Scottish Power Site Re-development 3 - supermarket + housing

the good guy · Post by **the good guy** » 13 Aug 2010, 23:49

This is getting silly! What is this obsession with B L Developments? The issue is surely do we want to see development of a derelict site at the entrance to Porobello in a way which benefits Portobello?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Aug 2010, 08:52

You're right. This is an unwelcome diversion from the matter at hand. There is no 'inner circle' on TP but you have to remember that the forum has a history and there have been instances in the past where 'identity' has been an issue. You also have to remember that a few of us have held administrative privileges in the past, so we know how the forum works.

Your profile gives nothing away but when you registered you would have been required to provide a genuine email address. The IP addresses you post from are also logged.

So, as you have categorically told us that you are not Phil Myerscough, and not related in any way to BL Developments, then you have nothing to worry about and the evidence will bear this out.

Otherwise, you would be looking at damage limitation at this point.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 15 Aug 2010, 12:18

the good guy wrote:I have no vested interest in this..... So I thought I would put my money where my mouth is and get involved!

the good guy wrote:It's not just the money. They seem to think that they can impose their views on the whole of Portobello. You only need to go to PCC to see that. And if nobody stands up and disagrees with them then their views ARE taken as representing the whole of Portobello. They may have been right about the superstore proposal and the waste reprocessing thingie but that doesn't mean they are right about everything. Stand up and be counted I say. ooops, that's going to get me in trouble with the Talkporty police again!

So you'll be the Porty 'born and raised' resident at the August meeting of the PCC, standing up to be 'counted' and telling the 'bad guys' of the PCC what you think of them? I look forward to meeting you.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 15 Aug 2010, 13:17

You'd better take your ipod or a good book and a picnic good guy - last time I went along it seemed to go on for hours - I bailed out at about 9.15. Doesn't really encourage you to go along.

Post by **wangi** » 17 Aug 2010, 15:55

admin: guys, lets try and keep to the issue at hand.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Aug 2010, 21:47

Marya wrote:So you'll be the Porty 'born and raised' resident at the August meeting of the PCC, standing up to be 'counted' and telling the 'bad guys' of the PCC what you think of them? I look forward to meeting you.

Marya, do you know if Phil Myerscough will be giving a presentation of BL's new plans at the August meeting?

Good Guy, do you plan to attend to show your support for the application?

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 25 Aug 2010, 23:11

So what dy'all really think of this new application, for, against, concerned if it does not go ahead what the future holds for the site?

the good guy · Post by **the good guy** » 26 Aug 2010, 13:45

Yes. I will be at the meeting. As I understand it there is no application yet. Just the proposals that were at the library. I like the idea of more houses and flats instead of a vacant site. More people means more shoppers in the High Street. The new heights seem OK. Certainly seem lower than Kings Road. And as for Waitrose - bring it on I say. Has to be better than what we've got.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 26 Aug 2010, 14:14

I was in favour of the last proposal so I expect I'll be in favour of this one. A derelict doesn't do any good and a large scale residential development could re-vitalise the High Street. And as long as the retail aspect isn't over-sized it could provide a useful anchor to extend footfall along the High Street.

If it's similar to the previous design then I'll also welcome the affordable housing and the pre-dominantly flatted development. Towerbank would struggle to cope with a large housing development given the likely pupils associated with it. But studio flats, and 1-2 bedroom flats generate very, very few pupils.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Aug 2010, 18:55

the good guy wrote:Yes. I will be at the meeting.

So, let me get this straight. Both you and Phil Myerscough are going to be in the same room? At the same time?

the good guy · Post by **the good guy** » 26 Aug 2010, 22:31

I certainly intend to be there. But you seem to be wandering off the point again.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Aug 2010, 11:22

Bob Jefferson wrote: There is no 'inner circle' on TP but you have to remember that the forum has a history and there have been instances in the past where 'identity' has been an issue. You also have to remember that a few of us have held administrative privileges in the past, so we know how the forum works.

You are quite right about the history. Dave Connolly also used to use the word "silly" quite frequently and he had knowledge of one of those IP masking devices. I remember him explaining how one could post from apparently different IP addresses. One could be in Duddingston but appear to be in the USA. Not sure why he would need one but he seemed to know all about them.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 31 Aug 2010, 15:24

At last night's presentation to the community council, BL Developments confirmed they are looking at building a supermarket as part of their mixed -use development on the old Scottish power site. I am interested in what the general feeling is regarding this and have put up a few more details and a poll here

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 31 Aug 2010, 17:55

the good guy wrote:I certainly intend to be there. But you seem to be wandering off the point again.

