Superstore

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Dec 2005, 14:38

foxy wrote:
Porty wrote:
Jackson Priest wrote:The bloke behind the counter said that it was closing down - he thought they were building flats there instead.
I just heard that Roger Daltrey was one of the last ever customers and did an impromptu acoustic number for the benefit of the few people present.
Oh yeah and tell us Porty what did he play

Think he just did one number and it was "Won't get fuelled again".

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 11 Jan 2006, 16:02

In today's EN

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Jan 2006, 16:24

What a result!!!

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 11 Jan 2006, 17:12

Well done to all at CATS. This is a magnificent achievement by all concerned.

susie · Post by **susie** » 15 Jan 2006, 21:55

subject scotmid they are hopeless not enough choice. give us a tesco not more flats, and portobello shopkeepers most of whom dont even live in portobello stop being so selfish doing your best to stop a supermarket coming here

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Feb 2006, 10:42

I understand that a meeting between BL Developments and local residents will take place on 24 February.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 13 Feb 2006, 22:56

Bob Jefferson wrote:I understand that a meeting between BL Developments and local residents will take place on 24 February.

We are hoping that you dont drop in with your microphone.

I would be interested to learn though - who gave you this information?

Q - Who is Moi?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Feb 2006, 23:00

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 13 Feb 2006, 23:34

Bob Jefferson wrote:

Who is Moi ?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Feb 2006, 00:14

Gemini, as you well know I am not at liberty to divulge the identity of any member who elects to post under a username and that would include you. To do so would be unethical and possibly illegal.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 14 Feb 2006, 00:52

Bob Jefferson wrote:Gemini, as you well know I am not at liberty to divulge the identity of any member who elects to post under a username and that would include you. To do so would be unethical and possibly illegal.

Only one post and then........gone

Robin! · Post by **Robin!** » 16 Feb 2006, 02:27

Whats the latest with this?

I've heard that planning permission will be giving as the supermarket is paying for the Kings Road Roundabout revamp!

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 16 Feb 2006, 10:16

Robin! See Sale of Superstore thread. Supermarket No More!!

Robin! · Post by **Robin!** » 16 Feb 2006, 18:39

Poppy wrote:Robin! See Sale of Superstore thread. Supermarket No More!!

Nah, they will get permission as they have agreed to pay for the revamp of Kings Road traffic system. This is what I have heard.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 17 Feb 2006, 15:59

Duddingston House Properties would have been asked for a contribution to the signalisation of Seafiled roundabout had they been granted planning permission for the supermarket. As they did not get planning permission they will not be making a contribution. The site has now been sold to a residential developer.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Feb 2006, 10:41

My money is on Dc being correct on this one but I would like to know where Robin heard this "latest" development?

My curiousity is sparked by an article in the sunday times on the "metro" style High Street supermarkets being used as the latest penetration weapon in the fight for control of the UK grocery market. Sainsbury's, Tesco (willowbrae road and newington) and Morrisons are already players, Asda are about to enter the market.

A metro type store, particularly a sizeable metro type store, parked on the end of Portobello High Street could do more damage to the local economy than a fully fledged supermarket. Im hoping Robin's kings road revelation does not relate to the former Jet petrol site and the area alongside it. Are there any plans afoot?

Robin! · Post by **Robin!** » 21 Feb 2006, 22:24

I will try and get more details from my source, I can confirm he is a former trader in Portobello High Street and does speak to a lot of people.

You cant trust anyone, I hope DC is right though!!

susie · Post by **susie** » 11 Mar 2006, 08:25

heard on the grapevine that the owners of the row of cottages on baileyfield road have been approached to sell there houses so that they can be knocked down and flats built. any truth in the matter

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 Mar 2006, 10:46

susie wrote:heard on the grapevine that the owners of the row of cottages on baileyfield road have been approached to sell there houses so that they can be knocked down and flats built. any truth in the matter

It is no secret that BL properties have certainly had a meeting with the residents of Baileyfield Road; the company mentioned this when they addressed the last meeting of the Community Council.

Over to you Gemini....................

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 14 Mar 2006, 18:13

We seem to have been slightly ahead of our time in opposing the superstore application but awareness of the case against the domination of the grocery market by the "Big Four" is building up a head of steam. A recent government report predicted the independent retailer would be a thing of the past by 2015 if something urgent is not done now to stop the march of the superstores and now their domination is to be investigated by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).

I have received the following e-mail from Friends of the Earth who would like people to write in during the four week consultation period to make certain points they feel are lacking from the scope of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) enquiry.

