Hovercraft / ferry service from Fife to Portobello?

[Porty]

That is a shame.

[Makaveli]

Very disappointed with this.

I think Portobello has missed because of this decision.

[Franck]

Astonishing.Yet another route of bringing people to/out of Portobello slung the deefie.Nimbyism really does rule Portobello, and it's only something I've become aware of in recent years...never used to be like this from recollection.

[Pal of Porty]

Overall I was pretty neutral on the issue of the hovercraft (don't trust Stagecoach) but yet again we are presented with another example of a Portobello Hardcore group stifling change in our community. This time most of the same people are choosing to go under the Portobello Masterplan Action Group banner. Judging by some of the previous comments that individual members of this group have made regarding the Masterplan, I can only suggest that they read it again and try to understand it this time.

[Mark Cameron]

Unfortunately the apathy of the majority of the community is making it easy for the NIMBYs to get decisions going the way they want them.....unfortunately things will remain as they are unless that changes.

[Grunk]

Unfortunately its a catch 22 situation.

People feel that their opinions don't matter, so they don't bother trying to make their opinions known.
Doesn't help when there are occasions that the vote goes one way and that information gets deliberately misrepresented.

Or that a democratic party can form a majority government with less than 20% of the votes, and once the government has been formed the 80% don't count for anything.

[Bazza]

I hadn't even realised there were folk opposed to the hovercraft, or I'd've spoken out.

[Pal of Porty]

I hadn't even realised there were folk opposed to the hovercraft, or I'd've spoken out.

Bazza it's Portobello - the hardcore are against absolutely everything!

[Makaveli]

And it always seems to be the minority scuttling around gathering supports on the quiet to help force through their opinions while the majority are oblivious to it all.

Glad I wasn't born in Porty as the way it is treated by the few makes me very uneasy.

[administrator]

Reaction on facebook & twitter:

Richard Lynch: Boo
Richard McGill: Just what Porty needed more wind!. Seriously though - a serious error! Planning committee democracy.
Richard McGill: Next they'll approve a massive wind farm!
Suzanne McIntosh: Not good. Hope they'll appeal.
Peter Jamieson: Serious error of judgement in my opinion. Typical lack of foresight. I hope it is appealed and would support that.
Paris Gourtsoyannis: Poor

[seanie]

I think it's something of a double edged sword. On the one hand it can be really good to have people who are actively engaged in planning applications and the like, and at times the energy and commitment of such people can be very positive in representing the views of 'the community'. But at other times it simply distorts the picture of what the community actually thinks.

You never see chain e-mails encouraging people to e-mail Councillors to tell them that "I'm not too fussed, seems reasonable to me".

[Mark Cameron]

Agree that it's good to have people actively engaged Sean.

I think part of the problem is that the majority of folk in the community are aware of the big ticket issues at a high level but aren't aware of the important dates nor the view the PCC (or other groups representing Porty) are taking. If these groups were transparent and made their intentions easily accessible at an early enough stage then there might be a bigger sense of urgency from those that don't agree (which to me appears to be the case more frequently.

However it's in the interests of those who are getting things there own way to maintain the status quo.

[Porty]

In porty there is a recent, fairly minor, example of PCC attempting to reverse a decision achieved by some residents who complained about anti social behaviour. The residents made a good enough case for the council to intrervene and PCC tried, are trying to have it overturned. Thats how bad its got.

[seanie]

Difficult to get round the fact that people are busy with just getting on with life. They've got enough stuff to be dealing with without keeping an eye on Planning Applications and Council consultations. It's not that they they're not interested or concerned about such issues but they may well be far enough down their priority list to be effectively off the radar. And it's probably not realistic to expect that to change.

However...

...I think there could be a useful role for some kind of rolling 'Ask Porty' consultation mechanism. There's obviously a potential problem with a survey whose respondents are self-selecting, but if you had a large enough pool of residents willing to participate, then you could select a sample to respond on a particular issue whilst asking them to take some time to consider the issue in a bit of detail. So people won't get consulted on every issue that arises, but once or twice a year they may be asked to read up on something and give a view. A bit like a rotating citizens' jury.

