh because we do think it is one of the best cities in the world are entitled to try and and ensure it stays that way. which does not mean stopping new development, just doing a due dilligence check on what is proposed. That's hardly a wild and wacky idea. If you don't think Edinburgh is one of the best cities in the world, fine, then do as you do and live somewhere else. No-one is forcing you to agree or live here. But your argument holds a lot less weight if you don't rate the city as it is and won't be affected directly by these new developments.
43

I love to eat Sellotape,

26/06/2008 15:05:41
Mario, that URL just shows an image of a biscuit tin. What does that have to do with Edinburgh?

You disappointment at times.
44

I love to eat Sellotape,

26/06/2008 15:05:58
No, "You disappoint me at times."
45

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 15:11:22
42 I love edinburgh Rap but I'm under no allusions about it.
46

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 15:14:09
Or illusions.
47

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh (Appears to think it's majestic) 26/06/2008 15:21:03
#36 Rap,

"Why should we expect anything but the best for one of the best cities in the world?"

Frankly Rap, because this is just Edinburgh and beggars can't be choosers.

A 'better' development would mean greater expense and very probably you would not find developers prepared to spend huge amounts more than that quoted here. As has happened so often in the past, the site (often derelict) is simply sold around to various 'investors' This, of course has never happened in Edinburgh (and the band played on).

The proposed building looks fine, time for 'heritage' groups to stop kidding/deluding themslves and long overdue for Edinburgh to move with the times.
48

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 15:23:32
het smot iptomrant hting is ot be uderstoudned and not nrecesailry to spell crecotrly
49

Rap,

Haymarket 26/06/2008 15:29:12
Peter,

Do you think that if policies have been laid down (whether they laws of the road, planning polcies or immigration laws for example) anyone should be allowed to ignore them without justification (Just a Yes or No will do here).

And why on earth should a better development cost more? You are buying into a developers tale of woe now. This block had a height of 12 storeys until intercontinental came along and demanded 180 bedrooms. so, it went up 4 storeys. So, it was a viable development once at 12 storeys, but because a hotel chain came and offered money the architect changed his design. So, don't believe that design costs money - in this case they changed the design to make more money for themselves!

And "just Edinburgh"? With that attitide it's no wonder you'll accept the first thing offered to you, and you deserve it. Aim higher!
50

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 15:33:49
....and be eternally dissapointed Rap.

I really will shut up but i assure you i am trying to help here.
51

Foo,

ejinbara 26/06/2008 15:45:47
Can no one else see, it's exactly the same as Scottish Widows Bank!

Saying that, it's not bad. I quite like the EICC across the road from SWB, at night all lit up and looking sexy, it's not bad.

Defo a few more gargoyles required though, and as mario said, the roller coaster thing with the bare bahookie...
52

dba,

Near Haymarket 26/06/2008 15:57:07
Gentlemen,

Some small but extremely important points:

1: The view of the nearest residents to this monstrosity were taken...AND THEN, SURPRISE, SURPRISE TOTALLY IGNORED! (So much for LOCAL democracy and community participation).
2: NONE of the 'honourable Coucillors' who voted in favour actually live within sight of the proposed monstrosity... (I suspect the plan would have been dramatically rejected were that so).
3: The long term and established policy of restraint and multi-lateral consultation and debate has been ignored and changed by 'dictat'. The officials are paid to SERVE the best interests of the citizens NOT that of developers.
4: There are enough shops, offices AND HOTELS in the area - NO-ONE has, to my knowledge, surveyed the traffic predictions when all of the new buildings are up and trading...it's mayhem now...by that time it will have decended into utter chaos.
5: The 'donation' of £4 Million pounds towards the tram system is so breathtakingly blatant as to border on what was that word again?....oh yes a BRIDE! (Surely the Scottish Audit Office and Lothians and Borders Police should be looking at this)
6: The Scottish Government should call in this whole application and YES - HOLD A FULL INDPENDENT AND PUBLIC INQUIRY where ALL parties (Especially the local residents within a two mile radius be represented at the Council's expense and their REAL views heard.
The strong smell around Haymarket is NOT originating from the allegedly notorious toilets but rather the Planning Committee who would appear to have betrayed the city they were elected to represent. Take due note Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council - come the next election this project could become your political obituaries.
53

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 15:58:07
40 years its been empty Rap, 40 years. How long are you prepared to wait for a world class company to site its headquarters here ? Or for Tate Modern to decide to locate a branch here ?

