Today at the Inquiry
The high level of public interest in the inquiry continued today with a wonderful turnout from the community. Ages ranged from a babe in arms through to a group of school kids, young parents and some of the more senior members of our community. It is quite clear that it’s not the same faces and that people are dropping in when they can. Let’s keep it up.
Trevor Davies, the convenor of the planning committee, gave his evidence and, as expected, was questioned all morning. A robust defence of the council’s decisions was given during the persistent questioning from the developer’s QC. There was much continuing debate about the traffic assessment of the new lights proposed to take the place of Seafield roundabout. It’s really strange that a developer who pretends to have the best interest of Portobello in mind does not know of this proposed alteration. Come along when the traffic evidence is being heard to find out if this is really true.
A lot of legal debate took place in snippets throughout the day about why the traffic officers at the council thought that the road system could cope with the increased traffic when the council’s own traffic expert for the inquiry questioned this. This kind of thing makes us glad that the community, through their generous contributions, could afford our own traffic expert. Our expert can express his technical opinion without being fettered by what others have done. We in the community have always known the roads won’t cope.
As there wasn’t enough time left in the afternoon for our retail expert to make his case, Stephen Hawkins could give his statement on behalf of PCATS, PAS and BRA. John Stewart then followed on behalf of the Community Council. Both got a heartwarming round of applause from the audience after their deliveries but very few questions from the developer’s QC. The reporter asked for clarification on a few points and then that was it. Roll on Monday when many more community members will have their say.
The day finished with another interminable legal ping-pong match about traffic. Something that has really screwed up the timetable for everyone.
New timetable:
Monday 7th. Independent witnesses form the community including Susan Deacon and Lawrence, boohoo my holiday’s over, Marshall.
Tuesday 8th. Community witnesses followed by Keith Hargest, our retail expert. (He may continue over to Wednesday depending on the speed of cross examination.)
Then a break until
Thursday 17th March - traffic evidence possibly going over into Friday 18th.
Monday 21st - possible site visits
Tuesday 22nd - closing submissions.
So, sorry about the need to rearrange everything, as is the reporter who has had to change her holiday but maybe see you on Monday for a 10:00 start.
Superstore - New Petrol Station - Parking - New Access
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
I don't think compensation comes into it. We don't want the Superstore full stop and no amount of money is going to make the development palatable to the people of Portobello. We won't be bought off and half a million quid won't make a scrap of difference to the long term viability of our community if this goes ahead.
Shove your money Mr Farmer.
Shove your money Mr Farmer.
quote BOB>> I don't think compensation comes into it. We don't want the Superstore full stop and no amount of money is going to make the development palatable to the people of Portobello. end quote>>
I think I can safely say that PCATS are advocating exactly what Bob has stated. We have worked bloody hard for more than a year, in our own time, raising a massive amount of money from this amazing community to pay for the experts needed to fight this case. £500.000 or £5.000.000 will not change our minds.
How the hell can £500.000 stop local traders from closing down? answers on a post card to Trevor Davis and the Planning Committee.
Don't want to say much more on this - or I could be barred from POL
an angry Gemini
I think I can safely say that PCATS are advocating exactly what Bob has stated. We have worked bloody hard for more than a year, in our own time, raising a massive amount of money from this amazing community to pay for the experts needed to fight this case. £500.000 or £5.000.000 will not change our minds.
How the hell can £500.000 stop local traders from closing down? answers on a post card to Trevor Davis and the Planning Committee.
Don't want to say much more on this - or I could be barred from POL
an angry Gemini
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
I doubt it. We've put up with you this far.Gemini wrote:Don't want to say much more on this - or I could be barred from POL
an angry Gemini
Last edited by Bob Jefferson on 05 Mar 2005, 19:08, edited 1 time in total.
Money no compensation....
quote BOB>> I don't think compensation comes into it. We don't want the Superstore full stop and no amount of money is going to make the development palatable to the people of Portobello. end quote>>
Couldn't agree more, for once Bob, -I was horrified to read the Council via Cllr Trevor Davies being quoted in the E News tonight as saying "Without this condition (£500,000 payment) the proposal is unacceptable, but with this condition it is more acceptable". Who asked people in Portobello if this makes the superstore more acceptable? No one - ? I thought so - nothing new there then.....
Our message is and should be NO SUPERSTORE - WHATEVER MONEY THE DEVELOPERS OFFER - let's face it they are out to make millions on this site - probably over £50 million profit as one retail expert advised - so what is £500,000 to them? - however I agree with Bob - even giving millions to the Council it would not compensate for killing off our shops and community and bringing an extra 1,000 plus cars per hour into Porty (and as Stephen from PCATS pointed out who is to say they would actually pay this and what it would be spent on, and whether that would even be in Porty?)
