Superstore - New Petrol Station - Parking - New Access

Post by **wangi** » 20 Sep 2004, 17:14

I don't know who's responsible for http://www.pcats.org.uk/, but it's pretty stale. Doesn't even list the 04/10 meeting... Or a lot of the other info in this thread.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 20 Sep 2004, 20:56

Point taken about the pcats website. Will have a word with the person who runs it and ask him to update it.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 30 Sep 2004, 19:13

Just a reminder that the pre-inquiry meeting will take place at 7.15 pm on Monday 4 october in Porty Town Hall. The reporter will set timescales and deadlines for the inquiry at this meeting and everyone who intends appearing as a witness should attend.

In order to fortify yourselves for this event, might I suggest that you come to the coffee morning and baking sale on Saturday 2 October from 10 am - 1 pm in St James church hall, Rosefield Place. The sugar rush from all those goodies will take you well into Monday.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 02 Oct 2004, 16:58

Another reminder about the pre-inquiry meeting in the Town Hall on Monday 4 October at 7.15 pm.

Anyone who wishes to speak at the inquiry should attend but the meeting is open to everyone and is a useful way of finding out how the inquiry will run and just generally keeping up to date with events. There will be no discussion of the issues, just clarification of procedures.

We have been advised by our Friends of the Earth spokesperson that there would be no advantage to demonstrations and placards outside the Town Hall for this meeting.

Hope to see lots of you there.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 05 Oct 2004, 06:55

Quite a good turn out at the pre-enquiry meeting last night!

Would anyone like to commment?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 05 Oct 2004, 21:31

In case anyone missed this story in today's EN:

Lord joins fight to halt superstore

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 06 Oct 2004, 20:02

Most of you will probably have already seen this missive from CATS, but just in case:

STOP PRESS ON PRE-INQUIRY MEETING

"Less than half an hour before the pre Inquiry meeting on Monday 4th October the Campaign suffered a severe and surprising set back. The Council in the shape of Councillor Trevor Davies announced that it would not be contesting the appeal by Duddingston House Properties on Retail Grounds. The Council would, according to the councillor, be concentrating on the traffic and urban design aspects of the appeal. PCATS regards this volte face as quite disgraceful.

We knew that the Council officials had initially put forward weak arguments and that as a result of this were tackling the appeal with a deal of reluctance. Cllr Davies had indicated this reluctance at a meeting on the 24th September but had given no indication of a Council withdrawal on retail. The following Friday, 1st October, found us discussing tactics with the Council's solicitor and this discussion featured the retail aspects of the Council case. The bombshell on 4th October left the Council's QC lost for words and struggling in front of the Reporter. Even the Reporter looked a bit surprised at the news. And no wonder. It was obvious to most people in the hall that PCATS had been left to fight a retail case that would cost upwards of Ã‚Â£15,000 on top of a similarly-priced traffic consultant. Our earlier request for finance or help in kind had been abruptly turned down by Cllrs Davies and Child. Already the people of Portobello have dug deep to support the fundraising but where is the Council's contribution on retail?

We are now faced with an impossibly expensive and uphill battle armed only with what Cllr Davies called our "commonsense". He apparently feels that this attribute will suffice against the wealth and expertise of the developers. Well we shall do our best but we cannot help but think that our representatives should consider whether their loyalties lie with the community who elected them or with their own career development. We will update you as events unfold."

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 06 Oct 2004, 20:33

but we cannot help but think that our representatives should consider whether their loyalties lie with the community who elected them or with their own career development.

BTW, does anyone involved in the PCATS campaign really think that this sort of comment is helpful at this stage? Our best chance of success lies in demonstrating a community united in its opposition to the superstore. The party political squabbling can wait.