How long ? And what exactly are you "protecting" ? The toilets ? The Car park ? This is outside the world Heritage site, far enough away from the New Town and will be about the same height as the Balmoral.

Cmon. Please. For your own health. Lighten up.
54

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 16:02:21
52 The council already sold the land to Tiger developments , or O'Flynn if you prefer - for about 50 Million a few years ago.

The donation isnt A BRIbE, its already been clearly stated that local developments would be expected to pay towards the cost of the trams as the Waterfron development will be doing too. Is that a bribe ? Or would you prefer they didnt take any money off them and took it off you ?

Cannae win.
55

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 16:09:57
#49 Rap,

I certainly think some laws need re-examination and revision (particularly planning legislation).

May I make the point that planning submissions for this development must have been made on at least two seperate occassions and were accepted by the Planning Department both times (presumably).

As for: "no wonder you'll accept the first thing offered to you" I assure you I do not work for the planning department, the developers, nor anyone else associated with this project. I simply think this building looks fine and indeed is very 'space age'. By comparison, the street pictured (Grosvenor Street?) looks dirty and depressing (as it nearly always does), its inhabitants will soon get used to this new structure and will probably be unaware of it a few months after it has been erected.



56

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 16:26:59
Hopefully it wont spoil the view of those illustrious Haymarket establishments -

Dianes Pool Hall
The Spiders Web
Bobbies dirty bookshop...

57

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 16:36:57
#56 Mario,

I am sure the hotel will be in a position to allow some of its guests a unique view of these 'honoured' establishments.

More importantly it will bring about the removal of what must be the smelliest and dirtiest public toilets in Edinburgh and will also end the small area of 'wasteland' (the bit inhabited by drunks and junkies) at the Haymarket/Dalry Road intersection.

58

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 16:48:35
i dont think they will be able to see Bobbies Dirty Books as they are in a wee bit behind a curtain.

Or at least they used to be. Is this still the case Peter ?

:P
59

Neale,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 16:56:07
I'm sure this can still be stopped. Who in their right minds wants to see a 17 storey building plonked into Haymarket, only a few hundred yards away from the West End and visible from every viewpoint. This will literally tower over all of the existing buildings by a long way. So what if part of the land was brown-field, it does not mean that just anything is an improvement, far from it. When did it become a free for all to land grab upwards into the sky? When other cities are tearing down tower blocks – for that is what it is – our pathetic Council are approving them. I’m sure Richard Murphy Architects only put down the height of this building at 17 storeys as a first negotiation, expecting it to get reduced down to 6 but the Planners said just go ahead. Not to mention the poor lacklustre design which ruins this part of our city and makes me fear for the rest of this huge development site.
60

Rap,

26/06/2008 16:58:10
Mario,
You really do not need to worry about either my disappointment or my health.

If Haymarket has waited 40 years for the redevelopment of that site, it could have waited 41 for the *right* one. The proposal that EDI made was seen as a workable solution - hence the planning approval. That was several years ago, so it hasn't been sat completely untouched for 40 years (you are believing Tiger's hype now!). Only half the site was proposed for development because someone had the foresight to hold back incase a tram depot was needed there, which had been mooted, but not needed as it went out to Gogar.

Now, Tiger come along with a more profitable plan and you bite their hand off! Why is *this* plan the right one? Why couldn't the committee send them away to think again? Tiger want to make money and didn't want to build the plan that originally had approval (greed) so came up with another one that didn't pay any attention to the CELP or other planning policies (arrogance). And we, the residents should have to put up with it?