Keep up the fight - Portobello people......and well done so far to us all including those speaking and attending the PLI, including the Campaign ofcourse.....C
Couldn't agree more, for once Bob, -I was horrified to read the Council via Cllr Trevor Davies being quoted in the E News tonight as saying "Without this condition (£500,000 payment) the proposal is unacceptable, but with this condition it is more acceptable". Who asked people in Portobello if this makes the superstore more acceptable? No one - ? I thought so - nothing new there then.....
Our message is and should be NO SUPERSTORE - WHATEVER MONEY THE DEVELOPERS OFFER - let's face it they are out to make millions on this site - probably over £50 million profit as one retail expert advised - so what is £500,000 to them? - however I agree with Bob - even giving millions to the Council it would not compensate for killing off our shops and community and bringing an extra 1,000 plus cars per hour into Porty (and as Stephen from PCATS pointed out who is to say they would actually pay this and what it would be spent on, and whether that would even be in Porty?)
Keep up the fight - Portobello people......and well done so far to us all including those speaking and attending the PLI, including the Campaign ofcourse.....C
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
-
Brian McCrow
- Posts: 224
- Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 12:11
- Location: Portobello
It's always wise to have a contingency plan in case things don't work out as planned/desired.
A cash payment towards Portobello amenity would be sensible if the Reporter were to rule in favour of the Superstore as this would go some way to repairing/compensating for the expected impact on our local amenity.
I wouldn't want it to replace already allocated funds both now and in the future i.e. it should be treated as new separate funds. Ideally the allocation of this money should be under the control of the Portobello Community Council.
The next question is the value of the impact on Portobello. How was the sum of £500,000 arrived at? Instinctively, I believe it should be much more especially when we see the size of funds already committed by the Council on Porty upgrades.
Perhaps it should be more like £2M. Do we know what the expected profits from this Superstore will be per annum? Shouldn't the developers/retailer pay 10% pa on this profit over the next 20 years.
Can anyone do realistic plans and costing??
A cash payment towards Portobello amenity would be sensible if the Reporter were to rule in favour of the Superstore as this would go some way to repairing/compensating for the expected impact on our local amenity.
I wouldn't want it to replace already allocated funds both now and in the future i.e. it should be treated as new separate funds. Ideally the allocation of this money should be under the control of the Portobello Community Council.
The next question is the value of the impact on Portobello. How was the sum of £500,000 arrived at? Instinctively, I believe it should be much more especially when we see the size of funds already committed by the Council on Porty upgrades.
Perhaps it should be more like £2M. Do we know what the expected profits from this Superstore will be per annum? Shouldn't the developers/retailer pay 10% pa on this profit over the next 20 years.
Can anyone do realistic plans and costing??
Can we honestly say that a Superstore will be a Sustainable Development, and Portobello will remain a Sustainable community, should the appeal be granted in DHP's favour?
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/env ... ssd-08.asp
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/env ... ssd-08.asp
Response, I received personally from a resident of Porty. with reference to Brian's posting -
quote Brian>>
A cash payment towards Portobello amenity would be sensible if the Reporter were to rule in favour of the Superstore as this would go some way to repairing/compensating for the expected impact on our local amenity. end quote<<
Quote Resident>>
No amount of money
will ensure that we still have a High Street with the diversity of shops
for basic living as well as other special shops attracting people to Portobello.
There will be no High Street so what does he suggest the money is spent on?
HOW DO YOU COMPENSATE FOR SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE REPLACED, ONCE IT HAS GONE
IT'S GONE>> end quote
quote Brian>>
A cash payment towards Portobello amenity would be sensible if the Reporter were to rule in favour of the Superstore as this would go some way to repairing/compensating for the expected impact on our local amenity. end quote<<
Quote Resident>>
No amount of money
will ensure that we still have a High Street with the diversity of shops
for basic living as well as other special shops attracting people to Portobello.
There will be no High Street so what does he suggest the money is spent on?
HOW DO YOU COMPENSATE FOR SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE REPLACED, ONCE IT HAS GONE
IT'S GONE>> end quote
-
Brian McCrow
- Posts: 224
- Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 12:11
- Location: Portobello
Gemini
I was talking about a CONTINGENCY situation. Of course, we don't want the Superstore for the reasons you stated HOWEVER the Reporter MAY rule in favour of the Superstore. In which case we should have a negotiated position with the developers. Once the Reporter rules there will be no negotiation.
