Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 9th January 2009 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.

MSPs want Caltongate inquiry to probe heritage site threat



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 August 2008
MSPs are demanding a public inquiry into the massive Caltongate development following the warning that the controversial project could cost Edinburgh its World Heritage Site status.
Lothians Green MSP Robin Harper, Scottish Nationalist Shirley-Anne Somerville and independent Margo MacDonald are all urging ministers to order an inquiry rather than rubber stamp the £300 million scheme when it comes before them.

They say the investigation launched by Unesco into the future of the World Heritage Site status awarded to Edinburgh's Old and New Towns in 1995 should make everyone think again about the plans, which would see two listed buildings demolished to make way for a five-star hotel and conference centre with an entrance on the Royal Mile.

The Unesco review was sparked by concerns about the effect Caltongate and other proposed developments could have on the Capital's skyline. Mr Harper said: "We will have to live with whatever goes here for the next 100 years or more. It would cast a shadow on the planning system if there were not to be a public inquiry.

"If it then goes ahead, a lot of people might still be unhappy, but at least it would have gone through due process."

Ms Somerville said she believed people had not taken seriously enough the possibility of Unesco stripping Edinburgh of its World Heritage Site status.

She said: "This is an absolutely enormous development. There's no doubt something needs done with the gap site because it's such an important part of the city, but this development is not the way forward."

She rejected the idea that a public inquiry would mean such a major delay that the project would effectively have to be abandoned.

Ms MacDonald said whether or not the World Heritage Site had brought any benefits to Edinburgh, losing it would be damaging.

The call for a public inquiry comes as councillors prepare to consider the plans once again tomorrow. A blunder by officials meant objectors were not given their statutory 14 days to comment on the council's decision earlier this year to approve the scheme.

The planning committee is expected to confirm its original approval, but the applications must then go to ministers once more.

And although they gave the green light last June, they will have to decide whether to rubber stamp the approval again, call the plans in to decide themselves, or hold a public inquiry.

A spokesman for developer Mountgrange said it had spent years consulting the council, Historic Scotland and the community. "We feel we have met the required standard in terms of the economic and social case and dealt with the issues to do with heritage. And up till now the council and the government have agreed with that position. We see no need for a public inquiry."


The full article contains 472 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 August 2008 1:46 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Caltongate development
 
1

Buttress,

26/08/2008 12:09:53
YES!!!!!


The plans should not have been passed, and I look forward to Historic Scotland defending our international heritage at a public inquiry... or will pigs fly?

For more read:

www.eh8.org.uk

and the letter sent to CEC and the government last week detialing exactly why the plans should not have been passed, apart from the fact a lot of snouts are in troughs, and there's a major anti-heritage and pro-developer lobby in the city.

2

eric,

Lothian 26/08/2008 12:34:01
Affordable housing ?mmmm.Dodgy.Scrap it.
3

Edward,

26/08/2008 12:46:59
Not taking any sides on this.
But Edinburgh needs to get its act together regarding designated zones
It should aim to be a modern vibrant city, but at the same time any part which is historic should be ring fenced and protected, BUT not to the determent of the City as a whole! Its up to planners and archetects too be imaginitive when blending the modern and the ancient when the two meet.
As for the 'skyline' What Skyline? This is a purile arguement that is very stupid
The skyline is determined by the buildings in a city, its not sacro sanc. Example in London they built the London Eye, which stands out, its on the embakment of the river and faces the House of parliament, so thats modern and very old in proximity, but the London eye is now part of the skyline. This is what I mean by architects being imaginitive in blending the old and new.
4

Edward,

26/08/2008 12:49:31
'concerns about the effect Caltongate and other proposed developments could have on the Capital's skyline'
Actually this is below the Skyline.
I dont remember the old bus garage having an effect on the Skyline
5

Buttress,

26/08/2008 12:49:54
The idea that it is the 'skyline' which is the sole concern of UNECO is wrong.

The Eye of course is a temporary structure....
6

Buttress,

26/08/2008 12:54:52
But - affordable housing is NOT part of the development. That is shunted off to another site entirely...

...as the letter to the council from the Canongate Community Forum says:


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


"13. The provision of affordable housing does not address the needs of the area (particular lack of larger, 3 and 4 bed family housing) and what has been proposed has been offset to publicly owned land on Calton road rather than being met on site by the developer."







7

Howard Moon,

26/08/2008 13:15:00
Congratulations Buttress.

I can just picture the scene now, as you take your grandchild for a walk around the Old Town.

"You see that gap site there, the bit that looks like a bomb hit it?"

"Yes granddad. I can see it."

