Friends of Craighouse Grounds and Wood

We hope you all had a very nice and relaxing Christmas.

We have put together this post to give you an idea of the new plans and to encourage you to object to the increased number of apartments, blocks and cars that will be put over this Area of Great Landscape Value. We have also updated our How to Object page – please go here to help save this beautiful protected site.

We have been working on getting some pictures – placing the architects’ drawings in the landscape so you can get a sense of the sheer scale of some of these buildings. These mock-ups are our best attempt – the application itself is very poor and contains few  renders. You will see some images in the documents submitted in the planning application, but they are poor quality and not very accurate with some of the buildings in the wrong place and usually hidden behind trees. We do not understand why planning is allowing such a poor application to continue when this is a Major Application on a Highly protected and sensitive site.

Click to view

OVERVIEW

The second scheme is significantly larger than the last one

•    There are 7 development areas
•    89 newbuild properties has gone up to 125
•    153 properties (new and old) has increased to 189
•    The total amount of newbuild is significantly larger in square footage than the last one – and is significantly more than all the listed buildings put together. This means more people, properties, cars, traffic and pressure on schools and local infrastructure as well as a significant urban impact on this Area of Great Landscape Value and Nature site which is supposed to be one of the most sensitive and protected sites in the city.
•    There will be significantly more cars on the site – there are 90 underground carparking spaces proposed and over 200 ground-level parking spaces over the site.
•    More trees will be chopped down – with over 80 trees (all of which are protected on this site) being taken out – mostly in the woodland.

Massive Apartment Blocks near Old Craig destroying setting, woodland and views

Two enormous apartment blocks – “Burton” and “Napier” – will dominate the site near Old Craig  taking out green space and woodland here round Old Craig and the entrance area.

This is the poor quality image from the application showing only part of the massive development above. But you can still can see the very large scale of “Napier” on the right  which is an enormous and high building at 6/7 storeys in comparison to the ant-like people next to it. You can also tell it is very severe and blocky in style

These are 5-7 storeys tall and these two massive buildings will contain 74 properties between them – so this is really a very large development here. It will seriously affect the beautiful views from the orchard area and will dwarf poor Old Craig – the oldest building on the site, whose setting is supposed to be protected by national policy. The illustration above should give you a sense of the style and scale. You can see that there is a parapet at the top which anticipates looking out over the tree-line.

There is underground carparking for these (which is very expensive) but only 1 parking space per flat. There is significant overground parking elsewhere on the site with over 200 ground-level carparking spaces – but the number of spaces has not taken any account of the increase in properties.

Here is just part of the beautiful green space that would disappear under one of the buildings here,  “Napier”

“Clouston”

There is a large block on the top of the hill replacing the 8 storey tower. It is lower but still extremely high at 6 storeys and also significantly bigger than before containing 16 apartments in this large block.  As you can see it dominates over the existing villas here.

Craiglea Place

There are very high new houses (4 and 5 storey) at the end of Craiglea Place: “Craiglea Manor” it’s called – we’re not sure why. This block is very tall compared to the older buildings here and -again – dwarfs their older neighbours. Apart from the overwhelming and out of keeping nature of this block next to the older terrace here – there is a big worry about having this extension with parking etc on what is a rural-style lane and Right of Way up to the hill. We have always been worried about roads and cars being put here as it is a small jump to having roads extended up the hill at this point – which would threaten the orchard again.  Trees will be chopped down to accommodate these and the green space in front is all becoming carpark.

2 Large Blocks in the Woodland – “King’s Craig” and “West Craig”

Just a part of the massive building here taking out woodland and greenspace and spoiling the beautiful setting of the listed buildings. It will be surrounded by carpark and road

Two extremely large similar-styled 4 and 5 storey blocks are proposed for the woodland opposite New Craig and in the woodland opposite Queens Craig. These will also have gardens out the back – taking out more woodland here. There will be significant removal of trees here – all of which are supposed to be protected and the habitats of protected species would be directly built over as well as the setting of New Craig and Queens Craig being spoiled. There is significant roads and parking here too which we have not been able to include in the  pictures for you.

