Pitz/Powerleague site

[Guest]

It has been common knowledge for some time that Powerleague, the owners of the Pitz were keen to re-locate. Now the site is up for sale. So what's going on?

This is probably the biggest single issue to affect Portobello in recent years, other than the Superstore. At stake is one of the last Council-owned marketable pieces of land, but it has implications for the Community Centre, the Library and has other knock-on effects.

Powerleague have a 100 year lease on the site. A deal has recently been struck with the Council to jointly market the site.

Here's what Maureen Child has to say on the subject in her most recent report:

The Council and Powerleague have agreed to jointly market two thirds of the site. The intention is that the remaining third will remain in Council ownership for a linear park and community facility, which should be a new Portobello library and/or a new Portobello Community Centre, and maybe a bit more. The rest of the site is likely to be developed as high quality, well-designed housing forming a better entrance to the urban village.

This proposal accords very well with community aspirations for the site, already expressed through an extensive grassroots consultation process. I have had very detailed discussions with Council officers on a number of occasions, making as clear as I can what these community aspirations are. We will have to await the outcome of the marketing initiative to see what is achievable. Any outcome for this site, and for any replacement five a side facility in the local area, would be subject to planning consent and to the normal legal processes of Council decision making. The current site being looked at - no more than that at this stage - is the southern edge of the Portobello Golf Course.

And here's an email from Robert Gatliff, secretary of Portobello Community Council sent this evening. I am taking the view that this information is in the public domain and that its publication is in the public's interest.

Maureen, Lawrence

The discussion about the Powerleague site at Monday's meeting was very interesting and I've had quite a bit of feedback. Several people have contacted me to say that there is now a closing date for the sale of the land (22nd December), and that the Council's decision to sell has been taken quickly without regard to the wishes of the people of Portobello, and that other suggestions, for example, making better use of the Bowling Centre and considering the King's Road site and the whole area in an integrated way should be considered.

There does seem to have been very little consultation on this one. Certainly we get visitors from the Council when they take up a roundabout, but we hear very little about the more important decisions.

To summarise points passed to me:

- we should develop the Bowling Centre as a new Community Centre
- we should keep the Library where it is (if it needs repairs we can use the existing Community Centre as a temporary library)
- we should look at the Powerleague site in conjunction with the "King's Road" site
- we should keep Powerleague where they are until we have an alternative site
- the proposed site near the Golf Course is open space and an asset to the area - do we really want the Powerleague there?

There is a specific request from one member of the Community Council to ask the Council to defer any sale until there has been a more thorough analysis and consultation.

Any comments?

My personal view is that despite the Council's protestations that they are being held to ransom by Powerleague, the fact is that they are only too happy to capitalise on this site's perceived housing value.

Over to you.

[Hawkeye]

All very interesting, especially with the development of the Scottish Power site across the road proposed by Duddingston House Properties for the superstore. One effort by DHP to justify their proposal is tied to the provision of housing on the Pitz site.

I would be ironic if the sale of the site for housing to DHP or any other developer worked against the Council's 'minded to refuse' reason for turning down the superstore. PCATS will be writing to the Council with our concerns - hope lots of other people will too.

[ras]

personally I am all for some 'high quality' housing at that end of Portobello as it seriously needs it, the sooner the better

my concern is what constitutes 'high quality'? there are endless mediocre and poor developments that are being marketted as 'high quality','luxury apartments' that are no better than your bog standard, cram them in, shoe box developments

if there are to be conditions on the sale of the site I hope they ensure that 'high quality' is of the utmost importance or the opportunuity will be missed

[wangi]

- we should look at the Powerleague site in conjunction with the "King's Road" site

Somebody want to describe where this site is? I can't place any empty site on King's Rd - or are the quotes pointing to it not actually being King's Rd, but nearby?

[dccairns]

I think by the "King's Road" site he may mean the old Scottih Power site.