Full information on points to include and who to write to are detailed in the message below. So, please, if you feel strongly about this, write in as soon as possible.

Urgent call to action: - our best chance yet to restrain the power and growth of Tesco!

Last week the Office of Fair Trading proposed a new Competition Commission investigation into the big four supermarkets. http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releas ... 49-06.htm-

This is a campaign success for us - the proposal is a direct response to a demand from Friends of the Earth, the Association of Convenience Stores, the National Federation of Women's Institutes and FARM which was supported by Tescopoly and many other organisations.Â Over a year ago we called for a new supermarkets inquiry, the OFT said No in August last year but was forced to reconsider after a legal challenge by the ACS backed by Friends of the Earth.Â We want the Competition Commission to take this issue on because we believe they are more likely than the OFT to come up with solutions that will protect suppliers and small shops and because they have the power to act.

Several of the key points that we have put to the OFT have now been included in their report for consideration by the Competition Commission.Â For example they now recognise that there are problems with the planning system including the huge land bank of sites that supermarkets have accumulated, and the big supermarkets ablity to muscle their way to planning approval.Â The OFT has finally admitted that dominance of the food market by just four companies may not be a good thing for consumers as it could reduce consumer choice.Â And they have agreed that local dominance can be a problemÂ - in some places there really is little choice of where to shop because Tesco controls 45% of the market.

However its not all good news.Â The OFT has failed to include the crucial issue of the supermarkets trading terms with farmers - but we know that things haven't got better for our farmers and many are still threatened with going out of business.Â Failing to address supplier relations also means that the negative impacts of supermarket buying power will continue to threaten labour standards for workers and farmers along international supply chains.Â The OFTÂ also failed to look at the supermarkets increasing share of non-food goods which is posing a new threat to our high streets.Â There is also an implication in the planning section that the restriction of out-of-town development is a barrier to new stores and so restricts competition.

The OFT is holding a short 4 week consultation on its proposal to refer these issues to the Competition Commission.Â A new supermarkets inquiry gives us the best opportunity we've had during the supermarkets campaign to get Government action to curb supermarket power so we are welcoming the proposal.Â We are sure that the big supermarkets will by trying hard to change the OFT's decision or at least to narrow the terms of the inquiry so its really important that the OFT gets the message loud and clear that communities want this investigation to go ahead.

Take Action!

Please email the OFT telling them that you support their proposal to refer the market for the supply of groceries by retailers in the UK to the Competiton Commission for a market investigation.

You could also add some of the following points:

â€¢ Welcome the inclusion of planning issues in the investigation - supermarkets are able to add significantly to their local and national market share by building new stores - and suggest that the Competition Commission must look at whether planning policies at national, regional and local level are strong enough to allow communities to say "no" to new supermarkets to provide a level playing field for small retailers.
â€¢ The restriction on out-of-town development is not a barrier to smaller independent retailers which are less likely to want to develop on these kinds of sites.Â But the current national policy (in PPS6) which favours large format stores on the edge-of-towns is because it directly favours the big supermarkets.
â€¢ Stress that consumer choice is provided by having diverse retailing ie its about having local shops to shop at not just a choice between the big four supermarkets.
â€¢ Ask them to include the impact on farmers of supermarket's buyer power - this issue has not been adequatley addressed and farmers continue to go out of business.
And if you have time to personalise your message please add your own concerns about the dominance of the big supermarketd, you could also include:

â€¢ local examples of big supermarkets using their powerful position to change local plans in their favour or gain planning permission for a new store in the face of local opposition.
â€¢ examples of campaigns or actions you have taken in your local area in response to supermarket expansion. This could help illustrate to the OFT the level of public active discontent.
â€¢ examples of independentÂ high street shops closing when a new supermarket opened to provide evidence that supermarket dominance is reducing consumer choice of where to shop.
Send your response to:

chris.jenkins@oft.gsi.gov.uk
or
marie-louise.coster@oft.gsi.gov.uk

or write to
Supermarkets Team
Markets and Policy Initiatives Division 4
Office of Fair Trading
Fleetbank House
2-6 Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8JX

Josh Gilbert
Assistant to Supermarkets campaigner
020 7490 1555 (Friends of the Earth main line)

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Mar 2006, 11:37

Back when we were much more united against the superstore development, reference was made to other campaigns in Gorgie and Dunbar.

At that time, were there any objections to making those references?

