Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 6th September 2008 Change Date

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.

Dawn of new era for Edinburgh's Old Town



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: 20 June 2008
IT took more than three years, several design changes and much debate but the £300 million project to transform part of Edinburgh's Old Town is finally set to get under way.
After Scottish Ministers ruled out a public inquiry this week and rubber-stamped the city council's decision to grant planning permission for the development, campaigners who fought against Caltongate finally admitted defeat.

Click here to see a map of how Edinburgh's Old Town is changing - it's quite a big file, so please be patient!

The victorious developers Mountgrange, meanwhile, say the scheme, which involves the demolition of two C-listed buildings, includes a five-star hotel and conference centre, 200 new homes, offices, shops, restaurants and a new public square, is a "once-in-a-generation opportunity".

It all started in February 2005, when the plans for the 1.4 hectare site were announced in the Evening News – at that time to the delight of heritage watchdogs and community leaders.

More than 15 years had already passed since the New Street bus depot was put on the market, and hopes of developing the area had floundered on several occasions. Few people could have imagined, therefore, that the proposals would become the most contentious city centre development in Edinburgh's recent history.

Battles raged over controversial plans to knock down two tenements, while plans for a brand new street flowing off New Street through a tunnel on to the Canongate were dumped, and a walkway above New Street was also scaled down. The number of homes planned was cut from 300, while affordable housing was added to the scheme.

One of the most contentious issues proved to be plans to demolish some MacRae tenements on the Royal Mile to form a "breakthrough", and a compromise to form a smaller pend, retaining the majority of the building's facade and keeping housing on three upper floors, was agreed.

Now that the arguing is over and the dust has settled, Mountgrange will sign legal agreements with the council, and prepare to start work before the end of the year. Elements of the scheme should be completed within three years, and Caltongate is due to be completely finished by 2013.

The first phase due to be completed is the building of 36 affordable homes around Calton Road, which was handled separately by the council and received the go-ahead last September. Local residents are also hopeful that the Calton Hill Stairs and Jacob's Ladder will be improved, and Mountgrange, though it does not own the land, today stated it was willing to contribute funds.

Mountgrange spokesman Mark Cummings today said the firm was "delighted" to have reached the stage where the development has finally become a reality. "Caltongate is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to substantially improve Edinburgh's Old Town," he said. "There are significant economic benefits for the city as a whole, including some £300m investment, nearly 2000 new jobs, and Edinburgh's first truly world-class five-star hotel, along with retail and business space."

Not everyone agreed though. The International Council on Monuments and Sites and the Edinburgh World Heritage Trust both objected during the planning process. In total, around 350 individuals and organisations between them lodged more than 1800 objections to various aspects of the project.

A spokeswoman for Unesco's World Heritage Centre today confirmed that a report on Edinburgh's world heritage site would be on the agenda at its conference in Canada next month. An inquiry could then be ordered into whether Edinburgh should be placed on an "at-risk" list.

Councillor Tom Buchanan, the city's economic development leader, insisted Caltongate would actually improve the world heritage site. "Redevelopment will not only strengthen the residential population and address the needs of the local community, but will create the opportunity to introduce a variety of a new uses and activities into the city centre."

When Mountgrange bought the site in early in 2005, it began pursuing much bigger plans and said it also wanted to develop the council-owned arches next to Waverley Station. It was one of two potential bidders for the site, with the other an unidentified company. Council officials said at the time that Mountgrange was the only developer that could offer "comprehensive and co-ordinated development for the wider area".

Catriona Grant, chairwoman of the Canongate Community Forum, today said that campaigners were never against development in principle, but opposed the loss of listed buildings and tenements.

"We had to be reactive rather than pro-active, and we were never treated as real partners," she added. "We always felt it was a foregone conclusion."

CHANGING FACE OF PLANS . .
• The first blueprint was unveiled in March 2006, with 300 new homes planned.