I agree that if there is to be housing on this site it should be high quality and of a sympathetic design, not like what's at the bottom of Bath St which sticks out like a sore thumb. But what concerns me is the proportion of housing to community use; it seems that the proposed community use (new library and community centre) are going to be shoehorned into a corner to enable the Council to make as much money as possible out of the sale of the land.

How about the Council keeping the land for Portobello and carrying out a public consultation on what we would like to see there?

[Brian McCrow]

I'm all for housing as it will make our community more vibrant with new people. There should be a mixture of luxury and affordable housing and if we are selling off Council owned land there should be a legally binding agreement to provide community facilities such as a Community Centre, Library, which are adequate for the requirement.

Alternatively the money should be used to improve the current Library and Community Centre.

I would also like to see a plan to exploit the Town Hall as a Community facility perhaps this extra cash could be used for this as well. I'm convinced that a good architect could convert the Town Hall into a facility with lots more multi-purpose room(s).

I was recently at the Community centre in Craigmillar and it was an excellent centre in a lot less square footage.

The key point is that these decisions are important Community decisions. which should be subject to local decision making.

Currently there will be local decision making on traffic calming, signalising the Kings Road roundabout i.e when Council money is being spent.

However when the Council are about to make money there is no consultation.

Finally, there is a possibility of having an even wider debate about making use of the Powerleague site down to the seafront plus the Scottish Power site to create a new site for Portobello School plus all of the Community facilites.

Now that's a debate to die for.

[Maria]

Maureen Child wrote:

The Council and Powerleague have agreed to jointly market two thirds of the site. The intention is that the remaining third will remain in Council ownership for a linear park and community facility, which should be a new Portobello library and/or a new Portobello Community Centre, and maybe a bit more. The rest of the site is likely to be developed as high quality, well-designed housing forming a better entrance to the urban village.

So housing it'll be then. Here's hoping that the developer's idea of quality and good design is the same as that of the average Portobello resident.
I like the idea of smart new custom- built community facilities but taking them away from the centre of Portobello seems a pity.

Brian wrote:

Finally, there is a possibility of having an even wider debate about making use of the Powerleague site down to the seafront plus the Scottish Power site to create a new site for Portobello School plus all of the Community facilities.

Placing the school on a busy commuter route will surely add to traffic congestion (I'm thinking in particular of parents dropping off pupils and the 20 mile speed limit) and have health and safety implications for pupils and staff.
The High school's current site is more central to the catchment whilst the Scottish Power or Pitz site would be on the periphery.

All this pondering is rather futile, though, if the closing date of 22 December is a true one.

Lastly, I am incredulous as to how the council let themselves get into a position where a private company can hold them to ransom over council owned property. To have signed such a long lease with Power league seems, at the very least, very bad judgement on someone's part.

[Brian McCrow]

I hope whoever made the decision on granting the 100 year lease has now resigned.

I think there is an opportunity to have a much wider debate about the way we want to develop Portobello and what is built where.

I've seen cities such as Cardiff transform themselves with a glorious Bay area.

PortyPeople need to stand up and discuss these issues now.

[john]

Am I correct that no one has yet started off a serious discussion about the council's decision to offer up for sale most of the Pitz site off Westbank Street ?

The sale particulars - while only admittedly an artist's impression - show by far most of the site being sold off to developers for private housing. Only a very narrow strip is shown as being retained by the council as the site of a possible combined library and community centre. This strip, forming the east side of the land in question, stretches from the High Street to the Promenade and the proposal shows the new community facility at the High Street end of the site, a landscaped park stretching behind it to the Promenade. There seems however to be no provision for vehicular access or delivery, only pedestrian access off the High Street. The footprint of the combined community building also seems very small.

While accepting that the layout, size and position of a suggested community facility on the site have not yet been decided by the council, they have made very important decisions which need to be discussed by the people of Portobello and the opportunity to do so is fast disappearing.

