Scottish Power Site Re-development 3 - supermarket + housing

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 10 Sep 2010, 10:04

If, by the sounds of it, the community council are not representing the views of the community accurately, why let them take part in the process?Get the council to step, canvas individual opinion on a relatively large scale and use that as a barometer to local opinion.
I'm all for BL's proposal, but to be honest, I wasnt against the original one either.And I feel very uncomfortable with the idea that an un-elected body can represent me, but not give my opinion.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 10 Sep 2010, 11:53

Bob Jefferson wrote:
So what's the wost-case scenario? We are left with a gap-site for a few more years until someone comes up with an acceptable plan, which won't be a superstore - that idea is dead as a dodo and won't be coming back.

Is it really, that I am not so sure about.

So lets see where we are:-
Planning application 1 DHP, knocked back by the CEC after a protracted and vociferous campaign.

Planning Application 2, knocked back by CEC after represenatations by PCC and Stephen Hawkins.

Potential Planning Application 3, BL approaches community and PCC with reduced elevations AND reduced open space on the site with a store about one sixth bigger than Scotmid. Now the new application has to be very different and accordingly BL have taken one storey of around the site, is that correct so far? Please tell me if I am wrong.

Now given there was a previous excercise to give a planning brief which says nothing bigger than a corner shop and that were to be used to stop POSH W, how can you then say lets go for something in between a corner shop and a POSH W size store without going against the very same brief used to fight of POSH W?

So, if Phil is true to his word and the keys get handed back to the bank, just which developer would buy the land given the planning nightmare surrounding it. Who has the money, who will take a very big gamble to take it on. Who would buy it, land bank it and let it rot.

So lets go full circle, what was the original application for, the plan which yielded most profit, plan 1. Now if one store not much bigger than a Scotmid can account for 150 dwellings, how much more profitable would a Superstore be.

philip myerscough · Post by **philip myerscough** » 10 Sep 2010, 11:57

Bob Jefferson wrote:I just don't see it as a 'take it or leave it' situation. BL know that they need the support of the CC and aren't prepared to submit an application until they have it. So who's in the driving seat? What should be happening now is that as many members of the CC as possible should be meeting with BL for as long as it takes to thrash out a solution that everyone, or at least the majority, is prepared to support. Otherwise, what will have changed between now and the next CC meeting? People's views will be futher entrenched, there will be two distinct camps and no agreement. I could be wrong but I doubt whether the current plan has majority support among CC members.

So what's the wost-case scenario? We are left with a gap-site for a few more years until someone comes up with an acceptable plan, which won't be a superstore - that idea is dead as a dodo and won't be coming back.

There are a number of issues here which I would like to address.

What B L needs is the support of the community not the support of PCC. PCC is only one way of gauging opinion. When we met with the Council recently they informed us that they had met recently with 3 members of PCC. They had made it clear to those individuals that they would be looking at the wider response of the community to the proposal as well as the response of PCC. They also indicated that they are following this discussion closely and their view is that it (a) is representative of a wider view than that of PCC and (b) is indicating significant support for the proposal.

There is no compromise to thrash out unfortunately. Any scope for that was blown out of the water by the vehement objections of PCC to the last scheme and in particular to heights and densities. That has severely limited the scope for manoevre.

As for taking more time, time is money. We have already wasted £4m in interest over the last 4 years. I say wasted because that is money that could have been spent on the scheme. It's gone now while the hot air floats upwards. More time is just more money wasted.

The big superstore option is far from dead. The Reporter on the appeal for the 60,000sf store did not rule out a large store at all. In our conversations with operators, Tesco and Sainsbury have said they are not interested in 18,000sf. What they want is 80,000sf and they are prepared to fund the planning process. But it's not what I want. So I'm not going down that road. Yet.

The Community Council have a statutory obligation to represent the views of community not the personal views of the members of the Community Council (the clue is in the name!).

An online poll was set up on this forum (not by me) to gauge the general feeling of the community to the proposal of a supermarket within a revised scheme. 16% [6 people] voted against a supermarket.

37 people voted in the poll which I understand to be quite a healthy “turnout” for a talk porty poll. At least one where each person can only vote once. As seanie has pointed out on several occasions, there is a natural tendency for people to object rather than support. It would therefore seem quite clear that there is support within the community for the proposal.

