thecockburnassocia�on
ANNUAL REVIEW
- 2024 2025
Campaigning for Edinburgh since 1875
SC011544
1
Reference and Administrative Details – at 30 September 2025 Charity Registration Number: SC011544
Principal Office: Trunk’s Close 55 High Street Edinburgh EH1 1SR
- Stephen Jardine President (elected for a term of 2025 2026)
Council Members: Role Lesley Martin Chair (from May 2025) Convenor of Management & Finance Committee (Elected 2023) Richard Price Vice- Chair (from May 2025), Interim Chair (October 2024-May 2025), Management and Finance Committee Policy & Development Committee (Elected 2023) - William Moyes Treasurer, Management & Finance Committee (Re elected 2024) - Prof Richard Rodger Management & Finance Committee (Re elected 2023) Peter Williamson Policy & Development Committee (Re-elected 2025) Annick Gaillard Policy & Development Committee (Elected 2023) Fred Mackintosh Management & Finance Committee (Elected 2025) Eric Dawson Policy & Development Committee (Elected 2025) Alastair Cook (Elected 2025; Resigned 2025) Harry Nimmo Management & Finance Committee (Elected 2025)
Council members who were co-opted during year: Katrina Walker, Mairi Black
Council members who retired/resigned at last AGM: Emily Yates, Claire Mitchell KC
Members of the Policy & Development Committee who are not Council members: Keith Anderson, Lila Angelaka, Pam Barnes, Dylan Burns, Stephen Hajducki
Staff Terry Levinthal Director (resigned 18 June 2025, last date of employment 12 September 2025) Rowan Brown Director (appointed 22 September 2025) James Garry Assistant Director Brigid Golden Engagement & Development Manager (appointed April 2024)
Solicitors: Lindsays WS, Caledonian Exchange 19A Canning Street Edinburgh EH3 8HE
Investment Managers Rathbones Group Plc 10 George Street Edinburgh EH2 2PF
Bankers Royal Bank of Scotland Bank of Scotland
2
- ANNUAL REVIEW 2024 2025
President’s Welcome
Stephen Jardine
The Cockburn Associa�on’s 150[th] year has lived up to the expecta�ons that such milestones create. This year was one of both reflec�on and forward think‐ ing, no doubt shaped by the publica�on of Campaigning for Edinburgh , which served as both an explora�on of the As‐ socia�on’s long history of figh�ng for Edinburgh’s heritage, civic amenity, greenspaces, and communi�es, and as a contempla�ve piece considering what the future might bring. In 1849 Henry Cockburn asked the ques�on, what will Edinburgh look like in 1949 or in 2049? This ques�on has certainly become a key theme of this year.
Similarly, this Annual Review will both address the ac�vi�es of the year ending 30 September 2025, while imploring members to consider what comes next for the Associa�on, and Edinburgh itself. The Cockburn Associa�on has in its 150 years been instrumental in preserving so many assets of the city, from Bruntsfield Links to the Water of Leith, and is con�n‐ uing to do so vehemently, as you will read about in Assistant Director James Garry’s Development Report. This work is sustained by members like you, and the Cockburn Associa�on’s impact is dependent on its ability to reach, influ‐ ence, and engage fully with everyone in the city.
While you read the below summaries of
this year’s hard work, I encourage you to consider what follows in the years to come. As you will read in the Treasurer’s Report, there is a real and dire necessity for the Cockburn to achieve greater fi‐ nancial stability. The Council are fo‐ cussed on this and working hard to make progress but we also need your support more than ever before.
Please con�nue to share the Associa‐ �on’s work with neighbours, friends and family. The more we can increase our visibility, the be�er placed we will be to grow our membership, increase the scope for dona�ons, and be�er repre‐ sent Edinburgh as we work to protect and preserve this city we love.
I hope that members take great interest in the Annual Review and appreciate the efforts of the Council of the Cockburn Associa�on and its small but dedicated staff in campaigning for Edinburgh and mee�ng the challenges and opportuni‐ �es facing our great city.
