Fun Park Planning Application

cuth · Post by **cuth** » 12 Feb 2009, 22:56

The planning number is 09/00248/FUL, can be seen on-line at

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /00248/FUL

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 13 Feb 2009, 07:54

cuth wrote:The planning number is 09/00248/FUL, can be seen on-line at

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /00248/FUL

"cuth"

Whats your view on this? If you have one that is? Since you started the thread I presume you must have given it even the slightest bit of thought.

PortyConvert · Post by **PortyConvert** » 13 Feb 2009, 20:54

Without putting much thought into it... i live very close by - and i think its 3/4 stories high when every other property is 2 floors which i'm not too happy about. But not suprised - they want to cram as many properties in as poss for the $$$$. Concerned about the parking impact and my view!!!

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 14 Feb 2009, 14:41

cuth wrote:The planning number is 09/00248/FUL, can be seen on-line at

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /00248/FUL

A wee write up about it in the Evening News today

Striking images show design for 73 new flats in Portobello

cuth · Post by **cuth** » 14 Feb 2009, 16:18

There are some aspects of the development that I quite like. For instance, I think that it's a good that thing that they are seeking to keep the amusement arcade and a cafe. I like the sedum roof, too.

All the other buildings between there and King's Road are about four storeys high, but I'm struggling to grasp what the impact of the seaward elevation will be. It would have been helpful to have an elevation from Pipe Lane to King's Road.

Although the height might not be significantly greater than the flats at Westbank Street, the new flats are much closer to the beach. so the impact is likely to be greater. A 16 metre structure is going to cast a significant shadow, if nothing else.

Given the threat of rising sea levels due to global warming, an underground car park is a bold (or maybe foolish) idea.

As a minor aside, the shadows on the elevation drawings appear to show the sun high up in the North sky where it is rarely, if ever, going to be.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 14 Feb 2009, 19:05

cuth wrote:There are some aspects of the development that I quite like. For instance, I think that it's a good that thing that they are seeking to keep the amusement arcade and a cafe. I like the sedum roof, too.

All the other buildings between there and King's Road are about four storeys high, but I'm struggling to grasp what the impact of the seaward elevation will be. It would have been helpful to have an elevation from Pipe Lane to King's Road.

Although the height might not be significantly greater than the flats at Westbank Street, the new flats are much closer to the beach. so the impact is likely to be greater. A 16 metre structure is going to cast a significant shadow, if nothing else.

Given the threat of rising sea levels due to global warming, an underground car park is a bold (or maybe foolish) idea.

As a minor aside, the shadows on the elevation drawings appear to show the sun high up in the North sky where it is rarely, if ever, going to be.

Will you be making representation to the planning folks about your views on it?

Post by **wangi** » 14 Feb 2009, 22:48

I skimmed the documents and noted they referenced the guidelines / intentions to widen the prom by 2m at that point and the implication is the plans take this on board. However it wasn't obvious that they had - anyone know?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 14 Feb 2009, 23:07

wangi wrote:I skimmed the documents and noted they referenced the guidelines / intentions to widen the prom by 2m at that point and the implication is the plans take this on board. However it wasn't obvious that they had - anyone know?

I believe they have. At least, that was what was stated by the architects during a presentation to the Community Council.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 16 Feb 2009, 15:40

I think it's 5m and they do seem to be incorporating that in the plans.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Feb 2009, 15:55

I'm largely in favour of the design and the developers must have had a laugh when picking their name!. It does seem like the designers did in part listen to the PNS and have modified the design to an extent. although its still 5 floors and a basement. The developers must be confident of approval if shadowing and some vehicles having to turn right against the flow of traffic are the only objections.

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 06 Mar 2009, 16:18

From today's EN

PMAG object to plans

Personally, I think the plans look not bad and a big improvement on what's there at the moment. The kilns will be accessible, and I like the cafe with outdoor seats plan for along that end of the Prom (it's needed).

There was a pile of letters at the bottom of our tenament earlier this week, basically pointing out the plans were available to view and asking for opinions to be sent to the interested parties...but they heavily hinted that it was "objections" they wanted sent - was PMAG behind the letters?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Mar 2009, 16:28

More I study the proposal the better I like it.

Wonder if the developers have checked that they haven't breached the city's Skyline policy for Jet Skiers who may wish to admire Arthurs Seat?

