Outline plans for the former Royal High School (RHS) went on public display there today as part of the pre-application notification process. The exhibition continues tomorrow (10am–7pm), and there will be another – featuring more detailed designs – in March.
As reported last month (Breaking news, 16.1.15), Duddingston House Properties Ltd (DHP) and Urbanist Group propose to refurbish the central Hamilton building and the pavilions on either side for use as café/bar, meeting rooms and exhibition space.
They also intend to build two symmetrically arranged hotel 'platforms' of four or more storeys, clearly offset and slightly rotated, to the east and west and perhaps connected by a transparent gallery behind the main school premises.
Architect Gareth Hoskins (above) says much of the development will be underground and hidden from view.
The new western platform excites particular concern for Historic Scotland, the Edinburgh World Heritage Trust and City of Edinburgh Council planners. They say it would ruin the view of the RHS on the approach from Waterloo Place and long views from the south such as that from Salisbury Crags.
Controversially, the plans also ponder creating a new flight of steps leading up from Regent Road to the building’s imposing ‘blind’ portico (creating a much more significant entrance there), and demolishing the listed lodge at the RHS entrance. None of these changes finds favour with architectural heritage watchdogs.
Hoskins and developer David Orr counter by saying that Wilson's 1885 lodge and other ancillary buildings already block views of the site and detract from it by their haphazard clutter. They say their plans would in fact open up Hamilton's original view of the building's northern elevation, and reveal its carefully thought through relationship with and separation from the steep slope adjacent to it.
They see potential for some kind of visitor centre or information point at the west end of the site, drawing people towards a new public space here, the hotel and the underused vehicle and pedestrian route up Calton Hill.
As for the flight of steps, Hoskins insists that this is just one option. A more likely alternative is to reuse and redesign the existing gateways (on either side of the imaginary steps pictured below) which lead to the terrace higher up.
From talking to Hoskins and Orr this morning, it appears to the Spurtle that they are only too aware of this architectural legacy, and share in the general admiration of it. They aim to preserve it as far as possible whilst breathing new life into the complex and its surrounds through 'respectful and complementary' new structures.
For their part, the ‘heritage sector’, which includes other bodies and individuals outwith the three mentioned above, claim they are not averse to development within the RHS’s playground area. But a 300-bed hotel, they argue, is simply too ambitious and too big for the space available.
From close to the centre of this debate, Spurtle has learned that Historic Scotland, Edinburgh World Heritage and Council planners told DHP as early as 2009 that its initial proposals would cause ‘irreparable damage to the buildings and setting’ and would not receive their support. These concerns were repeated during a series of five workshops last year.
Why, then, if its proposals fell so short of Council planners’ aspirations, was DHP encouraged to take on the lease in April 2014? This was, after all, some 27 months after the deadline CEC had set for sealing the deal (31 December 2011). After that date, CEC had reserved the right ‘to terminate discussions [with DHP] and remarket the development opportunity’.
It certainly wasn’t for lack of alternative options. During the original 2009/2010 competition to find new uses for the site, over 50 notes of interest were submitted. Only five of these were invited to submit outline proposals, of which only two were then invited to submit final tenders.
The answer is wreathed in East Market Street fog, and those responsible for the decision have since left the Council.
But Spurtle hears suggestions that, in its enthusiasm to get shot of this hard-to-use and expensive-to-maintain complex, one side of CEC (Economic Development) has been working at cross-purposes to another (Planning).
There are also disturbing claims that councillors sitting on the Finance and Resources Committee – which approved the Heads of Terms and authorised completion of the lease agreement – may not have been kept fully informed of serious misgivings shared by the Head of Planning and Historic Scotland; concerns which had been explicitly expressed to Economic Development and Property Management and Development in the past.
'These are common conditions in any disposal that involves redevelopment of a property asset. The Council has a separate role as statutory authority which considers all planning applications for Edinburgh.'
Alleged problems concerning councillors not being fully informed are now being addressed behind the scenes. Critics, however, are not pulling any punches. They say that if DHP’s plans as currently constituted are eventually approved, against the advice of CEC’s own Head of Planning, then they will force a costly and potentially embarrassing public inquiry.
In the meantime, what promises to be a lively evening has been scheduled by the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland for 23 February (see Events, 23.2.15). We understand that the developers have been invited to attend but have not yet indicated whether they will speak.
That meeting is open to the public. Spurtle will be there.
Got a view? Tell us at spurtle@hotmail.co.uk and @theSpurtle and Facebook
----------------------------------
MajorBloodnok @MajorMcBloodnok
@theSpurtle Ha, someone seems to have piled some random wood offcuts in the centre of that model. Wait. What?
@theSpurtle difficult to see how any newbuild could be added without seriously detracting from the setting of the current group of buildings
New Town Flâneur @NewTownFlaneur
@theSpurtle I can see the Star of Bethlehem in the background, but were there any wise men?
Broughton Spurtle @theSpurtle
@NewTownFlaneur Hard to tell – too many camels.
@theSpurtle are you sure they just didn't leave a pack of shortbread on their wee model...?
@theSpurtle big issue is how little debate there's been over the years.Time all was brought into the open including the terms of the sale
If you missed earlier tweets, further coverage of former Royal High School plans is here: http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/news/council-decision-making-slated-royal-high-school-plans-go-display … Debate coming to the boil.
@theSpurtle I predict a long simmer.
@papawasarodeo @theSpurtle too long and it will boil dry.
@CityCycling @theSpurtle there'll be regular topping up.
Mario Cariello @MarioSCariello
@theSpurtle Still dubious about how well public accessibility and a 5/6 star hotel are going to work together despite tonight's assurances
@theSpurtle V poor advertisement of opening times for this, and dates not matching correct days where detailed.
@theSpurtle Yet, apparently about 200 still managed to see the plans today (according to organisers there) Hopefully more tomorrow!
Mario Cariello @MarioSCariello
@theSpurtle @ArchHist Together with the "dark register" CEC are not being terribly subtle about the decision they want to enforce
@theSpurtle @lostedinburgh Cec desperate to flog it to cover up their ineptitude with money and everything else about running this city .