[seanie]

In porty there is a recent, fairly minor, example of PCC attempting to reverse a decision achieved by some residents who complained about anti social behaviour. The residents made a good enough case for the council to intrervene and PCC tried, are trying to have it overturned. Thats how bad its got.

Benches?

[Porty]

I didnt think there was more than one but yes. A perfect illustration of what drives the NO posse and the complete disregard they have for the opinions of those they are supposed to represent.

[seanie]

Bench, sorry.

I find it hard to keep track.

[Porty]

However...

...I think there could be a useful role for some kind of rolling 'Ask Porty' consultation mechanism. There's obviously a potential problem with a survey whose respondents are self-selecting, but if you had a large enough pool of residents willing to participate, then you could select a sample to respond on a particular issue whilst asking them to take some time to consider the issue in a bit of detail. So people won't get consulted on every issue that arises, but once or twice a year they may be asked to read up on something and give a view. A bit like a rotating citizens' jury.

Splendid idea, its sort of what you did with the PCC survey (is that still being suppressed bythe thought police?) and the Towerbank/PHS consultation. Would you be prepared to take that on?

We could have a Focus as opposed to a F*ckus group

[seanie]

The results of the PCC should be available in due course.

I'm keen on the idea of some sort of consultation mechanism, and with technology as it is I don't think it would be too onerous in terms of managing it. But it's not going to work unless you get a sizeable number of people to sign up to the idea. That's where doubts creep in.

[wangi]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpres ... 448860459A

Plans for a hovercraft service across the Forth have been killed off by a council's "short-sighted" decision to refuse it planning permission, operators have said.

...

However, Edinburgh City Council's development management sub-committee this week rejected the company's application for hovercraft landing and passenger facilities at Portobello, weeks after Fife Council gave the go-ahead for similar work to begin in Kirkcaldy.

...

Sir Brian Souter, Stagecoach Group chief executive, said: "This has been a long and painful process. We are completely scunnered and have no intention of appealing against the planning decision."

...

[Mr Untermensch]

Lets hope they change their mind and test this.

[administrator]

http://forargyll.com/2011/12/45480/

Tram-flam Edinburgh City Council rejects Souter’s surefire Forth passenger ferry

In the surreal world of Edinburgh City Council;. it could be said that its latest decision has an appropriately upside down logic.

The Council that could have bankrupted a city in its ridiculously mismanaged and out of control trams project, has just blocked a certain winner of a city ferry project from one of Scotland’s most successful entrepreneurs – Brian Souter of Stagecoach. Stagecoach has been working for ten years on approaches to providing a passenger ferry crossing of the Forth from Fife to Edinburgh.
...
And now, after two years – two years- thinking about it, Edinburgh City Council has refused permission for similar facilities to be created at Portobello. Why? Wait for it – because of:
...

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/ ... _1_2001690

I’m scunnered, admits Souter, after planners torpedo Forth ferry service
The inaugural passenger run of the hovercraft crossing from Kirkcaldy to Portobello took just 12 minutes.

TRANSPORT firm Stagecoach has accused Edinburgh City Council of “killing off” plans for a cross-Forth hovercraft service between the capital and Fife.

Brian Souter, the company’s chief executive, said a decision by the council’s planning committee not to allow for landing and passenger facilities in Portobello had left him “scunnered”.

The decision was also criticised by councillors in Fife, as well as SEStran, the regional transport body for south-east Scotland.

Stagecoach said councillors in Edinburgh had taken two years to vote on the firm’s proposals after it had submitted a planning application for a pedestrian ramp and waiting room in Portobello in December 2009.

Council officials had recommended the plans be approved, but councillors rejected them, citing the visual impact of the ramp and associated traffic problems.

...

http://secretscotland.wordpress.com/201 ... g-refusal/

What’s wrong with the Forth hovercraft planning refusal?

...

The service would connect Kirkcaldy and Portobello, and we noted the testing carried out back in 2008: Forth hovercraft could be floating away, when it was reported that a trial service operated in 2007 had attracted some 32,000 passengers, and near complete approval rendering it “an unqualified success”.

Despite this, and the fact that permission for a terminal at Fife has been granted, Edinburgh’s council has torpedoed the project.

Even stranger is the report of continued wide support from potential users for the service, that Fife councillors have been prepared to criticise the Edinburgh councillors’ decision, and that the support transport partnership SEStran (South East Scotland Transport Partnership, Travel Planning & Strategy) was also snubbed.

