Superstore - New Petrol Station - Parking - New Access

[Maria]

This is probably an appropriate juncture to emphasise to posters the importance of making sure that any assertions made on this forum can be substantiated and do not bring the site into disrepute. A recent complaint lodged with talkporty by PCATS regarding some posts made on this thread made the following points:

No statement was ever made by PCATS regarding 'a show of hands at a PCATS public meeting'. A paper survey was carried out at a public meeting which showed that housing on the Scottish Power site was the most popular alternative.

PCATS have carried out a consultation of over 1,000 people.

PCATS have never claimed to represent the community or claimed to' have a mandate from the community for housing on the Scottish power site'

[Porty]

I must confes I haven't looked at the PCATS website for ages. I was taking the lead from the following and from dc Cairns claim at a recent CC meeting that in a show of hands at a PCATS public meeting there was overwhelming support for housing. Apparently this qualifies as a community endorsement.

I must stand corrected again. The show of hands that Dc Cairns refered to didn't take place at a PCATS meeting. It was Public Meeting held by the CC at Portobello Town Hall, my apologies. Its not a material error but an error all the same.

I think you are mistaken Porty. I was at that meeting and can verify that it was not a show of hands which took place, but was in fact a paper consultation.

Yes you are correct, I was at the meeting too but didn't realise until yesterday that it was the meeting in question. From memory there was 114 responses don't know how mmny of those had housing as the most popular option? The BL developments survey which was much wider spread and with 700 or so responses indicatd that this percentage was 45%.

[Maria]

[Yes you are correct, I was at the meeting too but didn't realise until yesterday that it was the meeting in question. From memory there was 114 responses don't know how mmny of those had housing as the most popular option? The BL developments survey which was much wider spread and with 700 or so responses indicatd that this percentage was 45%.

The CC Public meeting results can be viewed here Questionnaire results

[Porty]

Thanks Marya. So on the basis of just 10 people identifying "affordable housing"as a desire on the Scottish Power site Dc Cairns and PCATS are prepared to publicly proclaim that there is overwhelming support for housing. No wonder the results of PCATS supposed consultation were never published.

Unless you have a link?

[Porty]

.

PCATS have never claimed to represent the community or claimed to' have a mandate from the community for housing on the Scottish power site'

Total nonsense.

We have almost £3000 in the bank from the excellent response you made to the fund raising efforts and we think it would be good use of the money to make sure we get the developments we want in Portobello. If you have any comments for or against this use of the money then please let us know by emailing me.
Let’s look forward to getting quality housing on this site that enhances Portobello.

Stephen (Mcintyre), thanks for your suggestion and once we have got a development on the site that reflects the community's wishes then we'll consult on what to do with any excess monies. At present, the PCATS committee, and the vast majority of respondents to this consultation, believe that paying for professional input at some point in the masterplanning exercise is good use of this fund.

Both of the above statements were made by Stephen Hawkins who was the chair of PCATS at the time and they were made on behalf of PCATS. Anyone that claims to be in possession of knowledge of what the "community wishes" or looks to lead a discussion to "developments that we want in Portobello" is holding themselves up as a representative of the community and by default is claiming to speak on its behalf.

PCATS had one mandate; they were against a superstore on the Scottish Power site. That's the end of the story. They have no mandate to campaign for houses, office, hotels or leisure buildings or anything else.

Apart from all of that, it is well evidenced in the Evening News and other media that leading members of PCATS often claim to speak on behalf of the community, on issues that are not related to the Superstore. When they do so they are usually speaking as an individual but it does show that they are quite prepared to act in that manner.

[Bob Jefferson]

Courtesy of Lawrence Marshall:

2 April 2007

CONSULTANTS APPOINTED TO PROGRESS DESIGN FRAMEWORK

The regeneration of North West Portobello is a step closer to reality with the appointment of urban design consultants.

Cadell2 Wisniewski Thomson Architects LLP have been appointed by the City of Edinburgh Council to progress a Master Plan and Urban Design Framework for the area. The principles of this framework were agreed by the city’s Planning Committee on 5 October 2006.

Cllr Trevor Davies, Convenor of the Planning Committee said: “Cadell2 have a strong track record in delivering innovative urban design, with projects such as The Drum housing development in Bo'ness to their credit.

“The North West Portobello area has been subject to small isolated changes in the past, leaving it sorely in need of regeneration.

“This is a wonderful opportunity to prepare and implement a comprehensive and co-ordinated design vision which will regenerate North West Portobello and play an important part in bringing new life to Edinburgh’s entire waterfront area. It will also give the local community the opportunity to have their say on how future development in the area will happen.”

