6 terraced houses planned in front of Bath Place

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Feb 2006, 12:19

TO: All Members of the DQ Sub Committee
DQ Sub Meeting â€“ Wednesday 1 February 2006

Item No. 5 â€“ 19 Promenade

I am away on holiday and unable to be present at the DQ Sub Meeting to be held on 1 February regarding agenda item No. 5 â€“ 19 Promenade.

The main point I would wish to make is that I believe the existing Local Plan Policy â€“ to keep this site as open space â€“ is the correct one in planning terms. This is because the site now affords a view of a row of 1820â€™s cottages which are unique on the promenade. Indeed, I think they are the oldest dwelling houses on the promenade. Whether a price can be negotiated for this site is not a planning consideration.

I would be grateful if you could refuse this application on the basis that retaining it as open space is the best possible planning outcome. It is important to keep it as open space in order that the view of those cottages can be retained for those who wish to use and enjoy the promenade. Building more houses on the promenade will only further erode its recreational potential. This is all the more important given the recent boardwalk proposals put to the last meeting of the Planning Committee.

Cllr Lawrence Marshall

(Dictated by Cllr Lawrence Marshall on his mobile phone to Lynn Heath 5.10 p.m. on Monday 30 January 2006 )

Sent on behalf of Cllr Lawrence Marshall by Lynn Heath
Assistant to Cllr Lawrence Marshall
Labour Group
City of Edinburgh Council
Tel No. 529 3252
Fax No. 529 3255

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 03 Feb 2006, 14:48

And if the EN is to be believed

Homes plan snub sows the seeds for gardens comeback

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 03 Feb 2006, 19:20

Great news. They could make it into a golf course.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 03 Feb 2006, 19:29

Epykat wrote:Great news. They could make it into a golf course.

Pitch and Putt - at the very least

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Feb 2006, 19:51

Would you be prepared to swop a 9 hole golf course for Crazy Golf? Just a thought.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 03 Feb 2006, 20:47

We used to have that too ........ til the Council took it away.......

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Feb 2006, 20:59

Good thing too. I hate Crazy Golf. However, although I don't play golf I love putting and if there was room left on the Golf Course site for a pitch and putt course, or even a putting green, then I would be happy to support that.

Having said that, with a little imagination I think we could create something of much greater value for the whole community.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 04 Feb 2006, 12:55

Bob Jefferson wrote:Good thing too. I hate Crazy Golf. However, although I don't play golf I love putting and if there was room left on the Golf Course site for a pitch and putt course, or even a putting green, then I would be happy to support that.

That's very charitable of you.......

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 06 Feb 2006, 17:50

I used to love playing putting in Rosefield park. Many happy memories as a youngster. Wasn't so keen on the crazy golf in Straiton Place however.

ceejam · Post by **ceejam** » 07 Feb 2006, 16:05

I always enjoyed crazy golf more than putting.

Maybe that's just because I'm crazy, and am crap at normal putting

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 21 Aug 2006, 14:23

From today's EN

Appeal over homes plan puts garden hope at risk

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 26 Sep 2006, 09:19

Latest on this is that the reporter (not the Portobello Reporter!) will make a site visit on Wednesday.

Carol · Post by **Carol** » 18 Oct 2006, 09:07

What a difference a day makes
Twenty four little hours
Brought the sun and the flowers
Where there used to be rain ......

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/planning/sei ... 30_855.pdf

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 18 Oct 2006, 10:13

Fantastic news

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 18 Oct 2006, 22:33

Sniggered aloud at my desk when I read the bit in para 15 re "the mystery" of the wheeliebin uplift! See, we civil servants do have a sense of humour!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Sep 2008, 15:48

Can't find the original thread butI thought this application was dead. However, I met a resident of one of the properties in Bath Street Lane who tells me that an appeal has been lodged and a decision is imminent.