The beautiful protected setting that will be destroyed, built over and tarmaced by the King’s Craig development. Plus a large amount of woodland behind will be taken out also

“Kings Craig”: A large block in the woodland. We haven’t yet got a photo large enough to fit this whole  block in, so it’s larger than above.  This picture below shows you the area presently – the beautiful protected setting of the listed buildings that will be destroyed by King’s Craig. This whole area here will be destroyed by this very large building plus tarmaced carparking and roads –  a substantial amount of the woodland behind is being destroyed also.

West craig is also a very large build – 4 or 5 storeys opposite 2 storey Queens Craig. It is hard to show you the full impact of these but all this area becomes carpark and substantial amounts of the woodland is taken out.

West Craig: A block in the woodland opposite Queens Craig – West Craig is similar looking to Kings Craig. It is in the woodland opposite Queens Craig, which will be surrounded by car parks as well as this block.

Below is a picture of the beautiful protected setting of the listed buildings in front of the woodland – all this -and large parts of the woodland on the right would be destroyed.

Overlooking Meadowspot – long 3-storey Terrace

A long line of 3 storey terraced houses is proposed for the front of New Craig where there is woodland presently overlooking Meadowspot. There have been particular concerns here because of the flooding down the hill – Meadowspot gardens already get very water-logged according to reports I’ve received. Obviously flooding in Balcarres and Craighouse Gardens as well as Meadowspot continues to be a big concern for many local people and the development as a whole due to increased water run-off from carparks and newbuild.

Again, there are a lot of trees to be cut down in this area and you can see with the number of windows in these houses that they are not expected to be obscured by trees and will be very visible here. We apologise that this picture is rather poor – it is the best we could do with the terrible illustrations provided by the application. Perhaps you can see from the illustration just how poor much of the material we have to work with from the application really is. It is worth noting with these the number of windows. People in Meadowspot were promised these houses were to have no views (and therefore would not harm the woodland), yet the significant amount of front windows coupled with the large amount of tree removals in this area suggests otherwise.

Poor information on these in the application but they are substantial 3-storey buildings and a lot of trees are being chopped down in this area

The Development and Application

All in all the amount of newbuild is far greater than the old build – and this is a great concern as it means the majority of this development is newbuild – rather than a development centred predominantly on the listed buildings. This adds considerable risk of failure to the project as well as spoiling the site.

Phasing shows majority of newbuild plus easy and lucrative villas done first

The schedule shows that phase one includes the majority of the newbuid (Napier, Burton, Clouston and Craiglea – 94 newbuild properties in all) without having to touch the biggest and most difficult of the listed buildings – New Craig.  This rings alarm bells for us. At Quartermile, there has been a lot of newbuild – the site has been packed out in fact -and yet the old historic buildings remain largely untouched and some have even been demolished. There is little incentive to finish New Craig once the newbuild has been built. That’s if Mountgrange have any interest in the reality of the development at all rather than just selling site on with large amounts of planning permission.

What else can we tell you from this application?

All in all, this application appears to be very little to do with saving listed buildings. Indeed, as usual, the application is full of threats about how the listed buildings will go derelict – and the threat of the old consent for the Creative Industries building being enacted if they don’t get their way. This is outrageous considering the promises of planning and William Gray Muir that this old consent had no bearing on the planning application. But then they said this about the buildings being put on the Buildings at Risk Register too (on William Gray Muir’s instigation). Yet we know the BARR was used to pressure Historic Scotland and the Scottish Government in recent meetings and is constantly referred to in the planning application.

The new application’s argument is all about wanting more profit.

Application full of errors

The application itself seems rushed and is full of errors (see end of post for just some examples). This may seem surprising after a year of waiting – but perhaps not as Mountgrange seems to have invested more time and effort lobbying the Scottish Government this summer – meeting with Minister John Swinney and having unminuted meetings with Scottish Government planners  rather than putting in a reasonable and detailed application. We have yet to find out what further meetings with Ministers and government planners took place after June this year. The Scottish Government – again – have failed to answer our Freedom of Information within the statutory 20 days.

Finance

We are compiling a very detailed analysis of the figures that have been released. At the moment this analysis runs to a 15-page report that we are willing to make available to our members if you might find that useful or have a finance background. We will be submitting this to the planning department.

Our report is still to be fully completed but I can tell you the following:

The figures show the listed buildings are profitable without newbuild: but the Craighouse Partnership want more profit – 20% of the entire scheme.

The whole development will cost – the Craighouse Partnership claim – c. £80million (and sold for £96million). Yet the conversion costs of the listed buildings is less than a quarter of this.