• In September 2006, the sweeping roadway was ditched and a new opening on to the Royal Mile was designed. A walkway above New Street, linking the new hotel was also scaled down.

Plans to knock down two tenements were altered, and only one building was earmarked for demolition. The total number of homes was put at around 200.

• Mountgrange originally wanted to demolish some MacRae tenements on the Royal Mile but after complaints from city councillors, it was decided to preserve the "majority" of the front and rear elevations.



The full article contains 885 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 June 2008 3:47 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Caltongate development
 
1

,

20/06/2008 15:33:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

tomias,

Edinburgh 20/06/2008 15:45:15
1) Yes I agree.
But the rebuilding is long over due; this area is long since past its so called sell by date.
Remember what the current buildings replaced?
Ah slummy Edinburgh; I wonder who complained then,what restoration society was in full voice then?
3

alex paterson,

edinburgh 20/06/2008 15:54:34
How wonderful a new old town,not before time.
4

an auld Leither,

Auld Leith 20/06/2008 15:55:01
I for one am in full agreement with the development in this very run down area, who in their right minds would want to restore a derilict bus depot
5

Think Tank,

20/06/2008 16:00:18
A victory for the 400,000 people of Edinburgh over the 350 objectors (with their 5 objections each).

It's just a shame that each of these 350 people have cost each of us literally MILLIONS of pounds in taxpayers' money for their attention seeking actions.

As well as delaying (and arguably diluting somewhat) the regeneration of a really very rundown bit of Edinburgh.

A late victory for common sense.
6

Buttress,

20/06/2008 17:25:13
An absolute disgrace.

Let's see what UNESCO has to say about the city now.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Burning-Issue-Does-Caltongate39s-approval.4200236.jp#2917847

7

Buttress,

20/06/2008 17:36:47
And Think Tank - someone once called you septic tank. How right they were it seems.

Come on - tell us how millions have been spent? Give us a breakdown? Expand on why you feel the democratic process should not be gone through?

Councillor Tom Buchanan - you are a fool. You have no idea at all. This is a second rate development which damages the authenticy and integrity of the Old Town, by allowing the sprawl outside the bus depot site (which did need developing - but not like this) and demolition and facadism of listed buildings. The architecture is any place stuff, none of it is by world class architects, and looks dated already. How long before it's deemed only fit for demolition, like the St James' Centre?

When too is the small gem of a listed Canongate School (to be demolished) the arches, the market to be put out to tender for other buyers? Single developer agreements such as this with Mountgrange were deemed unlawful recently in an EU ruling.

Will it ever happen, given the current economic climate? Or will Mountgrange now sell on the land with planning permission?


8

Think Tank,

20/06/2008 18:41:35
That's right Buttress. Everyone in the world is wrong but you. You and your bunch of hire-a-protestor mob (although only 350 doesn't really do justice to the word mob) should carry on living in a utopian world where developers will, out of the kindness of their hearts, build a farmer's market on the site for the locals (a few dozen) to spend their time. That incidentally was the best "alternative" plan to £300 million investment in our city.

The consultation process is a farce only because it's so exhaustive. This more than anything puts off more world class developments in our city.

If this genuinely puts our World Heritage Status in question (a laughable comment), then frankly we'd be better off without it such status as a millstone around our necks. People don't visit Edinburgh because it's a "World Heritage Site". They visit because of the renowned buildings and culture that SHOULD make it so. Removing parts of 2 C-listed, under-utilised and frankly (in one case) ugly buildings for this development will ENHANCE the city, World Heritage or not.

You and your mob no doubt also protested against the last major planning application granted- the Quartermile. Thank god common sense won through there as well...most would agree it's shaping up to be the finest of developments for our city.

You lost Buttress. Get over it. And frankly over yourself.

9

Buttress,

20/06/2008 19:16:34
Well, that shows how little you appreciate heritage issues, and your utter contempt for the democratic process. It also shows how little you know about me, but make wild and inaccurate assumptions. Laughable really.

