Angry neighbours dub inflatable dome 'enormous zit'

The dome has been built next to two rows of houses in Edinburgh's Stockbridge

A giant inflatable dome which has been likened to a huge bouncy castle has caused uproar in an upmarket area of Edinburgh.

Residents in Stockbridge have dubbed the structure an "enormous zit", blighting the views of the area's picturesque Georgian architecture.

And some locals say they are being kept awake by noise and vibrations from the electric fans used around the clock to keep the dome inflated.

The dome, which houses tennis courts, was erected at a private sports club last October, after the Scottish government overruled a City of Edinburgh Council decision to reject the plans.

Keith Hughes says the electric fans keeping the roof inflated keep him awake at night

Now residents have launched a petition demanding "visual adjustments" and soundproofing for the fans while others have called for it to be taken down.

They say it is a "monstrous blight" in a conservation area which is close to the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Edinburgh's Old Town.

The Grange Club said a "small number" of Stockbridge had had their views affected but the facility had proved popular with members and non-members.

"The club is also providing free indoor tennis coaching to children from Broughton High School," a spokesperson added.

"We firmly believe that the new facilities provide excellent exercise and health benefits all year round which positively impact on central Edinburgh as a whole."

Claire Baxter, 45, who lives locally, told BBC Scotland News she was shocked when she saw the dome.

"It's horrendous and looks like an enormous zit. Every time I walk past it I cannot believe it's been allowed.

"Everyone in the neighbourhood has been talking about it for months."

Keith Hughes, who lives in a house beside the inflatable, likened it to having a version of London's Millennium Dome (now the O2) outside his window.

"I am awake every single night with the low hum of the background fans keeping the tennis court roof inflated.

"They have totally disregarded their heritage. They should be ashamed of themselves for the impact on this world heritage area. They have had no consideration for the local people."

The view from one resident's window is dominated by the dome

The view from the same resident's window before the inflatable was built

The 57-year-old said he was now planning to move house after enjoying three years in the "beautiful" suburb.

And he contrasted the dome with the category A-listed cricket pavilion at The Grange Club, which is home to the Scotland national cricket team.

"You have this lovely grandstand since 1892, which looks in place and then you have this ugly monolith that dominates the skyline and jars the eye, it's hideous, how have they got away with this? It's a nightmare."

Mr Hughes, an IT programme manager, added: "This only benefits a very select few who are members of the Grange Club and who don't even live next door to it."

It is not clear from planning documents how long The Grange Club intends to keep the inflatable structure. Residents believe it is now permanent.

The application to erect the structure was initially rejected by planners with City of Edinburgh Council but it was then appealed to the Scottish government.

Scottish government reporter, Andrew Fleming - an official appointed by ministers - overruled the council's decision, paving the way for the dome to be constructed.

He said he allowed it for public benefit because there were a lack of indoor tennis facilities in Edinburgh.

Jacquie Christie said her 80-year-old mother, who has lived in the same house for 50 years, could feel vibrations from the powerful fans and it was "horrendous".

Jacquie Christie said electric fans powering the giant inflatable caused vibrations in her mother's home

"The stress it's caused her, every morning when she gets up and looks out into the garden and that's her view," said the 58-year-old.

"She is really devastated over what they have done without a second thought or communication."

Ms Christie said she was baffled how the "jumpy castle" got the go ahead when her mother had to go to three different appeal panels just to get double glazing installed.

Local resident Sarah Hill said she could hear the hum of the fans, as well as players calling to each other and whacking balls.

She also described the dome as "very overpowering".

Ms Hill added: "The whole application proposal needs to be flagged up over the fact it was against the community wishes and was rejected by the city council but was overturned on the decision of one reporter.

"It's not right and the process really needs to be addressed.

"None of us were consulted. I heard about it from someone on the community council.

"It is extremely ugly and is a big eyesore out with the keeping of the conservation zone."

Some residents have complained about the amount of light emanating from a neighbouring building, which houses padel tennis courts

Another resident who overlooks the inflatable said she had stopped looking out of her windows because it dominated her view and upset her so much.

Meanwhile Lady Jennifer Bute, who has a house beside the structure, said she thought it was "objectionable".

"I think they need to paint it a different colour to make it more invisible," she added.

Max Mitchell, an Edinburgh councillor whose ward covers the tennis court, said: "It's another frustrating example of a Scottish government civil servant overruling the decision of democratically elected and accountable councillors.

"The concerns around the impact on the conservation and residential amenity have sadly come true for those living nearby.

"I can understand why residents are unhappy especially when the applicant was allowed a second bite at the cherry via an appeal."

A Scottish government spokesman said: "The right to appeal certain decisions made by local planning authorities is an important part of the planning system.

"The decision was issued by an independent reporter, who is required to make their decision on the planning merits of the case, taking full account of submissions made by all parties, including those from members of the local community."