I think the point is that people might not be quite so keen to support this application if they felt that the applicant, or one of his associates, was trying to manipulate public opinion in an underhand fashion.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 31 Aug 2010, 20:25

Surely its not a big supermarket but a Co-Op size. But it is Waitrose for sure.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 01 Sep 2010, 13:17

Given that particular choice many would go for Waitrose, myself included. However, what about the hardcore objectors. Will they say no again with or without the backing of the community?

Then will it be an eyesore for years to come and the Council finally approving a Superstore. I've heard the police are up there all the time about fly tipping etc. Well if that carries on because the site is empty I hope they don't think thats the next campaign we all rush to support. I don't want to hear about it.

It may be this or nothing for years followed by a Superstore. Lets hear what the traders think about that.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Sep 2010, 20:15

Jury's out for me until we get some clarification on the whole Phil Myerscough/'the good guy' situation. Time to come clean guys. The truth will out.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Sep 2010, 20:29

It's a bit odd to evaluate the proposal on the basis of the identity of people posting here.

However there were a few new faces at the Community Council and more than one spoke up in favour of the proposal. Perhaps one of them was the good guy?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 02 Sep 2010, 21:21

seanie wrote: However there were a few new faces at the Community Council and more than one spoke up in favour of the proposal. Perhaps one of them was the good guy?

My money's on the one who asked for your email address.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Sep 2010, 21:39

He may've just fancied me.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Sep 2010, 21:44

seanie wrote:It's a bit odd to evaluate the proposal on the basis of the identity of people posting here.

Point taken. But surely, even property developers have some code of conduct? I can understand that BL are on a sticky wicket. They can't possibly hope to recoup what they paid for the site by selling it on in the present economic climate. As such, their implied threat carries little weight. For BL, everything hinges on the success of this latest application. Must be very tempting to try to influence local opinion in any way they can.

Post by **wangi** » 02 Sep 2010, 21:51

seanie wrote:However there were a few new faces at the Community Council

Indeed!

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 02 Sep 2010, 22:06

It would be fair to assume BL will either lose money OR not make as much as they would have hoped. However, to assume BL are in complete control of the situation would be a mistake. BL, as with most companies, have to borrow money from the banks. If the banks say sell, then sell they must.

The rules have not changed, they are just being enforced in a different way in this economic climate. So, if they are forced to sell, they probably will lose money, as will the bank. But who is cash rich, who is making lots of money, who buys land to develop in the future.

It's not going to be a wind farm, its not going to be a PEDAL orchard, its not the Council, there is plenty of office space around so not some kind of office park, we already have a housing developer who must be sick of the sight of Portobello.

So any suggestions who will buy a piece of land at a knock down price, who will leave it as a midden for years to come, until the Cooncil would approve just about anything to get it cleared up. Eh, the Superstore not at the Jewel and the one who does not get Big W, that's who.

If you doubt they could get planning permission to avoid grief, look what happened to the site across the road. Portobello Open Air Pool, leased for a Million Years for the price of a clean up. So re-zone the land build a Superstore.

If I was in the PANE team I would be very worried right now.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Sep 2010, 22:13

Bob Jefferson wrote:They can't possibly hope to recoup what they paid for the site by selling it on in the present economic climate. As such, their implied threat carries little weight. For BL, everything hinges on the success of this latest application.

I disagree. The fact that they bought the site for far more than they could currently sell it for isn't necessarily a big consideration. Whatever loss they might make it'll be small compared to the return on investment of a sucessful development.

At the moment they have capital tied up in a of parcel land that isn't doing them any good at all. If they sold up now they may be able to buy another similar chunk of land (because the drop in land value isn't just confined to their site remember) that will deliver a return on investment.

And there will certainly be buyers. Land is the most reliable investment over the long term and some cash rich organisations wait for recessions to buy up land cheaply and just wait till they can sell it on or develop it how they see fit.

During the recesion of the early 90's the large supermarket chains went on a spending spree of aquisition and development, taking advantage of the depressed market conditions.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 03 Sep 2010, 10:37

Pure speculation but it is common with commercial land and property, to purchase subject to obtaining planning permisson, with or without a time limit. A rental/retainer may be being paid until such tme permission is achieved.

It could be that BL haven't paid for the land yet and wil not have to if the appropriate permission is not forthcoming. It is also increasingly common to renegotiate the purchase price downwards during the process of obtaining permission. The propety business has had a severe reality check.

