Scottish Power Site Re-development 3 - supermarket + housing

[Bob Jefferson]

And I agree with Seanie - BL's representations just now seem to gel with "ethically and with integrity in the communities where we work".

Does that include their attempts to influence local opinion and gain support for their application by masquerading as an ordinary member of the public with no connection to BL on this forum?

I'm not dropping this until we get the truth.

[seanie]

There is an inherent difficulty for Community Councils.

They exist to represent the views of the community, that is their statutory duty. So the views of individual Community Councillors are entirely secondary. The guidance is explicit; if your views conflict with that of the community you're supposed to put your views second.

However, Community Councils don't have the resources to consult the community on every issue that arises. Even if they did it might not be productive; COEC had an extensive consultation on a topic last year and didn't get a single response. And when you do get responses they're rarely from an average cross-section. You get people with a special interest or who are exercised by the topic. Nobody writes into a consultation to say they're not too fussed either way.

So most of the time you can only really hope that the people on the Community Council are sufficiently representative of the wider community that their views are a reasonable proxy. But you still need that awareness that their individual views are secondary.

Personally I'm in favour of more consultation with the community; I think the last formal consultation the PCC undertook was a questionaire in the library 5 years ago. But there are real challenges because for such consultation to be effective you need broad participation. Otherwise you just get the same narrow interest groups; the anoraks and the angry determine the agenda.

[seanie]

Does that include their attempts to influence local opinion and gain support for their application by masquerading as an ordinary member of the public with no connection to BL on this forum?

I'm not dropping this until we get the truth.

I was forgetting what a powerful sway this forum has over public opinion.

[wangi]

we speak for a significant majority?

A dig toward portygreenkeepers.org.uk?

Anyway I wouldn't imagine this forum represents anything other than the views of those who participate.

[Porty]

Agreed and I don't bellieve any of us make it out to be anything other than that.

[Porty]

However there were a few new faces at the Community Council

Indeed!

How did PCC decide to respond to the latest conceptual from BL? Were they for or against, was their a vote, did they decide not to respond?

[Maria]

How did PCC decide to respond to the latest conceptual from BL? Were they for or against, was their a vote, did they decide not to respond?

The only vote taken was on whether PCC were in favour or not of more dialogue with BL.

[Porty]

Was it yay or nay?

[Maria]

It was unanimously in favour (of holding more dialogue with BL).

[Porty]

Did they wait til BL departed before having the vote?

[Maria]

Did they wait til BL departed before having the vote?

Yes. BL withdrew from the room after their presentation.

[Bob Jefferson]

Anyway I wouldn't imagine this forum represents anything other than the views of those who participate.

So it holds about as much sway as the Community Council then? I think what is important is not the (relatively small) number of people who post, but the much larger number of people who view these posts.

[allaboardtheskylark]

"So the views of individual Community Councillors are entirely secondary. The guidance is explicit; if your views conflict with that of the community you're supposed to put your views second."

Like that is going to happen. There is an element who see a corrosion in power of their own little empire. They irony is they had success with PCATS and built a reputation on it. Then came the Portobello Masterplan Action Group and they took on BL and against the planners advice got the BL plan knocked back. Now that plan is dead in the water they will not want a Waitrose. So they are now on the brink. If this goes belly up its back to the drawing board.

"Nobody writes into a consultation to say they're not too fussed either way."

So, make it easy for them, send out a questionnaire, tick the box, add comments and in the letter box it goes (or not) and you have an answer. An answer not controlled by the few.

So most of the time you can only really hope that the people on the Community Council are sufficiently representative of the wider community that their views are a reasonable proxy. But you still need that awareness that their individual views are secondary.

"the anoraks and the angry determine the agenda".

Surely that is the real danger, a lot of people do not want to go to meetings or don't have the time. So look for a reply, make it easy and you will get a better response

[allaboardtheskylark]

Could it be possible PCATS are willing to attempt to call BL's bluff. Just how silly would they look if the whole thing went full circle and came back to bite them in the backside.

Here is how it could go.

PCATS - we don't want a Superstore.
DHP, we lost, sell it.
PCATS (or whatever group they are calling themselves this week) - we don't like your plans BL, we object.
BL - we lost, ok let's talk, we chop of a story around the site and put in a Waitrose at 18,000 sq ft.
PCATS - get lost
BL - good bye PCATS, fairwell Portobello, au revior Diana.