If we don't consider the possibility you're doing the ostrich head in the sand and in that position your backside is exposed for a good kicking.
I was talking about a CONTINGENCY situation. Of course, we don't want the Superstore for the reasons you stated HOWEVER the Reporter MAY rule in favour of the Superstore. In which case we should have a negotiated position with the developers. Once the Reporter rules there will be no negotiation.
If we don't consider the possibility you're doing the ostrich head in the sand and in that position your backside is exposed for a good kicking.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
Maureen
Today's EN seems to suggest that the Council is ready to capitulate on the Superstore proposal for a compensation fee of £500,000? Would you care to comment on this and set the record straight for publication on the
Portobello Matters forum?
Today's EN seems to suggest that the Council is ready to capitulate on the Superstore proposal for a compensation fee of £500,000? Would you care to comment on this and set the record straight for publication on the
Portobello Matters forum?
Bob
My understanding is, from someone who was there and listening very carefully indeed, that Trevor Davies was misquoted. I understand Trevor was particularly careful to say much the same as Stephen Hawkins. The Council oppose this application unconditionally. That did not suit the line the newspaper wanted to take so they chose to misrepresent the true position.
Maureen
-
Hawkeye
Today at the Inquiry
Firstly, can I apologise to everyone who might have been coming along tomorrow to hear Joanna Blythman speak. As usual things didn’t go exactly to plan and she had to be summoned from distant Craiglockart to give evidence this afternoon.
To start with today, Susan Deacon, our local MSP, gave her statement in which she said that no other issue in her experience had generated so much opposition from the local community. This was across the board and she refuted claims by Duddingston House Properties that it was a political campaign. Susan gave a very clear definition of where she and the community felt that the town centre is and how this contributes to our sense of place.
Arthur Jeffery, a Baileyfield resident, was next and gave a feeling of what it will be like for those who would have to live with the superstore in their back garden. He then went on to emphasise the effects of moving the bus stops and the delay when drivers change over.
Councillor Lawrence Marshall again stressed the urban design principles that had been drawn up with the knowledge of the then owners Scottish Power. He gave a robust defence of the council’s policy of trying to limit car journeys. After describing his involvement in the planning committee meetings, the Duddingston House QC thought he had him as Lawrence had chaired the meeting that approved the superstore in Corstorphine. However, it was carefully explained that each situation is different and that this store is out of centre. At one point Lawrence said that ‘the traffic would be knackered’,
the Duddingston QC raised a laugh by asking if that was a technical term.
An in-depth rationale for using the High Street was delivered by Elisabeth McCulloch who presented a staggering list of what can be bought or done on Portobello High Street including topping up one’s tan. She went on to say how much the High Street contributes to the community spirit and sense of identity.
Another Baileyfield resident, Ian McGregor, also stressed the effect on noise, privacy and security that the superstore would have. On top of this is the worry about the unknown fill material to the former clay pit and that the superstore is against the approved use of this land.
Irene Richardson took another slant altogether and that was the loss of the educational benefits to young children that the High Street has as opposed to the isolating and anonymous feel of a superstore. Irene highlighted the way connections can be made about where our food comes from in local shops and how local traders add to the gaining of social skills in youngsters.
Mr Wallace emphasised that with 12 other stores within easy reach, who needs this one and that the increased traffic will contribute to more accidents.
The last Baileyfield resident to give evidence, Anne Ward, returned to the issues of land instability, noise and pollution. Anne pointed out that land stability is a material consideration when considering this kind of application by quoting the guidance from England ( there being no such similar document in Scotland). This was noted by the reporter who asked all parties to consider what conditions should be applied if the appeal was allowed.
The last independent witness, Mr Young, questioned the research methodology used by the consultant to justify the superstore but nevertheless pointed out that only 3.4% of those questioned wanted a superstore. Mr Young robustly defended his objection and emphasised that there were a large number of existing superstores in the catchment area.
For the traders, Graham Kitchener immediately threw a spanner in the works of Duddingston’s argument by giving up to date vacancy rates for the shops in Portobello. According to the council 18% are vacant. Graham scotched this inaccuracy. He also refuted a previous suggestion that the town is dying on its feet by giving an example of a recent rent increase that showed how buoyant trade is in Portobello.