Whether or not they have coughed up the cash yet, their funders will have hardened their lending criteria. I serioulsy doubt there is enough margin in their business plan to absorb the loss of revenue from more than 100 flats. There comes a time when taking a loss is the preferred option.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 03 Sep 2010, 10:57

Why does it have to be Waitrose?Why not ASDA or Tesco?

comes across as being very middle class snob material.Why not a new improved Scotmid?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 03 Sep 2010, 11:02

I think its purely because they are actually talking to Waitrose who have expressed an interest.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 03 Sep 2010, 13:03

Marya wrote:BL asked folk visiting their Town Hall public consultation to express a preference and Waitrose/M&S Food outlet type came out tops. Plus, as Porty says, they know Waitrose is interested.

There has been no retail impact study carried out yet , but think it is also felt that Waitrose would have less impact on current retailers than say a Tesco Metro would.

I think that preference relates directly to the type of person who would take part in a public consultation.How many average Porty-types would shop in Waitrose?Very few would be my guess.
The people who are more inclined to get involved in these campaigns are more than likely to have higher disposable incomes, I doubt many people from the olympic village (mount lodge) or the newer houses between towerbank and the pitz would vote for waitrose/marks and sparks, or indeed my street.

I'd put money on every supermarket chain being interested in that site btw, not just waitrose.

rmolehusband · Post by **rmolehusband** » 03 Sep 2010, 13:11

seanie wrote:If they sold up now they may be able to buy another similar chunk of land (because the drop in land value isn't just confined to their site remember) that will deliver a return on investment.

Fair point, though I wonder how much the history of failed planning applications would further reduce the value of this site compared with a similar site without such planning issues.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 03 Sep 2010, 17:49

I'd put my money on a Lidl or Aldi being the strongest contenders for the retail spot on the site.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 03 Sep 2010, 22:03

Well I cant see Asda or Tesco being interested.
A bit close to the Jewel store and Tesco are going to be opening huge new Tesco in Musselburgh

Actually when I think about it Tesco are keen on the Tesco Express these days

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 03 Sep 2010, 22:15

I've spoken to Phil Myerscough and as he describes it the situation is this;

The project is 100% debt funded; all the money's coming from a lender and BL have no equity in the site. They're simply acting as agents for the development. As such they aren't the ones who ultimately make the decision on whether to walk away from the project.

The proposal outlined is the only one on the table; they lop a storey off to reduce height, density, traffic etc. but put in a Waitrose to maintain the return on investment. The first proposal is dead and buried and there is no halfway house that meets the need to address the reasons for refusal whilst still stacking up financially.

From the Planning Department's point of view the proposals should be fine. Loping the storey off satisfies most of the reasons for refusal on the first proposal, and the Waitrose shouldn't be an issue. Bear in mind that when the Superstore was rejected the retail impact on the High Street wasn't one of the reasons for refusal. Since a Planning Inquiry has already established, in principal, that a superstore could be acceptable in that location, it's very unlikely a Waitrose slightly larger than Scotmid will be a problem.

However, the last proposal spent a very lengthy time in development, got recommended for approval by the Planners, but was still refused due to the level of opposition from the PCC et al.

As such the principal, perhaps only, significant planning risk identified is a repeat of such local opposition. To take another proposal up to a planning application will cost up to £150,000. The lenders are not willing to commit that sum of money while that risk continues to exist.

So the lenders would like a yes or no answer as to whether the PCC is willing to support the revised application. Ideally they would like an answer in days, can maybe live with an answer in a few weeks, but will certainly not wait months. Without a comittment to support the proposal they will walk away from the site.

I had our conversation on the phone whilst riding a bike so my concentration may've lapsed at times, but overall I think that's a reasonable summary of what was said.

So I think the question being put is this; at the next meeting, on 27th September, can the PCC decide whether or not to support the revised propsal?

cuth · Post by **cuth** » 03 Sep 2010, 23:00

Judging by their latest accounts, it appears that the funders are the Irish Nationwide Building Society.

The Irish National Building Society say on the corporate social responsibility part of their website that their 'goal is to behave ethically and with integrity in the communities where we work'.

If you don't like what's going on, maybe it is them you should be talking to.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 03 Sep 2010, 23:03

I don't see anything unethical.

The question posed seems perfectly reasonable given the circumstances.

Post by **wangi** » 04 Sep 2010, 01:25

seanie wrote:So the lenders would like a yes or no answer as to whether the PCC is willing to support the revised application. Ideally they would like an answer in days, can maybe live with an answer in a few weeks, but will certainly not wait months. Without a comittment to support the proposal they will walk away from the site.

I see the reasoning, but don't really see the PCC decision in actual fact being central to any decision. I agree that's the line of BL and it's likely what they'll base a decision on. However if the PCC decision goes against the view of one of the "well kent" againsters then expect a challenge. And how representative is PCC anyway, and what's their mandate really?

And I agree with Seanie - BL's representations just now seem to gel with "ethically and with integrity in the communities where we work".

L/