Name and Registerd Office
Luminar Public Limited Company
41 King Street
LUTON
Bedfordshire
LU1 2DW
Company Number: 03170142
Date of Incorporation: 11/03/1996
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Public Limited Company
Nature of Business: Restaurants and Bars
Accounting Reference Date: 28/02
Last Accounts Made Up To: 02/03/2003 (Group)
Next Accounts Due: 28/09/2000
Last Return Made Up To: 13/08/2003
Next return Due: 10/09/2004
Last Members List: 13/08/2003
Last Bulk Shareholders List: 13/08/2003
Previous Names
No previous names informaton has been recorded over the last 20 years.
Branch Details
There are no branches associated with this company.
Overseas Company Information
There are no overseas details associated with this company.
The following are Private Limited Companies, all active and all registered at 41 King Street, LUTON, Bedfordshire. LU1 2DW
Luminar (Asia) Ltd
Date of Incorporation: 07/08/2000
Nature of Business: Other Business Activities
Previous Name: Freshname Number 287 Ltd.
Date of Change: 30/10/2000
Luminar Brands Ltd
Date of Incorporation:03/04/2003
Luminar (Camden Palace) Ltd
Date of Incorporation: 18/07/2003
Previous Name: Intercede 1878 Limited
Date of Change: 23/07/2003
Luminar Dancing Limited
Date of Incorporation: 20/11/1987
Nature of Business: Other Entertainment Activities and Operate Sports Arenas and Stadiums.
Previous Names:(1) Northern Leisure Inc. Public Limited Company.
Date of Change: 09/11/2000
(2) Whitegate Entertainments Limited
Date of Change: 30/11/1993
(3) Caskvine Limited.
Date of Change: 20/04/1989
Luminar Dancing Finance Limited
Date of Incorporation: 18/07/2003
Previous Name: Intercede 1879 Limited
Date of Change: 23/07/2003
Luminar Dancing North Limited
Date of Incorporation: 18/07/2003
Previous Name: Intercede 1874 Limited
Date of Change: 23/07/2003
Luminar Dancing Scotland Limited
Date of Incorporation: 18/07/2003
Previous Name: Intercede 1875 Limited
Date of Change: 23/07/2003
Luminar Dancing South Limited
Date of Incorporation: 18/07/2003
Previous Name: Intercede 1873 Limited
Date of Change: 23/07/2003
Luminar Entertainments Limited
Date of Incorporation: 18/07/2003
Previous Name: Intercede 1876 Limited
Date of Change: 23/07/2003
Luminar Entertainment Finance Limited
Date of Incorporation: 18/07/2003
Previous Name: Intercede 1880 Limited
Date of Change: 23/07/2003
Luminar I P Limited
Date of Incorporation: 03/04/2003
Luminar Leisure Limited
Date of Incorporation: 03/11/1987
Nature of Business: Holding Companies including Head Offices
Previous Names: (1) Northern Leisure Limited, (2) Whitegate Leisure PLC,
(3)Harvesting Public Limited Company.
Date of Change: 16/07/2001
Luminar South East Limited
Date of Incorporation: 18/07/2003
Previous Name: Intercede 1877 Limited.
Luminar Health and Fitness Limited
Date of Incorporation: 08/07/1999
Dormant
Luminar Properties Limited
Date of Incorporation: 08/07/1999
Non Trading
Why don't they just buy themselves a whole country - whoever they are.
Superstore - New Petrol Station - Parking - New Access
-
Guest
I have been asked to post the following message on behalf of Lawrence Marshall:
Dear All
My thanks to everyone who took the time and the trouble to come along to the recent packed meeting at the Town Hall.
There were a few things which I didn't get the opportunity to speak about last night and which I thought I should now convey by e-mail to a more limited audience instead.
First of all is that your partcipation in the formal planning process is important. Those who wrote in and signed the petition to the Council's Planning section have for all time recorded their views on this planning application - views that will be passed on to the Scottish Executive Reporter should this go to Appeal.
As I mentioned, following receipt of the Retail and Transport Impact Assessments by Planning, these will not only be assessed independently by our officers but will also be available for the public to see. Those who wrote in initially will be sent a letter by Planning inviting further comment within 21 days.
Given all this, it is likely that the case officer's report will go before the Development Quality Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee sometime in the early New Year.
With respect to this, we now have in place a Hearing procedure for particularly contentious applications. This allows greater scope for the public to make their views know as well as giving the applicant an opportunity to put their case directly to committee as well. Whilst there is only one applicant, we allow up to three local groups as well as the local councillor to speak at such Hearings - which last well over an hour each.
I have already requested that, when the report is ready, it be dealt with at committee by way of the Hearing procedure.
Although I had a chance to talk about the planning process a little, I didn't have any chance really to speak of the formal planning policy framework against which this application will be assessed.
The site at Baileyfield is currently zoned for industry/business use. The city is rapidly losing such sites and those responsible for policy within Planning will need to be persuaded that we should allow this site to also be lost - that applies equally whether the proposed use is retail or housing.
I think that there are very good arguments to be made as to why housing/mixed use would allow this site to be better knit back into the High Street and Portobello in general - but that's the first hurdle to take note of. The current North East Edinburgh Local Plan is available for view in Portobello library - see the Proposals Map at the back in particular.
Should housing eventually be the dominant element of development on this site - and I think the Statement of Urban Design Principles implicitly accepts this - then it might be useful for folk to know that the Council has in place a policy with respect to the provision of affordable housing which would require, in the Portobello area, that 15% of the homes provided be for social rent. Indeed, given that we would, by granting planning permission for housing, have vastly increased the value of this land to Duddingston House Properties, the Council would be looking to increase this percentage somewhat.
I'm actually quite hopeful, then, that we can achieve development on this site which will accord with the general wishes of the community. The owner/applicant can make money in more ways than one.
Finally, a little plea that courtesy and consideration for others become our hallmark in dealing with planning matters. What wasn't mentioned last night when someone talked of the proposal a few years back to build a supermarket in Dalry Road was that, when elected members took the time to visit the site, we had various Alsatian and Rottweiller dogs straining at the leashes of local folk behind us. That wasn't a good move in terms of winning people over! I would strongly recommend politeness as a more productive modus operandi.
Dear All
My thanks to everyone who took the time and the trouble to come along to the recent packed meeting at the Town Hall.
There were a few things which I didn't get the opportunity to speak about last night and which I thought I should now convey by e-mail to a more limited audience instead.
First of all is that your partcipation in the formal planning process is important. Those who wrote in and signed the petition to the Council's Planning section have for all time recorded their views on this planning application - views that will be passed on to the Scottish Executive Reporter should this go to Appeal.
As I mentioned, following receipt of the Retail and Transport Impact Assessments by Planning, these will not only be assessed independently by our officers but will also be available for the public to see. Those who wrote in initially will be sent a letter by Planning inviting further comment within 21 days.
Given all this, it is likely that the case officer's report will go before the Development Quality Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee sometime in the early New Year.
With respect to this, we now have in place a Hearing procedure for particularly contentious applications. This allows greater scope for the public to make their views know as well as giving the applicant an opportunity to put their case directly to committee as well. Whilst there is only one applicant, we allow up to three local groups as well as the local councillor to speak at such Hearings - which last well over an hour each.
I have already requested that, when the report is ready, it be dealt with at committee by way of the Hearing procedure.
Although I had a chance to talk about the planning process a little, I didn't have any chance really to speak of the formal planning policy framework against which this application will be assessed.
The site at Baileyfield is currently zoned for industry/business use. The city is rapidly losing such sites and those responsible for policy within Planning will need to be persuaded that we should allow this site to also be lost - that applies equally whether the proposed use is retail or housing.
I think that there are very good arguments to be made as to why housing/mixed use would allow this site to be better knit back into the High Street and Portobello in general - but that's the first hurdle to take note of. The current North East Edinburgh Local Plan is available for view in Portobello library - see the Proposals Map at the back in particular.
Should housing eventually be the dominant element of development on this site - and I think the Statement of Urban Design Principles implicitly accepts this - then it might be useful for folk to know that the Council has in place a policy with respect to the provision of affordable housing which would require, in the Portobello area, that 15% of the homes provided be for social rent. Indeed, given that we would, by granting planning permission for housing, have vastly increased the value of this land to Duddingston House Properties, the Council would be looking to increase this percentage somewhat.
I'm actually quite hopeful, then, that we can achieve development on this site which will accord with the general wishes of the community. The owner/applicant can make money in more ways than one.
Finally, a little plea that courtesy and consideration for others become our hallmark in dealing with planning matters. What wasn't mentioned last night when someone talked of the proposal a few years back to build a supermarket in Dalry Road was that, when elected members took the time to visit the site, we had various Alsatian and Rottweiller dogs straining at the leashes of local folk behind us. That wasn't a good move in terms of winning people over! I would strongly recommend politeness as a more productive modus operandi.