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 06 Mar 2009, 17:16

Some jolly fun comments below the online article clearly getting a dig in at porty for all its campaign groups.

Post by **wangi** » 06 Mar 2009, 17:24

BeachBum wrote:Some jolly fun comments below the online article clearly getting a dig in at porty for all its campaign groups.

http://forum.talkporty.org/viewtopic.php?t=3797 for earlier comments here re "Portobello Against Absolutely Everything" etc...

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 Mar 2009, 17:26

I do have concerns about the application. Although I'm happy to see new developments, this one is daunting in its proportions. It'll be 5 times longer and 2 metres higher than the Granny's Attic/Miami Vice building at the bottom of Bath Street.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 06 Mar 2009, 17:39

I think the proposal looks great, might inject a bit of life and interest into that end of the prom too.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 Mar 2009, 17:45

I'm in favour of that part being developed, just scaled down a bit to say 3 storeys (as recommended in the North West Masterplan) instead of 5.

I'm also unsure who would want to buy a flat above the proposed amusement arcade section, but that's not grounds for an objection, just an observation.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 Mar 2009, 17:54

If anyone wishes to object (or support!) the application, today is the last day. It is dead easy to submit your view online by accessing the planning portal on

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... hform.aspx and searching for application 09/00248/FUL. You can then select an online comment form to fill in.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 06 Mar 2009, 18:13

Marya wrote:If anyone wishes to object (or support!) the application, today is the last day. It is dead easy to submit your view online by accessing the planning portal on

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... hform.aspx and searching for application 09/00248/FUL. You can then select an online comment form to fill in.

Done my comment a couple of minutes ago. In support.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 06 Mar 2009, 18:25

Given the context of existing tenements onto the promenade, and the way the proposals been set back, the height of it seems reasonable.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 Mar 2009, 19:04

I realise with your background in architecture Seanie you can prob visulise the height and mass of the building better than most, but I find it difficult.

For anyone else, who has a similar problem, here's a reminder of the size of the building at the bottom of Bath Street. To get an idea of the size of the proposed development imagine something 2 metres higher and 5 times as long and see whether you agree that the height is OK or not.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 06 Mar 2009, 19:51

Having viewed the proposals I would like to express my support for this well thought out scheme. This part of the Prom would benefit hugely from the positive/ active frontages presented in this proposal. At present the site is detrimental to the appearance of the Prom. The scale of the development is in keeping with the tenemental scale at this end of the Prom and the architects have minimised its impact by splitting the building - allowing views through the the kilns; changes in materials, staging the building, incorporating features such as balconies, raised platforms and set backs in the building line. The incorporation of the amusement arcade and cafe is a positive benefit to the community. The public space around the kilns is of a suitable size and creates the opportunity for a well designed public space - on the sunny side of the building. Harbour St at present is a mess and this scheme will bring life back into that area. All too often in Portobello its the 'anti' voice that shouts the loudest. I would encourage you to support this proposal as I think it is a key milestone in the regeneration of the Prom.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 Mar 2009, 20:05

Puerto bella wrote: I think it is a key milestone in the regeneration of the Prom.

Here's hoping you are right PB, but given the current climate even if planning give it the green light I think it will toil to be built or for all the flats to be sold.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 06 Mar 2009, 20:09

Puerto bella wrote:Having viewed the proposals I would like to express my support for this well thought out scheme. This part of the Prom would benefit hugely from the positive/ active frontages presented in this proposal. At present the site is detrimental to the appearance of the Prom. The scale of the development is in keeping with the tenemental scale at this end of the Prom and the architects have minimised its impact by splitting the building - allowing views through the the kilns; changes in materials, staging the building, incorporating features such as balconies, raised platforms and set backs in the building line. The incorporation of the amusement arcade and cafe is a positive benefit to the community. The public space around the kilns is of a suitable size and creates the opportunity for a well designed public space - on the sunny side of the building. Harbour St at present is a mess and this scheme will bring life back into that area. All too often in Portobello its the 'anti' voice that shouts the loudest. I would encourage you to support this proposal as I think it is a key milestone in the regeneration of the Prom.

I hope you make those comments known to the Planners.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 06 Mar 2009, 20:37

I have indeed.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Mar 2009, 22:24

Marya wrote:

Looks about the same height as the baths's chimneys, no? I made my comment on the planning portal, it is support from me too. The new building will be aboput the same height as the old art deco open air pool. It was majestic.