Then in the EEN

MYSTERY BUYER FOR BLIGHTED LAND IN PORTOBELLO SUSPECTED TO BE ***** Superstores

Now, I do not pretend to have any greater insight into what is going on than any other poster (unless PM is posting), but I do know I do not want a Superstore. Now it may be BL are bluffing, but how can we tell for sure?

I think there is a very great risk a Superstore buys the land and people lose interest in the whole PCATS thing and we get the one result we never wanted. All because the gang of five wanted to fight off Waitrose, even when a lot of people wanted Waitrose anyway.

ps, we shopped Waitrose on land AND used the shops in the High Street

[allaboardtheskylark]

on line, you know what I meant.

Highly recommend the coronation pasta mix

[seanie]

That may have caused problems in itself.

The Community Council has taken to asking developers etc. to leave after giving a presentation so that they can then discuss things without them being present. Whilst on the one hand it makes people more comfortable talking about the proposal, it also means the discussion is flawed. You're discussing things based on conjecture and supposition because a key source of clarification is no longer there.

At the end of the day the PCC is a public body. If members of the PCC don't feel comfortable saying things in front of developers, maybe they shouldn't be saying them at all. There really should be transparency.

[Jeemy]

Alright guys.

I'm Jamie the owner of Verden recording studio & rehearsal room currently situated on the land in question.

Having only meant to be there a year or so before the proposed supermarket development way back when I've been there for 6-7 years now. I've now moved closer, and moved my other business to operate from there; so I am now pretty much a Portobello businessman.

I was directed to the site to one of the staff and wanted to get involved and find out a bit more - its proposed that we continue to be housed on the site and form part of an arts component to the new application.

I read through the thread but its not actually clear what the objections now are or were - Bob mentioned that he felt he might go bankrupt should the development go ahead, and I understand that there is some feeling the high street would suffer, but thats as much as I know.

I'd be grateful if somebody could kind of summarise where things stand up til now.

[Bob Jefferson]

Hi Jamie, welcome to the forum. I guess we are all in the same boat here - trying to get the best deal out of the situation. We didn't want a superstore, we didn't want high-density housing, now we are being offered some kind of compromise, we could support it or we could reject it and then - who knows?
I assume that you are hopeful that the application is successful because that means you get a brand new recording studio?

[Maria]

Alright guys.

I'm Jamie the owner of Verden recording studio & rehearsal room currently situated on the land in question.

Having only meant to be there a year or so before the proposed supermarket development way back when I've been there for 6-7 years now. I've now moved closer, and moved my other business to operate from there; so I am now pretty much a Portobello businessman.

Welcome to the forum Jeemy. My son and his friends use Verden Studios to rehearse, so I know your premises well.

I was directed to the site to one of the staff and wanted to get involved and find out a bit more - its proposed that we continue to be housed on the site and form part of an arts component to the new application.

Yes, Phil Myerscough mentioned your business during the presentation to the Community Council - he also mentioned 'Out of the Blue' who are currently renting on the site and would be part of any new development.

I read through the thread but its not actually clear what the objections now are or were - Bob mentioned that he felt he might go bankrupt should the development go ahead, and I understand that there is some feeling the high street would suffer, but thats as much as I know.

I'd be grateful if somebody could kind of summarise where things stand up til now.

Bob was joking about going bankrupt Jeemy. He's not a local retailer, but he's a bit of a foodie so would be liable to spend a lot of his dosh in a 'Waitrose'.

If you were around during the days when there was an attempt to apply for planning permission for a superstore you probably know that there was a well fought campaign by local residents to oppose this? The main concerns were the damage a superstore could do to local shops and the volume of traffic it would attract.

When the public inquiry ruled against the application, Duddingston House Properties sold onto BL Developments. Subsequent to the inquiry, the council planners also consulted with local people and came up with the North West Portobello Masterplan - a set of guidelines which outlines what would be best on that site and surrounding area. This set of guidelines suggests a mixed use for the site would be best (housing and small retail units). The masterplan also suggests maximum heights for any sort of development.

