Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 8th January 2009 Change Date

London from only £11.50 with National Express

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.

Heritage body loses power over B-listed city buildings



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: 08 October 2008
THE guardian of Edinburgh's historic buildings will no longer be consulted about changes to B-listed properties in a move designed to speed up the planning process.
A pilot scheme has been launched that will see the power handed from Historic Scotland to the local authority.

Previously, the Government's heritage watchdog would be contacted before anyone could make even minor alterations to one of Edinburgh's
2662 B-listed buildings. With over 20 such applications every month, this could delay an already time-consuming process.

The new system is designed to reduce the overall process by around one month.

Critics fear the changes could lead to more modern development of the city, but the move was today welcomed by ministers, councillors and heritage chiefs. They were keen to stress that it does not mean listed building consent will automatically be granted.

Jim MacDonald, deputy chief inspector at Historic Scotland, said: "The aim of the scheme is to speed up decision making for local authorities who have the expertise.

"This will reduce duplication between Historic Scotland and local authorities and support the Government's drive to modernise the planning system.

"The proposals in the pilot would allow Historic Scotland to focus on applications where we can add value, as well as providing more strategic advice to planning authorities, applicants and Scottish Ministers. Similarly, it enables authorities to deliver listed building consents more quickly."

The pilot will run from October to December in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Perth and Kinross, and will be rolled out across the country if successful.

Councils will now have complete power over changes to doors, windows, stonework or masonry finishes, most single-storey extensions, alterations to shopfronts, and sub-division of rooms.

City planning leader Jim Lowrie said: "We hope to achieve more efficient handling of applications where the skills and policies already exist at authority level to consider such proposals with an appropriate amount of scrutiny, but without notification to Historic Scotland."

One member of Edinburgh's planning committee recently accused Historic Scotland of "casting a shadow" over the city's future by granting protected status to buildings that don't deserve it.

Cameron Rose, who represents the Southside and Newington, said today: "I welcome this move to streamline one area of our planning system.

"





The full article contains 382 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 October 2008 10:02 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Edinburgh planning issues
 
1

bluehead,

edinburgh 08/10/2008 11:56:06
this will help the destruction of Edinburgh at an even faster pace,poor old Edinburgh has been turned into a
concrete shanty town,this once beautiful city is being methodically destroyed,on top of that, the city looks like it has been aerial bombed through the maniacal tram system that nobody wants
what a dreadful mess Edinburgh is in nowadays,it is sad to see the city turned into a gigantic human sardine tin.
2

THE BPRENTICE,

08/10/2008 11:57:43
This is NOT good news ... the 'guardian of Edinburgh's historic buildings', Historic Scotland, should be more empowered and also more clearly responsible - this is clearly a step in the wrong direction.
3

Buttress,

08/10/2008 12:01:09
It would help if those who make the decisions at local level had a modicum of expertise.. as it is, it's patchy, and even when there is expertise, it can be overturned by such 'experts' as the two Councillors quoted in the article!

Coun Rose - not I think one with much idea about or sympathy with heritage and conservation issues?




4

Mallory,

Edinburgh 08/10/2008 12:37:03
How typical - looking at the shambolic decisions made to date offers little belief that the council will protect heritage let alone buildings if money is on offer from developers.
5

Seb,

08/10/2008 12:49:33
I agree with you Buttress. The expertise of the Listed building team is limited and very stretched. At least it now gives the City carte blanche to redevelop Princes Street, demolishing as they please.
6

,

08/10/2008 12:55:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Buttress,

08/10/2008 13:00:25
Well, of course - cash for trams will be paid, and 'economics' argued.

The anti-heritage lobby like Coun Rose seem not to have much idea that buildings can be altered sympathetically and in line with sound conservation principles.

But it was always thus. No doubt he and Lowrie would have argued for the previous demolitions of splendid buildings in Princes Street which started the rot (the pavements in the air idea) and would have welcomed the St James' Centre as progress.


8

Jams,

Edinburgh 08/10/2008 13:06:58
Not good news - the planners need this important interest group to keep them in check. Given the 'efficiency' of the current planning process in Edinburgh I can't see that Historic Scotland could possibly be making it any slower.