Should land which is owned by the public and used for recreation purposes
be sold off, albeit to raise money for laudible purposes - to improve community facilities ? Is this not really asset stripping ? Once the land is gone out of the public domain it is gone for ever.

Edinburgh Council yet again demonstrates a disregard of Portobello's potential as Edinburgh's seaside. Surely this prime site - between the High Street and the Promenade - could be developed as an all weather recreational facility for use by both residents of and visitors to Portobello?

Of equal importance, surely people in Portobello should get a say in what happens to this site, a site with a long history of public ownership and use?
The time scale in which to do this is fast disappearing, The site sale particulars say that offers have to be in to the council by 22nd. of December ( Are not most people thinking of other issues then ! )

Both PAS and the Community Council have w ritten to the council asking for a delay to the date by which offers have to be lodged to allow for greater public consultation. Can I suggest that Online viewers do exactly the same. The stronger the protest there is about lack of public consultation and impossible deadlines, the greater chance there is of Portobello people having a proper say in what happens to this important area of Portobello currently, but perhaps not for long, in public ownershiip.

[Guest]

Here are some links to previous threads on this subject, including contributions from both Lawrence Marshall and Maureen Child, that help to give some background to this issue:

redevelopment of Pitz site

Rumours again...about development

[dccairns]

There are several concerns with this proposal to sell of the Pitz/ powerleague site.

1 There was supposed to be public consultation on this and there has not been. The land seems to be being sold off with indecent haste before we can have a proper debate on the matter. Once it has been sold, there will be no opportunity to have one and this piece of land will have been largely lost to the community. The only consultation we can have then is over a small piece of land which does not really meet the needs for which it has been set aside - it appears to have been an afterthought - the footprint for the proposed combined community centre and library is smaller than the current footprint of the community centre. There have been no feasibility studies done on the community centre or the library.

2 Another aspect to this is that the moving of the community centre plus the library actually amounts to taking vital services away from the heart of Portobello. If this happens and houses are built, this strengthens the case for the superstore developers to say that a superstore is needed on the Scottish Power site to serve these houses. The community centre and library attract people into the heart of Portobello and local shops benefit from the passing trade this generates. If these services are moved and the superstore is built, this combination of facilities at the west end of Portobello will take even more trade from the centre than the superstore alone would.

3 If this site is developed for housing it would be easier for Duddingston House Properties to tie in their superstore plans and overcome some of the urban design concerns that Councils officials have about the superstore plan. It would be a great shame if the Council, by selling off this land in this way, were to unwittingly or unintentionally facilitate the expedition of DHP's plans. If the land was sold to DHP this could be seen as a betrayal of the wishes of the Portobello community.

4 Why does this land have to be sold off for a short term gain which will benefit the community very little, the Council not much and Powerleague a lot? This land is zoned for recreational use and should be retained for the community. There are so many uses to which it could be put to create an attraction for residents and visitors alike, for example, a Portobello heritage museum or an arts centre; I'm sure that there are lots of ideas out there which could be looked at if there were to be full public consultation.

There are many more issues tied up in the sale of this site but what we can ask for is a postponement of the sale of the land to give us time to have a full debate and public consultation on the best use of the land and the implications of the sale. Ideally this should be put back till after the public inquiry into the superstore so that DHP cannot use the future development of this site as an argument in support of their case.

The closing date for the sale is 22 December, so if you are concerned about this, please write before then to your councillor (Lawrence Marshall or Maureen Child) or to the Property dept at the Council (either write to David Rogers, Property Manager, Property Development, Economic Development, 1 Cockburn Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1ZW or Donna Cameron at the same address).

You could also write to the head of recreation as it is supposed to be a recreational site (Herbert Coutts, Director, Culture and Leisure, 23-25 Waterloo Place, Edinburgh, EH1 3BH). Graham Dixon from Planning's name is also on the schedule so he would be a useful person to contact about the possible link with the Scottish Power site (address: Planning, PO Box 12473, 6 Cockburn Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1ZL). Another person to write to is Tom Aitcheson, Chief Executive, The City of Edinburgh Council, Council Headquarters, Wellington Court, 10 Waterloo Place, Edinburgh EH1 3EG).

