6 terraced houses planned in front of Bath Place

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 14 Aug 2005, 08:06

Porty wrote:Can anyone recall what was there previously? Fish and Chip shop on the ground floor and a little amusement/fun garden?

Fish & Chip shop used to be Erinals (or similar sounding name) was on the ground floor of the existing building.
The site used to house a Ghost Train, before the little amusement area was opened.

The Photo used by the developers to illustrate original buildings on this site, is old, going back many decades.

Surely with all new laws and regulations regarding privacy/light etc.
the owners must have some redress?

ras · Post by **ras** » 14 Aug 2005, 23:36

As far as I am aware there is no right to light legislation in Scotland, no right to a view and the privacy criteria will have to be met by the developer in order to gain consent.

I think it is given that the properties behind will be devalued if this development goes ahead.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 15 Aug 2005, 08:37

Planning Aid: List of Material/non Material considerations.

Seems as though devaluation of property is not a material
consideration

Privacy and overshadowing are!

http://www.planning-aid-scotland.org.uk/mcpr.html

ras · Post by **ras** » 17 Aug 2005, 23:04

Overshadowing may be a difficult one to argue given the orientation - early morning light may be the only possibility.

Appearance may be worth a shot as a material objection. Stating that it does not look like the existing won't be good enough, the objection would have to argue that the proposals do not meet the standards set out in planning policy - which they may or may not. The outcome of this objection would probably only alter the appearance and not generate a refusal to build. I suspect that is not what Paul/Fred is after.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 18 Aug 2005, 14:31

I don't think there is any mileage in the devaluation of surrounding property either. I feel the folk in the cottages are peeved at their view being blocked and are hoping that they can use planning legislation to stop a building, at very best, they are clutching at straws.

They are hoping to drum up public support for their cause and seeing as how there is a healthy conservation brigade in Porty they should have some success with the drumming. Personally, I do not like the anonymous way they have gone about their task. Conservation can also be used by the "anti-everything" brigade .

For me, I'm thinking, cottage dwellers, if you value the view get your hand in your pockets and buy the land, thereby securing your view and your rights. You would certainly be doing the rest of us a favour if we have to put up with the proposed building.

Those of us who do not live in the cottages should be more concerned with what the proposed building looks like and its impact on the Promenade.

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » 18 Aug 2005, 16:43

From the European Convention on Human Rights:

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions."

Planning regulations are there to protect the people in the cottages against (eg) invasion of privacy - as already discussed. But the owner of the derelict land must have the freedom to develop the land (his possessions or property) in accordance with planning regulations, in such a way that he can realise its value.

Well said, Porty.

ras · Post by **ras** » 18 Aug 2005, 23:06

IMO this site is too important to the Prom for consent to be given for the scheme currently submitted, however I think a building of better quality would be suitable.
Fred's opening statement - "the buildings would not match those of the listed buildings...." was a correct assumption but there is nothing wrong in that, however the proposals are bland at best.
Fred may wish to convince the developer of his "commitment to the development of Portobello...", get him to redesign and then purchase one of the "..contemporary European.." seafront apartments.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 19 Aug 2005, 09:51

Porty wrote:For me, I'm thinking, cottage dwellers, if you value the view get your hand in your pockets and buy the land, thereby securing your view and your rights. You would certainly be doing the rest of us a favour if we have to put up with the proposed building.

I've got lots of sympathy for the cottage dwellers and their fight. They'll need very deep pockets to do as Porty suggests. I know if I lived there I wouldn't be able to come up with the funds to buy a share of the land. I'm only guessing here but I'm assuming an individual cost somewhere in the region of Â£300,000+ as the cost of building these 'townhouses' will be peanuts compared to their sale value. If the cottage owner has that amount of spare cash then I would advise them to sell up and just buy the house next-door to Porty instead.

Dakota wrote:But the owner of the derelict land must have the freedom to develop the land (his possessions or property) in accordance with planning regulations, in such a way that he can realise its value.