The last witness of the day was Joanna Blythman who led evidence on just how much the supermarkets have changed shopping patterns, reduced quality, choice and conned people into believing they are saving money. She also gave a dire prediction on the effect of the superstore on the existing shops should the superstore be approved and after rigourous cross examination left no one in any doubt as to the governments cosy friendship with the fat-cat executives of the big supermarket chains.
So, only two witnesses tomorrow, Dr Gordon McCulloch followed by Keith Hargest the PCATS retail expert. Tomorrow you will see what we have got for our money.
Proceedings start at 9:30 - see you there.
Firstly, can I apologise to everyone who might have been coming along tomorrow to hear Joanna Blythman speak. As usual things didn’t go exactly to plan and she had to be summoned from distant Craiglockart to give evidence this afternoon.
To start with today, Susan Deacon, our local MSP, gave her statement in which she said that no other issue in her experience had generated so much opposition from the local community. This was across the board and she refuted claims by Duddingston House Properties that it was a political campaign. Susan gave a very clear definition of where she and the community felt that the town centre is and how this contributes to our sense of place.
Arthur Jeffery, a Baileyfield resident, was next and gave a feeling of what it will be like for those who would have to live with the superstore in their back garden. He then went on to emphasise the effects of moving the bus stops and the delay when drivers change over.
Councillor Lawrence Marshall again stressed the urban design principles that had been drawn up with the knowledge of the then owners Scottish Power. He gave a robust defence of the council’s policy of trying to limit car journeys. After describing his involvement in the planning committee meetings, the Duddingston House QC thought he had him as Lawrence had chaired the meeting that approved the superstore in Corstorphine. However, it was carefully explained that each situation is different and that this store is out of centre. At one point Lawrence said that ‘the traffic would be knackered’,
the Duddingston QC raised a laugh by asking if that was a technical term.
An in-depth rationale for using the High Street was delivered by Elisabeth McCulloch who presented a staggering list of what can be bought or done on Portobello High Street including topping up one’s tan. She went on to say how much the High Street contributes to the community spirit and sense of identity.
Another Baileyfield resident, Ian McGregor, also stressed the effect on noise, privacy and security that the superstore would have. On top of this is the worry about the unknown fill material to the former clay pit and that the superstore is against the approved use of this land.
Irene Richardson took another slant altogether and that was the loss of the educational benefits to young children that the High Street has as opposed to the isolating and anonymous feel of a superstore. Irene highlighted the way connections can be made about where our food comes from in local shops and how local traders add to the gaining of social skills in youngsters.
Mr Wallace emphasised that with 12 other stores within easy reach, who needs this one and that the increased traffic will contribute to more accidents.
The last Baileyfield resident to give evidence, Anne Ward, returned to the issues of land instability, noise and pollution. Anne pointed out that land stability is a material consideration when considering this kind of application by quoting the guidance from England ( there being no such similar document in Scotland). This was noted by the reporter who asked all parties to consider what conditions should be applied if the appeal was allowed.
The last independent witness, Mr Young, questioned the research methodology used by the consultant to justify the superstore but nevertheless pointed out that only 3.4% of those questioned wanted a superstore. Mr Young robustly defended his objection and emphasised that there were a large number of existing superstores in the catchment area.
For the traders, Graham Kitchener immediately threw a spanner in the works of Duddingston’s argument by giving up to date vacancy rates for the shops in Portobello. According to the council 18% are vacant. Graham scotched this inaccuracy. He also refuted a previous suggestion that the town is dying on its feet by giving an example of a recent rent increase that showed how buoyant trade is in Portobello.
The last witness of the day was Joanna Blythman who led evidence on just how much the supermarkets have changed shopping patterns, reduced quality, choice and conned people into believing they are saving money. She also gave a dire prediction on the effect of the superstore on the existing shops should the superstore be approved and after rigourous cross examination left no one in any doubt as to the governments cosy friendship with the fat-cat executives of the big supermarket chains.
So, only two witnesses tomorrow, Dr Gordon McCulloch followed by Keith Hargest the PCATS retail expert. Tomorrow you will see what we have got for our money.
Proceedings start at 9:30 - see you there.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
Copy of letter sent by Trevor Davies to EN today:
Sir -
Was your reporter Jane Bradley actually at the Public Inquiry about the Portobello Superstore proposal? Because what I said there was, in fact, the complete opposite from what, in quotes, she reports me as saying.
I said that our proposed contribution of £500,000 by the superstore to help Portobello survive if the idea is given the go-ahead would not turn an unacceptable proposal into a more acceptable one. With or without the contribution the Council still opposes the idea.