Furthermore, in December 2006 we delivered 6000 questionnaires to every household in Portobello which attracted 771 written responses. The 4th most popular use (out of 10 which included small shops and minimarket as options) after Homes, Café/Restaurant and Hotel/Leisure was……..wait for it……. a Supermarket. The results of that questionnaire were given to PCC in February 2007.

Given the very clear indication that there is little objection within the Portobello community to the new proposals, it would be strange, to say the least, if the Community Council were to object to the proposal when they have a duty to represent the view of the community. However if they do that is not the end of it for me because it is very clear to me that there is significant support for what I am trying to do. It may however be the end for PCC or at least for their credibility.

Let me quote to you from the Government Code of Conduct for Community Councillors

"Objectivity
In all your decisions and opinions as a Community Councillor, you must endeavour to represent the overall views of your community, taking account of information which is provided to you or is publicly available, assessing its merit and gathering information as appropriate, whilst laying aside personal opinions or preferences.

Openness
You have a duty to be open about your decisions, actions and representations, giving reasons for these where appropriate. You should be able to justify your decisions and be confident that you have not been unduly influenced by the views and/or opinions of others."

Final point - if ANYONE wants to meet with me to discuss any aspect of the proposal I am happy to do that.

philip myerscough · Post by **philip myerscough** » 10 Sep 2010, 12:02

Just one more point. I find the comments about the integrity of the Retail Impact Assessment and other assessments offensive in the extreme. These reports are produced by professionals. They are reviewed by trained officers within the Council. They are entirely independent. If you are concerned about he who pays the piper then I suggest you pay the £15,000 a pop yourselves. I would be happy with that. The reports will say exactly the same thing and I will have saved about £60,000.

Makaveli · Post by **Makaveli** » 10 Sep 2010, 12:21

I think Franck sums up the way alot of people that I know feel with his last post.

Me and my family only moved to Porty three years ago so are quite new to the area but having just had our first child we are starting to meet alot more young proffessionals like ourselves who have young families and are new to Porty and they all feel the same way about the BL proposals in that it is surely much better to have the flats/Waitrose (style - couldn't really give two hoops which chain goes in there as it will not affect the Hight Street one bit) than to have it lying derelict while the chain supermarket goes and finds somewhere else to INVEST it's money and this would see Porty miss out.

As for this Community Council it sounds like it is run by a bunch of NIMBY's who don't seem to have the best interest's at heart.

Like Franck says why can't we bypass the PCC and get this out to the people of Porty to decide - not keeping it to ITK people who neither I nor anyone else has asked to be my representative.

Doris · Post by **Doris** » 10 Sep 2010, 13:38

If the PCC have voted for more dialogue with BL Developments can anyone here tell me when, where and how this will take place. I for one would be interested in hearing how the PCC intends to represent the community on this matter.

I also note that there are representatives of local groups on the PCC - can I ask if these reps make regular contact with their groups to ascertain local opinion on certain PCC matters. For that matter do individual elected members do likewise?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Sep 2010, 15:15

philip myerscough wrote: It was the meeting of Sept 09. See link to minutes.

http://www.porty.org.uk/council/index.p ... &year=2009

If you scroll down to the section headed "planning" you will see the actions arising. Councillor Hawkins undertook to address the DSC as ward councillor.

The minutes clearly say that Diana Cairns will make deputation on behalf of PCC. Stephen Hawkins had no mandate to do so, yet he did it. There's is no public record of how the mantle was passed from one to the other. It is simply not good enough. How did it come about?

philip myerscough wrote: In fact he read a lengthy statement on behalf of PCC regularly prompted with little hand written notes from Diana Cairns rushing down frequently from the public gallery. It was pure theatre but not of the best kind.

Phil, the lengthy statement cannot have been on behalf of the PCC, there is no record of it in any minutes and he didn't have a mandate.

The notes that Diana was handing to Stephen- did you get the feeling she was passing on representations from the wider Portobello Community to ensure he delivered a balanced view?

Do you recall why Diana didn't make the deputation she was supposed to?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Sep 2010, 15:17

Bob Jefferson wrote:I just don't see it as a 'take it or leave it' situation. .