So what is the rest to be spent on?

£9 million pounds is allocated for consultants fees alone ( that’s on top of the millions of pounds profit the Craighouse Partnership is looking to make).

More millions of pounds are allocated for infrastructure (£4.6million in total) -on  roads, electricity etc. And yet this cost – again – should mainly be associated with the newbuild not the listed buildings which have existing infrastructure. Even allowing for upgrading the infrastructure to the listed buildings – it would be a fraction of these incredible costs.

£1 million is allocated for planning process  Really? How many more failed and unacceptable planning applications are they anticipating? What is this being spent on – more lobbying?

There is no affordable housing – either on or off site. None at all. This, despite all the claims made that there would be during the consultation process with the public.

Inaccuracies, nonsense sales estimates and tardis-like buildings

There are more strange aspects to this application – according to the figures, the site is instantly more profitable if you remove “Burton” – one of the ugly vast apartment blocks near Old Craig pictured above. If this is really the case – there is no justification for it to be built at all.

The newbuild sales price estimates in the application are vastly higher than the old build sales’ price estimates. The newbuild is priced at up to 34% higher than average prices in Morningside – whilst the converted old build (despite being large apartments with historic interiors and superb views) is priced lower than average for the area. This is simply not credible.

They are trying to claim high development values for  some of the listed buildings on the site (such as the villas) whilst simultaneously claiming a developer would lose money by developing them. This – again – shows a serious error in the numbers. The valuation should reflect the profit that can be made by developing – so the numbers here are inconsistent and do not match up. The Council would be in serious error accepting this.

Two of the listed buildings are apparently tardises, according to this application, being far larger on the inside than on the outside! We assume this is just more error-making on the part of the Craighouse Partnership – but adds more inaccuracy to this messy application and does not inspire confidence.

There are a whole series of other errors that make the application hard to follow and undermines the credibility of this application:

• North, South, East and West are routinely mixed up on the plans.
• The masterplan for Kings Craig and West Craig have the wrong buildings on them.
• The number of cars and houses have increased significantly – yet the number of “trips” that people are estimated to make have dropped considerably. (An attempt to try to make the traffic impact appear less than it will be?)
• They have put in an underground carpark with no plans for it – is this a mistake, incompetence or oversight?
• Then there is the inconvenient fact that the listed building plans in the planning application don’t even match the listed building plans in the Listed Building consent! What message does this give us about the claims that this development is about the listed buildings?

This is the second time they’ve put in a messy application full of errors for what is a Major Application on a Highly Protected Site. What do we make of this? Are they serious about this development? Or is this simply about getting permission for substantial amounts of newbuild through planning?

We are very worried about this application – both what is there and what has been forgotten or ignored. We cannot see that this is a credible or competent application.

It is very important people object if we don’t want to see our beautiful hill left a mess – and if we want to preserve both the landscape and the historic buildings of what should be a highly protected site and not set a terrible precedent for our other Areas of Great Landscape Value, historic sites and the rest of Edinburgh’s famous seven hills.

Please do all you can to spread the word – and email to object. Details how is on our How to Object page.

Wishing all of you a lovely day and a good relax (plus mincepies, lots of old repeats on TV and a glass or three of wine). We’re taking a day or two off but will be back very soon with more information and analysis. In the meantime we wanted to  wish you a very Merry Christmas with this lovely pic of Old Craig in the snow.

Have a wonderful time, everyone, and do check the site in a few days. Merry Christmas!

In June, we put in a FOI request to ask what meetings the Scottish Government have had with members of the Craighouse Partnership.

Despite the fact it should take them 20 days in law, over 4 months later the Scottish Government had missed the deadline (several times) and the appeal deadline, holding up our FOI request for over 91 days. So, we put in a complaint to the Scottish Information Commissioner.

On Monday afternoon, we received a partial release of the FOI information from the Scottish Government. The information we have been sent is not complete and key minutes and reports are missing along with another 2 documents they admit to withholding. Still no reasons given for the delay or for many of the documents being missing.

However, what we can tell you maybe explains some of the long delay we’ve all been experiencing at Craighouse waiting for the outcome of the planning application for the last 11 months.

