Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Unesco deals blow to World Heritage Site development plans for Edinburgh

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: 30 June 2009
HUGE question marks are hanging over two major developments in Edinburgh city centre after Unesco demanded major changes be made to the multi-million-pound schemes, The Scotsman can reveal.
Its annual heritage summit in Seville has passed strongly-worded resolutions urging the City of Edinburgh Council and the Scottish Government to scale back plans for a 17-storey hotel at Haymarket and redraw a £300 million Old Town scheme.

Unesco
also wants to see the creation of a "buffer zone" to introduce strict controls over developments just outside the city's world heritage site, which covers the Old and New Towns, and a robust policy for protecting key views in the city.

The decisions are a major blow for the council after it approved both schemes in the face of huge opposition from city heritage groups. The World Heritage Committee's decision will drag the saga out for another two years after it ordered the UK government to produce a progress report on its recommendations by 2011.

The ruling may have an immediate impact on the Haymarket scheme, which the government has still to rule on, following a public inquiry that ended this month. Inspectors expressed "considerable concern" about the height of the hotel, saying it would have a major visual impact on the area and would dominate nearby landmarks.

The Scottish Government confirmed Unesco's verdict on the scheme would be taken into account when ruling on whether or not to give the scheme the go-ahead.

Last night, Tiger, the Irish developer behind the £200m scheme, insisted it would not be scaling back its plans.

Although the Caltongate plan, earmarked for a huge site next to Waverley Station, was given final approval by the government, its fate lies in the hands of the council after developer Mountgrange went into administration.

Council land is needed to build a five-star hotel at the heart of the scheme. But Unesco's inspectors said two listed buildings threatened with demolition should be reprieved, while it wants a new building – which would have blocked views from Jeffrey Street – dropped.

Culture minister Mike Russell said: "Edinburgh has to balance being a city recognised for its historic legacy alongside serving as a thriving capital city. We will consider these recommendations when shaping how we continue to manage this incredible city."

Council economic development leader Tom Buchanan said: "Securing new investment within the city centre is core to Edinburgh's success. However, our world-famous Old and New Towns are a key part of our unique selling point and they must also be protected."

Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce chief executive Ron Hewitt said: "Both applications were approved by the council after long planning processes.

"A small number of people are able to delay the whole process. The risk we run is that Edinburgh becomes frozen in time."





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Old Town Resident,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 08:02:27
Good news for the future of Edinburgh & well done to all of those who have given their time to the campaigns and those who give their support.
Now that the madoffs and goodwins of the owrld have got their payback now its time for the CEC, Chamber of Commerce and all others implicated in these fishy decisions.
2

Old Town,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 08:29:50
Ha some seen seance at last?
3

Old Town,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 08:32:29
Theirs a typo, It should read.

Has someone seen seance at last
4

Buttress,

30/06/2009 08:51:36
Truth will out, eh Old Town Resident?

www.eh8.org.uk

I note Buchanan is changing his tune, but he's a politician so that's about what they do (any way the wind blows). Sadly Ron Hewitt is playing the same cracked record.

Time the Chamber of Commerce gave him the boot. Oh, I forgot, the Chamber of Commerce's property portfolio was/is held by Mountgrange, and Hewitt supported the dangerous and damaging plans all the way.

Possibly we need to go into it all again here, eh Ron? The dodgy deals, the champagne receptions, the one finger salutes to residents and children, the manipulated consultation process, the failed council politician Donald Anderson who lost his job only to be given a new lucrative one at a certain unsavoury (mentioned in Dispatches, eh PPS?) PR company by the developers.

http://www.eh8.org.uk/pps_in_the_news

Then there's Invicta PA (and Mountgrange apologist Mark Cummings) who claimed he could get anything through the planning process. The bumph on Invicta's website about Caltongate is risible rubbish. He should be run out of town.

Even Trevor 'The Finger' Davies is now working as a 'Professor of Urban Planning' or something as grandiose at a university not too far away! I hope his employers and students have now seen the light.

How about Historic Scotland, and the thirteen grand it spent on a 'consultants' report' from Drivers Jonas to try to prevent a public inquiry? That there was no planning or any other justification for demolition of a listed building seemed to have been glossed over by Historic Scotland, in its unseemly support for the scheme. The report was a joke, albeit an expensive one. Still, with HS's Malcolm Cooper telling the Chamber of Commerce he was quite happy to allow historic buildings to be demolished (against national policy) says a great deal about what needs to be addressed in that organisation also.