All it will do, in my humble opinion, is increase the planners belief in their god given right to decide what everyone else wants without taking the trouble to ask them for an opinion.
9

Howard Moon,

08/10/2008 13:07:45
#7

C Rose part of the 'anti heritage lobby'? Nonsense. Have you ever spoken to him?
10

Buttress,

08/10/2008 13:16:08
The man who thought that the pool should not have been listed, and argued against conservation area extension?

That's not anti-heritage? Or is it only on Coun Rose's terms when heritage counts?
11

Rap,

08/10/2008 13:18:46
Got any examples of where he has defended it Howard?
12

Seb,

08/10/2008 14:04:02
I've spoken with Cameron Rose and would say he's very much a hands-off, less regulation is better type of chap. So not exactly in favour of heritage, and his views on the RCWP are pretty luddite.
13

Howard Moon,

08/10/2008 14:04:18
#10

You can talk! You pick and choose which heritage issues concern you more than any other person on these boards. Old Town - you go nuts. Double glazing for the New Town - apoplectic. A tram line right through the city, complete with overhead cables and untold potential damage to historic sites – no comment.

#11

I’m not his spokesman, but off the top of my head I can think of campaigns against graffiti and fly posting, and I know he is a staunch advocate and defender of the meadows. More importantly, a quick scan of his blog shows him to be a councillor who actually weighs up the pros and cons of a proposal before making a decision- not something I see too often from many of his colleagues.
14

Howard Moon,

08/10/2008 14:07:22
#12

That sounds pretty close to my experience. I still think the RCWP thing is a nonsense, almost on a par with the efforts of certain 'heritage watchdogs' to secure Appleton Tower listed status, but I suppose that is subjective.

Anyway, as for the story - good news as far as I'm concerned.
15

edinmck,

Edinburgh 08/10/2008 14:07:43
Maybe a good thing - Historic Scotland were the ones who wouldn't let them demolish the Commonwealth Pool so we're stuck with a concrete monstrosity from the 1960s instead of a modern building that would surely have looked more in keeping with its surroundings given it could hardly have been worse.
16

Chancer,

08/10/2008 14:13:00
Historic Scotland, a bunch of middle class tubes who can't get proper jobs but would gladly see every1 back living in caves rubbing 2 sticks 2gether.
17

Buttress,

08/10/2008 14:19:59
13 - oh dear. Do calm down.

And hey - I can basically choose what I like to comment on, as long as it's not abusive or obscene.

What's your problem Howrad Moon?

18

Buttress,

08/10/2008 14:22:19
I see the knee jerk reactionaries are crawling out of the woodwork.

Do keep going - very amusing!

('campaigns against graffiti and fly posting' isn't really heritage I add!)

Naturally this will not affect the listing of buildings.
19

Howard Moon,

08/10/2008 15:01:41
Perfectly calm Buttress, thanks. Just not a big fan of hypocrisy, even on a disposable medium such as this. Your silence regarding the trams shows you to be either a complete one or, at least, a partial one as obviously in your opinion this is an issue where pragmatic, primarily financial concerns take precedence over ‘heritage’ ones. I would probably take a different view to you as to what constitutes ‘heritage’ also, as I think it means a lot more than just whether or not a building should be ‘listed’ just because it’s big and has been around for a while.
20

Seb,

08/10/2008 15:01:53
Howard, who wanted Appleton Tower listed?
21

Rap,

08/10/2008 15:06:42
Not me! I did hear someone (Hal Muggerdige?) try and defend it's listing, "the lovely long suare profile against the craggy back drop....blah blah". Still not convinced.
22

Buttress,

08/10/2008 15:07:26
What difference would any opinion I have on the trams make to the fact they are happening? I can pick and choose what I comment on, you know.

I regret any damage to listed and other historic buildings. Of the mode of transport, I'm not keen on trams, I think them bulky, but then they may reduce other congestion.



