ff a Penick a9 ny oon foresee: TED condi waa (as) " ruc Hare ~-ruuenil hie Executive Duddngston Howse Properties udaingston House dnburgh HS ARB sue ruce Waverley Cour ‘ease oartt Steet cainburgh enag96 (03 May2011 Dear sue, 2£0 Ants Hote Proposal, Developmen Management Sub-Commitee of the Panning Committ — ‘Planning Permision08/00157/FUL~7 Clerk street, Edinburgh, EHE SIM Former Odeon Chem) Used Building Consent 11/00384/L8C ~7 Clerk Sret, Edinburgh, EHE 9H Former Odeon ‘inema) ‘ogre that am forced write to you regarding the about Planning Application and our application for Usted Bulding Consent This an unusual step but juste inthis cave because the Reports which were pubished on the Planning and Bulg Control Portal on Thursday 5 May 2011 are Incomplete and inaccurate Some but not al ofthe mites have been acknowledged by Counc cela. Hower, the Counll has refuses to core the errors inthe repr, According | fest complied 0 wite a you to poet ou these mstakes.f you are not presented with he tatht is unrearonale to expect vou to arve at farang balanced declson reprdng the future of the but and he cpportunty to secure jas and nvestment or Edbuah Due tothe eregulrtis, Iam copying thi eter to Sue Brac, Chie Exact ofthe Counc and to the Courel’s Mooring Offer, lista Mean, PagetPanning Permission 0/00197/FUL ‘This was determined on 29 October 2008 when the Committe endorsed the recommendton that Planning permission be granted, Counel offices frustrated the cotre ofthe apleton by refusing payment ar easing to conchae she legal agreement relating tothe contrautiontowarés he Cty (ar Cb and the cost of Taf Regulation Orders The Report mates no reference tothe legal opnic fom cu panning lawyers McGrigors, whieh states that by tning his mater with our sppicatin for Usted Bulding Consent and thereby bringing t back to Commitee, Cound offers se cting eut-vith the powers inthe planning lgiatin. Page 12 af the Plansng Peemision Repo states: A fl assessment of this cae is set out nthe onpicion fer ited buling consent (11/00384/.80). The appears cases not accepted. Two credible bas have been made forthe bulding ond ths bos estobished a merket which buyers oe iting ro poy fo the ruse of the bulting 0s 0 whole, Poof of fading hos Been povided by these bars” ‘This satements incomplete and false in 2 number f respects ‘+ There are no ids whieh, nthe terms set ou by Histor eatland ns eter tothe Counal ated 29 Api 2011 coud be regarded osreb and cel. 1+ One ofthe bis referred to [New Vitra -£0.6m) has wo poet of fundiag. Ths was set out Inthe Marketing Report dated 7 February 2011 rom Gl Hear nd Montag Evans 1+ The other bid [Scobie - 1.6m) provided a eter from Graf Mortenge Corporation which purported tobe proof of funding. The Repor: makes no reference tothe independent nancial bie ete om one ofthe words leans fms of chartered accountants which wes submited tothe Coun 28 April 2023 and which highlighted # funding gap of at oes 25% in respect ofthe Seable bid. Based not onl 0 hat gap but alk on athe cancers hichlghted by their digence Into the ‘prof of funding, the independant accountants concluded n respect ofthe Seobe bid tht inthe cecurstances was insulin? financial idence to low the Planning Ofc to conclude that ths represented a relic ocredble offer age 12 then makes reference ‘Athi bid hos been withdrawn and @ fourth bi fora Clans 3 is potential contentious.” Page?Iris presumed that the Councl accepts that, asthe Rock Elim bid i withdrawn and the 10 Wiotherspcon proposal rlatd to 2 use which snot consent with the Coun planning ply, that these bids can be dsegaded and ae not inched ine stlement that “here i therefore @ ‘marke forte ulin which forms partof the conclusion on page 13. Page 13 ofthe Planning Permislon Report states: “there oreo scene pub benefits which would tly the as of much of he itv bling” ‘he Report emits information on the ecmomic impact work cried out by EKOS, the specs, «economic evelopment consultaney based In Glasgow which operates ogueies ad down bythe Sets Government which concluded tht: 5} the creation of 9 unique as hotel would crest around 120 new ab ard boost the lea ‘economy tothe tune of 5 mon pr year, and may acts a catalyst fr further private » the hotel would help genrate almost 100,000 vitors for Edinburgh every yaor~ wth lost 10,000 of them traveling rom overseas; and 1) twas estimated thatthe meting an funeton rooms athe hotel would tract a futher £11,500 people tothe local ses oath yor, Usted bang Consent 11/00384/18¢ fering to the bid by Scobie, t page 13 the Report states: “ElSence of fring si ploce os requested bythe oppliconts” No references made to the fac that ths has been discredited by the Independent fem of chartered acountets, information which hasbeen inthe