Owning land brings responsibilities as well as the opportunity for huge profit. This landowner has ignored and neglected this patch of land for decades by the sounds of it. I'd much rather it had been taken into Council control and made a pleasant green area for all of us to enjoy.

I'm pessimistic about the campaign succeeding, but wish them all the best in their attempts.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Aug 2005, 10:43

I don't think you are being pessimistic, realistic is nearer the mark.

BTW how many Cottage properties are we talking about here?

Hawkeye · Post by **Hawkeye** » 13 Sep 2005, 21:43

For those who haven't visited the CEC planning portal where full colour plans can be viewed then there are six terraced houses planned, all not much wider than a single garage. And they are of no architectural merit whatsoever.

Write in and complain. Tell the planners what you think, it's never too late. Write or email Alan Henderson at City of Edinburgh Council and tell him what a mockery developers are making of Portobello's rich and varied conservation area.

If you don't then we are likely to get an eyuesore to mirroe that at the bpottom of Bath Street and the view from the promenade of the georgian cottages will be lost for a long, long time.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Sep 2005, 23:05

Hawkeye wrote:.... to get an eyuesore to mirroe that at the bpottom of Bath Street .

Is there an english virus in West Brighton Crescent? I seem to have it also. BTW, bpottom is a great word, think of a meaning quick.

Hawkeye · Post by **Hawkeye** » 20 Oct 2005, 13:28

I'll try and write this one in English.

The houses are recommended for approval and will be going to next Wednesday's (26th October) planning committee. It appears that the restricted access, the uninspired shoe box design, the obscuring of Georgian cottages, increased traffic and congestion mean nothing to the planners.

And as for the Portobello Conservation Area then this might as well as be destroyed as far as our planners in Edinburgh are concerned.

The only hope now is that the planning committee do not agree with the officer's recommendation. Write to each of them putting your point of view. A list will be posted.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 20 Oct 2005, 16:54

For those who wish to write to the members of the Planning Committee before next Wednesday's meeting, here are the members' e-mail addresses:

trevor.davies@edinburgh.gov.uk
lawrence.marshall@edinburgh.gov.uk
allan.laing@edinburgh.gov.uk
chris.wigglesworth@edinburgh.gov.uk
george.hunter@edinburgh.gov.uk
gordon.munro@edinburgh.gov.uk
ian.murray@edinburgh.gov.uk
john.longstaff@edinburgh.gov.uk
ken.harrold@edinburgh.gov.uk
maureen.child@edinburgh.gov.uk
sheila.gilmore@edinburgh.gov.uk
sue.tritton@edinburgh.gov.uk
david.guest@edinburgh.gov.uk
tom.ponton@edinburgh.gov.uk
jim.lowrie@edinburgh.gov.uk

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 20 Oct 2005, 17:36

Hawkeye wrote:It appears that the restricted access, the uninspired shoe box design, the obscuring of Georgian cottages, increased traffic and congestion mean nothing to the planners.

And as for the Portobello Conservation Area then this might as well as be destroyed as far as our planners in Edinburgh are concerned.

But that's okay - they 'asked' the neighbours first and took on board their suggestions and opinions......

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 20 Oct 2005, 20:31

Thank you to everyone who has already taken the time to object to the plan to build houses in front of the Cottages on Bath Place...but guess what.......

It looks as though our Public servants in Edinburgh Councils Planning Department have decided yet again that they know better than us residents...we only live here and pay their salaries of course !!

The Committee will meet on Wednesday 26th October (thats next week) to discuss this matter, and the Planners have recommended that the plan is approved...arghhhhhhhhhhhh

I would urge anyone of the 170 people or so who objected, to email their Coucillors and also MSP's etc to try to convince them to do everything they can to ensure that this proposal is defeated.