Perhaps I'm an idealist but that's not a bad place to start when loking at a city's planning issues. Better than always expecting the worse, then you'll get it.

61

Old Town Resident,

edinburgh 26/06/2008 17:03:58
another nail in the coffin
R.I.P. Edinburgh
and the council this week put a stop to the Canongate Street Party this Saturday as they only decided to tell the organisers on Friday that an Orange March was assembling on the same street on the same day?
www.eh8.org.uk
62

Rap,

Haymarket 26/06/2008 17:06:46
Neale,
I actually agree with two of the Cllrs who rejected this plan - they liked most of the development and even liked the design of the Tiger Tower and felt it should be even taller. It would only appear elegant if taller, and less likely a stumpy dalek. However, whilst the bulding has the potential to look good if taller, it will never look good in Haymarket, so that's why they rejected the plan. It wouldn't have looked good cut down by a couple of floors.

Tiger are keen to make money and implied that they could only keep Intercontinental involved if there were 180 rooms. Blackmail? But there are a lot of other 5* hotel chains and other hotel designs. And let's not forget this is not just about one tower block, it's the design of the whole site, and how it functions day to day. And that does include smelly loos, the halving of car park facilities (and an implied increase in parking prices to deter commuters), an increase in wind tunnelling in Morrison St, 30 residents having their living rooms and kitchens affected by a reduction (and in one case loss) of sun.
63

Billy the Fish,

26/06/2008 17:27:50
Scottish Government:

Please intervene and stop this monstrous skyscraper from blighting Edinburgh's West End for the next 100 years.
64

Rap,

Haymarket 26/06/2008 17:30:00
Billy,
I doubt the Government read this website. Contact your MSPs and ask them directly! Please!

65

,

26/06/2008 17:39:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
66

Billy the Fish,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 18:54:22
#64 Rap,

Good idea about writing to the MSPs.

How does it work? Do the MSPs themselves get to influence this or is it a specific Government committee?

I think there should be a development on this site, it's just the height of this skyscraper that is so insane.
67

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 26/06/2008 19:01:57
Out of interest, did any of you moaning minnies actually lodge an objection to this planning application ?
Odds on that none of you bothered. So why moan now AFTER it has been given planning consent ?
Armchair critics, the lot of you !
68

Rap,

Haymarket 26/06/2008 19:01:59
Billy,
I also think there should be a development on this site, and also think the height of the tower block is *one* of the main problems of this development.

I'm trying to find out what the process is (ie through a committee or not) through my Councillors who were very anti-tall tower block. And to find out timescales, as I could just see this being rushed through some how. If I saw a well reasoned argument for the whole development, with any variations from the Council's own policies justified in detail (which the planning officer did not do) then I guess I could accept it. But without that due process I feel cheated. I would hope this may be argument enough for MSPs to review the whole process more thoroughly.

If I get any news on what will happen and when I can post info here if you want?
69

Rap,

Haymarket 26/06/2008 19:05:47
You know what Roadraga, I was one of the 37 who did object. I talk the talk and walk the walk. But, I do have to wonder why bother if the planning committee paid no attention to any of the letters directing them to their own planning policies. And, having seen the three groups who presented pretty much dismissed (did anyone follow up that forged photo from the residents group????) it does leave you cynical of the whole planning process. OK? Even John Lewis (whose letter was listed as support) questioned the retail aspect of the site.
70

Billy the Fish,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 19:41:58
Rap,
Thanks. Yes - please post any info on this thread.

#67 Road Raga - too right, I objected. Both my wife and I sent letters to the Council. Thing is, if they're so thick that they cleared this plan, then I'm not sure now that Edinburgh councillors can even read.
71

Buttress,

26/06/2008 20:03:02
22 Peter - in truth you really have no idea about what 'conservation' means in the widest sense I have come to the conclusion.

As for 'associated groups' - any restrictions on paint colours and anything else is down to the councl, not anyone else.

And 'space age'? Oh dear. Did you think the same of the St James' centre too?