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 06 Mar 2009, 22:56

I've submitted my opinions on the development - supporting it. 2 metres higher than the Miami flats is not something that's going to be ridiculously out of step with the rest of the Promenade, and the rest of the plans look good to me.

My only concern is the basement, still think they've underestimated how much the waves come over the Prom at that point!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Mar 2009, 00:04

I think that any Community Councillor reading this thread will be quite surprised to find people who are in favour of this development. I say this because I feel that being against development in Portobello seems to have become the default position in certain circles and there is an assumption that 'the community' supports such objections. Clearly, this is not always necessarily the case.

I'm no great admirer of this type of architecture. I think a lot of what is being built right now is going to look very dated in just a few years. I look at what has been built in Leith in recent years and to me it doesn't look much different from some of the 1960s high-rise buildings we have been pulling down, apart from the stick-on aluminium balconies. Some of the finest buildings in Portobello were built in the 1820s. So why is it that we seem to be incapable of producing buildings that will still be used and admired 200 years from now?

With those reservations, and living in the real world where developers understandably want to maximise their profit per square metre, and looking at the current state of the site, and taking everything into account, I can't feel particularly enthusiastic about the proposals but neither do I feel moved to object to them.

And if you don't like the finished results, don't worry because they will probably be pulling it down again in 40 years time.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Mar 2009, 11:17

Most buildings built 200 years ago were shoddy death traps that fell apart long ago. The ones that have survived till now aren't representative of the general quality of building back then.

And the quality of the buildings that have survived was affordable, in large measure, to the grotesque exploitation of the working classes.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 07 Mar 2009, 11:55

I am in favour of the development as this has been a bad bit of the Prom for years, even away back in its hayday. At one of the presentations some time ago, the developer showed and elevation/skyline of the entire Prom with his new building in it and to me it seemd pretty consistent.

This shadow casting arguement holds little water for for me. If you want the sun on the Prom then demolish everthing 30 metres back from the sand or widen the Prom.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Mar 2009, 12:09

There are already a number of four storey Victorian tenements on the promenade and they equate to a five storey modern building, so five storeys can be justified contextually. Taking the roof into consideration six storeys would probably be accomodated within a similar ridgeline.

I think the architects drawing up the development framework recommended up to five storeys on the prom, although the Council went instead with three storey frontage with four storey set back. With these proposals the building's set back metres from the plot edge so four storey plus is probably reasonable.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Mar 2009, 12:51

Pal of Porty wrote:I am in favour of the development as this has been a bad bit of the Prom for years, even away back in its hayday. At one of the presentations some time ago, the developer showed and elevation/skyline of the entire Prom with his new building in it and to me it seemd pretty consistent.

This shadow casting arguement holds little water for for me. If you want the sun on the Prom then demolish everthing 30 metres back from the sand or widen the Prom.

If I remember that presentation correctly PoP, the developer took his lead from the highest building on the Prom, which makes sense for him, given he will want maximum profit. This approach, however, fails to meet the recommendations made in the council's own masterplan for the scale of future developments at that end of the Prom, given the style of housing found there.

The shadow argument doesn't just take in the prom, but the beach itself. I suppose that given the numbers who now use the beach, it won't be a major problem if folk all congregate on the only sunny bits of beach, on the rare days we get the weather for it. Mind you, I can't see all that many wanting to sit at cafe tables in the shadow of the building.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Mar 2009, 12:54

A point ,no one has made so far, is that this development consists mainly of 4 bedroomed flats i.e. it will be marketed to families. It is a welcome move away from one and two bedroomed 'executive' flats, but as Towerbank and St John's are already crammed to the seams, I'd be a tad concerned if I had young kids, bearing in mind there is another major development (of the old Scottish Power site) waiting in the wings. There is no mention of any contribution, as far as I know, from the developer towards local schools.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Mar 2009, 13:02

Any contribution would form part of the Planning Conditions, not the application.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Mar 2009, 13:03

seanie wrote:Any contribution would form part of the Planning Conditions, not the application.

Do you think there'll be such a condition imposed?

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Fun Park Planning Application

Fun Park Planning Application

Re: Fun Park Planning Application

Re: Fun Park Planning Application

Another Supporter....

Re: Another Supporter....

Re: Another Supporter....