Superstore - New Petrol Station - Parking - New Access

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Nov 2006, 20:45

Update on the Red Giant and on PCATS

I mentioned at Sep PCC meeting that I may be able to get some info on what his happening with the supposed Metro interest in the RG. I duly approached my contacts and was initially able to establish that there was a general feeling that a substantial national retailer was interested in the site. Even although the commercial estate agency business in Edinburgh is nepotistic, I can't rate this info any higher than rumour.

I continued making enquiries and on Monday i recieved a letter from a very knowledgable and trusted commercial agent. He enclosed the EN article and said that there is a wall of silence aroung the negotiations, which is no less than he would expect until legal agreement was reached. Make of that what you will.

This post was moderated Thu 2 Nov 7.15 am

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Nov 2006, 18:37

From the minutes of the October CC meeting:

243.6 PCATS

Stephen Hawkins said there was nothing new to report since there had been no PCATS activity since March, though PCATS had remained vigilant in monitoring threatened developments and objecting where necessary, for example over Phoenix House and Tesco in Musselburgh. It was up to Portobello in general to determine the future of PCATS and its funds.

Stephen McIntyre reported that Trevor Davies of the City Council had assured him that there was now absolutely no chance of a superstore development in Portobello, in which case there was no further need for PCATS or its representation on the Community Council. He asked if PCATS was still considering employing a consultant to be involved with the redevelopment of Western Portobello; Stephen Hawkins replied that this was a possibility.

Sheila Scott argued that PCATS could not be disbanded until the redevelopment of the Scottish Power site was complete and without a superstore, and that the community needed to stick together over this important issue even while accommodating different views.

Tom Nimmo said that PCATS was needed until there wasnâ€™t a scrap of development land left in Portobello. Stephen McIntyre said it was not PCATSâ€™ job to get involved with other matters besides the superstore, and should not misrepresent any of its supporters; Diana Cairns referred to a poll of a thousand people, of whom only one objected to what PCATS was doing.

The Chairman emphasised the value of PCATS to our community, and didnâ€™t want to have any further discussion of its affairs at the Community Council. Stephen Hawkins said that PCATS would welcome constructive suggestions for the use of its remaining funds when the time came, and that there would be no further change meantime.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Nov 2006, 18:42

That is not what I said. No way was I pushing for PCATS to be removed from the Community Council. I sais so at the October meeting and I said so at the September meeting too.

I don't recall Robert Gatliff asking that there be no further discussion about PCATS at the CC. As I recall it was Diana Cairns who made the request and Bob guffawed what sounded like a disagreement.

The bit about the poll of 1000 is also inaccurate.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Nov 2006, 18:51

The minutes of any meeting are inevitably down to the subjective interpretation of the secretary. The minutes of the October meeting have yet to be approved so they are, as yet, provisional and open to challenge.

tom nimmo · Post by **tom nimmo** » 19 Nov 2006, 17:01

Actually Porty, I believe that you did say that there was no need for PCATS and its representatives to be on PCC. My response to this at the time is featured in the minutes but they have omitted the part where I said that I thought your comments were outrageous. ( I still believe they were, and I told you so when we met on another matter) It is true that the minutes cannot be agreed until the next PCC meeting so I hope you will attend to explain what you actually meant on the night.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Nov 2006, 17:15

Nope. I definitely did not want PCATS removed I said so in September, I said it again in October and I said so in my email request to the chairman when I requested that PCATS be added to the agenda.

I did say that given their stated purpose their place on the council was about as relevant as the "Save the outdoor Pool" campaign but I appreciated that vigilance is required and I am comfortable that they exist and are part of the community council.

Allow me to bring to your attention the proposal I put to PCATS and Robert Gatliif, Maureen Child, Lawrence Marshall and Nick Stroud regarding the funds that PCATS still have. As far as I am concerned the money is to be used for one purpose only unless unanimously agreed otherwise. I am still deeply unhappy about PCATS "consultant" proposal and I do not accept the sop. I am remaining vigilant and I won't have the CC or dc dictate what I can and cannot discuss.

I believe you must have mis-interpreted what I was saying, I wondered at the time , as quite honestly I can't see what is outrageous about the following, which was published here on POL months ago.

