Superstore - New Petrol Station - Parking - New Access

[Guest]

Exellent result today as the Planning Committee, as expected, decided UNAMINOUSLY that it was 'minded to refuse' the application for a Superstore and associated parking.

Relief too for Mareen Child, who at long last is able to speak freely on the subject and declare her 100% support for the campaign to oppose the development. As she has been forced to remain silent on this crucial issue for so long I make no excuse for reproducing her message to local constituents, to ensure it reaches the widest audience possible:

Dear All

The Planning Committee decided unanimously today that it was 'minded to refuse' the application for a Superstore and associated parking. This will probably please 90% of my constituents and I am glad we were able to find a way of coming out on that side of the argument, although Scottish Ministers will have the final say and I'm told this is likely to be heard in February 2005, not September as we thought.

At long last, I am liberated from Code-of-Conduct-imposed silence. My lip unzipped, and can say I am absolutely delighted the Committee agreed with my proposal today to take this view on refusal and to look to further strengthening the reasons for refusal on traffic and economic development impacts.

Committee took the view that the reasons given by our officials were good as far as they went - but not sufficient. I believe strongly that there are further grounds for refusal. The balance of the argument must be against on the basis of local knowledge and experience of other developments elsewhere, and other national guidance on building sustainable communities. These ought to be brought into the frame. We won the argument against officer recommendation on Shrub Place against Wimpey and I believe we can win this one too.

So we have deferred a decision on the full reasons for refusal. This is so as to have officers take another look at the transportation and economic development issues. The politicians on the Committee, who are charged with making this decision, were not content that proper consideration had been given to the non-statutory corporate policies of the Council and that these should be explored and possibly used as further reasons for refusal. The Council has policies on Sustainable Development and a Local Transport Strategy. These are also material planning considerations which were not taken sufficiently into account, in the Committee's view today. There is also National guidance, advice and policy which can be drawn upon to bolster our case against.

East Edinburgh and Musselburgh Constituency MSP, Susan Deacon, was at the Committee to hear the full presentation and debate and she will be taking up aspects of national policy with the Scottish Minister responsible for planning, in consultation with local elected members.

The Committee also agreed to a site visit, which will take place tomorrow (Thursday). There will not be an opportunity for either side of the argument - public protesters or developers - to speak to members of the Committee on the visit. Never mind, they've heard the case against loud and clear.

My warm congratulations and heartfelt thanks to everyone involved on the excellent quality of the cross-party, community campaign and the way you all conducted yourselves up until now. The battle is not over yet, but you should now have gathered by now that I am totally opposed to the Portobello Superstore proposal. Let's remember that our local shops must get our support - and more of the support of the other 80% of local people who shop outside Portobello High Street in other big stores. The way to stop the advance of superstores and enhance our local community is to shop as much as we can locally, even if that means walking or taking a bus to get there from further afield.

Maureen

Elected Member for Milton Ward
Executive Member for Sustainability and Finance
The City of Edinburgh Council
High Street
Edinburgh
EH1 !YJ

And for the benefit of Maureen's constituents who aren't on Lawrence's email distribution list, here's his take on today's events as well:

Dear All,
just a quick note before I head off on holiday to say a big "thank you" to all who came along to the City Chambers this morning. I'm sorry that there wasn't enough room for all of you in the committee room.

You'll be glad to learn that the committee decided unanimously to go along with the recommendation - "minded to refuse" - but asked for a continuation to allow officials to consider further possible grounds for refusal in the light of the discussion today at committee. A site visit by committee members will also be held in the meantime.

My guess is that this item won't be back on the agenda in the next fortnight. I'm away for three weeks, however, so it might have been heard again by the time I get back. I'm sure, though, that committee will do the right thing - any further grounds will be such as to reinforce refusal.

Thanks once again to everyone for all the effort shown by Portobello folk so far to resist this unwelcome development.

Lawrence

Here is a link to today's online EN coverage:

http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=865422004

And finally, we would love to hear some first-hand accounts from anyone who was at the demo today.

[dccairns]

As a first hand account of the demo has been requested, I shall supply one. It was very well-attended by 150-200 people who probably convinced some passers by that the Fringe had started early, what with the singing, chanting, accordian music, customary free sausages from our local celebrity butcher and the general carnival atmosphere.

Once again, there was a real cross-section of ages in attendance and rousing speeches from PCATS chair and TV star, Dickie Alexander, local councillor, Lawrence Marshall, MSP Susan Deacon and Joanna Blythman, food writer and author. TV cameras were in evidence but there's been no coverage transmitted so far. Oh well, can't expect to be on telly EVERY day.

