6 terraced houses planned in front of Bath Place

[Porty]

I have not mis-represented the report; you have mis-represented me

No, I have quoted you verbatim.

by taking me to task on the points you think you are correct.

My opinion on what is correct or not, does not come into it. I am comparing what you say is in the report with what is actually contained in the report. You are gulity of mis-representation.

[dccairns]

No, I am not. You are mis-representing me, as you always do.

[dccairns]

Foxy

You said:

"dc... the detail you quote from the report is not dealing with cars parked on the site, it is dealing with potential increase in traffic. The report says " the existing houses in the lane can in theory generate as much traffic as that now being suggested, so demand is likely to roughly double" You may happen to know that only one car currently parks there but that is irrelevant. The current owners of the cottages may not have cars but you cannot expect the planning officer to know that nor should it be a consideration as that can change at any time"

The fact is that the planning officer should have done his homework, i.e visited the site. It's not a case of who is parking, it's a case of traffic generated in that lane, which is unustainable.

[Porty]

Dc , I totally respect you and recognise that you are fundamental mover and motiivator in our community. Over this issue you are in grave danger of losing all credibility, let me give you one example why:

Your following statement is the thrust of your argument, indeed your only stated argument, as to why the planning report has got it wrong in the assessment of any increase in traffic generation on the Bath Place development:

I have mentioned the numbers. It is quite simple: one car currently parks on the site, sometimes.

You then go on to argue with Foxy and to support your argument you state:

The fact is that the planning officer should have done his homework, i.e visited the site. It's not a case of who is parking, .

Which statement should we believe?

[Porty]

No, I am not. You are mis-representing me, as you always do.

I make no representation for or against you. I have taken the quotes that you claim to be from the report and compared them with what the report actually says. You are guilty of mis-representation.

Normally speaking I would expext you to be indignant at my assertion and I am surprised that you are not asking me for an apology or a public retraction of my observation. Dc, i fear you doth protest too little.

(Edited and toned down by Porty)

[Gemini]

City Development Guidelines on Daylighting, Privacy and Sunlight.

http://download.edinburgh.gov.uk/DQ_Gui ... rivacy.pdf

City Development Handbook's

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/CEC/DQHandb ... uide_index.

[Porty]

I have mentioned the numbers. It is quite simple: one car currently parks on the site, sometimes. The proposal clearly states that there are to be six garages. That means six cars entering and leaving the site on a regular basis. The report states that the traffic will "roughly double" in volume. One times two is two, not six, or have I got that wrong as well?

I can't fault your mulitiplication.

I have been reluctant to challenge you on traffic generation, particularly given the sterling work you did for Pcats.

However, in this case I feel you are grossly mistaken. The planners assesment of potential traffic generation is realsitic, possibly even generous. Your interpretation of what he is saying is completley flawed.

It is clear from your posts that you think that the planner is saying that traffic usage will double from the one car that uses Bath Place at the moment. You think its nonsense and that traffic generation is liable to increase by a factor of 6 or more. That is not what he is saying.

When the planner states thatl usage could "roughly double" he is not talking about how many cars use Bath Place at the moment. He is referring to the potential usage post-development as compared to potential usage at present. He is comfortable that the doubling of potential usage can be easily accomodated in Bath Place. And in my view he is quite correct. If you wish me to explain feel free to ask.

Knowing how passionate you are about these matters it gives me no pleasure to point out that you are wrong but I'm afraid you are.

[Gemini]

I have mentioned the numbers. It is quite simple: one car currently parks on the site, sometimes. The proposal clearly states that there are to be six garages. That means six cars entering and leaving the site on a regular basis. The report states that the traffic will "roughly double" in volume. One times two is two, not six, or have I got that wrong as well?

I can't fault your mulitiplication.

I have been reluctant to challenge you on traffic generation, particularly given the sterling work you did for Pcats.

However, in this case I feel you are grossly mistaken. The planners assesment of potential traffic generation is realsitic, possibly even generous. Your interpretation of what he is saying is completley flawed.

