Superstore - New Petrol Station - Parking - New Access

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 14:25

Dadaist wrote:[I thought PCATS was the campaign against "the" superstore - that is the one proposed at the SP site.

You are absolutely correct.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Apr 2006, 14:32

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dadaist wrote:[I thought PCATS was the campaign against "the" superstore - that is the one proposed at the SP site.
You are absolutely correct.

I appreciate this feedback and also refer the honourable member to my question regarding pot plants.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 25 Apr 2006, 14:48

Stephen McIntyre wrote:That would be nearly as funny as a Supermarket proposal appearing somewhere other than the west end of Portobello and all the PCATS money being spent on a consultation that is already community inclusive.
Anyway once Stephen has provide the source for the DHP and superstore paymaster continuing "interest" it will at least give more creedence to the option PCATS are offering the community.

If it's bugging you that much,Why don't you talk to the person that knows all - Trevor Davis?
We were all advised last night, by Lawrence, that it appears Trevor Davis
is the one who has been communicating with DHP.

Incidentally, my Brother ( a businessman) also donated fairly substantial amounts of cash to the PCATS fund, as did many of the other business
proprietors on Porty High Street, in more way's than one, so you are not alone on this count. In his opinion, (which is shared by other's) the excess funds should be used to ensure that no other similar retail development be sited near Portobello High Street.

Unless you know for sure, that no retail proposal is in the offing for
the west end of Porty, you are either for a consultant to work on the
communties behalf or your not. By the content of your Postings on the subject, obviously you are not, which is a pity, as you obviously were previoulsy against our High Street, being turned into yet another statistic.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 14:52

Dadaist wrote:If you think there is the chance of an accursed supersized retailer appearing somewhere else - why on earth are you suggesting spending this precious resource - money - on pot plants?

I have no grounds to for thinking that "there is the chance of an accursed supersized retailer appearing somewhere else (in portobello)" Indeed I have no grounds for thinking one will appear at the west end of portobello.

I recognise that Stephen may possess this knowledge and as you already know I have asked him for a source.

(However, I maintian that this is a seperate issue to that of the PCATS consultation process) edit fixed quotations

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 15:00

Gemini wrote:If it's bugging you that much,Why don't you talk to the person that knows all - Trevor Davis?
We were all advised last night, by Lawrence, that it appears Trevor Davis
is the one who has been communicating with DHP.
.

Gemini, my main concern is with the PCATS consultation process and I'm sure Stephen will address that concern in due course.

However what you say above is worrying, is the PCATS proposal to spend Â£3000 on a consultant based entirely on the "appearance that Trevor Davis is the one who has been communicating with DHP"? Is that the only justification? Stephen has stated that DHP are claiming to still have an interest, is the source Lawrence's gossip?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Apr 2006, 15:06

I have no grounds to for thinking that "I there is the chance of an accursed supersized retailer appearing somewhere else (in portobello) I have no grounds for thinking one will appear at the west end of portobello."

Stephen - can you please reconstruct this sentence in understandable and unambiguous English, making it clear which parts are your own and which are quotations. I'm struggling to find meaning in it at the moment.

edit -> I can talk. Removed quote thingy. Internets.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 15:08

Dadaist wrote:
I have no grounds to for thinking that "I there is the chance of an accursed supersized retailer appearing somewhere else (in portobello) I have no grounds for thinking one will appear at the west end of portobello."
Stephen - can you please reconstruct this sentence in understandable and unambiguous English, making it clear which parts are your own and which are quotations. I'm struggling to find meaning in it at the moment.

[/quote]

I edited it already

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Apr 2006, 15:22

Thanks.

So do you think PCATS fight is over?

What about the Metro thingy at the service station?

Do you think they are going outside of their remit?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Apr 2006, 15:41

Gemini wrote:Unless you know for sure, that no retail proposal is in the offing for
the west end of Porty, you are either for a consultant to work on the
communties behalf or your not.

I was hoping that there would be some retail development Gemini, but on a small scale. BL developments seemed to suggest during their address to the Community council that the site could have a mixed use of housing/retail/studio space dependant on consultation with the local community.

I agree, however, that it is worrying that the spectre of DHP and large scale retail development is still hanging over the area and hope someone can get to the bottom of it soon.

