Portobello Community Council

[Porty]

Will it be streamed live on You Tube?

[Bob Jefferson]

I would be happy to film the proceedings for Portobelly Telly, and I'm sure it would make cult viewing, but to do it justice you would need a dedicated camera for the speakers and another to roam around the room to catch the real action.

[Porty]

The agenda.

Does the laclk of anything BL on the Agenda mean the games a bogey?

Seanie, Item 8f- Signs and Plaques

Have you given consideration as to where the PCC may like to put your Plaque?

[Maria]

BL can be discussed under 'Planning'.

[Porty]

Of course!! Are they invited along?

[Maria]

Don't think there has been a formal invite issued as there is no presentation by BL. Would perhaps, however, be in BL's interests to be in attendance? (Should also add that I'd expect that discussion on BL may well come out of 'Matters arising' from the last meeting.)

[Porty]

Part of the "mystery" of my Email that went missing from the two CC addresses has been resolved. i got a lovely acknowledgment from Nick Stroud, who had an Email backlog due to being on holiday.

[philip myerscough]

I will be coming to the meeting on monday as will the architects.

[seanie]

Have you given consideration as to where the PCC may like to put your Plaque?

I could hazard a guess.

Will the St Andrew's Ambulance be on hand tomorrow?

[Porty]

i've been exchanging Emails with John Stewart and the City Council in relation BL's application last year and specifically on the DSC meeting where Councillor Hawkins spoke on behalf of PCC. I have been able to establish:

Councillor Hawkins spoke in Diana Cairns stead, as DSC do not take deputations from any group or indivdual, including Community Councils. Which makes one wonder why PCC tasked someone to deputate?

As Stephen is a Councillor he can be invited to speak.

John Stewart composed a letter, which he sent to all committee members of the DSC. Had he not sent individual letters, his letter, on behalf of PCC, would have been produced in full to each committee member, as PCC's are statutory consultees. The letter was also circulated to all PCC members either before or after the meeting.

Even although DSC members were guaranteed to see his letter, it was decided to send a ward councillor along to read it out to the commitee. I asked John if the opportunity for reading out was offered to all three of our councillors? Mike Bridgman and Maureen Child were not asked. "I was not aware it took 3 people to read out one statement so no, Mike Bridgman was not asked" PCC were not informed about the selection of Councilor Hawkins prior to the DSC meeting.

I asked the Council what the script is regarding Councillors representations:

"All members are bound by the Code of Conduct for Councillors, a section of which deals specifically with issues such as this. That Code can be seen at the following link - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 14492/2559 and section 7 is relevant here. Members should not seek to influence officers in making their recommendations. In the situations you describe, the officers have made their recommendations which are by then are publicly available. Any complaint that a councillor has breached the Code would be a matter for the Standards Commission.

You asked if a ward councillor could read out a statement on behalf of a Community Council. It is not for an officer of the Council to tell a councillor what they may or may not say at a meeting - it is for them to judge what they wish to say. I would point out that during the earlier stages of the planning process a Community Council, like everyone else, has the right to submit written comments on applications, either for or against the proposed development. These representations are available for members of the Sub-Committee. Community Councils can ask to be regarded as statutory consultees for a proposed development, in which case their comments would be reproduced in full in the report to the Sub-Committee."

The PCC letter is 1200 words long including headings. According to witnesses Councillor Hawkins spoke for 40 minutes, which leaves about 35 minutes unaccounted for. When he concluded the committee and others were led to believe PCC was "vehemently opposed" to the application. In reality there was a deal of support for the application amongst some community councillors, a fact that was omitted from the Chair's letter.

John has kindly furnished me with a copy of the letter that was sent to the Committee around November 2009. I'm not sure whether to post it here, as John also informed me that I was not entitled to see it as I'm not a member of the community, because I don't live in the area. I suspect the forum is watched by quite a few people who don't live in the area and I don't want to upset anyone by publishing something that outsiders are not allowed to see.