Thanks to everyone who has supported the campaign so far; without you we wouldn 't have achieved the result we did today.

[cornerboy]

Fantastic news, and I'm glad to see from the councillors' comments that this is being looked at as more than just a Portobello issue. Ultimately it's about communities, their well-being and who has the power to determine that.

[xxxx]

There will no doubt be an appeal, so the letter writing, representative bothering will heve to continue. I believe the council also turned down that little block of flats at the foot of bath street.
Did anyone email/write to the councillors to congratulate them on their decision?

[Guest]

xxxx - how do I pronounce your name?

Is Four-X? Or Four Exes? Or Ixxx?

Just wondering

[xxxx]

Never really thought about it

ehhhxxx I suppose - like a death rattle

[administrator]

The following message, posted by 'Breenjohn' has been moved to maintain thread continuity:

We've been following the opposition to the Superstore through friends, and the Forum. Much has been said about the increased traffic volume but no-one has raised the question of how many times a day, a night or a week delivery lorries will unload and the impact the noise from such lorries will have on nearby residents. Their peace and quiet will certainly be destroyed. Is it not worth protecting?

[Dadaist]

I agree. When you look at the properties close by to the Seafield roundabout and Harry Lauder road, especially those whose back garden would be turned into a Te$co car park, it makes me angry at how powerless they must feel at yet another development.

Rather than proposing to plant some trees at the back of their gardens, the developers should be forced to pay each home owner ten times the value of their property, with a minimum of £1,000,000 per home.

And they should also have to knock on the door of every house within earshot of their development and obtain permission.

[wangi]

BTW, is it for def that Tesco are the folk behind this?

Their Musselburgh store is just soooo close to Portobello... Asda's too close at Brunstane, Safeway/Moristons are too close at Portobello Rd, Sainsbury are probably close enough at Meadowbank...

[Poppy]

Here's a rumour - told to me by the chiropidist [spelling?!] who was told it by another client:

Morrison's want to sell off the Portobello Road Safeway store site for housing and move to the Scottish Power site instead.

As I say, it's just a rumour!!

[ecm]

NO NO NO
It has to be Tesco - nothing else will do for me!

Just joking
Ok - no I'm not.

[Gemini]

The CATS group have as yet been unable to find out which Supersore want's this site.

Before Scottish Power sold the site - I was advised that a certain Edinburgh Businessman had purchased it lock stock and barrel for £6M!
All the developers have to do is secure planning consent for the site for a supersore and they walk away with approx 10 times as much as was paid for it, healthy profit in anyone's book!

Tesco's name has been banded about - and we are led to believe that they are quite ruthless in their tactics (as are most supersore chains) for getting what they want - as are the developers! it will make no difference to porty residents which supersore wishes to move onto this site we shall do our utmost to stop it., we have still a way to go - the Public Inquiry will be held on Feb 5th 2005, we are hoping that the Inquiry will be held locally in Portobello.. updates will be on CATS web Site and of course Porty online.

To Daddist - thanks from the Baileyfield Road Residents Group.

Should also mention on behalf of CATS/Porty Community - A Big THANK YOU - to Maureen Child who did the community proud at the committee meeting as did Lawrence Marshall and we were grateful to Susan Deacon MSP who showed support for the community at the meeting on Wednesday.

[Gemini]

The following message, posted by 'Breenjohn' has been moved to maintain thread continuity:

We've been following the opposition to the Superstore through friends, and the Forum. Much has been said about the increased traffic volume but no-one has raised the question of how many times a day, a night or a week delivery lorries will unload and the impact the noise from such lorries will have on nearby residents. Their peace and quiet will certainly be destroyed. Is it not worth protecting?

If consent is given for the Supersore as Supersore's carry very little stock - we at this time do not know what type of delivery criteria would be put in place. What we do know is that Lorries up to 44 tonnes are used for delivering goods - The access point for deliveries will be the entrance to the SP site near the Bus Stop at K/R/ R'about - of course they (developers/Traffic Planner) have decided to move the bus stop nearer kwik fit and narrow the pavements on both sides of the street. The traffic would be hellish - a member of CEC Transport Team summed it up: It would be like squeezing sausage meat into a sausage! she was being serious - In other word's what she meant was, we would cope!
I remember Scottish Power requesting permission to use this entrace onto their site - permission was refused!