As to whether another consultant is needed I'm undecided. I'm under the impression that the consultant that will be engaged by the Council will be independent and will be 'working on our behalf'. At last night's CC meeting we were promised community consultation (perhaps a day where locals could air their fears/hopes for the West end of Portobello) with the consultant which would be independent of any Council intervention. That sounds pretty promising to me or am I just being naive?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 25 Apr 2006, 15:50

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Gemini wrote:If it's bugging you that much,Why don't you talk to the person that knows all - Trevor Davis?
We were all advised last night, by Lawrence, that it appears Trevor Davis
is the one who has been communicating with DHP.
.

Gemini, my main concern is with the PCATS consultation process and I'm sure Stephen will address that concern in due course.
I am more worried about the PFANS consultation process, to quote
your man at Towerbank Primary School last week, sign the petition - you are either for it or against it (no explanations given) opps wrong thread, but I'm sure you get the picture!

However what you say above is worrying, is the PCATS proposal to spend Â£3000 on a consultant based entirely on the "appearance that Trevor Davis is the one who has been communicating with DHP"

Obviously your not paying attention, Mr. Davis, is the main man
in the whole consultation remit, for the western end of Portobello.
As said, give him a call and ask him why DHP are in the fray!
I don't think Lawrence would bring Trevor into the equation if there
was no truth in the matter!

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 17:10

Dadaist wrote:Do you think they are going outside of their remit?

PCATS are fully aware that their wish to spend the funds on the west of portobello masterplan is a material change from the basis on which the money was raised. It is beyond their remit. Hence, their need to "consult" on the matter. I agree with the need to consult but I donâ€™t consider a single take it or leave it option as proper consulting. I'm sure if I trawled through recent posts by many of the PCATS main players I would find posts in which they were arguing pretty much the same thing.

I am glad I started this debate, my own views have changed since I did, which is a benefit.

I have no doubts about the honesty or the good intentions of ANYONE connected with PCATS. However, I believe that if they wish us to seriously consider spending PCATS funds on the west of portobello masterplan then they need to demonstrate due dilligence . Hopefully they can do that, Stephen implies so.

On the other hand Gemini is asking us to accept the proposal on the basis of an informal, non-specific conversation between Lawrence and Trevor Davis, in other words a rumour. I hope there is more to it than that.

Are PCATS a community council body or are they a completely independent? Who police's them?

Edit : changed order and elaborated.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Apr 2006, 18:04

OK - thanks for that Mr M.

To recap - here's Mr H's original post :

the City of Edinburgh Council wants to develop a Master Plan for the west end of Portobello to encompass all of the possible development sites eg. the Pitz site. We have been promised that the community will be fully involved in this Master Plan and the Council are currently going through the process of appointing a consultant to carry out this exercise.

You will remember how much we needed our own consultants at the Public Inquiry last March to argue from the communityâ€™s point of view. The PCATS committee believe it would be beneficial to make use of our own consultant when the Master Plan is being produced. A consultant who knows planning guidance would be able to advise us better of the advantages or pitfalls of a particular proposal.

Stephen H - I have a few questions for you :

1. Who exactly are the PCATS committee?

2. What exactly are the communications between Trevor Davies and DHP and are they a matter of public record?

3. Is it true that Trevor Davies has his own companies which get council contracts?

4. Is the general gist of your reasoning for having a consultant that you want to stop future supermarkets in west Portobello?

If there is a chance of another fight there's no way the money should be spent either on a consultant or on pot plants - it should be kept in reserve for future campaign expenditure.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 25 Apr 2006, 20:02

quote Porty

On the other hand Gemini is asking us to accept the proposal on the basis of an informal, non-specific conversation between Lawrence and Trevor Davis, in other words a rumour. I hope there is more to it than that.

When at last nights PCC, did Lawrence say that his talks with Trevor Davies,were informal and non specific?
Have you spoken to Trevor, did he confirm this?
If so post it

Perhaps Lawrence/Maureen will clarify what exactly the postion is between Trevor and DHP.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 09:25

Gemini wrote:When at last nights PCC, did Lawrence say that his talks with Trevor Davies,were informal and non specific?
Have you spoken to Trevor, did he confirm this?
If so post it .

