02 design concept statement leith

leith renewable energy plant : design concept statement gordon murray architects

INTRODUCTION1.0

POLICY2.0Statutory ContextRequirement for a Design Concept StatementApplicable Policy and GuidanceProposed Approach and Principles of Design

SITE3.0LocationCharacterKey ElementsTextureEdinburgh and Leith

PLANT AND PROCESS4.0Leith Renewable Energy Plant

PRECEDENT5.0Colour TextureReflectionSculptural FormLinear FormTransparencySkyline ElementHigh and Low Level Separation

DESIGN PRINCIPLES6.0AspirationConcept DesignAn Indicative Approach

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS7.0

IMAGE CREDITS

leith renewable energy plant : design concept statement

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

01gordon murray architects

INTRODUCTION


1.0 INTRODUCTION

02

Forth Energy is seeking consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to construct andoperate a 200 Megawatt (MW) Renewable Energy Plant on a site at the Port of Leith. ForthEnergy is a joint venture between Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) and Forth Ports.

This document presents a Design Concept Statement for the proposals and is submitted insupport of the Section 36 application. The document considers the statutory context of theproposals relative to the presentation of design information and looks at how architecturaldesign can be used to enhance and mitigate the visual effects of the Renewable EnergyPlant.

By drawing influence from the site, appropriate context and precedents, and understandingthe operational processes of the Renewable Energy Plant, an illustrative design concept canbe suggested which then forms the basis for a series of design principles to be followed in anyfuture architectural treatment. This treatment is based on the maximum parameters ofanticipated plant size. As a means of testing these principles, an indicative design solution hasbeen developed using them as a guide.

The key design principles which should inform a design approach to the architecturaltreatment of the proposed development are:

Utilise the potential of transparency and light to create a marker on the Forth estuary symbolicof a sustainable future based on renewable technology;

Make appropriate use of colour, texture and materials to create strong visual connectionsbetween the industrial maritime setting and the proposed Renewable Energy Plant;

Understand the unique qualities of the site on the water’s edge, by recognising the visualreferences and connections provided by Leith’s maritime connection, the industrial setting ofthe port and the opportunities afforded by the open qualities of the Forth setting to allow anysignificant structure placed here to perform the role of a gateway;

Explore the contrast between solid and void to help define how the mass of the RenewableEnergy Plant is perceived;

Make use of the capability to have clear visual distinction between the lower linear storagestructures and the high level boiler equipment and stack in order to reduce the sense of bulkand increase the drama of the architectural elements which addresses the skyline;

The content of this report is proposed to inform subsequent detailed consideration of thedesign approach should Scottish Ministers be minded to grant consent for the proposals.

gordon murray architects

STATUTORY CONTEXT


2.0 POLICY

03

Applications for consent to construct and operate a thermal electricity generation plant aremade to the Scottish Ministers and processed by the Scottish Government’s Energy ConsentsUnit (SGECU) under the terms of the Electricity Act 1989. The Scottish Ministers have the powerto grant or refuse consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act for those seeking to developand construct, extend and operate electricity generating stations with a capacity greaterthan 50 MW electrical output located in Scotland.

The Section 36 Application procedures are comprehensive and bring the views of City ofEdinburgh Council, local communities and stakeholders, statutory and non-statutoryconsultees into the overall decision making process.

The Section 36 process also enables applicants to seek a direction from Scottish Ministers that“deemed planning permission” be granted under Section 57(2) of the Town and CountryPlanning (Scotland) Act 1997. This process runs in tandem with the application for consentunder Section 36.

The application of Section 57(2) allows City of Edinburgh Council, as Planning Authority, tosuggest conditions to be attached to any consent, which can be discharged by the PlanningAuthority in relation to the deemed planning permission aspects of the proposal.

The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (asamended) apply to Section 36 Applications and require any development that is consideredto have the potential for significant effects on the environment to be subject to anEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and that an Environmental Statement (ES) should besubmitted with the Section 36 Application. The proposals are categorised as a developmentthat requires the preparation of an EIA and as such the Leith Renewable Energy Plantproposals will be assessed from the perspective of a variety of topics. Included within this is theconsideration of Landscape and Visual effects of the proposals and in this regard the potentialapproach to design is a significant element of the proposed mitigation of potential effects.

Forth Energy believes design to be an important factor, and one which needs to be addressedthrough a series of iterations before the final design is approved. Forth Energy believes thatdesign should be part of the consideration from the early stages of the development of theproject, through the consenting process and on to the implementation phase.