Peace and Quiet and the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one's property is a Human Right ( Article 8 ECHR 1998) - to date I have not seen it implemented - unless of course someone else has?

As Daddist and Breenjohn have noted - with the H.L.R. to the frontage of the cottages - Brammel Laidlaw to one side - King's Road R/A to to the other and with the threat of a Supesore and Car Park to the rear - all we need now is a 'flyover' connecting HLR to the Supersore - God Forbid - yes it certainly is worrying times for the residents here - we will be a wee island in the middle of a traffic jungle.

[wangi]

all we need now is a 'flyover' connecting HLR to the Supersore - God Forbid - yes it certainly is worrying times for the residents here - we will be a wee island in the middle of a traffic jungle.

While not that, couldn't the never used railway line be used to improve this junction? A direct link for HLR <-> Seafield traffic?

[Gemini]

Wangi, do you mean the Freight Line?

[wangi]

Yeah.

[Gemini]

Ok, how could this be implemented?

[wangi]

For HLR->Seafield traffic it's a no-brainer - slip road off and down a gradient, under Portobello Rd using the existing bridge, slip back up on Seafield. The bridge could be shared use with the rail line, with traffic lights stopping traffic once a year when a train is going down the line!

However for Seafield->HLR traffic you'd need an additional 2 underpasses to be built...

[Gemini]

Think its more of a brainer than you realise, for one - HLR to Seafield - what and whose land would need to be used to build this? VAE/Telferton? (are we talking two/three lanes here?) Do you think these businesses would move? One also has to bear in mind that Telferton is 'made up' ground, which would further increase costs) however. I am in agreement that the road could run from HLR to Seafield - but the other little problem would be - how would traffic access Portobello Road - another undepass? how about the traffic coming into Porty from the A199 another underpass? or a flyover - or maybe another route from the Milton Road Junction - I personally cannot see any other route into Portobello from the A1 - only the Cosatal Route - which in turn would increase the traffic on the High Street - which was the reason the HLR was built in the first place - to ease pressure of traffic from the High Street.

Seafield Road to HLR requiring two underpasses! In the original plans for HLR there was supposed to be an underpass built at K/R/R'about, however, due to costs a paultry £5 million due to the clay ground conditions (nearly 20 years ago!) it was decided by LRC and indeed welcomed by Ian Berry that this would not happen.

I think one must have to be a bit of a brainer to understand the geotechnical data on such a proposal - I am not saying that the problems of ground conditions could not be overcome - but as said before - were would all this land come from? what and who would have to go? and more importantly who would pay for it ?

-

BTW have been advised by Transport East that the Kings Road Roundabout will be taken away and lights will be inserted to control traffic, I was not given a time scale for these works - perhaps CEC are holding back to see if the Public Inquiry approves or refuses the Supersore plans - If approved, then I am sure through planning gain the works will be carried out by the Developer.

[Gemini]

Having had another read of your posting Wangi - you suggest that the traffic from HLR to Seafield would use a new slip road and run alongside the freigh line! therefore we would be keeping the HLR as is, and still use the K/R/R'about - presumably for traffic heading into Edin. and back into Porty? therefore the current access from R'about to Seafield
only being used for people accessing from Portobello and Portobello Road - the slip road traffic merging with this traffic further along Seafield, Another question - how would the traffic coming out of the Bus Depot etc access the underpass - how big would the unerpass be?
could it accommodate Buses?

I don't think that people who know the area would use the slip road to face another bottlneck further along Seafield Road! I could be wrong.

[wangi]

Yeah Gemini, I wasn't proposing anything like the monster full-on plan in your 2nd last post!

With a minimal LHR->Seafield only "bypass" of the roundabout there would be hardly any landtake (I presume the current grass area between HLR and the railway is either owned by the council or the railway (what are they called now?)). It could merge with traffic on Seafield just as is done on the West Approach Rd - 2 separate lanes into a 2 lane Rd (it is the northbound lane of Seafield which is 2 lane?).

Additionally HLR->Portobello Rd traffic could have a bypass lane at the roundabout (would require making the railway bridge wider).

Would improve traffic flow somewhat - more so than lights I dare say!

[Gemini]

Got a bit carried away with the full blown implications

A slip road is feesible, believe that Scottish Power own the Telferton Site - VAE I presume own their own site?

No idea which rail company own Freight Line Track?

Two lanes I think would encroach on some land where light units have been 'thrown up' at Telferton (this assuming the rail line is kept) PS If I did not live here I would suggest Telferton be used as a Park and Ride! although did read somewhere that this line has some historical significance? will have to wait until LM returns from his world tour of Asia Minor - unless anyone else has any info?