23

Howard Moon,

08/10/2008 15:07:46
#20

Historic Scotland, I believe.
24

Seb,

08/10/2008 15:08:16
Sure people aren't muddling it with the David Hume Tower (which is listed)?
25

Seb,

08/10/2008 15:10:35
HS didn't propose listing Appleton as it's not part of the podium that the other buildings on George Square share.
26

Howard Moon,

08/10/2008 15:19:15
I know it's off topic, but just to end the argument:

'It emerged that Historic Scotland originally also suggested listing the unpopular Appleton Tower, which students campaigned to be recognised by Channel 4 as Britain's ugliest building. Opposition from the heritage watchdog the Cockburn Association, among others, prevented the Sixties tower block from being recognised as worthy of preservation. '

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Ugly-tower-block-to-join.2678152.jp

Again, nice to see a good news story in the EEN.
27

Buttress,

08/10/2008 15:20:49
Opposition would not - as with support, really - be grounds for refusing a listing.

28

Rap,

08/10/2008 15:30:56
Ah yes Seb, I am confusing my ugly towers now.
29

Jenny MacArthur,

08/10/2008 15:55:42
The neo-destructionist planners who run this city I am sure self-pleasure themselves beheath the sheets every night with glossy magazines full of shiny glass boxes while they fantasise about demolishing everything and starting again with a computer-generated motorway-strewn shopping centre, as paying back their backhanders from Tesco is all that matters to them. They're rapidly getting rid of all history and sense of local tradition, and would ideally prefer to get rid of all people who ruin the potential for a soul-less perfect minimalist modern city. Sack the lot of these awful awful people and hire staff who appreciate Edinburgh's unique heritage and beauty.
30

Buttress,

08/10/2008 15:58:58
Can't argue too much with that...
31

Seb,

08/10/2008 16:23:48
Makes a nice story in the EEN Howard but I saw the consultation documents back in 2005 and they never seriously considered listing Appleton.

Personally though, I like it. Shame some of the workmanship is so poor and it hasn't weathered at all well, but i like the cool crisp grid of the elevations and the expressed stairwell. It'll no doubt be reclad shortly (Broadway Malyan I believe)in purple tin or some other "fun" material.
32

Howard Moon,

08/10/2008 16:41:49
#31

As I said, these things are subjective. I can't say I'm a fan of Appleton Tower but we all have our own ideas of what works.

#30

Wouldn't expect you to. Nonetheless, sensible measures such as the one announced in this story suggest the tide may be turning against our 'watchdogs'. I certainly hope so. When the Cockburn Association signed their name onto the 'save our trams' letter, with the rest happy to hold their peace, I lost all respect for them. It showed them for what they really are, in my opinion.
33

Buttress,

08/10/2008 16:50:33
Howard Moon - it's been the case in England and Wales that most applications for LBC have been decided by local authorities for many years. EH only gets involved in the really important stuff. So it's not really so radical.

I don't think that the tide is turning at all. I wonder though why you are so anti-heritage?

The CA has a long standing policy of supporting public, sustainable transport schemes I belive.


Simply becaue you are against trams is no reason to expect all have to be.
34

Buttress,

08/10/2008 16:59:40
"Critics fear the changes could lead to more modern development of the city,"

Don't you love Mr Roden though - those shadowy figure he can't actually quote...
35

Buttress,

08/10/2008 17:04:03
....EH only gets involved in the really important stuff. So it's not really so radical...


And CADW in Wales of course. Just to be accurate.

36

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/10/2008 21:40:05
The issue here is surely that Histrionics Scotland have demonstrated over many years that they are unable, either through limited resources or simple inability, to do their job in a timeous manner.

Shifting responsibility to the council, another organisation with a hardly stellar reputation for speed, does not seem to be either appropriate or effective.

It is HS which needs to be fixed.
37

Jimmy B'Umlove,

East End (Boys) 08/10/2008 22:02:32
Historical Schottland are an archaic, anachronistic, oot-o-date, dinosaur. Kind o' like a Triceratops wi'oot the horns, or a Apatosaurus wi' a broken neck.
38

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 09/10/2008 10:20:53
This is very welcome and great news indeed.

One less bunch of interfering busy-bodies to be 'involved' in the planning process. Here's hoping other such bodies will soon be added to the list of non-involved pseudo 'agencies' and that the whole planning process will be modernised and made both simpler and cheaper.

39

Buttress,

09/10/2008 10:56:49
It's to prevent damage to listed buildings by insensitive idiots who own them that we have these rules Peewee...

It's just moving the consent regime to local authorities rather than HS, it's not going to alter a great deal. As I said, it has been the case in other parts of the UK for many years that local authorities decide most LBC applications. It still remains the case that planning is nominally a democratic process.

