Those with a stated interest in heritage, like e.g.
@theSpurtle @NTBCC
may be interested to read our new section covering the extensive advice given to the Council & Developer by Historic Environment Scotland.

To save people having to read the whole thing here are a few key points. HES conclusion: "the proposed development would give rise to "adverse effects on the OUV of the Old and New Towns of Edinburgh World Heritage Site (WHS) & the setting of the Category A listed Royal Crescent"
Regarding the application brought forward HES "recommended changes to the design of the development which we consider would reduce and avoid the impacts described" (on the OUV of the WHS). These included reduced height.
However, even the 1st pre-application advice issued to the developer & Council said "On the northern part of the site.. six-storey blocks would constrain... views to the Crescent from the north… Reducing the height of the.. blocks…would… protect the WHS topography & townscape"
Then on another occasion "our clear preference would be for the consideration of alternative options for the footprint and massing of development in this area" Referring to the southernmost blocks nearest to Royal Cres
Later, on the same issue of Royal Cres "we did not issue our ‘support’ for this volume of development, and that our clear preference would be for the consideration of alternative options for the footprint and massing of development"
& their comments on the planning application made incl. "Our decision not to object should not be taken as our support for the proposals." Royal Crescents environs show "The characteristic use of topography (&) comes masterfully together to form the very distinctive landmark"
They included mitigating actions to reduce damage to the OUV of the WHS included reducing height (1) on Fettes Row, (2) immediately next to Royal Crescent and (3) next to King George V Park.
Therefore anyone who supports this application is supporting an insensitive development on this site and condoning damage to the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site. (We want development but not this.)
The whole thing could have been avoided if the developer had paid attention to the advice given and changed the design earlier. Now it is up to Councillors to decide #Edinburgh #Heritage #UNESCO

More from World

🧵 ⚡️ #Navalny, in handcuffs, expects his second verdict in one day NOW, about to be ready any minute now. He’s joking about cucumbers he pickles in his cell. I will translate his SECOND last address in one day but here is the previous trial coverage


Extracts from #Navalny last address #2 today: “Putin’s party is akin a swine devouring oil and gas dollars from a trough, & when poked & reminded that $ are for everyone, growls, “What about the WWII? What about veterans?!” The verdict is due any minute now. #FreeNavalny 👇🏼☝🏼

The judge is back and reads the verdict now.

“The politician criticized the participants in the [RT] video in support of the amendments to the Constitution, calling the presenters "corrupt lackeys", "traitors" and "people without conscience."

The judge says Navalny pleaded not guilty and called the persecution politicized.
All the leftists in the comments like oh no prageru made a good point lol


Polls consistently show conservative support for nuclear energy. It also has high support among elites. The myth that it is unpopular in general isn’t true—although it is unpopular in almost every specific case where they need to site it

Article is old but yeah

This study finds that risk & benefit predict individual opinion the most, followed by the share of nuclear energy already extant, followed by ideology (conservatives support more)

This one finds that journalists attitude affect public perceptions, but that energy consultants, nuclear engineers, bureaucrats, and the military show the highest support for nuclear energy

You May Also Like