It is clear from your posts that you think that the planner is saying that traffic usage will double from the one car that uses Bath Place at the moment. You think its nonsense and that traffic generation is liable to increase by a factor of 6 or more. That is not what he is saying.

When the planner states thatl usage could "roughly double" he is not talking about how many cars use Bath Place at the moment. He is referring to the potential usage post-development as compared to potential usage at present. He is comfortable that the doubling of potential usage can be easily accomodated in Bath Place. And in my view he is quite correct. If you wish me to explain feel free to ask.

Can you please explain this to me? I am off the opinion that Mr. D was/is wrong, is this the same Mr. D, I wonder, who rubber stamped the MV Building

[Porty]

Can you please explain this to me? I am off the opinion that Mr. D was/is wrong, is this the same Mr. D, I wonder, who rubber stamped the MV Building

The planner is saying that the existing houses in Bath Place could theoretically own as many vehicles as the folk that will move into the new build. We know there are 6 garages and 1 visitor space. So i make that 7 cars and if we accept his theory about the existing homes it is 14 cars in total. (I doubt they would all fit in, which is why I think he may be being generous).

He is interested in traffic generation; safety issues and whether Bath Place can take the maximum flow of traffic? So, if we assume that there are 14 cars and that they all do 4 return journeys each day that is atotal of 112 traverses in Bath Place in a 24 hour period. So around 5 an hour.

If all 14 cars left and returned wiithin a one hour period that would be 28 traverses in an hour or 1 every 2.5 minutes. it can easily be accomodated.

These assumptions (and I admit I am assuming he is making theses assumptions ) are generous. There will be 9 residences with 14 cars and each car will do 4 retun trips per day. Even if they do 10 each it is not an unmanageable flow. With the other bit of information we know about Bath Place: there is only one car at the moment. it is safe to say that the planner has it covered.

There will ban increased flow, no doubt about that but Bath Place can handle it, particularly as the vehicles will have to move VERY slowly.

[Epykat]

There will ban increased flow, no doubt about that but Bath Place can handle it, particularly as the vehicles will have to move VERY slowly.

Have you also included the four houses which can be accessed from both Bath Place and/or Wilson's Park? And what would happen if all the cars wanted to go out and come in at the same time as each other. They'd be going very, very slow then

[foxy]

Not knowing the goeography of the street.... if another 4 houses have access via Bath Place, that would explain the Planning Offiicers comment of double the current traffic. So theoretically 7 cars use the lane now...if the new building goes ahead, an additonal 7 cars will theoretically be using it then

[Epykat]

Which probably clears up the mystery of where the cottage dwellers are parking their cars now - they'll probably have access via Wilson's Park too and park their cars there (is this right any cottage dwellers?).

[Porty]

Have you also included the four houses which can be accessed from both Bath Place and/or Wilson's Park?

I did not know about those houses, can you see them from the Prom?

In that case the planner would appear to be assuming 1 car per household. That may or may not be a fair assumption. I'm sure there will be standard coefficient that he has to apply. I imagine he also has to consider the approach streets and the impact of extra traffic on those.

He has calculated the impact and is comfortable that the extra traffic generated will leave the area within whatever guidleines he has to follow. The risk is an acceptable one.

And what would happen if all the cars wanted to go out and come in at the same time as each other. They'd be going very, very slow then

Don't have the report here but I thnk he makes mention that the narrow access will naturally regulate movement. Having said that, almost any street would be a nightmare if everyone tried to leave and arrive at exactly the same time. (Is that physically possible )

[Gemini]

Had an interesting conversation with an old lady, who once lived in the
Victorian tenement which overlooks the application site.

She told me, that there had been a 'path' which ran between
the existing tenement, and the villas that once stood there!


Don't shoot me, I am only the messenger

[Porty]

Had an interesting conversation with an old lady, who once lived in the
Victorian tenement which overlooks the application site.