[Franck]

John has kindly furnished me with a copy of the letter that was sent to the Committee around November 2009. I'm not sure whether to post it here, as John also informed me that I was not entitled to see it as I'm not a member of the community, because I don't live in the area. I suspect the forum is watched by quite a few people who don't live in the area and I don't want to upset anyone by publishing something that outsiders are not allowed to see.

Really?So why is your username porty and why the obvious interest in this topic?Do you work for BL?

This may sound daft, but I'm genuinely interested.

[Porty]

Doesn't sound daft at all. I lived in Porty for the first 48 years and then moved into town about 3 and a bit years ago. I still have an interest in two businesses on porty high street, in fact they are my livliehood. My family still live in the area. I was called Porty on a Bruce Springsteen fansite and just kept the name when i joined here in 2004. I still consider my self a community member but maybe I'm not? Nothing to do with BL- I've been in the same room as PM once but didn't engage.

I'm interested in BL getting a fair hearing and I'm fed up with a tiny group of people who ride roughshod over what a Community Council should stand for.

[Franck]

Doesn't sound daft at all. I lived in Porty for the first 48 years and then moved into town about 3 and a bit years ago. I still have an interest in two businesses on porty high street, in fact they are my livliehood. My family still live in the area. I was called Porty on a Bruce Springsteen fansite and just kept the name when i joined here in 2004. I still consider my self a community member but maybe I'm not? Nothing to do with BL- I've been in the same room as PM once but didn't engage.

I'm interested in BL getting a fair hearing and I'm fed up with a tiny group of people who ride roughshod over what a Community Council should stand for.

Fair doos, sounds like valid reasons for having an interest in the daily shenanigans in EH15.

[Franck]

Oh, and it doesnt make any difference what area of Edinburgh you live in, paying cooncil tax in Edina allows you to have an opinion on any matter in Edina.

[wangi]

John has kindly furnished me with a copy of the letter that was sent to the Committee around November 2009. I'm not sure whether to post it here, as John also informed me that I was not entitled to see it as I'm not a member of the community, because I don't live in the area. I suspect the forum is watched by quite a few people who don't live in the area and I don't want to upset anyone by publishing something that outsiders are not allowed to see.

Sounds rather strange. Portobello Community Council seem to include the local High St traders within their remit, receiving representation from them and hopefully consulting with them. Not all of them will live in Portobello. And what about PCCs comments on the hovercraft plan - should they be ignored simply because the proposed site is outwith the PCC boundary?

It's not like you're trying to consult with Royston Vasey community council

[Porty]

Yeah it does seem strange but thats' what he wrote. It has been pointed out to me that the letter sent to the DSC in November 2009 ought to be in the public domain so i can't see any harm in publishing it. Here's what John sent to me:

4a, Elcho Terrace, Edinburgh, EH 15 2 EF, 8th. May, 2010.

Dear Councillor,

Planning Application 09/01029/FUL, Land West of 17-21 Portobello High Street.

While Portobello Community Council is in favour of housing being built on this site, we object to this particular application for the reasons given below. The report to committee states that the concerns of the community council have been addressed which we do not believe to be the case. We would be grateful if you would bear the following points in mind when considering this application.

Materials

We do not believe that the materials proposed for the elevations facing the High Street are of sufficient quality for a development immediately adjacent to the Conservation Area. The frontages of blocks B and C facing the High Street should be stone and not buff brick. This is the gateway into the Conservation Area and the principal thoroughfare through Portobello. Brick is not one of the characteristic building materials within the Cnservation area. Walls of between 6-8 storeys, mainly of buff coloured brick would strike a discordant note with more modest stone built houses within the Conservation Area.