As far as the Cockburn is concerned - what they objected to re the Blamoral was the initial height of the tower, which they felt would conflict with views of the castle, and it was reduced in height. So if Murphy really said that, it was an outright lie. This is within the buffer zoenof the WHS, and will intrude on views, which should be protected. It's an ugly, ugly lump.

EWH objected - as indeed it should, as this is too high and not at all world class, but Edinburgh councillors would not know world class if it fell on them. Lowrie in particular should now be called on to resign - he sits on the board of the council-sponsored EWH, and has gone against the decision by his own Directors over both Caltongate and now this. He is a disgrace to his position,

On the Edinburgh World Heritage website is Dawe's speech about the city for World Heritage Day, as indded is the management plan.

http://www.ewht.org.uk/World-Heritage-Day.aspx

Politicians? Don't make me laugh.
72

Buttress,

26/06/2008 20:07:00
I add - as I have on another thread about this - that although Alan Henderson is retiring, I belive his report, where he stated, although the council sponsored EWH disagreed, thet this would 'enhance' the WHS, should be subjected to wider scrutiny regarding his decision making, His comptetency should be called into question. It seems that CEC simply accepts all a developer and its hired hands tell it.

73

Buttress,

26/06/2008 20:09:41
Also - please everyone- look at post 61 - is this incompetence or malice?

This is part of the Old Town Festival, and many looked forward to it. But it's that pesky lot who opposed the Caltongate scheme...


www.eh8.org.uk
74

Buttress,

26/06/2008 20:16:03
And Peter - suggest also that you really, really have not a clue about World Heritage Sites. Before making any further public pronouncments, I suggest you do some research, both about WHS (dirt has nothing to do with the 'universal values') and I also suggest you actually talk to the various conservation groups in the city. You might be enlightened.
75

Buttress,

26/06/2008 20:20:16
35 - there is a great deal of concern regarding the tall buildings at Liverpool, which are also not of fine quality in many cases, and the WHS status.
Also - one WHS is not another - they are all inscribed for different reasons, Do some research,
76

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 26/06/2008 20:54:11
My point is this 69 & 70, people objected which is their right, and the planning committee made a balanced decision based on ALL the facts before them, and voted for the development. This is clearly not the answer you wanted, but why don't you accept the democratic planning process ?. If you feel there has been some sort of miscarriage of justice then complain to the ombudsman. At the end of the day, if every development was stopped because there were x number of objections, nothing would get built !. And I would remind you that quite a few developments DO get refused for genuine planning reasons. But not this one.
I have looked at the plans and in my humble opinion feel this will be a good scheme for Haymarket.
77

Statsman,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 21:08:04
76 Road Raga

There were 4,140,000 reasons why this was a good scheme for the council.
78

Concerned Citizen,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 21:19:36
76 ,Where is the balanced decision process where the council is out to gain £4.1 million what ever develop ugly development is built ? We can not ignore this conflict of interest?

There were a number of substantial objections lodged against this development. Both Community Councils - West End and Gorgie & Dalry, who are statutory bodies, were ignored. They represent the area and have the duty to gauge local peoples opinions. Ignored because the council could rake in £4.1 Million from the Developers.
79

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 26/06/2008 21:24:05
Ok 77, if you feel the planning committee was bribed then complain to the ombusman.
My view is that the Council should be PRAISED for getting a big contribution towards the trams from a international developer. A wasteland of a site gets hotels, offices, shops etc with a lot of great public space, and the City of Edinburgh benefits to the tune of over 4 million pounds. A win win situation in my book. Planning gain I think it is called.
I assume you would prefer if the scheme was granted and nothing was paid ?
80

Concerned Citizen,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 21:30:44
77, why have a planning committee , just sell planning permission to the highest bidder regardless of the suitablilty or the feelings of the local people.

