Proposed redevelopment of 14 Bath Street, replacing a derelict and dangerous building with a modern oasis where style meets comfort.
2017, Cockburn Association Urban Design Group
“commend the ambition of the developer to find a sustainable 21st century use for a derelict building, of local significance, in poor state of repair”
It’s clear from discussions with neighbours and the general public there is widespread misunderstanding of the factual condition of this building and its inherent dangers, the content of this webpage seeks to address this.
Over the course of the last nine years there has been a concerted effort to downplay the inherent design flaws, poor construction and serious dilapidation of this structurally unsafe and Asbestos impregnated building.
Claims made by opponents to redevelopment that the building is structurally sound “it’s all small scale stuff using bits and pieces taken up by hand through theroof hatch and put in, its a bit of work but not particularly difficult” and that you “can re-paint it” as a solution to the deteriorating Asbestos material are not only misguided but dangerous, they are not supported by suitably qualified professionals and sadly have no place in serious discussions involving workplace health and safety. Claims such as these together with unsupported “feasibility studies” for re-use as a “Community Cinema” or such like have unfortunately been taken at face value and have regrettably been endorsed by some members of the Development Management Subcommittee, forcing City Planners to continue denying the possibilities of redevelopment of this dangerous, ruined building.
Past, Present & Future
1939 The purpose built County Cinema, designed by Architect Thomas Bowhill Gibson was opened at 14 Bath Street.
1954 A new owner made changes to the property and renamed it “The George Cinema”.
1974 The building ceased to operate as a cinema, and further changes to the building were made, including subdivision of the lower and upper auditorium and removal of the original façade. The front elevation was reduced in height and the central glass tower removed.
1974 – 2016 The building operated as “The Royal George Bingo”.
2016 After being for sale on the open market for over 3 years it was sold to the current owners. It was closed immediately on health and safety grounds after initial inspections found the building to be structurally unsafe and contaminated throughout with Asbestos, this was used as a building material and for decoration in walls, ceilings and floors. A number of professional surveys since 2016 have confirmed both structural instability and Asbestos contamination. These include a survey by the City of Edinburgh Council’s ‘Structures Department’ which confirmed that the building is unsafe and has exceeded its design life.
Planning History
2016 Current owner submits Planning & Listed Building Consent applications for façade retention, demolition of the auditorium and entire redevelopment to form residential accommodation. These applications were supported with detailed technical assessments on structural condition and Asbestos contamination.
2020 Current owner once again submits Planning & Listed Building Consent applications for façade retention, demolition of the auditorium and redevelopment to form residential accommodation. These applications were supported with improved detailed technical assessments on structural condition and Asbestos contamination. They included an intrusive investigation of the structural steelwork and reinforced concrete elements to determine the structural integrity of the building.
Intrusive survey consisted of the following: Survey of steel elements to determine corrosion, loss of section and tensile strength. Localised cover meter surveys/breakouts and drilling of test cores in concrete elements. Testing of steel samples UTS value. Testing of concrete core samples for compressive strength.
These applications were supported by the Planning Department and Historic Environment Scotland. Permission was refused at the Council’s Development Management Subcommittee meeting on 21st February 2018 and also on appeal to the Scottish Government Reporter.
Presentations by the City of Edinburgh Structures Dept (Structural Engineer) – Planning Dept (Senior Planning Officer) at the 21st February 2018 Development Management Subcommittee can be viewed here – https://archive.org/details/publici_cast_edinburgh_293968
*Edinburgh Council’s Senior Planning Officer.
“We wanted to have our own independent assessment, the main thing that swayed us was the intrusive investigation, when the holes were made a multitude of sins started to appear. To my mind the difficulty is the time period when the building was built, it is sort of a stage set building almost literally, its been made to serve a function and it probably wasn’t designed to have a long design life at the point when it was built, our structures conclusion is that it is beyond its life expectation at the moment and that’s both in terms of the structure but also in terms of the fact that although we didn’t know it for a long time its absolutely riddled with asbestos”.
*Edinburgh Council’s Senior Structural Engineer.
“I have taken an independent view of the structure, if the steel was all new and the foundations were all brand new it wouldn’t pass current codes, even it it wasn’t deteriorating and the steel was all brand new and it hadn’t been affected, its ten percent under designed in the main hall and sixty percent under designed in the corridors going from the 1933 code to current codes, its because of factors of safety going up and up and up due to disasters”.
“To put it in layman’s terms, I wouldn’t be happy to send my child there”.
Development Management Subcommittee reason for refusal.
“It is not demonstrated that the building is incapable of repair”.
2020 Planning and Listed Building Consent applications refused by the Development Management Subcommittee on 12th January 2022 and on appeal to the Scottish Government Reporter
“We will ensure that our Structural Engineer is present at the Committee proceedings”.
