Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


MSPs urge Holyrood to call in plans for Caltongate

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.

Sign In
Register
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: 27 February 2008
THREE Lothians MSPs are urging ministers to take a closer look at the controversial Caltongate proposals.
They say the £300 million plans to redevelop a large area of Edinburgh's Old Town should be called in for further consideration.

Green MSP Robin Harper wants ministers to order a public inquiry into the scheme, while SNP backbencher Shirley-Anne Somerville and independent Margo MacDonald say the plans must be given more scrutiny, whether that means an inquiry or not.

Councillors approved ten out of the 12 applications which make up the project at a stormy eight-hour meeting earlier this month.

Because the council has a financial interest in the scheme – it owns the archways in Market Street – it has to be notified to ministers.

A Scottish Government spokesman said they would decide in due course whether to hand it back to the council or call it in to determine themselves.

A spokesman for developers Mountgrange said the consultation process on Caltongate had been going on for four years and claimed a majority of residents who had expressed a view were in favour of the project.





The full article contains 193 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

,

27/02/2008 10:55:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Old Town Resident,

edinburgh 27/02/2008 11:57:41
The council has a bigger fiancial interest than article suggests, the land deal which is under investigation includes common good land, the Canongate Venture, 9 council properties which are in The Macrae Tenements on the Canongate. Mountgrange say that they will only complete deal if council gives them full planning permission.
And although Mountgrange may have owned the former bus depot site for four years, the public only knew of the plan in October 2005, so only over 2 and half years, and as for consultation, well 30,000 dvds is not consulation. Only around 700 folk responded to their biased mori poll, whereas there were 2000 objections and thousands have signed the petition.

see more facts at www.eh8.org.uk
and www.independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com
3

awfyvexed,

CANONGATE 27/02/2008 12:38:52
Mountgrange are misleading us when they state that most of the old town residents are in favour of this development.
We are in favour of development,of course we are, but not this one in it's present form.
The number of objections to their plans would indicate this.
Not that that mattered to either Mountgrange or the planning committee.
A Public Enquiry HAS TO take place.
So come on aw yeuse..if you've got the time to send emails to this organ,you've got time to rattle wan oaf tae the Sco'ish Ministers an' tell them you want a Public Enquiry!!
4

alex paterson,

embra 27/02/2008 12:49:41
Mountgrange are a bunch of overbearing idiots.
5

,

27/02/2008 14:59:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

Buttress,

27/02/2008 15:21:35
The number of those who said they were in favour was I believe fewer than 400.

Apart from Historic Scotland, whose stance on this is a national disgrace and requires some scrutiny, conservation organisations are united in opposition.

This includes Edinburgh World Heritage Trust, the Cockburn Association, AHSS, ICOMOS UK and SAVE Britain's Heritage.


Addresses to write to are on the website:

www.independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com







7

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 27/02/2008 16:01:02
Consultation ? Every one objects out right to three versions of the proposals by mount grange, the councils answer at this point should be "Your applications have failed the criteria, good day. NEXT!!!"
This should be closely followed by the council having their wrists slapped for daring to sell the common good land.
8

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 27/02/2008 16:02:09
6 Historic Scotland are an english colonial body.

9

Buttress,

27/02/2008 16:04:43
Englsh Heritage would not support plans such as this as HS has done.

10

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 27/02/2008 16:23:50
Have they not recalled them yet. We're wating...............................................................
......................................................
11

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 27/02/2008 16:29:05
Here it is, get the counter-productive reactionary types in to the front line, lets get some hard headed CALM talker to present a fully detailed proposal for the NewSt-NorthBack-MagdelenesWay Site, pulled together by donations by the front line, THEN we are in a real position to change things that are Edinburgh in style, curios, closes and dwellings.
12

Sheep Worrier,

In the Time Warp 27/02/2008 16:32:02
I'm sure I saw the same comments being made in the last Caltongate story.

