Listed Buildings

Spector · Post by **Spector** » 18 Sep 2004, 11:50

As portobello is in a conservation area it's supposed to be difficult to make changes to buildings, ie a satellite dish.

Can anyone tell me if any change to a buildings exterior has to be put out to the public for discussion?

Are there any listed buildings in Portobello?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 18 Sep 2004, 12:13

Firstly, welcome to POL always nice to seea new name. It depends where the building is? Lots of Portobello is listed, mostly B. There will be lots of people on here that will be able to offer you advice. However, here is a little test, walk down the street in which your intention is to mount a satellite dish, have a look up at the buildings, there's your answer..

I anticipate most exterior alterations to a buiilding require permission, whether its listed or not.

Spector · Post by **Spector** » 18 Sep 2004, 15:56

We were asked if we objected to a patio on the PCC but not on if we objected to steel gates being erected. I would have thought that steel gates was more objectionable than a patio.

Is the PCC a listed building?
Could they knock it down if they build a new community centre?

ps, I have no plans to put up a sat dish, it was just an example of how a small change needed permission but the steel gates, which I don't object to, seemed to happen without discussion.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 18 Sep 2004, 16:07

Spector, all local planning applications are vetted on behalf of Portobello Community Council by Portobello Amenity Society. The person best placed to answer your questions would be John Stewart, the chair. I know that John takes an interest in the forum but I will pm you with his phone number anyway. Let us know how you get on. Living in Rosefield I'm obviously concerned about what might replace the library if a new one is to be built.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 18 Sep 2004, 17:11

Bob wrote: Living in Rosefield I'm obviously concerned about what might replace the library if a new one is to be built.

Bob, iwhatever it happened to be? It could hardly be worse than whats at the bottom of that street at the moment., its hideous.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 18 Sep 2004, 17:39

Can't argue with that, although others might consider it to be a classic 1960's design and worth preserving. Williamfield isn't particularly attractive either and I really wish someone would do something with that glassed bit at the top of the stairs. I don't think the windows have ever been cleaned.

Spector · Post by **Spector** » 18 Sep 2004, 23:21

Given that the Royal Commonwealth pool is a listed building then there is no reason for protecting the hideous 60's buildings.

I think it was said in one of the other threads about possible developments that the council should go public with what their plans are for Portobello sooner rather than later. No disrespect to Councillor Marshall but I'm still trying to read the novel he posted.

I would hate to think that the council are seriously considering eating away at the green sites of the Portobello area, ie the golf course, in order to build houses on exsisting sites, ie the library, PCC & Pitz.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Sep 2004, 03:27

Spector wrote:I would hate to think that the council are seriously considering eating away at the green sites of the Portobello area, ie the golf course, in order to build houses on exsisting sites, ie the library, PCC & Pitz.

I strongly disagree.

Not for a moment am I suggesting that you are one of the "lets jump on the bandwagon and complain about any new proposal brigade" I'm simply highlighting your stance.

IMHO the figgy park has to be the most under used "resource" in EH15. It is virtually worthless as a wide open free
space. Almost no one uses it and when they do, they use it as a corridor.

Why not infil the man made pond. Build a new PHS in almost rural
surroundigs? No buses can get there. Parking would be easily discouraged. free up the existing PHS for either residential or green belt,

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 19 Sep 2004, 11:30

[quote="Porty]
IMHO the figgy park has to be the most under used "resource" in EH15. It is virtually worthless as a wide open free
space. Almost no one uses it and when they do, they use it as a corridor,[/quote]

By that I take it you mean because it's not used for rugby, football, golf or any other sport? It's used as a wide open free space!

It's used by toddlers to run about in a wide open free space, it's used by dog walkers who don't want their dogs run over or shouted at for going onto a 'pitch', it's used by cyclists and it's used by people who want to use it as a corridor! Leave it alone

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Sep 2004, 11:33

Its also used by my wife for teaching. It was 3:27am after all.

Still think the idea has potential.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Sep 2004, 11:35

Epykat wrote:e it's used by dog walkers who don't want their dogs run over

Where do the ones who do want their dogs run over walk?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 19 Sep 2004, 11:37

Okay, I'll let you off! Stick to water the next time you think you might have a bright idea......

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 19 Sep 2004, 12:51

Spector wrote:

No disrespect to Councillor Marshall but I'm still trying to read the novel he posted.