Loss of Vistas

There are no significant vistas through the site mainly because of the grouping of the 7/8 storey buildings round the central square. There is a failure to make use of the splendid views of and to Arthurs Seat and the beach. A proposal of greater merit would have had vistas as the fundamental principle underpinning the whole design of this scheme. Indeed the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel commented that views North from Arthurs Seat would be adversely affected by views of this development, Block E in particular. The developer’s determination to build a development of such high density, at the expense of important views and vistas, also highlights his failure to build on the sense of place of both this site and of Portobello as a whole.

Block E

The community council has serious concerns regarding the design of block E in particular. The report states that there will be no wind or day lighting problems with regard to this block. We are not convinced that this will be the case. Portobello is often a very windy place and the high service vennels between these blocks will surely act as wind tunnels. The police, (pg. 70), obviously have concerns over bridge access and the possibility of objects being thrown over these bridges. They also raise the question of poor lighting and infer that, in their view, these areas could quickly become no–go areas. These are factors that should be avoided at all costs in any new development of quality

Density

710 units is too high a density for a suburban area, especially one immediately adjacent to a conservation area. The report admits, (pg.32), that the high density is not typical of Portobello, but relates to the scale of the houses formerly facing the High Street which once stood on this site. To argue that the density does not relate to what is in Portobello at present but to what once was, seems very perverse logic indeed.

The argument, on page 34, that the proposal is a modern interpretation of the existing urban grain of Portobello is, in our view, not a valid argument. Most of Portobello is built on a grid plan system, is two storeys in the main and is stone built. This development is none of these.

Height


The whole development is far too high. It is true that there are high
buildings in Kings Road and at the foot of Fishwives Causeway but these are not the norm for either Portobello or the Portobello conservation area. These buildings are 16.1 metres above ground level. The North West Portobello Design Brief suggests that it is only the buildings along the edge of the Sir Harry Lauder Road that should take their height from these buildings and not all of the buildings on this site. The heights of the blocks in this development vary between 20-24 metres. They therefore do not take their heights from adjacent buildings and therefore do not comply with the design brief for the area.

Lack of Day Light and Sun Light

We are concerned that many of the flats and houses, because of the height and high density of the development, will have inadequate provision of both day light and sun light. Page 35 of the report states that 172 units have deck access. This aspect of the proposal, which resulted in the number of units being reduced from 739 to 710, was changed in the light of Planning Department concerns that several of the flats would be deficient in terms of both day light and sun light. Several properties in Block E which look into the vennels between the blocks, especially ground floor properties, will have poor day lighting and many rooms will have no sunlight at all.

The Edinburgh Urban Design Panel

It is our view that the report glosses over the main concerns that the EUDP have regarding this application. The panel’s report questions the validity of height of the Kings Road tenements being taken as the main reference for the height of the development as a whole. They also comment on the unusually high density of block E - equivalent of 300 per hectare, as well as saying that they believe that views from Arthurs Seat would be adversely affected by this development. They were not happy with the relationship between the conservation area and the proposed development and suggested that more work needed to be done to produce a convincing scheme (3.12 11.3.09), commenting that, ‘as the site lies on the edge of the Portobello conservation area, the impact of the new development on the appearance, character and setting of the area should be borne in mind, (1.14)

Traffic

Due to the high density of the proposed development, there will be serious traffic issues which are not, in our view, adequately considered in the report. The two nearby junctions, at Portobello High Street and the Sir Harry Lauder Road are predicted to be at 91% and 90% of their capacity at the a.m. peak times, while queues on Portobello High Street are predicted to reach 40 passenger car units, which is almost at maximum capacity.

Parking

The report admits that there will not be enough parking provided, only 562 spaces for 710 units. There is also the question of where visitors to the residential units, and visitors to the commercial units and the health centre will be able to park. Where will they all go? The obvious conclusion is that there will be overspill on to surrounding streets which already have parking problems at present.

Air Quality

We understand that Services for Communities (CEC) already have concerns about air quality on Portobello High Street. The density of the proposed development, combined with the height of the proposed buildings would create canyons where dispersal of concentrations of pollutants would be poor.