The nature of any application under Section 36 of the Electricity Act essentially seeks toestablish the acceptance in principle of the approach to the development of thegenerating capacity proposed. The application is generally, therefore, made at astage in advance of the preparation of detailed designs for the proposals. Nevertheless,the requirement to assess the environmental effects of the proposals necessitates thatthe design and layout is advanced to a level of detail that provides sufficient certaintyon the proposed approach and associated environmental effects.

On this basis, the proposed approach as presented in this document should be read intandem with the assessment of the Landscape and Visual Effects of the proposals ascontained in Chapter 10 of the Environmental Statement. The assessment in Chapter 10,and the supporting images assess the proposals on the basis of the untreated outline ofthe proposed buildings and structures, and without the consideration of designmitigation measures to lessen or change the nature of potential effects.

Should Scottish Ministers grant consent for the proposals, it is envisaged City of EdinburghCouncil and SGECU would agree a series of appropriately worded conditions to beattached to the consent which, amongst other matters, would require approval of thedetailed design of the proposals. This approach will afford City of Edinburgh Councilwith an appropriate level of control over the final approach to design and materials. It isenvisaged that the developers will work up the detailed approach to the design andmaterials palette in conjunction with City of Edinburgh Council officials.


REQUIREMENT FOR A DESIGN STATEMENT

(1) The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008, and Circular 4/2009 Development Management Procedures

leith renewable energy plant : design concept statement04

As an application under the Electricity Act, there is no statutory requirement for a DesignStatement to be submitted in support of the proposals. Nevertheless, the applicant recognisesthe significance of the site location in the context of the urban environment in Leith.

In the context of a similar scaled proposal to be determined under planning procedures, thePlanning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 has recently introduced a number of statutory requirementsin relation to application submissions(1) to ensure that stakeholders are given an appropriateopportunity to become involved in the development of the proposals.

The approach to the development of the proposals has been progressed voluntarily in linewith the general principles of the new planning system and the approach that would beadopted for a ‘Major Development’ under the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy ofDevelopments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, in particular the requirements in terms of Designand Access, and Consultation.

In respect of consultation requirements the applicant has placed significant importance onthe approach to involvement of community and other stakeholders in the development of theproposals. A separate Statement of Participation is submitted in support of the Section 36application which documents the approach and outcomes of the consultation undertaken inassociation with the development of the proposals.

The regulations require a design statement to be prepared in support of a Major Development,even when such development is applied for ‘ in principle’. In this case there would be a needfor further iterations of the design and the current Section 36 application is a similar case.

The accessibility characteristics of the proposals are considered in the context of the TransportStatement (Volume 4) of the ES. As the detailed design is pursued later, these will beconsidered further. The inclusive design aspects of the proposals are an importantconsideration in terms of the future operational characteristics of the proposed RenewableEnergy Plant. However, given that the proposals are wholly sited within the Port of Leith secureport estate there is limited opportunity for public interaction. The developers would be obligedto comply with all relevant legislative requirements in relation to inclusive design and accessfor plant operatives. This is an area that the applicants consider to be more appropriatelyaddressed in the future, and can be required through a suitably worded condition.

The preparation of this Design Concept Statement is promoted as a tool to assist incommunicating the intentions for the proposals and to encourage a greater understanding ofthe approach to the future development of a detailed design.


Policy Des 9 ‘Waterside Development’ states:“Development on sites on the coastal edge and development on sites adjoining a watercourse, including the Union Canal, will only be permitted where the proposal:

provides an attractive frontage to the water in question maintains or provides public access to the water's edge maintains and enhances the nature conservation or landscape interest of the water body including its margins if appropriate, promotes recreational use of the water.”(page 28)

Policy Des 10 ‘Tall Buildings’ states:“Proposals for buildings which rise above the building height prevailing generally in the surrounding area will only be permitted where:

a landmark is to be created that enhances the skyline and surrounding townscape and is justified by the proposed use

the scale of the building is appropriate in its context there would be no adverse impact on important views of landmark buildings, the historic skyline, landscape features in the urban area or the landscape setting of the city, including the Firth of Forth.”(page 29)

A separate Planning Statement has been prepared to provide an assessment of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant against the Development Plan and other material considerations.

Relevant guidance considered in the preparation of this Design Concept Statement is contained within the following documents:

Scottish Government: Planning Advice Note 68 – Design StatementsThe City of Edinburgh Council Guidelines:

The Edinburgh Standards for Urban Design (2003)Protection of Key Views (2008)Building Heights and Roofscape (2010)

The approach to the preparation has reflected good practice in the preparation of design statements, adapted as appropriate to reflect the specific circumstances associated with the submission of an application under the Electricity Act.