Just to clarify things. It was me who posted Councillor Marshall's old (and rather extensive!) e-mail which he had circulated to those on his mailing list a fair while back. Things may have moved on since then....

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 19 Sep 2004, 13:31

Porty wrote:
Epykat wrote:e it's used by dog walkers who don't want their dogs run over
Where do the ones who do want their dogs run over walk?

Anywhere near Kings Road.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Sep 2004, 13:47

Stanley, Regent, Bath and Marlbourogh Streets must also be top dog elimination territory.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 19 Sep 2004, 15:16

Porty wrote:Stanley, Regent, Bath and Marlbourogh Streets must also be top dog elimination territory.

So is the beach if you're not careful

My dog was nearly trampled by three racehorses racing full pelt along the top of the beach and it was only because she had the sense to crouch as flat as she could that they missed her

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Sep 2004, 15:32

Epykat wrote:
Porty wrote:Stanley, Regent, Bath and Marlbourogh Streets must also be top dog elimination territory.
So is the beach if you're not careful My dog was nearly trampled by three racehorses racing full pelt along the top of the beach and it was only because she had the sense to crouch as flat as she could that they missed her

So, if we take your premise of safe dog walking territory as being out of bounds for new buildings then we have your backing to build a huge development on the beach?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 19 Sep 2004, 15:43

Somebody beat me to it! They've started at the foot of Bath Street

Spector · Post by **Spector** » 19 Sep 2004, 17:34

OK, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m new to this board so I can't tell when people are or aren't being serious yet. I use the Figgy every week to walk my kid. He's 8 months and is fascinated by the ducks, swans and geese. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve always lived around the Figgy and the fact that it has a pond with wildlife is an important resource to the community. Far from being under used, at points my quiet morning walks are often replaced with a lot of cyclists, dogs and kids. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s an ideal area.

I wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t getting at Councillor Marshall's Ã¢â‚¬Å“postÃ¢â‚¬Â

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 19 Sep 2004, 17:35

Bellybabe wrote:
Porty wrote:
Epykat wrote:e it's used by dog walkers who don't want their dogs run over
Where do the ones who do want their dogs run over walk?
Anywhere near Kings Road.

Plus the Fishwives Causeway - and where it connects with the crossing for the Harry Lauder Road! both Humans and Dogs - drivers make no distinction.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 20 Sep 2004, 18:44

Spector wrote: We need to protect ALL the green areas of Portobello and properly use the brown sites for what the community actually need.

I'm sure most of us will agree with you

However, from past experience of our wonderful Council I'm afraid you just have to cross your fingers and hope they don't have their beady eye on something nice.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 20 Sep 2004, 20:20

Spector wrote:
We need to protect ALL the green areas of Portobello and properly use the brown sites for what the community actually need.[/quote]

What other Brownfield Sites are there in Porty? Brownfield Sites formerly Industrial land, the only one I can think of is SP Site.

What does the Community need - perhaps this could be an intro into what people would like to see on the Old Scottish Power Site - remember that the land is CRAP and sure to be contaminated, would require major remediation before anything residential could be built, think the polluter pays principle would apply in this case.
An important factor perhaps we should consider, are the residents who live in the late Victorian/Edwardian Cottages on Baileyfield Road, these folk have had a rough time with the cumulitive impacts of major development in the past twenty years.

Post by **wangi** » 20 Sep 2004, 20:33

Gemini wrote:An important factor perhaps we should consider, are the residents who live in the late Victorian/Edwardian Cottages on Baileyfield Road, these folk have had a rough time with the cumulitive impacts of major development in the past twenty years.

What was in front of those cottages when built - noisy dirty railway line? And behind - power station, industrial works?

A supermarket's just the industrial works of today... Those cottages have been surrounded by it for decades!

I'm not for the supermarket, but turning it into "lets play fair for these poor residents" doesn't really stick. Whenever the cottages were bought a choice was made to live among whatever crap was currently surrounding them!

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 20 Sep 2004, 21:24

We are not the bleeding heart brigade, but FYI the Power Station/Scottish Power Site - were built way after the cottages were erected. The railway line was always there - still is, and never a problem. You may also know that Baileyfield Road was the original road - and never aligned with the A1 - The stopping up of Fishwives Causeway caused major problems - It gave Laidlaw's carte blanche to utilise the Causeway, making this street the sole vehicular access into BR. This area was only zoned 'light industrial in 1997' without anyone in the street being informed ,before the days of the planning portal.