A spokesperson for Cadell2 commented "We are delighted to have been appointed for this study and see it as an excellent opportunity to explore how a mix of uses can regenerate this important gateway to Portobello and the waterfront."

Phil Myerscough, Managing Director of BL Developments, one of several landowners looking to bring forward development proposals in the study area, said "As the largest affected land owner, B L Developments is delighted and indeed very excited about the appointment of Cadell2 and look forward to working closely with them, the Council, and the Portobello community during the masterplan consultation process. From our experience in undertaking planning consultations elsewhere, such as Shrub Hill, we well understand and value the importance of involving the local community in a positive and proactive way. With this end in mind, B L Developments is committed to continuing its discussions with Portobello Community Council and other local groups.”


Additional expertise, to assist the development of the framework, on economic regeneration, public realm engineering and landscape architecture for the area will be provided, respectively, by King Sturge LLP, Martin Stockley Associates and Kenny Fraser.

The area concerned covers about 17 hectares. It includes a number of sites, largely in private ownership, which form the north-west approach to Portobello. The area currently comprises of mainly light industrial and residential uses with some retail, commercial and leisure activities and areas of open space.

The preparation of the Masterplan framework for the area will provide detailed planning guidance, in line with design objectives, to ensure high quality, co-ordinated development takes place in North West Portobello. This will not only reinforce Portobello’s sense of place but will also complement the wider city of Edinburgh.

Such design objectives include:

• Providing a framework for the development of a strong public realm to improve the functionality of the area, provide an enhanced pedestrian focus and create a high quality setting for new development.
  
  Assisting in re-connecting the area with the Promenade, both in visual and functional terms. The role of the area in developing the Promenade and Beach as an asset for the wider city will also be considered.
  
  Assisting in developing the role of the Promenade and Figgate Burn both as strategic pedestrian and cycle routes and as linear open spaces.

A public consultation process is planned which aims to engage public support to establish a co-ordinated and holistic design vision and help deliver high quality regeneration in Portobello.

This consultation is hoped to commence in the middle of the year, and the consultancy team will work closely with local community and landowners to generate ideas for the future development of the area.


Ends

Media Contact: Shona Cameron, Media Officer, 0131 529 4452

[wangi]

Cadell2 Wisniewski Thomson Architects

See " http://www.6000-miles.com/ -> Wisniewski Thomson -> Pyrotechnic Peonies: Portobello's New Marine Gardens" for some earlier work releated to Portobello from this Musselburgh based practice.

[Bob Jefferson]

Maureen Child has asked me to post this open letter from her to Dickie Alexander in response to the leaflet he recently distributed:

Dickie Alexander
address withheld
Portobello

Dear Dickie

I regret that we have never taken the chance to have a calm, sensible conversation about our complementary roles stopping the superstore. I have always totally opposed the Portobello superstore proposal, despite your repeated assertions to the contrary. I have had an interchange with Stephen Hawkins in the past and he is similarly reluctant to admit we local Councillors played our part from the outset.

The superstore application was rejected by the Council's Development Quality Sub Committee and at Reporter's appeal hearing, because of the planning brief/statement of development principles. That key piece of the jigsaw was something Councillor Lawrence Marshall initiated, I supported and we took through Planning Committee.

At the Appeal, the Portobello superstore application was not rejected on transport or shopping terms. It was rejected because it was contrary to the principles in that brief for the site, which Councillors put in place. Lawrence and I were therefore instrumental in stopping the superstore.

We were also instrumental in getting the wholehearted commitment of the Convener of Planning, Councillor Trevor Davies, to help us at the Inquiry and he played a pivotal role too. But I regret that all he ever seemed to get from PCATS was dog's abuse.

PCATS have always been unwilling to give us any credit whatever for what we achieved, but maybe it is naive of us to expect such things, especially in such a politically charged atmosphere.

I trust that most people can understand that because of the Councillors' Code of Conduct, I could not state my opposition in public. I would have lost the right even to be present in the Committee Room when the application was considered, let alone take part - as I did - and move further grounds for refusal. It was rejected unanimously, because of my lead on that Committee on the day and because Lawrence was able to speak against it as local Councillor.

It was right that Lawrence took part in the campaign as the local Elected Member for Portobello. Privately, I urged him to get involved sooner than he did, but that was his decision. He too opposed the idea from the outset. A strict interpretation of the Guidance from the Standards Commission (at that time) might well have precluded Lawrence from speaking at the Committee too and we had to ensure he would still have a voice in opposition. I will send you a copy of the Code as it relates to planning.

I trust you will now stop spreading lies about Labour Councillors' role in the 'stop the Portobello Superstore' community team effort - if not give credit where credit is due to us!