APPLICABLE POLICY AND GUIDANCE


In considering the approach to the development of the Design Concept Statement there are anumber of areas of planning policy and guidance at both the local and national level that areappropriate to consider. This Design Concept Statement has been developed with reference to therequirements and guidance in each case.The key policies of relevance are summarised as follows:

Structure Plan Policy ENV1g ‘Design of New Development’ directs local plans to promote high standards of design and states:“Local plans should include policies, and where appropriate proposals, to promote a high quality of design in all new development”

In the Adopted Local plan the following policies are of relevance: Policy Des 1 ‘Design Quality and Context’ states: “Planning permission will be granted for development where it is demonstrated that the proposal will create or contribute towards a high quality, sustainable living or working environment. Design should be based on an overall design concept that draws upon positive characteristics of the surrounding area to create or reinforce a sense of place, security and vitality. Planning permission will not be granted for poor quality or inappropriate design or for proposals that would be damaging to the character or appearance of the area around it, particularly where this has a special importance.” (page 18)

Policy Des 2 ‘Coordinated Development’ states:“Planning permission will not be granted for development which might compromise the effective development of adjacent land or the comprehensive development and regeneration of a wider area as provided for in a master plan or development brief approved by the Council.” (page 19).

Policy Des 3 ‘Development Design’ sets out key criteria to be used in the assessment of development proposals. The criteria of relevance to the proposed development are as follows:“Development will be permitted where it is demonstrated that:

it will have a positive impact on its setting, having regard to the positioning of buildings on the site, their height, scale and form, materials and detailing, wider townscape and landscape impacts and impacts on views

features worthy of retention on the site and in the surrounding area, including potential views, have been identified and incorporated into the design to enhance visual interest and a sense of place

the amenity of occupiers or neighbours will not be materially harmed, by effects on privacy, daylight, sunlight or immediate outlook …

g) safe and convenient access and movement in and around the development will be promoted, having regard especially to the needs of people with limited mobility or special needs h) car parking, refuse and recycling facilities, cycle storage, micro-renewable energy and telecommunications equipment, plant and services have been sensitively integrated into the design i) biodiversity will be protected and enhanced j) a contribution to the improvement of the public realm in the vicinity has been considered, for example, through its redesign or the provision of public art.” (page 20)


PROPOSED APPROACH


The structure and content of this Design Concept Statement is presented in support ofthe Section 36 application, to introduce design considerations at this early stage.

The nature and sensitivity of the application site is acknowledged and the approach tothe development of the detailed design of the proposals will be a key factor in seekingto integrate the proposals into the surrounding environment successfully.

The remainder of this document provides a description of the development site andsurrounding context, and key influences on the design approach. Suggested designprinciples are presented, supported by illustrations to provide context and examples of apotential approach. This in turn informs the development of an illustrative designconcept for the proposed Renewable Energy Plant.

The content of this Design Concept Statement should be read and considered intandem with the Landscape and Visual Effects Chapter of the Environmental Statementwhich provides detailed commentary on the potential effects of the proposals from keyviewpoints agreed with stakeholders during the ES scoping process. The content of theDesign Concept Statement presents the basis of an approach which can be furtherdeveloped to provide mitigation through design and materials to assist in addressingpotential effects.


The Site for the proposed Renewable Energy Plant is located entirely within the operational boundary of the Port of Leith, at the eastern end of Imperial Dock in an area currently occupied by the Imperial Grain Silo. The Port of Leith itself is bounded by Leith to the south and new commercial and residential developments at Western Harbour and Ocean Terminal to the west. To the north and east is the Forth estuary leading to the North Sea.

The site also has a strong visual connection to Edinburgh City Centre, due to its elevated topography, as well as long established historical links. As part of the existing Outline Planning Application for the Leith Docks Framework for Development, a series of key view corridors were identified which highlighted vistas from prominent viewpoints down to the Forth Estuary. The Port of Leith forms the boundary between Edinburgh and the sea.

LOCATION


3.0 SITE


The site for the Renewable Energy Plant is approximately 12 hectares, and is an L shaped piece of land formed between Imperial Dock to the west and Edinburgh and Albert Docks to the south. The part of the site proposed for the main elements of the Renewable Energy Plant including the boiler house, admin block and main stack is currently occupied by the large concrete Imperial Grain Silo, which has been closed since 2006.

The areas of the site proposed for fuel storage buildings are currently occupied by industrial sheds, and a large industrial conveyor structure on the southern edge of Imperial Dock.