I've just made reference, in the schools thread, to a campaign to stop development on a golf course in Musselburgh (although it's not directly similar - it is called "hands off our links")

What has changed - forum rules or some members' attitudes?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Mar 2006, 11:53

At the risk of taking yet another thread off on a tangent I can only repeat that I have no problem at all in you linking to this site. My only concern is that if people want to discuss what is happening at Musselburgh they should do so on a thread dedicated to this matter.

Yes, there is a tenuous link in that it involves a nearby golf club but the course is only being modified and its facilities improved from what I've read so far. The club is not under threat, the course itself is not under threat.

You seem keen to present a picture of the administrators abusing their privileges to censor the thread to their own advantage but the truth is that we recognise the importance of the topic and the interest being shown in it and we are determined to ensure, on this thread in particular, that posting guidelines are adhered to and that posters remain on-topic. If we seem to be a little over fussy at times I can assure you that it is with the best of intentions.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Mar 2006, 11:57

Thanks Bob - I appreciate your feedback on this matter.

Stephen Hawkins · Post by **Stephen Hawkins** » 07 Apr 2006, 08:24

Our Christmas update gave you the news that a new developer, BL Developments, had bought the former Scottish Power site and that they intended putting housing on it. This was good news and so far we have had a very positive response from this new developer. The PCATS committee had a meeting with Phil Myerscough, the managing director, and he has also given a short presentation to the Community Council.

However, before any plans are drawn up, the City of Edinburgh Council wants to develop a Master Plan for the west end of Portobello to encompass all of the possible development sites eg. the Pitz site. We have been promised that the community will be fully involved in this Master Plan and the Council are currently going through the process of appointing a consultant to carry out this exercise.

You will remember how much we needed our own consultants at the Public Inquiry last March to argue from the communityâ€™s point of view. The PCATS committee believe it would be beneficial to make use of our own consultant when the Master Plan is being produced. A consultant who knows planning guidance would be able to advise us better of the advantages or pitfalls of a particular proposal.

We have almost Â£3000 in the bank from the excellent response you made to the fund raising efforts and we think it would be good use of the money to make sure we get the developments we want in Portobello. If you have any comments for or against this use of the money then please let us know by emailing me.

Letâ€™s look forward to getting quality housing on this site that enhances Portobello.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 23 Apr 2006, 15:39

22 April 2006

Stephen Hawkins
Address witheld
CC: Portobello Community Council, Maureen Child, Lawrence Marshall

Dear Stephen,

In response to your on-line request for feedback on the proposed use of the remaining PCATS funds. I would like to offer you my 2 Cents. I canâ€™t email you as per your request, as there is no email address provided.

Personally speaking, I feel I gave a considerable amount of money and some time to the campaign, as did my business. The campaign was successful and I would like to see the remaining money used as a form of reward for the community as a thank you. I donâ€™t feel particularly at one with the appointment of a consultant now that victory has been achieved. It was not the purpose and not why I chose to support PCATS. PCATS may hold the money but the community at large for a single issue donated it.

Having said that, I appreciate that some, perhaps many, people agree with your intent and it may well come to pass.

Whilst I appreciate the intention is good, PCATS have given the community only one option for use of the excess funds. Is it fair to present the community with just one option?

I believe it would be most appropriate to have a community consultation on a wider range of options and let the community decide what should be done with the money? As things stand, we have one choice and we have to opt out rather than support the initiative.

Why not give the community some choice?

Â· Distribute the money around some deserving local causes.

Â· Create some form of memorial as a testament to the victory

Â· Employ a consultant, as has been suggested.

Â· Buy plants or shrubs for planting around the community.

This is by no means a definitive range of options, Iâ€™m sure you will get some good suggestions.

I look forward to your response and I have started an on-line poll to garner other peoples views.

Yours Sincerely

Stephen McIntyre
9 Brighton Crescent West
Eh15 1LU

Cynthia · Post by **Cynthia** » 23 Apr 2006, 18:01

No problem getting views - that was the intention of the leaflet and email to pcats email tree. We are getting quite a few through the pcats email - I have no idea if this was on the original leaflet or not but for those that want to email pcats directly the email address is as it was before - info@pcats.org.uk and I am the one who checks the email and acknowlege emails, so I know it is checked every day. Please do email us your views and I will pass them on to the Secretary.

My personal opinion is that we won the first round, but there is no guarantee that the plan for a superstore will not return, and as the community was so against it, as I was, the funds should be used to ensure that any future discussion about the areas of Portobello ie the West of Portobello which are to be developed, do not include a superstore or anything like it. That is why the involvement of pcats in the Plan for West Portobello is so important.