I took a peek at the Planning Portal
http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /01664/CAD

And read the story. From what I can gather the application was refused on the grounds that it didn't fit with the prevailing local plans in 2006. The appeal has been lodged on the basis that a housing development would have been ok in 1997 when different local plans prevailed. Reason being that the council said they were going to buy the land in 1997 and didn't.. I find it fascinating.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 08 Sep 2008, 16:55

Porty wrote:I took a peek at the Planning Portal
http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /01664/CAD

That link doesnt seem to work for me... ... ... ... ...

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 Sep 2008, 17:09

michael_traill wrote:
Porty wrote:I took a peek at the Planning Portal
http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /01664/CAD
That link doesnt seem to work for me... ... ... ... ...

Working fine for me.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 08 Sep 2008, 17:36

Marya wrote:
michael_traill wrote:
Porty wrote:I took a peek at the Planning Portal
http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /01664/CAD
That link doesnt seem to work for me... ... ... ... ...
Working fine for me.

Tried it again and worked this time, how very queer!

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 Sep 2008, 18:38

michael_traill wrote:
Tried it again and worked this time, how very queer!

The council planning portal is rather flaky.

Warcorro · Post by **Warcorro** » 30 Jun 2009, 11:54

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone knew what the latest is on the old Ghost Train site at 19-24 promenade. Thankfully, the plan to develop 3-storey houses was rejected, but the still the council seems to have abandoned plans to buy the site and turn it into a park. Anyon know what's happening now?

Also, does anyone have a photo of it with the Ghost Train in place, or how the pretty georgian houses behind it used to look in older times

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Jun 2009, 12:16

http://forum.talkporty.org/viewtopic.ph ... bath+place

An old thread but I don't know what the latest is?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Jun 2009, 12:34

Having read the Appeal decision from the Scottish Government I surmise that the developers are free to submit a new planning application within 3 years, commencing in feb 2008.

From what I can gather the SG have issued a certificate for "alternative development" which will likely be housing. The reporter disagreed with the council's decision.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 30 Jun 2009, 15:27

The developer appealed the refusal of Planning Permission and obtained a certificate of Alternative Development confirming housing was suitable for the site. As soon as they had that the residential value of the property was established.

The Council had intended to acquire the site for Open Space, but not at residential prices. Basically they can't afford to now buy it so have abandoned the idea.

The most likely scenario is that a new planning application will be lodged at some point, and that it'll eventually be successful.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 30 Jun 2009, 21:54

The cottages only had a view of the Prom and as we now know - it is not real open space anyway - just a crappy transport corridor.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 01 Jul 2009, 07:56

There is a picture at the foot of the page of the houses that were in front of the cottages, not long before they were demolished in the 70s
There is still a ghostly outline of those houses on the side of the building next to it

http://forum.talkporty.org/viewtopic.php?p=75247#75247

admin: copied across photo, and linked to further info

Post by **wangi** » 01 Jul 2009, 11:17

SoupDragon wrote:There is still a ghostly outline of those houses on the side of the building next to it

admin: ok three threads merged.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Jul 2009, 12:25

That photo brings back memories- I missed it in the earlier thread. The Ghost train was further west?

No way the houses would have been so neglected nowadays- they would be valuable bits of property and a pretty good place to live. What with the flat, featureless traffic corridor right on ones' doorstep.

You live down that way SD do you ever get pissed off not being able to access the prom due to the rest of the city dwellers taking occupation?

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 01 Jul 2009, 20:10

As I remember it there was an arcade to the right of those houses, it sold buckets and spades also had a machine that had wee horses with yellow, green, red and I think blue "jockies ". You put your money in and had to guess the winner as they rumbled and wobbled round the track.

I may be wrong but was the prom at one time not considered as a bypass?
I'm sure if thats why those houses and Marlborough Mansions were demolished rather than refurbished.
One look at Kirkcaldy Esplanade shows how ugly that transport corridor would be.