...

[Puerto bella]

Can anyone shed any light on who voted what way at the committee?

[wangi]

I had tried to mind the committee minutes, but not yet up. I think they'll be at http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings/me ... -committee when they do get added.

[angusi]

More specifically, I'd guess they'll be here, once available: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/me ... 0903359ful

[Puerto bella]

Thanks. I had tried there too but too early for minutes.

[wangi]

Never mind hovercraft as public transport. Want to commute to Embra quickly from Fife? Buy your own mini hovercraft!

http://hoverclub.org.uk/index.php/topic,3289.0.html


Anyone see this a couple of days ago?

[Mark Cameron]

Didn't see it Wangi but I want me one of them

[Mark Cameron]

More specifically, I'd guess they'll be here, once available: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/me ... 0903359ful

The document attached to the link seems to suggest the application was granted - what am I missing? Has something subsequently changed?

[Porty]

Didn't see it Wangi but I want me one of them

I'd want one too were it not for my dislike of traveling on water.

[urchaidh]

More specifically, I'd guess they'll be here, once available: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/me ... 0903359ful

The document attached to the link seems to suggest the application was granted - what am I missing? Has something subsequently changed?

I think that document is the report from the council's planning dept. which is then presented for the councillors to consider before/at the planning meeting. The planners recommended approval in this case but the councillors, who have the final say, decided otherwise.

[Mark Cameron]

Thanks urchaidh That makes sense.

[wangi]

The planners recommended approval in this case but the councillors, who have the final say, decided otherwise.

Yes; for the actual minutes see http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/me ... s-07-12-11 and for the decision https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk ... 306594.pdf

2 21 Seafield Road East
The Sub Committee had previously continued consideration of an application (no. 09/03359/FUL) for a proposed slipway for Hovercraft with associated pedestrian ramp, waiting room and car park, for a site visit.
The Head of Planning gave details of the application and the planning considerations involved and recommended that the Committee be minded to grant the application.
Councillor Hawkins was heard as a local ward member.
Motion
1)
To indicate that the Sub-Committee was minded to refuse planning permission for the reason that the proposals:
i) Were detrimental to residential amenity due to noise and disturbance.
ii) Visually obtrusive.
iii) Would have a detrimental impact for users of the beach.
iv) Be detrimental to road safety by increasing traffic movements on an already busy road.
2) The Head of Planning to report on the reasons for refusal.
- moved by Councillor Lowrie, seconded by Councillor Child.
Amendment
To grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives, and a legal agreement as detailed in the report by the Head of Planning.
- moved by Councillor Rose, seconded by Councillor Blacklock.
Voting
For the motion 6
For the amendment 5
Decision
1
To indicate that the Sub-Committee was minded to refuse planning permission for the reason that the proposals:
i) Were detrimental to residential amenity due to noise and disturbance.
ii) Visually obtrusive.
iii) Would have a detrimental impact for users of the beach.
iv) Be detrimental to road safety by increasing traffic movements on an already busy road.
2) The Head of Planning to report on the reasons for refusal.
(References – Development Management Sub-Committee 23 November 2011 (item 3) and report by the Head of Planning, submitted).

[Porty bella]

Pardon my ignorance, I'm pro the hovercraft but didn't hear about the recent details to put in positive views or know how to do it! Is it too late to appeal (sorry haven't managed to read whole thread if this is already answered). Were local businesses pro the hovercraft (surely, given the increase in business) and do they have an action group that could push for it? Seems outrageous decision, esp with Porty's history as a busy holiday place with hugely popular attractions ie Marine Gardens etc back in the day. And surely they could make the architecture of the buildings attractive, reminiscent of yesteryear etc? It all helps the appeal for day trippers.

[seanie]

There was a huge delay between the application being submitted, when representations to the planners could be made, and the case actually being determined (during which there was also a redesign of the scheme). There was a lobbying campaign against the proposals in the run up to the decision, targeted on the Cllrs on the planning committee.

However, Stagecoach were looking for a substantial subsidy to make the operation viable and that seemed unlikely to materialise, so there was a fairly big hurdle to overcome even if planning had been granted.