Gemini, it is not up to me to post anything, I am not looking to spend the people of this community's money, having raised that money on a totally different premise.

Put it this way. I was approached on several occasions by members of PCATS and asked to donated money to fight the clear and present danger of a superstore being built in Portobello. They proved to me that there was a clear and present danger by drawing my attention to a planning application and a proposal from DHP properties. I gave willingly and so did hundreds if not thousands of other people in the community.

That clear and present danger no longer exists. PCATS have no right or mandate to spend the communityâ€™s money on ANYTHING else.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 09:35

Both Stephens (H & M) - I'd love to know what you know about Trevor Davies and DHP.

I am one of the Porty residents you guys worked hard to save from the evil rapacious marketeering markets.

Do you guys know stuff you're not telling us plebs?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 10:05

Dadaist wrote:Both Stephens (H & M) - I'd love to know what you know about Trevor Davies and DHP.

Dada, I know nothing about Trevor Davies and DHP current status. What I do know is that there is no longer a planning application or a proposal that indicates a clear and present danger of a superstore being built in Portobello. Which is the basis on which you and I and many others were asked to contribute to the PCATS coffers.

Now they wish to spend the money with the following purpose:

Stephen Hawkins wrote:Letâ€™s look forward to getting quality housing on this site that enhances Portobello.

It is simply not on, PCATS have no right to represent me, you or anyone else to pursue the above objective, none.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 10:08

Have you spoken to Trevor on any matters recently?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 10:16

I have never spoken to Trevor.

It doesn't really matter. Unless there is prime facie evidence of a superstore proposal for portobello then PCATS have no right to use the money that was raised to combat such a proposal for anything else. I suggest that PCATS mothball their funds for a speciific time, say two years. If no clear and present danger manifests itself in that time then they give the community its money back in one way or another.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 10:20

Stephen McIntyre wrote:I have never spoken to Trevor.

It doesn't really matter. Unless there is prime facie evidence of a superstore proposal for portobello then PCATS have no right to use the money that was raised to combat such a proposal for anything else. I suggest that PCATS mothball their funds for a speciific time, say two years. If no clear and present danger manifests itself in that time then they give the community its money back in one way or another.

2 years sounds good to me - agreed.

I only asked about the Trev cos Gemini asked if you had spoken.

Balls in your court Mr H - and anyways, nothing is stopping PCATS doing more fundraising, this time targeted at stopping future supermarkets.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 11:55

PCATS "About Us" statement from their website.

http://www.pcats.org.uk/About%20PCATS.htm

About PCATS

Portobello Campaign Against The Superstore is a group of people who have got together to fight the proposed Superstore on the Scottish Power Site. The Group was set up by residents, following on from a successful petition started by traders.

The Group is not aligned to any political party and anyone who is opposed to the Superstore Development on this site is welcome to join.

Anyone who is committed to opposing the Planned Superstore can receive information from the Campaign, by email. You can contact us by sending an email to info@pcats.org.uk

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 12:01

Please don't start doing an Alison (or is that "doing a McIntyre") on Stephen H too - let him get back to you!!

I don't think he is going to flush everyone's good faith down the pan by spending Â£3000 on something we didn't ask for - whether it's pot plants, a video projector or a consultant - just because you think he thinks he can think on our behalf.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 12:08

Actually Mr self-appointed police officer. I have spoken to Stephen in the lull. I don't think it does any harm to remind people of the PCATS purpose. It is clear and unequivocal.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 12:15

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Actually Mr self-appointed police officer. I have spoken to Stephen in the lull. I don't think it does any harm to remind people of the PCATS purpose. It is clear and unequivocal.

Good for you. Just don't remind us as often as you have taken to reminding Alison of your question - some people may find that clearly and unequivocally boring!

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 12:21

So, you are finding me guilty of a crime that I may not commit!!! No wonder you got pedalled.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 12:34

Stephen McIntyre wrote:So, you are finding me guilty of a crime that I may not commit!!! No wonder you got pedalled.

HAHAHA no - I was simply using precedent (your harrassing behaviour of our esteemed members) and asking you not to do it in tandem with your ongoing issue with poor Alison. One inquisition is enough for me to have to keep up with.

