Superstore - New Petrol Station - Parking - New Access

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 May 2005, 17:13

What a result! My wife phoned me at work with the news. Congratulations to everyone involved in the campaign. It was a real David and Goliath contest, and this decision demonstrates that even with the odds stacked against us, ordinary local people who are determined and organised can stand up to big business.

I'm sure that other communities around the UK will take note of this victory for the people and take heart from it. It's a pivotal moment in the history of Portobello and I'm delighted that the Reporter made the correct decision.

Cheers everyone!

Lizzie · Post by **Lizzie** » 26 May 2005, 19:12

Many congratulations to all concerned who worked so hard for this result

From all in our household

WELL DONE

$\:D/$ $\:D/$

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 26 May 2005, 21:39

Fantastic news!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 May 2005, 22:28

From Lawrence Marshall:

Dear All,

I heard just a few hours ago that the Appeal by the developers of the proposed superstore at Baileyfield has been turned down by the Reporter. Great news!

I've been trying to access the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit website to see if the report itself has been posted up - but I keep getting a message that the site can't be found.

I did see Susan Deacon this evening and she showed me briefly a faxed copy of the report. The decision is clear but the message is perhaps not as clear-cut as we might have wished in that the Reporter states that a superstore integrated more into the High Street and generating less traffic would be acceptable. Still, I can't see any way that a superstore could meet these goals!

My thanks to everyone who helped argue the case against the superstore. Such a huge campaign has made its mark not just locally but, I believe, nationally - and highlighted many questions regarding the current planning system in Scotland.

I'll forward the report to folk by e-mail just as soon as I can get a hold of an electronic copy - when I'll be able also to study it myself!

Thanks to all once again!

Lawrence

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 26 May 2005, 22:35

A great result and relief to all concerned. The residents of Baileyfield Road might sleep a bit easier tonight

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 May 2005, 22:48

Amazing. Well done to you all for all of your hard work. Result!!

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 27 May 2005, 08:32

I was at college with another Porty resident last night who asked if I knew the result, and began cheering when i told her!

Well done everyone. See - my fairy tale wasn't such a fairy tale after all!

Bellybabe

DG · Post by DG » 27 May 2005, 10:14

We received a copy of the official letter of refusal from the David Henderson at the Scottish Executive this morning. Great to see it in writing! Respect and appreciation again to all those who have worked so hard on this

DG

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 27 May 2005, 10:27

Bob Jefferson wrote:From Lawrence Marshall:

Dear All,

I heard just a few hours ago that the Appeal by the developers of the proposed superstore at Baileyfield has been turned down by the Reporter. Great news!

I've been trying to access the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit website to see if the report itself has been posted up - but I keep getting a message that the site can't be found.

I did see Susan Deacon this evening and she showed me briefly a faxed copy of the report. The decision is clear but the message is perhaps not as clear-cut as we might have wished in that the Reporter states that a superstore integrated more into the High Street and generating less traffic would be acceptable. Still, I can't see any way that a superstore could meet these goals!

My thanks to everyone who helped argue the case against the superstore. Such a huge campaign has made its mark not just locally but, I believe, nationally - and highlighted many questions regarding the current planning system in Scotland.

I'll forward the report to folk by e-mail just as soon as I can get a hold of an electronic copy - when I'll be able also to study it myself!

Thanks to all once again!

Lawrence

Lawrence, yes Great News, but it would be beneficial if we could see the
full decision document. I have requested a copy from SEIRU, but may take some time to get here.

Your statement above, regarding posting an electronic copy ASAP is most appreciated.

Post by **wangi** » 27 May 2005, 10:43

Gemini wrote:
Lawrence Marshall wrote:I've been trying to access the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit website to see if the report itself has been posted up - but I keep getting a message that the site can't be found.
Your statement above, regarding posting an electronic copy ASAP is most appreciated.