(choking with welled-up pride) "We did that."
8

Howard Moon,

26/08/2008 13:18:08
Edward, spot on. This talk of the potential damage to the 'skyline' is absolute nonsense. I've asked on here countless times for one of the EH8 lot to explain what skyline they mean, without a response. I've even heard it used as a reason for not building at Leith Docks!
9

mad moo,

edinburgh 26/08/2008 13:28:47
Now mountgrange have stopped work on the gap site and it is ready to be developed but with no consent the Council could use the hundred thousand pound fund set up to pay for a land art project (landscaped open space?) and temporary surface car park.
It is not a perminant answer to the gap site created but would make it usable and less ugly until a good development can be started.
10

Buttress,

26/08/2008 13:29:30
Do some reserach Howard Moon.

Ask Historic Scotland - which invited UNESCO to visit, because of its concerns over the Leith development.

Of course the old bus garage needs developing - just not any old commercial development at any price, which spills outside of that site, and the developer has of course signed an agreement with CEC that if there is any delay it will landscape the site.


I await that with interest...

Naturally the EH 8 lot has nothing to do with the skyline issue, as it isn't part of the Caltongate argument. Anyhow, I can't actually recall your asking that question on this site?

Odd....
11

Randan,

26/08/2008 13:31:35
I would have had no objection to Caltongate if there had been genuine give and take on both sides, and there had been an open and trustworthy planning process which resulted in a decent development.

Instead it was a sham from the start because all the dodgy parties involved had already made their minds up and were trying to hammer through a badly thought through pile of keech.

It clearly was and still is all about big bucks having a detrimental effect on the planning 'process' instead of delivering a site that the people of Edinburgh would find useful, beautiful and something to be proud of.
12

,

26/08/2008 13:40:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

Hoof Hearted,

26/08/2008 13:49:25
Why would you want riff-raff in affordable housing (another name for cooncil hooses surely?) in such a nice location. That's why we built Wester Hailes, Livingston and Glasgow.
14

Buttress,

26/08/2008 13:54:50
13 - I do think possibly you should do some research about what 'affordable housing' is before shooting off yer gob.

Anyhow - the Caltongate development will not be a 'nice' location.
15

Howard Moon,

26/08/2008 13:55:45
"Naturally the EH 8 lot has nothing to do with the skyline issue, as it isn't part of the Caltongate argument. Anyhow, I can't actually recall your asking that question on this site?

Odd...."

http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Dawe-gives-backing-to-Haymarket.4403740.jp

Well there's one example for you, but I do remember others. Anyway, doesn't matter, you've just deflected the question again.

Btw, this article's comments http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Heritage-trust-warns-hotel-will.4172787.jp
are pretty interesting, as we see fortune-teller Buttress predicting Edinburgh's 'under threat' WHS status.
16

BobW,

In toon 26/08/2008 14:18:26
Interesting to see support from the cultural peasants for the Carltongate gravey train. Glass boxes instead of historical old buildings? Can money be involved?
17

Buttress,

26/08/2008 14:22:17
I am of course not an official part of the 'EH8 lot' if you mean a member of SOOT. So maybe you should ask SOOT, which is concerned with Caltongate. The threats there really aren't about the 'skyline' but are wide ranging.

The hotel plans (in the buffer zone, not the WHS) were passed after the UNESCO report. It may of course add that to its little list, now that development has been passed by CEC.

18

Buttress,

26/08/2008 14:23:23
16 - there are some who would say so, in brown envelopes. I could not possibly comment.
19

,

26/08/2008 16:00:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
20

Buttress,

26/08/2008 17:19:36
Oh Septic - no it's not at all dodgy, apart from in your sad mind. Take some legal advice. I have not at all commented. Others have. I am sure you have read such comments here, as I have. Which is what I am referring to. I have no idea at all about brown envelopes, clearly though you seem to... But waffly statements naming no names by others on which I have not commented? Get real.


As for that 'opinion piece' - and? It's a not terribly important or impressive, or, indeed, factually accurate opinion.

Nor was this, based as it was on so much inaccuracy:

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/A-question-of-honour.4423360.jp


21

Buttress,

26/08/2008 17:33:20
In fact - I advise anyone reading the nonsense on the website referred to in 19 above re UNESCO etc to ignore much of it as it is so much inaccurate nonsense!

I wonder how Edinburgh World Heritage Trust, which seems to be lumped on the same page, and may to the unwary be associated with such a Philistinely silly piece, feels about it?

Historic Scotland has invited UNESCO to visit Edinburgh.

No-one forced the UK government to seek inscription, but once it did it signed up to protect the site from unsuitable and damaging development. Which is not the same thing as no development at all, of course.



22

Buttress,

26/08/2008 17:53:08
This was more interesting:

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/A-question-of-honour.4423360.jp

Hewitt - dear oh dear!