Chair’s Report
Dr Lesley Mar�n
tember 2025 began with the Associa�on - convening a half day conference to dis‐ cuss the challenges of Overtourism in Edinburgh. The main themes of the con‐ ference were around carrying capacity and Responsible Tourism, exploring the issues of undermanagement and imbal‐ ance that seem apparent in the city, and across Europe in other heritage ci�es.
The conference was well a�ended both in person and virtually and it is hoped that the report produced following the conference will con�nue to spark con‐ versa�ons and inspire solu�ons.
January 2025 marked the beginning of the Associa�on’s 150[th] year as an organi‐ sa�on. This was recognised by Staff and Trustees as a significant milestone and opportunity to increase engagement with members, widen our audiences, and promote the Associa�on’s history. We all reflected on the ques�on Lord Henry Cockburn asked in 1849: what will Edin‐ burgh look like in 1949? Or in 2049? In‐ deed, this anniversary was as much about the Cockburn’s past as it was about its future.
On 3 April 2025, the Cockburn held a public summit on streetscape, �tled “On the Road to Nowhere?”, which explored streetscape management in Edinburgh, street clu�er, accessibility and pedestri‐ an friendliness, and cycle infrastructure. We were joined by Edinburgh World Her‐ itage, Spokes, and Living Streets and the audience discussions at the end were produc�ve and valuable opportuni�es to understand how Edinburgh residents view and u�lise its streets, pavements, and public spaces.
In May, the Associa�on held its 150[th] Annual General Mee�ng at the Greyfri‐ ars’s Charteris Centre. There we heard a presenta�on from Doreen Parker, who has been volunteering at the Cockburn helping to catalogue our archives and preparing them to be made publicly available on the Sco�sh Archive Coun‐ cil’s online portal, Sco�sh Archives Net‐ work.
On 19 June, Campaigning for Edinburgh: The Cockburn Associa�on 1849-2049 was launched in the Laigh Hall in the Faculty of Advocates. The event was chaired by our President, Stephen Jardine, and guests heard from Beth Fraser, the Facul‐ ty’s Arts and Heritage Coordinator, Hugh Andrew, Birlinn’s Director, and authors Cliff Hague and Richard Rodger. We con‐ cluded the evening with a reading by Sir
3
Alexander McCall Smith of his poem wri�en in honour of the Cockburn Asso‐ cia�on, en�tled Excep�onal City.
From June onward, a primary focus for Staff and Trustees has been the promo‐ �on and sale of Campaigning for Ed-
inburgh, with a series of book talks or‐ ganised across Edinburgh for various groups including the Fe�es Row and Roy‐ al Crescent Residents Associa�on, The Royal Company of Merchants, the Royal Incorpora�on of Architects in Scotland, and the Old Town Associa�on. This has been an excellent opportunity to pro‐ mote the work the Associa�on has done over its 150-year history.
into our communica�ons with members and the wider public. Regular ‘Mailchimp’ newsle�ers were emailed to members, with postal communica�ons circulated as well but less frequently. We achieved high engagement with the digital newsle�ers with between 60-65% members ‘clicking through’ to read the ar�cles – industry standards suggest 15% is a good result. We con�nue to post regular ‘Archive Tuesday’ content with the help of a student volunteer. Pla�orms such as ‘X’ and Facebook re‐ mained our main social media outputs. We have achieved good engagement on these, with 10.1K followers on X and around 5.7 K on Facebook. We received grant funding from Edinburgh City Coun‐ cil as a part of their ‘Edinburgh 900’ pro‐ gramme to create and publish a series of videos en�tled The City that Isn’t explor‐ ing some of the facts and “fakelore” of the city and using images from our own archive and the City’s Capital Collec�ons. We have not yet delivered the full pro‐ gramme of videos however we have
posted three instalments to date, with the first video achieving our highest en‐ gagement and view rates ever on Meta. - We completed a small scale redesign of our website with the goal of improving ease of use and increasing emphasis on our work. This was done with the assis‐ tance of Urwin Studios. We hope to con‐ �nue to improve our website going for‐ ward, making it more accessible and use‐ ful to our members and the general pub‐ lic.