In conclusion, for all of the above reasons, Portobello Community Council wishes to object to this application and respectfully asks that, having considered the arguments we have outlined, you are minded to reject this application.

Yours sincerely,

John M. Stewart,
Chair, Portobello Community Council.

The letter starts off on a good note; it may as well say:"The council officers have lied in their report"

While Portobello Community Council is in favour of housing being built on this site, we object to this particular application for the reasons given below. The report to committee states that the concerns of the community council have been addressed which we do not believe to be the case. We would be grateful if you would bear the following points in mind when considering this application.

[philip myerscough]

Just for completeness here is a link to the letter that Diana Cairns as Secretary of PCC sent to the Planning Dept objecting to our previous application on behalf of PCC.

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... d=56352692

[seanie]

From the PCC letter;

Indeed the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel commented that views North from Arthurs Seat would be adversely affected by views of this development, Block E in particular.

The Edinburgh Urban Design Panel said no such thing.

[Porty]

It is probably easier just to publish the letter.

Diana wrote to object, John wrote to object (although the letter he copied me in on is dated 6 months after the meeting) so which letter did Councillor Hawkins read out? Why is there two letters of objection. I think John and Diana owe the community an explanation.

PORTOBELLO
COMMUNITY
COUNCIL
West Brighton Crescent
Edinburgh EH15 1LU

16 November 2009


John Bury
Head of Planning
City Development
City of Edinburgh Council
Waverley Court
Market Street
Edinburgh
EH8 8BG


Dear Mr Bury

Planning Application: 09/01029/FUL - Site 100 Metres West of 17-21 Portobello High Street

I am writing of behalf of Portobello Community Council with our further objections to the above plans, particularly with reference to the most recent information on building heights and also in respond to the revised Traffic Impact Assessment. We maintain our previous objections.

REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

We would like to know when the traffic survey was carried out as we wonder whether it reflects a typical situation. The traffic volumes have only recently returned to normal after the signalisation of the Seafield roundabout.

The developer appears to have carried out the traffic counts again (ref point 4.20) and the results seem to be broadly similar to those in the previous estimated figures yet we are experiencing traffic queues at the level experienced before the signalisation of the roundabout.
We would also like to make the general point that, whilst on paper it may appear that there is an engineering solution to the traffic, this does not mean that the situation on the ground reflects this. The net traffic impact fo this development would mean a significant increase in vehicle movements, longer queues, more congestion and more noise and air pollution to unacceptable levels. This would result in a a serious loss of amenity. Initially for the proposed superstore development previously applied for on this site, your transport department stated that there would not be a problem with the traffic but subsequently revised their appraisal to acknowledge that the queuing traffic and congestion would lead to a loss of amenity. Please take this into consideration.

Combined potential impact of other developments
We are concerned that the impact of other possible developments in the area has not been fully considered. It it likely that the development of 73 flats at the former Funpark site will take place soon and there is the potential addition of 928 additional lorry movements every day caused by Viridor’s plans for a waste transfer station on Sir Harry Lauder Road, depending on the outcome of the local inquiry to be held in early 2010. We do not believe that the full impact of the possible combination of all these developments has been adequately considered.

General increase in traffic
With reference to para 4.18, the study states that 710 apartments, plus health/arts/recreational and a commercial unit "would generate 473 (was 483) two-way vehicle movements in the AM hour and 486 (was 490) two way vehicle movements in the PM peak hour”. The report goes on to project significant increases in traffic saturation levels, for example the “Degree of saturation” of Portobello High Street at Seafield Road Junction will increase from 79.8% to 90.6%, while the PM peak rises from 77% to 82.5%. Similarly, the Sir Harry Lauder Road Ahead AM Peak increases from 76% to 90.3%, the PM peak from 77% to 82.5% (Tables 5.1 and 5.2). It is difficult when one observes the traffic delays we already experience to accept that in the morning peak that the road system will be able to withstand an extra 40% of car traffic travelling west along Portobello High Street

We are concerned that the LINSIG predictions for the degree of saturation on Seafield Road drop significantly after the completion of the development. We find this illogical as some cars will surely be returning to Baileyfield. Would it be possible to check this and give us an explanation please.