Poertobello Superstore
Rights of free speech! Councillor Marshall has every right to publicly express his perceptions of the CATS public meeting, and, in this democracy, I will offer my response to the Portobello elected council representative's communication. First of all, I recall that Councillor Marshall was not supportive of the Action Group's 'Public Meeting' suggestion. No support at all was offered by Councillor Marshall. Therefore, whilst the Action Group appreciate his thanks to those who attended, it really is not appropriate. The people who attended do not need a 'thanks' for attending a meeting which concerns their immediate lives - they attended because they wanted to, not because Councillor Marshall asked them to.
In the second instance, I notice that no thanks was offered to those who voluntarily took the time and effort to produce and deliver publicity leaflets, book the Town Hall etc.....Should your modus operandi not need a courtesy top-up Councillor Marshall?
In the third instance, your referance to the SUCCESSFUL Gorgie/Dalry campaign, or rather your insinuation that their tactics were unnecessarily 'of the dirty large dog' variety is based on a decontextualised Heinz Variety misnomer. The developers themselves were creating very difficult circumstances for the campaigners. The area of land in question was used by dog walkers, picnicers etc. The developer tried to prove that the area was never used, therefore ok to build on. When CEC planning committee members visited the site, the local users were out walking their dogs, reading books on benches....doing things that people do in an area with very little green land access. So the inference that the campaigners were initiating a 'dirty tactic' assault unnecessarily is untrue.
I would hope that, in the near and distant future, Councillor Marshall will please try to support local people who are trying to do their best for their community.
In the second instance, I notice that no thanks was offered to those who voluntarily took the time and effort to produce and deliver publicity leaflets, book the Town Hall etc.....Should your modus operandi not need a courtesy top-up Councillor Marshall?
In the third instance, your referance to the SUCCESSFUL Gorgie/Dalry campaign, or rather your insinuation that their tactics were unnecessarily 'of the dirty large dog' variety is based on a decontextualised Heinz Variety misnomer. The developers themselves were creating very difficult circumstances for the campaigners. The area of land in question was used by dog walkers, picnicers etc. The developer tried to prove that the area was never used, therefore ok to build on. When CEC planning committee members visited the site, the local users were out walking their dogs, reading books on benches....doing things that people do in an area with very little green land access. So the inference that the campaigners were initiating a 'dirty tactic' assault unnecessarily is untrue.
I would hope that, in the near and distant future, Councillor Marshall will please try to support local people who are trying to do their best for their community.
Supastore
Thanks a lot Kittywink for setting the record straight re the Dalry Campaign; hopefully we can get back now to campaigning together against the Superstore which the vast majority of people in Porty, Joppa, and nearby, DON'T WANT! 
-
Guest
The following message is posted on behalf of Lawrence Marshall, who is currently experiencing technical difficulties in accessing the site:
I believe that the campaign to prevent a supermarket almost 40% bigger than Safeway at Piershill being built on the former Scottish Power site at Baileyfield is best served by my not directly orchestrating opposition to this planning application.
Although our planning officials feel that I may have already played this role in directing folk to their door in terms of submitting written representations as an entirely proper part of the planning process, I have emphatically stated that this campaign emanates from almost total local opposition to this proposal. It doesn't need me to whip things up! And I didn't need to ask folk to come along to the meeting last week! That I will be able to make this point when eventually this application comes before committee in my view strengthens my hand on that important day.
I would hope that implicit in my thanks to everyone for coming along to the Town Hall last week was a "thank you" to those who organised this meeting. The evening will not register officially in determining this application - that's why I was at pains to explain the formal planning process and urge participation in it - but it was important in affording folk the opportunity to express their overwhelming solidarity on this issue.
I believe that the campaign to prevent a supermarket almost 40% bigger than Safeway at Piershill being built on the former Scottish Power site at Baileyfield is best served by my not directly orchestrating opposition to this planning application.
Although our planning officials feel that I may have already played this role in directing folk to their door in terms of submitting written representations as an entirely proper part of the planning process, I have emphatically stated that this campaign emanates from almost total local opposition to this proposal. It doesn't need me to whip things up! And I didn't need to ask folk to come along to the meeting last week! That I will be able to make this point when eventually this application comes before committee in my view strengthens my hand on that important day.
I would hope that implicit in my thanks to everyone for coming along to the Town Hall last week was a "thank you" to those who organised this meeting. The evening will not register officially in determining this application - that's why I was at pains to explain the formal planning process and urge participation in it - but it was important in affording folk the opportunity to express their overwhelming solidarity on this issue.
-
Brian McCrow
- Posts: 224
- Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 12:11
- Location: Portobello
Superstore
At a recent East LDC meeting at Meadowbank there was a comment made that Retail development out of town would be prevented in favour of City Centre Retail development. How does this proposal fit in with this position?
Also Portobello needs an influx of offices to boost local trade, restaurants and pubs in a similar process by which the Scottish Office in Leith boosted the regeneration. This seems an ideal site provided the Transport planners sort out an effective one way system. This would also reduce the current traffic problems at this roundabout. I'm surprised there aren't more accidents.
Bringing in offices while boosting the local facilities will encourage more new people to live in Portobello. How about using the spaces occupied by the Noble Amusements. At the same time let's build a skate boarding/basketball area by the five a side football to give the young people a unified centre.
At the same time we should boost the existing shops and freshen up a rather tired High Street. With a bit of imagination we could have a glorious Portobello - a true Seaside Centre.
Also Portobello needs an influx of offices to boost local trade, restaurants and pubs in a similar process by which the Scottish Office in Leith boosted the regeneration. This seems an ideal site provided the Transport planners sort out an effective one way system. This would also reduce the current traffic problems at this roundabout. I'm surprised there aren't more accidents.
Bringing in offices while boosting the local facilities will encourage more new people to live in Portobello. How about using the spaces occupied by the Noble Amusements. At the same time let's build a skate boarding/basketball area by the five a side football to give the young people a unified centre.
At the same time we should boost the existing shops and freshen up a rather tired High Street. With a bit of imagination we could have a glorious Portobello - a true Seaside Centre.
-
dickie alexander
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 10 Dec 2003, 11:56
- Location: none
- Contact:
proposed superstore
Viewers may have seen the posters in the local shops SAY NO TO THE SUPERSTORE. The campaign group purchased them with funds raised at the recent meeting in the town hall.Anyone wishing to display a poster( and show solidarity ) can pick one up at Findlay's the butchers next to the police station or from me at 32 Marlborough Street. Donations can be handed in at Kitcheners Deli next to the town hall.
Dickie Alexander
chairperson campaign group
Dickie Alexander
chairperson campaign group
r alexander
-
Guest
Along with everyone else who objected to this application I received a letter this morning from Planning re the 'revised scheme' that has now been submitted along with the traffic and retail impact studies. I haven't yet found time to read this 104 page document but from what I have read so far it is quite clear that far from being the objective, independent analysis I (in hindsight) naively expected, this document is instead a (no doubt very expensive) PR exercise on behalf of the applicant.
Four extra days have been allowed in addition to the statutory 21 days, to allow for public holidays, in order to register your comment/objection to this document. If you start reading now you might just finish it in time! I understand that PAS intends to write on behalf of Portobello Community Council to ask for a further extension but that this may very well not be forthcoming.
In the interim it is obviouly very important that as many people as possible are able to view this document. It takes a very long time to download from the Planning Portal, even with a broadband connection, and not everyone is able to take the time to go to Cockburn Street in person. Consequently, Lawrence Marshall has requested that a copy be made available at Portobello Library. In the interim, one way or other, we will ensure that a copy IS available for public scrutiny at the library from Monday. I am confident that even at a cursory glance it will be obvious to everyone that these 'studies' are simply a collection of bogus arguments and manipulated statistics.
Look forward to your comment.
Four extra days have been allowed in addition to the statutory 21 days, to allow for public holidays, in order to register your comment/objection to this document. If you start reading now you might just finish it in time! I understand that PAS intends to write on behalf of Portobello Community Council to ask for a further extension but that this may very well not be forthcoming.
In the interim it is obviouly very important that as many people as possible are able to view this document. It takes a very long time to download from the Planning Portal, even with a broadband connection, and not everyone is able to take the time to go to Cockburn Street in person. Consequently, Lawrence Marshall has requested that a copy be made available at Portobello Library. In the interim, one way or other, we will ensure that a copy IS available for public scrutiny at the library from Monday. I am confident that even at a cursory glance it will be obvious to everyone that these 'studies' are simply a collection of bogus arguments and manipulated statistics.
Look forward to your comment.
Enquiry Reporters
The proposed car park, fuel station and superstore belong somewhere else and not at the entrance to Portobello.
