7th April 2011

Planning & Strategy

Cinema Theatre The City of Edinburgh Council
Waverley Court,
Association Level G:2, 4 East Market Street,

Scotland Edinburgh,
EH8 8BG

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Re: Listed Building Consent Application 11/00394/LBC

The Cinema Theatre Association would like to register a formal objection to the plans
submitted by Duddingston House Properties for the former Odeon Cinema, Clerk Street.
POST
CTA Scotland, The Cinema Theatre Association is the national body for the protection and study of
G/2, 311 Maryhill Road traditional cinema buildings. Our specialist expertise is sought by The Ancient Monuments
Glasgow G20 7XX Society, The Theatres Trust, The Twentieth Century Society, and The Victorian Society, as well
EMAIL as many local authorities, all of whom we advise on planning applications relating to cinemas.
info@ctascotland.org.uk We also functioned as an adviser to the English Heritage cinema survey in 1999, as well as
the similar listed building evaluation exercise carried out with Historic Scotland in 2007.
WEB
www.ctascotland.org.uk
1. Background

This application was previously submitted - in exactly the same form - as 08/00197/LBC.

The CTA submitted an objection to this previous application - and also later successfully
argued for it to be called in for consideration by the Scottish Ministers when it was
narrowly, and controversially, passed by the CEC Planning Committee.

For this reason, we consider that all of our previous specific comments and objections are
just as relevant to this resubmitted application as they were to the original.

They are therefore included as Appendix 1 to this letter, and should be considered as an integral part
of our objection.

2. Connection to Planning Application

On its original submission, this particular application was originally submitted at the same
time as the corresponding full Planning Permission application 08/00197/FUL.

It is normal practice for Planning Applications and the relevant Listed Building Consent
Applications to be considered together - as they were originally with the 2008 application.

We note that the Planning Application was submitted in 2008, and considered under the
planning legislation and guidelines appropriate at that time. Since then, key elements of
planning legislation, guidelines and practice - in particular the new, single SHEP document and
the associated Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance document - have
changed materially since the original submission.

We therefore consider it unreasonable that a planning application and its associated listed
building consent could, or should, be considered under quite different planning regimes, and
would therefore strongly request that the current LBC be considered invalid, until an
updated Planning Application is submitted to accompany it.

Page 1
Both applications could then be considered together, fairly, under current Scottish
Government and Edinburgh Council planning guidelines.

As the previous planning consent is useless to the developer without associated LBC being
granted, similarly applying for LBC would be worthless while the Planning Permission
situation remains uncertain.

3. 2010/2011 Marketing Exercise

3.1 Independency of Valuation

Section 3.4 of the supplied planning statement states that the renewed valuation has "been
the subject of comment and criticism from both the City of Edinburgh Council and Historic
Scotland." Yet these criticisms have seemingly been swept aside by the applicant, because
"[n]either party has commissioned its own valuation nor have they produced evidence of an
alternative approach to valuation." This does not negate the criticism, though, - it is not CEC
or Historic Scotland's job to commission valuations, rather it is up to the developer to prove
the robust, independent nature of theirs.

Given that the revised valuation was performed by Colliers - who conducted the earlier
valuations - it is inherently non-independent. In the revised valuation, it is admitted that the
methodology and final figures are relatively unchanged. This is hardly surprising, since to do
otherwise would be to admit that their earlier work was questionable and/or flawed. If DHP
were genuine about wishing to ensure a second, updated and independent opinion regarding
the value of the building, they would have considered instructing a separate firm to give them
a true second opinion.

Given that Colliers have admitted to making few changes to their methodology, and have
come up with a relatively similar valuation as their previous consideration, we consider that
the criticisms that were applied (by HS, CEC and indeed the Scottish Government
independent planning Reporter) to that original valuation still hold true.