Sometimes, like you, I can't see things they way are. I usually put it down to a failure to grasp the situtaion at hand.

gillian · Post by **gillian** » 10 Sep 2010, 15:52

I posted here yesterday but managed to delete it, basically I was asking for clarification on who is officially representing my views. I understand that the PCC are not elected because the number of people wishing to sit on the council has always corresponded with the number of vacancies. Presumably these people should still represent the residents of Portobello, if so how do they go about canvassing our opinions?.

Councillor Hawkins is an democratically elected member of Edinburgh Council, does he sit on the PCC as a member of Edinburgh Council or a Portobello resident? Who is he representing when he speaks for 40 minutes? is he passing on the views of a local councillor who is able to confidently reflect his constiuents opinions or as a individual person who lives locally. Are the people who sit on planning commitees etc clear on just what his role is? It would be easy to assume that he is speaking for us all when that is clearly not the case.

Finally, would a project like this not be able to go ahead if the PCC rejected it, are they a statutory body with the power to say yay or nay?

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 10 Sep 2010, 16:23

The PCC are statutory consultees but cannot give a yay or nay. There are standards they should follow to gather and represent the views of the community. There are difficulties in consulting due to resources and often a lack of response due to apathy. Sadly CC's are also well known to follow their own agenda and be driven by their own opinion's without consultation.

I do not think this will happen with this issue as it is now to widely publicised. Where the activists do have a problem now is, few were against the complaints about densities but no one predicted the potential outcome a rejection of the plan would bring. That is, another retail outlet.

I wonder what the shop owners think now that there is another smaller store looming on the horizon, or even worse, the keys getting handed back to the bank and the land ending up as a superstore.

So, those who proclaimed themselves as local hero's saving the High Street, end up looking like total dumplings.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Sep 2010, 18:14

Stephen Hawkins has already been reported to the Standards Commission, and one of allegations was that: he made representation to a PSC claiming it was partly on behalf of PCC. There was no mention in any minutes that he had been asked to do so. He denied he had said such a thing and the commission chose to believe him.

Every Councillor is entitled to speak at PSC meeting on behalf of the constituents that ask them to do so. If one chooses to believe Phil Myerscough that Stephen Hawkins did male a deputation on behalf of PCC. He did so without being asked by Portobello Community Council. Indeed the minutes clearly state that someone else (Diana Cairns) was asked.
It seems appropriate to raise the issue once again. It is a neat trick. as a Councillor speaking for some constituents you are unlikely to be able to claim to be speaking for a majority. As one that isspeaking on behalf of the local Community Council you can claaim to be putting forward the collective view.!!

PCC is supposed to be a body that conveys the broad range of views amongst our community. In reality, at a planning meeting of huge importance, we are represented by what? One member of a household, who was supposed to speak on behalf of PCC, who delegates the job to another member of her household, who has no mandate to speak on behalf of the group he purports to be representing. It is outrageous.

Seems to me that the views of one Portobello household are coming over loud and clear at the expense of neglecting everyone else!!

gillian · Post by **gillian** » 10 Sep 2010, 18:49

Am I right in thinking that PSC is Planning Sub Committee?

Could I ask Councillor Hawkins to speak on my behalf in favour of the proposal?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Sep 2010, 18:50

You could try.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Sep 2010, 18:59

allaboardtheskylark wrote:Seanie, surely the developer has to make a considerable change to the densities / heights to make such a material change as to make a new application worthwhile?

If you look on the Planning Portal you can see that the report to Committee recommending the last scheme be approved ran to 70 pages.

The reasons for refusal were given as follows;

The proposed development does not accord with the provisions and aims of the Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan, the Edinburgh City Local Plan or the adopted development brief. The proposal will detract from the character of the surrounding area in terms of height, scale, form and choice of materials and will generate increased traffic movements resulting in potential implications for air quality.

Conditions:-

Reasons:-
1. The proposal is contrary to Policies Hou 4 - Housing Density and Des 3 - Development Design of the Edinburgh City Local Plan by way of its overall height, scale, form and choice of materials resulting in development, detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape and local amenity.

That's it.

That's all you've got to go on in coming up with a revised scheme that satisfies the Committee. Remember that the Planners recommended approval, so it's not them you have to convince.

So you could come up with a scheme where you reduce the heights over half the scheme, and maybe have a different size of retail (although given the exchange rate it might not be hugely different) but that's more risky. Whatever the planners might say, the committee might turn round and say not enough's been done to satisfy their concerns.