The near surroundings to the proposed site are dominated by uses related to the operational port estate, giving the immediate locale its strongly industrial character. The port facilities stretch to the south and west, with the predominant building type being industrial warehousing, sheds and offices of varying scales separated by considerable expanses of hard standing, quayside, self seeded grassland, scrub and unmade ground.

Further out from the site, the character of the area changes. Westward there are significant new residential and commercial developments realised in contemporary architectural forms using lightweight materials – metal and terracotta rain screen cladding, curtain walling, render and metal sandwich panels. In contrast, to the south is the historical core of Leith, with many fine sandstone public buildings and traditional masonry tenements contributing towards a rich townscape. A further sense of character is created by a series of significant heritage features which exist in the proximity of the site, reflecting the long history of the Port of Leith. These include the Martello Tower, the Albert Dock Hydraulic Crane and the Victoria Swing Bridge.

The prominent location of the site between the city and the water and the wide range of viewpoints to it allows any significant structure placed here to mark the entrance to Leith and Edinburgh. This could also be at an international level, with the site acting as an entrance point to Scotland for shipping using the Forth estuary.

CHARACTER



Within the proposed development site and the immediate surroundings, there is a wide range of key objects which help give the area its strong industrial maritime character, add visual interest and provide visual cues for conceptual design development. Of particular note is the wide array of industrial machinery situated around the docks, including conveyors and varying types of crane. These have expansive, light, functionalist forms built as machines of metal and glass in stark contrast to the monolithic solidity of the quayside and suggest a potential approach for a contemporary quayside industrial machine in the proposed Renewable Energy Plant.

The silo itself, while proposed for demolition, suggests possible strategies for contemporary industrial architecture, with clearly expressed pieces forming a larger whole, and the elevations articulated with a rigorous, repetitive geometry.

An important design consideration is to respect the designated view corridors identified in the Leith Docks Framework for Development, in particular the central view corridor from Calton Hill. This has had a significant impact on the proposed Renewable Energy Plant layout.

KEY ELEMENTS



The range of textures and materials found within and around the site reflect the functionalist, industrial nature of the working port environment. Large format aluminium panels and profiled metal sheet are the predominant materials for the walls and roofs of the many large storage sheds and warehouses nearby. Colours range from mill finish to grey and blue painted profiled sheet. Red and brown brickwork is also common on the smaller scale port office buildings. The lightness of the materials used for the majority of the industrial buildings is in marked contrast to the heavy solidity of the concrete quaysides and graving docks.

The surfaces of the B listed grain silo display a rigorous, repetitive geometry realised in concrete. At a closer scale, strong surface patterns also appear on the ground plane through the cobbles, crane rails and rivet plates of the dock swing bridge.

The surfaces of the docks themselves are another dominant element in the landscape, creating large open spaces with shifting surfaces between the port buildings. The ships servicing the port also contribute to the visual richness of the site, the large, monolithic forms of the hulls in stark contrast to the fragmented massing of the ship superstructures.

TEXTURE



While historically serving as a gateway for Edinburgh to continental Europe since the middle ages, Leith functioned as an independent borough until being merged into the county of Edinburgh in 1920. As such, it retains a strong and distinct identity of its own, revolving primarily around the maritime traditions created by the Port of Leith.

The area around the Port of Leith has also undergone significant transformation since the early 2000s as a result of the implementation of the first stages of the Western Harbour development and Ocean Terminal, moving from post industrial decline to a place which can function as a vibrant waterfront for Leith and the whole of Edinburgh beyond.

Edinburgh also connects with Leith through a series of view corridors from key vantage points down to the Forth estuary, sweeping across the Port of Leith. These view corridors were used to establish natural breaks within the proposed pattern of redevelopment. The proposed site is positioned between the Castle and Bath Road corridors, and bisected by the Calton Hill corridor.

EDINBURGH AND LEITH



LEITH RENEWABLE ENERGY PLANT


4.0 PLANT AND PROCESS

13

The most visually significant element of the Renewable Energy Plant is the boiler house and stacks, which are located on the site of the existing grain silo. The boiler house has a maximum envelope of 65m high x 92m wide x 60m long and the main stack is 120m high. A smaller auxiliary boiler has a stack 55m high to the south east.

The main fuel storage will be in the strip of land between Imperial Dock and Edinburgh Dock to the south of the main boiler house, and will comprise either two A frame buildings or seven storage silos. The turbine hall, day store and mixed fuel store are structures more commensurate in scale with the existing port buildings, and are located east of the boiler house on the other side of the clear zone created by the Calton Hill view corridor.