It seems that whilst continuing to sign and fail to meet deadlines for processing agreements and telling the Council they are working on a scheme 2, Mountgrange and other members of the Craighouse Partnership have been working behind the scenes to try to get the Scottish Government to force the application through against any potential refusal by the planners or the Council – in a similar scenario to what happened over the Trump golf course.

We can now confirm that Manish Chande, one of the two partners of Mountgrange and other members of the Craighouse Partnership met with Minister John Swinney, Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, specifically about Craighouse.

Manish Chande was also granted meetings with the Scottish Government planners.

These meetings were arranged by Invicta PA – Mountgrange’s lobbyist – despite the fact that parliamentary rules say that you should not be given greater access to MSPs by employing a commercial lobbyist. Equal access should be given to the community, yet none of the people above who met with Chande have met with the community, including ministers and Historic Scotland.

We also know they were seeking a meeting with Minister Fiona Hyslop, Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs and Minister Derek Mackay, Minister for Local Government and Planning in the Scottish Government.

Meeting between the Craighouse Partnership and Historic Scotland

Initially, Manish Chande was looking for a meeting with John Swinney in March. This request was turned down and, instead, Chande met with Barbara Cummins, Director of Heritage Management at Historic Scotland.  We have the note from this meeting which is relevant to what happens next.

Before she worked for Historic Scotland, Cummins worked for the Council planning department and was  in charge of the team dealing with city centres and Listed Buildings Consents  when the Council passed the demolition of  listed buildings in and around the Old Town for Mountgrange’s last – disastrous – failed Caltongate scheme  –  triggering a UNESCO investigation and  still a derelict problem site many years later.

The documents show her meeting Manish Chande, who had come up from London,  and the rest of the Craighouse Partnership without the Historic Scotland officers in charge of the case and without the Council present.

The note from the meeting appears to show Mountgrange putting pressure on Historic Scotland to push the Council to accept their enabling development case. At first, Barbara Cummins seems circumspect, suggesting that the developers should remove elements of the scheme and go back to the Council. However, it is decided that:

“HS [Historic Scotland] to consider what its role is and give some steer as to enabling case, for example use of RICS advice re site value (Action BC [Barbara Cummins] to consider if further advice can be provided to CEC)”

(Square brackets ours.)

Remember, an enabling development needs the site to be of near to or no value as it is seen as the equivalent of a public subsidy – not a mechanism for developer to make extra profits for themselves.

It is interesting to note here that Mountgrange obviously don’t want the site’s value to be looked at too closely in relation to the enabling development case.

“Mountgrange concerned re this case and the fact the seller, as a further education institution, will already have undergone due diligence in establishing site value, this is now being questioned by local planning authority.”

Mountgrange Push Idea of Notification Direction

The note then shows the Craighouse Partnership pushing the idea of a Notification Direction.

A Notification Direction would mean that the ministers are stating their intention to “call in” an application before a Council is given the chance to make a decision. It is not usually used for cases where a Council is likely to refuse an application. The most high-profile case where a similar situation happened would be the Trump golfcourse development in Aberdeen, where it was called in and granted against the Council. And we all know how that ended.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-fails-to-deliver-on-golf-resort-jobs-pledge-8693854.html

The reason Mountgrange gives for Historic Scotland to interfere is the Buildings at Risk Register (BARR) and National Performance Indicators (NPI).

The note says Mountgrange say:

“If CEC minded to refuse, given NPI to reduce numbers of A listed buildings at risk, would they intervene to call in the application? (Action BC to further consider)”

Numbers of Category A buildings on the Buildings at Risk Register is a National Performance Indicator – or a target – for Historic Scotland, so they are under a lot of pressure to get them off the register.

However, as the Friends found out, it was the Craighouse Partnership who asked for the buildings to be put on the BARR in the first place! (More on this here). Historic Scotland should not allow a tool that was designed to help buildings with no options to be used to exploit a protected site for large profits when it had received many other bids.

Mountgrange also complain about our local MSP, Jim Eadie who has supported the local community in wanting the protections on the site and planning policy to be upheld:

“Mountgrange referenced political interest in site and fact that local MSP, Jim Eadie, had stated he supported the opposition to the scheme – seen as unhelpful in advance of full consideration”

What happened next

As a result of this meeting, Barbara Cummins of Historic Scotland agreed to consider Notification Directions.

Invicta PA – the developers’ lobbyists – then lobby to get meetings for Chande with Scottish Ministers again.