3.2 Marketing exercise failures

The parties involved may well have agreed that three months was a reasonable timescale;
however, it is notable that that the marketing exercise was held in midwinter, and came to an
end over the Xmas and New Year holiday period. In particular, there was no electricity to
allow interested parties to properly inspect and survey the building. No mention whatsoever
is made of the fact that everyone who viewed it had to do so by torchlight or by bringing
their own generators to power floodlights – a situation which can hardly have been enticing
to many potential purchasers.

Additionally, Section 2.4 of the Final Planning Statement claims that "the further Marketing
period was not done on the basis of reference to a specific price".

However, it would seem that it was in fact not true - both press reports at the time, and
even the information sent to prospective bidders (e.g. feature in The Scotsman commercial
property section on 3rd August 2010, or the letter dated 23 November 2010 provided in the
Marketing Appendix) all reference a specific price - “Colliers International (Independent
Valuers) have valued the Market Value of the property at £2.93M as at September 2010”.

Such prominent mention of the price, with no mention that it was under dispute, may well
have put off other genuine potential bidders who felt it was more than they were willing to
pay.

3.3 Condition of the building

The valuation survey, and condition report presented considered that the cost of remedial
work to make the building wind and watertight would be around £50-100k, and removed
100k from the final value to account for that. That work, to our knowledge, has not yet been

Page 2
carried out – consequently, the building continues to deteriorate, meaning that this bill could,
literally, increase every day. Having witnessed first hand the rapid and severe damage which
an incident such as a burst pipe or rainwater ingress can cause to cinema buildings, we
remain deeply concerned with every passing day in which the building is unoccupied and
unheated.

The condition report, carried out in January 2011 by Colliers, also fails to note the
widespread dry rot in the stage area under the former Screen 4 - something the CTA
highlighted in a letter to DHP, Historic Scotland, and the CEC in October 2010, and which
was also highlighted in the press at that time.
That letter is included in Appendix 2, and should also be considered part of our formal objection.

Given that the Colliers building condition survey entirely missed this problem, which has the
potential to spread destructively, this does rather cast doubt on how thorough the survey
actually was, and how much effort was made to genuinely identify and consider the problems
in the building.

All of these items would add to the cost of utilising the building in its current form, and
therefore should have been taken full account in the updated valuation.

3.4 Bids Received

Section 3.7 (page 8) of the Planning Statement notes "The updated valuation carried out by
Colliers International at February 2011 produces a revised figure of £2,830,000. The bids
received on 5 January 2010 have been considered against this updated benchmark."

Half of that value would therefore be: £1.415M

Three bids (ignoring - as DHP have done - the leasing bid) were received, namely:
New Victoria Bid - £600K
Elim bid - £1.45M
Alan Scobie bid - £1.6M.

We note that two of the three formal bids received exceeded 50% of the Colliers Feb 2011
valuation, contrary to claims made by DHP to the press at the end of the marketing period.

3.5 Valuation Methodology Faults

The approach taken to place a price on the building seems to have been to take a random
selection of buildings in a disparate set of locations (including London), some of which, like
the Odeon, are B-listed structures in a variety of uses and with a variety of proposed end
uses, all in a varying state of repair. The conclusion from this is - unsurprisingly - a disparate
set of valuations varying from £63 - £202 per sq ft.

This seems an very simplistic way of working out the value of a listed building such as the
Odeon. To presume that all B-listed buildings could have a similar intrinsic value per square
foot is plainly nonsense. Applying a per square foot figure based on similar buildings is
perhaps a valid method to value generic offices, factories or warehouses, but we strongly
believe that it is far too simplistic for listed buildings, of which - almost by definition - no two
are the same. The useful space inside such buildings varies wildly, as does the importance and
value placed on the retention of individual elements of these structures. Buildings may be
listed solely on the purpose of a strong streetscape contribution, despite having little of
architectural merit behind the façade, whilst others may have plain exteriors masking rare or
fine interiors. In each case, the value of a building in redevelopment terms will be highly
individual, according to which parts will have the strongest presumption against irreversible
changes.