The SEIRU site is not "site cannot be found", but rather the document is not up yet since as matter of procedure they only put in online after sending out the paper copies, see:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/planning/sei ... PA/230/631

We are sorry, but the decision letter you have requested is not yet available. However, if the appeal search shows that the appeal has been determined, then this is because we allow sufficient time for the decision letter to be posted and received by the main parties to the appeal before making it available on this website. If you require a copy of the decision letter urgently, a paper copy can be sent. Please send us an e-mail, including your postal address.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 27 May 2005, 11:03

With all the euphoria surrounding the PCATS Victory, I thought it would be prudent at this point to make a special mention for our Honanry Chairman
Dickie Alexander.

At the outset of this campaign, I was fortunate enough to be put in contact with Dickie and Carla. A meeting was organised with the aforementioned, John, from PCC along with some other concerned residents.

It was Dickie and Carla that pushed for the first Public Meeting held in Porty Town Hall, which will not be forgotten. We (and I speak for other members of PCATS) owe much to the experience and organisational skills of Dickie and Carla. From there we went from strength to strength, with Dickie at the helm, we joined forces with Graham Kitchener from the Traders Group which again brought more experience to our expanding group.

Dickie, for health reasons, stepped down late last year as Chairperson, although we still relied upon him for advise and insight, and continue to do so.

Dickie is not too well at the moment - but I am sure that everyone involved in PCATS and the Community will wish him a speedy recovery.

GET WELL SOON DICKIE

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 27 May 2005, 11:25

Dadaist wrote:Amazing. Well done to you all for all of your hard work. Result!!

ditto

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 May 2005, 13:27

Gemini wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:From Lawrence Marshall:

Dear All,

I heard just a few hours ago that the Appeal by the developers of the proposed superstore at Baileyfield has been turned down by the Reporter. Great news!

I've been trying to access the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit website to see if the report itself has been posted up - but I keep getting a message that the site can't be found.

I did see Susan Deacon this evening and she showed me briefly a faxed copy of the report. The decision is clear but the message is perhaps not as clear-cut as we might have wished in that the Reporter states that a superstore integrated more into the High Street and generating less traffic would be acceptable. Still, I can't see any way that a superstore could meet these goals!

My thanks to everyone who helped argue the case against the superstore. Such a huge campaign has made its mark not just locally but, I believe, nationally - and highlighted many questions regarding the current planning system in Scotland.

I'll forward the report to folk by e-mail just as soon as I can get a hold of an electronic copy - when I'll be able also to study it myself!

Thanks to all once again!

Lawrence

Lawrence, yes Great News, but it would be beneficial if we could see the
full decision document. I have requested a copy from SEIRU, but may take some time to get here.

Your statement above, regarding posting an electronic copy ASAP is most appreciated.

So!!! You can do it for him but not for me?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 27 May 2005, 13:51

Porty wrote:
Gemini wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:From Lawrence Marshall:

Lawrence, yes Great News, but it would be beneficial if we could see the
full decision document. I have requested a copy from SEIRU, but may take some time to get here.

Your statement above, regarding posting an electronic copy ASAP is most appreciated.
So!!! You can do it for him but not for me?

Do what

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 27 May 2005, 14:01

Brace yourselves....

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index ... =581212005

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 May 2005, 14:24

Gemini wrote:Brace yourselves....

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index ... =581212005

Sure you wouldn't have expected less.

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 27 May 2005, 14:57

This is when we need to swing into action with alternative scenarios for this site e.g. affordable housing. We should coordinate our activities with the Council and have a sit down with Duddingston Properties.

In this way we might avoid another fight over a slightly different Superstore proposal.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 May 2005, 17:04

I particularly liked Susan Deacon's quote:

The developers should be left in no doubt after this public inquiry about the strength of local opposition to this issue and I think they would be very ill-advised to come back with any kind of similar proposal.

There is an opportunity now for them to do what they should have done at the very beginning and bring forward proposals for the site which are in line with the views and aspirations of the local community.

And we made the editorial page on today's EN as well:

Portobello's fight was about preserving their community

Hawkeye · Post by **Hawkeye** » 28 May 2005, 14:13

As you may have read in the Evening News or on this esteemed site, we heard on Thursday that the appeal was refused. This was fantastic news that lead to dancing in the streets with an impromptu ceilidh outside the Town Hall on Thursday tea-time. The result is a wonderful endorsement of the local communityÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s opposition to this proposed monstrosity.