Mountgrange Meets the Minister John Swinney in May.

The minister receives a briefing document about Craighouse beforehand – written by Barbara Cummins. This is sent to a long list of senior figures, including the First Minister.
The briefing paper is poor and inaccurate and contradicts a lot of the note of the March meeting. For example, the briefing paper:

•    states the  proposed development is of high quality (in March Barbara Cummins expressed concern that “the economics are driving the development at the expense of a good quality outcomes”)

•    fails to mention the site is an Area of Great Landscape Value, Local Biodiversity Site and also one of Edinburgh’s seven hills

•    fails to mention the setting of the Category A listed buildings are nationally protected by planning policy.

•    states that Historic Scotland backs the enabling case – despite the fact that they did not say this in the note from March.

It is also stated that the Council have agreed to the enabling case – yet if this was the case, then why were Mountgrange trying to get the ministers to interfere and override the Council through a Notification Direction?

The Craighouse Partnership and the Minister
The minutes from the meeting with John Swinney are conspicuously absent from the FOI release sent to us, with no explanation of why they have been withheld. However, the briefing document outlines what was to be covered by the meeting. What is most surprising is the purpose and the particular relation to Craighouse – a live planning application.

“Purpose of meeting:
 Mr Chande has requested the meeting to discuss property development in Scotland
 It is expected Mr Chande will raise the handling of Major Applications, in particular the Craighouse Site in Edinburgh “

In addition to John Swinney, attending the meeting were:
•    Barbara Cummins, Director of Heritage Management, Historic Scotland
•    Manish Chande, Mountgrange
•    William Gray Muir, Sundial Properties

Not having the minutes, we don’t know what was said – and certainly do not know John Swinney’s response. But we do know that Notification Directions formed a large part of the Appendix document of the briefing which shows Mountgrange’s intention to raise this.

As you will see from this extract, it seems as though the briefing document is now pushing Mountgrange’s agenda, as outlined in March. You will note the reason given for all of this – National Performance Indicators – as pushed to Barbara Cummins in the March meeting.

“The developers have outlined their concerns that natural environment considerations might be given undue weight by the council and lead to a refusal without full consideration of the future of these nationally important listed buildings. They have asked us what role Scottish Ministers might take to ensure that any decision taken gives due weight to the nationally designated heritage assets. We have briefed the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs, Fiona Hyslop, that we are investigating the potential use of a Notification Direction, should we feel this is appropriate.”

“With the national performance indicator to reduce the number of A-listed Buildings at Risk in mind, we believe the Craighouse Campus case raises issues of national significance where Ministers may also wish to have the same degree of oversight as proposed at Hyndford Quarry. Should the local authority be minded to refuse consent it may, therefore, be appropriate for Scottish Ministers to review their reasons for this decision to ensure that adequate weight was given to securing the sustainable reuse of the A-listed buildings on the site, and to intervene (potentially via call-in) if this is felt not to be the case. It would be highly unusual for Ministers to intervene were a local authority minded to refuse planning permission. As there are both applications for planning permission and listed building consent the case also raises cross portfolio issues with the Minister for Local Government and Planning. The question of what options may be open to and appropriate for Ministers, therefore, requires further examination.”

Are Historic Scotland – due to targets – ignoring their duty to protect the nationally important setting of these buildings – and allowing themselves to be used as a tool by the developers to get excessive newbuild on a protected site of Great Landscape Value?

Questions

Was John Swinney badly briefed?

Was he informed that the site was an Area of Great Landscape Value and on Edinburgh’s seventh hill? (No mention of either in the briefing document.)

Has John Swinney been informed since that the Craighouse Partnership allowed water to run down Bevan House for 9 days?

Was John Swinney told that it was the Craighouse Partnership who asked for the buildings to be put on the Buildings at Risk Register in the first place?

Was he aware Historic Scotland had said No to building on the carpark and adjacent green space to all the bidders  before Mountgrange bid for the site?

Why should Mountgrange be given different and privileged treatment to all the other bidders for the site?

Conclusion
We cannot know what the response of John Swinney or any other minister has been. We very much hope that they have resisted the demands to treat Craighouse as another Trump golfcourse. It is certainly disappointing that  the Craighouse Partnership have been having meetings with Ministers specifically lobbying about Craighouse – unchallenged – in the middle of a live planning application, before the Council has made a decision. It is breath-taking that the Craighouse Partnership have been trying to side-step policy, democracy, and the Council itself in this blatant manner.