When BL Developments bought the site they said that they wished to come up with a development which would meet with local approval. However, there was concern from some locals, including Portobello Community Council, about the density of what was planned and the height of the development and although the council planning department recommended that the Council approve the application, when the committee of councillors met, they refused the application, citing the height of the development as the main problem.

BL could appeal against this decision- after all the planning officials had recommended approval - but they are willing to revise their original application. That means they will reduce the height of the development and reduce the number of properties from 712 to about 550. They would also build more family sized flats, rather than one bed-roomed properties. This , however, means cutting profit margins so to compensate they are proposing building a Waitrose in some of the ground floor units. They haven't produced detailed designs yet. Before going any further, they want the Community Council to say whether they will support such an application - they don't want to spend money on another application only to meet local opposition again and risk another refusal from the Council planning committee. If this support isn't forthcoming , then they say they will simply 'hand the keys over to the bank' and walk away from the site.

[seanie]

I wouldn't disagree with anything Marya's said but I'd describe it thus;

Part 1;

A superstore proposal for the site was opposed by a very well supported local campaign arguing that residential development was preferable and that a superstore would adversely affect the retailers on the High Street. The application was eventually rejected following a Public Inquiry although, significantly, a superstore on the site wasn’t rejected in principle; the reporter concluded that a superstore would not have a significant adverse effect on the High Street.

The site is sold and BL take charge of its re-development. Cognisant of strong public support for residential development, the Council decides to develop a Development Brief to shape how North West Portobello will develop in the long term. BL kick their heels while an architect is appointed to produce such a brief as part of a public consultation.

The architect eventually produces a proposal that almost nobody has a good word for. Whilst it has a very high proportion of public open space, and a relatively low density at around 70 dwellings per hectare, it also includes half a dozen 10 storey blocks along the Harry Lauder Road, Seeing 10 storey blocks, most people assume the site is being over-developed and complain about the ‘high density ‘ of the proposals. At the same time the developers complain about the proposed brief because the proposed density is far too low to be realistic commercially.

Since nobody likes the proposals the Planning Department bin the scheme developed by the architect and come up with their own brief; the North West Portobello Development Brief. Amongst other things it does not recommend any particular density but merely makes reference to ‘modern densities’; that means high density to anyone familiar with planning and development.

So BL proceed to develop a proposal in line with the NWPDB. They come up with a design that is, by historical standards, pretty high density; at over 700 units the density was over 200 dwellings per hectare. However it complies with all relevant planning regulations, and the NWPDB, and is recommended for approval by the Planners.

But Portobello Community Council and very vocal people within it strongly oppose the application, principally on the grounds that the buildings are too high, density is too high, and it will generate traffic problems. They submit multiple objections and are assisted by our local Liberal Democrat Councillor who exercises his right to speak before the Planning Committee and delivers a 40 minute denunciation of the scheme.

On a split vote the committee rejects the application.

[seanie]

Anyway I wouldn't imagine this forum represents anything other than the views of those who participate.

So it holds about as much sway as the Community Council then? I think what is important is not the (relatively small) number of people who post, but the much larger number of people who view these posts.

How much sway it has, and how representative it is, are separate matters.

[Maria]

Part 1;

..........

Oh-oh!

Bet you're regretting asking for our summaries Jeemy.

[seanie]

There's always the Christmas Annual...

[seanie]

Part 2;

BL have now come back to the PCC with the outline for a proposal. They take a storey off the entire development, reducing heights, density and traffic issues but now include a retail unit to compensate. As BL describe things the situation is this;

The project is 100% debt funded; all the money's coming from a lender and BL have no equity in the site. They're simply acting as agents for the development. As such they aren't the ones who ultimately make the decision on whether to walk away from the project.

The proposal outlined is the only one on the table; they lop a storey off to reduce height, density, traffic etc. but put in a Waitrose to maintain the return on investment. The first proposal is dead and buried and there is no halfway house that meets the need to address the reasons for refusal whilst still stacking up financially.

From the Planning Department's point of view the proposals should be fine. Loping the storey off satisfies most of the reasons for refusal on the first proposal, and the Waitrose shouldn't be an issue. Bear in mind that when the Superstore was rejected the retail impact on the High Street wasn't one of the reasons for refusal. Since a Planning Inquiry has already established, in principal, that a superstore could be acceptable in that location, it's very unlikely a Waitrose slightly larger than Scotmid will be a problem.