But – of course – that doesn’t make such a neat headline
Councillor Trevor Davies
Convenor: Planning Committee
City of Edinburgh Council
Trevor Davis wrote:I said that our proposed contribution of £500,000 by the superstore to help Portobello survive
Sorry - but I still cannot get my head around £500.000 helping Portobello survive? If the shops do not survive, how can Portobello as we know it survive?Brian wrote:A cash payment towards Portobello amenity would be sensible if the Reporter were to rule in favour of the Superstore as this would go some way to repairing/compensating for the expected impact on our local amenity
At today's session of the PLI, it was stated by our Retail Impact Expert, that should the superstore be built, there is a high risk of shop closures.
BTW this is not a superstore, a marketing expert in the community advised the PI that this proposal was a hypermarket.
-
Hawkeye
Today at the Inquiry
The marvellous attendance from members of the community continued today with even more new faces, toddlers and babes in push chairs. This most certainly proves that this is the most important development proposed for Portobello in many long years.
Dr. Gordon McCulloch entered the fray this morning giving his opinion as to how the superstore will harm the health of the local people and disadvantage the frail and elderly should it be given approval. He also highlighted the poor level of service from superstore pharmacies in contrast to the High Street chemists. His research has latterly revealed that the levels of diesel particulates predicted for the High Street will exceed new guidelines introduced at the start of this year. I think the Evening News may pick up on this one.
The other witness today was the retail expert, Keith Hargest, who was employed by PCATS as the council did not put up a specialist on the economic impact of the superstore on the existing town centre. He was cool, confident, non sensational and gave a clear indication that the superstore would probably close down the Co-op which would then lead to the loss of other shops. Unfortunately, retail planning is not an exact science and that’s why Keith Hargest’s non-sensational approach provides a measured, believable argument against the superstore.
A lot will depend on whether the superstore is judged to be out of centre or edge of centre. Fine distinctions lost on those of us who inhabit the real world. But Keith gave very clear reasons as to why he considered it to be out of centre - that is beyond the normal shopping frontages and not visible from the main shopping area. Much was made of Graham Kitchener’s weekend survey of vacant shops which showed that only 8% of shops were vacant (this includes shops being refurbished) as opposed to the council’s figure of 18%. For this, and many other things, we are glad that we have our own expert.
Well that’s it for a while. My apologies to those supporters who may have turned up this afternoon to find that we finished at 12:30 as the developer’s QC didn’t have too many questions for our expert.
We reconvene on Thursday 17th March at 9:30 to consider the traffic implications. As usual all are welcome to witness what outsiders want to do to our community.
The marvellous attendance from members of the community continued today with even more new faces, toddlers and babes in push chairs. This most certainly proves that this is the most important development proposed for Portobello in many long years.
Dr. Gordon McCulloch entered the fray this morning giving his opinion as to how the superstore will harm the health of the local people and disadvantage the frail and elderly should it be given approval. He also highlighted the poor level of service from superstore pharmacies in contrast to the High Street chemists. His research has latterly revealed that the levels of diesel particulates predicted for the High Street will exceed new guidelines introduced at the start of this year. I think the Evening News may pick up on this one.
The other witness today was the retail expert, Keith Hargest, who was employed by PCATS as the council did not put up a specialist on the economic impact of the superstore on the existing town centre. He was cool, confident, non sensational and gave a clear indication that the superstore would probably close down the Co-op which would then lead to the loss of other shops. Unfortunately, retail planning is not an exact science and that’s why Keith Hargest’s non-sensational approach provides a measured, believable argument against the superstore.
A lot will depend on whether the superstore is judged to be out of centre or edge of centre. Fine distinctions lost on those of us who inhabit the real world. But Keith gave very clear reasons as to why he considered it to be out of centre - that is beyond the normal shopping frontages and not visible from the main shopping area. Much was made of Graham Kitchener’s weekend survey of vacant shops which showed that only 8% of shops were vacant (this includes shops being refurbished) as opposed to the council’s figure of 18%. For this, and many other things, we are glad that we have our own expert.
Well that’s it for a while. My apologies to those supporters who may have turned up this afternoon to find that we finished at 12:30 as the developer’s QC didn’t have too many questions for our expert.