I view the Prom and the beach in much the same way as Arthurs Seat, The Meadows, Prices St Gardens.
There for all to use and enjoy.
I chose to live next to it, it can be endlessly facinating to watch, the view is lovely.
The congestion and lack of parking on busy days gets on my *cough* mammaries
Oh and the moonwalk steward and police motorcycle under my window were a tad irritating, may have been better if they'd gone up past the cakestand rather than the lane.
But hey, its only once a year and we did put our bras in the window again ( to show our support )

Warcorro · Post by **Warcorro** » 02 Jul 2009, 12:02

I tend to agree that it would be a tragedy to lose the space to development. Even though there were houses on part of the site before, they were built before the days of Planning, so it shouldnt necessarily set a precedent. Isnt the reason we now have planning so that areas can be grow in a way that is sympathetic to the environment and the people who live in it, rather than as just a form of vettig initiatives from developers. It is sad that so many aspects of the local plan, including the idea of making this a public space, have been dropped. We need a new vision for this site rather than just waiting to se what developers come up with.

In 200 years thefre has never been anything more than temporary one story kiosk buildings on part of the site, we should not be consider allowing taller buildings now which would destroy pleasing aspects to the most historic remaining houses in Portobello.

If it cant be developed as park space, perhaps the owner, who as I understand it obtained the site for nothing merely by claiming ownership of previously unregistered land, will reduce his profit ambitions and selll the space to the cottages as gardens, or sell part as gardens and develop a sympathetic one storey building as a gallery or arts centre for BOTB or a private concern.

In any case, i think it important that we dont let the promenade be walled-in by tall developments which could ruin the feel forever.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Jul 2009, 13:22

I honestly don't see what the issue is with a developer trying to make a profit and if he got the site for free, due to being canny about the prevailing law, well what's the problem with that? The owners of the Bath place houses could have done the same, surely?

You seem to be missing the point that the owners of the house in Bath Place could buy the land and preserve their views of the sea and views of their house from the prom. Why should the council step in at full market value? I don't want them spending my council tax to reinstate someones private view!!

I suspect the former owners of those houses, sold their front gardens or developed them. It is a bit like the people who live in Duddingston Park, who sold part of their back gardens and are now complaining about other nearby developments. The current BP owners purchased knowing they didn't own the land and that there was no guarantee aginst future development.

I was always in favour of developing the site, although not the scheme previously proposed. It seems the developer has "won" fair and square and used the law to do so. Traffic, site boundary infringement and most of the other objections were unfounded. It came down to design, style and materials. All of which can be addressed, there is nothing sad about it for the vast majority of people. It is certainly not any kind of tragedy!!

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 04 Jul 2009, 10:32

SoupDragon wrote:
Oh and the moonwalk steward and police motorcycle under my window were a tad irritating, may have been better if they'd gone up past the cakestand rather than the lane.
But hey, its only once a year and we did put our bras in the window again ( to show our support )

Was surprised the moonwalk took that route - still must have been fun to watch. When I did it in 2006 we walked right away to the end of the prom at Joppa.

rmolehusband · Post by **rmolehusband** » 20 Jul 2010, 12:26

I notice a new blue fence has sprung up enclosing some of this land, might this just be a speculative land grab by the resident(s) of Bath Place?

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 20 Jul 2010, 13:57

rmolehusband wrote:I notice a new blue fence has sprung up enclosing some of this land, might this just be a speculative land grab by the resident(s) of Bath Place?

Yes, saw that too and wondered that.

nads · Post by **nads** » 13 Aug 2010, 21:15

fence got bigger, blue painted fence and a later addition the full width, very surprised this has been allowed.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

6 terraced houses planned in front of Bath Place

What A Difference A Day Makes

6 Houses on Prom at Bath Street Lane

Re: 6 Houses on Prom at Bath Street Lane

Re: 6 Houses on Prom at Bath Street Lane

Re: 6 Houses on Prom at Bath Street Lane

Re: 6 Houses on Prom at Bath Street Lane

Any Update/Picture of Ghost Train site?