This seems a lot of people to write to but even if you only write to your councillor to ask for the sale of the land to be postponed, that will help.

Once again, it seems that the community of Portobello is about to be short-changed.

[dccairns]

I forgot about the firewall or profanity filter or whatever it's ****** well called. The street whose name has been replaced by asterisks is
C-o-c-k-b-u-r-n St. Hope that gets through.

[bellybabe]

This seems a lot of people to write to but even if you only write to your councillor to ask for the sale of the land to be postponed, that will help.

And in fact you could email most of these people, and so copy it to all of them, or if printing a letter can print various copies only changing the name and address each time, so it's not necessarily individual letters to each one.

Bellybabe

[ras]

If the council is promoting regeneration, could they not sell the site on a fixed price basis with the winning developer being awarded on the merits of the scheme for Portobello rather than price?

As it currently stands the winning bidder will be the one who offers most for the site, but that then results in the developer having a reduced pot of money to carry out the development in order to make it stack up. Most likely resulting in a sub standard scheme.

I have also heard of instances where the bidders submit two envelopes. One has the scheme drawings the second has the bid price. The second envelope is only opened if the scheme drawings are to a high enough standard. Is this the case here?

[dccairns]

As far as I know they are just being asked to submit a bid, not a design. Once they own the land they will still have to obtain planning permission but as we all know that is no guarantee of quality. The simple answer to your question is "I don't know" but maybe a councillor or the Property Manager at the Council would be able to answer your question.

[Guest]

The following is Maureen Child's response to Robert Gatlff (see earlier post):

Parts of the Council have had this on the drawing board for five years at least, so it's not rushed from their point of view. The Council is 58 Elected Members who have to take a final decision on a course of action like this. Soem of them found it rushed too, and many of us are in several minds about whether or not this is a good idea. If you read the small print of the sale notice, it still doesn't commit the Council to actually selling the site to anybody. The status quo is still an option.

The wishes of the people of Portobello are represented - for good or ill - by its local elected representatives of which I am one and I take that responsibility very seriously. Whether I do it well or not is for others to judge. One of my intense irritations with this business has been the lack of scope to consult with Portobello people. That's because Powerleague are a hard boiled lot and the Council officer did not want them to think we were as keen on them going as they were of leaving - as indeed, we aren't. At first, they thought they could sell the lot and keep the whole capital receipt for themselves - believe it or not! Opening up the discussion and debate at that point was not (I judged) in the community's best interests and not in the interests of the Council as a whole.

Let them sit there playing five a side for ever as far as I'm concerned. But please don't think we can do that and have the proceeds of sale to invest in Portobello. Portobello needs a better library, a better community centre and a better Portobello High School building. That total investment would be of the order of £35 million at today's prices, excluding the cost of land. A new site for Portobello High would cost £25 million and building it would cost another £25 million. Last year's mainstream capital programme for the entire city amounted to just £100 million - and we could have spent that more than four times over and still not have done all we need to do.

Common sense might tell us the Council hold all the cards as owners of the site, but the Council are really over a barrel largely because of the barking mad decision made to give Pitz and their successors a 99 year lease. Great thing, hindsight. It might have seemed like a good idea at the time - and something the community at large applauded then, as I recall. But Powerleague almost as good as own the site with the length of lease they have. Powerleague hold the cards, not the Council. Powerleague, or their successors, could continue for the next 84 odd years sticking to the letter of the lease, but not the spirit. By that time, we'll all be dead and buried.

What would any of you do in those circumstances? Let it drift, as it has for five years already? Or try to shift them, with Powerleague thinking we're very reluctant indeed to do it and no sniff that it's more in our interests than theirs?