Taking a storey off the entire proposal is safer. And given the investment involved you want to minimise risks.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 10 Sep 2010, 19:35

Looks like somebody has a bit of explaining to do to the traders. If this gets them going imagine how they will feel about the prospect of a return to the bad old days fighting a superstore.

I don't think there is anyway they could get the same level of support again. Could the SP site be the blot on the landscape to replace Greenside Place?

Surely this could go on for years.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Sep 2010, 19:43

OK, but regardless of what the PSC said last time round a compromise plan that has the backing of PCC/PAS/PCATS would surely find favour with them. They are politicians after all and presented with messages of support, rather than the usual rants of objection, won't they be happy to oblige and just be done with the damned thing?

Of course, this is all assuming that the PCATS diehards are actually prepared to compromise. What is their position? Anyone know?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Sep 2010, 20:49

The last proposal was vehemently opposed. My guess is the current proposal will be vehemently proposed. I'd lay odds that any intermedediate proposal would also be vehemently opposed.

Or there's always the 'hovercraft' approach...

"Of course we don't object in principle....we just object to every single aspect of the proposal in practice...."

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Sep 2010, 22:37

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Of course, this is all assuming that the PCATS diehards are actually prepared to compromise. What is their position? Anyone know?

Yes, they were succesful in the anti-superstore campaign back in 2006 and since have made several attempts to give the residual funds away.

I'm talking their actual position, do you have something else in mind?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Sep 2010, 23:14

Just to keep people informed; I'm conducting my own poll which, if not representative, is at least random. I'm specifically not inviting wider participation since that undermines the random element. My poll is not intended as some kind or referendum; it's just a snap-shot of views on a very specific question.

I will collate all responses (without names) and make them publilcy available along with the question asked and subsequent clarifications.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Sep 2010, 06:12

I think that's a useful exercise and I think other members of the community council could and should be doing something similar if they hope to accurately represent the views of local people. If you are part of a local email distribution list, you could use that to canvas opinion, as I believe seanie is doing. Or you could set up a stall on the High Street and ask 100 people what they think of the proposals.

I think the only issue with this is:

1. What questions do you ask or options do you offer?

2. How do you frame these questions/options? How do you explain the context without inadvertently skewing the result by introducing your own bias?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Sep 2010, 06:42

It might also be useful to poll local traders. Surely no-one knows the impact a supermarket is likely to have on their trade than the owners themselves? Perhaps they will agree with Phil that a Waitrose would have a positive effect, attracting other new businesses to the High Street and new customers from outwith Portobello. However, I wouldn't bet on it.

This is an extract from an email sent by Joe Findlay to Portobello Community Council recently:

Over the last few months I have had to pay off one member of my staff and reduce the hours of others due to recent trading conditions. To allow a supermarket to be built on this site would most definitely have an adverse impact on my business and would almost certainly lead to further job losses among my staff.

If that's what Findlay's are saying, how do you think they feel at Kitcheners about the prospect of a Waitrose up the road? In the middle of a recession, I imagine it's probably the last thing they need.

Makaveli · Post by **Makaveli** » 11 Sep 2010, 07:20

It may be the last thing they need but it might get them to up their levels of quality and service.

There used to be two fruit and veg shops and one closed - why? Well because the other one had a better quality of product.

I think some business need to look at this more positivley - take it as a chance to maintain/improve there product. I don't think that the like's of Finlay's or Williamson's will suffer from a Waitrose as they are providing a quality product that a supermarket can't match.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 Sep 2010, 08:53

Bob Jefferson wrote:
This is an extract from an email sent by Joe Findlay to Portobello Community Council recently:

I'm curious. How did you get a copy?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Sep 2010, 09:05

The old-fashioned way. I asked.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 Sep 2010, 09:49

Bob Jefferson wrote:The old-fashioned way. I asked.

The sender or the recipient? Just wondered how you were aware of the existence of the email.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Sep 2010, 09:59

Marya wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:The old-fashioned way. I asked.
The sender or the recipient? Just wondered how you were aware of the existence of the email.

I heard it was wrapped round his sausages when he last shopped there!