Also, it takes one to know one - and that is what I would be tempted to do myself, especially if I thought that it was a tactic that got results.

In the absence of any real moderation, self-policing is all we have.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 26 Apr 2006, 12:45

Quote Porty>>

Gemini, it is not up to me to post anything, I am not looking to spend the people of this community's money, having raised that money on a totally different premise.

Well I am not quite sure about this being a different premise?
The money was raised to stop retail development devastating our
High Street, to allow our independant traders to continue trading (you ,were/are one of them) obviously it suited you.
Moreover, the traffic congestion and associated pollution, would
have also contributed to the demise of the area in general.

IMHO,Portobello community, is being kept in the dark about DHP's involvement.
Trevor Davies is Convenor of Planning, I don't think he would have mentioned DHP on more than one occassion, if they had no involvement
in the forthcoming 'development plan' for western Portobello.
I assume you are in agreement now, that Lawrence did not say informal or non specific conversations, were held with Trevor Davis, therefore not rumour, but fact.

Those of us who have dealt with DHP in the past, namely PCATS, have
more insight into what lengths this company will go to, to get what they
want. Be under no illusions, that DHP used cunning underhanded tactics
against PCATS ,and the community to try and secure their planning application for a 85.000sq ft. Superstore.
What makes you so sure that this will not be the case in the future?
If you can make catigorical assurances to the Trader's and the Community
at large, that DHP will not try and come in with another retail application
well and good, if you can't ....

Dada, I know nothing about Trevor Davies and DHP current status. What I do know is that there is no longer a planning application or a proposal that indicates a clear and present danger of a superstore being built in Portobello. Which is the basis on which you and I and many others were asked to contribute to the PCATS coffers

You are not telling anybody anything that they don't already know !

There is no brief/remit for the western end of Portobello, to date. The 'independant consultant', has not been appointed as yet..

But you know (given your statement above to Dada) that there is
no clear and present danger of retail development being built in
Portobello, but you don't know if there will be, do you?

Therefore, why are you so totally against PCATS using the fund's left over from the campaign, to arrest any possibility of retail dev. (on a scale probably smaller than the Superstore application) being built?
A Tesco metro, could seriously shift the delicate balance of trading on the High Street. You more or less said this yourself, on a previous posting.

Personal Note:

I would like to flush out the person/persons, who have circulated the rumour that PCATS, had used the excess funds from the campaign (Fund's raised by the community, to keep our High Street Trader's in business) to be ashamed of themselves, for their nasty lies.

.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 12:53

I would like to flush out the person/persons, who have circulated the rumour that PCATS, had used the excess funds from the campaign (Fund's raised by the community, to keep our High Street Trader's in business) to be ashamed of themselves, for their nasty lies.

Absolutely.

Gemini, in my humble opinion you've just given the best case possible for keeping this money - in case we need it to defend ourselves against DHP in the future.

I don't think it should be spent on a party, pot plants, a video projector or a consultant.

There's an argument for doing additional fundraising to buy a consultant - but to spend this money on prophylaxis when the real disease could be about to mutate would be a tragedy.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 26 Apr 2006, 13:00

Dadaist wrote:Good for you. Just don't remind us as often as you have taken to reminding Alison of your question - some people may find that clearly and unequivocally boring!

Then she should answer the question or politely decline to so.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 13:08

Pal of Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Good for you. Just don't remind us as often as you have taken to reminding Alison of your question - some people may find that clearly and unequivocally boring!
Then she should answer the question or politely decline to so.

She hasn't answered it and it's not in the forum rules that you have to decline politely. Mac just hasn't got the message yet - it has arrived in his tail but is taking a while to travel up his spine. I'm just hoping that when it does, he'll get back to me on my "lies" assertion.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 May 2006, 09:07

Dadaist wrote:OK - thanks for that Mr M.

To recap - here's Mr H's original post :

the City of Edinburgh Council wants to develop a Master Plan for the west end of Portobello to encompass all of the possible development sites eg. the Pitz site. We have been promised that the community will be fully involved in this Master Plan and the Council are currently going through the process of appointing a consultant to carry out this exercise.