And the one before that

And the one before that

And the one before that

And the one beofre that

And so on and so forth.
13

,

27/02/2008 16:39:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

Buttress,

27/02/2008 16:57:08
The story is recycled, and so are Mountgrunge's comments... so let's keep telling it like it is.

The blog is updated daily with news.

15

Marian,

27/02/2008 17:46:05
According to the Sunday Times of 24 February 2008, “the Company behind the controversial Caltongate development in Edinburgh's historic Old Town paid £4,000 to sponsor a champagne reception at a Labour fundraising dinner. The party's councillors later voted for the £300m project, despite the deep concern of conservationists, who believe it violates the medieval heart of the City. The former New Labour leader of the Council, Donald Anderson, is now the director of the PR company that represents the developer”.
16

Buttress,

27/02/2008 17:53:56
But he claims he hasn't anything to do with the Caltongate account... yeah right.
17

Think Tank,

27/02/2008 19:43:08
#2 and #6

You've kind of shot your own arguments in the foot there.

There were just 300ish objectors to the scheme who between them put together 1800 objections. A significant proportion of those objectors are not resident in Edinburgh.

The MORI poll therefore sampled a larger number of people than those who objected, and crucially it sampled Old Town residents, rather than those in Los Angeles and wherever else the conjured objectors have sprung from.

There really aren't that many people opposed to this development, the problem is that they shout very loudly. And our archaic planning process means that they're handed a massive loudspeaker and the opportunity to waste millions of pounds of taxpayer's money.

My views on heritage watchdogs such as the Cockburn association are well known and previously discussed.
18

Buttress,

27/02/2008 20:48:05
Yes - and rather oddly biased. Your views on the Cockburn Association were not the whole story as I recall. It seemed to me that the objections they made, which you raised, were informed ones. I posted the objections as quotes - I didn't recall you coming back and responding further.

Much of what you say isn't as simple as you make out, and the planning system, thankfully, allows for a call-in where there are clear conflicts of interest as here.

Mori polls are meaningless as they don't always ask the right questions of people who don't always know what they are responding to.

The planning system allows people from anywhere to object - and this is, after all, a World Heritage Site.

It's clear you have a vested interest in Caltongate - what is it? Why do you think anyone cares about your views, as posted here?

What is scaring you about a call-in (which will not cost millions? Scared the proposals are actually given proper scrutiny, which so far they have not?





19

Think Tank,

27/02/2008 22:08:40
Yes Buttress, the MORI poll didn't ask the "right questions" for your lot. That's not a biased statement on your part at all is it!?

You accuse me of having a vested interest as an Edinburgh resident wanting to see the massive improvement of a rundown bit of Edinburgh, the creation of thousands of jobs and boost for the local economy. Yet you don't declare your interest in opposing these things.

We've been over the Cockburn Association thing many times. Their default position of opposing everything new loses all credibility. They are the boy that cried wolf with their "we'll lose our World Heritage Status" call every year for the last decade. And to be honest, if losing the WHS means real improvements for Edinburgh and its residents then I don't see why we should fight for it to stay. At least losing it would lose the "excuse" of the heritage lot to fight everything new. I seem to remember challenging you to find a new development in Edinburgh the Cockburn Association actively supported the first time round, but with little answer.

The bottom line is this:

- major regeneration for a rundown bit of Edinburgh
- massive private investment at no risk to the taxpayer
- thousands of new jobs
- new hotel and conferencing space in the city centre- vital for driving the economy.
- major new office space- vital for the economy
- new housing, with affordable housing quotas met
- massive repopulation of the city centre on brownfield sites
- new connections between the parliament and waverley/princes street areas for pedestrians
- new shops, artists studios and a vibrant cultural quarter.

In light of all these positives, I think the onus is undoubtedly on those opponents to point out why they are so irresponsible with the future of Edinburgh and its residents to frivolously oppose this massive regeneration.

20

Think Tank,

27/02/2008 22:11:06
Oh and there's nothing "scary" about a call in. It's just a waste of time and huge amounts of taxpayers money and will further delay this project.