Whilst the suggestions of donations to a good cause, or improvements, might be a good idea if the battle was over, it is not over until a superstore proposal is impossible to bring back. The large pieces of land still to be built on, or that could be turned into other uses, eg from office to housing, retail, or whatever, in West Portobello are still there and could still be used to put forward a superstore plan. The decision of the Public Inquiry, as far as I am aware, was not forever, just at the present time.

Carla

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 23 Apr 2006, 23:20

The battle may have been won,
but the war is not over!

As far as we have been led to believe, DHP are still in the fray, and
interested in Standard Life's site on the Causeway (currently occupied
by COEC park's and leisure).

Who can say that their intentions are not for building another
retail outlet? the area in question is large enough!

quote Porty

A metro type store, particularly a sizeable metro type store, parked on the end of Portobello High Street could do more damage to the local economy than a fully fledged supermarket

.

Thanks for supporting us Porty - you know it makes sense

I am for Stephen's suggestion to appoint a consultant, looks like Porty is
too

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Apr 2006, 15:14

Stephen McIntyre in letter to SH wrote: Whilst I appreciate the intention is good, PCATS have given the community only one option for use of the excess funds. Is it fair to present the community with just one option?

I believe it would be most appropriate to have a community consultation on a wider range of options and let the community decide what should be done with the money?

Funds were donated by the community at large, consultation with us, on the various options that are open,is I believe, a fair and equitable way to proceed.

edit (I believe)

Stephen Hawkins · Post by **Stephen Hawkins** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:02

Stephen, thanks for your suggestion and once we have got a development on the site that reflects the community's wishes then we'll consult on what to do with any excess monies. At present, the PCATS committee, and the vast majority of respondents to this consultation, believe that paying for professional input at some point in the masterplanning exercise is good use of this fund.

Remember, Duddingston House Properties (and their supermarket paymasters) still claim to have an 'interest' in how the west end of Portobello is developed.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:24

Stephen Hawkins wrote: Stephen, thanks for your suggestion and once we have got a development on the site that reflects the community's wishes then we'll consult on what to do with any excess monies. At present, the PCATS committee, and the vast majority of respondents to this consultation believe that paying for professional input at some point in the masterplanning exercise is good use of this fund.

Remember, Duddingston House Properties (and their supermarket paymasters) still claim to have an 'interest' in how the west end of Portobello is developed.

Stephen, I would prefer to wait until your response to my letter about the PCATS consultation process, prior to making any further comment.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:39

Stephen Hawkins wrote: At present, the PCATS committee, and the vast majority of respondents to this consultation, believe that paying for professional input at some point in the masterplanning exercise is good use of this fund.

Remember, Duddingston House Properties (and their supermarket paymasters) still claim to have an 'interest' in how the west end of Portobello is developed.

Stephen (H) - I have every faith in you and the PCATS committee.

Furthermore I think that the small amount of money I gave PCATS by way of last years celebrity calendar had no stipulation attached to it - that is, once I had parted with said funds they weren't mine any more.

Stephen McIntyre is a well known opponent of Gemini, Carla and dc on a variety of issues, and I am taking his current line on spending the monies on pot plants with a very large pinch of salt.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:41

Stephen Hawkins wrote: Remember, Duddingston House Properties (and their supermarket paymasters) still claim to have an 'interest' in how the west end of Portobello is developed.

Stephen, this is a different, but I accept related, subject to the PCATS community consultation

Can you provde a verifiable source for this claim by Duddingston House Properties and their supermarket paymasters?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:51

Tell you what would be funny though - an expensive PCATS victory memorial sited next to a big supermarket which was built because PCATS had spent all their money!

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:57

That would be nearly as funny as a Supermarket proposal appearing somewhere other than the west end of Portobello and all the PCATS money being spent on a consultation that is already community inclusive.

Anyway once Stephen has provide the source for the DHP and superstore paymaster continuing "interest" it will at least give more creedence to the option PCATS are offering the community.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Apr 2006, 14:16

Stephen McIntyre wrote:That would be nearly as funny as a Supermarket proposal appearing somewhere other than the west end of Portobello and all the PCATS money being spent on a consultation that is already community inclusive.

Anyway once Stephen has provide the source for the DHP and superstore paymaster continuing "interest" it will at least give more creedence to the option PCATS are offering the community.

I thought PCATS was the campaign against "the" superstore - that is the one proposed at the SP site.

If you think there is the chance of an accursed supersized retailer appearing somewhere else - why on earth are you suggesting spending this precious resource - money - on pot plants?

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Superstore - New Petrol Station - Parking - New Access

Sale of Superstore Site