23

,

26/08/2008 18:35:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

Buttress,

26/08/2008 19:27:31
Oh dear me Septic - you can get very little right, can you?

Hilarious! And as ever all you can do is be spiteful. Does me no good, eh? How do you know? No good with whom?

I doubt UNESCO 'needs' Edinburgh! Oh dear! What a failure of understanding as usual from you.

The article - well at least it gave two sides - and Hewitt's stuff was so stupid you have to wonder why he's still in a job at the CoC.

The blog, by the way, is owned and run by the SOOT campaigners. I don't write it. But I love reading it!

I can assure you UNESCO won't consider that Caltongate 'enhances' the WHS. That's not the sort of statement UNESCO makes. What it will do is work quietly and diplomatically to see that the worst effects of any scheme are mitigated.

25

Beam Me Up-Scotty,

EDINBURGH 26/08/2008 19:42:26
At least Caltongate won't change the skyline - The 17 storey abomination at Haymarket will obscure the skyline for miles around.
26

Casey Beer,

26/08/2008 19:50:32
#16 & #18.
Isn't it so easy to make a suggestion of corruption without any substance.

It is possible, but equally it is possible that people object for financial gain.

Can money be involved in your objections? There are some who would say so, in brown envelopes. I could not possibly comment.

27

Buttress,

26/08/2008 20:08:10
Well, I have no financial interest in Caltongate. I will gain not a penny from it going ahead, or indeed not going ahead.

Was the stuff about brown envelopes connected to allegations of corruption? I don't think such a thing was mentioned in those posts. How interesting of you to raise such an issue.
28

Casey Beer,

26/08/2008 20:13:06
#27 "Well, I have no financial interest in Caltongate. I will gain not a penny from it going ahead, or indeed not going ahead."

Well that's what you say, but how are we to believe you?
29

Casey Beer,

26/08/2008 20:13:33
#27 "Well, I have no financial interest in Caltongate. I will gain not a penny from it going ahead, or indeed not going ahead."

Well that's what you say, but how are we to believe you?
30

Buttress,

26/08/2008 20:17:12
Well it must be one or the other... so you have to believe something out of those two?

But it's true. I have no financial interest at all in the site, or indeed the Hamrket Tower (which I agree an abomination) or Leith Docks or the St James' Centre.

How do I know you aren't a mouthpiece for Mountgrange? Or indeed a Merchant Banker...


31

Pop goes the Weasel ,

26/08/2008 21:12:32
Buttress, do you actually have a life? Blimey, it's one thing taking an active interest in the public consultation process for planning applications, but dont you think you're taking this waaay too seriously?

I really dont think UNESCO will remove Edinburgh's World Heritage status. Honestly, if you check out their website (which I'm sure you already have) you'll see that there are only a couple of places that are under consideration for removal from the World Heritage List, and one of them was an ancient rock carving in Iraq that was blown up by the Taliban. I hardly think the Caltongate development will have that much of an impact on the overall World Heritage status in Edinburgh.
32

Buttress,

26/08/2008 21:23:48
I think international heritage is a very serious issue, worthy of the most careful consideration.

I think that it's not just Caltongate but other developments which will bring the question of what is happening to the WHS into focus with UNESCO. Remember though that UNESCO considers that (under international agreements signed by the government) Caltongate should have been referred to it before the plans were passed. That did not happen.

Look at Dresden, the Elbe Valley. That has been put on the In Danger list (alongside a number of others, not just a couple) because of the building of a bridge. If that goes ahead, Dresden will be removed from the inscription as a WHS.

I appreciate that there are in Edinburgh powerful developer and business interests who would like to see that happen in the City too. However, I hope that those in government will see the wisdom of working calmly with UNESCO (and indeed the EWH and others) to seek a solution.

Check out also:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/454





33

Buttress,

26/08/2008 21:27:02
"UNESCO's World Heritage mission is to:

encourage countries to sign the World Heritage Convention and to ensure the protection of their natural and cultural heritage;

encourage States Parties to the Convention to nominate sites within their national territory for inclusion on the World Heritage List;

encourage States Parties to establish management plans and set up reporting systems on the state of conservation of their World Heritage sites;

help States Parties safeguard World Heritage properties by providing technical assistance and professional training;

provide emergency assistance for World Heritage sites in immediate danger;

support States Parties' public awareness-building activities for World Heritage conservation;

encourage participation of the local population in the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage;

encourage international cooperation in the conservation of our world's cultural and natural heritage."

http://whc.unesco.org/en/about/
34

Casey Beer,

26/08/2008 21:58:02
#30
Oh well done, you've actually got my point & much quicker than I would have given you credit for. You can throw all sorts of scurrilous accusations without any knowledge of their veracity.