The overall impression is of a series of individual pieces, which will require a unifying structure providing visual consistency for the Renewable Energy Plant.



SKYLINE ELEMENTSINDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS


Colour can be used for a variety of purposes. Key elements can be highlighted to drawattention away from the general overall mass of the building. Depending on the elementsselected, the horizontality of verticality of a building can be exaggerated, for examplethrough use of coloured banding at the parapets of structures to emphasise the horizontal.

Colour can be used to visually fragment an overall form through the use of a strong pattern.On large structures, gradually lightening the colour of the building towards the top iscommonly used as a means of allowing the building to `disappear’ into the background. Thistechnique is often only successful under certain lighting conditions.

COLOUR


5.0 PRECEDENTfig. 1 Zorbau, Germany

Photograph courtesy of SITA Deutschland, 2005fig. 2 Bergano, Italy

Photograph courtesy of A2A Spa, 2009fig. 3 Skive CHP Station,

Architect CF Moller, 2006Photograph courtesy of Ole Hein Petersen

fig. 4 Co Generation Plant, UtrechtArchitect Liesbeth van der Pol, 2005


Texture is defined by the materials selected for use. These provide a sense of scale atthe medium and close ranges by virtue of the size of module/panel permissible withinthe properties of the material. The selected materials can create visual, historical andmetaphorical links with a site and a function. In the case of the new renewable energyplant, it is appropriate to consider materials and textures commonly found within theport landscape – the plates of a ship’s hull, stacked cargo containers, profiled metalsheet. Careful articulation of the building skin can create visual interest at a range ofviewing distances – allowing the overall form to be read at long range, the materiality ofthe skin at medium range, and the tactile qualities and physical profile at close range.

TEXTURE


fig. 1 fig. 2 fig. 3 fig. 4

fig. 1 Corten screenfig. 2 Rusting shipsfig. 3 Derelict factory, New Yorkfig. 4 Skive CHP Station,

Architect CF Moller, 2006


The location of the site for the Renewable Energy Plant within a working port and thesubsequent close connection to large bodies of water means that reflection can be animportant design element. The extent that impact reflection will have on how the renewableenergy plant is perceived will vary dramatically with weather and lighting conditions.Calm, still days with clear weather can allow objects on the edge of Imperial Dock to be readas floating within space. The massing of structures on the waterfront will appear altered whenreflected on the water. In conditions not conducive to strong reflection, the play of light onwater from these structures can allow the hard physical edges to become blurred.

REFLECTION




fig. 1 Madevj, DenmarkPhotograph courtesy of Friis+Molltte A/S, 2004

fig. 2 Bangladesh National Assembly, DhakaArchitect Louis Kahn, 1982

fig. 3 Industrial landscape, New York

The scale and prominent location of the Renewable Energy Plant means that it can alsoserve the function of a landmark, or gateway. This often allows industrial structures to riseabove their purely functional nature and become a recognisable visual symbol in thelandscape.

SCULPTURAL FORM


fig. 1 fig. 2 fig. 3 fig. 5fig. 4


fig. 1 Madevj, DenmarkPhotograph courtesy of Friis+Molltte A/S, 2004

fig. 2 Avedore 3, DenmarkPhotograph courtesy of Energi E2, 2002

fig. 3 Museum of Graffiti, France Architect Massimiliano Fuksas, 1993

fig. 4 Guggenheim Bilbao, BilbaoArchitect Gehry Associates, 1997

A linear form attempts to house all the necessary elements below a defined horizontaldatum and in a clear progressive sequence. With large scale industrial installations, thisdatum may relate to the height of any general surroundings, with only specific key partsrising above this. Linear forms are often used to define an edge condition, and as suchcan create strong relationships with the water’s edge. Equally, if ill considered canprovide a visual and physical barrier between places.

LINEAR FORM


fig. 1 fig. 2 fig. 3

fig. 1 Daka BiodieselArchitect CF Moller, 2007Photogrpah courtesy of Julian Weyer

fig. 2 Kranspoor, AmsterdamArchitect OTH, 2007Photograph courtesy of Christian de Bruijne

fig. 3 Supertanker


Transparency can achieve a range of effects and convey varying messages about the natureof a structure. It can be used to manipulate the perception of form. The relationship betweensolid and transparent elements on the skin of a building can blur or remove edges, highlightkey areas, and generally allow a mass to be sculpted by the contrast between light and dark.