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 11 Sep 2010, 10:03

Porty wrote:
Marya wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:The old-fashioned way. I asked.
The sender or the recipient? Just wondered how you were aware of the existence of the email.
I heard it was wrapped round his sausages when he last shopped there!

Apologies - The above post about sausages should have been made by me - I did not realise Porty was automatically logged into Talk Porty on this PC.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 11 Sep 2010, 10:14

If Scotmid was a proper shop or run under the Waitrose etc banner then I think there would be greater local resistance to an additional large store on the Scottish Power site. Scotmid clearly does not fill local 'mini supermarket' needs effectively and therefore it leaves a High Street gap in the market for many would be local shoppers.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 11 Sep 2010, 11:35

Bob Jefferson wrote:I think the only issue with this is:

1. What questions do you ask or options do you offer?

2. How do you frame these questions/options? How do you explain the context without inadvertently skewing the result by introducing your own bias?

Do you include the option where we all get ponies?

But seriously, these are important considerations but there's not necessarily going to be a straigthforward answer to how best to do things. The issue of consultation is genuinely difficult.

But I do think the PCC needs more avenues of communicatin, both to let people know what's going on, and to get feedback. How much weight you give to such feedback is then another question.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 11 Sep 2010, 12:00

You know, this is very, very difficult. I like the "good shops" on the High Street, my own favs and I want to keep them but I don't know enough to judge what is best for Portobello or them.

We need some leadership to get to the best decision on this, we need a way to gather opinions fairly, difficult I know, but where do we get this leadership. if we get it wrong we get it wrong as a community. Most don't know the background to this.

Is it now the CEC's responsibilty to step in. Do the traders know how the density and heights issue was fought off. Do they know the risk of fighting this and ending up with a superstore?

What would they have said if this turn of events had been predicted, say no to the Waitrose then it's 150 less residencies plus a Waitrose. I'd love to hear how those who have fought the fight would explain this to them.

This whole thing is starting to resemble a dogs breakfast.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 Sep 2010, 12:12

I agree that consultation is a really difficult task. I'm not sure what the CEC can do allaboardtheskylark. As Seanie says, hold an open public meeting and the danger is all you'll get are 'the angry and the anoraks'.

How many on here who voted for a supermarket attended/responded to the CEC public consultation on the North West Portobello Development Brief I wonder?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Sep 2010, 12:47

Marya wrote:I agree that consultation is a really difficult task. I'm not sure what the CEC can do allaboardtheskylark. As Seanie says, hold an open public meeting and the danger is all you'll get are 'the angry and the anoraks'.

The angry and the anoraks are not mutually exclusive groups.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Sep 2010, 13:09

Portobello Community Council and anonymous Planning objections.

One of their favoured ploys when objecting to Planning Applications is to say that they have been approached by "Neighbours" who wish to object to this or that planning application. If you care to look you will see this time and time again in their minutes.

The "Neighbours" are never named and their correspondence is never circulated. As a past victim of this tactic it infuriates me, for two reasons: Firstly, the planners will not accept anonymous objections and PCC should not allow itself to be used as a trojan horse for invalid objections. Secondly, the lack of transparency leaves the process open to abuse. A Community Councillor who strongly opposes an application could just invent "Neighbours" who approached them.

I've heard that since the Waitrose proposal became real the PCC have been petitioned by "Traders" who are against the idea. May I ask that any PCC members who read this please insist on seeing evidence of these petitions.

I am a Portobello Trader and using the PCC email addresses provided above by Seanie I made the following representation:

Subject: Waitrose Proposal

FAO PCC Secretary,

As a Portobello Trader, soon to be trading from two shops on Portobello High Street. I would like to register my own and my staff's support for the proposed Waitrose supermarket on the vacant Scottish Power site.

I believe there will be a positive influence on the High Street. Waitrose will
bring visitors and the new residences will also bring a sizable influx of
people and a reasonable chance that they will patronise local businesses.

Yours Sincerely

Stephen McIntyre
The Mortgage People
Cash Brokers

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 11 Sep 2010, 14:56

Makaveli wrote:There used to be two fruit and veg shops and one closed - why? Well because the other one had a better quality of product.

I miss Borders, Banana Republic pretty hit and miss with quality. We got corn on the cob last week, not thinking to check below the husk - all the corn was dried up and useless. Went straight in the bin.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Sep 2010, 15:28

What a corny story.