Thank you for your superb support in fighting this proposal.

It has taken a few days to get the full decision however it should now be available on the website www.scotland.gov.uk/planning_appeals/seiru or there are three paper copies in the library. After a quick reading of it, here are the main points for and against:

The development is not in the town centre nor edge of centre but is sufficiently close to be included in an extended town centre (we need to watch this last point re The Pitz!!);

The superstore could be accommodated without architecturally compromising the areaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s character or appearance;

A superstore could complement Portobello without affecting the existing Ã¢â‚¬ËœnicheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ shops. (We disagree that the butcherÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s, greengrocerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s, fishmonger etc. are niche shops);

There would be little impact on the surrounding residents!;

The increased traffic from the superstore would not improve the shopping environ-ment in Portobello;

It was not clear how the council had arrived at the view that the local roads could cope with the increased traffic, (ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s what weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve said all along);

The development is not appropriate in scale and character nor well integrated with Portobello as a shopping centre;

The demands for heavy access by car would create congestion, pollution and parking problems;
In conclusion, the superstore would have to be successfully integrated with the town centre and not cause significant traffic problems. This proposal does not do that, would be free-standing and would adversely affect the quality of the shopping environment of Portobello.

And in paragraph 129 the words weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve been fighting so hard for,

....I hereby dismiss your clientÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s appeals and refuse to grant outline planning permissions for the developments....

One last point made by the reporter was that our application for a partial award of expenses will be the subject of a further letter. We shall see.

So there you have it. WeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve won this battle but the fight is not over until we see a development being built on the former Scottish Power site that will compliment rather than threaten the vitality of Portobello. Besides watching for any further application from Duddingston House Properties, we still have concerns about what will happen to the Pitz site.

There is still a long way to go but with your support we will do it.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 28 May 2005, 16:42

Hawkeye wrote:It was not clear how the council had arrived at the view that the local roads could cope with the increased traffic,

The demands for heavy access by car would create congestion, pollution and parking problems;......

.....and not cause significant traffic problems.

Surely these are the key points? Regardless of what other proposals DHP come up with they're still going to have these hurdles which they (hopefully) can't overcome? <please tell me I'm right.........>

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 28 May 2005, 17:32

Lawrence Wrote:
The decision is clear but the message is perhaps not as clear-cut as we might have wished in that the Reporter states that a superstore integrated more into the High Street and generating less traffic would be acceptable. Still, I can't see any way that a superstore could meet these goals!
End<<

I can see how a Superstore could meet the 1st Criteria. The Pitz site is up for sale, going by the initial layout plans for re-development of the Pitz site, the community centre and library would be 'shoe horned in' in effect moving the town centre quite a considerable distance westward, which could in turn give DHP the opportunity to proceed with yet another application for a superstore.

However, we have been assured by the local reps. that we, the community, would be kept abreast of what is proposed, enabling us to participate in discussions on what goes on this very important site.
To date, we have had no feedback - although to fair, perhaps there is nothing to report at this time?

Traffic, I am sure that DHP could find a way around this problem, unless of course somebody thinks differently?

Hawkeye · Post by **Hawkeye** » 28 May 2005, 18:23

Epykat, (I haven't learned how to do this fancy cutting and pasting - yet) but with reference to your last posting.

The decision is couched in so many coulds, woulds, shoulds and double conditional negatives that it is difficult to have definite answers but how I read it is that the only way to reduce traffic is to have a smaller store. But we know with a fair degree of certainty that a supermarket operator would not view a smaller store as commercially viable. So this may kill the idea.

I'd be interested to know what others thought once they've had time to read the full report.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 May 2005, 20:22

Gemini, I spoke to Lawrence earlier this evening. He hasn't yet seen the tenders for the Pitz site and presumably neither has Maureen. He will be happy to share as much information as he is able to, although confidentiality rules may not allow him to name the companies involved.

