6 John Street - proposed change to homeless hostel

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 05 Dec 2004, 05:37

teddygirl wrote:certain members of our society today are less than desirable in my opinion

You got that right - in your opinion. And you don't have to get drawn into any argument you don't want to, either. I'm not going to pester you to answer the simple question of exactly who you think is undesirable.

I ask any other member of the John Street Action Group if they share your opinion and if so, could they elaborate instead?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Dec 2004, 12:10

It supposed to be a half way house for recovering computer programmers? Can't see what your issue is Dada?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 05 Dec 2004, 12:27

See the "6 John Street - Community Power" thread. You'll see exactly what the issue is.

teddygirl · Post by **teddygirl** » 05 Dec 2004, 12:31

Okay Dadaist, I am feeling a bit more refreshed this morning so I will attempt to explain myself.
First of all I was not the instigator in using the term "undesirables".........it was you !! You used this word in your posting on the 9th January 2004.
Unless I am wrong in saying that you were known as Surrealist then ?

I have in the past been in the unfortunate position of having neighbours who caused me a great deal of stress through their unsociable behaviour and unless you have experienced it at first hand then maybe you just don't understand what it feels like.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 05 Dec 2004, 13:36

Yes, I accused the John Street Action Group of being more a bunch of people who were out for themselves than a bunch of altruists exercising so-called "Community Power". Brian McCrow assured me that his group's sentiment was motivated only by a desire to help by denying an unscrupulous landlord another money-making opportunity, and I took his comments at face value.

Your comment completely flew in the face of what Brian had been saying and made me wonder if the basis of my initial criticism of the group was correct after all.

It'll be a shame if it turns out I was right all along and you did all just have a view on your property values as opposed to being motivated by a desire to do good.

At least they had the Cat & Dog fair at the town hall yesterday, as I can draw some small hope from the fact that people still care about animals, even if they have lost any compassion for each other.

teddygirl · Post by **teddygirl** » 05 Dec 2004, 14:36

Quite honestly the value of my property was the least of my worries as I have no plans to sell in the near or distant future.

My main concerns were for the safety of my children and peace of mind for friends and neighbours. As I said previously having experienced the trauma that comes with living beside people that have no concern for the misery they cause to others I think they are the ones who have no compassion for their fellow men.

By the way I was at the Cat and Dog fair yesterday, there are a lot of caring people out there,both for animals and each other.

MrSpoon · Post by **MrSpoon** » 05 Dec 2004, 14:52

I'm confused.. are you reffering this to yourself (surrealist) or us?

In either case, yes you can refer yourself/us to the comment made today by teddygirl in another thread. Well done!

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 05 Dec 2004, 14:54

I am gradually relaxing after hearing about the refusal. I was obviously more tense than I thought I was. I'm gradually feeling lighter as this black cloud is dispersing.

I thought I'd help you folks relax as well by summarising the Reporter's Conclusions.

1. He commented that he could only deal with the application as made for a Guest House and couldn't assume that an application for multiple occupancy or residential hostel would better have represented the actual intentions of the applicant. However he noted the lack of any direct evidence, from the present state of the building or otherwise, that it would be aimed at a mainstream tourist market; or of any repudiation in the final appeal submissions of expectations by objectors that the guest house would have much of the character of a hostel for those who find more permanent accommodation difficult to come by. Accordingly he could give only very limited weight to any hypothetical contribution that the premises might make to the attraction of tourists and visitors to the Portobello Promenade area. At the same time he couldn't assume that the use would be permanently so near one end of the gamut of guest house use that parking demand would always be untypically light.

2. He then said that the provision of off-street parking in the garden via a new driveway and breach in the boundary wall would not be trivial but significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Because of the extra parking in the street with the Swim Centre and during the summer (supported by our letters of objection) when most ordinary guest houses would be at their most fully occupied he was convinced that the Guest House would have an undue impact on parking spces.

3. It seemed reasonable to accept local opinion that the nursing home use, by its nature, would have generated little obtrusive activity or parking demand. Moreover, the need for listed building consent for any physical changes including breaches of a boundary wall would limit the practical possibilities for more intensive use within the same use class as a nursing home.

4. There is no feasibility study or other detailed assessment to substantiate the assertion that the property is not suitable for occupation by a single family or - perhaps more realistically because of its size after addition of the annex - for subdivision at reasonable cost.

5. There is indisputable failure under the criterion of 100 metres distance from a main tourist route. He did not find this an arbitrary, draconian limit, but rather generous in regard to visibility of premises from a main route and to the usually rapid fall-off of environmental intrusion of traffic and activity along side streets.