However, the last proposal spent a very lengthy time in development, got recommended for approval by the Planners, but was still refused due to the level of opposition from the PCC et al.

As such the principal, perhaps only, significant planning risk identified is a repeat of such local opposition. To take another proposal up to a planning application will cost up to £150,000. The lenders are not willing to commit that sum of money while that risk continues to exist.

So the lenders would like a yes or no answer as to whether the PCC is willing to support the revised application. Ideally they would like an answer in days, can maybe live with an answer in a few weeks, but will certainly not wait months. Without a comittment to support the proposal they will walk away from the site.

So the question being put is this; at the next meeting, on 27th September, can the PCC decide whether or not to support the revised propsal?

[allaboardtheskylark]

Now for another question, what if the PCC rejects it, what happens then. Could the whole thing go full circle. Could the land go lay empty for years. If this were to happen could a future Council change direction and go for a Superstore.

While the land is empty, it will be a drain on resources and yield no income, might the Council just get fed up with Moanabello

[seanie]

Part 3;

So what does the Portobello Community Council have to consider in response to the question being put to them?

First off they need to bear in mind their statutory duty; a Community Council exists to “to ascertain, co-ordinate and express...the views of the community which it represents”. So the views of the community are what’s important, not the views of who ever happens to be on the Community Council. But actually ascertaining the views of the community is genuinely difficult, especially given the number of issues that arise; most of the time the PCC can only hope that its members’ views are a reasonably representative proxy for the wider community.

Whatever one thinks about that, there’s little alternative in the present circumstances. A decision is required in a few weeks and there’s no way the PCC will be able to organise a proper consultation in that time. If we had a web-site where we routinely ran polls, questionnaires, invited feedback etc. that could possibly act as a vehicle for consultation at short notice; but we don’t.

All PCC members can reasonably do is speak to people within the community and try to get a feel for the balance of opinion. This is explicitly highlighted as the least objective method of gathering opinion in the Community Council Guidance notes but there’s not much else to be done. The poll is also useful to consider but, let’s face it, the numbers voting aren’t huge. More feedback on here as to what people think might also help.

So on the one hand the PCC should be considering the views of the community, as best as they can discern them, but they’ll inevitably be weighing up the pros and cons of the proposals as they see them. On that the issue probably comes down to judgement call on the effects of a retail development such as Waitrose.

Going back to the superstore, the big fear amongst many (not all) people, was that it would drag customers away from small local retailers and that the High Street would decline. That was why residential development with mixed use was suggested as a preferred alternative. The Inquiry that refused the superstore did not actually come to that conclusion, finding that a superstore in that location could be acceptable subject to other requirements being met. But I think it’s probably a safe bet that most people who opposed the Superstore didn’t accept that conclusion. And they will harbour the same fears about a Waitrose, albeit a much smaller operation. They may conclude that the High Street is struggling so much that any retail development is a threat.

There was a view expressed at the last PCC meeting that a higher rise, higher density development might be preferable to one with such a retail development. But that particular train has left the station; that was the previous scheme that the PCC vehemently objected to.

There is a converse view that the proposal could benefit the High Street. Not all retailers objected to the Superstore, feeling it would attract more shoppers to Portobello generally and they would gain some benefit. A Waitrose might make Portobello more attractive as a shopping destination, bringing in people from elsewhere and increasing footfall along the High Street. From that point of view a development that entices additional shoppers into the area would be beneficial.

Whatever view is taken on that, it would be hard to conclude that the proposals would have no beneficial effects. There would be upwards of 1,000 new local residents; surely some of them would use the shops on the High Street? And then there’s the mixed use provision; small businesses, artist studios etc. They could also help revitalise that end of Portobello. And from the description given the new proposals should keep a similar, relatively good proportion of Open Space. There should also be 25% affordable housing and Portobello does have a shortage of affordable housing. There are also benefits in the short term should the project proceed; the construction industry is on its knees at the moment and a development on this scale would keep a lot of people employed for a few years.

And, as well as considering the consequences should the proposal go ahead, you also need to consider what might happen should it not. There’s absolutely no way of knowing for sure what that will be, but if the site is sold on what then? Does it stay derelict for years? Would the next proposal for the site be better? Or would it be worse?