Why would I be suggesting a partnership with the community council whilst simultaneously asking for them to be removed. It doesn't make sense does it Tom?

[quote="Stephen McIntyre"]

Tuesday, 02 May 2006

Memo to: Stephen Hawkins and PCATS Committee

From: Stephen McIntyre, The Mortgage People

Subject: PCATS funds

Stephen,

Further to our meeting at my office on April 28th 2006 and our exchange of views, I thought it valuable to detail my suggested strategy for the remaining PCATS funds, which were raised on the following basis:

â€œPortobello Campaign Against The Superstore is a group of people who have got together to fight the proposed Superstore on the Scottish Power Site. The Group was set up by residents, following on from a successful petition started by traders. The Group is not aligned to any political party and anyone who is opposed to the Superstore Development on this site is welcome to join. Anyone who is committed to opposing the Planned Superstore can receive information from the Campaign..â€

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 19 Nov 2006, 22:21

If this suggestion had come from anyone else, then I'm sure that it would have been more favourably received. What Porty is proposing regarding the remaining funds is in itself perfectly reasonable. The money was raised by the community for a very specific purpose. The situation has now changed and some may feel that PCATS would be acting beyond their remit if, for example, they were to use this money to hire a consultant to represent 'the community' for the Portobello North West Masterplan.

If, on the other hand, any decison as to how the remaining funds were used rested with the Community Council, then no-one could have any cause for complaint. Ironically, the fact is that any proposition that PCATS put forward is almost certain to be overwhelmingly supported anyway, so what's the problem?

The reason that this has caused such a rumpus is that it is perceived by some as being part of a personal vendetta. And now it would appear that the whole subject is taboo. So much for free speech.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2006, 01:54

Bob Jefferson wrote:
The reason that this has caused such a rumpus is that it is perceived by some as being part of a personal vendetta. And now it would appear that the whole subject is taboo. So much for free speech.

So far I've not been afforded the opportunity to refute the "personal" aspect of this debate.

My conscience is clear, there is nothing personal between us. As far as I am concerned PCATS is an organisation. It is not just Stephen Hawkins and Diana Cairns, those people have their own views and they are keen to reinforce the differences.

Post moderated.

tom nimmo · Post by **tom nimmo** » 20 Nov 2006, 12:49

Of course it doesn't make sense Porty. This is the first time I have seen the letter you wrote on May 2nd and, as I would expect, it is perfectly reasonable. You say that you did not suggest that PCATS' time on the PCC was up, however, I think you may be surprised just how many people who were at the PCC meeting in October came away with exactly the same interpretation of your words that I did. Today I believe you have overstepped the mark by bringing into the public domain your current dispute with Diana. If I had a particular personal problem with the way you, or anyone else, behaved towards me I would never report it on this or any other forum. I am aware that it is possible for posters to go back and delete what they have said here and I would ask you to consider doing this. In my opinion, POL is not the place to broadcast personal issues.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2006, 13:42

tom nimmo wrote: Of course it doesn't make sense Porty. This is the first time I have seen the letter you wrote on May 2nd and, as I would expect, it is perfectly reasonable.

As I said Tom, the letter has been in the public domain almost since the day it was written. I am glad that you think its reasonable. It was the result of a lengthy chat I had with Stephen Hawkins.

Ever since, the situation has got more and more bizarre. PCATS will not identify who their committe are. They conducted a consultation to get support for employing a consultant and they claim to have "overwhelming" support and yet they don't do it. "The people have spoken, they have given us a clear and overwhelming signal that they are behind our proposal. Thanks very much for that but we ain't going to do it"

PCATS have the community's money and even when they consult, they do what they wish, even if it goes against the will of the people. They are a law unto themsleves. Do you think that this is acceptable?

I could hardly believe my ears when Stephen stated at the CC meeting that he had always said that he would wait and see if the counciil's consultation process was "opaque" before deciding to employ a consultant. He did not make this clear in his consultation document, in fact he didn't mention it. He didn't mention it to me in our meeting. I think he is making it up as he goes along. Holding community money is a sensitive business and a position of responsibility. It would be in PCATS best interests and ours to share that responsibility with the Community Council

Let me ask you a couple of questions. If PCATS had spent our Â£3000 on a consultant for the NW masterplan and subsequently it was discovered that there ia threat of a metro-store at the red giant. Would that have been a wise decision and in the best interests of PCATS supporters?