hands ofthe Counc since 28 Api 2021 “han, on page 15 the report states: “Cc, the SHEP ests dono eit to underrite & minimam sole vole fora sole. Rather, these are in place to test whether o sed building i ecanomialy oble without demoltion. The exitence of one fll funded fer forthe Odeon cinema proves thot Theis fl on two count ‘+The scobie bt isnot fully funded nda the igance bythe Independent hm of corte accountants malas spect reerence toa funding ga and toa lack of rely of what bridge ance ages‘+ Theseobiepropesl sl reques the demolition of asignicant proportion ofthe bling. ‘The Seobepropesals not or preservation bt fr development involving derelton [At page 4, the report then states: “Tis department cannot challenge ether he September 2010 or ‘Februar 201 voloton by Cllrs itenatonal. it aczeps that both volutons hove been eased ‘out in eeordonce withthe PICS Veluation Standards ("Red Baok). Nor dest dispute the standard Industry methodology” Al of ths fe. The report then goes onto state without jstation or reference: “Questions have ben ried cbout some ofthe assumptions made {in terms] of floe- soace ond compattar:” olers international ware specially ased o update thelr valuation as at February 2011 beause ‘his meant they had to review and take aecoun ofall he information provides ba the bidders {incuding the OM Ha ropor before it was subsaquenty withdrawn}. the Coun accepts, which oes, hat Colles interatonathas done a potessonljob in serordance with RCS guidelines then Ie cannot choose to depute the unchallenged, profesional opinion of Coles Intemational who ‘have acted independently throughout the remavteting proces. ‘The text of eter rom Mstori Seotland is set out starting on page 19. Inthe second paragraph on 20, Historie Sctand wa mitenly ofthe view that = report by OM Halli support ofthe Rock len "bd wat ato part of the Scoble bid. Tis eror of fot snot corrected nthe Report. The OM Hal report was adresse solely to Rock Elm and, asthe Rock Elm bid was withdraw, the OM Hall, evo fell au th age 15 ofthe report states: “ts acknowledged thot the ltest marketing pried wos reasonable in texms of timescale, glen the Inpt by Key stoeholdrsin the formulation of ths process. However, the esl ofthis eerie sugges thot «further marketing neti could atroct offers fom other restoring purchoser, parcel if thepieaspratons ofthe seller were reduced." ‘Ths conclusion i awed in loge and drawn fom incorrect facts. There sno cree bid from 2 ‘storing purdase. Hone of the bids has proot of funding which passes even the simplest Independent digence. Even ft were funded, the Scoble bid requ the partial demolition of the bln. Oeste cequerts by us and requests bythe Counc Mr Scobie has aot produce a busines ‘an or evidence to show how hi demolion and development works would be funded,‘Allthe stakeholders ~the Courl Historie Sealand andthe Government ~ agreed onthe marketing period and that inorder to meet the SHEP test, the property had 0 be marketed ata price, The range of bids were below the Colles Interatonal valation bu, regardless of tha, nt one ‘crdible or reals’ propos bas been received. The assumption thet one might ase at some point Inthe future doesnot acord withthe evidence before To sum up, the hey sues or consideration ar: 4. Securing clarity for elected members = in particule relating to the key ses around the reaibity and fang ofthe ids received ‘abled by the Head of Planing fo ther consderaton 2. Caving that tere i na compliant or (nthe words of HEstorie Solan). “reible and alte bd ~ with business plans and proof or funding in ple. Further that thre is serious doubt around funding forthe option being promoted by planning fins, ane cty inthe face of rors and omision inthe report that this option does invohe demotion 3. That the ste hs been marketed extensivaly for neaty eight year: and, a yet, no eeu alternative ses for the building havebeen estes 44 That there ents a ulfunded opportunity now to secure » mor new tours facity for Enrah of hehighest quality deri, which wil ecure a boost of Sion ach yoo for the local economy and create 120 obs nan area where they are badly needed 5. That flue to at wil eed to furter significant delays ant in being the ulng bak into use, wit the Fk that could remain a slenfcant Bight to the lea steetseape and ‘am sory to have had 1o we at such length. However! Beleve thatthe Committee needs te be spprized of he fact before itcan be asked to make te doco. In commenting on our propa, ‘the Reporter, Mi Culshaw sa, 7 emins possible tha the current proposals represent the best ‘opportunity for the Odeon cinema to be brought book into us.” Eight years on since it closed tis seems very much thease ‘Yours sneer, Gake, Chit Erective,Duddngsten House Properties Psaes