It also sends a resounding message across the globe to major developers looking to invest in our city: "we'll fight you".


If that's the message that you and your 300 friends want to send then fine. But please don't say you represent the consensus view of the 400,000 people who live in Edinburgh- to the majority you are a shameful embarrassment.

21

Buttress,

27/02/2008 22:47:52
Not sure anyone is listening... not at all sure who 'my lot' is either... I'm not part of SOOT, although I do support the stance they are taking and think they are running a strong and useful campaign. I'm not a member of the Cockburn Society either, although again I support the stance they are taking.

In reality, I can't see that much they have objected to and which has been built has been an enhancement.

I will, as have others, ask for a call-in. My letter will be sent very soon. All information can then be examined, all claims regarding jobs etc studied in depth.

Sure major investors will be fought - if they wish to spoil a World Heritage Site.

You write just like the PR person for a developer. Do you really believe all that stuff? Vibrant - developer's PR guff.

Laughable. A Philistine. Or simply a troll. whichever, not really worth taking seriously. A shameful embarrassment in fact.

:-)

22

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 28/02/2008 00:17:59
19 you are a paid up drone with no concern for the character, the culture , the history and most of all the context of the site in concern.

This is Edinburgh not "nowhere land".
23

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 28/02/2008 00:22:20
It also sends a resounding message across the globe to major developers looking to invest in our city: "we'll fight you".

WRONG, it sends the message if you don't do it our way it's the highway, THAT cultures respect. Why oh why do you bring this psuedo "global village" arguments when we really don't care about foreign developers wrecking our land?

We should be keeping the business for our own wealth creation.

This is an island NOT a continent.
24

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 28/02/2008 00:25:28
20 S H I T Tank

You do not talk for Edinburgh folk either, you hippocratic parasite.

25

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 28/02/2008 00:29:30
Think Tank, yes you think of shallow psychology to promote the greed ethic for your own ends and the ruining of prime areas of ground in the old town of Edinburgh.

You have probably already sold your granny to the arabs, along with your soul.
26

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 28/02/2008 00:31:07
The bottom line is this, your c rap, the development is c rap it bears no relation to the area and we will not have it.

Guid riddance.
27

COLINTON.MAINS,

Oakville Ontario 28/02/2008 02:36:04
say no to it do not be fooled it looks awful go back to the drawing board
28

Buttress,

28/02/2008 07:25:11
Let's also not forget that the new hotel and conference space comes at the expense of listed buildings which are to be demolished, and the architecture of Caltongate is hardly high end design, fitting for such a beautiful city.

29

A. Puschkin,

Edinburgh 28/02/2008 11:26:35
This Comment by marion says it all..... please make this the paper's Headline!

Marian,27/02/2008 17:46:05
According to the Sunday Times of 24 February 2008, “the Company behind the controversial Caltongate development in Edinburgh's historic Old Town paid £4,000 to sponsor a champagne reception at a Labour fundraising dinner. The party's councillors later voted for the £300m project, despite the deep concern of conservationists, who believe it violates the medieval heart of the City. The former New Labour leader of the Council, Donald Anderson, is now the director of the PR company that represents the developer”.
30

A. Puschkin,

28/02/2008 11:28:05

and.... for goodness sake ...

The former New Labour leader of the Council, Donald Anderson, is now the director of the PR company that represents the developer”.

RATS !!!!!!!
31

A. Puschkin,

Edinburgh 28/02/2008 11:34:05
It must be obvious....... we dont want it because it is ugly ..!!!!
Another Comment that must be responded to...

"I think the onus is undoubtedly on those opponents to point out why they are so irresponsible with the future of Edinburgh and its ..."

Yes - regeneration but not by another Stalinistic /St James Centre ( now to be demolished ! ) concrete lump of ugliness!!!

 

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 >>

More Caltongate development

More Caltongate development >>

Today's Vote

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

Web Links:

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.