Despite this assurance their engineer did not attend.
Development Management Subcommittee reason for refusal.
“It has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the structural condition of the building is incapable of meaningful repair or that adequate measures have been undertaken to explore the potential restoration and reuse of the building. It has not been sufficiently demonstrated by a thorough structural condition report that the proposals are necessary or justified”.
2023 14 Bath Street was put up for sale on the open market, despite extensive local and national exposure it failed to attract any viewings or viable notes of interest as per the terms of sale.
After being on sale for over a year it was taken off the market due to the absence of serious enquires.
2023 Proposal made to remove the category C listing designation. This was rejected by Historic Environment Scotland.
2024 The City of Edinburgh Council conducted an external / internal inspection of the property with the aid of their appointed Asbestos contractors to ensure adherence to strict health and safety protocols.
The inspection was the result of a motion brought before the Council’s Planning Committee to ascertain the current condition of the property.
The City of Edinburgh Council, 13th November 2024 Planning Committee report
Summary of main report 4.1 The assessment of 6 September 2024 was conducted with regard to the powers available under the LBCA Act, the Building Scotland Act and the Planning Act. Regard has also been had to the powers under the Confirmation Act. The assessment was conducted by the Chief Planning Officer and Head of Building Standards. 4.2 The site visit was facilitated by the owners of the building and their agent and was supported by the Council’s asbestos contractor. The exterior and interior of the building were assessed. A summary of the findings is contained in Appendix 5. 4.3 Given the matters identified during the assessment, the building would benefit from repair. 4.4 The presence of asbestos within the building and as its roofing material requires to be addressed if the building is to be brought back into use. Given the nature of the asbestos within the building and the extent of the roof, work associated with its removal would be challenging and expensive. 4.5 It is not proposed to take action under Section 42 of the LBCA Act to start proceedings to compulsorily purchase the building. The costs associated with this would be considerable. Even if the building were to be acquired for a small sum, the cost of addressing the asbestos within it and making the building wind and watertight (particularly given the roof would need to be addressed) would be substantial. Additional works would be required to bring the building into use. The Council does not have a plan in place for the management of the building under Section 48. Nor does it have the resource to take on responsibility for the building. It is not therefore appropriate for the Council to serve a repairs notice under Section 43 since a repairs notice is a power to be used where compulsory acquisition is proposed. 4.6 It is not proposed that the Council execute works which appear to be urgently necessary for the preservation of a listed building under Section 49 of the LBCA Act. To do so would place a considerable liability on the Council and expense to the public purse. Planning Committee – 13 November 2024 Page 3 of 12 4.7 It is not proposed to serve an amenity notice to ensure the proper maintenance of the land under Section 179 of the Planning Act as the amenity of the surroundings are not so adversely harmed as to warrant this. The owners have indicated that they will tidy the land adjacent to the cinema and remove any earth that has been deposited against the wall. 4.8 Under Section 28 of the Building Scotland Act and under Section 24 of the Confirmation Act, the Council can serve a notice to require the owner to carry out works. Where these works are not carried out, the Council has the power to carry out the works itself and recover costs thereafter. It is not proposed to issue a defective building notice under Section 28 of the Building Scotland Act. While the building would benefit from repair, service of this notice is not considered appropriate as the Council has not thus far served Section 28 notices. Where such repairs are required, the Council generally exercises powers under Section 24 the Confirmation Act via its Shared Repairs service. The Council uses these powers as a last resort, encouraging owners to conduct repairs themselves in the first instance. The powers are useful in instances where there is shared residential ownership, such as tenements. Given these considerations, it is not appropriate to serve notice under the Confirmation Act. It is not recommended that notice is served under either section 28 of the Building Scotland Act or under Section 24 of the Confirmation Act. 4.9 A dangerous building, under Section 29 of the Building Scotland Act, is one where it appears to a local authority that the building constitutes a danger to persons in or about it or to the public generally or to adjacent buildings or places. It does not appear that the building is a dangerous building under the provisions of Section 29. Therefore, it is not appropriate to serve a dangerous building notice at this time.
MARCH 2025 Freedom of Information Request (FOI) submitted to the Council requesting information sharing. This was prompted in part by news that members of the public were attending private meetings with Council departments and Ward Councillors to pressure for the forced compulsory purchase of the property by the Council. Information claimed to support this course of action with material supporting arguments to “repair and refurbish” 14 Bath Street has been discussed and thereafter promoted by certain officials. This information has not been shared and the request was refused.
Following excerpt from EIR Review request (edit:53732)
“In this case, these reports were provided to the Council by individuals who were under no obligation to provide this information and did so on a voluntary basis with the expectation that the Council would review the complaint and take whatever action is necessary. Those individuals would not have any expectation that details of these documents would be released into the public domain in response to a request for information, and the Council has not sought or received consent from the complainers to disclose this information in response to this request.
