More development planned for Prom green space.

[Emma]

I am concerned about an application for planning permission to build houses in front of the pretty white cottages on the Prom between Bath Street and the play park in front of Towerbank. I thought this was a conservation area – yet we have the monstrosity being built at the bottom of Bath Street – plans for more housing on the Fun Park site and now this. How can the Council say it cares at all for the character of Portobello if it continues to allow all the green space on the Prom to be built on and all the views of traditional buildings to be blotted out?
What do others think - are we happy to sit back and let this happen? What do our councillors think? Will you let it happen?

[Mark]

Thanks for your posting, Emma. We live in one of the cottages in Bath PLace which the proposed building(s) will obscure. We arrived two years ago and both ourselves and our neighbours have gotten very fed up with the eyesore that exists and have endeavoured to get the owner of the land to sell it to us so that we can make them into gardens in keeping with the other houses at that part of the prom.

We've talked with Lawrence Marshall to try and solve the problem, but recieved a planning application to "erect dwelling" with only 14 days to respond. Of course this will totally undermine our reasons for buying the cottage in the first place(the view), but I can't think that sticking ANOTHER modern building up to go with the ones under construction at the bottom of Bath Street will enhance the character of Portobello or that it will do anything other than worsen the chronic parking and congestion problem in and around that area. Is this supposed to "bring" something to this coservation area? More cars and less green space on a prom that has everything going for it other than a will to make it better.

Can I urge anybody who doesn't want another building taking up one of the few green spaces along the prom and which will obscure a number of listed Georgian cottages which many local people and visitors enjoy looking up at from the prom, to write to the Head of Planning, The City of Edinburgh Council, City Development, PO Box 12473, I Cockburn Street, Edinburgh EH1 1ZL. or fax it through on 0131 529 7478.

The DEADLINE for this is WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 10th. If this passes without substantial objections another part of Portobello's historic identity is undermined. Please, can I urge people to head this off at the pass.

[Guest]

Where is this precisely? Sorry to be dense...

Is Bath Place the cul-de-sac at the foot of Bath Street? If so, who owns the land? I researched this once and came up with a dead end.

[Sandra]

One of the reasons we moved to Portobello is because of its unique mix of old properties. Putting up more new properties will spoil this uniqueness as well as making parking impossible.

[Paul]

I agree with the views of Mark regarding us the residents of Portobello writing to the Head of Planning, at Edinburgh Council to object to this proposed housing development.
It's time the 'authorities were made to realise that enough is enough.
We live in a lovely part of Scotland's Capital City, why should the historic feel of this part of the Promenade be further eroded by yet another newly built house, or houses.
We lost the battle for the Grannie's Attic site--I think we should now make sure we don't lose this one.
We owe it to future generations to do all we can to defend our traditional architectural heritage in Portobello.

[gillsmith]

Thanks to whoever brought round the prepared letter this evening to the Head of Planning regarding this proposed development. I will definitely be using it to object. Living in a flat nearby, I've often looked at those cottages as I've walked past, especially the ones which do have the gardens and been quite envious! It would be such an awful mistake if flats are allowed to be built there.

[Guest]

My wife vaguely recalls that there used to be two storey villas on this site until they were demolished around 30 years ago so the cottages have not always enjoyed a sea view. Anyone shed any more light on this?

[Emma]

I don't think the issue is what used to be there - or the cottages' views of the sea. I think it's more about our view of them and other historic Portobello buildings.

[john]

I quite agree with Emma's points. Putting a large building infront of smaller ones in the past should not provide a watertight precedent in terms of planning history. For years we have had the view along the Prom spoiled by the two ridiculous semis behind the old Seabeach Hotel which should never ever have been put there in the first place - one mistake by the planning department. Granny's Attic was the next even bigger mistake, an example of private greed triumphing over sense, logic and fair play, not to mention the appearance of a conservation area. Now that the same thing is proposed yet again , for a smaller site where the listed buildings behind would be even more severely compromised by the new development we have to object as loudly as we can to as many people as we can not just to get this development stopped but to get the council to act to safeguard the future of this site, part of which should be open space used to widen the Prom at this point. The houses behind deserve to be seen and yes, we have a right to see them too.

[Guest]

we have to object as loudly as we can to as many people as we can not just to get this development stopped but to get the council to act to safeguard the future of this site

What about the landowner's right to develop the site for their own profit. After all, they are the ones who bought and paid for the land.