The overall increase in traffic, which as previously mentioned does not take into account the impact of the other two potential developments in the area which will have overall a negative impact on traffic congestion in the west end of Portobello and will only serve to exacerbate the already high levels of congestion experienced in this part of Portobello, leading to gridlock.

Increased queues on Portobello High Street
We already experience long traffic queues on our roads at present, for example, there are often mid-morning queues (i.e. not at peak times) on the approach to the Seafield junction, which stretch as far back as the top of Marlborough Street so we believe that this will be severely exacerbated by the projected increases.
We wonder whether the statistics given for the pcus are too optimistic and give too narrow a margin. By estimating the AM peak on Portobello High Street as 38 pcus and saying that 41 pcus could be accommodated before problems arise, they are not taking into account larger vehicles such as HGVs, vans and buses of which there are many on this key bus route. Indeed has the fact that this route is also a bus priority lane been taken into account?

We foresee other major problems arising by traffic wishing to turn right into Portobello High Street from Westbank Street and traffic travelling east along the High Street wishing to turn right into the site in questions At peak periods when there will inevitably be long queues on this part of the High Street we will experience significant tailbacks.

Parking provision
We maintain our previous objections to the parking provision in this scheme. Whilst the parking provision does seem to comply with the council’s standards it is not clear whether this includes the parking on Baileyfield Road, an adopted highway. Maybe you could clarify this point please?

At a recent community council meeting, the developers admitted that the parking on the site would be a ”free-for-all”, which raises serious concerns about parking mayhem on the site and in the surrounding streets, especially as there is no guarantee that there will not be at least one car attached to each property, let along visitors and delivery vehicles. The likely irresponsible/ dangerous/ illegal parking in the area which would have a detrimental impact on amenity.

As previously stated, the parking provision for the British Legion is inadequate at 17 spaces. Its current site has spaces for over 50 cars and, whilst more people may access the new location on public transport, it is certain that if there is an event of any kind at the Legion this will undoubtedly generate more than 17 cars, which will then cause overspill onto surrounding streets.

Re-location of bus stop
The re-location of the bus stop (5.24) will result in residents of King’s Road and Seafield Road East having to travel significantly further to access a bus stop. They will also to cross at a controlled crossing where the light sequence is dictated by traffic movements at an adjoining junction; it is not practical for pedestrians to cross at the Seafield junction itself because of the length of time involved in waiting for the light changes. So, in effect pedestrians will have to be inconvenienced so as to accommodate an exit from the site. This will particularly inconvenience elderly people and those with mobility problems. Queuing buses opposite Westbank Street are likely to cause tailbacks and traffic congestion.

Impact of traffic on local shops and Portobello as a whole.
We have grave concerns that if Portobello's traffic problems worsen significantly that it will have a detrimental effect on this area as a shopping centre and a destination for visitors to the beach area. People will avoid Portobello as they did during the signalisation of the Seafield junction. This led to the closure of some businesses. Businesses are still reporting that trade has not returned to the levels previously enjoyed before the conversion of the roundabout.
HEIGHTS AND DENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT

Density of the development
As we have said before this development attempts to introduce an urban density into a suburban area. One of the ways to reduce this density is by reducing the heights of the buildings. We have done an analysis which shows that this development would be 130% (i.e. almost two-and-a-half times) denser than the nearest comparable development, i.e. the Westbank/Welmar estate across the road from the proposed development site. If one looks at the wider area as a whole, including Adelphi, Rosefield and along to Brighton Place, the density is seven times the existing density. tTis is unacceptable and will have a detrimental impact on our already creaking infrastructure.