Do you honestly think that the residents in this street have not protested against these developments! The reality is Wangi, a street of 22 residents really do not have much clout in the grand scheme of things.

I and other people in the street, bought our homes many years ago - before the developments and subsequent redevelopments, unfortunately we have seen the immediate area decline in the name of progress and greed.

Post by **wangi** » 20 Sep 2004, 22:43

Yeah, I know that Baileyfield Road was the original road, and the majority of the A199 Portobello Bypass was built on the alignment of a former railway.

The fact that the area was zoned LI in '97 doesn't change the fact it was already surrounded by LI then, and for ages decades/century beforehand. What was on the SP site before SP? My guess would be a pottery, glassworks or some other horrid dirty industry! I doubt these cottages were built in open farmland - they were built alongside industry.

Would you rather Fishwives' Causeway was a rat run (for cars, it is already for me

) to avoid the Seafield Roundabout?

But, we're moving off the point here - I do not think that a supermarket is the best use for the site. Probably the best use is light housing, but that's unrealistic these days - it'd be flats.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 21 Sep 2004, 15:28

It was never the garden of eden granted, however, the LI zoning (sneaked through the back door) in 1997 - gave car orientated business's a licence to do exactly what they wanted too... imagine the surprise when new legislation was passed in 1998 specifically against the former? too late... right we know!

However, we are talking about a legacy from the past industrial usage of the SP site, won't mention that this area was the key to the prosperity of Portobello years ago..
The Scottish Power Site is the only Brownfield Site (apart from Telferton) in the area, furthermore it is the Gateway site into Porty.- the land is crap due to the former usages, unfortunately anything built on this site could have major ramifications on the stability of the 100 year old cottages - actually, tin shed's would be preferable due to the ground conditions (of which Wangi you are not aufait with ) and neither as it turns out were the LRC when they allowed developments of the sorts we have seen and experienced in the past 20 years.

The upshot from our prospective is - Superstore would be lesser of a threat to our properties - but more of a threat to the High Street Shops and associated traffic, Housing would also be a threat to the existing properties - 200 extra bogs on CRAP land is one load of S HIT - Yeah!!

Which would you choose?

Post by **wangi** » 22 Sep 2004, 21:03

Gemini wrote:Which would you choose?

I'd rather live next door to the airport!

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 22 Sep 2004, 21:46

wangi wrote:
Gemini wrote:Which would you choose?
I'd rather live next door to the airport!

We would rather you lived there too!

Post by **wangi** » 22 Sep 2004, 21:54

Gemini wrote:
wangi wrote:
Gemini wrote:Which would you choose?
I'd rather live next door to the airport!
We would rather you lived there too!

I think you must be confusing "next door" with "on the airport"... On the runway...

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 22 Sep 2004, 22:23

don't care which part of the airport you would like to live on/next too

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 23 Sep 2004, 09:52

wangi wrote: Whenever the cottages were bought a choice was made to live among whatever crap was currently surrounding them!

I hate to be a bit 'picky', Wangi, but strictly speaking, if these are Victorian/Edwardian workers' cottages, the original residents would have very little choice as to where they lived.

And to be a bit more 'bleeding heart' (wonder if the profanity filter will let me get away with that one!), some people still don't have a lot of choice as to where they live because of income restraints.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 23 Sep 2004, 11:35

Many of the residents in BR purchased their homes way back in the 40's 50's - Other residents purchased their properties at various subsequently later dates and paid what the property Market dictated at the time.
eg. when I purchased my property, a similar property in quite a snobby part of Edinburgh was only about Ã‚Â£1500 more - but with very little in the way of scope for extending and a very small garden. The BR properties are very spacious - akin properties in Rosefield which are approx 10 - 15 years older than BR. I believe from what other residents have told me, that their property values are doing very nicely thanks very much. So I dont think that Cost is/was a consideration.

I know for a fact that the residents here like/love their homes, especially the uninterupted view to Arthur's Seat - which depending on the time of day and weather conditions can be quite spectacular.

Our beef is with Planning and Development and their lack of knowledge and foreseeability - nothing has changed in that department unfortunately.