I have not lost anything - but Edinburgh has. This is a ghastly development. Not world class. Allan Murray? Don't make me laugh. Far, far better should have been demanded in a World Heritage Site.

But - as with Bath, and other places, this can be used to demonstrate how poor is the protection of World Heritage Sites, how at the whim of councils who have really no idea it all is.

In England, new draft guidance is out for consultation, but Scotland as ever is twenty years behind the times, accepts any old rubbish as long as a developer throws 'jobs' into the equation.Not that anyone ever checks up later of course.

Bet you love the St James' Centre too.


Come on then - how many millions?
10

A. Puschkin,

20/06/2008 19:22:18


Re-COMMENT above... were there really " 400,000 people of Edinburgh" who agreed with the plans?

If the building looks totally out of place and Edinburgh loses its status as World Heritage site... you will be happy ?

Tourists come to Edinburgh to see a superb example of an un-bombed early 18 century to 19th century city.. not to admire more and more modern buildings which could be anywhere...

I wonder how many signatures there really were!
11

Buttress,

20/06/2008 19:23:41
Oh - It's being discussed at UNESCO in Canada in July. You are aware of the concerns UNESCO has already expressed about inappropriate developments in the city? But of course you must.

Personally, I visit places which are World Heritage Sites. I know many another who does too. It's become a sort of unoffical Baedeker.

Without heritage protection, then really I suspect there would be not a lot left in the city for anyone to want to visit. And heritage protection is a long battle, against people like you.

Bet you think listing buildings is wrong too, and conservation areas a waste of time.

Pave Paradise, put up a parking lot.



12

Buttress,

20/06/2008 19:24:45
Oh, Think Tank just makes it all up!
13

WestPilton,

oakville 20/06/2008 19:34:12
"victory for the 400,000 people of Edinburgh over the 350 objectors (with their 5 objections each).

It's just a shame that each of these 350 people have cost each of us literally MILLIONS of pounds in taxpayers' money for their attention seeking actions."

So you contention is that the delays in this project have cost the city of Edinburgh more than 400 BILLION pounds? Might be time to rethink that name Think Tank.
14

Buttress,

20/06/2008 19:39:28
Well, Think Tank seems to believe all should simply keep quiet and let developers do their worst.

Now why should Think Tank believe that? Surely couldn't be...no. Far too far fetched an idea.

15

Buttress,

20/06/2008 19:40:34
Also the bit about the farmer's market isn't the whole truth either.
16

Think Tank,

21/06/2008 00:36:39
The delays in getting this commercial project off the ground will cost the taxpayer millions of pounds.

That's simple taxation, business rates and input into the economy from hundreds of new jobs and businesses.

The manhours required to staff the ludicrous process of consultation is also of significant cost. Even taking the process to the Scottish Executive will have wasted money.

Trust me when I say this Buttress- the market for pure "World Heritage Site" spotters is pretty small. People go to sites that are World Heritage because there's a tourist setup, not purely because they've seen the name on a list. There are 27 World Heritage sites in the UK alone (851 globally), and this is very likely to increase further- this ISN'T a select group. If you think that pure "world heritage spotters" contribute as much to tourism as, say, the August festival goers, or Hogmanay visitors then you're completely deluded.


17

Think Tank,

21/06/2008 00:36:59
And frankly this development enhances our World Heritage Site. Or perhaps you'd like to stick to a derelict bus yard. Like we've had for the last 15 years when anyone else could have come in and built something (not too modern looking of course). Like a farmer's market. Or perhaps the "Caltongate 350" want to self fund their own market. Commerical viability and all that.

I don't disagree with the listing of buildings, but frankly I do disagree with there being a C category in the first place (the only parts of buildings being lost are C category), and I disagree with some of the rather rubbish choices for higher listing. The Red Home on the Quartermile was a classical example of poor architecture listed simply because it is old- a building that heritage watchdogs stood up for in the full knowledge that anyone bringing forward a plan to build an exact replica of the building anywhere in Edinburgh would be rejected out of hand.