In contrast to the examples chosen by Colliers in support of its valuation, we would suggest
four other counter-examples - both to attempt to show how overblown the most recent

Page 3
valuation is, but also, and more importantly, to show how unscientific and random the
buildings and prices highlighted in the Colliers valuation methodology are:

a) Former Lyceum Cinema, Govan - B-listed 2,600 seater with landmark corner entrance, in
poor to fair condition. Sold for £285,000 on 13/12/2006 and then re-sold for £210,000 on
11/2/2010.

b) Former Plaza Cinema, Port Glasgow - unlisted, in good condition, seated approx 2,000.
Sold for £100,000 on 8/10/2009 and resold again for £155,000 on 12/2/2010.

c) Former Savoy Cinema, Cambuslang - C(s)-listed, listed as around 9,580 sq ft, sold for just
under £500,000 on 14/11/2008 (which works out at £52 per sq ft), now up for sale again at
offers over £275,000 (or just £29 per sq ft!) (interestingly, this is actually being marketed
through Colliers themselves).

http://corporateinternational.colliers-uk.com/Modules/Shared/OpenDocument.aspx?
f=76a1039e-fa30-4825-ba75-e8fbb66fa5c4.pdf&p=documents&HID=19785&PID=-1

Finally, possibly the most comparable to the former Edinburgh Odeon -

d) the B-listed Central Hall in Tollcross:

http://www.shepherd.co.uk/shepherd/PROPERTY/2482/EarlGreyStreet.pdf

This is currently for sale at £2.5m - a price that includes five shop units with sitting tenants
paying rent. Without those, it is also available for offers over £950,000, comprising just the
main auditorium and ancillary space, totalling 18,400 sq ft - which works out at £52 per sq ft.

4. Conclusion

Where the submitted valuation primarily falls down is that it has no regard to the
presumption against demolition of the auditorium, as stated in the CEC planning statement. It
also has no regard for the resistance likely to be met with certain licensed uses from local
residents and the Council’s Licensing Board, and, most importantly, it appears to have had no
regard to the length of time the building has already been on the market.

The Cinema Theatre Association believes that it is not a reasonable value of the worth of the
building in its current condition, given the planning and licensing restrictions.

The application does not meet any of the SHEP tests set out that must be passed before
demolition, or substantial demolition, of a listed building can be permitted.
We believe the current application should be rejected for these reasons.

We trust that these comments will be taken seriously, and we look forward to hearing back
from you in due course.

Yours Sincerely,

Gordon Barr
Scottish Casework Committee
Cinema Theatre Association

Page 4
Appendix 1:
Detailed objections to Listed Building Consent Application, February 2008

Page 5
 9 February 2008
Planning & Strategy
The City of Edinburgh Council

Cinema Theatre Waverley Court,

Level G:2, 4 East Market Street,
Association Edinburgh,

Scotland EH8 8BG

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Planning Applications 08/00197/FUL and 08/00197/LBC

The Cinema Theatre Association would like to register a formal objection to the plans
submitted by Duddingston House Properties for the former Odeon Cinema, Clerk Street.

The Cinema Theatre Association is the national body for the protection and study of
POST
CTA Scotland, traditional cinema buildings. Our specialist expertise is sought by The Ancient Monuments
G/2, 311 Maryhill Road Society, The Theatres Trust, The Twentieth Century Society, and The Victorian Society, as well
Glasgow G20 7XX as many local authorities, all of whom we advise on planning applications relating to cinemas.
PHONE
We also functioned as an adviser to the English Heritage cinema survey in 1999, and recently
0141 334 3103 completed a similar listed building evaluation exercise with Historic Scotland in 2007.