Semi opaque areas of the façade will create visual interest through luminosity, and can alsoconvey a sense of mystery and drama due to the ambiguous nature of the activitiesconcealed within.

TRANSPARENCY



fig. 1 Aalborg sludge drying plantArchitect CF Moller, 2000Photogrpah courtesy of Ole Hein Pedersen

fig. 2 Garstad plantArchitect CF Moller, 2004Photograph courtesy of Ake Eson Lindman

fig. 3 Nelson Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas CityArchitect Steven Holl, 2007

fig.4 Garstad plantArchitect CF Moller, 2004


The Renewable Energy Plant will be viewed from a range of distances, and will impacton the skyline. A recognisable, high level element is often used as a way of signaling abuilding’s presence. Rather than attempting to conceal the presence of the building, itis celebrated, though careful emphasis is generally placed on the scale of thehighlighted element to ensure the surrounding context is not completely overpowered.

SKYLINE ELEMENT



fig. 1 Longannet Biomass power stationArchitect Gordon Murray Architects, 2009

fig. 2 The New CityArchitect Antonia Sant’ Elia, 1914

fig. 3 Tate Modern, former Bankside power statiionArchitect Giles Gilbert Scott/Herzog and de Meuron, 1961/2000


A technique commonly employed in the design of large scale industrial structures is a clearseparation of high and low level elements, often driven on a functional level by the desire toenclose plant within the most efficient possible envelope.

This has the effect of decreasing the potential bulk of the building. Lower elements (oftensupport, processing and storage areas) can relate to the general height of other buildings inclose proximity. Higher elements (generally boiler and stack) rise above this in a tighterenvelope which will have a presence on the wider skyline.

HIGH AND LOW LEVEL SEPARATION



fig. 1 Tate Modern, LondonArchitect: Herzog and De Meuron 2002

fig. 2 Pumping Plant, AalborgArchitect: CF Moller, 2002

fig. 3 Nikola Tesla B, SerbiaPhotograph Courtesy of EPS, 2001


The concept designs for the Renewable Energy Plant should be representative of a newenvironmental enlightenment. As a significant presence on the water front, it shouldseek to make a positive contribution to the Edinburgh skyline. By using the visual cues ofthe historical industrial port backdrop and drawing inspiration from the maritime locationon the edge of the Forth estuary and North Sea beyond it is hoped an architecturalresponse can be created which symbolises technological progress and a greenerScotland.

ASPIRATION


6.0 DESIGN PRINCIPLES


T h e c o n c e p t d e s i g n :

Recognise the potential of the unique setting for the Renewable Energy Plant on theEdinburgh skyline and Forth Estuary beyond. The prominent location of the site and thewide range of viewpoints to it allows any significant structure placed here to perform therole of a gateway marker. This would be at both an international and national level, withthe site acting as an entrance point to Scotland for shipping using the Forth estuary.

Make appropriate use of colour, texture and materials to create strong visualconnections between the maritime industrial setting,the historical fabric of Edinburghand the proposed Renewable Energy Plant. Materials selected should be appropriatefor the function of the Renewable Energy Plant and the port setting by being drawnfrom an industrial palette, but articulated in a manner which recognises the closeproximity of sensitive visual receptors.

SYMBOL

MATERIALS, COLOUR, TEXTURE

WATER AND METAPHOR


Understand the unique qualities of the site on the boundary between City and Sea, byrecognising the visual references and connections provided by Leith’s maritime pastand present, and the industrial setting of the port, whilst suggesting glimpses of its future.


T h e c o n c e p t d e s i g n :

Make use of the capability to have clear visual distinction between the lower linearstorage structures and the high level boiler equipment and stack in order to reduce thesense of bulk and increase the drama of the architectural element which addresses theskyline. Consider the perception of the long, linear mass of storage structures, and howthe individual elements which comprise this relate to the scale of the surrounding portand townscape.

The design of the Renewable Energy Plant should be symbolic of a new environmentalenlightenment which promotes a sustainable future for Edinburgh and Scotland basedon renewable technology.

Explore the potential of transparency and light, and the contrast between solid andvoid to help define how the mass of the Renewable Energy Plant is perceived from arange of distances.

TRANSPARENCY AND LIGHT

MASSING

A NEW ENLIGHTENMENT



The principles above set out a loose design framework for developing an architecturaltreatment for the proposed Renewable Energy Plant. To prove the validity of thesepoints, an indicative design solution has been developed using them as a guide, and toprovide an illustration of a potential approach.

