AN Edinburgh pop-up bar refused permission to keep operating in the city centre has lost a bid to stay until October.
The Festival Village is set to be dismantled after more than five years, after the council said the structures set up on Waverley Market's roof terrace disrupted "key views" of the Old and New Towns.
An appeal was previously lodged by applicants, who argued the bar brought "vibrancy and vitality" to the area and supported hundreds of jobs, but it was thrown out by councillors, with one commenting the temporary development was "not good enough for one of the number one cities in the world".
And now a last-ditch attempt for the beer garden, food stalls and seating which make up the venue to remain in place until the end of September has failed.
Plans were again refused by councillors at a City Chambers meeting committee on Wednesday.
Owners Moogarth Group requested continued use of the space on Princes Street until September 30 and for a further six weeks thereafter "to dismantle the development and fully vacate the site".
In documents submitted to the council, the firm said: "The continued use of the rooftop space [...] will ensure that Waverley Mall remains vibrant and makes a positive contribution to the life and economy of the city centre."
The local authority first gave the go-ahead for the Festival Village in 2017 for a period of two years, but the attraction was able to remain open beyond expiration of planning consent after the Scottish Government relaxed rules for hospitality during the pandemic.
READ MORE: Top tips for enjoying Fringe 2023 on a budget (and how to see shows for free)
A bid to renew permission was unsuccessful however as planners concluded it was not in keeping with the historic area and harmful to the Edinburgh World Heritage Site. They said any economic benefits provided "would not justify the harm being done".
Speaking as a subsequent appeal was thrown out in April, SNP councillor Neil Gardiner said the Waverley Valley was "extremely important to Edinburgh".
He said: "I just don't think it's good enough for the World Heritage Site and one of the number one cities in the world. We could do so much better and the idea of a three year temporary consent is kind of contradictory."
Gardiner noted there were "a lot of empty property on Princes Street," adding: "Let's see that reused for leisure uses and not this thing for three years. It's not good enough for the City of Edinburgh."
In response to the latest application to continue trading for another few months, planning officers said: "For the time period proposed and for the duration the development has been in place to date, the proposal would not preserve the character and appearance of the New and Old Towns Conservation Areas and has an adverse impact on the setting of adjacent listed buildings.
"There is a temporary negative impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the Old and New Town of Edinburgh World Heritage Site with disruption to key views and loss of the publicly available viewing platform to appreciate the juxtaposition of the outstanding design and character of Edinburgh's Old and New Towns.”
Councillors unanimously refused planning permission, however it is not yet known if the authority will enforce removal of the structures.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here