We reconvene on Thursday 17th March at 9:30 to consider the traffic implications. As usual all are welcome to witness what outsiders want to do to our community.
quote hawkeye>>
The other witness today was the retail expert, Keith Hargest, who was employed by PCATS as the council did not put up a specialist on the economic impact of the superstore on the existing town centre.<<
After listening to the debate on the 'Retail Impact' thank the Lord we did not take the very bad advice given to the group last summer - that PCATS did not need any experts
- and that we were the experts cause we live in Portobello
The other witness today was the retail expert, Keith Hargest, who was employed by PCATS as the council did not put up a specialist on the economic impact of the superstore on the existing town centre.<<
After listening to the debate on the 'Retail Impact' thank the Lord we did not take the very bad advice given to the group last summer - that PCATS did not need any experts
- and that we were the experts cause we live in Portobello -
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
Glad to read that our presence was welcome rather than a hindrance. We debated quite a while before bringing the wee ones in, but wanted to show our support.
What great children - we were all impressed -how did you manage to keep them amused and contented?
My son at that age, would have been screaming blue murder.
What great children - we were all impressed -how did you manage to keep them amused and contented?
My son at that age, would have been screaming blue murder.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
Conditions on the Outline Planning Approval
As you will no doubt be aware from the Evening News, the council have indicated to the reporter the conditions they would have applied to this application for a superstore had they decided to approve it. The Scottish Executive reporter will now set any conditions if she decides to allow the appeal. The Evening News article was wrong to suggest that Trevor Davies said give us £500,000 and that would make it acceptable. Under cross-examination he said that the money would be used to lessen the effect of the superstore on the existing town centre.
We have the opportunity to suggest our own conditions but they have to be reasonable, precise and enforceable. However, some people may think that in doing so, we are accepting the superstore. I would like to make it quite clear that we are still completely opposed to the superstore but the suggesting of conditions is a secondary tactic as we cannot say with certainty that the reporter will refuse the appeal. It could be that the conditions are just sufficient to discourage, say TESCO, from taking on the site even when planning permission has been given. For instance, Duddingston House Properties bragged about getting permission to change the garden centre at Holy Corner into a supermarket but what they didn't say was that they haven't got a supermarket interested yet because of a restriction on parking spaces.
The conditions that we might suggest are : Opening hours 08:00 to 20:00; no deliveries after 18:00 or on Sundays; limit of 3000 sq m floorspace; no illuminated signage and none over 1 m high or on the roof; the subsidence to Baileyfield cottages be remedied before work commences; no future extension to the store to be permitted; no chemist, post office, bank, opticians or photo processing; no restrictions on who uses the car park or time limit; high quality landscape screening to the car park; a payment up front of between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 to fund a Town Centre Manager and other initiatives for Portobello town centre over a five year period (this is in addition to whatever the council has planned to spend). There is no guarantee that the reporter will agree to any of these but if you don't ask, you don't get.
There are two questions I would like supporters' opinions on. Firstly, should we suggest conditions after making it clear that we are still totally opposed to the development? and secondly, what should those conditions be? These have to be given to the reporter at the time of closing submissions which will be Tuesday 22nd March so if you wish to reply please let me have your comments by Saturday 19th.
Thank you for your continued support.
Stephen Hawkins
As you will no doubt be aware from the Evening News, the council have indicated to the reporter the conditions they would have applied to this application for a superstore had they decided to approve it. The Scottish Executive reporter will now set any conditions if she decides to allow the appeal. The Evening News article was wrong to suggest that Trevor Davies said give us £500,000 and that would make it acceptable. Under cross-examination he said that the money would be used to lessen the effect of the superstore on the existing town centre.
We have the opportunity to suggest our own conditions but they have to be reasonable, precise and enforceable. However, some people may think that in doing so, we are accepting the superstore. I would like to make it quite clear that we are still completely opposed to the superstore but the suggesting of conditions is a secondary tactic as we cannot say with certainty that the reporter will refuse the appeal. It could be that the conditions are just sufficient to discourage, say TESCO, from taking on the site even when planning permission has been given. For instance, Duddingston House Properties bragged about getting permission to change the garden centre at Holy Corner into a supermarket but what they didn't say was that they haven't got a supermarket interested yet because of a restriction on parking spaces.
The conditions that we might suggest are : Opening hours 08:00 to 20:00; no deliveries after 18:00 or on Sundays; limit of 3000 sq m floorspace; no illuminated signage and none over 1 m high or on the roof; the subsidence to Baileyfield cottages be remedied before work commences; no future extension to the store to be permitted; no chemist, post office, bank, opticians or photo processing; no restrictions on who uses the car park or time limit; high quality landscape screening to the car park; a payment up front of between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 to fund a Town Centre Manager and other initiatives for Portobello town centre over a five year period (this is in addition to whatever the council has planned to spend). There is no guarantee that the reporter will agree to any of these but if you don't ask, you don't get.
