Why £1m Blenheim Place house reveals shocking reality of Edinburgh’s planning system
Rachael Revesz describes how a ‘sterile’ modern building came to be granted planning permission for a site in Edinburgh’s historic New Town
It won’t be long before the diggers come. Between Toppings bookstore and Greenside Parish Church is 12 Blenheim Place, a patch of greenery overlooked by Calton Hill. Historic maps show the site was woodland from at least the mid-19th century. But then, around 2017, the trees were felled.
And now the five-bedroom family home is going up – in William Playfair’s New Town, a conservation area. It’s not surprising that dozens of people, the community council and Edinburgh World Heritage objected to the application.
What is more surprising is that planning permission came down to just two councillors. So, how did it play out? By scrutinising one application on one cobbled street, maybe there are clues to how other planning decisions are made.
32 objections
The Local Review Body (LRB) met to decide the fate of the planning application for 12 Blenheim Place on April 2, six months after it was first turned down. Four councillors were present: Conservative Tim Jones – appointed chair for the day – as well as SNP’s David Key, Ben Parker, of the Scottish Greens, and Liberal Democrat Hal Osler.
Blenheim Place was the first item of business, and slightly unusual for a committee that normally deals with dormer windows, driveways and short-term lets. A senior planning officer presented the case.
There were 32 objections (one from yours truly). Historic Environment Scotland did not object to the revised application – the original plans had consisted of two three-storey buildings on the site – but stated its lack of objection should not be interpreted as support. Council officers recommended refusal of permission: the council’s own report in October used words such as “sterile” and “detrimental”.
Two-all tie
As the senior planning officer was finishing their presentation, Labour councillor Lezley Cameron joined the webcast. Since she was late to the meeting, she wouldn’t be able to vote.
The panel was therefore down from five members to four, and it was time for each to express their view. Jones commented the design looked “discreet” and “well thought out”, and that the 1980s office building next door was significantly higher, and in that way, a “precedent” had been set.
Key wondered how Edinburgh World Heritage could argue the house would impede views of Calton Hill, when the church next door did the same? Osler turned the discussion to the width of the design: the house would extend right up to the boundary of the category A listed Parish Green Church. Parker agreed with Osler, and said the issue of the height was a “red herring”. The councillors cast their votes: two for, two against. As chair, Jones said he would use his casting vote, and permission was granted.
Who knows what would have happened if Cameron had turned up on time, or another councillor had been appointed chair that day? But there was no point in ruminating. The decision had been made.
Valuing the public realm
This is just one decision by an LRB that should be questioned, but there are other committees making planning decisions with far-reaching implications that should also be looked at. For example, why was Rosebery House by Haymarket Station demolished, when it was only built in the 1970s?
Why are blocks of student housing cropping up all over the city when we don’t have enough social housing? Why does St James shopping centre have 1,600 car park spaces in a town centre that is already heavily congested? And how much do our councillors – our elected representatives – really value the public realm and green spaces?
Part of the answer comes down, frankly speaking, to the quality of councillors who sit on the relevant committees. We require people who are invested in the work, who receive adequate training, who ask the right questions, who can form an argument, and who can put their political leanings aside when it comes to quasi-judicial bodies like the LRB.
Needs of local people
But that’s not to blame individual councillors. It would be fairer to focus on the policies they have to work with and abide by, namely the City Plan 2030, implemented last November, and the National Planning Framework 4.
Both have a stronger focus on climate, for example, than their previous iterations, and applications are now reflecting this: 12 Blenheim Place features an air-source heat pump and a roof garden. But there is a lot that is unsaid in policy and councillors therefore have limited ammunition.
It is unsaid that the motivations of property developers, lawyers and architects often run contrary to the needs of local people, and that it’s more profitable to demolish and rebuild than conserve. It is unsaid that student housing – categorised as commercial units – generates a high return for investors. (The neighbouring 1980s office block that Jones mentioned is now owned by a German real estate investment fund. It was also renovated by CSG Projects, the same company that now has planning permission at 12 Blenheim Place.)
But even if policy was watertight against vested corporate interests, the LRB meeting shows how expert opinion and local sentiment can be thrown out the dormer window, based on apparently personal views of a design, or by looking at a picture and deciding that the height of a building would have “no significant impact”.
The only thing we can do is pay more attention to the committees that our representatives sit on – and vote accordingly at the next local election. But by that point, Blenheim Place – a “sterile” million-pound house amidst a housing crisis – could already be well underway. Let’s just hope it’s not converted into a short-term let.
Rachael Revesz is an editor and freelance journalist
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.