Revised plans to replace Edinburgh music venue with flats set for approval

Square and Crescent has submitted scaled-back plans to demolish the former Studio 24 nightclub on Calton Road and replace it with 22 flats in a five-storey building as well as an office on the ground floor.

An application submitted by the company for 24 flats was refused by the City of Edinburgh Council in March this year while a subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Scottish Government due to fears the rear of the development would harm the character of the conservation area by ruining views.

The Edinburgh Evening News reports that the revised plans, which have been recommended for approval by planning officials, include the central section of the building being reduced from four to three storeys and the rear section has been lowered from five to four storeys.

On-site affordable housing will not be included in the development as the “applicant has clearly demonstrated that the development would not be viable” – but a commuted sum is set to be agreed, which would go towards other affordable housing projects.

If approved, a communal garden will be constructed on the roof of the central section of the building and another area of green common space will be formed in the open courtyard. Private terraces will be provided for five flats. The council’s development management subcommittee will consider the plans on Wednesday.

Euan Marshall, joint managing director of Square and Crescent, said: “After a period of redesign of the scheme with City of Edinburgh Council planners, Square and Crescent is looking forward to hopefully a positive result at committee to enable us to deliver much-needed city centre housing stock in the form of a quality development designed by award-winning architects Morgan McDonnell.”

However, Old Town Community Council has officially objected to the plans, labelling the proposal “unnecessarily ugly”.

In a statement, Old Town Community Council added: “Although slightly lower and less damaging to the skyline, this re-application does not materially differ enough from the previously rejected application.

“Namely that the proposed design does nothing to conserve or enhance the character of the conservation area, that it is unsympathetic in architectural style whereas the building to be demolished, albeit not listed, does indeed fulfil all those things. It should instead be cleaned and restored and incorporated into any development on that site.”