The system is poor, and I think even you have to accept this.

18

Buttress,

21/06/2008 09:19:18
I think the idea that public consultation processes should be skated over as they cost money says a great deal about you. Totally deluded. There are actually things which in the long term are more important. Also, I fail to see how the process has been stalled aprticularly longer than it could have been - scrutiny by Ministers had nothing to do with objectors, but was because the council has a financial interest in the scheme, flogging off in a possibly unlawful agreement - be interesting to see wht the EU says - buildings it owns, in a poor deal.

Enhance the WHS? It's a third rate commercial development, no place in a World Heritage Site. There could have been far, far better, and the historic buildings, which add to the history and interest of the area, retained. The far from attractive designs look dated already, and the drawings showing a leafy square with trees - it will be in shadow most of the time, not a place to want to spend much time.

No, I don't 'trust' you - as I think know far better than you the public value than you do of heritige. Much of it isn't about cash, either.

No no-one has ever said that the derelict bus yard should have ben retained, and that's just a red herring. But something far, far better than this crassly clone town development, by not exactly world class architects should have been sought - it's a disgrace. There were other ideas but the developer refused to engage at all properly with anyone with any other views. You clearly have managed to miss a great deal of what has been going on.

I also suspect I know rather more about historic architecture than you do - ceratinly judging from your comments here - and why buildings are listed. The Grade C Canongate Venture is a small gem of a school, and should be retained and re-used. Facade schemes, too, are lousy conservation. Disneyland.

I will be joining with the others writing to raise the alarm regarding what is happening in Edinburgh to UNESCO.

Quartermile, by t
19

Buttress,

21/06/2008 09:20:04
Cont

Quartermile, by the way, is a place I would not linger. Can't see why anyone would want to.

Please stop using the hackneyed phrase beloved of Alan Roden 'heritage watchdogs'. Conservation professionals and historians are not 'heritage watchdogs'.

The system is only poor because it doesn't give enough protection. While it isn't perfect in England either, Scotland is about 20 years behind the times when it comes to conservation, and ideas about what is suitable development in a historic city - once one of the most beautiful anywhere. Sdaly, Edinburgh has had some very poor planners and Historic Scotland is pretty useless at defending histiric buildings. The Chamber of Commerce has far too much to say - given that it's hand in glove with developers like Mountgrange it's hardly unbiased. The stuff by Ron Hewitt is The Scotsman was laughable.

Edinburgh is changing and not for the better. A new and better lot in planning might help. Thank God Alan Henderson is retiring. Listening properly and engaging in discussion with its own World Heritage Trust might mean a far better city too. But all too late now.



20

,

21/06/2008 11:34:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

Buttress,

21/06/2008 11:43:34
What a complet ignorant idiot you are Moscow Central. Know nothing at all, just keen to air how little you know.



22

Freddie,

St Mary's Street 21/06/2008 12:53:22
I am so unhappy..... nothing to do with my life anymore. No bourgious capatalists to fight.
No slagging off the council and other nasty parts of the stata apparatus.
Ah well, perhaps I shall throw myself under a bulldozer and become a caltongate martyr.

Freddie
23

The Sheriff,

21/06/2008 13:32:14
Buttress....butt out.Seems to me you like to seek attention with all your comments on this article.

To be honest I couldnae care less what they do.
24

Buttress,

21/06/2008 18:01:09
Attention seeking? Don't be silly.

25

Buttress,

22/06/2008 12:56:12
How does this relate to the sale by the council of property to Mountgrange then?

Land Securities' Stratford plan dealt blow by EU ruling
Ben Cook, Regen.net, 28 April 2008
Developer Land Securities' hopes of signing an agreement with Newham Council to extend a shopping centre in the borough have been dealt a blow by a European Union ruling.
The property company has, over the last four years, been developing plans for a mixed-use extension to its 350,000 square foot Stratford Centre in east London. The extension would have involved the development of land owned by Newham Council.