It stinks, and all associated with Caltongate need to be shamed or sacked. Or both. And what about
5

Buttress,

30/06/2009 08:53:08
cont.

Sunny Jim Lowrie, Planning Convenor? What has he to say now?

Let's hope that sense prevails with Tiger Tower. Let's remember that Dresden ignored warnings from UNESCO, and has paid the price by having the shame of its World Heritage Site status revoked.

Oh yes, there will be idiots who think that's fine, and no doubt some in the council planning department who would find their lives much easier without a World Heritage Site to protect. However, it's not their shout is it? It's up to the UK government now to see that Edinburgh (and Bath, which was also criticised) is protected from those who want to see it spoilt.


No one is anti development. It's the right sort of development they want.
6

Buttress,

30/06/2009 09:08:00
City of Edinburgh Council please note

http://www.thepress.co.uk/search/4458878.Court_threat_over_key_York_development/

Cosying up to a developer and selling off council owned assets without allowing anyone else a sniff could land you in trouble.

7

noswod,

honestas 30/06/2009 09:33:44
Keep Edinburgh frozen in time its much better than the cheap glass and steel buildings that the bunch O spivs & Edinburghs planning dept want tae put up aw aboot the toon. Y'no knock doon the castle its an auld building and its a good site.
8

Buttress,

30/06/2009 09:47:42
4
"...we don't want visitors thinking that we allow any old tat to be thrown up."

But so much already has been hasn't it?

All that Allan Murray stuff, Omni, Cube, new Hotel Missoni which is appalling, SoCo still to come, and the St James' Centre. That's for starters.



9

Buttress,

30/06/2009 10:15:09
I see that a number of people nominated Allan Murray's Hotel Missoni for the Building Design 2009 Carbuncle Cup.

A fitting tribute to the planners at City of Edinburgh Council.

Did I mention the now retired Head of Planning Alan Henderson?
10

Age of Reason,

New Town 30/06/2009 10:21:12
Agree wholeheartedly with all cricism of C of Ed Planning. So knowlegeable as to have refused permission for a change to reinstate georgian window panes in view of Charlotte Square.
11

Buttress,

30/06/2009 10:25:57
So what would be destroyed in the process?

12

Buttress,

30/06/2009 10:33:24
"Last night, Tiger, the Irish developer behind the £200m scheme, insisted it would not be scaling back its plans."

So are we to assume that if the plans are refused by the government, Tiger thinks it can build anyhow? If so, dream on!


13

Prudence,

30/06/2009 10:45:10
What are the legal implications about the purchase of public land? Is it the case that if public land is sold, and the developer proceeds but falls short of capital , do local councillors have financial liablity because the sale implies agreement to the development in the first place? Public land at Menie, Aberdeenshire is also sought after for the Trump luxury golf development.
14

Buttress,

30/06/2009 12:19:43
Well, I'm not sure I wold disagree with that. Hopefully this has stirred them up a little, when the implications have sunk in.

It's no longer just a little problem for Edinburgh, which a few cronies in the planning dept, councillors and the Chamber of Commerce can manipulate together.

Of course there will be wailing and teeth gnashing, and shifting the blame, but they did think they were beyond reach. They aren't. The eyes of the international community are now on Edinburgh City Council, and it's been held up and found wanting. World Heritage Site status is not simply a nice badge to attract tourists, it's about protecting something important for all people, everywhere.

Edinburgh World Heritage objected to Caltongate and the Haymarket Tower. It's a pity the council thought it knew better than those with the expertise.
It didn't. It's now been shown up at the World Heritage meeting in Seville. Shame on the lot of them.

Some heads should roll.
15

Logie Almond,

30/06/2009 12:20:23
#16, I think you must have the wrong Alan Henderson. He is a lad from a pit village in Northumberland and went to the local county school.
16

Buttress,

30/06/2009 12:26:07
SOOT has just issued a Press Release.

www.eh8.org.uk

UNESCO urge CEC & Scottish Government to reconsider major plans in Capital

Campaigners concerned at Council approved developments in Edinburgh's City Centre were given key support from the United Nations organisation which is tasked to manage the World's Heritage sites.

Today as the Unesco world heritage summit in Seville ends, it has been revealed that after discussing the report on their visit to the capital last November, Unesco are calling on the city council and Scottish Government to reconsider their stance on major developments that the council passed despite enormous public outrage and opposition.

The 17 storey hotel proposed for the Haymarket Irish developer Tiger , they have asked to be seriously scaled down, and the other; the highly controversial Caltongate scheme they call for the retention of the two listed buildings scheduled for demolition as well as calling for the whole scheme to be scrapped.

