The developers of the RBS site on Dundas Street, Ediston, wish to construct a (temporary) 4-/5-storey office accommodation block on Dundas Street while post-demolition redevelopment onto scores of flats etc. takes place.
Fettes Row & Royal Crescent Association, the local residents’ group, is objecting strongly (see letter to Ediston, below) and so is New Town & Broughton Community Council.
The block would encroach upon the street and be permanently lit with an “underpass” for pedestrians … a bit like George IV Bridge outside the hotel but probably bigger.
David Gow,
Fettes Row & Royal Crescent Association acting secretary
The letter reads:
Having considered your plans, we would say the plans are unacceptable on many fronts:
They amount to unnecessary and extensive street clutter. The process of planning this project should surely have planned adequate accommodation for the duration of the project. If this is not the case, the failure will amount to further inconvenience, disruption, pollution and loss of amenity for local residents over and above that already being endured by local businesses and residents.
Despite your point that the ‘tunnel’ underneath the proposed accommodation will be lit and provide adequate space to pass through, it will still amount to a significant obstruction to the passage of pedestrians and traffic, possibly resulting in pedestrians having to walk on the roadway at very busy times.
The obstruction in this location will cause a sclerosis of traffic on a very busy thoroughfare. Dundas St. is a route for public and tourist buses, delivery lorries and, critically, ambulances and fire engines. The current tunnel walkway on George IV bridge, similar to that you propose, is partially dark at night, and does not feel safe or comfortable for pedestrians at night-time;
The presence of the accommodation will result in a prolonged loss of parking spaces in front of the site. This will further congest the limited parking available to residents and business in the area;
Why is this project unable to accommodate its workers on site when other huge developments locally (eg the St. James Centre) have managed to execute their works without intruding further on local surroundings?
There are areas (admittedly limited) which are planned to be open areas in the completed project. Why can these not be used to house the accommodation? Furthermore, why can’t the project’s use of Centrum House continue in effect as accommodation for contractors?
The site development will be phased and accommodation could, and should be moved within the site, as phases progress.
You say the local residents will benefit from the location of the accommodation on Dundas St. Frankly any benefit residents would receive, and that would be questionable, would be at the margins, given the wholesale long term disruption to life and amenity this project is already causing by its execution.
The only beneficiary of the proposal we can see, in fact, is the developer who will save costs which might or might not have been incurred by inadequate planning. In any event, we can see no benefit which would go any where near compensating residents for the inconvenience this plan would cause.
Yours sincerely,
Judith Symes,
Acting chair, for and on behalf of the Fettes Row and Royal Crescent Association
25
0
20