6. A mainstream guest house would typically have mildly intrusive non-domestic signage and would generate traffic and pedestrian movements that could be expected to be more intensive than a large family house or 2 or 3 flats. A more institutional kind of ' guest house' ,with the prospect that some occupants would not be attuned to living discreetly and harmoniously in a family-oriented residential area, would be likely to detract from the residential qualities of the immediate surroundings, and to set back what he surmised from the present appearance and the character of the area to be a gradual recovery from a period of decline when such seaside housing was less in demand.

7. Moreover, the close overlooking of the 'Coach House' from a room in the annex is a particular problem not addressed in the present proposal [We like this, especially as we missed this point ourselves]

There's a lot more technical references in the 6 page document but the above are the comments for the layman.

The Reporter has taken account of local objections, which is very satisfying.

He appears to have blocked off most if not all of the possible options for commercial use hence leaving the conclusion that it should be subdivided into flats or restored to a single family home. I assume that this ruling applies to the house and hence will apply to anyone who may purchase the property in the future.

The Court of Session is their final Appeal route however this is the highest court in Scotland and for commercial cases it would be heard by 3 Law Lords and I'm informed that it's a very expensive process. This is why we think they won't go down this route.

I hope this helps you to relax.

MrSpoon · Post by **MrSpoon** » 05 Dec 2004, 15:02

Dadaist wrote:I'm not going to pester you to answer the simple question of exactly who you think is undesirable.

Fantastic.

Yes, I accused the John Street Action Group of being more a bunch of people who were out for themselves than a bunch of altruists exercising so-called "Community Power". Brian McCrow assured me that his group's sentiment was motivated only by a desire to help by denying an unscrupulous landlord another money-making opportunity, and I took his comments at face value.

Your comment completely flew in the face of what Brian had been saying and made me wonder if the basis of my initial criticism of the group was correct after all.

It'll be a shame if it turns out I was right all along and you did all just have a view on your property values as opposed to being motivated by a desire to do good.

Really now Dadaist, what is you actually hope to achieve? You say a lot on what is morally right in situations, and you're very quick to attack the efforts and sentiments of other people, but what do you do yourself? What motivates you? Why do you want to pick apart everything people say?

You're demonstrating nothing but misery and hatred in every post you make, and I feel sorry for anyone drawn in by you. You say "people have lost compassion for each other" - every single post you make demonstrates this.

Ever heard of the phrase "all talk, no action"?

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 05 Dec 2004, 15:10

Dadaist

I think my earlier correspondence with your previous alter-ego should have re-assured you of our intentions.

If you had attended my presentations to the Council's Licencing Committee re. the Akbar's HMO licence application, you would have heard this in more detail. The Council obviously agreed as they refused the application as unsuitable for the area.

I also think that the Reporter summed up our thinking in para 6 of the above summary.

We support the homeless and disadvantaged and have members and supporters who work actively with these groups while others provide financial support.

I have badgered the Council about providing better support. But it must be through well managed facilities not landlords who are at best naive and at worst just in it for the money. The location of the facility is important as the support facilities are mostly in the City Centre e.g. drop-in centres, soup kitchens, counselling services. Putting a disadvantaged person in a facility without support facilities is irresponsible.

A Social worker advised me that Portobello would be unsuitable as there are no support facilities in the area with the nearest Counselling service in Leith Walk. Also the wind chill factor in Winter time can take the temperature to at least 3 degrees below the City Centre, which is important if the landlord kicks you out after breakfast until evening.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 05 Dec 2004, 18:42

MrSpoon wrote:
Dadaist wrote:I'm not going to pester you to answer the simple question of exactly who you think is undesirable.
Fantastic.

Yes, I accused the John Street Action Group of being more a bunch of people who were out for themselves than a bunch of altruists exercising so-called "Community Power". Brian McCrow assured me that his group's sentiment was motivated only by a desire to help by denying an unscrupulous landlord another money-making opportunity, and I took his comments at face value.

Your comment completely flew in the face of what Brian had been saying and made me wonder if the basis of my initial criticism of the group was correct after all.

It'll be a shame if it turns out I was right all along and you did all just have a view on your property values as opposed to being motivated by a desire to do good.
Really now Dadaist, what is you actually hope to achieve? You say a lot on what is morally right in situations, and you're very quick to attack the efforts and sentiments of other people, but what do you do yourself? What motivates you? Why do you want to pick apart everything people say?

You're demonstrating nothing but misery and hatred in every post you make, and I feel sorry for anyone drawn in by you. You say "people have lost compassion for each other" - every single post you make demonstrates this.

Ever heard of the phrase "all talk, no action"?

I did post something but on reflection have deleted it - a first for me on this forum! I think it's best if I turn the other cheek on this one.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 05 Dec 2004, 18:46

Brian McCrow wrote:Dadaist

I think my earlier correspondence with your previous alter-ego should have re-assured you of our intentions.

