Campaigners who are fighting a hostel development in Atholl Crescent have called for Edinburgh World Heritage (EWH) to be removed from any role in planning applications.
The heritage body is a statutory consulate in certain areas of the city which are designated as UNESCO World Heritage sites. EWH Director, Terry Levinthal, responded to the planning application to turn townhouses in the World Heritage site into a 544 bed hostel as “sensitively considered” and “acceptable”. He also wrote: “We support the heritage-led approach taken, noting the high degree of reversibility of the scheme.” He has since said that this did not mean EWH supported the application, but the campaigners do not accept the apparent u-turn.
Philip Flockhart, a conservation architect who is the spokesperson for the campaigners, has formally written to EWH, board members and its Director Terry Levinthal, urging the body to step back from its role as an advisory consultee in planning matters within the UNESCO site.
He said EWH “clearly lacks judgement in the role” and urged it to leave that work to “the heritage bodies who understand listed buildings and to the community councils who engage with local residents and businesses”.
The withdrawal should remain “until there is someone in place with better judgement, someone who can act as the conservation champions everyone expects EWH to be”.
There are 280 objections to the scheme but these will not be heard by the council who failed to deal with the application within the time limit.
The developer referred the matter to the government Reporter as soon as the time limit for the council to hear the application had expired.
the Cockburn Association has warned that the proposed development would cause
“substantial and irreversible harm” to four townhouses on the street. Yet EWH’s submission to planners praised the plans as “sensitively considered” and stated: “We support the heritage-led approach taken, noting the high degree of reversibility of the scheme.”
After several months of pressure over these comments – which have been challenged by other credible heritage experts – Mr Levinthal eventually attempted to clarify EWH’s position. However, he caused more confusion by insisting: “We did not ‘support’ the application … finding a use ‘acceptable’ does not confer support.”
Mr Flockhart said the confusion caused by EWH’s stance has undermined its credibility and added: “When Edinburgh World Heritage appears to support a proposal that has alarmed residents, heritage groups and elected members alike, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether it should continue to act as an advisory consultee in cases within the UNESCO site. Other bodies may be more effective in protecting the site, its buildings and the living communities that give it meaning.”
Jocelyn Cunliffe, chair of the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, has also called for EWH to carefully consider its role. In examining the organisation’s published aims, she found wording on its website which makes clear that EWH has a duty to consider the importance of the residential community and the authenticity that community brings to the city.
She said: “EWH’s own published position recognises that without a residential community the city loses part of its authenticity. That makes its support for this proposal all the more difficult to understand.
“This is not a marginal change. These are proposals for an extremely intensive form of visitor accommodation in one of the most sensitive parts of Edinburgh’s World Heritage Site.
“If EWH is to command public confidence in this role, it cannot appear to disregard the very principles it says should shape decision-making within the site.”
EWH advises the City of Edinburgh Council on the impact of change on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site. Its role in the planning system is governed by a formal protocol.
UNESCO status covers both the city’s Old Town and New Town. It defines Outstanding Universal Value as, “cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity”.
The Reporter’s decision is awaited.