The Associa�on has taken advantage of BT’s ‘Adopt a Kiosk’ scheme, open to chari�es and community associa�ons. A K6 kiosk on the High Street near the en‐ trance to Trunks Close has been adopted and refurbished. There are plans to cre‐ ate a pricing scheme for ren�ng out the kiosk to other local organisa�ons to use for their own displays, which could prove to be a useful means of funding for the Associa�on.
The period from October 2024 to Sep‐ tember 2025 has been somewhat quiet‐ - er in terms of high profile planning dis‐ putes than previous years. However, the Cockburn Associa�on has con�nued to scru�nise proposals that test the balance between Edinburgh’s historic character, its public spaces, and the pressures of urban growth. A recurring point of con‐ ten�on has been the management of - large scale events in sensi�ve se�ngs. The proposals for ‘Edinburgh’s Christmas 2024’ were acknowledged for improve‐ ments in environmental safeguards and pedestrian management, but the Associ‐ - a�on objected to the gran�ng of a three year consent, urging instead annual re‐ views to ensure lessons could be applied in real �me. Similarly, the ‘Big Wheel Proposal’ for East Princes Street Gardens was cri�cised both for its intrusive scale and for the lack of direct community no�fica�on. Concerns over the introduc‐ �on of corporate facili�es and commer‐ cial branding reinforced the Associa�on’s wider warning that the commodifica�on of civic spaces under condi�ons of over‐ tourism risks undermining their demo‐ cra�c purpose.
Issues of housing and development den‐ sity have also remained prominent. The Cockburn objected to the West Park Place PBSA scheme on grounds of the proposed demoli�on of locally significant buildings, excessive massing in a residen‐ �al context, the absence of new commu‐ nity greenspace, and a lack of adaptabil‐ ity should student demand change. Com‐ parable concerns were raised with re‐ spect to Bangor Road, where overdevel‐ opment on a constrained site, inappro‐ priate scale, and the absence of a guiding framework were noted. At Western Har‐ bour, a major residen�al block was cri�‐ cised for generic design and inadequate ecological integra�on, raising ques�ons about the overall coherence of water‐ front regenera�on. Not all responses were opposi�onal, however. At Granton Sta�on Pla�orms, the Associa�on wel‐ comed the adap�ve reuse of disused railway infrastructure as landscaped planters and public art, while recom‐ mending stronger heritage interpreta�on and maintenance provisions. The pro‐ posed refurbishment of Cables Wynd House and Linksview House in Leith was also supported, with Cockburn com‐ mending plans to improve insula�on, ligh�ng, and shared spaces in a manner that respected Brutalist heritage while enhancing residents’ quality of life. Simi‐ - larly, the mixed use Granton develop‐ ment was viewed posi�vely for its ambi‐ �on in housing and sustainability, alt‐ hough the Associa�on emphasised the need for clarity on affordable housing delivery, infrastructure, and long-term energy commitments.
Across these cases, the Associa�on has remained consistent in its posi�on that development is necessary, but it must be contextually sensi�ve, environmentally responsible, and designed to support sustainable communi�es.
4
persist as City Plan 2030 shapes the de‐ livery of new student accommoda�on and residen�al schemes, with concerns - that proposals may be over scaled, lack appropriate community provision, or fail to respect local character. The Associa‐ �on will con�nue to advocate for hous‐ ing that combines quality, context, and affordability, ensuring that growth does not compromise the city’s dis�nc�ve iden�ty. The management of fes�vals and major events, par�cularly in sensi‐ �ve loca�ons such as Princes Street Gar‐ dens, will also remain a key concern, with calls for greater transparency and restraint. Meanwhile, as regenera�on advances in areas such as Granton and Leith, the Associa�on will seek to ensure that new projects demonstrate ambi�on in sustainability, respect for heritage, and a commitment to public access, con‐ tribu�ng to a city that is both resilient and inclusive.