There's a lot of things we would like to do in Portobello, but bringing them to pass is a little more difficult than just saying 'I want!' and manning the barricades. Like it or not, development of Portobello will take lots and lots of money. And Council money is always in short supply. Nobody knows better just how short supply but me, and nobody prioritises Council spending on Portobello more than I do. Do you want me to count up what's already spent on Portobello in the last eight years and what's in the pipeline? Things that we hadn't a cat in Hell's chance of getting in the past?

Tell me where these mythical alternative local sites are - they have to be in Council ownership and not costing several million pounds an acre - and I'll happily have a look at them. You can rule out all the local parks and bowling greens because frankly there's few enough of them as it is. I alreday ruled out the Paddling Pool Site by getting the community involved in planning its future. Otherwise, I would have been under huge pressure to support the release of that site for sale several years ago.

I suspect we'd need the 'Subtle Knife' to find these mythical sites. If we want to make a difference, we need some real thinking on this issue and not just the stuff of dreams and fantasy.

I'll be happy to stick my heels in and say Portobello wants to stay just as it is. No development anywhere, hold on to Council assets like grim death, end of story. But I don't think I would be doing anyone in Portobello a good service unless I put the options to you. And that's all they are - options. Worth talking about, at least.

Comments on specifics:

- we should develop the Bowling Centre as a new Community Centre

Have you discussed this with the Portobello bowlers? They are losing a facility in Brunstane too. So are they to have no indoor facility? Do you know how popular this is as a sport that keeps elderly people active?

- we should keep the Library where it is (if it needs repairs we can use the existing Community Centre as a temporary library)

What happens to the users of the Community Centre. Discussed this with them? Is the current library fit for purpose. Are there possibilities to have a combined library and community centre.

- we should look at the Powerleague site in conjunction with the "King's Road" site

- It's called the Local Planning process. Let's all get involved in it and be proactive. You don't have to wait to be asked.

- we should keep Powerleague where they are until we have an alternative site

- Fine, but let's be fully aware of what options we might be closing off.

- the proposed site near the Golf Course is open space and an asset to the area - do we really want the Powerleague there?

What's an alternative site? Part of the deal with Powerleague is we find them another site. The sale doesn't happen unless we can do that - so there's another safeguard.

Best wishes

Maureen

[Porty]

What is the rental income from Powerleague, does anyone know? Can someone ask Maureen to tell us?

[Brian McCrow]

Presumably the Council will earn more from the Council Tax on the new housing

[Porty]

Presumably the Council will earn more from the Council Tax on the new housing

Im sure they will, however, it would be interesting to know what Terms Powerleague have? Could be scope for some type of legal sleight of hand or do you think the Council are sharp enough to have all bases covered?Leases can be sold on, much in the same way that land is.

[Hawkeye]

Christmas is a time for fairy tales. How about this one.

Have you heard about the proposal to sell before Christmas the land at the Pitz football site yet?

Well there’re two theories the conspiracy and the ***-up.

The conspiracy theory goes like this:

A developer wants to build a superstore on the Scottish Power site and some people say great but after much opposition by local people the Council says no because it is too far out of town. Some people don’t like this. The next thing we know there is a wonderful council plan to move the library, community centre and some housing next to the superstore site. Great say some people, we couldn’t move the superstore into the town centre but this is a fairy tale come true because the town centre has come to us.

The ***-up theory goes like this:

Department P rejects the application for a superstore on the Scottish Power site on the grounds that its urban design does not link with the rest of the High Street. Department L says it wants some cash to make the services better. Department E decides to sell land for housing in conjunction with Department P who will grant permission and in so doing undermine (a good word for an unstable site) the reason for rejecting the superstore. A fantastic example of what the Government would call joined up thinking.

Of course, I don’t subscribe to either of these theories although that may be a fairy tale as well.

But it does make you think why a scheme that has been kicking around for the past five years has suddenly been rushed through to a date for acceptance of offers. Where’s the rush and why the indicative plan now?