There are two questions I would like supporters' opinions on. Firstly, should we suggest conditions after making it clear that we are still totally opposed to the development? and secondly, what should those conditions be? These have to be given to the reporter at the time of closing submissions which will be Tuesday 22nd March so if you wish to reply please let me have your comments by Saturday 19th.
Thank you for your continued support.
Stephen Hawkins
-
Brian McCrow
- Posts: 224
- Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 12:11
- Location: Portobello
Just a reminder that the public inquiry reconvenes tomorrow at 9.30 am at the British Legion to hear the traffic evidence. This may run over until Friday. There will be a site visit, possibly Friday or Monday, and closing submissions from all parties will be heard on Tuesday 22 March.
See you there to find out how to magic 1,000 plus cars into thin air!
See you there to find out how to magic 1,000 plus cars into thin air!
-
Hawkeye
Today at the Inquiry
A big thank you to all who turned up today to witness the inquiry speeding along somewhat like a No. 15 bus along the High Street with three wheels on.
The developer started by leading their traffic witness, Mr Baker, who, despite making much of his visiting professorship at Heriot Watt University, could bore for Scotland in his presentation and many deviations from his precognition summary. It’s unbelievable when he says that 80% to 100% of traffic to the proposed store would already be passing as Robert Drysdale has said that the store will attract shoppers from Jock’s Lodge, Craigentinny, Craigmillar and Bingham. Mind you, he also said that he stood at the bottom of Fishwives Causeway for four and a half minutes without a vehicle passing. I wonder if he exaggerates in the same way with Mrs. Baker.
One weak point in the developer’s case, the effect of the pedestrian crossings on traffic flow along the High Street, was glossed over and despite returning to this subject during the day it is still unclear if the pedestrian crossings are to be altered to the detriment of pedestrians. Also, the effect of the 25% of superstore traffic that travels east along the High Street could not be explained. At one point Mr Baker even agreed that the extra congestion would be unacceptable for local residents, that there will be pain (as he put it) and that if he lived here he would be one of the objectors, however, he declined to wear the proffered ‘Porty says NO superstore’ T-shirt.
The thing that shone through is that the developers believe giving the council £300,000 towards the signals at Seafield allows them to pass all responsibility for the increased congestion on to the council. It’s nice to see that they can so easily wash their hands of the situation they will cause.
About 3:00 pm when even the developer’s QC was fed up of listening to Mr Baker, the council’s traffic expert, Mr Watt, was brought on. However, as he was bound by what the council’s own traffic officers had said before being asked the right questions, he could not elaborate too much on his opinion that the local community’s position on congestion was a more accurate reflection of the situation rather than that of traffic consultants who only visit the site a handful of times.
Unfortunately time beat us and our expert witness, Andrew Carrie, will now be heard tomorrow starting at 10:00 am. I’m sure he will be able to shed more light on what effect the superstore will have on the congestion in the High Street.
Please note that closing submissions will be held on Tuesday morning. Make a date in your diary if possible and encourage as many of your friends, neighbours and relations to come along to hear the final say we have on the approval in principle of this pivotal development for Portobello.
A big thank you to all who turned up today to witness the inquiry speeding along somewhat like a No. 15 bus along the High Street with three wheels on.
The developer started by leading their traffic witness, Mr Baker, who, despite making much of his visiting professorship at Heriot Watt University, could bore for Scotland in his presentation and many deviations from his precognition summary. It’s unbelievable when he says that 80% to 100% of traffic to the proposed store would already be passing as Robert Drysdale has said that the store will attract shoppers from Jock’s Lodge, Craigentinny, Craigmillar and Bingham. Mind you, he also said that he stood at the bottom of Fishwives Causeway for four and a half minutes without a vehicle passing. I wonder if he exaggerates in the same way with Mrs. Baker.
One weak point in the developer’s case, the effect of the pedestrian crossings on traffic flow along the High Street, was glossed over and despite returning to this subject during the day it is still unclear if the pedestrian crossings are to be altered to the detriment of pedestrians. Also, the effect of the 25% of superstore traffic that travels east along the High Street could not be explained. At one point Mr Baker even agreed that the extra congestion would be unacceptable for local residents, that there will be pain (as he put it) and that if he lived here he would be one of the objectors, however, he declined to wear the proffered ‘Porty says NO superstore’ T-shirt.
The thing that shone through is that the developers believe giving the council £300,000 towards the signals at Seafield allows them to pass all responsibility for the increased congestion on to the council. It’s nice to see that they can so easily wash their hands of the situation they will cause.