Can you provide a good reason for employing a consultant on the NW masterplan?

I don't have a personal issue with Diana Cairns. I have an issue with PCATS and Diana has chosen to play the personal card, you and a number of others have fallen for it. In my opinion this is because she doesn't want to or cannot engage on a factual and accountable basis.The only option is to attack the style, content or manner of the challenger.

You entered this debate without being fully informed. Here's how it goes; If a member of PCATS expresses an opinion or view on a matter other than a Superstore they are doing so an an indivdual. (I am an individual and I allowed to express my views I am not speaking for PCATS) conversely when someone (me) challenges PCATS all of a sudden its personal against the individual members. Its like Animal Farm.

I take your poiint abolut a public forum and dirty laundry but I think its preferable to the poisoned whispering tactics that have been used by others. They don't want public accounatbility, hence the demandt for no further PCATS discussion at community council meetings. A law unto thenselves is the nail on the head.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2006, 14:45

A question for you. PCATS have conducted what they claim is wide consultation, with over 1000 leaflets distributed. The result of that consultation was overwhelming in favour of their proposal (we don't know if there was 5, 10, 100 or 200 responses). Despite this overwhelming support they have not committed to their proposal. This shows a complete lack of integrity. Do you agree?

Post moderated.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 20 Nov 2006, 15:40

Not avoiding it - I've got no clue about the whole thing. I'd like to hear exactly what happened from more than one source before passing judgment. No offence to your judgment and considered opinion, but I've seen you make accusations of integrity-lacking recently only with regards to opinions/people/groups you disagree with. Others may have an opinion on whether this approach has integrity : I have mine.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 20 Nov 2006, 16:24

I'm sure it appears to you that the approach lacks integrity.

I'm sure it appears to the PCATS committee that the approach has integrity.

I'm sure not going to side with either of you or jump through any of your integrity hoops, but try and develop an opinion of my own - even though my only contribution to this fund was to buy a calendar which, if I had known contained images of pharmacists dressed as Jekyll & Hyde waving methadone I would never have bought.

My opinion is that the money should be used to stop big superstores appearing on that land when specific plans for them are unveiled - if this means that I am objectively pro-superstore by daring to suggest that they shouldn't spend the money on an expensive consultant to ensure that the masterplan doesn't zone the land as retail, but to save it in case we need it for a real battle, then heck - call me Mr Tesco.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2006, 18:04

Dadaist wrote:I'm sure it appears to you that the approach lacks integrity.

I'm sure it appears to the PCATS committee that the approach has integrity.

This is not about appearance. Its about PCATS waxing lyrical about how good their consutation was, how many people were included and the overwhelming support for the intention to employ a consultant. Then......no consultant is employed.

If you are going to make a big play of how you consulted some of your supporters than you better make sure you carry out their wishes, particulalry when their response is "overwhelming". If you don't then you lack integrity.
Lets say this argument blows over and PCATS don't employ a consultant and are left with the Â£3000. What process could Stephen Hawkins use to get agreement to spend the money? A process that we can have faith in.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2006, 18:17

Lets leave aside the PCATS consultation process for a while.

Dadaist wrote: - if this means that I am objectively pro-superstore by daring to suggest that they shouldn't spend the money on an expensive consultant to ensure that the masterplan doesn't zone the land as retail.....

What makes you think that a consultant could deliver the above? In what way does zoning give protection against a superstore proposal? (the site is zoned industrial and commercial at the moment)

Would you support the funds raised to stop the Superstore on the Scottish Power site being used to combat a Superstore proposal in say, Musselburgh?

It is very likely (and I know quite a few people who fall into this category) that many people who gave time and money to the superstore campaign would welcome a Metro type store on our high street. If PCATS decided to fight a Metro proposal, which is most probable, In your opinion would it be right and proper for supertore funds to be diveted to the metro store campaign without consultation?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 20 Nov 2006, 18:45

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:I'm sure it appears to you that the approach lacks integrity.

I'm sure it appears to the PCATS committee that the approach has integrity.
This is not about appearance. Its about PCATS waxing lyrical about how good their consutation was, how many people were included and the overwhelming support for the intention to employ a consultant. Then......no consultant is employed.

