We are sailing, well almost...

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 16:24

For all you Porty sailing enthusiasts, here is the news you have been waiting for!

Portobello Watersports Club

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 21 Sep 2006, 20:22

Not a sailing enthusiast...but sounds like a good idea.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 20:35

Not a sailing enthusiast but sounds like an excellent idea!

My son has done a little bit of sailing, so I'm hoping he will get good use out of it.

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 21 Sep 2006, 22:21

would definitely be interested in helping out with the cafe idea

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 22:30

Are you thinking seafood bistro? Bouillabaisse? Paella? Moules marniere? Dover Sole? Lobster? A nice bottle of Chablis to wash it down?

Never mind this sailing nonsense, bring on the langoustines!

Gedge · Post by **Gedge** » 22 Sep 2006, 12:25

I love the idea of being able to potter around doing a bit of sailing without having to travel miles first but I am a bit worried about the interaction of sailing boats and small paddling children. And I like the atmosphere of people being able to sit around carefreely on the beach without someone asking them to get out of the way so they can wheel their boat to the water. Or someone seeing the stretch of beach between the boathouse and the water as "theirs"

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Sep 2006, 17:08

I'm sure that commonsense will prevail but God help them if they try to commandeer Rapunzell's wheelchair access ramp as a slipway.

impossiblevoices · Post by **impossiblevoices** » 23 Sep 2006, 10:27

this is a brilliant idea. Lets all try and support it and not start the complaining and whining already, Gedge. I'm sure that all the necessary Health and Safety requirements will be met and that people will use their common sense when planning all this out. Lets not tarnish this great idea with whinging before it is even off the ground.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 23 Sep 2006, 12:28

I was present at the CC meeting when Jonathon announced his idea. He got a really positive response and I, like many others, am really excited that he's trying to make it a reality.

I'm looking forward to having a cafe on the Prom and may even be persuaded into a kayak. Just maybe mind!

osbert · Post by **osbert** » 24 Sep 2006, 13:23

Hi

I really like the idea of a Portobello sailing/watersports club. I've a sailing canoe and sometimes launch at the Kings Road end. Being able to keep the boat at the bottom of Bath Street, and walk down, would be much better than having to cartop the mile or so to Kings Road. Though I have sometimes walked down Bath St pulling the canoe behind me - but cobbles on Brighton Place are a bit dodgy - and it's only feasible when the traffic's quiet on Sunday. And it would be also be great to have other boats (sailing or human powered) around.

The main problem I find is crossing the soft sand - even pulling a canoe on a portage trolley is really hard work, especially when returning up the beach. I think it would be almost impossible with a heavier dinghy - certainly singlehanded. Some sort of launching ramp would need to be considered.

Regarding mixing people and boats, my experience is that this isn't a problem - lots of people are really pleased to see a 'real' boat on the beach, and ask about how they can get into sailing. I've had to pose for photos with the canoe several times! So long as boats and trailers weren't left on the prom itself I'm sure it would be fine with a bit of commonsense.

I think someone else has already suggested it, but it would be worth keeping in touch with the beach access project (for disabled access to the the water) - we'll have a common interest in getting wheels through soft sand! And potentially accessible watersports.

Hope something comes of this idea!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 24 Sep 2006, 13:45

Thanks Osbert. I'm sure Jonathan will be encouraged by all these messages of support.

Jonathan Bendit · Post by **Jonathan Bendit** » 25 Sep 2006, 16:30

Thanks for your encouraging comments. I too have been amazed by the sence of excitement that a small sailing boat on the beach can produce. On one of the sunnier days in July, I had eight kids sitting in my dinghy all begging for a ride!

In terms of the soft sand issue - yes it can be hard work and having a second person to help pull the boat back up the beach is always better.

The solution lies in the sand being wet and therefore more compacted so the whels don't dig in. I suspect a simple hose pipe may be the answer.

Another idea is put fat tyres onto the trolley wheels which helps spread the load.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 26 Sep 2006, 13:23

From today's EN :

Water sports vision set to make waves

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Sep 2006, 15:16

I think its very exciting and really positive for the promenade and beach.
It was also encouraging not to hear a single negative squeak at the CC meeting. That's as good an endorsement as one can hope for.

rapunzell · Post by **rapunzell** » 26 Sep 2006, 15:56

This is great news! I am looking forward to getting out into the water and sailing quietly round the bay with the seals and the ducks

It will make a huge difference to the beach access project too if there is going to be a water sports centre based on the prom. It creates a focus on the more specific needs of visitors and users along one section of beach, and of course increases the possibilities for certain kinds of temporary pathways as there might be a place to hire storage space and staff

impossiblevoices · Post by **impossiblevoices** » 26 Sep 2006, 16:53

Not to try and get anyones back up or anything... but don't jetski's count as 'watersports'...?!