We hope that ministers don’t fall for this and have respect for the policies and plans that are there to protect Scotland’s precious spaces.

We are still battling to get proper and complete information from our FOI request and the case will now been passed to the Information Commissioner for Scotland.

At our last meeting we decided to undertake various fundraising and maintenance measures in addition to the development of our  positive forward community plan.

brandishing our pickers

So on a brisk Oct Sunday morning, nearly 40 members of the local community turned out to clear up the Craighouse site. The event was arranged under the umbrella of the Craiglockhart Woods Group who cover the Lockharton end and the LNR. Our combined efforts meant the whole site got a spring clean – with our volunteers clearing Craighouse campus site – concentrating on Craighouse orchard, meadow and surrounding woodland.

Health and safety instructions

We had decided to keep the pick relatively low-profile  as we had limited numbers of litter picking tools. However, the site is large so we didn’t want to have too few volunteers either! In the end, it couldn’t have gone better – approximately 37 people turned out to clean up the site – including families with children, the odd dog and even a baby (taking more of an observational role).

Armed with litter-pickers and thick gloves our intrepid volunteers spent about an hour clearing up the site. And they collected a LOT of litter. Members of the local community have been regularly clearing litter off the meadow area and the site has been looking much improved as a result. However there was still much litter to be shifted once we went into the woodland and a tremendous number of black rubbish bags were filled – plus we collected various bits of bigger rubbish that wasn’t baggable.  All was brought down to the bin at Craiglea Place.

Usually, the Woods Group are able to leave their bags next to the bin at Lockharton where the Council picks it up in a few days. But our members had managed to collect so much that the colossal pile of rubbish presented a bit more of a problem.

Loadsarubbish!  Photo courtesy of Tana.

We piled it at Craiglea but decided that a couple of us better take what we could to the tip, so I returned later that afternoon with a car and loaded it up. I had filled up the car and was looking at the horrible amount still left when a bin van rolled up. Three guys got out – the Craigmillar Depot Team. Although it wasn’t their job once they heard it was a community litter-pick they were absolutely brilliant and helped me out by taking the lot! So here’s a big shout out to them. I will be writing in to the Council with a big thank you to the Craigmillar Depot Team to let people know what a lovely bunch of public-spirited guys they are.

All in all – a really good and productive day. A huge thank you to everyone involved – thank you to the wonderful volunteers for kindly giving their time on a Sunday morning, the Woods Group for organising the pickers and gloves and bags and all the other administration they did, the Council’s Ranger Service for providing the tools, the lovely Craigmillar Depot Team for saving me a very long afternoon going back and forth to the tip and Anni and Hilda for doing the bulk of the organising.

The site is looking so much better – and that’s down to the community clearing it every day and now those giving their Sun morn to litter-pick.

Thanks so much everyone!

We were very disturbed to hear that on Mon 16th Sept a number of emergency vehicles – including the ambulance service – were unable to gain entry to the site – eventually having to climb into the site and break in with bolt-cutters to get to a person who needed assistance.

Apparently, some time between the hours of 8 and 9pm that evening, two dog-walkers found a person who needed help on the Local Nature Reserve and raised the alarm.

Local residents  were amazed to see a convoy of emergency vehicles – including the ambulance service – turn up at the main entrance to the Craighouse site, only to find they could not gain entry.

The entrance has been blocked by the Craighouse Partnership by 7 foot plywood hoardings and Do Not Enter signs (despite the fact that the site is still open to the public).

After phoning for entry and waiting, the emergency team had to eventually cut their way in with bolt cutters and climb over the hoardings to allow the emergency vehicles to gain entry.

This has disturbed a number of residents.

Local people have been writing to us to urge that this barricade be removed. It is ugly, it is intimidating and it reduces visibility of and from the site and now it has prevented the emergency services getting quick access to a person in need.

This incident epitomises many of our concerns about what has been happening at Craighouse – and underlines the real importance of the community, regular community use and access when it comes to security and looking after the site.

It is the community that noticed water running down the buildings and moved to get it stopped. It is the community that have pushed for the site to be maintained, it is the community who are regularly taking litter off the site and it is members of the community who helped a person in trouble and did their public duty.