If you are going to make a big play of how you consulted some of your supporters than you better make sure you carry out their wishes, particulalry when their response is "overwhelming". If you don't then you lack integrity.
Lets say this argument blows over and PCATS don't employ a consultant and are left with the Â£3000. What process could Stephen Hawkins use to get agreement to spend the money? A process that we can have faith in.

PCATS could argue that they got an endorsement of the committee's desire to employ a consultant if they thought they should. If they decided against spending the money, they could argue that carrying out supporter's wishes was still being served, it was just that the committee was no longer wishing to employ the consultant.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 20 Nov 2006, 18:51

Porty wrote:Lets leave aside the PCATS consultation process for a while.

Dadaist wrote: - if this means that I am objectively pro-superstore by daring to suggest that they shouldn't spend the money on an expensive consultant to ensure that the masterplan doesn't zone the land as retail.....
What makes you think that a consultant could deliver the above?

I don't. I just thought that was why they were doing it. When I bought my calendar it didn't say "guaranteed to stop the superstore or your money back".

In what way does zoning give protection against a superstore proposal? (the site is zoned industrial and commercial at the moment)

I don't know. That was what I thought the consultant was for.

Would you support the funds raised to stop the Superstore on the Scottish Power site being used to combat a Superstore proposal in say, Musselburgh?

I already said I thought my calendar funds were for that superstore on that land.

It is very likely (and I know quite a few people who fall into this category) that many people who gave time and money to the superstore campaign would welcome a Metro type store on our high street. If PCATS decided to fight a Metro proposal, which is most probable, In your opinion would it be right and proper for supertore funds to be diveted to the metro store campaign without consultation?

That's slightly more difficult because they might be able to demonstrate that a Metro-style supermarket would have the same effect on our shops, but no - as I said, my addict-insulting calendar funds were for a particular superstore on a particular bit of land.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2006, 18:52

Dadaist wrote: PCATS could argue that they got an endorsement of the committee's desire to employ a consultant if they thought they should. If they decided against spending the money, they could argue that carrying out supporter's wishes was still being served, it was just that the committee was no longer wishing to employ the consultant.

In what way would not employing a consultant be carrying out the wishes of the supporters who overwhelmingly supported the employment of a consultant?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2006, 19:09

Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote: Lets leave aside the PCATS consultation process for a while.

Dadaist wrote: - if this means that I am objectively pro-superstore by daring to suggest that they shouldn't spend the money on an expensive consultant to ensure that the masterplan doesn't zone the land as retail.....
What makes you think that a consultant could deliver the above?
I don't. I just thought that was why they were doing it. When I bought my calendar it didn't say "guaranteed to stop the superstore or your money back"..

Accepted. However you were clear that one possible outcome was the prevention of a superstore. Yes?

In contrast the employment of a consultant could never secure a no superstore result, as the consultation takes place under planning law no consultant, group or individual can have such influence. There is no guarante that a consultant could even diminish the risk. I agree with you the money should only be spent when there is a real planning application and when there is unanimous agreement. In other word the same set of conditions that applied to the superstore plan for the Scottish Power site.

Porty wrote: In what way does zoning give protection against a superstore proposal? (the site is zoned industrial and commercial at the moment)

Dadaist wrote:I don't know. That was what I thought the consultant was for.

No offence but you must have made that up. I don't blame you . There was never an explanation as to why the consultant was being employed. Just take a look at the consultation proposal, its as clear as mud. I don't know what the consultant was for and I don't expect I will ever find out.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 20 Nov 2006, 19:13

No offence taken. Probably why I said "thought". I "thought" that was what the consultant was for. Didn't make that bit up, or at least I didn't think I did.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2006, 19:28

Dadaist wrote:That's slightly more difficult because they might be able to demonstrate that a Metro-style supermarket would have the same effect on our shops, .

I happen to think that a Metro store would have a worse effect on many of our shops so if I were consulted I don't think i would have a problem with the funds being used. However, I know for a fact that others feel differently about it. Therefore PCATS would likely find it impossible to demonstrate unanimous support for the transfer of funds.