Hawkeye · Post by **Hawkeye** » 06 Oct 2004, 23:06

A couple of comments on BobÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s highlighted text:

The community, as far as I can tell, is over 90% behind this campaign - the query being raised is how much is our partner, the Council, behind it. Throughout several meetings and discussions over the last couple of weeks PCATS have been encouraged to defend the decision to refuse the superstore application on retail grounds at the forthcoming public inquiry. At no time was any suggestion made that the grounds for refusing on retail would be withdrawn. There was an audible expression of shock from the 150 people at the pre-inquiry meeting on Monday when this was announced and it is important for openness with the community that the committee of PCATS makes their position known.

I do not recognise any party squabbling as the political allegiance of the campaign supporters is unknown to me but is likely to be quite varied. The PCATS committee comprises some individuals from different main political parties but the majority have declared no political leaning. Great effort has been made not to make political capital from this and support has been expressed from Conservatives, Greens, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Scottish Nationalists and the Scottish Socialist Party.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 07 Oct 2004, 21:02

A word from the Chairperson PCATS:

Porty Potty thinks we of CATS are engaged in political squabbling. Let me say that before we were shafted by the City Council, their political colour mattered not one jot to us. They could have been Chinese Nationalists or the Austrian Land League for all we cared. After being unexpectedly dumped upon by our elected representatives we have every right to question their priorities. We feel, from our support and membership, that we are representing the people of Portobello in a non political manner and we expected our local councillors to do the same.
We were wrong!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 07 Oct 2004, 21:44

Criticism of Lawrence, Maureen, Trevor Davies and everyone else who is on your side is counter-productive, plays straight into the developers' hands and is, in my opinion, entirely unwarranted.

The Council has chosen to oppose the superstore on the grounds it believes to have the highest chance of success. In any case, I'm not sure that the Council would be allowed to pay for a retail analyst for PCATS, even if it wanted to.

Furthermore, I know that both of our local councillors are totally opposed to the superstore, I do not believe that either is prepared to accept any form of compromise, and I challenge you to produce any evidence to the contrary.

Please sort out your differences in private and let's concentrate on fighting a successful campaign together. Frankly, I am tempted to delete this post, along with the previous four, in the best interests of the campaign. Don't you think the developers monitor this forum?

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 07 Oct 2004, 22:32

The debate stemmed from your highlighting and removal from context of only part of the message. Our beef is why say you are rejecting the application on retail grounds and then remove that reason at the eleventh hour without having the courtesy to inform people beforehand?

The experts say we need a retail consultant and I am inclined to believe them before people who have very little experience of PLIs.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 07 Oct 2004, 22:37

In fact I published the message in its entirety, but took issue with that particular section. However, if you agree that this discourse does nothing to help the cause then I will be happy to remove the posts in question.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 15 Oct 2004, 21:55

Bob wrote:Criticism of Lawrence, Maureen, Trevor Davies and everyone else who is on your side is counter-productive, plays straight into the developers' hands and is, in my opinion, entirely unwarranted.

Exactly right - unwarranted in your opinion. You are as much engaging in textbook internecine warfare as anyone else by saying this. It's very easy to criticise people inside your own organisation as being "disloyal" - essentially it's like accusing someone who dissents as not being patriotic enough.

Bob wrote:Furthermore, I know that both of our local councillors are totally opposed to the superstore, I do not believe that either is prepared to accept any form of compromise, and I challenge you to produce any evidence to the contrary.

Crafty, but again invalid. It should also be sufficient to show prior history of the organisation to which the allegiance of these councillors is pledged, or sister organisations, engaging in compromise. There is a concrete example and it's in the latest issue of Private Eye (1117) where the New Labour lot in Galashiels are directly accused of having capitulated to a Tesco expansion - even steamrollering Historic Scotland's objection on the grounds of the building on the site which was demolished.

Bob wrote:Don't you think the developers monitor this forum?

I hope so, but that is not a reason for coming to the conclusion that any disagreements in PCATS should be stamped out just because they might read it. They are the ones with the secret plans and meetings - that is, if you discount the Council decision which doesn't seem to have been entirely democratic, does it?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 15 Oct 2004, 21:57

Bob wrote:In fact I published the message in its entirety, but took issue with that particular section. However, if you agree that this discourse does nothing to help the cause then I will be happy to remove the posts in question.