Heights
Overall, it appears that the proposed development would not comply with the guidelines set down in the North West Portobello Design Brief (NWPDB) in that all the buildings in the new development would be significantly higher than any other buildings in Portobello and would not fit in with the existing urban grain. The development, if it goes ahead as is, would stick out like a sore thumb and not feel at all integrated with the rest of Portobello.

We refer to the most recent information received on the heights of buildings proposed within the development, i.e. drawing no: (01) 007 Oct 09. We maintain our objection to the development on the grounds of excessive building heights and believe that the new information reinforces our concerns that the buildings do not comply with the guidelines set down in the NWPDB.

The applicant seems not to be comparing like with like as the measurements given for Fishwives Causeway tenements is to the apex whereas the measurements for the proposed buildings is only up to the roof line. The King’s Road tenements were used as a yardstick for the maximum heights of the building along the Sir Harry Lauder Road edge of the site only but point 6.2 of the NWPDB needs to be borne in mind: “Building heights will largely derive from the general height of the existing adjacent buildings and the surrounding urban grain”. This is clearly not the case with this development, as has already been pointed out before.

The height of the blocks facing Portobello High Street and the massive plinth they rise above will be completely out of proportion to existing residential buildings. The development on the other side of the Road (Welmar estate) is at its highest apex only 22.5 m as opposed to the height to the apex of Block B at 30.8 m; a massive difference which will only be reinforced by the fact that the land slopes down considerably toward the beach, so the difference in height will seem all the more stark.

Comparison with Block B
Block B on Portobello High Street to the apex is 20.2m whereas the adjacent Fishwives Causeway tenement measures 16.1m at to the apex. Measurements to the roofline are: block B - 17.5m; Fishwives Causeway - 13.6m.


Because of the ground elevation further back into the site at the centre of the site Block B at apex level is 23.6m compared to the Fishwives Causeway tenement apex height of 16.1m. The higher parts of Block B would also be clearly visible through gaps in the High Street frontage. This would result in the obscuring of important public views to Arthur’s Seat.

Comparison with Block C
Using Block C as an example, its height is 20.32m to the apex whereas the Fishwives Causeway tenements are 16.1m to the apex. Block C to the roof line is 17.6m whilst the Fishwives Causeway tenements are 13.66m, so block C would clearly be significantly higher than Fishwives Causeway buildings.

It appears that the new drawings appear to compare the roof line of Block C with the apex line of the Fishwives Causeway tenement. A more accurate comparison of apex lines would be the 20.3m of Block C with the 16.1m of the existing tenement. This means that there is a significant four metre difference in height between the two.

As with block B, with the higher ground level towards the middle of the site, this difference will be even more dramatic and again will negatively impact on the important views across this site.

Concerns have been expressed by the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel, which comprises professional architects, about this very aspect of the development.

Comparison with Block D
Again, Block D measures 20.8m to the apex compared to 16.1m to the apex of the Fishwives Causeway tenements, another four metre difference in height. Some of the other buildings on Fishwives Causeway are only two storeys high and these will be dwarfed even more by this block as it rises further back into the site. Again, point 6.2 of the NWPDB is not being complied with.

Comparison with Blocks E and F
Blocks E and F would completely eclipse and dwarf the Baileyfield Road cottages which would be in close proximity to these multi-storey flats. Again, this does not respect the NWPDB which stipulates that these cottages should be tied back into the site. This would require the nearby buildings to be stepped down towards the cottages, which they are not.

Referring again to the NWPDB, point 1.3, it states that: “all new development must respect neighbouring in terms of existing policies, including amenity, privacy and daylight”. We would argue that this would not happen if the development were to go ahead as is. Clearly, the Baileyfield cottages would be compromised in terms of light, amenity and privacy.