You will remember how much we needed our own consultants at the Public Inquiry last March to argue from the communityâ€™s point of view. The PCATS committee believe it would be beneficial to make use of our own consultant when the Master Plan is being produced. A consultant who knows planning guidance would be able to advise us better of the advantages or pitfalls of a particular proposal.
Stephen H - I have a few questions for you :

1. Who exactly are the PCATS committee?

Have you had any joy establishing who exactly are the PCATS committee?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 09 May 2006, 10:27

Thanks, Porty.

While we wait, what do you think of this utterance from Ali :

Ali wrote:a minority of Porty residents and shopkeepers were able to run a well organised and vocal campaign which in the end prevailed but they were self selected and self-elected representatives of the community and they didn't speak for me or for a lot of other people.

I'm not sure if I agree with this - not because the leaders of the campaign weren't as described but because I was at the big meeting in the town hall at the start of the campaign.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 09 May 2006, 11:10

Dadaist wrote:Thanks, Porty.

While we wait, what do you think of this utterance from Ali :

Ali wrote:a minority of Porty residents and shopkeepers were able to run a well organised and vocal campaign which in the end prevailed but they were self selected and self-elected representatives of the community and they didn't speak for me or for a lot of other people.

Ali, all I can say is, PCATS started out with lots of people. Over the ensuing month's/years, many people could not put in the time to carryout the necessary input required to organise, Leafleting/meetings/Burn's Supper/Quiz Night/Coffee Mornings/Jumble Sales/Traffic Survey's, and a whole stack of other stuff.
In the end it (with assistance from other's in the community when they could spare some time) it basically fell down to a Core Group of people who did! We were not, as you say - self selected nor self elected, it happened that way.

As for not being representative of the community, I believe that 97% of this Community were represented by PCATS. I also believe that there was only ONE letter of support for the Superstore. Perhaps you and the others who were against the campaign should have spoken out sooner - or started you own campaign.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 09 May 2006, 12:03

Gemini, I salute you. As I've been accused of "re-writing history" by daring to suggest that I thought we were "singing from the same songsheet" during the PCATS campaign - which I could deconstruct on various levels but won't as the person that accused me of it made it clear he wasn't up for discussing his accusations - I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your part in *writing* a bit of our local history. Well done!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 May 2006, 12:14

Dadaist wrote:Thanks, Porty.

While we wait, what do you think of this utterance from Ali :

Ali wrote:a minority of Porty residents and shopkeepers were able to run a well organised and vocal campaign which in the end prevailed but they were self selected and self-elected representatives of the community and they didn't speak for me or for a lot of other people.
I'm not sure if I agree with this - not because the leaders of the campaign weren't as described but because I was at the big meeting in the town hall at the start of the campaign.

Not sure what you mean? I think its fair to say that although it was a relatively small number of core people PCATS fought a brilliant campaign, mobilised a substantial, vocal and effective support that achieved their objective. My feeling is they represented a minority among residents but the majority among shopkeepers. How do you gauge it? There were 3000 petiton signatures, which is a minority. There were well attended public meetings but even 600 or 800 at a meeting, which is impressive,is a minority. Were they representing the apathetic, I don't know?

I sympathise with Ali's views, there was a perception, nay an assumption that everyone was against the Superstore and that PCATS represented everyone. I was against the superstore but now that I am questioning the current role that PCATS are assuming, my support appears less valuable than say, Graham Kitchener's. Who has rather bizarrely accused me of ridiculing the very organisation I supported and who I would support again if there was Superstore proposal for the Scottish Power site.

PCATS don't represent me in general or in what they decide are controversial development matters. As Ali says they are self-appointed and self-elected, however, you are not the only one that's having a bit of difficulty establishing exactly who they are?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 09 May 2006, 12:29

It's fascinating to look back on PCATS now that we have a different kind of land deal on the cards!

You're right, Porty, I'd love to know who the PCATS committee were but at the end of the day, I probably know most of them anyway.

They didn't hide.

The really shadowy body that is only starting to emerge from the woodwork is the pro-supermarket lobby, who were so covert and mysterious that they forgot to fight for DHP, Tom Farmer, Tesco or whoever it was!!!

Apathy and neutrality are one thing, but why on earth did the pro-supermarket lobby not say or do anything? Were they too scared? Surely they would have known that they would have been treated with respect and not subjected to the kind of online bullying that .... oh.