I would like to state that unless my post contravenes forum rules, I do not agree to it being deleted, even if the post it quotes is deleted.

Post by **wangi** » 15 Oct 2004, 23:07

Dadaist, TGIF and all that eh?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 15 Oct 2004, 23:11

wangi wrote:Dadaist, TGIF and all that eh?

D'oh!! Sorry!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Oct 2004, 10:26

Let's assume, for the purpose of debate, that we are going to lose the battle. In fact let's plan to lose. Is there something to be got from going into a community partnership with Tesco? Help shape their proposal into something more acceptable?

Should we sleep with the enemy?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 16 Oct 2004, 10:35

Is there something to be got from going into a community partnership with Tesco?

Why are we assuming that the site would be sold to Tesco? It was another supermarket group (Lidl) that were after the Pitz. Why not them, for example ?

Also believe Tesco entered into some form of Community deal over in Corstorphine only to turn a bit nasty when the deal was done. Will verify my facts before writing more detail........

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Oct 2004, 10:40

Porty wrote:Let's assume, for the purpose of debate, that we are going to lose the battle. In fact let's plan to lose. Is there something to be got from going into a community partnership with Tesco? Help shape their proposal into something more acceptable?

Should we sleep with the enemy?

I wondered what you and your friends were chatting about at the PCATS coffee morning!!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Oct 2004, 11:02

Dadaist wrote:
I wondered what you and your friends were chatting about at the PCATS coffee morning!!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Oct 2004, 11:03

Let's assume, for the purpose of debate, that we are going to lose the battle. In fact let's plan to lose. Is there something to be got from going into a community partnership with Lidl? Help shape their proposal into something more acceptable?

Should we sleep with the enemy?
Happy now Miss?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 16 Oct 2004, 11:16

Bob wrote:Criticism of Lawrence, Maureen, Trevor Davies and everyone else who is on your side is counter-productive, plays straight into the developers' hands and is, in my opinion, entirely unwarranted.

The Council has chosen to oppose the superstore on the grounds it believes to have the highest chance of success. In any case, I'm not sure that the Council would be allowed to pay for a retail analyst for PCATS, even if it wanted to.

Furthermore, I know that both of our local councillors are totally opposed to the superstore, I do not believe that either is prepared to accept any form of compromise, and I challenge you to produce any evidence to the contrary.

Please sort out your differences in private and let's concentrate on fighting a successful campaign together. Frankly, I am tempted to delete this post, along with the previous four, in the best interests of the campaign. Don't you think the developers monitor this forum?

I suggest you change your location from 'Planet Porty' to 'Not of this Planet'.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 16 Oct 2004, 12:54

Read an article in the "Evening News" which mentions Lawrence Marshall http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index ... 1201082004 Looks like he does too much of a good job for his local constituents according to some of his colleagues?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Oct 2004, 23:17

Marya wrote:Read an article in the "Evening News" which mentions Lawrence Marshall http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index ... 1201082004 Looks like he does too much of a good job for his local constituents according to some of his colleagues?

Nuff respect Larry Marshall. Gaun yersel.

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 17 Oct 2004, 17:45

Good for you Lawrence. Have to say my biggest gripe about politicians, although I realise why it's done, is when they vote as their party tells them instead of how the people who elected them to be their representative want.

Post by **wangi** » 17 Oct 2004, 21:32

However bearcub... A lot of folk just "vote Labour" and don't really care about the individual councillor!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 26 Oct 2004, 12:03

From Maureen Child's latest report to the Community Council:

Portobello Superstore

Around the pre-Inquiry meeting of 4 October, there was considerable misunderstanding broadcast about the role of the Council in making the statutory planning case against the Superstore and the role of the other 'third parties' in the community. This largely centred on the retail arguments.