We believe that we have made most of these points in some shape or form before, either in our written representations or at community council meetings, yet little seems to have changed in the plans. We ask that you please take on board our very serious concerns about the traffic impact, heights and density of this development, together with all our previous objections, and refuse permission for the current plan.
We are keen to see residential development on this site and believe we have given enough feedback so as to give a clear indication to the developers as to how their plans need to be changed. We hope that you will be able to work with them to produce new plans that we can support.


Yours sincerely

Diana Cairns
Secretary, Portobello Community Council

[Makaveli]

So where does the above quote from the EUDP come from that Seanie has pointed out?

If it has been put in an official letter of objection surely they have to be able to back up such statements? I can't believe the PCC feel so strongly about this development that they consider lying to be a sensible course of action?

[seanie]

The EUDP was generally quite vavourable about Block E but said the following.

"There were cocenrns about the strong horizontal eaves line. The panel noted that there would be reverse views from distance (Arthur’s Seat for example)."

Whilst 'adverse' and 'reverse' sound a bit the same they don't mean the same thing. Noting that rear elevations would be visible from distances such as Arthur's Seat isn't quite the same as saying that views from Arthur's Seat would be adversely affected.

[Porty]

So where does the above quote from the EUDP come from that Seanie has pointed out?

If it has been put in an official letter of objection surely they have to be able to back up such statements? I can't believe the PCC feel so strongly about this development that they consider lying to be a sensible course of action?

Strictly speaking it is not PCC that's lying. lies feature heavily in a variety of documentation (leaflets, websites etc) from Portobello's campaign groups. And its usually the same people behind them. It is one thing lying on behalf of PPAG or PCATS it is quite another to be lying on all of our behalves.

[philip myerscough]

I just want to apologise for the heated nature of my responses to some of the questions at the Community Council meeting this evening. But I find it very frustrating when I try to consult with the community through PCC only to find my way to the community blocked by people who do not want to consult. Then all I hear is the same old opinions from the same old individuals who think they know best. To quote your chair from a discussion I had with him at the open day at the Town Hall - "Just because it's what the people of Portobello want doesn't mean it's good for Portobello"
I'm beginning to think there is no way forward here unless someone can tell me otherwise.
I came to the meeting tonight not to answer questions but to listen to PCC debate the issues so that I could gauge opinion. But it didn't turn out that way.

[philip myerscough]

The first letter from Diana Cairns in her capacity as secretary of PCC is a letter of objection written to the planners during the planning process. The second letter from the Chair of PCC written 6 months later appears to have been sent to each member of the planning committee just before the application was considered. Did PCC ask the Chair to write to the members of the committee in these terms?

The statement read at committee by councillor Hawkins was neither of the above. It covered the same topics but also contained other observations and comments. His own? PCC's? The community's?

As I understand it the PCC is supposed to be the conduit through which the community can express their views. Members are not elected to formulate their own views in isolation and then put them forward as the views of the community they represent. When they consult they are supposed to do so in an organised and wide ranging fashion, not just email or speak to like-minded friends to garner support for their own views. They are not a lobbying body.

I thought tonight's meeting was a fiasco. An insult to democracy. The issue of most concern other than the initial presentation was put towards the end of the agenda. debate was stifled. The Chair was far from impartial.

There was representation there tonight from the Council. What did they think of it all?

A representative of Verden Studios came along to speak about what their business is doing in the community. They open up their studios on friday afternoons when school is closed and charge £5 per hour for rooms where young people, mostly male, come to play together. About how the future of their business is inextricably tied into the future of our scheme. They had to leave before the debate commenced. At the very same meeting there was talk in relation to youth "crime" of the lack of facilities in Portobello for young people. Why is the butchers being given so much attention and their business being ignored?

All the focus is on the foodstore. Why? This is a mixed use development, principally residential. New people in Portobello. New community facilites. Arts studios. Verden. Medical and therapies and pharmacy. And anyway outwith the PCC it appears to me the majority of people in Portobello would welcome a good, new foodstore. Who are the PCC to disagree? t's not their job to tell the community what's good for them. That went out with Kruschev!