If you think there is already a squeeze on parking spaces in the Bath Street area, and that it is also too congested..it'll be a heck of a lot worse if the new houses go ahead, as there's only ONE single parking space set aside within the new development for visitors.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Oct 2005, 10:35

Paul wrote:It looks as though our Public servants in Edinburgh Councils Planning Department have decided yet again that they know better than us residents...we only live here and pay their salaries of course !!
The Committee will meet on Wednesday 26th October (thats next week) to discuss this matter, and the Planners have recommended that the plan is approved...arghhhhhhhhhhhh

Public servants are there to serve ALL of the public. Your claim that "us residents" pay their salaries is about at as valid as your protest has turned out to be. Frankly, it was clear from the start that the protesters were clutching at straws with a groundless argument.

You are correct in one regard; that the public planners "know better". I believe they fully understand the rules and guidelines and have applied them accordingly, at least as far as allowing a building on the site is concerned.

Personally I think the design of the houses is terrible but the design must comply with planning guidelines. A bit like the property you live in must have done at the time of construction.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 21 Oct 2005, 11:20

I have to say that you may be making an incorrect assumption that the planners are correct and have applied planning guidelines correctly. As we know through the superstore application, the planning dept made monumental errors such as stating that an extra 1200 cars per hour would be able to flow smoothly along Portobello's highways and byways.

If this protest is pointless and groundless why did 173 people write in to object? The traffic and design issues plus the lack of heed paid to the conservation area are enough to raise doubts in any planner's mind.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Oct 2005, 12:02

Where did I say the protest was pointless and that the planners were correct?

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 21 Oct 2005, 13:10

Well you said: "Public servants are there to serve ALL of the public. Your claim that "us residents" pay their salaries is about at as valid as your protest has turned out to be."

You are saying their protest is invalid, is that not the same as pointless? You also said their argument was "groundless". I think you will find that assertion to be incorrect, epecially as objectors received letters saying their objections were "material" to the case, i.e not groundless.

You have said that the planners "know better". Does that not mean you believe they are correct?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Oct 2005, 13:18

dccairns wrote: Well you said: "Public servants are there to serve ALL of the public. Your claim that "us residents" pay their salaries is about at as valid as your protest has turned out to be."

You are saying their protest is invalid, is that not the same as pointless?

No, in any case I din't say the protest was invalid.

dccairns wrote:You also said their argument was "groundless". I think you will find that assertion to be incorrect, epecially as objectors received letters saying their objections were "material" to the case, i.e not groundless.

Fair enough, i should have said worthless.

dccairns wrote: You have said that the planners "know better". Does that not mean you believe they are correct?

Do you really need me to answer that or do you know better?

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 21 Oct 2005, 17:28

I need you to answer. Sometimes I find your arguments opaque.

And don't pull the "numpty" card. The onus in communication is on the communicator to make their message clear. And yours is not in this case.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Oct 2005, 12:18

dccairns wrote: You have said that the planners "know better". Does that not mean you believe they are correct?

No it doesn't neccessarly mean they are correct, (although they do appear to be in the instance) it means that Planners understanding and knowledge of Planning rules, regulations and process is better than resident Paul's.

BTW what does 173 people complaining signify to you?

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 23 Oct 2005, 18:59

That a lot of people object to this development. For everyone who wrote in there will be several more who didn't get round to it but still oppose the plan and there will be those who remain blissfully ignorant who would object if they knew about it. Believe me, this is a high number of objections by any standards.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Oct 2005, 20:51

To me it means 173 people objected. When you consider that every residence in Portobello was leafleted and that many households will contain more than one complainant, its not a spectacular number. Particularly when a fair portion will have complained purely out of self-interest. BTW I don't think its fair or reasonable to label the many hundreds of households who didn't complain, as ignorant.

However, I willingly accept that by any standards this is a high number of complaints. With such a strong voice raised against the proposal; on what basis did it fail?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 23 Oct 2005, 21:28

Porty wrote: When you consider that every residence in Portobello was leafleted

We weren't.

Porty wrote: Particularly when a fair portion will have complained purely out of self-interest.