I agree with Hawkeye that the traffic problem is probably insurmountable and that a new superstore application is therefore unlikely. It is now time for DHP to meet with the community and to find common ground.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 29 May 2005, 11:02

Bob Jefferson wrote:Gemini, I spoke to Lawrence earlier this evening. He hasn't yet seen the tenders for the Pitz site and presumably neither has Maureen. He will be happy to share as much information as he is able to, although confidentiality rules may not allow him to name the companies involved.

I agree with Hawkeye that the traffic problem is probably insurmountable and that a new superstore application is therefore unlikely. It is now time for DHP to meet with the community and to find common ground.

I very much hope that DHP will take the initiative now, and meet with PCATS and other local resident group's etc. who also wish to have their input, as to what 'they' would like to see on the SP site. The same public
input should be adhered too for the Pitz site.

jimann · Post by **jimann** » 30 May 2005, 13:36

I'm so glad (sounds like a lyric) that we've won the battle, but as the saying goes, we haven't won the war - they'll be back, this lot, and although I understand the feeling that we should sit down and talk with them for any future planning applications, we have to remember that they would have had no qualms in ruining our town with their "corporate" profit generating plans - let's be on our guard from now on!!!!

You can see I'm not being paranoid ---- what was that!!!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 May 2005, 17:09

Hope you all saw this excellent article by Susan Deacon MSP in today's EN:

Planning process stores up trouble

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 03 Jun 2005, 19:36

I've just finished watching a BBC 2 programme "Tesco: Supermarket Power". It sent a chill down my spine.
Did you know that Tesco already sell more toiletries than Superdrug and more CDs than Woolworth's? They're not just out to get the little guys; they want it all.
I hope any any doubters out there who weren't 100% behind PCATS, were watching too.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 03 Jun 2005, 20:11

Don't know if this was the same programme that I watched, sometime last year?
However, as you have rightly said, they are into everything, including Finance/Furnishings/White Good's - etc.. The way Tesco are going, they will be taking over the world pretty soon. EVERY LITTLE HELPS

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 03 Jun 2005, 21:25

Believe that this is the first time it was aired Gemini. It was produced by the BBC's Money Programme. You can read about the programme content here TESCO

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 03 Jun 2005, 23:12

Marya wrote:Did you know that Tesco already sell more toiletries than Superdrug and more CDs than Woolworth's?

With an annual turnover in excess of Ã‚Â£30,000,000,000 I was sure it was more than just bananas they were selling lots of!

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 04 Jun 2005, 08:03

It certainly helps bring the true picture home to those of us that glaze over at Annual Company Returns, when you realise that it outperforms a specialist national retailer such as 'Superdrug' PoP.
According to Tesco's marketing director they'd like to be more involved in Education and Health. Hey! Epykat, DG, Mrs Magnolia, Teddygirl and I could all be working for Tesco before long

Need an operation? BOGOF

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 04 Jun 2005, 08:18

Marya wrote: Did you know that Tesco already sell more toiletries than Superdrug and more CDs than Woolworth's? They're not just out to get the little guys; they want it all.

They're now opening non-food stores in Scotland too.

http://business.scotsman.com/retail.cfm?id=581822005

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 04 Jun 2005, 08:53

It's a well known fact that Sainsbury's/Tesco influence and contribute to our Government. Lord Sainsbury, an adviser on retailing , also heavily involved in GM foods through his other companies.

Well documented that other Corporations are influencing Universities and Colleges, Tesco and the rest want a slice of the profit. The whole situation
'reeks'.

http://www.monbiot.com/index.php?p=882

rathbone · Post by **rathbone** » 04 Jun 2005, 12:54

Gemini wrote:Well documented that other Corporations are influencing Universities and Colleges, Tesco and the rest want a slice

Lord McLaurin (erstwhile Chairman of Tesco) is the Chancellor of the University here in Rathboneland.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 04 Jun 2005, 23:46

rathbone wrote:
Gemini wrote:Well documented that other Corporations are influencing Universities and Colleges, Tesco and the rest want a slice
Lord McLaurin (erstwhile Chairman of Tesco) is the Chancellor of the University here in Rathboneland.

Wasn't aware of this Rathbone, thank you.