About 3:00 pm when even the developer’s QC was fed up of listening to Mr Baker, the council’s traffic expert, Mr Watt, was brought on. However, as he was bound by what the council’s own traffic officers had said before being asked the right questions, he could not elaborate too much on his opinion that the local community’s position on congestion was a more accurate reflection of the situation rather than that of traffic consultants who only visit the site a handful of times.
Unfortunately time beat us and our expert witness, Andrew Carrie, will now be heard tomorrow starting at 10:00 am. I’m sure he will be able to shed more light on what effect the superstore will have on the congestion in the High Street.
Please note that closing submissions will be held on Tuesday morning. Make a date in your diary if possible and encourage as many of your friends, neighbours and relations to come along to hear the final say we have on the approval in principle of this pivotal development for Portobello.
-
Hawkeye
Today at the Inquiry
After yesterday’s slow and stifling examination of the traffic evidence this morning’s presentation by our traffic expert, Andrew Carrie, came as light relief with one or two humorous moments. However, this hid a methodical demolition of the developer’s traffic arguments that left no one in any doubt that they had not shown how the extra traffic will not significantly add to congestion in Portobello.
One observer today said that Andrew, especially in comparison to what happened yesterday, made his arguments, based on common sense, understandable. He also showed a wealth of experience and prior knowledge of the situation in Portobello, having been involved with several past traffic schemes. His input to traffic management when he worked for Lothian Region even had the reporter remarking “how did they manage when you left?â€Â
After yesterday’s slow and stifling examination of the traffic evidence this morning’s presentation by our traffic expert, Andrew Carrie, came as light relief with one or two humorous moments. However, this hid a methodical demolition of the developer’s traffic arguments that left no one in any doubt that they had not shown how the extra traffic will not significantly add to congestion in Portobello.
One observer today said that Andrew, especially in comparison to what happened yesterday, made his arguments, based on common sense, understandable. He also showed a wealth of experience and prior knowledge of the situation in Portobello, having been involved with several past traffic schemes. His input to traffic management when he worked for Lothian Region even had the reporter remarking “how did they manage when you left?â€Â
quote Hawkeye >
Andrew Carrie, came as light relief with one or two humorous moments. However, this hid a methodical demolition of the developer’s traffic arguments that left no one in any doubt that they had not shown how the extra traffic will not significantly add to congestion in Portobello. end quote<
Andrew Carrie, was excellent - after listening to Mr. Baker yesterday, Andrew was a breath of fresh air - or should we say gale force wind. He completely dismantled the appellants case.
I must confess to slowly giving up the will to live on Thurday when Mr. Baker / Mr. Watt were giving evidence.
Well done Andrew Carrie, glad you are on our side.
Andrew Carrie, came as light relief with one or two humorous moments. However, this hid a methodical demolition of the developer’s traffic arguments that left no one in any doubt that they had not shown how the extra traffic will not significantly add to congestion in Portobello. end quote<
Andrew Carrie, was excellent - after listening to Mr. Baker yesterday, Andrew was a breath of fresh air - or should we say gale force wind. He completely dismantled the appellants case.
I must confess to slowly giving up the will to live on Thurday when Mr. Baker / Mr. Watt were giving evidence.
Well done Andrew Carrie, glad you are on our side.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
I am very disappointed not to be able to attend the summing up on Tuesday morning. I had intended to take a day's leave but unfortunately I have a meeting in the morning that I can't get out of.
I do hope that as many people as possible will turn up to demonstrate the overwhelming opposition to this unwanted and unneccessary development.
Again, I offer my congratualtions to everyone involved in the campaign for the excellent job they have done on our behalf.
I do hope that as many people as possible will turn up to demonstrate the overwhelming opposition to this unwanted and unneccessary development.
Again, I offer my congratualtions to everyone involved in the campaign for the excellent job they have done on our behalf.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
Two more precognition statements. The first is from Elisabeth McCulloch, who has lived and shopped in Portobello for the last 17 years. The second comes from her husband, Dr G McCulloch, a local GP.
The quality of argument in both submissions is excellent and I have nothing but praise for all the precognition statements I have read so far so far from opponents of the Superstore. The Reporter can't fail to be impressed.
Elisabeth - precog
Gordon - precog
The quality of argument in both submissions is excellent and I have nothing but praise for all the precognition statements I have read so far so far from opponents of the Superstore. The Reporter can't fail to be impressed.
Elisabeth - precog
Gordon - precog