You have now twice denied that you might financially reward from opposing this. I wonder if you will make it to three? Me thinks the lady do protest too much.

As for Merchant Bankers - you would know best.

Now I wonder how long it will be before you get my original point?
35

Buttress,

26/08/2008 23:00:42
What personal financial interest would you consider I could have from opposing development? Do explain as I would be so interested to know, and no doubt would others!

And what scurrilous accusations are you suggesting have been made here? :-)

No doubt then you can expand on this post 9:

"Caltongate , no problem go ahead

Sensible alteration, no way, heritage status blah blah

the difference ?????

nae big broon envelopes in the second wan !!!!!!!"

on this story thread:

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Owners-stunned-by-ruling-over.4425735.jp

and explain it to the innocents amongst us?


But how generous of you to consider that possibly I am not slow on the uptake (!).

Merchant bankers? That describe you?





36

BobW,

In bed 26/08/2008 23:27:54
Casey beer. Oh to be so naive and innocent. Why are Mountgrange interested in the development? To make money perhaps, or are they a charity. Maybe they want to knock down our buildings to save us from having a gap in the ground.
All that needs to be done is to fill the space with a tasteful well thought through building. There is no need to knock down other buildings and build more second rate fake sandstone and glass boxes. If there was one decent architect involved in the project it may have helped.
37

Buttress,

in disbelief 26/08/2008 23:56:18
Oh but BoW - maybe you are making money out of saying that... :-) I would love to know how, maybe then all those who opposed the Caltongate development could share in the apparent riches floating around for doing so?


38

Buttress,

in delight 27/08/2008 00:21:15
Seems we aren't alone though BobW:

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Stand-firm-against--those.4428600.jp
39

,

27/08/2008 01:25:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
40

Buttress,

27/08/2008 09:54:24
Hey Septic - chill. So easily irked!

As ever - an attack of spite and bile, inaccurate in the main with not lot to do with the story or the discussion.

41

CurlySue,

27/08/2008 10:13:22
Wouldn’t it be a shame if they ended up with beautiful well designed buildings worthy of World Heritage Status in Caltongate and then along came the ‘Tartan Tat Terrorists’ and decorated the buildings with their ‘Hey Jimmy Hats’ ‘Green Stuffed Nessies’ ‘Men’s Tartans Skirts’ ‘life size cardboard cuts’ etc etc etc. Just have a look at 112 Canongate – a beautiful building designed by Richard Murphy to see what could happen. All the residents be they in affordable housing or otherwise would have to listen to bagpipe music blaring all day long. These shopkeepers know the music annoys local residents but they just don’t care – perhaps they want to punish us.
42

CurlySue,

27/08/2008 10:17:46
Please don't anyone say the residents should contact the Environmental Health re bagpipe music. The Environmental Health can do nothing - or so they say.
43

Casey Beer,

27/08/2008 13:11:22
Buttress / BobW.

Sadly I seem to have jumped the gun, you have both missed my point: there is no place for underhanded accusations of back-handers in brown bags. There is simply no evidence of it.

Buttress, I've known you long enough to be sure that you are not in it for fiscal gain. I used exactly your's and BobW's words to "not comment" on your potential reward for objecting and, despite my lack of comment, you felt the need to strenuously & repeatedly deny it. Surely you didn't need to do that because I hadn't commented?

How could someone gain from objecting? I would have thought that you could have worked out some of these for yourself, but here goes. I'm sure other developers who put in alternative plans would gain if their more suitable plan was later chosen. Also if any of your speculation about the so-called brown bags were true then planners and politicians could also increase their chances of receiving such bundles by objecting. Lastly you could be a neighbour or a business near the development seeking to cause enough upset to gain some compensation.
44

Buttress,

27/08/2008 14:09:03
But but - you are the one reading far more into comments than were on the page. It's all in your head.

And of course as most folk know who read here regularly, it's a longstanding site joke.

However, re planning 'gain' by objecting - I think most objectors to Caltongate, Haymarket etc simply want a far better development, reflecting the needs and aspirations of residents, respecting historic buildings and the UNESCO World Heritage Site and its buffer zone.

That's my idea of gain. It's about what I, and I am sure many others, would wish to gain. There's more to life than cash.

Sir Terry Farrell on radio (Good Morning Scotland) this morning - 2 hours 22 mins into the prog:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00d3j0v



45

Casey Beer,

27/08/2008 14:22:03
"you are the one reading far more into comments than were on the page."
So what weren't you not, not saying?
46

Think Tank,

27/08/2008 14:44:50
Just so everyone's clear, the three red posts removed by moderators with no reason were all mine.

There's debate, and then there's simply not being able to answer an argument and so hitting the "mummy, help me mummy" button.