The move is dependent on a new site for Pitz to be found and go through the due planning process. If this is approved then the site would have to be built and Pitz move over. This all takes time even in never never land.

Is it really coincidence that this plan has been released so soon before the Public Inquiry? A plan that jeopardises the chance of the Council defending the one reason arrived at by officials for rejecting the superstore.

[Epykat]

Oh you are so cynical - but it all sounds feasible to me

[Maria]

Here is the (longish!) email that Lawrence Marshall circulated.

Dear All,
                      when I arrived back in the City Chambers yesterday from holiday I noticed a fair number of e-mails regarding the proposed sale by the Council of part of the site on the High Street currently occupied by Power League.  With offers for the site to be in to the Council by noon on Wednesday 22nd December, the Portobello Campaign Against The Superstore have asked people to ask us to postpone this sale as they fear that, by enabling a new library/community centre complex to be built immediately to the west of the Figgate Burn with pedestrian access from the High Street, this will undermine their case at the Public Local Inquiry to be held in March regarding the proposed superstore that the site of the latter - almost opposite the Power League site - is peripheral to the core of Portobello.
   While I can understand how this concern perhaps came about, I thought that it would be useful to amplify my e-mail of June to my Portobello group list (see Appendix below) which sought to let folk know the background to this sale.
   It is undoubtedly true that, in terms of retail, the superstore site is peripheral to the High Street. Nevertheless, the current entrance to Portobello at the west end of the High Street is one recognised by almost everybody to be sub-standard and not a good introduction to the town. The proposed removal of the roundabout at King's Road and its replacement with traffic lights will not only help traffic flow at this busy junction but will hopefully also allow this entrance to be "tightened up" a bit. The housing on the old power station site doesn't really give a sense of the High Street but the opportunity now exists at both the superstore and Power League sites to begin to build a real sense of the High Street in locations which frankly currently give only an industrial/shabby first impression of our town. We need to knit this area back into Portobello with appropriate development on both these sites.
   The Council has not only drawn up Urban Design Principles for the superstore site but has this month also done so with regard to the Power League site - a 13 page document which I will try to get in electronic form to copy to you all soon. It recommends that the typical Portobello perimeter block form be the basis for any housing development on the west of the site. It seeks a "development of the highest urban and architectural design quality, that provides a sense of identity and welcome". I would also say that that's what the Council wants for the superstore site across the road - hence a main plank of our opposition to the superstore proposal.
   In all of the protracted period over which negotiations between Council officials and Power League have gone on over their re-location from a site where, to be honest, they have never quite fitted in, I have been quite clear that the main driver behind all the effort involved was not just to create a better sense of Portobello at its principal western entrance but to secure for Portobello the new community centre which local folk have long been asking for. That hasn't quite managed to be communicated to some of our officials perhaps - but that's my determined view nevertheless and I have expressed it forthrightly on a good number of occasions.
   The report recommending the sale of part of the Power League site referred to a library/community facility being provided. I had hoped that whether a new library was provided here or on its current more centrally-located site could be an option the decision regarding which could be made by local folk. An integrated library and community centre had been proposed in the first instance by the community centre management committee itself when it sought to see whether re-development on the current site in Adelphi Grove was feasible. Such a vision then naturally transferred to the Power League site when it became apparent that financially it was most unlikely that re-development in Adelphi Grove could be afforded.
   Since my e-mail of June, however, it's become clear that the Council's Culture and Leisure Department (whose account the Power League site is on and on whose land it is to be re-located) are - perhaps not unnaturally - adamant that, having enabled this whole sale to take place, they should see as their reward a new library on the remainder of the site. This view has been reinforced by their belief that the current library is not best suited to modern requirements and is now showing signs of structural decay and weakness.
   The footprint of a new complex incorporating both a new library and community centre will necessarily be bigger than that for a library alone. The indicative footprint in both the sales document and the Urban Design Principles document for the site is therefore, in my view, misleadingly small - but it's just indicative. Indeed, the community centre management committee themselves have not only been in discussion with a housing association regarding house build on the site but have also held discussions with Friends of the Earth Scotland as to the possibility of their siting their proposed new HQ building here. Others have also suggested that a small museum of Portobello/visitor centre could be added in as part of the overall complex.
   I have been told that bids to be received for the sale of the site will be accepted if they also offer to look at the  possibility of helping to secure these additional community benefits. One developer has already contacted me asking me about this - with a leading firm of architects on board with respect to the housing element. The full details of this would need to be examined but this kind of tie-up seems to me to be a good idea and I would be keen that the Council consider just such an offer favourably even if not offering the highest price for the site alone.
   To sum up, then.
   We need a new community centre and probably also a new library. The new site is not so central in Portobello as the exisiting locations of these facilities but we'd wait years to get a new community centre if we had to fund demolition and then rebuild on the current site. The new site is no further from the core of Portobello than are the much-loved swimming baths.
   We also need to promote major urban design improvements at the west end of Portobello High Street which will give a real sense of arrival to the town. To develop the Power League site in the way envisaged does not undermine the case against the superstore but rather serves to emphasise that we seek quality development for Portobello which a superstore frankly will never be able to provide with its need for hundreds of parking spaces and the associated traffic its huge retail floorspace will generate.
   With appropriate development on both sites we'll go a long way to creating a welcoming entrance to Portobello to be enjoyed by this and fututre generations - and we'll have a new community centre at last and perhaps more.
   I hope this information is helpful.
 