AN INDICATIVE APPROACH

The Leith Renewable Energy Plant is an opportunity to demonstrate visibly Edinburgh’scommitment to a more sustainable way of living, and as such, should carry highaspirations for design. Any design should make the most of its unique setting at thewaterfront of Scotland’s capital city by drawing inspiration from the proposed site,reflecting the maritime industrial character and history.

It is also important that designs for the Renewable Energy Plant can work at a variety ofscales. At long range, the massing of the plant should recognise the importance ofestablished view corridors from a range of key viewpoints. At the medium range, carefulmanipulation of the contrast between solid, void and transparency can help define themassing of the Renewable Energy Plant in an appropriate manner, articulating the scaleof the main elements while at close range, the design of the surface texture should beconsidered carefully to create an architectural response which is robust andappropriate for the setting.

CONCEPT





PLANT IN CURRENT FORM HIGH LEVEL ELEMENTS SEPARATEDELEMENTS UNIFIED THROUGH MATERIAL

SURFACE TEXTURE LIGHTENEDVOLUMES SUB DIVIDED HIGH LEVEL EDGES TRANSFORMED



The initial move of the indicative design approach could be to identify which elementsof the proposed Renewable Energy Plant will have a presence on the wider Edinburghskyline, and which parts will be subsumed by the scale of the existing portoperations. The elements which will have the most significant visual impact at longrange would be the main boiler house and associated stack, and potentially the Aframe storage structures dependent on fuel type selected.

The high level parts of the boiler house could be separated from the lower areas bymeans of a translucent polycarbonate band, and treated in an architecturallyexpressive manner. This could suggest visual links with a range of maritime forms, fromthe sails of tall ships to the cliff like faceted forms of icebergs. By manipulating the profileof the high level structures to remove absolute vertical planes, the impact of the overallmass on adjacent areas can be softened, with the sense of overshadowing diminished.

A further stage could be to visually subdivide the overall mass vertically, giving theappearance of a group of elements rather than one large volume. The stack itself couldbe treated as highly sculptural vertical markers, recalling the influence of AntonioSant’Elia in their massing.

FORM







The Port of Leith offers unique opportunities when considering potential materials due tothe ever changing qualities of light which occur on this part of the east coast. The waysunlight falls on the Renewable Energy Plant under a range of different conditions willdramatically alter how it is perceived – as an intangible form in the mist of a haar, abright reflective object in the morning sun, or a dark monolith at dusk. The skin shouldallow for these variations to be enhanced through reflection and highlight, rather thanconstant, monochrome.

The concept design could look to use natural mill finished metal cladding in a range ofprofiles and orientation. This material would weather down to give a degree of surfacereflectivity, while the profile would allow for the building skin to carry visual interest atclose and medium range. To help break down the scale, key areas of the building coulduse semi translucent polycarbonate panels in order to define the mass through therelationship between solid and void.

This approach is especially important if the A frame storage buildings were to be utilisedin the Renewable Energy Plant. In their untreated form, these objects would form a largehorizontal surface from medium and long range. By modulating the scale of this surfacethrough the subdivision of the solid inclined plane with translucent vertical strips, it couldstart to be read as a series of parts each more appropriate to the scale of thesurroundings, rather than one large structure.

MATERIALS











This document presents a design interpretation of the development of the proposals for aRenewable Energy Plant in the Port of Leith. The development of the design approach requiresreflection on the process within which consent is being sought, and associated with this, thelevel of design detail available at this stage.

This Design Concept Statement is submitted in support of the application under Section 36 ofthe Electricity Act (1989) and the accompanying Environmental Statement. The approachshould be considered in the context of the assessment of Landscape and Visual effects asdocumented in the Environmental Statement. The Design Concept Statement presents a seriesof suggested Design Principles and an interpretation as to how these could be translated intoa design concept for the development in the future.

The applicant is committed to developing an appropriate design solution relative to the sitelocation and deliverability of the development. It is envisaged that City of Edinburgh Council,as a Statutory Consultee in the Section 36 Consenting process, has an opportunity to reviewthe potential approach, and consider this in the framing of suitable conditions to be appliedto the decision, should Scottish Ministers be minded to grant consent.