Will the jetskier's be allowed to play...?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Sep 2006, 17:25

I gather that Jonathan is about as keen on them as most of the rest of us are.

rapunzell · Post by **rapunzell** » 26 Sep 2006, 17:25

impossiblevoices wrote:Not to try and get anyones back up or anything... but don't jetski's count as 'watersports'...?!

Will the jetskier's be allowed to play...?

Hmm, with swimmers this side of the golden balls, wildlife and wee boats on the other side, there should be a stretch of water for the jetskis where they too can play happily and without interruption. Maybe near Granton?

Jonathan Bendit · Post by **Jonathan Bendit** » 26 Sep 2006, 17:45

Jetskis? No way. Wind or paddle power only. We would make the constitution restrict use of the centre accordingly!

slvrpe · Post by **slvrpe** » 01 Oct 2006, 13:05

Hi Jonathan,

I'm one of the neighbours that has recieved a Neighbour notification and looking at the details, esp the plans (site boundary), does not look like it includes 55 Bath street, even though this is stated on the notification. I'm fairly certain after speaking to various neighbours, that they have concerns that the application is to build the club house on the piece of land directly behind our building and so it might be worth clarifying this in some way, as neighbours here will object quite highly to this.

I think it's a good idea and don't object to this at all, but the only concerns i would have is the possibility of noise and also that it would be tastefully done - as we are on the ground floor and the type of fencing could be fairly crucial to ours and neighbours views.

Let me know your thoughts....

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 03 Oct 2006, 11:53

In theory I would welcome the return of waterdports to Portobello but I do have a few qualms. The area designated for the dinghy park, so casually dismissed in the Evening News as derelict, is a landscaped area with benches and well established trees and shrubs.
As yet there are no valid plans available for inspection so the impacvt on this aspect of the Prom is uncertain. Are the trees to remain? Will there be security lighting? Will there be a big ugly fence along the Prom. Will there be an impact on the bats that feed along here?
Surely I can't be the only one worried by the gradual errosion of our open spaces.

Jonathan Bendit · Post by **Jonathan Bendit** » 03 Oct 2006, 16:52

The detailed plan for use of the dinghy park ground is evolving. The aim is to create a secure space with as little visual impact as possible. The benches are to remain but we would like to move them forward. The cut-out is about 10' deep and I believe this could be reduced to around 3' to accommodate the benches and give the dinghies a little more room.

The fencing options are many and varied but essentially come down to mesh or vertical bars. Some designs are more subtle / suitable than others. I plan to look at as many as possible to find the best option. In terms of the ground itself, I would like to retain much of the greenery, to keep the trees, so long as their proximity to the fence does not reduce the site's security. The grass would remain, although boats are best parked on something which restricts grass, since mowing around them can be difficult and potentially damaging. So the space would in general be grassy but under the boats we would put down matting.

As regards the shrubs, until we are under pressure for space, I believe those running along the back could remain - assuming the fencers could work around them. The bushes in the middle would eventually have to go and the area turfed as they are bang slap in the middle of the site! We will add plants where appropriate to soften anything which needs it.

I am committed to doing this as thoughtfully as I can with as little negative impact as possible. I believe that if we get the project off the ground the positive contribution to Portobello and the Prom will be significant.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 03 Oct 2006, 17:06

When will the council planning dept have plans available to show the general public?

Carol · Post by **Carol** » 03 Oct 2006, 19:18

Dear Jonathan

Are you the owner of the ground floor accommodation at the foot of Bath Street and do you know if the residents in the old building above the pub (26 Promenade) will be notified?

Jonathan Bendit · Post by **Jonathan Bendit** » 03 Oct 2006, 20:54

In response to slurpe (30/9/06) There are no plans to build anything new. The planning application that the neighbourhood notification concerned was for change of use to cafe/bistro watersports club for 55/1 Bath street. In terms of appearance, this only concerned the addition of doors on the front and side of the building and changes to the windows. As far as the land is concerned, the aim is to use it as a compound for dinghies, kayaks, rescue boat etc. Clearly this would have to be secure hence the need for fencing. The factors determining the choice of fencing will be: its capacity to keep the space secure, ie both strong and hard to climb, it will have to be reasonably high - 7' - ;its appearance and finally the price.

