Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Wednesday, 4th November 2009 Change Date Latest Issue

Caltongate quit rumour denied

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 September 2008
THE developers behind the £300 million Caltongate development today quashed rumours that they are pulling out of the project.
The Canongate Community Forum yesterday issued a press release claiming that Mountgrange was planning to sell the land.

The allegations were raised on the same day the Evening News revealed that Scottish Ministers have given the scheme the final go-ahead.

Mark Cummings, a spokesman for Mountgrange, said: "Rumours that Mountgrange are set to pull out of the Caltongate project are completely untrue."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 September 2008 11:24 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Buttress,

26/09/2008 12:18:37
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

He's the mouthpiece who has crowed all along he can get any planning permissions past anyone.

He used to work for PPS didn't he? The dirty tricks PR people outed on TV?

Now he's INVICTA PR. Still works for Mountgange as ace manipulator.

I've heard from various sources that Mountgrange isn't going to carry through. Not developers, are they? The international concern over the ghastly Caltongate project must make it not something banks want to bankroll at this time! The housing market is collapsing, hotel rooms lying empty...

All about Mr C here:

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

Well worth reading.

2

Buttress,

26/09/2008 12:25:59
Interesting reading:

http://www.eh8.org.uk/sites/eh8.org.uk/files/evening_standard_1.pdf

3

Yanos,

Musselburgh 26/09/2008 13:05:58
Surely this development is better than the old New St bus depot/hole in teh ground that exists now?? NIMBY's out in force as usual.
4

Buttress,

26/09/2008 13:12:17
No, not a NIMBY - and no it's not better. It's a very poor development.


It will mean the demolition of listed buildings, and those which will be built are hardly of the sort of architectural merit which should be built in a World Heritage Site.

Cheap and nasty, really.

www.eh8.org.uk

5

Buttress,

26/09/2008 13:42:07
INVICTA blurb:

"Invicta Public Affairs is a world-class public affairs consultancy providing political engagement services to the commercial, industrial and development sectors. We build powerful political and public support for our clients to ensure exceptional chances of success in overcoming barriers to enterprise caused by regulatory systems as well as local and national government policy.


The team at Invicta rely on their extensive experience and knowledge of the political landscape in Scotland and the rest of the UK to deliver for clients across multiple sectors in a dynamic and innovative way.


Our aim is to win for our clients."



There's something deeply unsavoury about all this, but maybe it explains why there has been no call-in, as would have happened in England? Regulatory sytems - like the law, Mr Cummings?

Are Scottish politicians so much in the pockets of PR spin merchants? So easily schmoozed? Looks like it. The Chamber of Commerce, spin doctors - none of them has the public interest at heart.

If the same 'innovations' that PPS used are used by INVICTA, then that's very nasty indeed!

6

Marathon,

26/09/2008 14:17:57
Buttress.

Stop crying and move on.

7

Buttress,

26/09/2008 15:14:49
That's one of the most silly of comments.

I'm not 'crying' - plenty of other battles re conservation, as the Philistines are always with us.

But the tactics of the spin merchants are interesting to watch, and the shame of politicians who listen is large. How easily they are manipualted.

Mountgrange aren't developers though. Now they have permissions in place, and the council has flogged off listed buildings and land for a song, it will be interesting to see what happens next.

8

Seb,

26/09/2008 16:45:52

ountgrange would have to comply with the following condition before it could commence demolition:

No demolition shall take place until the contract for the new development (07/01237/FUL (PA5) Hotel Development) has been let, and written evidence of this has been made available to and accepted in writing by the Head of Planning & Strategy

Do they have a written contract with a hotelier (Sofitel?)?
9

Seb,

26/09/2008 17:07:03
quick search seems to reveal that they do have a written management agreement with Accor/Sofitel which if Dave Anderson has seen and is happy with then you can kiss goodbye to the Canongate Venture and Sailors Ark.

I wonder if SOOT will form a human chain around them?
10

Buttress,

26/09/2008 17:29:40
I think the devil may be in the detail... but they aren't developers, simply money men, aren't they?

11

Buttress,

26/09/2008 18:13:48
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/sln/blogentry.aspx?blogentryref=7557
12

Buttress,

27/09/2008 01:11:37
"Furnitureland collapses after last-minute rescue bid ends in failure..."

"The main shareholder in Furnitureland is SB Capital, a private-equity group in which the property vehicle of the Hungarian speculator, George Soros, has an interest. . The other Furnitureland investors are Mountgrange Capital, another venture-capital group that has 12.5 per cent, American Signature, the US furniture retailer that owns 25 per cent, and the management, which has a 15 per cent stake."





13

grantcat,

Old Town 28/09/2008 13:08:57
#3 Whilst I understand your logic - really anything is better than a demolished brownfield site. I agree we need to get something on it and it needs to be good, what we don't need particularly in this economic environment is Mountgrange demolishing further parts of East Market Street and New Street, land banking it and hoping for the economy to get on its feet. A bigger and wider empty brown site really is not needed or wanted particularly in the World Heritage Site.

Have Mountgrange got the finance for their project? Further demolitions should not be carried out without knowing if the finances are secure? Sofitel may have a written agreement with the council and Mountgrange however they will not want to be surrounded by empty new builds that cannot be used. Sofitel is the hotel and conference centre however they are not funding or part of the "luxury apartments" or "luxury retail and offices".

The finance world is in free fall just now. Bradford & Bingley looks like it will have to be nationalised, HBOS has been bought out, finance companies and banks throughout the world are collapsing. I don't want to point out the obvious but who is going to finance Caltongate?

Mountgrange have told us it is a £330 million project. Where is the £330 million coming from? Developers borrow money to build buildings then sell them on. Where will they get £330 million from? And who are they planning (apart from Sofitel) to sell the rest of the development on to?

SOOT and others have a democratic right to campaign against the development, we believe from start to finish has been a terrible example of how to do a masterplan, community consultation and how to bring about best value - the council sold the land off at a cut price, off market and only get a profit share when EVERY bit of Caltongate is sold! The future does not look good for Caltongate and I think it is fair to say that no more demolitions should take place without seeing the money.

If Caltonga
14

Buttress,

28/09/2008 15:41:38
I agree - it's going to be so easy to sign an agrrement to buy then demolish the Canongate Venture, then claim that the finacial situation is such that Sofitel has pulled out.

I belive Mountgrange Capital has made itself a smaller Limited Company - Moungrange (Caltongate) for this scheme.

Is that so if it all goes belly up, it can walk away?


 

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
 
  

 
 


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.