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS


7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS



IMAGE CREDITS

Images by Gordon Murray Architects unless noted belowp10

Tall ship, image courtesy of Wikipedia commonsSeagull in WaterLeith docks masterplan. Architect: RMJM

p116 Times, Sculptor:Anthony Gormley, 2010

p12Edinburgh aerial photo, image courtesy of Guthrie PhotographyLeith docks masterplan. Architect: RMJM

p15Fig1: Zorbau, Germany. Photograph courtesy of SITA Deuschtland 2005Fig2: Bergamo, Italy. Photograph courtesy of A2A SpA, 2009Fig3: Skive CHP station. Architect: CF Moller, 2006. Photograph courtesy of Ole Hein PetersenFig4: CoGeneration plant, Utrecht. Architect: Liesbeth van der Pol, 2005

p16Fig1: Corten screening. Photograph courtesy of Wikimedia CommonsFig2: Rusting ships. Photograph courtesy of Wikimedia CommonsFig3: Derelict factory, New York. Photograph courtesy of Wikimedia CommonsFig4: Skive CHP station. Architect: CF Moller, 2006. Photograph courtesy of Ole Hein Petersen

P17fig. 1 Madevj, Denmark Photograph courtesy of Friis+Molltte A/S, 2004fig. 2 Bangladesh National Assembly, Dhaka Architect Louis Kahn, 1982fig. 3 Industrial landscape, New York

P18fig. 1 Madevj, Denmark Photograph courtesy of Friis+Molltte A/S, 2004fig. 2 Avedore 3, Denmark Photograph courtesy of Energi E2, 2002fig. 3 Museum of Graffiti, France Architect Massimiliano Fuksas, 1993fig. 4 Guggenheim Bilbao, Bilbao Architect Gehry Associates, 1997

p19Fig1: Daka Biodiesel. Architect: CF Moller,2007. Photograph courtesy of Julian WeyerFig2: Kranspoor, Amsterdam. Architect: OTH,2007. Photograph courtesy of Christian de BruijneFig3: Supertanker. Photograph courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

p20Fig1: Aalborg sludge drying plant. Arhcitect: CF Moller,2000. Photograph courtesy of Ole Hein PedersonFig2: Garstad Plant. Architect: CF Moller, 2004. Photograph courtesy of Ake Eson LindmanFig3: Nelson Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas. Architect: Steven Holl, 2007Fig4: Maison De Verre, Paris. Architect: Pierre Chareau, 1932

p21:Fig1: Longannet Biomass Plant. Architect: gordon murray architectsFig2:The New City. Architect: Antonio Sant’Elia, 1914Fig3: Tate Modern, London. Architect: Herzog and De Meuron,2000

p22:Fig1: Construction of Architectural and Machine Forms 1925-31. Architect: Iakov Chernikhov Image courtesy of Iakov Chernikhov International FoundationFig2: Smolensk, Russia. Photograph courtesy of Rosenergoatom, 2001Fig3: Institute of Contemporary Arts, Boston. Architect: Diller, Scofidio and Renfro, 2006

p23Fig1: Tate Modern, London. Architect: Herzog and De Meuron,2000Fig2: Pumping Plant, Aalborg. Architect: CF Moller, 2002Fig3: Nikola Tesla B, Serbia. Photograph courtesy of EPS, 2001

p24David Hume Statue. Sculptor: Alexander Stoddart, 2004. Image courtesy of EdinburghGuide.com Forth road Bridge, Edinburgh. Designer: Axe, Mott, Hay, Anderson, Freeman and Fox, 1964The Reverend Robert Walker skating on Duddingston Loch. Sir Henry Raebur, 1790sLeith docks. Aerrial photography courtesy of Guthrie PhotographyIceberg. Image courtesy of Wikimedia CommonsSeagull in water. Image courtesy of Wikimedia CommonsSailing ship. Image courtesy of Wikimedia CommonsBiofuel. Image courtesy of Wikimedia CommonsBeacon. Illustrator unknown

p25Fig1: Construction of Architectural and Machine Forms 1925-31. Architect: Iakov Chernikhov Image courtesy of Iakov Chernikhov International FoundationFig2: Imperial war Museum North, Manchester. Architect: Daniel Liebeskind, 2002Fig3: Seagull in water

p26Fig1: Aalborg sludge drying plant. Arhcitect: CF Moller,2000. Photograph courtesy of Ole Hein PedersonFig2: Tate Modern, London. Architect: Herzog and De Meuron,2000

p34:Fig1: River Heights, gordon murray architects, 2005Fig2: Leicester University Engineering Faculty. Architect: James Stirling, 1959. Photograph courtesy of Wikimedia CommonsFig3: Garstad Plant. Architect: CF Moller, 2004. Photograph courtesy of Ake Eson LindmanFig4: Imperial war Museum North, Manchester. Architect: Daniel Liebeskind, 2002Fig5: Opera House, Hamburg. Architect: Herzog and DeMeuron, 2010


Documents

02 design concept statement leith