The advice from our QC and retail planning advisors was that the retail case against the superstore would be the weak part of the Council's case, which must be based purely on statutory planning grounds and planning precedent. If we argued that part, we would undermine the rest of the case against the superstore. This means we - as a community, with or without expert help - can still put further considerations forward as material to the planning decision, and we will be very well placed to be able to do so. The meeting on Friday 24 September - which Trevor Davies, Lawrence and I set up - was to discuss tactics and share that very strong advice which the Council was getting from our QC. I thought (mistakenly) that we had made it crystal clear that the Council was not best placed to put the retail argument and, in fact, would undermine the whole case against by doing so. That was ten days before the Town Hall meeting with the Reporter. I was astonished that the group present did not share that information more widely, although I now understand why not.

We obviously failed to make our position crystal clear and I apologise for my part in ever allowing any misunderstanding to arise and to persist. Trevor and I also made crystal clear at that meeting, and subsequently, that there was no prospect whatever of the Council grant funding the 'No' campaign. I'm sorry if that seemed dismissive. I thought we were simply being straight and honest. I don't write to Council officers, wasting everybody's time and energy, and raising false hopes, when I already know what the answer is.

I hope we are all beginning to get joined up against the common threat of this unwelcome development, which is the only way to be effective and win it. At the request of a member of the PCATS group, I set up a very constructive 90 minute meeting with Council planning officers on the retail aspect. This will help our 'No Campaign' prepare the line of argument for the Inquiry, which is not a simple matter.

If anyone has the slightest doubt about my total commitment - personally and politically - to winning the best conceivable outcome for Portobello, through fighting the Superstore threat, let them please come and have it out with me. And if anyone has any questions about the facts and figures I'll do my very best to get answers.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 29 Oct 2004, 14:18

We have a couple of fundraisers coming up next month:

Jumble sale - Saturday 20 November, 10.30 am at Portobello Town Hall. Volunteers are needed for the stalls. If you are able to help please send me a private message. Please also contact me if you have jumble, bric a brac or books to donate - time to clear out those lofts, spare bedrooms, etc! We can collect if you do not have transport. There will be tea, coffe and home baking (incluing parkin of course) and a special stall selling hand made Christmas decorations.

St AndrewÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Night Ceilidh featuring the fantastic Bella McNabÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s band - Saturday 27 November at Portobello Town Hall. We need people on the door, to staff the bar, to make and sell food and organise the raffle. Again, please send me a private message if you are able to help.

STOP PRESS: tickets are now on sale at Portobello Stationers (next door to Findlay's deli).

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 07 Nov 2004, 15:57

Bob has very generously offered the profits from the POL T-shirts to the PCATS fund, so you can now support the campaign at the same time as advertising the fact that you are a member of the coolest community website forum around. Gives an even greater sense of urgency to BobÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s signature Ã¢â‚¬Å“order your POL T-shirt now, you know it makes senseÃ¢â‚¬Â

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 07 Nov 2004, 16:50

I'm delighted that PCATS has taken me up on this offer. Let's celebrate with a brand new thread, shall we?

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 07 Nov 2004, 16:59

I was under the impression that all profits were for the promotion of the on-line community??
Was the decision to give the profits (how much are we talking about here btw?) to some other cause up for discussion elsewhere or did you just decide this on our behalf, Bob?

Post by **administrator** » 07 Nov 2004, 17:03

Yes, no - I can explain everything but give me a few minutes - I have a bizarre domestic situation here involving one of Porty's suicidal animals.

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 07 Nov 2004, 19:18

ecm wrote:Was the decision to give the profits (how much are we talking about here btw?) to some other cause up for discussion elsewhere or did you just decide this on our behalf, Bob?

Agree ECM. Although I totally support PCATS in their aim, I think the decision on where any profits from people buying T-shirts on this forum should be subject to a bit more of a democratic process??

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 07 Nov 2004, 19:21

Can we please keep the T-shirt discussion to the new thread I started recently, in order to avoid confusion.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Superstore - New Petrol Station - Parking - New Access

PRE-INQUIRY MEETING

PCATS FUNDRAISERS