I have applied the public interest test to your request. Whilst there is a clear public interest in knowing the condition of said building and the subsequent processes and actions involved in resolving the issues, in the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the release of the information into the public domain may affect the Council’s ability to negotiate freely with stakeholders to reach a satisfactory solutions to problems, and could also cause members of the public to lose trust and confidence in the Council and prevent them from engaging in the future”
APRIL2025 Neighbours report concerns over children’s attempts to gain entry to the building. Highly visible safety signage on the front and rear elevations is installed. This action has in turn led to a steep rise in enquiries from neighbouring property owners and the general public regarding safety concerns. It’s clear from feedback that there is a widespread misunderstanding of the factual condition of the building.
MAY 2025 Inspection of the internal and external front façade reveals numerous structural deficiencies, further monitoring is recommended.
JULY 2025 The owners were contacted by the Local Member of Parliament requesting an update on 14 Bath Street. The information contained on this webpage will be made available to them and shared with the relevant Council Departments and Ward Councillors. Website address signage has also been placed at 14 Bath Street to aid public access to this information.
September 2025 Not withstanding the technical information available on this webpage detailing the hazardous condition of the entire building, it would appear Edinburgh Council have now turned their attention to an alleged hole in a “relatively small” section of roof as a prelude to legal action against the owners.
Edinburgh Council Planning Committee – Wednesday, 10th September. Item 7f) George Cinema, 14 Bath Street.
The picture today is one of a frustrating inability to act in the interests of safety and the community, the City and ourselves. It took nearly nine months to decide that this poor, sad, ruined wreck of a building could not be delisted or demolished or replaced. No-one in authority will take the plunge and declare it beyond repair, or give the green light to a 21st century replacement which could house 20 families, and provide an affordable housing contribution.
The replacement apartments would respect the building’s design heritage by acknowledging its Art Deco history and the work of its architect, and would be built to current Building Codes.
No-one has suggested an economic way to repair it, because there is none. There is no money available, nor a viable plan for community use. The George has become a shadow of its former self and as time marches on it remains a danger to all. It is surely time now to grasp the nettle, knock it down and honour its past with a building that meets present day standards and requirements.
UPDATE
November 2025 Edinburgh Council Planning Committee have voted against their own professional advisors to pursue and issue a defective buildings notice upon the owners of 14 Bath Street, this is in spite of the overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary including guidance from the Council’s chief planning officer and head of building standards, ‘Serving a notice may raise public expectation that if works specified in the notice are not carried out by the owner, that the Council will carry out the works. The Council would need to decide whether to carry out works directly in these circumstances and may have regard to the potential costs it may incur including the identification of a budget to do so; 4.3.5 Given the circumstances of the building where there is air bourn asbestos within it, it would not be appropriate to serve a notice requiring repairs to the interior of the building. Given this, the serving of a notice would not undo damage that has already occurred in respect of features within the building; and 4.3.6 Use of this legislation against a private owner may give rise to accusations of double standards or victimisation given that the Council does not normally use these powers in such circumstances and where the Council may itself, from time-to-time, have listed buildings which need repair.’
Edinburgh Council Planning Committee – Wednesday, 12th November. Agenda item 7b) George Cinema, 14 Bath Street.
A comprehensive suite of detailed surveys and reports by respected professionals in the fields of Engineering, Asbestos Management and Material Testing. The City of Edinburgh Council Engineers have also provided an independent assessment, both written and in person to the Development Management Subcommittee acknowledging the terminal and dangerous condition of the building. This information can be freely accessed via the supplied planning portal links and various online resources. The contents of this webpage are not exhaustive, but a fraction of the information available. Updates will follow in due course.
Structural Deficiencies
Rotten and understrength steel throughout
Dangerous unsupported masonry exterior
Unsafe concrete flat roof sections
Unsafe concrete floors and balcony
Unsuitable foundations
Understrength steel roof structure
Building at serious risk of progressive collapse
Edinburgh Council Head of Planning & Asbestos specialist, 2024 inspection
Asbestos Contamination (ACMs)
Intrusive investigation, material sampling
Reporting ACMs location, type and condition
Widespread contamination, poor condition of internal / external ACMs
Supporting reports by an internationally renowned expert on Asbestos management
Airborne contaminant testing by Edinburgh Council
“We visited the site on 30/03/2023 and saw the exterior of the building. We did not visit the interior of the building. This is because we’re not satisfied that it was safe to do. We have found that the building continues to meet the criteria for listing. We have not taken into account information about the condition of the building or proposals for reuse.”
Excerpt, HES report of handling on the application to remove the listing designationat 14 Bath Street – Case ID 300064318
14 Bath Street 