If you had attended my presentations to the Council's Licencing Committee re. the Akbar's HMO licence application, you would have heard this in more detail. The Council obviously agreed as they refused the application as unsuitable for the area.

I also think that the Reporter summed up our thinking in para 6 of the above summary.

We support the homeless and disadvantaged and have members and supporters who work actively with these groups while others provide financial support.

I have badgered the Council about providing better support. But it must be through well managed facilities not landlords who are at best naive and at worst just in it for the money. The location of the facility is important as the support facilities are mostly in the City Centre e.g. drop-in centres, soup kitchens, counselling services. Putting a disadvantaged person in a facility without support facilities is irresponsible.

A Social worker advised me that Portobello would be unsuitable as there are no support facilities in the area with the nearest Counselling service in Leith Walk. Also the wind chill factor in Winter time can take the temperature to at least 3 degrees below the City Centre, which is important if the landlord kicks you out after breakfast until evening.

Thanks Brian for your response - it's much appreciated. I'm sure you can understand my viewpoint much as I try to understand yours - my reaction to this is based on the fact that teddygirl's immediate post once she had learned that the application had been refused seemed to contradict the intentions of the group - which you had previously clarified. Thanks again.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 05 Dec 2004, 18:46

Brian McCrow wrote:.A more institutional kind of ' guest house' ,with the prospect that some occupants would not be attuned to living discreetly and harmoniously in a family-oriented residential area

In other words 'undesirable neighbours'!

Even the Reporter gets our drift!

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 05 Dec 2004, 18:50

Dadaist wrote: my reaction to this is based on the fact that teddygirl's immediate post once she had learned that the application had been refused seemed to contradict the intentions of the group - which you had previously clarified. Thanks again.

That could be because neither Teddygirl nor myself are in the Group! I wouldn't want these people on my doorstep and if you were honest neither would you - and now you're moving to Durham you probably won't

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 05 Dec 2004, 19:49

Dadaist wrote:I did post something but on reflection have deleted it - a first for me on this forum! I think it's best if I turn the other cheek on this one.

Good call, but don't make a habit of self-censorship - there aren't too many openings for forum moderators.

teddygirl · Post by **teddygirl** » 05 Dec 2004, 20:18

Thanks for backing me up in this one Epykat. I think at the end of the day we have been the only ones brave enough to be truthful about our opinions whether they be right or wrong.

We all want what is best for our own families and I think we have tried to express this.

Sorry if I have caused you some distress Dadaist, it was never my intention, I just believe in being honest

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 05 Dec 2004, 20:34

Brian - congratulations on a hard-fought campaign. I know that you put a huge amount of work into this so you must be very pleased. From what I have read, Mr Akbar is not a fit person to run this type of establishment and I think your reasons for opposing it were, and remain, sound.

Let's hope that this is the end of the story, although residents in London Street obviously feel that in their case it may not be:

http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=1273182004

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 05 Dec 2004, 20:42

Epykat wrote: I wouldn't want these people on my doorstep and if you were honest neither would you

I'm sorry but you're wrong, on the honesty bit and on the doorstep bit.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 05 Dec 2004, 21:14

MrSpoon wrote:I'm confused.. are you reffering this to yourself (surrealist) or us?

In either case, yes you can refer yourself/us to the comment made today by teddygirl in another thread. Well done!

Neither - in the main it was for Brian's attention.

My use of the phrase "may I" was not actually a request for permission in a literal sense - rather it was the traditional conversational use whereby one attempts to draw attention in a respectful manner.

Thank you for your time and interest thus far in this discussion - I apologise if I caused you any confusion. To that end I think it would be better if you assumed that further posts made by me and addressed to specific individuals, or an impersonal "you", did not concern you.

MrSpoon · Post by **MrSpoon** » 06 Dec 2004, 10:24

Dadaist wrote:
MrSpoon wrote:I'm confused.. are you reffering this to yourself (surrealist) or us?

In either case, yes you can refer yourself/us to the comment made today by teddygirl in another thread. Well done!
Neither - in the main it was for Brian's attention.

My use of the phrase "may I" was not actually a request for permission in a literal sense - rather it was the traditional conversational use whereby one attempts to draw attention in a respectful manner.

Thank you for your time and interest thus far in this discussion - I apologise if I caused you any confusion. To that end I think it would be better if you assumed that further posts made by me and addressed to specific individuals, or an impersonal "you", did not concern you.

There are some terribly long and complicated words in there, "Neither, I meant an impersonal you" really would have be sufficient.

Thank you for clearing that up

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 06 Dec 2004, 12:23

I am still learning the art of PrÃ©cis.