Widening the Bridge at K/R/R - depending on the aforementioned,I guess
could still be a landtake issue.

[Guest]

I have been asked to help publicise this event next Saturday. Ceilidh lovers should also check out our new Planet Porty article (photos to follow)

Dear CATS supporter

Please support the Ceilidh on Saturday 14 August 04 @ Portobello Town Hall. The Edinburgh Peoples Festival www.edinburghpeoplesfestival.org.uk and CATS steering group have organised this event in order to raise much-needed funding to support the Campaign at the Public Inquiry in February 05. The line up is both fantastically tallented and LOCAL!

The performers - The Bella MacNab band and the Belle Stars + guests - will play for expenses only thus keeping the price to £2.00 per ticket YES!!! that's only £2.00 per ticket and that's with a bar!. Doors open @ 8.00pm - finishing at midnight. Be prepared for a good nite for a worthy cause.

[Epykat]

Where do we get tickets or is it pay at the door?

[dccairns]

You can buy tickets in advance at Kitchener's deli or at the door on the night.

[Epykat]

Thanks for that! Will do our best to be there.

[dccairns]

Don't forget the People's Ceilidh tomorrow night at Porty Town Hall. It starts at 8 pm and tickets only cost £2. Two fantastic local bands - the Belle Stars and Bella MacNab - are playing.

There will be a bar, food and a raffle, so come along for a great night.

Tickets are available from Kitchener's deli or at the door.

Hope to see you there!

[dccairns]

The ceilidh was a great success and well attended by all ages from about three to eighty-three. The dancing was energetic, the food was tasty and as for the talent....! There were many Porty people there as well as folk from more far-flung, exotic locations such as LA and Sheffield.

Thanks to our two fantastic local bands, the Belle Stars and Bella MacNab for making it such a special night with their wonderful playing. Thanks to all who helped out with organisation and food. Thanks to the Edinburgh People’s Festival for making it a PCATS fundraiser and thanks to all of you who came along, enjoyed yourselves and showed your support.

[Guest]

And here is a link to the story we have all been waiting for!

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinb ... 0819130217

Well done everyone!

How much clearer can we make it Mr Farmer? We don't want your superstore!

[Maria]

Got a longish letter , along with an agenda, today from the Inquiry Reporters Unit of the Scottish Executive ,informing me of a pre-inquiry meeting to be held on Monday 4 October 2004 at 7.15 pm in Portobello Town Hall .
Can I assume that CATS will be making representations at this meeting and that I don't have to submit my intention to speak to the meeting?
I'm happy to attend but if I addressed the meeting I feel that all I would be doing is re-iterating what will be said by others. Advice please (within the next 14 days)!

[Guest]

Marya, I'm sure that is the case, but perhaps dc cairns can advise us?

In the meantime, you may wish to practice singing this, to the tune of Pink Floyd's 'Another Brick In The Wall':

We don't need no supermarket
We don't need no superstore
No toxic fumes in our High Street
Tesco leave our town alone
Hey, Farmer - leave our town alone
All in all, we'd rather not have your mall
All in all, we just don't want it at all.

You can tell I've been busy today, can't you? Anyone want to offer a second verse?

[Gemini]

CATS will be making representations at this meeting, Group is currently putting together a list of representatives from all sectors of Portobello to give evidence at the PLI.

More news to follow from dcairns - secretary.



The Ditty for the Campaign is very good.

[Poppy]

The letter from the executive is a bit misleading! So let me see if I've got this right:

The 14 days notice seems to be for intimating that one will be making representations at the inquiry itself - for which no date has been given, but from the agenda this will be in late Feb next year.

The pre-enquiry meeting on 4 October requires 7 days notice of attendance for calculating numbers only - and the latter states that no representations can be made at that meeting. Although I assume questions about procedural matters will be entertained?

[dccairns]

In answer to Marya’s question, you are quite correct, PCATS will be putting up people to speak at the PLI. Of course anyone can speak at the inquiry if they wish to and if they do want to they will need to attend the pre-inquiry meeting. However, the reporter will not want to hear the same thing 100 times over. Anyone can attend the pre-inquiry meeting and the PLI itself just to observe.

In answer to Poppy’s question, i assume you could ask questions about procedural matters at the pre-inquiry meeting but there will be no discussion of the issues themselves.

[Maria]

Thought I'd bring this thread to the top of the first page again as Oct. 4 is fast approaching!