Thi is why i believe using PCC as a sounding board and joint decision maker is such a good idea. PCATS could make their case, a discussion could be had and whatever decision is taken can be said to have community support. As the community council do represent the community whereas PCATS and their individual members don't.

Although you wouldn't neccesarily know that from statements like this:

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.
.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Dec 2006, 15:30

From today's EN:

Power site homes plan after plug pulled on superstore

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Dec 2006, 12:58

"It's very important to remember that the council planners were in favour of allowing the last scheme to go ahead."

I thought the Planners recommended refusal?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Dec 2006, 21:21

I imagine that most of you are on the email distribution lists of either Lawrence or Maureen and are consequently aware of the latest developments in the superstore application.

Posted below are links to the pdf versions of the two reports going before the Development Quality Sub-Committee next Wednesday (28 July 2004)

Warning - these files are large and will take a long time to download unless you have a broadband connection.

http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=46281

http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=46283

Alternatively, here is a brief synopsis taken (without permission) from Maureen's mail shot:

As you probably all know by now, the two applications for the superstore and associated car parking on the Scottish Power site, 3-15 Portobello High Street will be considered at Committee - the development quality sub-committee of Planning, to be really accurate - next Wednesday, 28 July, starting at 10am. The superstore applications are the second and third applications in line to be presented and the two reports are likely to be considered in tandem.

I now have the full papers and see that planning officers recommended that Committee take the view that they are 'minded to refuse' both applications. Because it is recommended as 'minded to refuse' and not 'minded to grant', there will not be a hearing where applicants and objectors would have been heard. Had the recommendation been the other way, there would have been a full hearing so that Committee could listen to and question both applicants and objectors' sides directly.

The grounds for the recommendation 'minded to refuse' are:

The proposed development will not make a positive contribution to the overall quality of the local environment and will not integrate with the character of Portobello town centre. It fails to:

a) provide a key street frontage
b) provide an appropriate landmark building at the entrance to Portobello
c) complement the urban structure of Portobello
d) enhance the pedestrian accessibility and provide sufficient connectivity with the town centre
e) provide a variety of use on the site

Consequently the proposed development is contrary to:

- Government policy on 'Designing Places' and 'Town Centres and Retailing
- North East Edinburgh Local Plan policies E25 (Design of New Development), E26 (Quality of New Development) and S1 (New Shopping Development)
- the Council's 'The Edinburgh Standards for Urban Design'
- the Council's approved 'Statement of Urban Design Principles for the Site.'

The second of the two applications - for car parking, bus stop and landscaping - is recommended as 'minded to refuse' on the same grounds since these things are ancillary to the superstore.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Dec 2006, 12:54

The owners of the Scottish Power Site, BL Developments, have distributed a questionnaire seeking the views of local people. The results will form the basis of their Community Participation Report.

Presumably, the developers hope to demonstrate that there is widespread support for housing as opposed to 'business use' and to thus influence the brief for the NW Portobello Masterplanning process.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Jan 2007, 17:57

From today's EN:

It's a powerhouse of creative energy

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Jan 2007, 19:12

More info on the Out of the Blue arts and education trust at www.outoftheblue.org.uk

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Jan 2007, 10:17

From the PCATS website www.pcats.org.uk :

Update December 2006

Developer Consultation

Many of you will have recently received a questionnaire through your door from BL Developments who are the owners of the former Scottish Power site. This is not to be mistaken for the masterplan consultation that the council has promised will take place for western Portobello - that should still take place in the new year.

BL Developments have owned the site for a year but cannot proceed with a planning application until the masterplan is approved and even then they have to do further consultation on their site. This is going to be a lengthy process before any building can take place and despite what the politicians and others might say, only when building starts will we have more certainty that a superstore will not appear in the near future.

It is an individual choice as to whether you complete the questionnaire or not. However, I would encourage everyone to let the developer know what kind of development you want in order that we all have a say in what takes place in our community. Hopefully, through this consultation and the masterplan, we will get a development that reflects the views of the community.

Masterplan for Western Portobello

Thank you to all of those who let the council know that the first draft of the project brief was unacceptable. The latest news on this is that a shortlist of consultants has been drawn up and the tendering process is about to start. To many people the progress to date has gone from slow to stop and we are still only at the stage of selecting a consultant. PCATS have tried to get a greater priority placed on the masterplan but are told that it is a matter of resources.