But an EU ruling on a case in France means Newham Council has been forced to put the contract out to full tender.The ruling - which related to a case involving Roanne town council - has established the principle that public development agreements are bound by EU procurement rules. Previously, such development agreements were not considered to be work contracts falling under EU procurement legislation.

Land Securities says it was close to signing a deal with Newham Council and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation to work on the project, but now the contract has been put out to tender via the Official Journal of the European Union.

The Stratford Island Regeneration Project will consist of an extension to the shopping centre as well as educational facilities for the University of London.

A spokesman for Land Securities, which owns the shopping centre, said the company was "disappointed" with the ruling.

He added: "The Stratford centre has development potential and we will take a view on what is the best way forward."





26

Buttress,

22/06/2008 13:00:19
And remember this?

"The scheme will have to go before the Scottish parliament in any event, as the city council has a stake in the scheme. Mountgrange bought some council-owned land around the site it owned, a former bus garage, which was due to be developed. The council will receive a small share of the profits from the site. ‘It was done to make sure the council didn’t sell us short,’ says Berry. ‘It only has a passive involvement.’ "


"In October, eyebrows were also raised over the appointment of Donald Anderson, former council leader, as Scottish director of PPS, the public relations agency that is promoting Caltongate on behalf of Mountgrange."

This appeared in Property Week on the 14th March


So - they don't actually need to buy up and demolish listed buildings?

27

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 23/06/2008 17:14:07
I live about 300 yards from the Calton Gate development and definitely agree that completion of this site will be better than what is there now (rubble and wasteland) and what was there before (semi-derelict buildings on the verge of collapse).

The demolition of the two C-listed buildings – the Sailors' Ark, sorry to see it go and the former Canongate Venture school - won't be missed as it's an eyesore anyway and should never have been listed.

As far as my neighbours and I are concerned, our main worry is the possible increase in road traffic both in Calton Road and the Royal Mile, neither of which were built to take huge traffic flows.

It also has to be said that you can't live indefinitely in the past and as has been pointed out this development can only be an improvement to the middle/top end of Calton Road.

I also think that the heritage/environmental groups in Edinburgh have far too much to say for themselves and basically, I am glad to see them over-ruled.
28

Buttress,

23/06/2008 22:40:06
I can't see what is an 'eyesore' about the Cnaonhgate School - a very handsome building, with fine stonework. Possibly you could expand?

I'm not sure that 'heritage' groups wll worry greatly about your opinion, but don't you think that the purpose of such groups is to have something to say for themelves? If they are consulted on plans, isn't it their responsibility to counter the bulldoze anything for profit brigade?

Of course this is now to be discussed at UNESCO. It will be interesting to hear what UNESCO has to say. It has already been critical of the city for too much inappropriate development.

So don't you feel that a higher quality development of far more attractive architecture, by world class architects, might have been better in a WHS?


29

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 17:03:46
#28 Buttress,

As they say, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", for example in painting I like the works of Sir William Russell-Flint, but I don't care for Picasso's work.

Similarly with the 2 'C' listings here, I quite like the Ark, but detest that red-brick abomination the Canongate School and shall rejoice in its demise.

Regarding UNESCO, like its counterpart the UN, in all probability their observations will be ignored. Like the UN they are toothless paper tigers.

As I have said before I am of the view that Edinburgh should not be a WHS and I feel that whatever goes into the 'Caltongate' site can only be better than what was there before. Surely none of the previous structures were worth saving.
30

Buttress,

02/07/2008 00:07:10
No, not totally toothless - if UNESCO feels that the city is under threat it can put it on the At Risk list, and seek to work with national government to mitigate the problems.

I suggest though maybe you need your eyes testing. Go have a wee trip down to the handsome Queen Anne style school, and I think you will find it's not built of red brick at all.

Your views on WHS, as expressed in the past, show a remarkable degree of ignorance, however. Do you know why the city is so designated?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.