Best wishes

Maureen

8 Lee Crescent
Portobello
Edinburgh
EH15 1LW

[wangi]

And that open letter has now made the EN: http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinb ... =664552007

[Dadaist]

I think this is the text of the Dickie Alexander leaflet :

NEW LABOUR FANTASY

Our Councillors claim in their election leaflet to have “seen off the threat of the Portobello Super Store”. Cllr Child has stated this in the past in an email but this is the first time she has touted this fantasy publicly. Let’s
get the facts right from the people who actually stopped the superstore. We first decided to hold a public meeting and asked, because we had no funds, Cllr Marshall to hire the Portobello Town Hall (he could get it free). He said that it was not worth our while to start a campaign or even hold a meeting .The subsequent meeting was the biggest ever and the crowd were 100 per cent against a Superstore except Cllr. Marshall who had the brass neck to turn up at the event and try to hog the microphone .It had to be wrestled away from him by one of our PCATS women!

PCATS (Porto Campaign Against the Superstore) was formed and we had a meeting with Marshall, Child and Cllr Davies, Chair of Planning. We were told that our appeal would not succeed and “we should consider co-operating with the developer” over peripheral details. Our request for financial assistance was met by a loud No from Cllr Child. (This from a woman whose council subsequently spent £7million on an ill thought out congestion scheme; and blamed the public for kicking out the plan in a referendum. A similar amount was also wasted on a housing stock transfer referendum. And needless to say the Council can always find money for the really important things like pay increases and (WAIT FOR IT!) redundancy payments in case we are churlish enough not to re elect them! Any pretence that the Council was against the Store vanished when they ducked out of putting a retail argument at the first Public Inquiry meeting in the Town hall with the official reporter.

Then in the midst of our campaign we discovered that the Council had hatched a plan to buy out the lease on the Pitz, mini soccer site, move it to the golf course, move the public library and the community centre to the promenade next to the Sports Centre, and sell off all three sites for PRIVATE housing. We argued successfully to stop this as it would compromise our appeal by allowing the developers to argue that the relocation of these facilities and the erection of housing would make the Store site more a central part of
Portobello

We managed to raise over £23,000 to successfully defeat the developers. Our Councillors attended many of our fundraising events; not to help in any useful way but to be seen and pretend to be on our side. Nobody was fooled by this faux, and somewhat distasteful, display of “friendship”.

The Superstore battle was won by PCATS and the community, despite the actions and inactions of the Council or its local representatives. Their machinations in relation to PCATS and the developers has left a nasty suspicious taste that won’t go away.

Personal P.S. Casting a disinterested eye over the New labour pamphlet I am intrigued by some other of their promises eg “NEED FOR GOOD AFFORDABLE HOUSING Very laudable but when did the Council last build council houses? In 1987 that’s when. Is Cllr Marshall proud of this particular record? LEISURE OPPORTUNITIES and EXCELLENT SPORTING FACILITIES; How have they hoped to achieve this? Surely not by trying to sell off Meadowbank stadium and Portobello golf course for PRIVATE housing ?.

Which bits is the lies?

[Bob Jefferson]

It has emerged that on 1 May, just 2 days before the election, Stephen Hawkins used the PCATS email list to distribute an attack on his fellow candidates, Maureen and Lawrence, with a request that recipients should "pass on to your contacts as soon as possible."

I have just received a copy of this email from a concerned PCATS supporter. It appears that I have been removed from the distribution group, despite the fact that Portobello Online supported the campaign from the outset.

I leave you to judge for yourselves the motive behind this message, which was distributed to hundreds of local voters and may well have affected the outcome of the election.

IMPORTANT - THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

Dear Supporter

Please pass on to your contacts as soon as possible.

You may be aware of the letter that Maureen Child has had published on the local forum and was picked up by the Evening News on Monday 30th April. Here is the link to the article:
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinb ... =664552007 I'm sorry that Lawrence and Maureen do not feel they got enough credit for blocking the superstore but in replying so publicly to an individual's criticism the motive for publishing the letter raises questions. PCATS have always been non political as the community is made up of all shades of political opinion and we, as a group, reflect this diversity.