Time to start thinking about these people now
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/pla ... rur-06.asp
Time to start thinking about these people now
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/pla ... rur-06.asp
-
Guest
Latest news on the campaign front is that a letter is to be circulated to supporters asking them to:
a) display the poster which will be enclosed
b) write to or email members of the planning committee
c) make a donation to the campaign
A standard letter which supporters can use for this purpose is also to be circulated and a website is under construction.
Copies of these letters can be viewed by following these links:
http://www.porty.org.uk/pdf/cats_1.pdf
http://www.porty.org.uk/pdf/cats_2.pdf
a) display the poster which will be enclosed
b) write to or email members of the planning committee
c) make a donation to the campaign
A standard letter which supporters can use for this purpose is also to be circulated and a website is under construction.
Copies of these letters can be viewed by following these links:
http://www.porty.org.uk/pdf/cats_1.pdf
http://www.porty.org.uk/pdf/cats_2.pdf
-
Guest
cats poster
Here's a great way to show your support for the campaign. Clicking on the link below will open a copy of the 'SAY NO TO THE SUPERSTORE' poster, which you can then print and display in your window:
http://www.porty.org.uk/pdf/say_no.pdf
http://www.porty.org.uk/pdf/say_no.pdf
Retail and Traffic Impact Studies
Thanks Bob for posting latest news re Superstore (see previous 2 messages) - has anyone been approached by the Company paid to do the shopping survey? Only 500 people were asked, out of around 45,000, so it wasn't representative anyway, but it seems very unlikely that 41% residents of Porty NEVER allegedly shop in Portobello, 25% have never visited Porty centre! and supposedly less than 4% of residents shop for their main grocery needs in Porty. I didn't know I was so rare - nor that my friends were - what are all those people wandering around on a Friday and Sat doing then? beachcombing maybe....let us know if you have been approached for your views - it would be interesting to see if anyone on this Forum has been asked....also, why do we need another big store when we have so many in bus/car/cycle/walking distance - even I can walk to 2 of them and I hate walking! Keep up the letters of objection going in - we only have until 16th Jan... 
-
Guest
I was not an interviewee and I may not be a typical shopper. I have bought virtually all of my meat, chicken, game etc from Findlays for several years now. I pop into the fishmongers at least once a week. Most of my groceries come from our new, improved Scotmid and I shop in Kitcheners as well. My hair is cut by Paul at Buddy's and I use the local chemists and hardware store, among others. I think it is important to use local facilites as well. Why join an expensive health club when we have an excellent swim centre and pulse centre on the Prom?
I don't pretend that Portobello High Steet takes care of all my shopping needs, so a trip to Cameron Toll or elsewhere is still required occasionally, but I hate the traffic congestion, the crowds and resent the time it wastes. Like many people I have discovered the ease and convenience of internet shopping for CDs, DVDs, books etc. I have online bank accounts and book holidays and cinema tickets online. There is no doubt that our shopping habits have changed and continue to do so but I hope that there will always be a place for local shops, for friendly service and quality produce.
A better selection of shops on the High Street would be nice, more variety, more quality - but I think that will come, providing we can head off the threat of the superstore development.
Above all, we need a more co-ordinated effort from the traders themselves. We need a re-launched traders association that includes ALL the local shops and businesses, with representation on the Community Council and a positive, enthusiastic, forward-thinking approach that will convince City Development that this is an area worth investing in. It's a time for putting aside petty differences and pulling together towards a common cause. The people of Portobello have amply demonstrated their support and it is now time for the traders to stand up and be counted and to show that our faith is not misplaced.
I don't pretend that Portobello High Steet takes care of all my shopping needs, so a trip to Cameron Toll or elsewhere is still required occasionally, but I hate the traffic congestion, the crowds and resent the time it wastes. Like many people I have discovered the ease and convenience of internet shopping for CDs, DVDs, books etc. I have online bank accounts and book holidays and cinema tickets online. There is no doubt that our shopping habits have changed and continue to do so but I hope that there will always be a place for local shops, for friendly service and quality produce.
A better selection of shops on the High Street would be nice, more variety, more quality - but I think that will come, providing we can head off the threat of the superstore development.
Above all, we need a more co-ordinated effort from the traders themselves. We need a re-launched traders association that includes ALL the local shops and businesses, with representation on the Community Council and a positive, enthusiastic, forward-thinking approach that will convince City Development that this is an area worth investing in. It's a time for putting aside petty differences and pulling together towards a common cause. The people of Portobello have amply demonstrated their support and it is now time for the traders to stand up and be counted and to show that our faith is not misplaced.
Superstore - say no!
Keep the letter writing up - I think people power is the main thing on our side on this one - every letter of objection counts and you can write in and object, even if you haven't before, until Jan 16th. See standard letter above....or visit www.pcats.org.uk
I am very concerned that the Council may not realise the appalling traffic problems we have down this end of Porty (King's Rd Roundabout and up to Bath St and further) - and may report no problems with traffic to the Planning Cttee.
I think this fails to take into account that a) people don't want to be living next to car jams and have increased traffic fumes, extended throughout the day and b) heavy delivery lorries - 40 tonne and up - will be delivering in the middle of the night etc etc - I suggest you write in about this and, if you can, take photos and send them in - of the jams at peak times already.
Another fear I have is that I think the Council needs to build a traffic light junction at the roundabout as it is not coping with the traffic at the moment - if any of you have read George Monbiot's book 'Captive State' you'll know that it is perfectly legal for a private developer to offer to pay for such a development in return for planning permission to build a big development - its called a 'net planning gain' - and may override local communities objections to having this monstrosity - surely the Government should pay for such things - through road taxes. I don't know if this might happen but it is something to beware of. - please keep firing the letters in - unlike the Planning Applicants, we don't as a community get a right of appeal if the Application is passed ---this is our only chance to stop this......Carla
I am very concerned that the Council may not realise the appalling traffic problems we have down this end of Porty (King's Rd Roundabout and up to Bath St and further) - and may report no problems with traffic to the Planning Cttee.
I think this fails to take into account that a) people don't want to be living next to car jams and have increased traffic fumes, extended throughout the day and b) heavy delivery lorries - 40 tonne and up - will be delivering in the middle of the night etc etc - I suggest you write in about this and, if you can, take photos and send them in - of the jams at peak times already.
Another fear I have is that I think the Council needs to build a traffic light junction at the roundabout as it is not coping with the traffic at the moment - if any of you have read George Monbiot's book 'Captive State' you'll know that it is perfectly legal for a private developer to offer to pay for such a development in return for planning permission to build a big development - its called a 'net planning gain' - and may override local communities objections to having this monstrosity - surely the Government should pay for such things - through road taxes. I don't know if this might happen but it is something to beware of. - please keep firing the letters in - unlike the Planning Applicants, we don't as a community get a right of appeal if the Application is passed ---this is our only chance to stop this......Carla
-
Guest
I think a traffic light controlled junction at the Kings Road roundabout has been on the cards for some time and I have been told that Scottish Exec money is already earmarked for this. However, this in itself would not be sufficient to cope with the projected increases in volume if the superstore goes ahead and I think in that case the developer would (and should) be expected to contribute. This makes sense since the superstore would be primarily responsible for the problem and would benefit most from the improvements.
As far as the traffic impact study goes I have been asked to write to the Traffic Section of City Development on behalf of Brightons Residents Association. The text is as follows:
As far as the traffic impact study goes I have been asked to write to the Traffic Section of City Development on behalf of Brightons Residents Association. The text is as follows:
Dear Mr Tottman
I am writing on behalf of Brightons Residents Association with regard to the Traffic Impact Study, which was submitted recently in support of the planning application for a superstore at the former Scottish Power Site in Portobello, your ref: 03/03021/OUT.
Having studied this document I am surprised and dismayed to note that its scope does not include the junction of Portobello High Street with Brighton Place. This is already a very busy junction at peak times and given its proximity to the proposed development we feel very strongly that it would have to be taken into account in any model of projected traffic movements.
Several local residents have raised this issue with the association. Their concerns are not confined to the obvious congestion problems that would undoubtedly result, but also the inherent noise pollution and air quality issues.
In omitting this junction the study lacks credibility and its conclusions are seriously flawed. In order to guage the impact this development would have on local traffic we need a much more sophisticated model that includes projected traffic movements in all of the inter-related surrounding streets and junctions. We already see how Portobello High Street has become a bottle-neck at peak times, with traffic backed up all the way along Seafield Road.
On behalf of the 220 householders who are members of the association I respectfully request that you revise the scope of this study to include this junction and to insist on a more thorough analysis that considers the various junctions, roundabouts and crossings in totality in order that, as local residents, we are to able to judge this application fairly on its merits.
Regards
Bob Jefferson
Joint Chair
Brightons Residents Associaton
OK, have emailed my obections to the committee, and am very grateful for the link on here to a ready made letter complete with email addresses! I used it with a few additions of my own. Was slightly miffed though to get an immediate reply from Maureen Child, thanking someone called PAUL for his comments, when my letter said at both top and bottom "Paula J Williams, MISS"!!!