She told me, that there had been a 'path' which ran between
the existing tenement, and the villas that once stood there!


Don't shoot me, I am only the messenger

We don't shoot our own.

Did my explanation help?

[Gemini]

Had an interesting conversation with an old lady, who once lived in the
Victorian tenement which overlooks the application site.

She told me, that there had been a 'path' which ran between
the existing tenement, and the villas that once stood there!


Don't shoot me, I am only the messenger

We don't shoot our own.

Did my explanation help?

Nope - I still think the Planners have it wrong, AGAIN!!

You should have been at 'Imagine Portobello' yesterday pm.
I believe they are thinking about situating a 80ft wind generator up....






your street!

[Porty]

Nope - I still think the Planners have it wrong, AGAIN!!

Ok, on what basis? Your turn to explain.

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

Promenade plans are going against the grain

[Epykat]

Have you also included the four houses which can be accessed from both Bath Place and/or Wilson's Park?

I did not know about those houses, can you see them from the Prom

You can't see them from the Prom but if you go up the Lane, on the left hand side there's a wee entrance into a stair which has four one bedroom houses (my aunty and uncle used to live in one of them). There's a stair door at both ends so you can go in at the Lane and come out at Wilson's Park (or vice versa).

[Hawkeye]

I've just read the arguments on this thread from start to finish and it has become very entangled in interpretation of what is in the report. I am biased against this development but I expected the report presented to Committee to be factual, balanced and neutral.

The tone of the report was set in item 2 with the statement describing the existing cottages in Bath Place as a …"Georgian survival" style terrace… a phrase that doesn't have an exact meaning for me but leaves the impression that they aren't really Georgian, only being built in that style.

The report is factually wrong in stating that the houses have 9m to the boundary. Two houses at the rear would have only 4 to 5 metres at the back thereby creating a ‘bad neighbour' from this new development. Why does the report totally disregard this? This is one guideline that the planner has not followed. Do you ever think we will get an explanation for this misrepresentation? If we did, then maybe more people would have confidence in the ‘system'.

The report states the three Victorian houses occupied the same footprint as the current proposal. This is incorrect.

I am not surprised that Transport have no objections on safety grounds as Bath Place is so narrow that car speeds will be low. But there is no mention of congestion at the bottom of Bath Street. The traffic issue is complicated in the report by reference to a theoretical situation rather than what actually currently exists with regard to traffic flow in Bath Place. Why did the person writing the report feel that it was necessary to introduce hypothetical justification for the increase in traffic?

With regard to the design, firstly, I believe the architect has designed the cheapest building for the greatest sale price. Good business sense for an absent landowner. And, secondly, as for the step forward for the middle two houses, this is a practical move to get cars into the garages at the rear. Remember, it's only at ground floor level and will change the front elevation from bland to more of a dog's breakfast.

Porty believes that there is going to be a building on that site one way or another. That may be the case, and if it is, why not fight for the best possible structure rather than believe that planners know their stuff inside out? Support us Porty and by way of a bargain, if the proposal does get approval I will support your efforts to find out how the £9,600 contribution to alleviating accommodation pressures at Portobello High is spent.

As a final note of how well the report to Committee was put together can someone please tell me what is meant by the summary on page 8:

Summary

There is no spare capacity available at Portobello High School to serve this development. Accordingly a total contribution of £9,600 should be sought. If no contributions are secured towards alleviating accommodation pressures at this school, then I would have no object to this application.

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

Promenade protester has got his facts wrong

[Porty]

Edited by porty;

The report is factually wrong in stating that the houses have 9m to the boundary. Two houses at the rear would have only 4 to 5 metres at the back thereby creating a ‘bad neighbour' from this new development. Why does the report totally disregard this?

I don't fully understand this point but it seems material. Is it possible that the report disregards this issue because: either your interpretation or understanding is incorrect? You are right to ask; how was such a substantial difference of 4-5 meters missed?