EMAIL As part of the Cinemas Thematic Survey, we recommended that Historic Scotland consider
info@ctascotland.org.uk
raising the category of the ex-Odeon cinema in Edinburgh from Category B to Category A,
WEB given the importance of its auditorium interior decoration. They are currently considering
www.ctascotland.org.uk this recommendation; it is therefore unfortunate that this application was registered before
HS were able to come to a formal conclusion. [A copy of our representations to Historic
Scotland on this subject is attached.]

That aside, our objections to the current application are in five main categories:

1. Conservation Plan comments

The conservation plan produced as part of the application is an excellent piece of work by
Simpson & Brown and correctly identifies the major architectural and historical
considerable significance of the building in largely lying in the auditorium interior, its
original decorative scheme, and the original arrangement of volumes and spaces.

It is therefore extremely disappointing that the proposed plans involve the removal and loss
of this entire portion of the building.

It is also noticeable that the conservation plan was prepared far too late in the process;
the point of a conservation plan should be to identify those areas of a building that are of
the most importance, so that that information can be used to inform and direct possible
adaptations.
As the conservation plan itself notes (page 84), it was being prepared at the same time as
the current plans were being drawn up, and that it was already planned at that point to
remove the auditorium interior. This rather defeats the purpose of the exercise: surely the
conservation plan should have been drawn up first, and then development plans built on
top of its findings.
What seems to have happened here is that the current plans - the ‘Zed concept’ - are not
notably altered from those exhibited in 2007 for public consultation.

It would appear that neither the results of that public consultation, nor the finished
conservation plan, have altered the basic ‘Zed Scheme’ in any meaningful way. This rather
suggests that the owners had these plans in mind as their preferred outcome throughout

Page 1
 the process, and were therefore less willing to consider any alternatives that would have
less impact on the original fabric.

2. Partial Demolition Options

An excellent model for a potential way forward for this building is that taken to
regenerate the Grade II listed Granada Clapham Junction in London. In that case, the
restoration of the auditorium is being funded - as a planning condition - by the
construction of flats in the stage and roof space of the building, despite the fact that no
particular user has as yet been found for the auditorium. Here again, the auditorium was
identified of being of significant importance, so the local council has quite correctly
insisted that any scheme proposed has had to involve its retention. See, for example:
http://www.arplus.com/MIPIM/entries/entries/19/19a.pdf

While the documents submitted by DHP briefly mention a similar option, they do not
provide any great detail or evidence to back up their claim that this approach would not
be financially viable. Additionally, the only scheme apparently considered (p.46 of Design
Statement), involves the use of the fly tower and gap site only, and does not investigate the
possibilities of extending the new build portion above the retained auditorium, as is being
done at Clapham Junction. This would markedly increase the space available for flats, and
presumably therefore be more viable; why has it not been considered?

Additionally, the statement merely states that the “financial benefit” of the flats would only
be “substantially offset” by the associated works to the rest of the building, yet later on
the same page, this has changed to “do not offset cost of demolition”.

Other approaches to partial demolition or splitting the building in other ways have also
not been fully explored: for example, the ‘Multiple Occupancy design studies (p.44 of
Design Statement) omits the option to split auditorium horizontally - e.g with ground
floor entered from Buccleuch St, and the retained upper auditorium accessed via the
original full foyer entrance on Clerk Street - something similar to what has been done at
the Picturehouse in Cambridge.

3. Marketing of the building: Success or Failure ?

The summary documents claim that “every effort” has been made to market the building
in its current form for a variety of potential uses. It also claims this marketing has been
unsuccessful, leaving the only way forward the plan currently submitted.

However, examining in detail the evidence provided in Appendix F and H about those
people who have toured the building and attempted to buy it, it is clear that the marketing
of the building has in fact been very successful; it is only when interested parties have
attempted to actually agree a reasonable purchase price that there have been problems.