                                                                 Lawrence
 

I haven't copied Lawrence's June email as there is a link to it on the first posting in this thread.......

[Brian McCrow]

This is my response sent to Lawrence.

Lawrence

Any extension of the Town Centre facilities such as a Community Centre/Library plays dangerously into the Superstore developers argument that it is a linear development.

Why not have only housing on the site plus some public spaces such as a linear park. The extra cash from this approach could be used to develop the library and community centre in situ and/or by developing the Town Hall into a community centre by building a new floor at balcony level.

We need an open Community debate about all of these important developments and I think the Portobello Community Council and other parties should be actively involved.

Finally, it is naive to suggest that the current plans for the Powerleague site are indicative. In commercial negotiations you have to be very clear on precisely what is required.

[dccairns]

PUBLIC MEETING

Monday 20th December 2004

St Mark’s Church
Abercorn Terrace, Portobello High St
(opp Red Giant)
At 7.30pm

Stop Portobello Land Grab

The Council wants to clear away the Library and Community Centre and relocate them at the Pitz site in another deal with developers. Who knows what they will have in mind for the vacated sites?

Offers by 22nd December - Why the Rush?

These shady moves will jeopardise PCATS case against the Superstore developers and put vital amenities away from the centre of Portobello. We have always suspected that the Council and developers have ongoing agendas where our interests come a distant third. The people of Portobello should decide how their land is used and where the amenities are sited.

Let’s hear how you feel about these important issues. Tell your neighbours. Come to the meeting and speak your mind. Don’t let the Council get away with flogging off our assets.

PCATS is calling this meeting but we shall be asking why this has not already been done by our local councillors.

Hope you will join us.

[Gemini]

Quote dccairns>
PCATS is calling this meeting but we shall be asking why this has not already been done by our local councillors. end quote.


We seem to recall that our local rep. did not think it necessary to call a public meeting when the application for the Supersore dropped through the letterboxes!

[Gemini]

As the Community Centre (now Bowling Club) on the prom, is serously underused eg - whilst out flogging calanders last weekend, cats members popped into bowling club at approx 10pm, to find a group of elderly ladies (about 10 - not from Porty) having a wee get together, a handful of people using bowling facilities and quite a few staff.

We thought it could and should be better utilised as a proper
Community Centre The Bolwing facilities could easily be transfered to Adelphi CC for those who use them, the Library could be upgraded in situ.