Am i mistaken in thinking that two rear gardens were shortened to include a turning circle? Is this where the "boundary" issue occurs? Although the physical boundary of the garden has changed the legal boundary remains the same. So the new bulding is still 9M plus from the boundary. I don't know, I need it explained to me.

Bad neigbours: My understanding is that the existing cottages are the "bad neighbours" due to their proximity to an adopted road.Which lies between the cottages and the new build beyond. I take it to mean that as "bad neighbours" they lose certain rights to privacy. Ironically this situation arose due to previous owners of the cottages creating a new titled piece of land and creating the road. The existing owners have thereby fallen foul of planning regulations.

The report states the three Victorian houses occupied the same footprint as the current proposal. This is incorrect.

I strongly disagree, the report actually says "Up until the mid 1980's the site was occupied by a small terrace of 3 Victorian houses in front of 2 and 3 Bath place. This occupied the same footprint as the current proposal."

There is no mention of "exact" or "entire" footprint. To me this statement means that the footprint of the 3 victorian house is contained in the footprint of the current proposal. The very next sentence in the report seems to back this up:

"A fourth unit had been demolished some time before this. To the north stood single storey amusement facilities. The cleared area was used to accommodate a ghost train facility forming part of the "attractions" along the Promenade"

So the footprint of what formerly occupied the site included: footprint of 3 Victorian Houses, footprint of 4th house, which was replaced by single storey amusements and a space. The planner is quite clearly saying that the footprint of the 3 Victorian houses did NOT cover the whole site. In fact later in the report he goes onto say:

"The form of the proposed development, in both envelope and proposed position in terms of footprint, CLOSELY echoes that of the demolished terrace previously on site."

Once again he is not using the "exact" word. He goes onto say:

"The exact form (as opposed to footprint) has been largely dictated by the former building position of the Victorian Terrace (ie; prior to the amusement arcades which covered the entire site)"

Indeed the latter quote suggests that amusement arcades were built right up to the boundary line.

Why did the person writing the report feel that it was necessary to introduce hypothetical justification for the increase in traffic?

He didn't, he followed guidelines. In actual fact he assumed, as his work rules dictate, far higher usage than is currently prevalent (according to dc). Even given his inflated assumption the proposal still fits guidelines, congestion and all. Can you imagine the uproar if he assumed only 2 cars would use Bath Place.

Hawkeye, I am not against the protesters, I am for a fair and neutral process. It is clear the custom and practice and guidelines are for the developer in this case. I am only one of the messengers.

I have to add that the aesthetic appearance is not good but as Brian said earlier it will probably be good enough.

[Hawkeye]

Porty, I am not getting into a point by point discussion with you on, for instance, what ‘same' means. I would think most people define same as equal, identical, unchanged or at its most loose, very similar. (Not my definitions but those from Chamber's Dictionary and Roget's Thesaurus). This only deflects from the main arguments.

However, two things cannot be let go without comment. How do you know what this planning officer's thought processes are? Eg. you wrote ‘He didn't, he followed guidelines. In actual fact he assumed, as his work rules dictate, far…….'

Secondly, after 35 years of work reading and preparing plans, I do not misinterpret or misunderstand where the boundary is. It is clearly shown on drawing 01 Revision (a) submitted by Turnbull which, I assume, you have looked at and it is to do with the retained garden in front of 2 Bath Place. If Turnbull (the architect) has got it wrong then I cannot be held responsible for that. I have four explanations as to why it was missed:

Incompetence;

Deliberate as there is some advantage to the Planning Officer;

Error due to pressure of work – Edinburgh has the least number of planning officers per application;

Overlooking this fact as it does not fit in with the argument as to why privacy standards should be reduced – that is, it's all the cottages fault.

I do not subscribe to the first two explanations and I am now happy to leave the decision to the Planning Committee.

This is the last post from Hawkeye.

[Bob Jefferson]

This is the last post from Hawkeye.

What, ever?