Just remember that for all his/her bluster, Buttress and his ilk have LOST on Quartermile, LOST on Caltongate, LOST on St. Andrew's Square and will LOSE on the Waterfront and LOSE on the St James' Centre development.

And each LOSS is to the benefit of Edinburgh.



47

Buttress,

27/08/2008 15:04:41
Just for the record - Septic Tank's comments were abusive, and he has no record of who reported/removed -or do you work for this paper Septic and have insider information unknown to the rest of us?

What argument? All you do is bluster and make abusive personal comments. I've never seen you make any sensible contributions to anything on this site. Juat a bit of a joke really.

I think many disagree that certain developments were to the gain of Edinburgh. Far better and more sensitive ones could have had equally as much of the cliamed 'gain'.
48

Buttress,

27/08/2008 15:08:47
45 - what did you think was being said?

49

Buttress,

27/08/2008 16:22:22
Today's blog is very interesting:

http://independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html

Recommended reading!


50

Casey Beer,

27/08/2008 16:29:46
#46 I'm sure one of the three was mine, hoping against all hope that Buttress would keep his comments brief and meaningful.

#48 What do you think I thought was being said?
51

Buttress,

27/08/2008 17:26:01
He's female. And does. Maybe you just don't appreciate them. But igore Setic, whose only purpose is to show us the dark side of human nature.

I don't know - what did you think was being said?

All plans passed this afternoon. No surprise there then.

52

Buttress,

27/08/2008 17:29:39
Latest news:

http://www.independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com/
53

Rap,

27/08/2008 17:36:46
#46 Think Tank quantify the benefit to Edinburgh, be specific, give details, with $$$$
54

Rap,

27/08/2008 18:11:24
Proving a little tough for you Think Tank? Ok, well while working on that one, here's the second part of your homework.

Now, remembering that no-one on these pages has ever said "no, let's leave the wide open space that is the ex-bus stop or car park, let's leave the beast that is the St. James centre, we hate change and we'd rather have this ugly than new ugly". Now quantify the benefit to Edinburgh, be specific, give details, with $$$$ assuming the developers and planners took a little extra time and thought, and actually read and followed their own planning policies, had a quick word with UNESCO about why the existing architecture was given WHS, remembered that buildings are not just about an individuals ego and making a quick buck, and produced plans which appeased most people.

Now subtract 1 from 2, what's your answer?
55

Buttress,

27/08/2008 18:11:42
I suspect from the over a thousand plus removed posts on this story Septic was at it again...

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/City-chiefs-snub-heritage-fears.4430035.jp


56

Rap,

27/08/2008 20:06:11
Been a busy boy. Whatever he wanted to say must have been very important.
57

Casey Beer,

27/08/2008 20:45:56
#51 "He's female."
My apologies.

"And does".
Thanks! That's just made me splutter coffee all over my keyboard & screen.

#55 Surely that's a glitch? No-one could be posting 6 or 7 times a second. Perhaps it's the administrator's way of stopping any more comments being posted - maximum 1000?
58

Think Tank,

27/08/2008 21:42:37
#53

It always amazes me how people like you come on here and pose a question in the great belief that you've asked the unanswerable. It's laughable.

What will Caltongate deliver for Edinburgh?

I'm sure you can find the projected figures if you looked hard enough (well hard enough to google "caltongate" and avoid the misleading eh8 nonsense)

But here's the basics:

New hotel, new conference facilities, new grade A office space, new shops, new housing (with an affordable quota as per council policy), new restaurants, new arts quarter with exhibition space.

You're looking at I believe around 3000 permanent jobs plus more during construction. So yes, you're talking several million pounds per annum for the local economy.

So they're the facts Rap. Now let's look at what Buttress/EH8/SOOT etc. have suggested for the site. As you've said, nobody wants a hole in the ground (but the heritage watchdogs don't half like prolonging their lives!).

Their proposal- no hotel, no conference facilities, essentially nothing "new" for the area. Community facilities for locals. And a bit more affordable housing. I believe a "local market" was suggested for the bus depot site. It's terrible quaint.

Now Rap, answer me these questions:

a) do you honestly think the above plan (if implemented) would deliver as much for the Edinburgh economy as Caltongate?

b) do you honestly see any reason why such plans (local facilities) would gain any private investment? Who's going to pay to build something that's not a sellable asset? You do understand there's little return on affordable housing don't you? You do understand it's subsidised by the non-affordable housing don't you?

So you're talking a social project- absolutely nothing wrong with that, but for such a massive gapsite? Where's the £s (or as you so charmingly put it $$$$s) going to come from for this "community" enhancement? Council tax? Scottish Executive?