[Bob Jefferson]

If, as you suggest, the prime consideration among CC members is the effect the retail development has on the High Street, then they will have to take into account that, whatever BL are suggesting, there is no guarantee what we will end up with. We can't assume that it will be Waitrose. What effect would a Lidl or a Tesco Metro have on the High Street?

I don't think that a Waitrose would be such a direct threat but neither do I believe that it would benefit other local shops. People arrive by car at supermarkets, buy their stuff and then go home. I don't see any spin-off. In retrospect, maybe one extra storey wasn't such a big deal and at least some of those extra residents would have shopped in the High Street.

[seanie]

There's no guarantee but Waitrose are who they're in discussion with and they seem quite keen. Phil Myerscough has even sent me some demographic information to explain why they're interested.

As to the previous scheme it's not really an option. The cost of an appeal, coupled with the outstanding risk, means it's not an attractive option to pursue.

[seanie]

And in any event what would the effect of such stores be on the High Street? It mostly consists of takeways and charity shops and I don't see the regulars at Findlays abandoning it for a Lidl.


Would a Tesco Metro really have a devastating effect?

[Bob Jefferson]

Might be enough to see off Scotmid, but then I guess many people wouldn't necessarily see that as a bad thing. Scotmid closes, Sainsbury's Local moves in?

[Maria]

That may happen regardless. For example, the Duke Street Scotmid in Leith is now a Tesco.

[wangi]

Forcing Scotmid to up their game wouldn't be a bad thing.

You know Findlay's and Williamson's are great - but protectionism isn't too cool. Those businesses didn't get where they are by not having any competition - it's the quality of their product and service. And would it be a bad thing for them to have more accessible opening hours?

L/

[Jeemy]

WRT being overwhelmed - not at all, its really interesting to find out what the concerns are.

Having said that, I'm struggling to see what the concerns actually *are*. I appreciate a massive hypermarket aka the original plan might have raised a few eyebrows, but I don't quite see what the problem is now.

From my point of view, I was originally only planning to be there a year, maybe two, and then move Joppa-wards or City Centre-wards; as it is now, I'm happy where I am, my staff are gravitating towards the area, and I'm keen that the development goes ahead and I get rehoused on-site, rather than the site going into a holding state and I end up overlooking a wasteground for the next 10 years, or worse, evicted and changing areas.

I have to say, the concerns the High Street might decline; can be taken two ways. As far as I see it the High Street consists of a mixture of franchise/branch buildings (RBS, Greggs, Boots) and some really nice independents (flower shop, delis, hardware store) - these latter wouldn't suffer and might even profit from increased footfall?

This footfall obviously comes from the heavier traffic to the area; but its already pretty heavy out on the main road, no?

Most High Streets are already in free-fall given the events of the last few years; maybe getting in early with some influx of first-time buyers/relocators might actually invigorate Porty.

As part of my contribution to things, I'm slowly expanding the arts/support side of what we do to try and assist the community and contribute, which obviously goes both ways. I'm obviously coming late to the party and will definitely attend on the 27th, but; given I'm not biased either way, am I wrong in saying that it looks like Portobello has more to lose than to gain by this at the moment?

On a side note I do have to say that 9 or 10 stories seems very intrusive. The plans I saw weren't anything like this but they were 3-4 years back and have clearly been affected since by this lenders' thing.

[Franck]

This may have been covered, but what effect will the potential new development have on schooling provisions in Portobello?From what I can tell, both Towerbank and St. Johns are pretty much full already.

[seanie]

That depends on the housing mix of the development.

Whilst there were family units in the previous proposal they were a small proportion of the overall development. Two thirds of the units were studio & singled bed flats, that pretty much don't generate any pupils numbers whatsoever. So even though it was high density the effect on the catchment would've been very small. Given the situation at Towerbank any increase is problematic, but that's just something that has to be dealt with. If the site going to be developed residentially, which is what the community and the PCC seem to want, then that issue arises inevitably. In fact the PCC wanted more family housing in the last proposal which would've exacerbated the issue.

If the new proposals have a higher proportion of family housing that shouldn't be a problem. But if there are higher numbers of family housing that might begin to cause concerns.