Ho hum. at least it's been received and acknowledged.
Incidentally, i've not met anyone interviewed for the retail impat study, nor did I see anyone doing one, in psite of being out and about in porty pretty much every day. Like other posters, i use Scotmid almost daily, Kitcheners and Findlays when i can, the hardware shop pretty regularly and all other local shops as much as possible. Funny then, that we've none of us seen anyone doing the study.
Hmm.
Paula
Ho hum. at least it's been received and acknowledged.
Incidentally, i've not met anyone interviewed for the retail impat study, nor did I see anyone doing one, in psite of being out and about in porty pretty much every day. Like other posters, i use Scotmid almost daily, Kitcheners and Findlays when i can, the hardware shop pretty regularly and all other local shops as much as possible. Funny then, that we've none of us seen anyone doing the study.
Hmm.
Paula
Superstore again!
Great - keep writing and emailing folks - I emailed an addendum (additional objections) to my second letter in - because I forgot to mention my concerns about emergency vehicle access if the roads are all blocked up by cars - traffic lights would be better than a roundabout in terms of safety, but if the volume of cars in hugely increased - they estimate weekend (Sat) people trips (in and out of the store) in excess of 2500 and over 1900 (PM trips), with 45% car drivers, and an additional 21% car passengers (total 66% by car) - these won't be able to keep the roads clear - it'll be bumper to bumper as it is at the moment at peak, espec pm, times....
like Paula, follow the link on this website (earlier) or on the Campaign Website at www.pcats.org.uk for sample letters etc - we got 10 signed on the PHSt on Sat - and heard of Churches etc sendi ng in letters....the more the better - this is our only chance to stop this - Carla
like Paula, follow the link on this website (earlier) or on the Campaign Website at www.pcats.org.uk for sample letters etc - we got 10 signed on the PHSt on Sat - and heard of Churches etc sendi ng in letters....the more the better - this is our only chance to stop this - Carla
As a resident of Brighton Place, many thanks Bob for the letter you sent in as joint chair of BRA. In my original letter of objection to the proposed supermarket development I mentioned also the vibration that is felt as traffic rumbles past (on our picturesque but poorly cobbled street). There are some disconcerting cracks in our property, which alarmed at least one surveyor. It may be a conservation area that has stood since the 1820's, but ask any of the householders (or just sit on a bench in Brighton Park to feel the earth move for yourself) and they will have the same concerns for the future of their property. An increase in traffic is not what we need!
I'm keen to add to my last letter of objection but don't want to merely repeat what I said in my initial letter. Has some one got a handy link to a suitable draft letter of objection that is concerned with just the inadequacies of the recent "independent" studies? I've looked at the recent links but the letter on the CATS site is outdated now.
I'm keen to add to my last letter of objection but don't want to merely repeat what I said in my initial letter. Has some one got a handy link to a suitable draft letter of objection that is concerned with just the inadequacies of the recent "independent" studies? I've looked at the recent links but the letter on the CATS site is outdated now.
-
Guest
Marya
I just emailed you a copy of the response from Mr Tottman, but I'll paste it below for the interest of other people:
I just emailed you a copy of the response from Mr Tottman, but I'll paste it below for the interest of other people:
Dear Mr Jefferson
I will be meeting the Developers Transportation Consultant on Wednesday next week and will be raising the points you mention, as well as a considerable number of other issues.
I fully agree that the Brighton Place/Bath Street junction should be included in the scope, and is required to complete the modelling for the Transport Assessment.
I would like to advise that all issues that Transportation has with this Development and the Transport Assessment would require to be satisfactorily resolved prior to Transport's response to the Planning Case Officer. Not having any issues satisfactorily resolved will result in a recommendation for refusal from Transportation based on the unresolved issues. Due to the current number of unresolved issues, I would expect this process to take some considerable time and will endeavour to keep you informed.
Kind regards
Mike Tottman
Professional Officer
City Development, Transport Planning (Development Control)
The City of Edinburgh Council
1 Cockburn Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1BJ
Tel: 0131 529 3907 Fax:0131 529 3928
email: mike.tottman@edinburgh.gov.uk
Superstore Planning Application - latest
I have been asked to post information on behalf of PCATS (Portobello Campaign Against the Superstore) as some people have been asking about where the planning application is at now.
The Traffic Impact Analysis and the Retail Impact Study are available to view on the Edinburgh Council website on the Planning portal website address: www.edinburgh.gov.uk. Bob Jefferson has kindly downloaded copies and placed them in Rosefield library for people to scrutinise.
The deadline for further comment is Friday 16 January. Please either post your replies to Alan Henderson, Head of Planning and Strategy, City Development Department City of Edinburgh Council, 1 Cockburn Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1ZJ or e-mail: alan.henderson@edinburgh.gov.uk
Some useful points to make if you don't have time to look at the studies are:
There would be an additional 1150 vehicles entering and leaving the site per hour at peak times. That means 20 additional cars per minute! This will exacerbate congestion, air pollution and accident rates and will cause tailbacks on all surrounding roads.
The developers want to have 50 car parking places over and above the standard allowed for this size and type of development.
The new store is outside the existing defined Portobello shopping area.
The new store is not integrated in location, scale or character with the existing shopping area.
We already have a supermarket at the heart of Portobello, i.e. Scotmid, which because of its size is considered to be a "major" store in retail terms.
The retail impact study fails to look at the long-term impact on the existing retail structure in Portobello.
Get writing folks!
We don't yet know when this will be going to committee but will keep you posted. Keep checking www.pcats.org.uk for the latest information.
Diana
The Traffic Impact Analysis and the Retail Impact Study are available to view on the Edinburgh Council website on the Planning portal website address: www.edinburgh.gov.uk. Bob Jefferson has kindly downloaded copies and placed them in Rosefield library for people to scrutinise.
The deadline for further comment is Friday 16 January. Please either post your replies to Alan Henderson, Head of Planning and Strategy, City Development Department City of Edinburgh Council, 1 Cockburn Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1ZJ or e-mail: alan.henderson@edinburgh.gov.uk
Some useful points to make if you don't have time to look at the studies are:
There would be an additional 1150 vehicles entering and leaving the site per hour at peak times. That means 20 additional cars per minute! This will exacerbate congestion, air pollution and accident rates and will cause tailbacks on all surrounding roads.
The developers want to have 50 car parking places over and above the standard allowed for this size and type of development.
The new store is outside the existing defined Portobello shopping area.
The new store is not integrated in location, scale or character with the existing shopping area.
We already have a supermarket at the heart of Portobello, i.e. Scotmid, which because of its size is considered to be a "major" store in retail terms.
The retail impact study fails to look at the long-term impact on the existing retail structure in Portobello.
Get writing folks!
We don't yet know when this will be going to committee but will keep you posted. Keep checking www.pcats.org.uk for the latest information.
Diana
-
Guest
Diana
Thanks for the update. On the subject of parking, the following quote is from the Traffic Impact Study:
[quote]“…consideration is being given to the provision of additional parking spaces which may be used by other users of Portobello High Street. Portobello High Street currently experiences congestion due to cars parked on-street, additional off-street parking at the development site could alleviate these problems.â€Â
Thanks for the update. On the subject of parking, the following quote is from the Traffic Impact Study:
[quote]“…consideration is being given to the provision of additional parking spaces which may be used by other users of Portobello High Street. Portobello High Street currently experiences congestion due to cars parked on-street, additional off-street parking at the development site could alleviate these problems.â€Â
2nd message from CATS
see also message from diana cairns above and Bob - I've also been asked by the Camp Ag The Superstore (CATS) to put a message on - to say a very big thank you to all those who have supported the campaign to stop this monster store from killing off our community, shops, etc - lots of people have helped so far by letter writing (50 letters completed on the High St in about 2 1/2 hrs alone), leafletting, and donating time and money - CATS expect our campaign will need to go on for a while - even if the application is turned down (we hope) they can come back with another and another etc etc - your support is vital and, if you can afford it, our Treasurer has asked me to say a donation, however small, would be very very helpful for leaflets, posters etc -
If you want to donate direct you can go into the Bank of Scotland, 153 Porty High St and donate to our a/c: C.A.T.S., Branch Code: 80-18-31 a/c no: 00842504 or send a cheque payable to C.A.T.S., c/o D.Alexander, 32 Marlborough St, EH15 2BJ or hand in to Kitchener's Deli (for Graham to hand to us). Many, many thanks and keep writing those letters, emails etc - Carla (aka Caroline Hosking!)