Jamesie · Post by **Jamesie** » 17 Jul 2005, 21:48

Was walking back up from the Prom tonight and was amazed to see the property which was the subject of all the multiple occupancy controversy sitting in what I would describe as a derelict state. What happened in the end? I think I was away when the whole saga ended.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 17 Jul 2005, 22:48

Jamesie wrote:Was walking back up from the Prom tonight and was amazed to see the property which was the subject of all the multiple occupancy controversy sitting in what I would describe as a derelict state. What happened in the end? I think I was away when the whole saga ended.

The whole HMO thing, was K B'd!

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 17 Jul 2005, 23:07

It's up for sale again.

It's in amongst this lot as are a nice wee coach house which formerly belonged to it and a property in WBC.

http://www.rettie.co.uk/sales/property_sales_03.html

If only I had a spare 500k.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Jul 2005, 00:35

Knockout Taverns are diversifying, and are going into the rental market.

They intend buying up properties and renting them to people with drumkits and small loud dogs. The turnover of tenants is expected to be so high that the moving in and moving out parties will overlap into a permaparty.

Sue "Me" Alien, Knockout Taverns head of exploitative practice, spoke exclusively to the landlord magazine "Hoogstraten Lifestyle" and said

"After extensive market research, we feel that the time is right to put down real roots in this sub-sector. And we can use our existing stationery and just substitute instances of the word 'Tennents' with 'tenants'. We feel that the logical step after owning local pubs is to own local houses too - 6 John Street will be the springboard from which we intend diving into the rental market. What could be a more perfect ending to an evening spent singing 'Crazy Frog' in one of our local Krakatoa Karaokes than lurching home to one of our residential properties to keep the party going?"

Jamesie · Post by **Jamesie** » 18 Jul 2005, 13:31

Amazed that such a beautiful property could end up in such disrepair. I take it the guy who got kb'd still owns it and is therefore now selling it?

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 19 Jul 2005, 19:37

Jamesie wrote:Amazed that such a beautiful property could end up in such disrepair.

It's bad enough from the outside. God knows what awaits inside.
The Rettie site only offers a couple of pics, one of the vestibule (nice tiled floor) and the other is of the main staircase.

I guess it's probably in a pretty bad way internally too.

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 19 Jul 2005, 20:31

Its a nice property from the front but have you seen the horrible extension on the back?

teddygirl · Post by **teddygirl** » 19 Jul 2005, 20:45

I think it's the huge extension on the back that is making it hard to sell. Before that was added it was a lovely family home ( I lived in the basement of the house for nine years ) When the family that I lived with sold it,it then became the nursing home and that is when the extension was built.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 28 Oct 2005, 13:13

For Sale signs are down and the front garden has had some attention, I see, in a nosy, passing-by on a balmy October evening sort of way...

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Jan 2007, 12:38

I have resurrected this thread in light of recent developments. Many people saw this issue as 'dead and buried' two years ago but Mr Akbar hasn't given up and has now lodged a new application for an HMO license for this property. A large number of objections were received to the application.

From Maureen Child:

On 6 John Street, Brian Grieve, the Counicl's operations manager of the private rented sector team (HMO), has told me he has arranged a meeting at Portobello Town Hall on Wednesday 17 January 2007 to consider neighbour objections to the licence application, starting at 7.30pm.

Following the meeting, a report will be prepared for consideration at a Special Meeting of the Council's Regulatory Committee at 10.00am on Friday, February 9. This meeting will only consider the application in respect of 6 John Street.

Letters inviting objectors (those who have written in to object) to attend the Town Hall meeting and notifying them of details of the Committee Meeting should have been issued by now.

The applicant will be inivited to attend and also an official from the Planning Department. Brian hopes to meet with the applicant next week to obtain further information on the proposed use of 6 John Street.

Maureen

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Jan 2007, 18:48

I have now found copies of the letters of objection from last time round. You will see that most are pro-forma letters, but in among them there are personal letters of objection as well:

Letters of objection 2004

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Jan 2007, 15:57

From today's EN:

Outcry over hostel owner's HMO plans

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Jan 2007, 13:45

A reminder about this public meeting on Wednesday 17 January at Portobello Town Hall from 7:30 pm. A large turnout should leave the Council in no doubt that local residents are strongly opposed to this application.

tom nimmo · Post by **tom nimmo** » 14 Jan 2007, 17:02

I have read through this thread again and I stand by what I said way back on January 13th 2004. A homeless hostel masquerading as a legitimate B&B guest house is in nobody's interest, least of all the people who, due to circumstances outwith their control, will be forced to live there. The homeless people who end up in B&Bs need support services nearby and there is every chance that they will have mental health, drugs or alcohol issues. There will be no qualified supervision or support on the premises as, under the terms of a B&B licence, there doesn't have to be. People who need access to homeless services, counselling and advice services and addiction services need to have easy access to them in order for them to be effective. I will attend the meeting on Wednesday to see what, if anything, has changed regarding opening this address as a HMO.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

6 John Street - proposed change to homeless hostel

John Street

Re: John Street