[Makaveli]

"Just because it's what the people of Portobello want doesn't mean it's good for Portobello"

That is quite amazing.

What gives the PCC the right to decide what is best for Portobello? Because they can attend a meeting once a month? Cos they have the time on their hands to write letters with lies and half truths in them? I am nae happy with that statement one little bit.

[Franck]

"Just because it's what the people of Portobello want doesn't mean it's good for Portobello"

I'm sorry to have missed last nights meeting, I'm beginning to think the only way I'll believe some of the things posted is to hear them myself, they are truly unbelievable.

[Porty]

The first letter from Diana Cairns in her capacity as secretary of PCC is a letter of objection written to the planners during the planning process. The second letter from the Chair of PCC written 6 months later appears to have been sent to each member of the planning committee just before the application was considered. Did PCC ask the Chair to write to the members of the committee in these terms?

The statement read at committee by councillor Hawkins was neither of the above. It covered the same topics but also contained other observations and comments.

I had to ask John Stewart for the statement read out by the Councillor Hawkins, four times before he provided the document dated 8th May 2010. You are saying the document he has provided is not the statement that was read out. What date was the DSC meeting?

[philip myerscough]

I had to ask John Stewart for the statement read out by the Councillor Hawkins, four times before he provided the document dated 8th May 2010. You are saying the document he has provided is not the statement that was read out. What date was the DSC meeting?

The DSC meeting was on 12th May. The statement read out by Councillor Hawkins took maybe 30 mins of his 40 mins speel. My recollection is that he had a sheaf of paper which was supplemented by billets doux from the gallery. What he read out cannot have been a 4 or 5 page letter.

Ask again.

[philip myerscough]

I had to ask John Stewart for the statement read out by the Councillor Hawkins, four times before he provided the document dated 8th May 2010. You are saying the document he has provided is not the statement that was read out. What date was the DSC meeting?

The DSC meeting was on 12th May. The statement read out by Councillor Hawkins took maybe 30 mins of his 40 mins speel. My recollection is that he had a sheaf of paper which was supplemented by billets doux from the gallery. What he read out cannot have been a 4 or 5 page letter.

Ask again.

The document dated 8th May is, I am convinced, a letter which John Stewart wrote to every member of the planning committee in advance of the DSC on 12th May. Ask him. It is not a letter to Councillor Hawkins. If I were a betting man I would put my money on the statement by Councillor Hawkins having been written by him, by Diana Cairns and/or by Caroline Hoskins. They are all treating Portobello like their own little fiefdom with no regard to the serfs.

[Mark Cameron]

Like Franck I find it staggering at some of the comments and alleged goings on. I am definately going to go to the next meeting - I think rather than sitting on my 'erchie' adding comments from behind the security of a PC screen people from the community need to get along and challenge what's going on for the interest of the whole community.

[Doris]

Is there a meeting tonight? Anybody know what's on the agenda?

[Puerto bella]

I heard that there was a presentation about Newcraighall from the design team....apart from that not heard anything, sorry.

[Maria]

Just heard that the PCC website is now live.http://www.portobellocc.org

[Porty]

[quote=""PCC FAQ."]

Who we are?

CINNUNITY councillors are residents of an area who act on behalf of local people to protect aspects of local life that are worth preserving, and encourage developments of benefit to the community..[/quote]

Has there been a coup de eta?

[seanie]

On another note...

...just supposing, and this is purely hypothetical, that the Community Council were to conduct some kind of community survey, asking people about their issues, concerns etc., are there any particular issues or areas that would be worth specifically inviting comments on?

Although Community Council's are statutory bodies they don't have any real powers so are limited in what they can do, but relaying local views to the council is their main function. I know traffic has been highlighted as an issue recently, but are there other things that maybe could be focused on?

Any thoughts appreciated...