If you want to donate direct you can go into the Bank of Scotland, 153 Porty High St and donate to our a/c: C.A.T.S., Branch Code: 80-18-31 a/c no: 00842504 or send a cheque payable to C.A.T.S., c/o D.Alexander, 32 Marlborough St, EH15 2BJ or hand in to Kitchener's Deli (for Graham to hand to us). Many, many thanks and keep writing those letters, emails etc - Carla (aka Caroline Hosking!)
environmental pollution
Is anyone else worried about the fumes, noise, 24 hour light pollution, not to mention things called particulates (cause serious illness) which come from car and lorry fumes, associated with an extra 1000-2000 cars per day not to mention 40 tonne trucks???
I was happy when I heard that Cllr Bob Cairns, as 'executive member
for Environmental Services ' said" Environmental and
Consumer Services will be consulted on this application and in their report will consider issues of noise, air pollution and related matters which concern you. Environmental Services report will be taken into account by Planning when they make their recommendations on the application."
however, it seems we are not getting an Environmental Impact Study - as per message from Cllr Marshall who was advised by the Planning Officer "I would remind you that we have not and will not be requiring the submission of an Environmental Assessment in this case as the development falls outwith the criteria defined by the Scottish Executive. The applicant has been advised accordingly."
I would strongly suggest that the Council should do an environmental study, or at the minimum Environmental Health services should be asked to write a thorough report to answer our concerns locally. As I understand it, legislation gives the Council a responsibility for monitoring pollution and seriously considering the effects of new developments in terms of air quality, noise, light and other pollution - which makes sense. It should also surely think about the effect on neighbouring houses.
The deadline for objections to the Planning Application is Friday 16th Jan - email or write in to Councillors by this date on this matter as well as all our other objections - ask that they are seriously considered -
Email all or at least the chair (CllrTrevor Davies) of the Planning Committee and local Cllrs if you agree: trevor.davies@edinburgh.gov.uk lawrence.marshall@edinburgh.gov.uk allan.laing@edinburgh.gov.uk
chris.wigglesworth@edinburgh.gov.uk
george.hunter@edinburgh.gov.uk
gordon.munro@edinburgh.gov.uk ian.murray@edinburgh.gov.uk
john.longstaff@edinburgh.gov.uk ken.harrold@edinburgh.gov.uk
maureen.child@edinburgh.gov.uk sheila.gilmore@edinburgh.gov.uk
sue.tritton@edinburgh.gov.uk
david.guest@edinburgh.gov.uk
tom.ponton@edinburgh.gov.uk
You could also email your Constituency MSP, who has expressed her support for the Campaign to stop the Superstore (Susan Deacon MSP) on susan.deacon.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
we only have one chance to stop this - at Council Planning Committee - get emailing even if you have already! and thanks! Carla
I was happy when I heard that Cllr Bob Cairns, as 'executive member
for Environmental Services ' said" Environmental and
Consumer Services will be consulted on this application and in their report will consider issues of noise, air pollution and related matters which concern you. Environmental Services report will be taken into account by Planning when they make their recommendations on the application."
however, it seems we are not getting an Environmental Impact Study - as per message from Cllr Marshall who was advised by the Planning Officer "I would remind you that we have not and will not be requiring the submission of an Environmental Assessment in this case as the development falls outwith the criteria defined by the Scottish Executive. The applicant has been advised accordingly."
I would strongly suggest that the Council should do an environmental study, or at the minimum Environmental Health services should be asked to write a thorough report to answer our concerns locally. As I understand it, legislation gives the Council a responsibility for monitoring pollution and seriously considering the effects of new developments in terms of air quality, noise, light and other pollution - which makes sense. It should also surely think about the effect on neighbouring houses.
The deadline for objections to the Planning Application is Friday 16th Jan - email or write in to Councillors by this date on this matter as well as all our other objections - ask that they are seriously considered -
Email all or at least the chair (CllrTrevor Davies) of the Planning Committee and local Cllrs if you agree: trevor.davies@edinburgh.gov.uk lawrence.marshall@edinburgh.gov.uk allan.laing@edinburgh.gov.uk
chris.wigglesworth@edinburgh.gov.uk
george.hunter@edinburgh.gov.uk
gordon.munro@edinburgh.gov.uk ian.murray@edinburgh.gov.uk
john.longstaff@edinburgh.gov.uk ken.harrold@edinburgh.gov.uk
maureen.child@edinburgh.gov.uk sheila.gilmore@edinburgh.gov.uk
sue.tritton@edinburgh.gov.uk
david.guest@edinburgh.gov.uk
tom.ponton@edinburgh.gov.uk
You could also email your Constituency MSP, who has expressed her support for the Campaign to stop the Superstore (Susan Deacon MSP) on susan.deacon.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
we only have one chance to stop this - at Council Planning Committee - get emailing even if you have already! and thanks!
Carlahotting up!
I have received the reassurance message below from Cllr Robert Cairns. However, as environmental issues such as pollution of air, noise, light etc will NOT be the subject of a separate Impact Study, I am not sure how much, if any, chance the public will have to comment on the Report to go to the Planning Committee.
It would, therefore, be good if people can try to find this out, as I will. If the Planning Committee get enough people contacting them with this concern, perhaps we might find out in advance what the advice to Planning Department on environmental concerns is. Issues are: pollution increasing from car and lorry fumes; increased noise (24 hour -including loading/unloading)and vibration from traffic to nearby houses and flats; light pollution from 24 hour store car park and petrol station; etc etc. We also need to know what the environmental impact on nearby flats and houses will be which is not mentioned in the email from Cllr Cairns.
so my request and advice is keep writing and trying to find this out! Caroline/Carla!
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Robert Cairns" <robert.cairns@edinburgh.gov.uk>
CC: "Trevor Davies" <trevor.davies@edinburgh.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: Environmental Impact Study - Scottish Power former site
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:51:16 -0000
Dear
I can confirm (as stated in my e-mail to X) which you append to your
own e-mail) that Environmental Servivces will advise Planning on noise, air
pollution and related matters so that these issues will be taken into
account when this planning application is assessed.
Yours sincerly
Cllr R Cairns
It would, therefore, be good if people can try to find this out, as I will. If the Planning Committee get enough people contacting them with this concern, perhaps we might find out in advance what the advice to Planning Department on environmental concerns is. Issues are: pollution increasing from car and lorry fumes; increased noise (24 hour -including loading/unloading)and vibration from traffic to nearby houses and flats; light pollution from 24 hour store car park and petrol station; etc etc. We also need to know what the environmental impact on nearby flats and houses will be which is not mentioned in the email from Cllr Cairns.
so my request and advice is keep writing and trying to find this out! Caroline/Carla!
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Robert Cairns" <robert.cairns@edinburgh.gov.uk>
CC: "Trevor Davies" <trevor.davies@edinburgh.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: Environmental Impact Study - Scottish Power former site
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:51:16 -0000
Dear
I can confirm (as stated in my e-mail to X) which you append to your
own e-mail) that Environmental Servivces will advise Planning on noise, air
pollution and related matters so that these issues will be taken into
account when this planning application is assessed.
Yours sincerly
Cllr R Cairns
watch the planning website!
I got this from the Convener of Planning Cttee just now - I guess this helps but do keep firing in the emails and letters even if after the deadline - we need to make sure they know how important this is for our community. Message reads:
You can use the planning website and this information will be posted - along
with everythying else - once it is ready
www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning
Councillor Trevor Davies
City Chambers
High Street
Edinburgh EH1 1YJ
0131 529 3221
trevor.davies@edinburgh.gov.uk"
PS (from Caroline) you may need the Planning Application ref no which is: 03/03021/OUT - some people have reported problems in accessing this at various times - you can ring them on 529 3221 if this happens to ask how to access the info and what the current situation is (Ian Smith is the Planning Officer) C
You can use the planning website and this information will be posted - along
with everythying else - once it is ready
www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning
Councillor Trevor Davies
City Chambers
High Street
Edinburgh EH1 1YJ
0131 529 3221
trevor.davies@edinburgh.gov.uk"
PS (from Caroline) you may need the Planning Application ref no which is: 03/03021/OUT - some people have reported problems in accessing this at various times - you can ring them on 529 3221 if this happens to ask how to access the info and what the current situation is (Ian Smith is the Planning Officer) C
Planning Phone no
sorry - Planning Dept phone no is 529 3598 - 1 Cockburn St, EH1 - the no above is the direct line for Cllr Trevor Davies, Convener, which might also be helpful, C
-
Guest
Anyone who still hasn't written their letter of objection in response to the traffic and retail impact studies might glean some useful points from the following:
[quote]Dear Mr Henderson
Erection of Superstore at Portobello High Street 03/03021/OUT
I am writing on behalf of Brightons Residents Association, representing 220 households in Portobello, to outline our specific concerns arising from the Transport Assessment and the Retail Assessment which have been carried out in relation to this application.