Do all other areas of Edinburgh get £300m investm
59

Think Tank,

27/08/2008 21:44:10
#55/56

There's only one poster with history in prolific postings (usually over half the posts on any Caltongate story).

I won't name her.

60

Think Tank,

27/08/2008 21:48:19
Sorry, I didn't realise my previous post #58 would get cut short.

To end:

Do all other areas of Edinburgh get £300m of investment for community projects?

Are you starting to see how ludicrous the desires of EH8/Soot/Buttress are?

61

Rap,

27/08/2008 22:56:31
Think Tank, you haven't answered my question, and I was expecting an answer because it is answerable. You made a sweeping statement about all the new developments in Edinburgh, not just Caltongate, and that's what I asked you to consider.

I'm not interested in attacking individuals or patronising anyone (something you may want to consider). I asked you to answer a perfectly answerable question; explain the benefit to Edinburgh if these developments go ahead and explain the benefits if they go ahead assuming (the charming) $$$ is not the sole driving force. Not all of these developments have housing, so please don't lecture me on sellable assets and profits. You are taking such a polarised view that you risk ignoring what might be perfectly valid suggestions which can improve and benefit the city but may not be directly converted into hard $$$. The soul of a city is not just about the money.

The same may also be said of the EH8 team, but as a resident near another large development, I understand that the forces of money and soul are not even. Why on earth would I agree than any community that feels so strongly is ludicrous? Just the use of the word itself shows you are incapable of understanding or respecting their beliefs, regardless of whether you think they are right or wrong, so it's a pointless discussion. This is a democratic country and I'd like to think my tax $$$ fund a democratic planning process for a city I love living in. But I know that it's not democratic process really, it is slanted to those who can afford to employee numerous planning consultants who can lobby, and spend hours impressing easily impressed planning officials, using lots of pretty (but slightly skewed) pretty artists impressions. So, if any non-architecturally qualified residents feel so strongly that they try and make a stand against, my God, more power to their elbow. Sometimes, as a society, we shouldn't just look at the $$$, and we should make sure we listen to all the views
62

Think Tank,

28/08/2008 00:39:36
Your words are meaningless Rap. You asked me to provide you with what these developments offer that wouldn't happen without them.

I did this for the Caltongate and now suddenly you're not interested in this anymore.

It's very self-satisfying to talk of a large community based project instead of the Caltongate development, but it's simply not remotely feasible.

That's speaking from the head, not from the heart. If you want community facilities it has to be a social project funded by the taxpayer. Instead we have £300m of private investment, with the economic driving force to actually increase future tax revenues (more business, homeowners etc.). All at ZERO expense to the taxpayer.

And we even get to stipulate that a certain percentage of homes are "affordable".


So you see Rap, it's time to stop making meaningless lectures about "the soul of the city" and "it's not all about money", and rather than being YET ANOTHER Edinburgh Evening news whinger, actually come up with constructive ideas to back up your anti- stance.

It's a repetitive feature on this site...being anti- something (development, trams etc.) but not having the capacity to back it up with a thought process to suggest something sensible and feasible.

So go on Rap, surprise me. Go back and read my previous post and suggest how you would financially back a social/community scheme in place of Caltongate? If you come up with a brilliant plan you've solved all our problems...Meadowbank, tram extensions etc.

I'm all ears.

63

Think Tank,

28/08/2008 00:45:01
I've just reread your last paragraph Rap and it just gets more "ludicrous" the more I see it.

You seem very confused at the terms democracy and democratic process. It appears you're another site reader who thinks that a process of opposition to a scheme cannot have been democratic if it did not succeed.

By this logic, a single objection would stop any development.

The Caltongate scheme was altered by democratic influence, so was the Haymarket tower.

Your views are rather akin to turning up to a council meeting and suggesting everyone on your street gets a council tax rebate- and then protesting that it's "undemocratic" when it's rejected. Your thoughts and ideas are confused and un-costed at best.

64

Buttress,

28/08/2008 00:46:46
I note again that Septic repeats the same abuse, cannot discuss issues without it, and the same tired and unproven claims of the developer (although the jobs figures seems to have grown by another thou or so?) yet really has no in depth idea of any proposed alternative suggestions. I do know, although I am not a paid up member of the 'EH8 team' (although a strong sympathiser) that in fact many involved are skilled professionals.

There are alternatives you know. Ones which would also preserve and re-use heritage assets, deliver something for a local community, and be worthwhile well into the future. The current plans are not quality.

There are highly skilled professionals working in heritage and planning in the city, and a 'champion' in Terry Farrell - why not ask for alternatives to developer driven plans, as Sir Terry has said?