We have been patient with our council over the past year but expect them to give more priority to the needs of Portobello in the next couple of months. Everyone is frustrated at the length of time the council is taking and the sooner the masterplan is drawn up the quicker building can start.

Red Giant

There is still no confirmation of the â€˜national retailerâ€™ moving into these vacant premises. As you know, because these premises are already designated as retail, there is no chance that we can object to any other retailer moving in and opening a small supermarket. This could have a significant impact on the existing High Street and independent retailers. However multinationals donâ€™t always get it their own way. Who would have believed that MacDonalds would have to close the Tavistock â€˜restaurantâ€™ because nobody used it. It is up to us all to support our local independent shops to ensure their survival.

Portobello Campaign Against The Superstore (PCATS)

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jan 2007, 10:23

PCATS wrote:Everyone is frustrated at the length of time the council is taking...

PCATS speak for "everyone" once again.

Izzie · Post by **Izzie** » 28 Jan 2007, 13:41

Porty wrote:
PCATS wrote:Everyone is frustrated at the length of time the council is taking...
PCATS speak for "everyone" once again.

They don't speak for me.I can do that all by myself

impossiblevoices · Post by **impossiblevoices** » 28 Jan 2007, 16:47

Red Giant

There is still no confirmation of the â€˜national retailerâ€™ moving into these vacant premises. As you know, because these premises are already designated as retail, there is no chance that we can object to any other retailer moving in and opening a small supermarket. This could have a significant impact on the existing High Street and independent retailers. However multinationals donâ€™t always get it their own way. Who would have believed that MacDonalds would have to close the Tavistock â€˜restaurantâ€™ because nobody used it. It is up to us all to support our local independent shops to ensure their survival.

Portobello Campaign Against The Superstore (PCATS)

It is also down to our local retailers to provide us with quality products at competitive prices. This is not a one way street.

ali · Post by **ali** » 28 Jan 2007, 23:08

impossiblevoices wrote:
Red Giant

There is still no confirmation of the ‘national retailer’ moving into these vacant premises. As you know, because these premises are already designated as retail, there is no chance that we can object to any other retailer moving in and opening a small supermarket. This could have a significant impact on the existing High Street and independent retailers. However multinationals don’t always get it their own way. Who would have believed that MacDonalds would have to close the Tavistock ‘restaurant’ because nobody used it. It is up to us all to support our local independent shops to ensure their survival.

Portobello Campaign Against The Superstore (PCATS)
It is also down to our local retailers to provide us with quality products at competitive prices. This is not a one way street.

Well said IV.

Those campaigning against a Tesco Metro - style mini-supermarket at the Red Giant site would do well to remember that a significant proportion of people in Portobello who are elderly, poor, disabled or ill would benefit greatly from the provision of a well-stocked professionally run supermarket on the High Street - at the moment there is only Scotmid and we all know what it can be like in there at times (despite the valiant work of the staff). Not everyone is able to or wants to jump in a car and zip up to the Fort or Asda.

There should be a mix of shopping available on the High Street and if the independent retailers are up to scratch then nobody should have any fears about Porty's future as a vibrant shopping centre which serves ALL the community.

susie · Post by **susie** » 29 Jan 2007, 12:24

At last someone talking sense. We need a supermarket in porty and true if the shops there are any good they have no need to worry.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 29 Jan 2007, 13:04

So true, Ali, IV and Susie.
I regularly use the butchers, the fruit shops, bank and the bakers in the High St but use the car to go to Tesco or Asda for tins tomatos , cola, fruit juice etc etc as I cant stand Scotmid and always come out of there with a headache.
A Tesco metro would give someone like my dad, who cant drive, access to a supermarket that was well stocked with a variety of goods at reasonable prices.

tom nimmo · Post by **tom nimmo** » 29 Jan 2007, 17:26

Presumably you are being a tad ironic with your ""live long and prosper" signature Soupdragon. If Tesco, Asda, Morrisons et al have their way it is only them who will live long and prosper. Spare a thought for the small local shops which scrape by on long hours and low turnover the next time you are driving to Asda for a tin of beans. Imagine how appealing Portobello High Street would be with a supermarket at either end and nothing but charity shops everywhere else.