The fate of Caltongate now lies in the council's hands as London developers Mountgrange went into administration in March.

The group opposed to Caltongate, Save Our Old Town spokeswoman Sally Richardson said today

" This is really welcome news; the Council and developers must surely realise that after years of being ignored, Edinburgh residents have had enough of poor architecture, glass and concrete monoliths and a lack of concern for the needs of ordinary people "

She added "Visitors come to Edinburgh to experience our history and traditions not to look at modern hotels where historic buildings stood less than 5 minutes ago or yet another glass fronted office block in what is marketed worldwide as a historic and beautiful destination”

SOOT member Jim Johnson and former director of the Old Town Renewal Trust said :

" UNESCO rightly demands that a buffer zone must be established to protect our city's legacy. Despite the predictable whining from the Chamber of Commerce, this
17

Buttress,

30/06/2009 12:26:49
cont

this need not be in conflict with development in the city centre where a major need for affordable family homes has been identified. The days of the big centralised office are ending as is obvious from the contraction in financial service, the quantity of vacant property and the inevitable increase in home-working.

Sally Richardson adds “ Questions are increasingly being asked in the UK and Europe about the 'ownership' of common good and public land. Recent appeal verdicts in the UK and France have found against councils selling off land without legal tendering and blocking competitive proposals."

" It may well be that actions in Edinburgh will face similar legal challenges"

She ends “We hope that the council will take this golden opportunity to look at the site afresh and that a community led scheme will replace the white elephant that was “Caltongate”.”


Quite.
18

Buttress,

30/06/2009 13:18:46
Tiger might not be crowing quite as much now

http://www.tigerdevelopments.com/press/2009/Insider_May_09.pdf

It's hardly going to attract people is it, a hotel which UNESCO say will spoil the World Heritage Site?

19

New Town Resident,

30/06/2009 13:49:18
Great news.

By the way thanks to advice from posters on this site we wrote to UNESCO a few months ago.

UNESCO wrote a long letter back to us discussing our points. They also said they took the views of people who lived in their world heritage sites very seriously and that they had received many letters from Edinburgh world heritage site residents protesting the council.

20

Edinburgh Democrat,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 14:01:49
An unelected non UK organisation dictating to a democratically elected local authority and government what its planning policy should be. That seems fair!
21

Logie Almond,

30/06/2009 14:13:13
#23, the planning policies of both Edinburgh and the Scottish Government would clearly rule out both the Haymarket and "Caltongate" developments. The problem is that both the council and the Scottish Government ignored their own policies.
22

New Town Resident,

30/06/2009 14:18:34
#23. Edinburgh "Democrat". All UNESCO are saying is that they reserve the right to remove their award if Edinburgh breaks its terms.

Both our elected UK government and Scottish government support our continued membership of the UN. Therefore we fully and democratically recognise UNESCO's right to comment in this way. And it was our own elected representatives that applied for the UNESCO award in the first place.

How exactly is that "unfair"?
23

Buttress,

30/06/2009 14:26:05
I suggest before anyone starts squawking about UNESCO, they do some thinking.

We are part of UNESCO. We as a nation signed up to be part of it. We put forward Edinburgh to be a World Heritage Site, and we agreed that if it was accepted as such we would manage and conserve it properly for all the people of the world, and appropriately and sensitively adapt it for the residents. We signed binding international agreements.


We agreed that large developments would be referred to UNESCO, as part of the lawful planning process. CEC failed to do that with Caltongate. CEC and Scottish Government will have to answer to the democratically elected UK government, which in turn, via the DCMS, will have to answer to UNESCO World Heritage Centre and committee.

The UK takes its turn on the World Heritage Committee.

And yes, indeed, there is a WHS management plan in place, signed by CEC, amongst others, and national and local planning policies, which the City of Edinburgh Council and Scottish Government ignored.

So chickens are coming home to roost.
24

Goggsie #,

Fife 30/06/2009 15:37:14
Aye, there's certainly a stench coming out of "auld reekie" regarding how their councilors are condoning the destruction of a world heritage site. Bring in the Telegraph boys to get to the bottom of this one.
25

Rap,

30/06/2009 15:49:00
"Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce chief executive Ron Hewitt said: "Both applications were approved by the council after long planning processes.

"A small number of people are able to delay the whole process. The risk we run is that Edinburgh becomes frozen in time."

What? So on one hand everyone spouts about democracy and on the other democracy is bad because it causes delays? Wicked, wicked democracy.