[Porty]

Edited by Porty

Porty, I am not getting into a point-by-point discussion with you

With all due respect, the objectors, yourself included, have put forward 3 points of objection, traffic, footprint and boundary. We are already having a point-by-point discussion. It is those key points that matter.

… on, for instance, what ‘same' means. I would think most people define same as equal, identical, unchanged or at its most loose, very similar. (Not my definitions but those from Chamber's Dictionary and Roget's Thesaurus). This only deflects from the main arguments.

So no mention of exact?

Hawkeye, the meaning of a word and the context in which it is used is vital in matters like this. Had the planner stated:

"Up until the mid 1980's the site was occupied by a small terrace of 3 Victorian houses in front of 2 and 3 Bath place. This occupied the IDENTICAL, UNCHANGED or EQUAL footprint as the current proposal."

There would be no debate about footprint, he would be stone cold wrong, a child could see that. He did not use any of those words and the rest of the report shows he did not mean any of those words.

Any objective person reading the report would fully understand that the footprint of the current proposal bridges the entire gap, whereas the footprint of the 3 Victorian houses did not. After all, this is the crux of your supposedly valid objection. You have basically accused the planner of an attempt to defraud by alleging that the 3 houses coverd the entire footprint, making the footprint of the current proposal identical. In his report the planner mentions the 4th house several times. If he is trying to defraud, don't you think it would have suited his case better to not mention that house, in order to preserve his cunning delusion that the 3 houses once bridged the entire gap?

According to the objectors, the planner is arguing that the 3 houses occupied the whole footprint but telling us simultaneously that there was a 4th house. He has also slipped up by stating that the 3 houses were in front of 2 and 3 Bath Place but not 4 Bath Place.

I think we are on to the crooked, footprint-fudging, fraudster

Secondly, after 35 years of work reading and preparing plans, I do not misinterpret or misunderstand where the boundary is.

I did not mean to imply that you did not understand the drawings and I apologise if that caused any offence. I have not looked at the drawings and I am not challenging what they look like.

I meant that there may be legal considerations to be taken into account, that you may not be aware of, that the planner is. That could explain why he does not see it as material. On the other hand. If it is an error or incompetence on his behalf, then you have a valid objection. You have already decided he is either a liar or incompetent. I would like an explanation.

When I questioned the boundary objection I was going on percentages, two out of the three main objections (traffic and footprint) have been proved to be nonsense, so the chances are that there may be something flawed with the third objection. I accept I may be wrong, which is why I asked for an explanation.

I too am happy to let the PC decide, in fact I have always been happy to let due process prevail.

Not sure if this is Porty's last post.. Depends if someone comes up with a reasonable defence of the objectors case on traffic and footprint.

[Porty]

Thanks to ECM for the link to the photo of the victorian tenement that used to stand in front of the cottages in Bath Place.

http://groups.msn.com/ScotlandPostcards ... toID=14072

I don't know about the sea air but one can certainly smell the BS.

[Porty]

And Bath Place-post the demolition of the victorian tenement. Footprints galore.

[GRANTY]

what a nice photo! Haven't seen that one before.

[Porty]

Anyone know what's happening with this? On the Planning portal the status is "Con". What does that mean? Has the site visit taken place?

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

Objectors fail to turn the tide on seaside homes

[Lizzie]

That is such a disappointment
Mr Lizzie was born and brought up at No 2 Bath Place and we always had an inkling that perhaps one day, if it ever came on the market, and we could afford to, we would buy it for our retirement.

[Porty]

That is such a disappointment
Mr Lizzie was born and brought up at No 2 Bath Place and we always had an inkling that perhaps one day, if it ever came on the market, and we could afford to, we would buy it for our retirement.

Can Mr Lizzie recall the buildings that must have been in front of Bath Place at that time?

[dccairns]

The application was unanimously rejected.

[Pal of Porty]

The application was unanimously rejected.

That's brill. Hopefully we will be able to get some nice houses there now in a style that is consistent with the heritage of the site.

[Porty]

The application was unanimously rejected.

Does this mean nothing will ever be built there?