There are a few points that Maureen did not include in her letter which explain how, over a course of time, the core group came to view the council's position. These main points are:

The council officers had had pre-application discussions with DHP, the developers, at which a green light had been given for the superstore;

Lawrence had stated before the inaugural meeting of what was to become PCATS, that the meeting was unnecessary but without giving the certainty that this development would be defeated;

At a meeting held at the City Chambers with Maureen, Lawrence and Trevor Davies, the core group were told that the council's very experienced QC had said that we were going to lose the case;

We were then told by Trevor Davies that we should consider a revised proposal from DHP;

Anna Grant of the planning department told us we were not on the same side as the council;

A business email between officials and DHP indicated an undue familiarity between Trevor Davies and the developer. This close relationship with developers has recently been criticised by Sir Bernard Crick;

The council dropped its retail objection to the development but only told us of this just prior to the Public Inquiry pre-meeting. When Trevor Davies was asked to explain this action afterwards he became agitated and annoyed with us and used the phrase 'let me put this in words of one syllable.' At this point Susan Deacon, to her credit, intervened and told Trevor Davies not to be so condescending. We were told we should fight the retail argument by the councillors;

The Baileyfield Design Principles were challenged by DHP as the council had failed with this crucial document to follow the correct procedure and consult owners and residents on its content;

The council's traffic consultant could not lead evidence at the inquiry because the council had failed to cite traffic as a reason fro refusal. Again it was left to the community's consultant to argue that DHP's estimates for traffic generation were wrong;

And finally, after two years since the inquiry we are finally about to start on a masterplanning exercise that will eventually lead to the new owner being able to submit an application for planning.

As someone who attended every day of the Public Inquiry I would not describe Trevor Davies's evidence as pivotal in comparison with the evidence lead by the professional experts and the cross examination by the QCs and our adviser. What I would applaud though was the excellent turnout every day from members of the community, mothers with babes in arms, pupils from the High School and all the other people who wanted to see how the future of Portobello was being decided. Most public inquiries actually attract very few members of the public to them. The reporter is an astute lady who, despite all the necessity for deciding the appeal on planning grounds and she listed many of these incrementally in her decision, could not have failed to notice the objections from the hundreds of people attending over the weeks the appeal was held.

I am saddened that PCATS has been made a political football. I hope that as many of you as possible can attend the workshop/display during the summer when the council's consultants start their work with the community.

Stephen Hawkins
Chair, PCATS

[Dadaist]

It doesn't read like an attack on Maureen and Lawrence any more than Maureen's letter sounds like an attack on Dickie Alexander.

I'm not sure if it affected the election outcome any more than Maureen's letter did.

Whilst Maureen and Stephen clearly disagree with each other, neither of their letters have the tone of Dickie's leaflet, which is what sparked this off.

In my opinion of the tone and content of both pieces, I don't think Maureen had the election any more or less in her mind when she wrote her letter than Stephen did when he wrote his.

People won't just judge the tone of Stephen's letter and judge it for themselves - I think they are capable of judging more than that.

I don't see very much difference between one candidate having a letter published on 30th April and another on 1st May.

[bellybabe]

I can't see anything in it that could be described as an attack either; it seems to me to be a response to Maureen's comments, which in turn were a response to DA's. Looks pretty straightforward to me, and as you say, Dadaist, there's not a great deal of difference between April 30th and May 1st. I don't say this often but...i agree with you .

[Dadaist]

Thx BB, I appreciate that.

[Bob Jefferson]

Firstly, I think that it would be difficult to describe Dickie's rant as anything other than a desperate ploy to rubbish Lawrence and Maureen in an attempt to persuade people not to vote for them. So we have Dickie, the self-styled President of PCATS, distributing his leaflet on the steps of the Town Hall on the night of the hustings.

Stephen had every opportunity to distance himself from Dickie's remarks, but the best he could manage was 'no opinion'.

In a tight election race, Maureen felt that her reputation had been damaged. Worse still, under the Councillors' Code of Conduct she was not permitted to use her distribution list to address the issue with her constituents in the run up to the election. Her 'open letter' allowed her an opportunity to reply.

To my mind, that should have been the end of this unsavoury matter. Stephen's subsequent (mis)use of the PCATS email distribution list just 2 days before the election, containing further damaging allegations that Lawrence and Maureen had not fully supported the campaign, was calculated to discredit his opponents.

Maureen and Stephen now have to work together so my guess is that she won't pursue this matter any further, but for Lawrence it's too late. I'm not suggesting that the efforts of Dickie and Stephen resulted directly in Lawrence's demise but they certainly didn't help and in a close-run contest every vote counts.

[Dadaist]

I think that it would be difficult to describe your rant as anything other than a desperate ploy to rubbish Stephen in an attempt to persuade people not to - oh, too late.

[wangi]

Bob, it's amazing that you seem to make a distinction between an "open letter" which ends up posted in a newspaper and another email on a distribution list.

You also need to get over the whole Lawrence thing - yes he done a good job. And so will those elected in his place. Consider that the SNP previously had lone councillor, then now have 12. This gain is only minimally due to an increase in their support - the real reason is proportional representation... People who have had Labour councillors forced on them in past now have a more fairer representation of their wishes (be that SNP, Green, ...).