And #23, in addition to the point that Buttress made about us actually choosing to sign up to become a World Heritage Property, is that CEC didn't stick to their planning policies. If they did the Haymarket scheme could never have been approved. UNESCO are only pointing this out(their initial report referred to an apparent failure of planning process for this very reason).

So when a body we have chosen to get involved with dares to point out we are not following our own planning policies I think we should be pleased that someone is concerned enough to do it.
26

Rap,

30/06/2009 15:53:15
And even if you don't like UNESCO pointing our our flaws, we have our own local organisation to do it - Edinburgh World Heritage Trust. And you know what? CEC are gagging them. They were not given time to speak at the planning hearing for Haymarket and had to grab a couple of minutes at the end of the Cockburn Assoc allotted time - is this really the way we should treat an advisory body? And then they were not called to speak at the public inquiry either after having been asked by the CEC to shut up.

If we are scared to listen to people who are advising us (and won't be making any financial gains because of their advice) what does that say about us? Instead, people who will make financial gains as a result of their comments (Ron Hewitt for example, who is paid to promote business only) are allowed an opinion? Some democracy.
27

Buttress,

30/06/2009 16:05:50
Actually,although I agree re the planning meetings, if you look at the last lot of EWH minutes (on the website) you will see that it chose not to attend the inquiry, back in February.

I can think of many valid reasons for not doing so, tied up with time and resources; a public inquiry requires a gret deal of preparation, it's not a large organisation really, and it is working wonders IMHO, within the remit of the organisation. Long may it continue.

It's also not usual to have two speakers on the same subject at an inquiry, and Herb Stovel is a major international authority on Edinburgh WHS, and the effect the tower would have on that. So not a bad expert witness, really.

Also of course, I suspect EWH had some inkling of the UNESCO draft report, which was written by then and sent to CEC and HS (and presumably EWH) and felt that attendance was superfluous!

It's going to be hard for the government to ignore UNESCO, isn't it? Foolish to do so!

God moves in mysterious ways, Rap. Just rejoice today. It's been hard, hard work by many to get this far. I think all involved need a pat on the back!

28

Buttress,

30/06/2009 16:15:35
I agree re Hewitt though! If I was a Chamber of Commerce member I'd be asking for him to resign. Not all agree with him, or his sidekick, and his 'development at all costs' approach (tied in with developers of course).

There are people who make a living from Edinburgh being a lovely place, too, Ron.

I wonder who 'the small number of people' is he is spouting about?

He can't mean UNESCO, can he?

29

Rap,

30/06/2009 20:57:19
Buttress, I'm afraid I am more sceptical than you and hold on to a belief that EWHT should have been at a public inquiry regarding a major development that they had opposed. Herb did an absolutely cracking job, and I'm not suggesting EWHT would have made any difference but I know they weren't allocated time at the planning hearing, despite them asking, and from what I am told it was not entirely their decision not to appear at the inquiry.

I'm definitely looking forward to the Ministers decision because surely no-one has the cajones to ignore this advice. Not impossible though....
30

Buttress,

30/06/2009 21:15:09
Well,I think that conspiracy theories are all very well, but maybe there's a time when its not a conspiracy! I hear things too. I hear quite a lot in fact.

And I do have some idea about inquiries apart from just this one. It's normal to have one expert witness on a subject. Stovel is the man. Very, very lucky to have him. As I said - God moves in mysterious ways.

If the government say yes, then they really would be barking. It's not just nice friendly advice from UNESCO, no matter how quietly it is stated. And it's the DCMS which will have to answer to UNESCO.

There are wheels within wheels.
31

Dave B,

Edinburgh 01/07/2009 00:36:27
UNESCO removing Dresden is worrying.
World Heritage status is a prestigious thing to have.

Personally I don't think the Caltongate development is that bad - and many of it's opponents seem to have snobbery issues, a-la the Trump golf plans, rather than any genuine architectural concerns.

But if losing UNESCO status is a real threat, then it should be reconsidered.
32

Buttress,

01/07/2009 17:42:57
I can categorically state that opponents of Caltongate have major architecture and heritage issues. Demolition of listed buildings?

And as Dresden has allowed the Elbe Vlaley to be ruined with a four lane motorway, thus removing at a stroke much of the Outstanding Universal Value, then the World Heritage Committee last week had little choice but to remove its WHS status.

It's not prestige, it's about preserving such sites for all of humanity.

Nor do opponents of Trump have snobbery issues, they just feel that a beautiful place should have been preserved, in line with national policy.



 

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.