Obviously if it's affecting somebody's living conditions directly they're going to object. Sure you would if they wanted to build something directly in front of your windows - or would you stick to your 'build on any available empty bit' stance?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 23 Oct 2005, 21:47

Porty wrote: BTW I don't think its fair or reasonable to label the many hundreds of households who didn't complain, as ignorant.

Ignorant actually simply means not knowing, which is the context in which I assume DC was using it - that many people did not object because they were unaware of it. I doubt she was using it in a pejorative way.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 24 Oct 2005, 10:58

You are quite correct there BB.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Oct 2005, 12:43

Bellybabe wrote: Ignorant actually simply means not knowing, which is the context in which I assume DC was using it - that many people did not object because they were unaware of it. I doubt she was using it in a pejorative way.

I don't think dc meant it in pejorative way either. When I stated "BTW I don't think its fair or reasonable to label the many hundreds of households who didn't complain, as ignorant. " I meant that it is not fair or reasonable to assume that people who did not complain were ignorant. Many people were aware of the proposal (POL, Evening News, leafleting, local gossip etc) and chose not to complain.

Epykat wrote: Obviously if it's affecting somebody's living conditions directly they're going to object.

Is that not self-interest? Part of the purpose of planning regulations is to thwart unreasonable protest. People have a right to protest and in this case they have. If they had perhaps had a btter understanding of the appropriate regulations maybe they wouldn't have wasted their time.

Epykat wrote: Sure you would (complain)if they wanted to build something directly in front of your windows - or would you stick to your 'build on any available empty bit' stance?

Me? I would comply with the planning guidelines and procedures. Live and let live.

Allow me to put the question to dc again:

"However, I willingly accept that by any standards this is a high number of complaints. With such a strong voice raised against the proposal; on what basis did it fail?"

I guess the protesters may still succeed as I understand the project has yet to be approved at commitee level. However, having read the guidelines I am certain that there will be a building of some descripition on that land. Personally, I don't like the proposed buildings.

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 24 Oct 2005, 13:14

Porty wrote:I am certain that there will be a building of some descripition on that land. Personally, I don't like the proposed buildings.

Same here, I don't for one second think that that space will remain derelict & empty.....and I don't think it should......but agree with Porty, don't like the design of the new building, it could be a lot better.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 24 Oct 2005, 14:44

In answer to your question Porty, (and there was no need to shout), it hasn't failed. The matter will be decided on Wednesday.

PS I have spoken to many people about the plan who were unaware of it, i.e. ignorant of it and who would have objected had they known about it. And there has been nothing in the Evening News about it until today.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Oct 2005, 15:03

dccairns wrote: In answer to your question Porty, (and there was no need to shout), it hasn't failed. The matter will be decided on Wednesday.

Hawkeye wrote: The houses are recommended for approval and will be going to next Wednesday's (26th October) planning committee..

Allow me to re-phrase;on what basis was the proposal/houses recommended for approval?

(FYI bold is not shouting CAPITALS is shouting)

Post by **wangi** » 24 Oct 2005, 15:12

Porty wrote:Allow me to re-phrase;on what basis was the proposal/houses recommended for approval?

You can read the 13 page report which will be going to the planning committee on Wednesday here:

http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocID=72052

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 24 Oct 2005, 17:45

And already the architect for the new build is citing Miami Beach as setting a precident

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 24 Oct 2005, 19:49

Epykat wrote:And already the architect for the new build is citing Miami Beach as setting a precident

I noticed that too

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Oct 2005, 20:42

wangi wrote:
Porty wrote:Allow me to re-phrase;on what basis was the proposal/houses recommended for approval?
You can read the 13 page report which will be going to the planning committee on Wednesday here:

http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocID=72052

Thanks Wangi. Seems that the developer selected the correct architect to prepare the proposal for planning. He has taken the path of least resistance, leaving very little ground for protest and no ground for substantive complaint.

The protesters are miffed because they can't change the rules to suit their personal preferences. Hey, thats what rules are for.

I suppose its good news that a further 4 family households will enjoy unrestricted sea views.