As noted in the letter from ECC valuation in Appendix J, the price requested by DHP
increased dramatically and unreasonably in a very short period of time; every time the
interested potential purchaser queried DHP, the price went up again. This very much
supports the idea that the owners are not wishing to sell, even if a reasonable and viable
offer was received. While the owners agents claim this valuation is too low, not taking
into account the planning permission for flats on the gap site, such a consideration would
not be relevant to those attempting to lease the building.

The Schedule of Interest of those persons who have viewed the building over the years
makes interesting reading as well; many people's interests are dismissed as 'Use not of
interest or appropriate' - but there is no information on what basis this value judgement is
being made: why is DHP making this determination? Not of interest to who?

Many also note that the 'Price offered was too low' - which appears to be something of a
running trend. There is lots of interest, until people try to actually buy; at which point DHP
claims the offer is too low.

Page 2
 Additionally, several applications have been made to let building for an (initial) period of 12
months - e.g. the ‘Green Media Ent. Gp. ‘- who were refused as a 'short term let is not
viable'.
Why not? Surely this is a good way to test interest in building for that usage, which allows
for the option to extend lease later if successful; if it’s not successful, then it helps make
the argument for demolition.

Finally, it is odd that multiple occupier use is discarded by DHP as an option when several
different people express interest in different parts of the site for their differing needs!

4. September 2007 Sale Possibilities

Despite the suggestion from the provided timeline that by the September 2007 closing
date there was no interest in in the building for cinema use, and only one bid worth
following up on, the detailed information in Appendix H shows quite clearly the high level
of interest in the building.

In particular, one of the bids for a lease for the building is for Cinema use - from the
operators of the Rex Cinema in Berkhamstead. Personal correspondence with the people
involved suggests that they only found out that the Odeon was on the market around two
weeks before the September 2007 closing date - clearly the earlier marketing of the
building to potential cinema operators was not as thorough as DHP claim in their
submission.

This is also interesting because in several places in the planning submission, in terms of
interest of cinema use, DHP claim that there have been “no enquiries in 4 years” (e.g.
Planning & Design Statement, p. 40). Given other portions of the submission highlight the
interest of the Rex Cinema operators, surely this raises questions about other statements
made in the application about the lack of interest of other, more sensitive uses for the
building? In particular, compare and contrast the statement that “No formal offers
received to lease whole building” with the list of two such offers in Appendix H of the
Marketing statement.

Oddly, the Rex offer is also dismissed with the fact that they are “only interested in leasing
the cinema and cafe parts of the subjects”, which given the cinema occupies the entire
building, we can only presume means they were - reasonably enough - not interested in
paying to leasing the Buccleuch Street gap sight to the rear as well.

Likewise, the suggestion that there was "no economically realistic offer made" sits oddly
with the large list of people who have attempted to purchase the building, particularly with
the concerns from CEC in Appendix J of the Marketing evidence that an unreasonable
price was being asked for the building, and that price was increasing unrealistically quickly.

Given DHP apparently offered to sell to Fat Cat Productions for £4M, which only fell
through when Fat Cat could not commit time to project: If the Fat Cat scheme was felt
commercially viable enough to sell to them, why can a similar scheme not be progressed
by DHP themselves instead of this demolition approach?

Additionally, when that offer fell through, why was the next largest bidder for the building -
a quite reasonable £2.8 million - not re-contacted and asked for more information about
their scheme for the site ?

It is also ironic that there are several interesting comments about some bids being
rejected because they might involve partial demolition and DHP thinks this is
unacceptable; given the proposals currently being examined, would it perhaps be worth
revisiting these to see if their partial demolition proposals are less damaging to the
historic fabric than the ones currently under consideration?

Given this high level of interest, it is disappointing to see the incorrect claim on p.48 of the
Planning & Design statement that as far as the auditorium interior is concerned: 'there is
no user demand'.
Page 3
5. Other comments on various parts of the application

The letter of support for the application from Ron Hewit: states that "descriptions of
DHP's efforts as demolition are misleading and false" . It further states that "Internal detail
of the building and the facade that are of interest ... proposals seem to be designed to
preserve just those elements".