Transport Assessment
We are extremely concerned about the additional traffic that this development would generate; another 1100 vehicles entering and leaving the site at peak times cannot be accommodated, even taking into account the road improvements which would be made. Looking at Table 6.12 and 6.13 in the report it is hard to accept that, even with low traffic growth between 2005 and 2015, the flow of traffic through the junctions to the development will not increase significantly. Buses will face increased congestion due to increased traffic, producing more air pollution. Portobello High Street is already extremely congested at peak times and this development would produce complete gridlock. In many respects, the major catchment area will be Portobello and Joppa, with much of the traffic using the High Street as access. Also, it is incorrect to state that the Seafield roundabout operates at near capacity. There are considerable delays at peak periods on all the main roads approaching this roundabout. The potential for increased road accidents with the increase in traffic seems to have been completely overlooked.
The Transport Assessment makes no mention of the fact that vehicles could also enter and leave the site from Sir Harry Lauder Road via Baileyfield Crescent. This is another area of concern, as traffic waiting to turn in to the site from Sir Harry Lauder Road could tail back as far as the Seafield roundabout. We are also very concerned about the impact on the Brighton Place/Portobello High Street junction.
The report does not mention the increased heavy goods vehicle traffic that will deliver to the site nor the existing problem for articulated car transporters delivering to the adjacent car showroom that have to reverse down Fishwives Causeway. This would presumably go against the flow of the intended car access to the supermarket and petrol filling station.
The developers, in proposing 445 spaces, are asking for an additional 62 spaces over and above the standard for this size of development. However, elsewhere they suggest that many people will walk or use public transport to travel to the superstore - so why are the extra spaces required? The assertion that people will park at the superstore and walk to the shops in the centre of Portobello is entirely spurious. There is already ample public parking at Bridge Street, at the Pitz and the Indoor Bowling Centre which is not used by people who shop by car in Portobello.
We would dispute the fact that only 66% of shoppers would arrive by car; recent surveys have shown that over 90% of shoppers at the Gyle travel there by car, despite the fact that it is close to residential housing and well served by public transport.
Fishwives Causeway is a recognised cycle route from Portobello to the city centre. This seems to have been overlooked, as has the whole issue of cycling which only merits scant mention but interestingly the report talks about cycle routes in Glasgow! This raises the question of how carefully this whole report has been prepared.
Tentative proposals exist for the development of the former Freightliner terminal. If these came to fruition there could be considerable traffic generated from this site and it would be reasonable to consider this along with the former Scottish Power site.
Retail Assessment
The report does not look at the long term impact of this development on existing local retailers, yet there is ample evidence elsewhere in the city of the decline of small local retailers brought about by the erection of large superstores, for example, Easter Road which has been hit by the retail development at Meadowbank and the impact of the Gyle shopping centre and Tesco superstore on Corstorphine. The North East Edinburgh Local Plan (NEELP) policy S1 states that new shopping developments adjacent to existing shopping centres should:
• complement the centre in its existing role
• be appropriate in scale and character to its location and well integrated with the centre in design terms
• not be likely to affect adversely the vitality and viability of any other district centre.
We do not believe that this development would satisfy any of these criteria, as the supermarket would duplicate what the existing retail centre offers, therefore would not be complementary. It would also adversely affect the vitality and viability of the existing centre. The building would certainly not be integrated with the centre in terms of its location or design. It would not, as an “edge-of-centreâ€Â
[quote]Dear Mr Henderson
Erection of Superstore at Portobello High Street 03/03021/OUT
I am writing on behalf of Brightons Residents Association, representing 220 households in Portobello, to outline our specific concerns arising from the Transport Assessment and the Retail Assessment which have been carried out in relation to this application.
Transport Assessment
We are extremely concerned about the additional traffic that this development would generate; another 1100 vehicles entering and leaving the site at peak times cannot be accommodated, even taking into account the road improvements which would be made. Looking at Table 6.12 and 6.13 in the report it is hard to accept that, even with low traffic growth between 2005 and 2015, the flow of traffic through the junctions to the development will not increase significantly. Buses will face increased congestion due to increased traffic, producing more air pollution. Portobello High Street is already extremely congested at peak times and this development would produce complete gridlock. In many respects, the major catchment area will be Portobello and Joppa, with much of the traffic using the High Street as access. Also, it is incorrect to state that the Seafield roundabout operates at near capacity. There are considerable delays at peak periods on all the main roads approaching this roundabout. The potential for increased road accidents with the increase in traffic seems to have been completely overlooked.
The Transport Assessment makes no mention of the fact that vehicles could also enter and leave the site from Sir Harry Lauder Road via Baileyfield Crescent. This is another area of concern, as traffic waiting to turn in to the site from Sir Harry Lauder Road could tail back as far as the Seafield roundabout. We are also very concerned about the impact on the Brighton Place/Portobello High Street junction.
The report does not mention the increased heavy goods vehicle traffic that will deliver to the site nor the existing problem for articulated car transporters delivering to the adjacent car showroom that have to reverse down Fishwives Causeway. This would presumably go against the flow of the intended car access to the supermarket and petrol filling station.
The developers, in proposing 445 spaces, are asking for an additional 62 spaces over and above the standard for this size of development. However, elsewhere they suggest that many people will walk or use public transport to travel to the superstore - so why are the extra spaces required? The assertion that people will park at the superstore and walk to the shops in the centre of Portobello is entirely spurious. There is already ample public parking at Bridge Street, at the Pitz and the Indoor Bowling Centre which is not used by people who shop by car in Portobello.
We would dispute the fact that only 66% of shoppers would arrive by car; recent surveys have shown that over 90% of shoppers at the Gyle travel there by car, despite the fact that it is close to residential housing and well served by public transport.
Fishwives Causeway is a recognised cycle route from Portobello to the city centre. This seems to have been overlooked, as has the whole issue of cycling which only merits scant mention but interestingly the report talks about cycle routes in Glasgow! This raises the question of how carefully this whole report has been prepared.
Tentative proposals exist for the development of the former Freightliner terminal. If these came to fruition there could be considerable traffic generated from this site and it would be reasonable to consider this along with the former Scottish Power site.
Retail Assessment
The report does not look at the long term impact of this development on existing local retailers, yet there is ample evidence elsewhere in the city of the decline of small local retailers brought about by the erection of large superstores, for example, Easter Road which has been hit by the retail development at Meadowbank and the impact of the Gyle shopping centre and Tesco superstore on Corstorphine. The North East Edinburgh Local Plan (NEELP) policy S1 states that new shopping developments adjacent to existing shopping centres should:
• complement the centre in its existing role
• be appropriate in scale and character to its location and well integrated with the centre in design terms
• not be likely to affect adversely the vitality and viability of any other district centre.
We do not believe that this development would satisfy any of these criteria, as the supermarket would duplicate what the existing retail centre offers, therefore would not be complementary. It would also adversely affect the vitality and viability of the existing centre. The building would certainly not be integrated with the centre in terms of its location or design. It would not, as an “edge-of-centreâ€Â
Superstore
objections registered with Mr Henderson this week
-
Guest
Woo hoo! The superstore thread overtakes Granny's Attic to become the most viewed topic EVER on the discussion forum!
The following is a copy of a letter that neighbours of mine have sent to Planning. They are a retired couple who have lived in Portobello for many years:
The following is a copy of a letter that neighbours of mine have sent to Planning. They are a retired couple who have lived in Portobello for many years:
Dear Mr Henderson
Re: Planning Application Ref. 03/03021/OUT
We are writing to state that our viewpoint is unchanged from 10th September 2003 – the date of our strong objection to the proposal for a superstore and carpark to be built on the former Scottish Power site at Baileyfield. The Traffic Impact Study makes not an iota of difference to the fact that the objectives on the Statement of Urban Design Principles for Baileyfield would mean nothing if the Planning Committee views this proposal favourably.
We refer you to sections from the Statement as follows:-
‘Sensitive interpretation and a high quality urban and architectural design response requires to be sought after’ and ‘New development should respect the history and context of the site and its surroundings’.
More housing is required to harmonize with the existing Baileyfield Road houses, with accompanying restful, green areas. A museum on this site would be beneficial to Portobello to house so many existing objects and articles, the conservation of which would enable future generations to understand how the town came to be and all the industries which developed. As members of Portobello History Society we would support this idea wholeheartedly.
As regards car parking facilities, there is a reasonable car park area in Bridge Street, which could do with better signposting.
The gateway referred to in the Statement of Urban Design Principles for Baileyfield needs to be a positive entrance to a living Portobello – not another characterless consumer edifice. Portobello’s own coat of arms should be incorporated on the frontage of the gateway building.
Referring again to the Traffic Impact Study, the Brighton Place/High Street/Bath Street cross junction seems to have been ignored. Traffic there is particularly heavy at rush hours and safety, noise pollution and air quality are all issues which would require to be investigated and findings included in any future Study.
Please do not inflict this store on us – it is not needed, most definitely unwanted and would only bring further traffic chaos endangering lives. We have more than enough problems already on all the roads at Kings Road roundabout - as honest surveys would undoubtedly show.