If the council is willing to Compulory Purchase the site - and pay the market price - then fair enough, the landowner has had adequate compensation. Otherwise, we have to accept that the landowner has the right to develop the site in line with public planning policy. And thankfully, we are still allowed to develop even within the conservation area. Hopefully, this development will be an example of exciting and innovative archtecture that we can all be proud of.

By all means object to bad design. But good design is to be encouraged. Let's not just object to all development on principle.

[gillsmith]

Hopefully, this development will be an example of exciting and innovative archtecture that we can all be proud of.

By all means object to bad design. But good design is to be encouraged. Let's not just object to all development on principle.

I do agree that all developement should not be objected to on principle. But how many examples of exciting architecture have you seen recently in Scotland, let alone Portobello? Not very many, but enough to show us that it is possible. Unfortunately though, most new developments are at best boring and at worst offensive! On the other hand, a lot of the people on Tiree aren't too impressed with their new ferry shelter which has been hailed an example of exciting new design! So to a certain extent it is subjective, and some people prefer the bland to what others consider great design. But I think the main issues with this site are the fact that the residents of the cottages will lose their view and what they build may well be an eyesore which won't enhance this part of the prom.

[Paul]

I would recommend anyone who has a view on the proposal to write to the Head of Planning as soon as possible. If we all assume that "some-one else" will write to object to the ridiculous proposal to biuld new housing within such a nice corner of Portobello, then the proposal might become fact.
I've watched local schoolkids, and also artists sitting sketching these lovely little cottages, and enjoying the fact that the buildings are old and generate an image of another era.
Anyone with any doubts about what we may end up with, should walk along towards the Baths, and look at the new monstrosities that have been built and spoil feel of that part of the Promenade.
Do we want more of those...if so do nothing, and it'll possibly happen.
If you think we should fight for our the right to see and enjoy some of our lovely buildings..it'll only cost a postage stamp, and a little time.

[Guest]

Can someone please confirm that the application we are talking about here is 03/04361/OUT?

[Anthony]

If you do choose to write, please note that only objections on "Material Planning Grounds" will be accepted. Please check the edinburgh council web site (http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/CEC/City_De ... ation.html)

for valid objections. So e.g. loss of private view will not be considered.

I heard a rumour, by the way, that the planning application was from the private landowner, not a corporate construction company, which may have different implications as to how likely the application is to proceed i.e. they won't be able to throw corporate weight behind the proposal, unlike the Grannie's attic site.

[Paul]

To reply to Bob's question...yes Bob the planning application is numbered 03/04361/OUT..at this stage it would appear that the application is for outline planning permission only.

My guess would be that, if this outline planning permission is granted, then an application for a block of modern looking flats, completely ruining the traditional look of the Promenade would quickly follow. I may be wrong of course, but we'll see.

For those who live in the Bath Street/Straiton Place area to consider.....do you really want yet more cars battling it out for the already scarce 'on street' parking spaces available in the area ?...Look at the plot that the Planning Application refers to, there would be no vehicular access to the site, therefore the only parking place's will be on Bath Street I assume.

[Guest]

OK, so the application can be viewed at:

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... REVEW7D000

The status, as you will see, is 'application invalid on receipt'. Not sure what that means exactly but certainly sounds like the applicant has omitted to do something. You will note that you can now comment or object directly via the planning portal, so you don't even need the price of a stamp. Three more clicks will give you a pdf of the application form itself, completed by the applicant, Mr John Strand of Niddrie Mains Road. Existing use of land is described as 'vacant land formerley (sic) housing and amusements.'

As Paul points out, this is an outline application. At this stage we are considering the very notion of building 'housing' of some description on this site. I think most people would agree that, aesthetically at least, it would be more pleasing if this land could be sold at an agreeable price to the owners of the cottages in question, enabling them to extend their gardens. However, the council, and Lawrence Marshall in particular, appear to have explored (and exhausted) this avenue and the owner, as Alex points out, remains understandably of a mind to maximise his profit.

It's yet another contentious planning application. We seem to have had more than our fair share recently. Time is running out for this one. Any more views?

[Brian McCrow]

Rather than tackle such applications on an individual basis would it not be better for the Council to present their view of the development of this part of Portobello.

It does seem to make sense to have housing on the seafront rather than the mess, which currently exists, but let's have some well thought out and consistent designs so we can avoid the Grannie's Attic eyesore.