Yeh , Why not just sell permission on Ebay for the highest price and don't pretend to consult the local people ? !
81

The Geniune Mario Antionette,

26/06/2008 21:47:19
#20 - you do not live in the land of Lego, which is Denmark & not holland. Ps - By the way, you live in cloud cuckoo land. Lost your bairns ?
82

Munter,

Musselburgh 26/06/2008 22:00:36
How many more hotels does Embra need fuxache ?
The council appears intent on carrying on the last Labour administration's vision of the centre of town as a theme park.
An economy based on stag and hen nights and Festival visitors.
It's a sh**te state of affairs and all the fresh air in the world isn't going to change it.
83

g3lcs,

edinburgh 26/06/2008 22:00:41
Are the architects aware that the railway runs under the proposed site?
Can they erect a building of this size and weight without damaging the tunnel underneath??
Some years ago developers backed out when they found out about the tunnel.
Will the builders be able to get insurance against destroying the tunnel and the potential disaster of loss of life if trains are wrecked??
Let's hear an answer from the developers.
Gogs
84

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

26/06/2008 22:59:21
83 I would have thought so. They spent 50 million on the land. ffs etc You lotare really clutching at straws now.
85

Buttress,

26/06/2008 23:04:13
Oh I dunno. Trump bought a whole heap of land without realising there was a SSSI and that folks had the right to roam...

It's not unknown for developers to drop a sperical object in these matters.

Waht annoys me is how Henderson gets away with saying this enhances the WHS - that's more spherical objects, and at a call-in (which won't happen - this is Embra where anything goes, maybe someone could mount a legal challenge?) it would be useful for him to have been cross-examined over that.

86

Statsman,

Edinburgh 27/06/2008 01:07:46
84 The Genuine Mario Antoinette

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4639671.stm

Silly things happen.
87

Statsman,

Edinburgh 27/06/2008 02:23:05
79 Road Raga

This is legalised corruption. The sums of money involved (£4m+) appear to be unprecedented. This isn't like other developments where a couple of hundred thousand is handed over. In this case, over £4m of funding was available to the council for a 'Yes' vote. That's a huge sum of cash.

Not only that, but there is a black hole of funding in the Tram Phase 1b that the council have stated they will find via developer contributions. If not, it will come out of our council tax - a deeply unpopular move with the general public.

That is a conflict of interests right there. It may be legal but it stinks. You know it and I know it.

It's deemed legal in the US to torture children by crushing their testicles with pliers: http://youtube.com/watch?v=hz01hN9l-BM Do you agree with this practice too just because it is deemed 'legal' in a jurisdiction? I sincerely hope not.

Councillors should not be voting on a development when a 'Yes' vote can help get them out of a political pickle. It's one thing when planning gain is used for improving the amenity of local residents. It is quite another thing when it coincides with political expediency and necessity.

There really needs to be a level of planning gain, say £500,000, that when exceeded means the project has to go to a public enquiry. The system is a sham otherwise.
88

Buttress,

27/06/2008 10:12:10
Another sham appears to me to be the pictures shown in this paper - the thing looks positively benign, when in reality it will dominate - 17 storeys. What a legacy for Alan Henderson, eh? A hotel lit up at night dominating the skyline. His career must all have been worthwhile.

How long before the calls come to demolish it?

89

Goat Boy,

27/06/2008 11:44:31
I think the term "bribe" is probably a bit strong and using could land you in deep water when used in the wrong place. However, a "contribution" that will help the Council out of a very deep hole (the Tram) is likely to win quite a few friends in high places, and I suspect that we will be seeing a few more "contributions" in the future.

90

Bring Back Poll Tax,

27/06/2008 13:06:18
The only thing that I object to is the use of a meaningless phrase like "world-class" - no doubt it's also "sustainable"........
91

Buttress,

27/06/2008 13:46:36
as well as 'iconic'.

92

Goat Boy,

27/06/2008 18:19:34
CITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
DEVELOPMENT QUALITY HANDBOOK

High Buildings
& Roofscape

“New development, which by reason of its height is likely to have an
adverse effect on the historic skyline of the city or on views into or out of
the centre, including landmark buildings and the traditional roofscape will
not be allowed.”

http://download.edinburgh.gov.uk/DQ_Guidelines/High_Buildings.pdf

93