ONE of the very few upsides of the pandemic is the proliferation of outside seating areas in pubs and restaurants.

They give our city centres a continental feel, and although we can only use them comfortably for around 25 minutes in July, and even then only at midday, they are proving extremely popular.

Scots are, after all, used to dining al fresco as most of us manage a foreign holiday every year and so it has lost the fear factor it may have had 30 years ago.

But despite the areas brightening up our cities, it appears they are not to everyone’s liking.

Outdoor eating and drinking areas in Edinburgh’s World Heritage site are set to get the green light to operate until October. Extended hospitality areas are set to return across the Old and New Towns despite heritage campaigners demanding a clampdown.

The move is hoped to help businesses bounce back from the pandemic.

But concerns have been raised that allowing the continental-style pavement cafes to operate on streets and pavements would effectively privatise public space.

No, I’ve no idea what that means either.

But The Cockburn Association insists the would involve the “quasi-privatisation of public urban space”.

The group told the council: “Fundamentally, streets are open spaces with the city.

“The proposed use as an outdoor extension of a pub or restaurant is not public use, although we can appreciate the ambience and vibrancy that a café culture can bring to areas.

“None of the al fresco drinking and dining installations which have come forward in recent month and which continue to proliferate across the city centre can be said to maintain and enhance the character of the city centre.”

Taking this logic, all roads and pavements are public spaces and should be exclusively for the use of the good citizens of Edinburgh only.

So, apparently, the public should be allowed to just meander nonchalantly along the middle of Princes Street regardless of the buses, cars and trams that currently inhabit the road. You don’t need to be Tufty to realise this isn’t a very good idea. Our city centres need revival, and the only way you can do this is to get people into them and give them something to do.

They are not museum pieces. They have all been the hubs of our great cities for centuries and radical thinking is needed so they can adapt to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

The Cockburn Association is one of the world’s oldest architectural conservation and urban planning monitoring organisations, and was founded in 1875.

It was set up by the judge Henry Cockburn, who was a prominent campaigner to protect and enhance the beauty of Edinburgh.

He notably resisted the construction of new buildings on the south side of Princes Street, and the association was founded to continue the legacy of his work, and it seems they take that task too seriously.

But if you wander around Edinburgh today, it is blatantly obvious that the city has changed, with many modern architectural gems among the glorious old ones.

Every modern city is the same and that is to be applauded, not moaned about.

The Cockburn Association undoubtedly does good work, but on this occasion it seems to be complaining just because it can.

If the people who are frequenting the al fresco establishments they find so offensive were not there, then where they would they be?

They would be somewhere else, spending their cash, and businesses in the city centre would lose out on much-needed revenue.

But it’s not just cities which are seeing some strange objections to change, as the body that represents Scotland’s mountaineers has objected to plans to demolish a Glencoe cottage once owned by prolific sex offender Jimmy Savile and replace it with a des res “futuristic” home.

Savile lived in the property at Allt-na-Reigh in Glencoe from 1998 until his death in 2011, and the disgraced DJ is believed to have abused up to 20 people inside his remote lair beside the A82.

It has been bought by the family of retail tycoon Harris Aslam, who wants to replace it with a distinctive modern home.

But Mountaineering Scotland has objected to the proposal, claiming it will dominate the view from the road.

Maybe so, but surely a large futuristic home is better than a sordid paedophile’s lair.

It’s not one that VisitScotland will be marketing anytime soon as a must-see place to visit.