Still, you may be delighted to hear that the giant 'telescope' structure on Calton Hill is to receive fifty grand from the Heritage Lottery Fund to repair the time ball.

Details on the Edinburgh World Heritage website.

http://www.ewht.org.uk/News.aspx

40

World class concrete,

09/10/2008 11:44:47
I'm surprised to see Councillor Lowrie described as "city planning leader". The city's Head of Planning & Strategy is the newly appointed John Bury. Jim Lowrie is merely convener of the Planning Committee.

However, perhaps it's just a reflection of reality in Edinburgh where the planning committee has the absolute right to decide any planning application as they choose. The fact that, as he says, "the skills and policies already exist at authority level to consider such proposals with an appropriate amount of scrutiny" is irrelevant when Councillor Lowrie's committee can over-ride any recommendation by the council's professional planners.
41

Buttress,

09/10/2008 12:21:18
Coun Lowrie additionally is a Trustee of EWH. Odd that he then votes with his Planning Convenor hat on for developments that EWH has felt are damaging to the universal values of the WHS and (rightly IMHO) objected to.

42

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 09/10/2008 12:40:55
#39 Buttress,

Buttress, R.I.P.

Byebye
43

Buttress,

09/10/2008 14:05:35
Not sure that's a threat Peewee... or a promise? I wasn't intending to shuffle off right now, but if you are going, byebye indeed.

Thought that giant telescope would excite you! Oh well.

44

World class concrete,

09/10/2008 14:53:19
Here's one for you, Buttress, about EWH:

http://www.architecturescotland.co.uk/news/944/Home_is_where_the_hart_is.html

"Edinburgh World Heritage (EWH) have lent indirect support to Richard Murphy’s new home on Hart Street.

The pressure group have distanced themselves from the criticism of council officials who used world heritage arguments to attack Richard Murphy’s proposed home. EWH stress this was not an opinion shared by their members.

Adam Wilkinson, Director of EWH said: “Although "tired" world heritage arguments were used, it is significant that they were used by council officials - and not by ourselves. We didn't comment on the application on the grounds that it has no impact on the outstanding universal values of the WHS.”

Allan Murray meanwhile is said to be drawing up plans for his own new home in the Merchiston district of Edinburgh."

45

Buttress,

09/10/2008 15:16:15
Already dealt with that one here:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Architect-amazed-after-39bookend39-.4549613.jp#3314171


I think that maybe the reporter was inspired by wishful thinking!

As AW said - it didn't impact one way or another on the 'universal values' so EWH did not respond. It's got a very tight remit - it's not the planning authority.


There's a funny side though - Poor R Murhpy - so little to rail against now!

Maybe he can buy a cosy tartan chair like M Fraser and sit and read Country Life too, with his pipe and slippers. Clearly he's become so much part of the architecture establishment rather than the infant terrible!!!


(Mind EWH DID object to his Tiger Tower, on the grounds it's cr*p ... or at least too tall, and will impact on the universal values, whatever...)



46

Buttress,

09/10/2008 15:29:04
On a serious note though - I think the point made is that many cite WHS when really many things have nothing at all to do with that. Things which EWH thought would impact negatively - Caltongate and Tiger (Haymarket) Tower - the council planners stated would ENHANCE the WHS.

So I think AW is trying to point out that those who yell that the City would be better off not being a WHS are at times not very well informed. WHS status does bring benefits, IMHO, and those are more than simply financial.

Call me soppy and old fashioned, but the philosophy (however tarnished at times, and however difficult to hold to it) that some places are of such outstanding value to humanity that they should be valued, cherished and enhanced to pass on through the generations is really a sound one.







47

Buttress,

09/10/2008 15:37:58
May be of interest:

The Cockburn Annual Lecture

Keeping the Faith in World Heritage: Issues and Challenges

with Professor Herb Stovel

Thursday 16 October, 6.30pm for 7pm

Main Lecture Theatre, Edinburgh College of Art

Last chance to buy a ticket for this year's Annual Lecture. Professor Stovel is one of the world's leading experts on conservation matters and assessed the Old and New Towns of Edinburgh for UNESCO World Heritage site status in 1995.