Yours sincerely
Mitchell Buildings
I am posting this for Gemini: (she can't log in )
"it would be helpful for our objections if we could find out exactly why the Mitchell Buildings that fronted Porty High Street West (where the kwik fit and jet are now located) were demolished! At the Public Meeting and elderly gentleman mentioned that these buildings were demolished due to subsidence! how unusual !! Incidentally I have been advised by a Employee of Laidlaws that part of their forecourt caved in!!
I have noted that the pavements in the Causeway are 'caving in' at the Porty High Street Junction,
The one just outside the 'Baileyfield Garage' was repaired and has subsequently 'caved in again' ( this has been ongoing for nearly 2 years) It is apparent by just looking into the cavity that there are 'voids' under the pavement. There is also other evidence of this on the pavement on the Causeway just up past the entrance to the old SP site.
The upshot is - we believe that if the Superstore goes ahead along with the PFS - we cannot imagine that the Store would be allowed to use another entrance further west on the High Street to Service the store - this would be madness ( but hey!!) So in reality the Fishwives Causeway would be used for 'all traffic' for the development.
I fear that this area could not bear the weight of increased cars far less the movement of 40 tonne delivery vehicles/Petrol Delivery vehicles ( I would assume that these would also use the Causeway entrance!!).
Another fear we have in the immediate area is that due to the instability of the ground there is concern that Gas mains/Communication lines would be affected by the shifting substrata - due to development works and increased load bearings not to mention the most important factor of 'fluctuating water levels' in an area of unconsolidated fill which is prone to saturation!!
The Gas Company had major problems with laying new Gas pipes in Baileyfield Crescent - it took them about a year to install!!
I will flag up here that the 'main sewer' running behind the cottages in BR 'ruptured' the sewer was lying under 4ft of 'whatever' copy e-mail inadvertently received by myself from Water to Scot Exec. asked 'has the whole area settled'.
Sorry if this is a bit technical, but you realise the problems that would ensue whatever goes on that site!! Ian Smith advised me that the developers would be responsible for any damage to the properties!! we are 18 years down the road of proving the 'HLR' is the source of our problems to date - Can you imagine us trying to get anywhere with Developers!! I rest my case!!" anyone any info on the Mitchell Buildings and particularly the info about them sinking etc please post here!
"it would be helpful for our objections if we could find out exactly why the Mitchell Buildings that fronted Porty High Street West (where the kwik fit and jet are now located) were demolished! At the Public Meeting and elderly gentleman mentioned that these buildings were demolished due to subsidence! how unusual !! Incidentally I have been advised by a Employee of Laidlaws that part of their forecourt caved in!!
I have noted that the pavements in the Causeway are 'caving in' at the Porty High Street Junction,
The one just outside the 'Baileyfield Garage' was repaired and has subsequently 'caved in again' ( this has been ongoing for nearly 2 years) It is apparent by just looking into the cavity that there are 'voids' under the pavement. There is also other evidence of this on the pavement on the Causeway just up past the entrance to the old SP site.
The upshot is - we believe that if the Superstore goes ahead along with the PFS - we cannot imagine that the Store would be allowed to use another entrance further west on the High Street to Service the store - this would be madness ( but hey!!) So in reality the Fishwives Causeway would be used for 'all traffic' for the development.
I fear that this area could not bear the weight of increased cars far less the movement of 40 tonne delivery vehicles/Petrol Delivery vehicles ( I would assume that these would also use the Causeway entrance!!).
Another fear we have in the immediate area is that due to the instability of the ground there is concern that Gas mains/Communication lines would be affected by the shifting substrata - due to development works and increased load bearings not to mention the most important factor of 'fluctuating water levels' in an area of unconsolidated fill which is prone to saturation!!
The Gas Company had major problems with laying new Gas pipes in Baileyfield Crescent - it took them about a year to install!!
I will flag up here that the 'main sewer' running behind the cottages in BR 'ruptured' the sewer was lying under 4ft of 'whatever' copy e-mail inadvertently received by myself from Water to Scot Exec. asked 'has the whole area settled'.
Sorry if this is a bit technical, but you realise the problems that would ensue whatever goes on that site!! Ian Smith advised me that the developers would be responsible for any damage to the properties!! we are 18 years down the road of proving the 'HLR' is the source of our problems to date - Can you imagine us trying to get anywhere with Developers!! I rest my case!!" anyone any info on the Mitchell Buildings and particularly the info about them sinking etc please post here!
Part of a E-mail received from Lawrence Marshall a few days ago, that those of the forum not on Lawrences list may find interesting.
Full report can be found at the following link
(www.guardian.co.uk/supermarkets)
Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Thursday January 22, 2004
The Guardian
One of the last towns in England without a supermarket, Sheringham in north Norfolk, is set to lose its vibrant shopping centre after a series of secret deals between Norfolk councils and Tesco.
Britain's most successful supermarket chain has already opened stores in once thriving towns in Norfolk. This has caused havoc among the family businesses and weekly markets which have given the area a special quality, attracting many for family holidays.
But while getting prime sites in other towns has been relatively easy, it has taken seven years for Tesco, in negotiations with council officials, to get the position it needs in Sheringham and potentially dominate shopping in north Norfolk.
First, the town centre map was redrawn to accommodate the site. Now the community centre, the fire station, a block of flats for social housing and a row of flint cottages, which currently occupy it, are to be demolished to allow Tesco to build a superstore to serve 38,000 people in the region - though only 7,000 live in Sheringham.
Only after the deals had been done was planning permission applied for and councillors informed.
John Sweeney, leader of the Liberal Democrat-controlled North Norfolk district council, says he believes the councillors will now be unable to stop Tesco. "They [Tesco] are too big and powerful for us. If we try and deny them they will appeal, and we cannot afford to fight a planning appeal and lose. If they got costs it would bankrupt us."
The fire station would be rebuilt across the road, he said. The community centre would be rebuilt a mile away, and would be a better building, and the 14 flats would be replaced by 11 old people's bungalows on the town's allotments, if the council gave permission.
Andy Mitchell, planning development officer for North Norfolk, defended the negotiations with Tesco. "When a company comes to us and asks what is required for a successful planning application we tell them. If they then go away and negotiate with another part of the council, say the housing department, to get control of the flats, then that is up to them.
"They have also dealt with the owners of the land, Norfolk county council. What agreements are reached about the community centre and the fire station do not affect the advice we give. There is nothing in the planning rules to stop a supermarket on this site."
Tesco's plans for Sheringham are part of a battle to dominate food shopping in the vast rural area of north Norfolk being waged by the supermarkets. Budgen's and the Co-op believe in town centre stores, and Safeway has gained edge-of-town stores in Cromer and Fakenham - but Tesco is hoping to snuff out this competition.
Council planners are recommending the Sheringham store goes ahead at a meeting today. Eight out of 11 local councillors object to the store and are hoping to persuade a majority of the 22 councillors at today's meeting to reject it.
They fear for the future of family-owned businesses in the town. There are two bakers, two butchers, two wet fish shops, three greengrocers, two general food stores, two florists, two bookshops, three newsagents, and an ironmonger's which sells an astonishing range of goods, including four sorts of mole trap.
Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk, said: "I have written to the council expressing concern about conflict of interest. I do not want to interfere in local planning decisions, but Stalham, also in my constituency, has suffered badly because of Tesco. The decision by the district auditor to cut business rates by a third for the rest of Stalham town shows what an effect it had."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is it possible that bizarre outdated laws of the land could stymie our efforts in the campaign against the bureaucrats and the rich developers?
So let us not get complacent, frightening, and depressing as the report sounds the campaign must go on at all costs.
Full report can be found at the following link
(www.guardian.co.uk/supermarkets)
Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Thursday January 22, 2004
The Guardian
One of the last towns in England without a supermarket, Sheringham in north Norfolk, is set to lose its vibrant shopping centre after a series of secret deals between Norfolk councils and Tesco.
Britain's most successful supermarket chain has already opened stores in once thriving towns in Norfolk. This has caused havoc among the family businesses and weekly markets which have given the area a special quality, attracting many for family holidays.
But while getting prime sites in other towns has been relatively easy, it has taken seven years for Tesco, in negotiations with council officials, to get the position it needs in Sheringham and potentially dominate shopping in north Norfolk.
First, the town centre map was redrawn to accommodate the site. Now the community centre, the fire station, a block of flats for social housing and a row of flint cottages, which currently occupy it, are to be demolished to allow Tesco to build a superstore to serve 38,000 people in the region - though only 7,000 live in Sheringham.
Only after the deals had been done was planning permission applied for and councillors informed.
John Sweeney, leader of the Liberal Democrat-controlled North Norfolk district council, says he believes the councillors will now be unable to stop Tesco. "They [Tesco] are too big and powerful for us. If we try and deny them they will appeal, and we cannot afford to fight a planning appeal and lose. If they got costs it would bankrupt us."