There were several changes to the Coun‐ cil and staff of the Associa�on during the year. In May 2025, I was honoured to accept my current posi�on as your Chair, and Richard Price moved from his role as Interim Chair to Vice Chair. We were pleased to welcome Stephen Jardine as our new President in February 2025. At the last AGM, we noted two resigna�ons from Council, Claire Mitchell KC, who was the Vice-Chair of the Council, and Emily Yates. We thank them for their excellent contribu�ons to the Council and its work. Richard Rodger stepped down at the last AGM following two terms of service, however the Council determined that his assistance was vital to the work on the 150[th] anniversary and the book ac�vi�es. As such, it was decid‐ ed to make him an Appointee as per the provisions of the Cons�tu�on. Peter - Williamson successfully stood for re - elec�on, and two co opted candidates, Eric Dawson and Harry Nimmo, were elected. Addi�onally, two further candi‐ dates, Fred Macintosh KC and Alistair Cook were elected. However, Alistair resigned from Council in mid-2025. We
ended the year with Director Terry Lev‐ inthal leaving the Cockburn Associa�on a�er 8 years in the role to begin a new posi�on at Edinburgh World Heritage. We are grateful for his dedicated work over the years. To fill the posi�on, the Associa�on welcomed Rowan Brown as the new Director. Rowan joined us as the 2024-25 financial year comes to a close and will lead us through a new and exci�ng period of challenge and change. Addressing our financial sustainability is our most pressing priority and I am con‐ fident that, with the support of our members, we will meet the challenge with determina�on and posi�vity as we enter the upcoming year.
Development Report
James Garry, Assistant Director
Edinburgh’s development pressures showed li�le sign of easing over the past year. If anything, they have become more visible, more concentrated, and - more difficult to reconcile with the long term stewardship of the city. Many of the planning issues considered by the Associa�on were familiar, but their cu‐ mula�ve effect is increasingly apparent. While individual proposals differ, the underlying challenges, and the Associa‐ �on’s concerns about them, remain strikingly consistent.
Two themes dominated the Policy and Development Commi�ee's work. The first was the con�nuing spread of pur‐ pose-built student accommoda�on (PBSA) across the city, par�cularly within established residen�al areas. The second was the unrelen�ng growth of visitor - and hospitality led development in the city centre, from hotel conversions in the New Town to hostel extensions in the Old Town. Alongside these, a third con‐ cern grew steadily more prominent: the cumula�ve impact of development. Each applica�on might appear defensible in isola�on; together, they are reshaping communi�es and eroding the balance of uses that makes Edinburgh a city where
people actually live.
As ever, the Policy and Development Commi�ee met monthly to review plan‐ ning applica�ons, listed building con‐ sents, and policy consulta�ons. The As‐ socia�on records its thanks to Com‐ mi�ee members for their con�nued commitment and careful judgement.
Purpose-Built Student Accommoda�on
PBSA was one of the most persistent themes of the year. The Commi�ee ob‐ - jected to a series of large scale pro‐ posals, including at West Park Place, where concerns were raised about scale, design, and the cumula�ve impact of student housing along key corridors in Gorgie and Dalry, and at Gillespie Cres‐ cent, where a revised proposal from S Harrison Developments con�nued to raise concerns about overdevelopment, loss of embodied carbon, and further satura�on of PBSA in Bruntsfield and Marchmont, despite earlier appeals hav‐ ing been dismissed.
At West Park Place, the Commi�ee’s concerns extended beyond the individu‐ al proposal to the accumula�ng effect of - single tenure development along these corridors. A building that appears mod‐ est in isola�on looks rather different when viewed as one of a series of stu‐ dent blocks transforming formerly mixed streets.
Not all proposals were opposed. At Causewayside, the Associa�on support‐ ed a revised applica�on a�er the appli‐ cant responded construc�vely to earlier concerns, reducing the propor�on of
5
delivering an ac�ve street frontage. This was precisely the kind of construc�ve engagement the Commi�ee encouraged and hopes to see more widely.
During 2025, the City of Edinburgh Coun‐ cil signalled a willingness to explore a poten�al moratorium on new PBSA de‐ velopments, ci�ng overconcentra�on and broader ques�ons about the role of student accommoda�on in the city. The Associa�on welcomed this signal. It has consistently argued that a citywide as‐ sessment of supply, distribu�on, and the long-term balance of communi�es is - urgently needed before further large scale consents are granted.