Its a disgrace that this Complex is not utilised for the greater use of the Portobello Community - as I believe it was first intended.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this one?

[Porty]

I thought the bowling centre was well used, so you have surpised me. Its an arcihitectually uninteresting building isn't it?

[ecm]

When my Dad was still alive I used to go in now again to watch him bowl. That's over 5 years ago.
It was always very busy on the rinks then but the cafe would be deserted. I remember there being a variety of keep fit activities going on in the little studio rooms but don't know if that's still the case.
I know the private indoor club at Milton Street had a long waiting list for membership and that many of my Dad's pals made a lot of use of the Portobello Centre during the winter months when the outdoor greens were closed.
It would be surprising if the rinks were underused during these months.

[Bob Jefferson]

Oh dear, it's all going pear-shaped for the Portobello 'masterplan'.

We need a new Portobello High School, a new library and a new community centre. Many of us also want a tourist office/museum. It's already complicated by the unwanted Superstore bid and now by Powerleague, who are sitting on the one piece of land that the Council feels it can capitalise upon to fund some if not all of our wish list. So what's the deal? What percentage of the proceeds will go to Powerleague who, let's remember, don't own the site?

And what happens to the present Community Centre and Library sites if this goes ahead? More housing. And then what? I believe that Jessfield Bowling Club also has a 100 year lease. How long before the Council starts to look at the possibility of a deal there as well?

When we have drained the swamps and sold off every last square centimetre of land to the developers, then what?

As you know, I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. I understand that Council officials live in the real world and that they have to make tough decisions based upon practical considerations but there has to be a meeting point between this realpolitik approach and the aspirations of the community. At the moment, with a public meeting looming, that gap is set to become wider unless the Council calls off this sale - at least until the Superstore issue has been settled.

Too much of the Council's dealings is cloaked in 'commercial confidentiality', inevitably leading to suspicion - justified or otherwise. This forum exists to encourage open debate on the issues that affect us as a community in Portobello. That's what we now expect.

[Dakota]

But with Freedom of Information just around the corner... It tips the balance slightly.

Knowledge is power.

[Brian McCrow]

Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend this meeting as I'm down South on business.

However you have my full support. Will you be able to get the Councillors and Council staff to this meeting?

[Gemini]

Quote Dakota>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But with Freedom of Information just around the corner... It tips the balance slightly. end quote<

We have recently requested information from the City Council, which is not of National Security Interest, although it could be damaging to the Council. We quoted FOI coming into force 1st January, guess what, no records of any information pertaining to our request? (I hasten to add here, that 3 years ago they had 3 out of the original 5 volumes of the information we are looking for available).

An investigation into the full history of problems that have occured post the development of HLR and SP site (between 1984 - 1992) was carried out in 2003, by the City Council at the request of Susan Deacon, my question is - how on earth can the Council say that the full history of the developments were considered, when they did not have any information (or so they say) - what they could tell us was, the properties were inherently predisposed to any changes in the ground

Aye, the shredding machines will be working overtime in the Council Offices before 1st Jan.


OOps think this should have been on the Supersore thread - apologies.

[stubetts]

Regarding the Bowling Centre, it would be easy to transfer the activities to somewhere else......except the bowling! I have played bowls there since it opened (1994), and have played for the team in the Scottish Leagues that have seen us gain promotion from the Second Division to the Scottish Premier League.

With the closure of Edinburgh Indoor Bowling Club (Richard Corsie Leisure) imminent (the end of the current indoor season - Apr 05), the nearest indoor bowling would be Dalkeith or Meadowmill (Tranent), and it would still require somewhere for these bowlers to play.

It would be a sad loss to the bowling community if this centre was closed, especially the hard work that has been put in by the players and committee to put Portobello on the bowling map.

Stuart

[Porty]

Stu, I thought Corsie was already closed!!!

[stubetts]

Richard Corsie "rented" the centre to the bowlers for a year, but I still believe it will be sold in April for housing. I actually played there last month.

Stu