It would appear that Mr Hewit has seen different plans from those currently proposed,
which, as highlighted earlier, involve the demolition and removal of exactly those areas of
internal detail that are of most interest. The Planning & Design Statement, p.28, discusses
the significance of parts of the building, and highlights the 'considerable national
significance' of the auditorium interior, and later states that if it is “not possible to retain
the auditorium, the next best thing would be to preserve its most important parts” - i.e.
the side walls & proscenium - so why is this not being done?

p.94: claims that in these plans they “have identified and retained the best features of the
building”, which rather contradicts the Conservation Plan which clearly highlights the
auditorium interior - which these plans will entirely remove - as the largest and greatest
area of significance of the building.

p.170 has very good diagram, showing just how much is to be saved versus how much will
be lost should these plans go ahead. Proportionally, a very tiny amount of historic fabric is
to be retained compared with the majority which is to be lost.

There is also no mention of any attempt to even retain the auditorium rear wall
decoration, or rear colonnaded walkway in the current scheme, despite the plans showing
that this section of the building could be easily retained.

6. Summary & Recommendations

It is noticeable that in Appendix 4 of the Consultation report nearly every single public
comment is negative about the current plans, in addition to being sceptical about the
financial background and justification for not having a cinema in the building!

This application has an impressive amount of supporting documentation. However, despite

this, it is our professional opinion that it has failed to convince that every
genuine effort has been made to find a reasonable alternative to the loss of the
interior.

The best way forward from this point would be to press for further investigation of
financial investigation of the split-site options, once a true, reasonable valuation for the
site, or for leasing the cinema portion of it, has been agreed. If this cannot be agreed
within a reasonable timescale, we would urge the council to seriously consider the option
of a Compulsory Purchase Order. Those organisations who placed bids in the most
recent closing date (e.g. the Rex cinema operators in particular) should also be re-
contacted.

These current plans do not represent an acceptable, limited loss of historic fabric. They
involve the gutting of the heart of the building, removing almost everything that made it of
interest - and worthy of listing - in the first place.

If permitted to go ahead, this will irreparably and unforgivably damage the character of this
listed building.

Thank you for your time and we trust these comments will be considered seriously during
the evaluation of the application. We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Page 4
Appendix 2:
Notes on condition of building, October 2010

Page 6
 25th October 2010

FAO Anna Grant, Principal FAO Malcolm Cooper FAO Bruce Hare
Cinema Theatre Planner (Listed Buildings) Chief Inspector Duddingston House
Planning & Strategy Historic Scotland Properties
Association The City of Edinburgh Longmore House Duddingston House
Scotland Council Salisbury Place
Edinburgh
Edinburgh
EH15 1RB
Waverley Court,
Edinburgh, EH9 1SH
EH8 8BG

Re: Former Odeon Cinema, Clerk Street, Edinburgh

The Cinema Theatre Association is the national amenity body for the protection and study of
POST traditional cinema buildings. Our specialist expertise is sought by The Ancient Monuments
CTA Scotland, Society, The Theatres Trust, The Twentieth Century Society, and The Victorian Society, as well
G/2, 311 Maryhill Road as many local authorities, all of whom we advise on planning applications relating to cinemas.
Glasgow G20 7XX We also functioned as an adviser to the English Heritage cinema survey in 1999, and
EMAIL completed a similar listed building evaluation exercise with Historic Scotland in 2007.
info@ctascotland.org.uk

WEB
The Cinema Theatre Association had the opportunity in October 2010 to accompany some
www.ctascotland.org.uk interested parties on an arranged visit to the former Odeon cinema in Clerk Street, where
we were able to survey the internal condition of the building in some detail.

We are extremely concerned about the level of physical deterioration caused by an apparent
lack of ongoing maintenance, and the numerous ways in which the building has been left
unsecured against pigeon and other unwanted intrusions.