Jonathan Bendit · Post by **Jonathan Bendit** » 03 Oct 2006, 21:24

In response to SoupDragon; and for anyone interested; the current planning application will be withdrawn following the discovery last week that sometime during August, Gregor Properties 'inadvertently ' reversed the numbering of the two flats; G1 becoming Flat 2 and G2 became Flat 1! Gregorâ€™s solicitors claim to have notified mine but I only heard via a resident of No 55 who suggested I might want to check which flat I had actually purchased! This 'minor' administrative bungle meant that all the correspondence that referred to my intention to buy Flat G1 (East side) had, as far as Gregor Properties was concerned, referred to the Western flat! To make matters worse they have now sold the Eastern flat. In spite of my deposit on the Eastern flat I have no legal claim against them.

Having done the rage, fury despair thing, I have decided that the main disadvantage will be the lack of immediate access from the dinghy park into the club / cafe. This, I have decided is little more than a minor inconvenience and I am now committed to continuing with the plan by acquiring the Western flat opposite the pub.

The aim now is to re apply for both cafe and Dingy Park.

In terms of who gets notified, I took advice from my architect and made the neighbourhood notifications where he suggested. Since the new application will be for the building opposite the pub, residents above may now be included in the neighbourhood notifications. I am unsure what the rules are here, but will take advice.

As for details of the plans for the land with the application, I shall aim now to firm up on the details of fencing, visual impact, access etc and either put a document up, either on this site or attach it with the application.

sylvanian · Post by **sylvanian** » 10 Oct 2006, 20:33

Sorry if this has been endlessly debated already but this is a classic example of the planning system being cynically played for commercial ends by the developers and the Council being too weak to stick to their guns. They began by ignoring the planning consent requirement to reuse the perfectly good stone from the buildings which existed on the site at ground floor level (what happened to this stone I wonder) and then seemed to have done nothing to fulfil the agreement to provide non-domestic use for the ground floor units.
The selling of one of the properties as a flat makes a nonsense of the design for the building, one of the principle selling points for consent to demolish the previous building.

The sailing school idea would mitigate some of this sad tale and be really positive for the Prom and Portobello.

Jonathan Bendit · Post by **Jonathan Bendit** » 11 Oct 2006, 12:44

Update: Dear all thanks for all support to date. All feedback and ideas are very welcome. The current aim is to have a new and revised planning application submitted by the end of October. A part of this will be the document described in an earlier posting which will explain my thoughts on every aspect of the dinghy park - its use - hours etc, its appearance, the maintenance of its appearance, security, noise, access etc.

I have been lucky enough to be offered help by a landscape architect who will guide me through the process of creating a secure, visually appealing, minimal-impact dinghy park.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Oct 2006, 13:26

Jonathan Bendit wrote:Update: Dear all thanks for all support to date. All feedback and ideas are very welcome. The current aim is to have a new and revised planning application submitted by the end of October. A part of this will be the document described in an earlier posting which will explain my thoughts on every aspect of the dinghy park - its use - hours etc, its appearance, the maintenance of its appearance, security, noise, access etc.

I have been lucky enough to be offered help by a landscape architect who will guide me through the process of creating a secure, visually appealing, minimal-impact dinghy park.

Sound like its going to be a roaring success and I sincerley hope so. If things do go really well do you envisage floating at some point?

Carol · Post by **Carol** » 11 Oct 2006, 17:47

It will be clear to anyone reading this and the Bottom of Bath Street thread that Jonathan is the REAL speculative developer here.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Oct 2006, 16:09

From the EN, 19 October 2006:

Beachside club delayed

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Oct 2006, 20:57

Carol wrote:It will be clear to anyone reading this and the Bottom of Bath Street thread that Jonathan is the REAL speculative developer here.

Carol, I wasn't sure what you meant by this. Can you elaborate? Are you against the proposal?

Carol · Post by **Carol** » 22 Oct 2006, 18:14

Hi Bob

It is a compliment to Jonathan and a polite way of saying (in my opinion) Gregor Development / Properties / Shore are not real speculative developers. I don't know who the poster Sylvanian is but if you read his posting - he knows what I'm on about.

I will come back and explain once I have had something to eat.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 23 Oct 2006, 22:19

I think there is a bit of unease about the siting of the dinghy park.The dinghys would be getting launched in the middle of the "golden balls, we would be losing a well established landscaped area, the residents around there may be subjected to noise and other disturbance. What happens to it all if the dinghy club is not a commercial success?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Oct 2006, 11:21

Carol wrote:It will be clear to anyone reading this and the Bottom of Bath Street thread that Jonathan is the REAL speculative developer here.

I'm reading this and I have no idea what you are on about. Could you elaborate?

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

We are sailing, well almost...

We are sailing, well almost...

Great idea

Jetskis??

RE : Outline planning application

re dinghy park

re dinghy park

Boats - Good Idea

The Real Speculative Developer

Re: The Real Speculative Developer

Boats - Good Idea

Re: The Real Speculative Developer