Bad day at office as city planners say no

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Sep 2005, 18:46

I'm a bit out of touch with local planning applications. Anyone know which shop this refers to?

Bad day at office as city planners say no

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 16 Sep 2005, 19:30

Bob Jefferson wrote: Anyone know which shop this refers to?

Not sure, but I noticed the Lifeline shop has been cleared and shut for 2 or 3 weeks at least and there is a shop almost opposite there that was done out to be a Heart Foundation charity shop months and months ago but never actually opened as such. Might be either of those.

Robin! · Post by **Robin!** » 17 Sep 2005, 00:14

The shop was last used as a charity store.

Take your pick?

Could be lifeline, one next to the Plough????

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 Sep 2005, 17:29

Change in store with office plan

I think we need an explanation.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 30 Sep 2005, 19:12

Been meaning to say - the shop opposite the Plough (Pregnanct Care or something) is closed because of water damage according to a notice in the window. The shop purporting to be for children with heart problems has never opened, so might it be that one??

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 Sep 2005, 19:36

Explanation:

Bob

Thanks for your e-mail re. 91 Portobello High Street. I asked John Stewart of PAS if they had any objections to granting this - they hadn't objected formally. John said that PAS had no problems with this. I mentioned this also at the September meeting of the community council where I said that had agreed to allow this application but that it would come back - as is procedure now - with the necessary conditions (noise, etc.) to another meeting of the Development Quality Sub-Committee. This happened on the 21st but, again as per procedure, the officers still had to recommend refusal. Committee agreed grant to enable these premises to be used - empty for 15 months, I think, and previously a charity shop.

The "Evening News" reported this wrongly, I 'phoned them up the same day about this and they've corrected their story today. The 40% non-retail rule here was already exceeded when NEELP put it in place for secondary retail frontages anyway! These premises can become a shop again no bother if the demand arises - that won't need planning permission.

The reports to DQ Sub should be on the website for 30th August and 21st September. They should also still be on the planning portal.

Lawrence

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 01 Oct 2005, 21:19

Well, thank goodness that's cleared up, it'll prevent a lot of gossip and tittle tattle

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Oct 2005, 21:31

Epykat wrote:Well, thank goodness that's cleared up, it'll prevent a lot of gossip and tittle tattle

Lawrence Marshall wrote:I don't include you amongst the offenders, by the way! And I do realise that this in some ways is the nature of discussion forums!

So I'm off the hook. Not sure about you though, katgirl.

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 02 Oct 2005, 10:34

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Epykat wrote:Well, thank goodness that's cleared up, it'll prevent a lot of gossip and tittle tattle

Lawrence Marshall wrote:I don't include you amongst the offenders, by the way! And I do realise that this in some ways is the nature of discussion forums!
So I'm off the hook. Not sure about you though, katgirl.

"Offenders"

Lawrence, *hint* close mouth before foot can disappear any further down throat.

ali · Post by **ali** » 02 Oct 2005, 11:26

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Lawrence Marshall wrote:I don't include you amongst the offenders, by the way! And I do realise that this in some ways is the nature of discussion forums!

Bob, where does Lawrence's quote come from??

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 02 Oct 2005, 11:35

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Epykat wrote:Well, thank goodness that's cleared up, it'll prevent a lot of gossip and tittle tattle

Lawrence Marshall wrote:I don't include you amongst the offenders, by the way! And I do realise that this in some ways is the nature of discussion forums!
So I'm off the hook. Not sure about you though, katgirl.

Don't be so smug Mr J! How do you know he's not sent that to the rest of us

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Oct 2005, 11:39

A private email on an unrelated subject, in which I had made reference to his 'gossip and tittle tattle' quote.

ali · Post by **ali** » 02 Oct 2005, 12:55

Bob Jefferson wrote:A private email on an unrelated subject, in which I had made reference to his 'gossip and tittle tattle' quote.

well-crafted and totally discrete reply

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Bad day at office as city planners say no

Bad day at office as city planners say no

Re: Bad day at office as city planners say no