We have previously visited the building, and taken a detailed photographic record of the
interior, on a number of occasions: in 2003 just before it closed as a cinema, again in 2005
just after it was used as a Fringe venue, and once again in 2007, when we took
representatives of Simpson & Brown architects around the building when they were working
on the Conservation Plan that was produced as part of the most recent planning application.

We have therefore been able to see and record a noticeable amount of degradation in the
building over that period of time. When C Venues left the building after leasing it for a month
at the end of August 2005, it was in a very good condition; there were a few small areas of
dampness but nothing major.

In particular, at that time the electrics were all functioning, as was the alarm system. As of
October 2010 neither would appear to be operational.

1. Water ingress & damp

In 2007, there were three main areas of concern, all of which were highlighted in the
Conservation plan, with water ingress: in the office space at the mezzanine level, at the top of
the main stair leading to the rear of Screen 1, and at the end of the corridor leading to
Screens 4/5.

The conservation plan of 2007 highlights these areas, and notes (see diagrams on pages 81,
82, 89, 90 and note especially p.88, Policy 9 - Urgent Works:

"Urgent works should be carried out within the next 12 months to prevent further deterioration of
fabric. Gutter & rainwater goods should be cleared of vegetation, solid and any other material
causing blockages and the roof checked for water ingress.

Page 1
Most of these works have been attended to during the period that this Conservation plan has been
written."

If this work was done, which we have seen no evidence of, then it was not done very
thoroughly, as the exact same areas identified in the report are, in October 2010, sopping
wet and increasingly damaged. The ceiling has now come down in the office area, and the area
at the end of the Screen 4/5 corridor has damp, mould and areas of rust coming from the
ceiling beams. Water is also running down the wall at the top of the stairs to Screen 1, and
the area of damage has clearly spread since 2007.

Page 78 of the conservation plan notes that:

"The plaster in the two areas of the building that have been subject to leaks requires to be removed
to allow the structure to evaporate. The drying process should be monitored until sufficient drying is
recorded to allow reinstatement of finishes."

This latter has clearly not been done.

It is increasingly urgent that these areas of water ingress are dealt with properly, regardless
of what is to happen to the building in the longer term.

We also noted several areas where external gutters at roof level were blocked, and in some
cases, blocked for long enough that trees had started to grow out of the gutter areas. The flat
roof above the corridor to Screens 4 & 5 also has greenery encroaching, plus a lot of water
lying on top of it, which would help explain the damp in those areas. Again, it would seem
that no maintenance has been done in these portions of the building in quite some time.

Additionally, the ceiling in each of the storage areas in the former cafe has had to be
removed due to ongoing water ingress.

Photographs of these areas are attached.

2. Pigeon infestations & access issues

We noted on our tour of the building that a number of hatches and doors to different parts
of the building had been left open to the outside world, and that some clearly had been that
way for some time.

Quite apart from the security implications - see below - of allowing access to an empty listed
building without a functioning security system, these have also allowed access to a large
number of pigeons. The interior spaces of the roof void and former projection areas in
particular are now lousy with pigeon faeces, the decaying remains of dead birds, a number of
nests and pigeon eggs (showing that this access has been open for quite some time), and
generally absolutely stinking and covered with guano. Again, there is a major health
implication, quite apart from the ongoing damaging effects to the building fabric.

We noted the following accesses in particular had been left unsecured and wide open to the
elements, as of our visit:

- a high level hatch to the right hand side above the former organ grille/roof access void
- windows to projection room
- door to projection room corridor from exterior roof near cafe
- door to outside roof from above cafe
- ground level door behind stage to void between cinema and adjacent tenement to rear

All of these doors/hatches were closed by ourselves, but several are not very secure, and will
require to be dealt with and sealed professionally.

A selection of photos are attached.