'But I know that it's not democratic process really, it is slanted to those who can afford to employ numerous planning consultants who can lobby, and spend hours impressing easily impressed planning officials, using lots of pretty (but slightly skewed) pretty artists impressions.'

Yes. And even more easily impressd councillors. And that's where a public inquiry is useful - but the cards are again stacked against those without millions to spend on legal representation, and 'consultants' paid to say what they have been paid to say...


65

Buttress,

28/08/2008 01:00:39
'And we even get to stipulate that a certain percentage of homes are "affordable".'


Not as an integral part of the Caltongate development though!
66

Buttress,

28/08/2008 01:30:22
Here's TV yesterday evening (27th) on Caltongate:

http://video.stv.tv/bc/News/news-localedinburghandeast/


SOOT campaigner (qualified planner) and Planning Convenor Jim Lowrie both speak.

I understand the latter has no qualifications at all in planning or architecture, and is very, very wrong when stating that objectors to Caltongate have not seen the plans.

They have Jim babe, they have. They have some idea. In fact, read the letter on the Canongate blog from architect Jim Johnson, on why the plans should be called in:

http://www.independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com/


I would also suggest that EWH (which objected throughout) on whose Board of Directors you sit have seen them too. Maybe you should go and have a little chat and ask just why they objected? Or do you just go along to meetings and snooze?


67

Rap,

28/08/2008 09:20:03
Think Tank, Buttress has already replied with much of what I would have said. I didn't ask you to tell me what the developments offer compared with what would happen if they didn't go ahead .If you look, I asked you to compare the existing applications and a second version, with architects foregoing ego and considering the context of the sites. I don't imagine there would be much difference in financial benefit but there would be a whole of of non-financial benefit. That's the point I was making. And I didn't state for just Caltongate, I said for ALL the developments thatv YOU listed.

And it doesn't matter how to try and polarise this, it won't work. I am not anti development, I'm just anti ugly, thoughtless developments that are driven entirely by $$$. And, unlike you, I have been involved in coming up with constructive ideas for a development (not Caltongate) and have seen them ignored by developer and planners. I've got off my backside and done something - have you? But this is where the issues of democracy and democratic process comes in (no confusion from me). In a polticial election every side must have a fair share of air and media time in which to present their views. Spending is carefully monitored and the election process is monitored and there are very strict laws dictating process. If the party I vote for doesn't get into power, this is a still a democratic process. The issue with planning is that the sides are not given a fair share of airtime, spending is definitely not even, the policies can apparently be ignored without rigorous justification. In fact Alan Henderson tells us we have no right to consultation (until the new planning laws come in) so the person on the street doesn't even need to know what is going on. This is not democratic and they do not follow a democratic process. If a decision was made I did not agree with, but I saw that due process was followed rigorously with clear justifications on why they deviated from their own guidelines
68

Rap,

28/08/2008 09:21:20
(contd)
This is not democratic and they do not follow a democratic process. If a decision was made I did not agree with, but I saw that due process was followed rigorously with clear justifications on why they deviated from their own guidelines, I'd accept it. By the way, how was the Haymarket scheme altered by democratic process?

As Buttress says, the issue is about alternatives. There should never be just one plan or nothing, particularly on hundred million pound developments. The public - those who walk the streets or will work in the buildings, or will be impacted by these developments - have a perfectly valid right to input, and it isn't always about money.
69

Buttress,

28/08/2008 09:36:41
The problem with thinking any scheme is altered by 'democratic process' is that it's usually whitewash.

As far as the Caltongate scheme went, there was a whole heap of publicity (carefully managed) in the press about the opening through and 'saving' parts of the facades of the tenements. Then Mountgrange 'magnanimously' altered that a little, and then there was carefully stage managed 'mass rejoicing' ie in the EEN.

The real issues with the demolition of listed buildings and the facade schemes were totally ignored.

We tell you what we are doing, we factor in a little bit of alteration room in our plans, we then allow you to tinker a bit to pretend we have listened, we ignore the major objections, and then we crow that we have consulted, we have listened, we have done as the public and the councillors on the planning committee asked.

It's a sham.
70

,

28/08/2008 09:43:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
71

Buttress,

28/08/2008 09:59:52
I was actually joking dear... it was wry comment. Interesting that some troll managed all those post sin such short time. Nimble fingers?

What's my interest?

Concerned citizen of the world with a major interest in historic places.

Nothing wrong with that is there?

Yes, I have seen the ghastly new HQ, no reason why that sort of things hould be repeated.

'Obsessive, paranoid' - nasty little thought in your head there popping out, eh? An obsession with people rather than the issues?

It does occur to me your interest in denigrating people who don't agree with you might have a more sinister undertone... not a Mouthpiece for Mountgrange are you? ;-)

Now - back to planning issues...