The fire station would be rebuilt across the road, he said. The community centre would be rebuilt a mile away, and would be a better building, and the 14 flats would be replaced by 11 old people's bungalows on the town's allotments, if the council gave permission.
Andy Mitchell, planning development officer for North Norfolk, defended the negotiations with Tesco. "When a company comes to us and asks what is required for a successful planning application we tell them. If they then go away and negotiate with another part of the council, say the housing department, to get control of the flats, then that is up to them.
"They have also dealt with the owners of the land, Norfolk county council. What agreements are reached about the community centre and the fire station do not affect the advice we give. There is nothing in the planning rules to stop a supermarket on this site."
Tesco's plans for Sheringham are part of a battle to dominate food shopping in the vast rural area of north Norfolk being waged by the supermarkets. Budgen's and the Co-op believe in town centre stores, and Safeway has gained edge-of-town stores in Cromer and Fakenham - but Tesco is hoping to snuff out this competition.
Council planners are recommending the Sheringham store goes ahead at a meeting today. Eight out of 11 local councillors object to the store and are hoping to persuade a majority of the 22 councillors at today's meeting to reject it.
They fear for the future of family-owned businesses in the town. There are two bakers, two butchers, two wet fish shops, three greengrocers, two general food stores, two florists, two bookshops, three newsagents, and an ironmonger's which sells an astonishing range of goods, including four sorts of mole trap.
Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk, said: "I have written to the council expressing concern about conflict of interest. I do not want to interfere in local planning decisions, but Stalham, also in my constituency, has suffered badly because of Tesco. The decision by the district auditor to cut business rates by a third for the rest of Stalham town shows what an effect it had."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is it possible that bizarre outdated laws of the land could stymie our efforts in the campaign against the bureaucrats and the rich developers?
So let us not get complacent, frightening, and depressing as the report sounds the campaign must go on at all costs.
Portobello Campaign Against the Superstore - update
This is just to clarify exactly where we are with the campaign.
The Traffic and Retail Impact Assessments were made public in mid-December and people had until Friday 16 January to make any further objections.
It is not yet known when the application will be heard by the Planning Committee as, thanks to lobbying by PCATS, BRA and individual local residents, the Transport Officer has agreed to ask the developers to survey the Brighton Place/Portobello High Street junction (an omission from the first study), the High Street as a whole and Sir Harry Lauder Road and Baileyfield Crescent: another site access point which had not been considered by the original Traffic Assessment. This could all take "some considerable time" according to the Council's Transport Officer and we have been promised that we will have a further opportunity to comment on the findings of this additional study.
If you wish to see the response to the surveys submitted by the Portobello Campaign Against the Superstore you can view it on the website at www.pcats.org.uk
In the meantime, if you have not already done so, you can write to members of the planning committee (or at least the Convenor) to let them know the strength of feeling in the community about these proposals so that they can make an informed decision. The address to write to is c/o City Chambers, High Street Edinburgh, EH1 1YJ. Or you can e-mail them at the following addresses:
Cllr Trevor Davies, Convener - trevor.davies@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Lawrence Marshall (Portobello ward/
Vice Convener) - lawrence.marshall@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Allan Laing - allan.laing@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Chris Wigglesworth - chris.wigglesworth@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr George A Hunter - george.hunter@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Gordon Munro - gordon.munro@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Ian Murray - ian.murray@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr John A Longstaff - john.longstaff@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Kenneth Harrold - ken.harrold@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Maureen M Child (Milton ward) - maureen.child@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Sheila Gilmore - sheila.gilmore@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Susan B Tritton - sue.tritton@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr The Hon David W G Guest - david.guest@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Thomas V Ponton - tom.ponton@edinburgh.gov.uk
We will update you with further developments as they happen. Watch this space...
Finally, a big thank you to all those of you who have helped out with leafletting and writing letters; it's great to see the community in action!
Diana
The Traffic and Retail Impact Assessments were made public in mid-December and people had until Friday 16 January to make any further objections.
It is not yet known when the application will be heard by the Planning Committee as, thanks to lobbying by PCATS, BRA and individual local residents, the Transport Officer has agreed to ask the developers to survey the Brighton Place/Portobello High Street junction (an omission from the first study), the High Street as a whole and Sir Harry Lauder Road and Baileyfield Crescent: another site access point which had not been considered by the original Traffic Assessment. This could all take "some considerable time" according to the Council's Transport Officer and we have been promised that we will have a further opportunity to comment on the findings of this additional study.
If you wish to see the response to the surveys submitted by the Portobello Campaign Against the Superstore you can view it on the website at www.pcats.org.uk
In the meantime, if you have not already done so, you can write to members of the planning committee (or at least the Convenor) to let them know the strength of feeling in the community about these proposals so that they can make an informed decision. The address to write to is c/o City Chambers, High Street Edinburgh, EH1 1YJ. Or you can e-mail them at the following addresses:
Cllr Trevor Davies, Convener - trevor.davies@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Lawrence Marshall (Portobello ward/
Vice Convener) - lawrence.marshall@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Allan Laing - allan.laing@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Chris Wigglesworth - chris.wigglesworth@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr George A Hunter - george.hunter@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Gordon Munro - gordon.munro@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Ian Murray - ian.murray@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr John A Longstaff - john.longstaff@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Kenneth Harrold - ken.harrold@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Maureen M Child (Milton ward) - maureen.child@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Sheila Gilmore - sheila.gilmore@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Susan B Tritton - sue.tritton@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr The Hon David W G Guest - david.guest@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Thomas V Ponton - tom.ponton@edinburgh.gov.uk
We will update you with further developments as they happen. Watch this space...
Finally, a big thank you to all those of you who have helped out with leafletting and writing letters; it's great to see the community in action!
Diana
SUPERSTORE - URGENT UPDATE
Duddingston House Properties have this week lodged a further planning application for the site of the Jet petrol station at 5-15 Portobello High Street. The application is for permission to create 30 more parking spaces on top of the 445 they have already asked for in the original application, for associated landscaping and for re-siting of the bus stops next to Kwik Fit.
We should take this application just as seriously as the main one for the superstore because:
they appear to be trying to alter the original application by stealth;
if both this application and the superstore application are granted permission, they would be asking for a total of 92 more parking spaces than they are entitled to for this size and type of development;
the re-siting of the bus stops next to Kwik Fit and the Fishwives Causeway junction will cause additional congestion in the area, lead to queuing buses resulting in greater air pollution and increase the risk of accidents.
The reference for this latest planning application is 04/00188/OUT and objections must be made by Thursday 12 February. As before, the address to write to is:
Mr Alan Henderson
Head of Planning and Strategy
City Development Department
City of Edinburgh Council
1 Cockburn Street
EDINBURGH
EH1 1ZJ
(e-mail: alan.henderson@edinburgh.gov.uk)
It is as important to object to this application as it is to the original superstore application, as it is really an extension of the first one.
We should take this application just as seriously as the main one for the superstore because:
they appear to be trying to alter the original application by stealth;
if both this application and the superstore application are granted permission, they would be asking for a total of 92 more parking spaces than they are entitled to for this size and type of development;
the re-siting of the bus stops next to Kwik Fit and the Fishwives Causeway junction will cause additional congestion in the area, lead to queuing buses resulting in greater air pollution and increase the risk of accidents.
The reference for this latest planning application is 04/00188/OUT and objections must be made by Thursday 12 February. As before, the address to write to is:
Mr Alan Henderson
Head of Planning and Strategy
City Development Department
City of Edinburgh Council
1 Cockburn Street
EDINBURGH
EH1 1ZJ
(e-mail: alan.henderson@edinburgh.gov.uk)
It is as important to object to this application as it is to the original superstore application, as it is really an extension of the first one.
Thanks for the information - I have just sent an email to Mr Henderson about my objections. I would just like to say how glad I am that we have such good people in our community who do so much work, keeping up to date with the situation and keeping us informed, so much that we are able to join our voices easily. It has made it all much easier for me as people tell me to whom I need to write, where I can find them, and what sort of thing I might want to say.
Thank you - I very much hope that together the people of Portobello will win this fight.
paula
Thank you - I very much hope that together the people of Portobello will win this fight.
paula
-
Guest
One of the posts that was accidentally lost recently dealt with the online poll on our front page. With 57 votes cast so far an overwhelming 91% are against the proposals. However, we should also bear in mind that there are others who want the superstore. Again, I would invite the 4 people who have so far voted FOR the superstore to join this discussion, anonymously if they prefer, and state their reasons. Who knows, you may even persuade the rest of us of your case?
In the meantime, whether you are for or against this application, please tell your friends and neighbours about it and encourage them to vote. A large vote means the poll is more representative and therefore more meaningful.
In the meantime, whether you are for or against this application, please tell your friends and neighbours about it and encourage them to vote. A large vote means the poll is more representative and therefore more meaningful.