The Friends of Craighouse have been concerned for a while about the security arrangements in terms of fire engine access. I wrote to William Gray Muir a while ago questioning the suitability of the boarded over entrance in the case of a fire and asking about what arrangements were in place. He said:

“Contrary to your implication the present access arrangements were agreed with the fire brigade prior to the vacation of the site by Napier.”

In a letter from July he stated that “youths” had been “driving recklessly around the site at speed” and that The Craighouse Partnership made “no apology for putting safety first”. In a letter from August, I was accused of not taking seriously the safety of the security guards.

However, rather than putting safety first, the incident on the 16th shows the barricade prevented emergency services getting quickly and easily to someone in need.

The Friends care about everyone using the site along with the security of the site itself – which is why we think that the hoardings at the entrance are not working and must be looked at again.

The hoardings that have been erected by The Craighouse Partnership prevent visibility from local houses and the road and reduce easy pedestrian access in and out of the site. They should be replaced with a measure that retains proper pedestrian access – as there has been for decades – and that allows good visibility into and out of the site and better emergency access.

The old entrance system, if used properly,  should have been adequate to prevent the kinds of incidents outlined by William Gray Muir, without blocking off pedestrian access and visibility to the site.

We believe that encouraging regular community use, keeping the site cared for and maintained and making sure the site is highly visible  discourages vandals and is better for everyone – the public, the security guards and the site itself.

The site may be left in this state for a long period of time. If emergency vehicles cannot gain quick access, this is just not acceptable and could also increase potential risks in the case of fire.

It is clear from this incident that the present set-up is not acceptable and that the hoardings are causing more risk than they are preventing. Another solution must be found. The hoardings must be taken down and the entrance must be properly accessible to pedestrians and – importantly – allow for visibility, as it has done previously, so that the community can continue to use and look out for this very special site –  as they have done, very successfully, for decades under Napier’s ownership.

Anyone who cares about our communities – please consider standing for the community councils – they are open for new members and the closing date is the 23rd Sept at 4 pm. Applying is easy – details below.

If we want the public to have more say about the key matters that affect our communities – such as planning, protecting our green spaces, schooling and a host of other issues – then we need good, public-minded people to stand forward.  As we have already seen, the community councils have played an important role in enabling debate and representing the community view at Craighouse – this is the kind of important issue where CCs have a key – and statutory – role.

The commitment need not be onerous. Most Community Councils meet every month to 6 weeks, which individuals attend if and when they can. Com Councillors should try to represent their communities. A good cross section of ages is always welcomed and young people can apply and would be very welcome (min age 16).

The more people who stand, the more chance there is of having a positive effect on matters that affect our communities.

As said, the amount of work need not be great or burdensome. Here is a video including Morningside CC’s own Richard Ellis talking about why CCs are important and how he sees them developing:

http://www.edinburghnp.org.uk/media/273544/cc_video_clip_sept_2013.mp4

HOW TO APPLY

Print off the form from the following link: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/11179/elected_representative_nomination_form.

All that is required is for two people in your community to nominate you by signing it (they can be neighbours or others) and the form should be sent to the returning officer by the 23rd September. This needs to be done by post or hand delivered rather than emailed. The closing date is 23rd Sept at 4pm.

The returning officer for Morningside Community Council is Cllr Mark McInnes, City Chambers,High Street, EDINBURGH EH1 1YJ (tel:529 4958 email:mark.mcinnes@edinburgh.gov.uk).

The returning officer for Merchiston Community Council is also Cllr Mark McInnes (details above).

The returning officer address for Craiglockhart Community Council is Elections Office, City of Edinburgh Council, Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, EDINBURGH EH8 8BG (phone and email: 469 3126 elections@edinburgh.gov.uk)

The returning officer for Gorgie/Dalry Community Council  is Cllr Denis Dixon 0131 529 4988 denis.dixon@edinburgh.gov.uk. Return by post to Denis at City of Edinburgh Council, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh EH1 1YJ

There are community council nominations open for community councils across Edinburgh – if you are are from another area there will be a community council for your local area you can join – here is a link to a list of all the areas and returning officers:

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/820/community_councils_and_assemblies/544/community_councils/3

I hope some of you might consider joining and giving the community a bigger voice.

MANY THANKS EVERYONE!