72

Howard Moon,

28/08/2008 10:19:33
OK Buttress, I apologise for sinking so low as to get caught up with ‘people rather than issues’ and promise in future to, like your good selves, stick to the ‘issues’.

If it wasn’t for the fact that quite obviously there is more than one ‘Buttress’, I would call you a hypocrite, but it may be one of your alter-egos who is guilty of it.

‘Concerned citizen of the world with a major interest in historic places.’ You should get a slot at The Stand.

73

World class concrete,

28/08/2008 10:21:25
Re the Evening News story yesterday afternoon and all those deleted posts:

One individual managed to post over 1400 identical comments.
74

Buttress,

28/08/2008 10:22:18
There is only one Buttress. Belive it or not that's up to you.

And actually some of us have high ideals.

We actually believe that World Heritage status should mean something, that the 1972 UNESCO Convention should not be ignored.



75

Buttress,

28/08/2008 10:24:12
Hasn't so far hacked into this:

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Swinney-refuses-to-enter-row.4433940.jp#3170290


Must have rather a more rapid computer system and fingers than mine however!



76

Buttress,

28/08/2008 10:31:56
And as I keep saying - I'm not a member of SOOT, Howard Moon! :-)

www.eh8.org.uk
77

Howard Moon,

28/08/2008 10:58:17
My post # 70 was unsuitable? Crazy. Not that it really matters, but why on earth was it removed? Think Tank said in post 46 that he/she was having posts removed too. Strange, I can't imagine those defenders of democratic process would have anything to do with it.

'There is only one Buttress. Belive it or not that's up to you.'

The typo gives it away, as much as anything.

Anyway, I have nothing to add really. 'Septic' as you call him (not that you ever deviate 'from the issues' of course) sums things up excellently. Enough with the negativity, come up with POSITIVE alternatives. But make them realistic. The plans for this site make a lot more sense from every perspective than a lot of other green-lighted projects in Edinburgh (like the council HQ, which I hardly heard any EH8 people mention, hence my suspicions raised in the deleted post that there is more to their objections than meets the eye).

Funny, I don't actually think the development is all that special, but the incessant ranters and ravers against it have convinced me. Just get the thing built and we can move on to something else.
78

Buttress,

28/08/2008 11:06:29
Possibly as they are personal abuse and speculation and not comment on the story?

Did the council HQ require the demolition of historic buildings? Possibly too it was deemed not a venture for commercial gain, (and built before the formation of SOOT?) but in theory a public project. Are you now in the process of rubbishing the Canongate Community Forum as well as me? You could pick up the phone, of course, and discuss the isuues with them.

I have no doubt that if there was genuine consultation and those with real insight into masterplanning and development (Terry Farrell?) were asked to be involved, then a far better and more acceptable scheme could ensue.



79

Buttress,

28/08/2008 12:31:54
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/cartoon/Cartoon.4434636.jp
80

Buttress,

28/08/2008 14:45:13
Good Times piece:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4622345.ece
81

,

28/08/2008 16:01:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
82

Think Tank,

28/08/2008 16:03:55
Interesting point Howard Moon. I've thought previously that Buttress may be a shared username to provide a united voice of the EH8 group.

I've also had suspicions that Buttress is Julie Logan, but then would she have the arrogance to post a link to her own TV performance? Not sure.

83

Buttress,

28/08/2008 17:11:28
I'm not a member of EH 8 - never mind, your fantasy land stuff is very amusing - but I've thought for a while you and Howard Moon sound much the same... no matter.

Clearly not much idea of what the planning process is and should be about. Not much idea of a great deal really, all rather missing the point. Banal to the point of absurdity.


No, Julie isn't me. She's far too young to be me.

There's a wide world out there you know, of professionals and developers who aren't fast buck Mountgrange. Hey, some even run successful markets!

There are even masterplanners and architects who can do much better than the Caltongate scheme.




84

Think Tank,

28/08/2008 19:07:50
Well, my constructed response to Rap/Buttress in post 81 has also seen the assassin. Funny that.

Looks like someone can't help but throw the toys out of the pram whenever anyone launches a reasoned debate against them.

Yet again.

85

Buttress,

28/08/2008 19:55:12
I think we all wait anxiously for that reasoned debate haven't seen it yet!

Seems someone in the vast readership doesn't like you though.

Not related to Richard Murhy, you and Howard Moon are you?

I note he's gabbing in tomorrow's Building Design, shame he hadn't done a modicum of research about WHS before so doing.
86

Buttress,

30/08/2008 09:57:53
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3121300&c=1
87

Buttress,

31/08/2008 15:17:28
Excellent piece here:

http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.2436904.0.nothing_less_than_vandalism.php

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In