Page 2
3. Main auditorium statue loss

We are particularly disappointed and concerned to note how few of the original statues - a
key part of the decoration of the main auditorium - appear to remain in the building. There
were originally ten statues of the muses - including music, arts, drama etc. Four were hidden
behind the modern false proscenium of Screen 1, with six on public view in Screen 1.

By the time the building closed as a cinema in 2003, two of the hidden statues were missing,
but the other eight remained in situ as of the point that DHP took ownership of the building.

One more statue then went missing sometime between the building closing as cinema in
2003, and its reopening as a temporary Fringe Festival venue in 2004; another went missing
at some point while it was in use as the Pod Deco venue in August 2004.

As of 2005 - the last time the building was officially publicly accessible - the remaining six
were still in situ and intact.

And yet, in 2010, despite the building being supposedly secure and inaccessible in the
meantime, there are now only three statues remaining in the auditorium - two in the hidden
area behind the modern screen, and only one in the main Screen 1 auditorium.

A further statue lies, with its head and feet broken off, in a storage cupboard off the stalls
lounge.

The loss and damage of so many of these statues in the years since the building closed is of
great concern. We noted that, while some of the fire exit doors - one of the main routes of
access into the building for urban explorers, etc - are chained or are sealed up with boards
nailed over them, there remain a number of ground floor exits which are not secured in any
way, and which could allow illegitimate access.

A number of photos on urban exploration websites show that people have been gaining
access to the building on multiple occasions over the last few years. We have reported open
windows - in particular, the prominent cafe balcony glazed doors being left open on a
number of occasions over that last few years (most recently, in June 2010, when one door
was left open for over a week) - and understand local residents have reported similar open
access at other times.

Photos of the damaged statue are attached.

4. Rot under main stage area (Odeon 4)

We also noted large areas of what appears to be dry rot under Screen 4, in the area of the
original orchestra pit, where the original wooden flooring is disintegrating, and losing
structural integrity. This is something that will require to be looked at in more detail by
whoever takes on the building, and is also of general concern.

Photos are attached.

Page 3
Summary

In conclusion, the former Odeon building, listed primarily for the importance and rarity of its
interior decoration and style of auditorium, continues to be damaged and at risk through a
combination of ongoing water ingress in areas that would seem not have been repaired since
2007 at the latest, pigeon infestation and a number of doors and hatches being left open to
the elements, and, through the missing statues, clear evidence that people have been
removing important parts of the listed fabric of the building - major areas of architectural
importance - without permission or listed building consent.

We would urge DHP, as owners of the building, to address these issues as soon as possible.
If nothing else, getting power back into the building, so that the alarm and security system
could be made operational again, should be seen as an urgent priority. Given the amount of
time that water has been coming into the building in key areas however, the potential damage
to wiring and other services is clearly a concern.

A decent full time security presence on site should also be considered as a requirement.

We trust that these comments will be taken seriously, and we would welcome a written
response to this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Gordon Barr
Scottish Casework Committee
Cinema Theatre Association

Attached: Selection of photos highlighting the issues described above, and we are happy to provide
more detailed information, specific locations and/or images as required.

Page 4
1. Water Ingress

Stair to rear of Screen 1 in 2007

Stair to rear of Screen 1 in 2010 - note far larger scale of damage

Page 5
Further extent of damage to Screen 1 main stair - 2010

Page 6
Ceiling damage in mezzanine level offices

Ceiling damage in cafe area

Page 7
Ceiling damage & mould in corridor to Screens 4/5

Page 8
Greenery in main roof gutters

Greenery & water lying on flat roof of corridor to Screens 4/5

Page 9
2. Pigeon Infestations

High level hatch left open allowing pigeon ingress

State of pigeon infiltration above cafe area

Page 10
Page 11
3. Statue loss in main auditorium

Broken statue in cupboard off foyer

Remaining statue in auditorium

Page 12
4. Rot under stage area

Page 13