The New Town Quarter
The New Town Quarter on Dundas Street con�nued to generate significant con‐ cern. The Associa�on supported the prin‐ ciple of bringing this long-underused site back into produc�ve use. The originally approved masterplan, with its balance of Build-to-Rent, mid-market housing, and commercial space, had offered a credible framework.
The applicant's proposed revision, subs�‐ tu�ng two consented Build-to-Rent blocks for 599 units of PBSA, represented a fundamental departure from that vi‐ sion. The Associa�on objected, arguing - - that a single tenure, high density student development on this scale, in a transi‐ �onal loca�on between the classical New Town and Canonmills, would undermine the neighbourhood's resilience, reduce year-round occupancy, and erode the social infrastructure that permanent resi‐ dents require.
The site's loca�on within the New Town Conserva�on Area and on the edge of
the World Heritage Site made ques�ons of scale and massing par�cularly acute. The case illustrates the difficulty of rec‐ - onciling large scale redevelopment with the fine-grained character and long-term liveability of the New Town.
Tourism, Hotels and the Short-Term Economy
Tourist and visitor accommoda�on con‐ �nued to expand across the city centre. At 37–39 Cowgate, the Associa�on ob‐ jected to a hostel extension and pro‐ posed public bar. The design sat uneasily with the grain of the Old Town, and the cumula�ve pressures of noise, conges‐ �on, and overcrowding in that part of the city called for less intensifica�on, not more.
At Atholl Crescent, the Associa�on op‐ posed the conversion of Category A - listed Georgian townhouses to a pod style hotel. Intensive subdivision of prin‐ cipal spaces would cause substan�al and irreversible harm to the buildings' special interest, especially when a viable con‐ sented residen�al scheme already exist‐ ed. The Commi�ee put the ques�on plainly: why should an intensive transient use be preferred over a se�led residen‐ �al one that would be�er sustain the New Town's historic func�on as a lived-in community?
More broadly, a number of proposals across the city centre raised similar con‐ cerns about the cumula�ve effects of visitor accommoda�on, par�cularly in terms of servicing, waste management, and pressure on already constrained streets and public spaces. These impacts are rarely fully captured at the level of individual applica�ons, yet they are in‐ creasingly evident in how central Edin‐ burgh func�ons on a day-to-day basis.
the incremental expansion of visitor ac‐ commoda�on is reshaping the city cen‐ tre in ways that are not being fully ad‐ dressed through individual planning deci‐ sions.
Fes�vals and Civic Space
The Christmas fes�val applica�ons for Princes Street Gardens were submi�ed in good �me and with fuller detail than in previous years, a welcome improvement. The Associa�on's posi�on remained that Princes Street Gardens are an historic - landscape and a much loved civic green space, not simply a venue. Any tempo‐ rary use must minimise damage, ensure swi� reinstatement, and be subject to - transparent monitoring. A proposed two year recurring consent for the West Gar‐ dens raised par�cular ques�ons about how impacts would be evaluated over �me, and whether cumula�ve effects would be properly captured.
Incremental Change and Streetscape
Several applica�ons illustrated how in‐ cremental decisions accumulate into significant change. The Commi�ee ob‐ jected to a proposal at Advocate's Close, where poor design quality and the ab‐ sence of any adequate heritage impact assessment were fundamentally incon‐ sistent with the obliga�ons that come with working in the Old Town Conserva‐ �on Area and World Heritage Site.
At Henderson Row, the Associa�on op‐ posed a double mansard extension it - described as lumpen and grossly ill propor�oned, despite its clear support for addressing Edinburgh's housing emergency. The point was made that the urgency of housing need does not jus�fy
At Granton, the Associa�on supported the sensi�ve adap�ve reuse of the Light‐ house building and welcomed proposals for the former sta�on pla�orms, while no�ng the missed opportunity for mean‐ ingful heritage interpreta�on at both sites.