Tickets for members and non members are £10 and include wine and refreshments. You can book online or contact the office on 0131 557 8686.
48

Buttress,

11/10/2008 13:46:09
However - lets put Mr Roden's piece in perspective:

http://www.scottisharchitecture.com/news/read/Historic+Scotland+launch+pilot+with+local+authorities

Historic Scotland launch pilot with local authorities

Historic Scotland has launched a pilot scheme with three of Scotland’s local authorities in a bid to improve the process of dealing with category-B listed building consent (LBC) applications.

The pilot will run from October to December with The City of Edinburgh, Glasgow City and Perth and Kinross Councils. The results of scheme are scheduled to be announced in March 2009 and will determine if the new way of working can be offered to all of Scotland’s thirty-four planning authorities on a permanent basis.

The pilot, announced by Culture Minister Linda Fabiani MSP in April this year, is part of a range of reforms aimed at improving the partnership between Historic Scotland and local authorities across Scotland.

Linda Fabiani, MSP, Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture, said: “We want to improve the planning process for the benefit of the historic environment and to move towards a system which combines knowledge and expertise at local and national levels.

“We all have a duty to protect and enhance Scotland’s heritage and, at the same time, manage development and growth. The pilot will help us determine how we achieve this. Local Authorities, Historic Scotland and Government partners want to ensure better joint working across Scotland.”

Jim MacDonald, Deputy Chief Inspector at Historic Scotland who has lead the reform proposals, said: “The aim of the scheme is to speed up decision making for those local authorities who have the expertise. This will reduce duplication between Historic Scotland and local authorities and support the Government’s drive to modernise the planning system.

“The proposals in the pilot would allow Historic Scotland to focus on applications where we can add value as well as providing more strategi
49

Buttress,

11/10/2008 13:47:09


cont

strategic advice to planning authorities, applicants, and Scottish Ministers. Similarly, it enables authorities to deliver listed building consents more quickly to applicants.”

The move will see listed building consent (LBC) applications for B-listed buildings - from an agreed list of application types - being solely managed by the planning authority where, previously, local authorities were required to notify Historic Scotland before listed building consent could to be granted. This will provide planning authorities with the opportunity to determine applications without notifying Historic Scotland, where they have the polices and expertise to do so.

The types of applications which will be covered by the pilot have been agreed with each local authority in advance. The new system does not mean that these types of applications are unimportant or that LBC should be granted. However, it does recognise the planning authorities have the capacity and expertise to decide whether the proposals will retain the special interest and character of the listed buildings, and determine the applications accordingly.

Jim MacDonald added: “We’re delighted to be launching this pilot and believe it offers the perfect opportunity to strengthen our partnership with local authorities as part of the Scottish Government planning modernisation. The pilot, if successful, means we can focus our resources and expertise on those issues where we can add most value.”

List of applications types which the pilot schemes will now see local authorities deal with directly are available as are contribution quotes from the three local authorities taking part in the trial.





Copyright © Scottish Architecture
50

Evia,

18/10/2008 13:38:57
THE guardian of Edinburgh's historic buildings will no longer be consulted about changes to B-listed properties in a move designed to speed up the planning process.

This would be the same Council that, many years ago, allowed our beautiful old buildings in Princes street to be brought to rubble and new, trashy buildings to be erected in there place.

The process could be speeded up very quickly if some of the councillors' department were staffed by people who are not afraid to work. There is far too much sitting around having meetings that are unnecessary. I am not saying that there should be no meetings because some are essential but many could be cut out.
51

daveserviceman,

edinburgh 20/10/2008 10:52:34
My view is that every building in Edinburgh over 100 years old should be demolished and new rebuild should take its place, this includes the old town, I fail to understand why people want to live 300 years or so in the past instead of moving forward into the 21st century this is a fault with the SNP
52

Buttress,

24/10/2008 12:54:55
51 - idiot.
53

COLINTON.MAINS,

Oakville Ontario 08/12/2008 22:58:37
YEA.KNOCK.IT.DOWN.JOCK.THAT.ONE.TO.AND.THAT.ONE
54

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 06/01/2009 17:25:54
Historic Scotland is an incompetent unelected quango that has defiled much of Scotland's built heritage for greed and profit. Good riddance to them.

 

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.