6
Climate and Reten�on
The case for retaining exis�ng buildings rather than demolishing them ran through the Commi�ee's responses all year. At Gillespie Crescent, the Associa‐ �on pressed for independent verifica�on of demoli�on jus�fica�ons and called for more genuine explora�on of adap�ve reuse. NPF4's presump�on in favour of reten�on is clear; its applica�on in prac‐ �ce remained inconsistent.
Looking Ahead
In the year the Associa�on marked its 150th anniversary, the planning pres‐ sures facing Edinburgh intensified rather than eased. There were posi�ve exam‐ ples, proposals where applicants en‐ gaged construc�vely, revised their schemes, and produced genuinely be�er outcomes. But these sat alongside a pa�ern of incremental change in tenure mix, visitor accommoda�on, and streetscape quality whose cumula�ve effect became increasingly difficult to ignore.
The challenge now is not simply to re‐ spond to individual applica�ons, but to ar�culate a clearer, shared direc�on for the city: one that recognises the limits of its historic environment while sustaining the communi�es that give it life.
Finance Report
Dr Bill Moyes, Treasurer
The Statement of Financial Ac�vi�es and Balance Sheet for the year ending 30 September 2025 are set out in the Annu‐ al Review. They have been inspected by our auditors CT LLP and were approved by the Cockburn Council on 14 April 2026. The full accounts are available on our website. Once again, the Associa�on budgeted for a significant deficit in the region of £56,600. Dona�ons and grants have been seriously reduced, impac�ng on our income. The adverse effects of the cost-of-living crisis, and increasing - geo poli�cal uncertainty, con�nue to impact on the Associa�on.
The Cockburn has been proac�ve in adop�ng a new investment strategy with Rathbones Investment Fund, and in pi‐ lo�ng and fundraising for Campaigning for Edinburgh . We look forward to build‐ ing on this new approach in the coming financial year.
Image Credits
Cover: Image c. Graeme Gainey
P4– c. View from Salisbury Crags c. Grae‐ me Gainey
P5- West Park Place PBSA, Image from planning proposal
P6– New Town Quarter Conceptual Im‐ age from planning applica�on 25/01899/ FUL
P6– Edinburgh Christmas Market c. Grae‐ me Gainey
P7– Princes Street c. Graeme Gainey
The Commi�ee will con�nue to make that case, applica�on by applica�on, ensuring that Edinburgh’s character is not treated as a constraint, but as a re‐ sponsibility.
thecockburnassocia�on
Trunk’s Close, 55 High Street Edinburgh EH1 1SR
SC011544 www.cockburnassocia�on,org.uk
7
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES Ilncluding Income and Expenditure Account) YEAR ENDED 30 SEPTEMBER 2026 Note8 Unre8trieted Capital Revenue Restricted Total 2025 Total 2024 Income and endowments from: Donations and legacies Chaiilablè aclivili&s Investments 4,277 43,746 5,320 8515 57.581 19,073 67,096 5,320 8 5.15 80.931 35,864 120 4.277 19,073 45,454 Expènditure on: Raising funds Charitable 8clivilios 2,433 118,590 121023 2,433 10,508 129,098 10 508 131 531 3,855 104,449 108 304 Net gains on investments 861 861 56,104 Net incomellexp•ndltur•l 5.138 163.4421 8,565 149,739) 16.7461 Tr8nsf8rs b8twe8n funds 63.442 63,442 Nèt mov•m•nt In fund8 158,3041 8,565 149,739) 16,7461 Reconclllatlon of funds: Total funds brought l(yward 16 467,938 7,780 475,718 482,464 Total fund8 carrl•d forward 14 40fj.634 16.345 425 979 475718 BALANCE SHEET AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2026 Not¢$ 2025 2024 Flx•d a$$•t8: Tangible assets Investments 10 11 22,062 376,193 398,255 23,751 406,101 429,852 Current assets: Debtors Cash al bank and in hand 12 6,373 28.516 34.889 1.938 52,097 54,035 Current Ilabllltles.. Amounts falling due wrthin one year 13 17.165) 18,1691 Nel current assets 27,724 45,866 Nel assets 425,979 475.718 Funds of the charlty.. Unrestricted funds Restricted funds 14 14 409,634 16,345 425,979 467.938 7.780 475.718