Scottish Power Site Re-development 3 - supermarket + housing

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 19 Sep 2010, 09:23

Apart from all the back-peddling and reading that and thinking 'that chap has gone off his onion' I now hear some sense Seanie.

You can't beat good boquerones - and they might even do a pulpo gallego as well.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 19 Sep 2010, 10:07

back-peddling?

admin: 8 posts moved to the Portobello Community Council thread.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 20 Sep 2010, 12:44

Sorry If I'm being a bit dozy here, but what is the current status of the application/plans for the site?

I've been reading through this and some of the other linked threads, and I'm just trying to find out where we're at and what the latest set of plans look like.

Personally I think devewlopment of the site is a great idea, and residences that will encourage young professionals to the area will only round out Portobello's demographic in a positive way.

The inclusion of retail premesis within the development, will encourage non-residents into the area, as well the overall design (the last set of plans I looked at) being one which didn't seclude the development from the rest of the town, means that it will be an addition to the local area as opposed to some new developments which are like tiny islands.

If now is the right time, and I can find the most recent copy of the plans, I'd be more than happy to email whomever I need to to say that I'm in favour of the development.

I guess I'm guilty like a lot of folk of only being vocal when I disagree with something, and perhaps I should take a more affirmative stance when I see an idea that I like. Otherwise I might find that I lose my voice through apathy and on rediscover it when it's too late.

I'd also like to know what the objectors to the development think will eventually be on this site? if it's not residences, what will it be? If a developer cannot make a good business case for a site that contains a lot of green/public space at the price of having a few high profit rentable plots, what will the eventual development look like?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 20 Sep 2010, 13:32

It's at the pre-application stage so there aren't a full set of drawings available. Indeed they might not even exist. There's a fair bit of work and expense involved in working up a full application and the pitch from the developers has been that, unless they get the support of the PCC in principle, subject to detailed desing, impact assessments etc. then they won't proceed with an application.

Overall it'll probably look similar to the previous application albeit a storey lower. I think they've changed the High Street elevation so there are no longer gables on to it. There also might be more blocks similar to their original 'e-type' blocks.

Subject to those changes, looking at the original application should give reasonable indication of what it would be like.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 20 Sep 2010, 13:36

Fair enough,

Any chance you could re-post the application reference?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 20 Sep 2010, 21:59

09/01029/FUL

Admin: For clarity this is the planning reference number for the previous proposal for housing which was refused. The current proposal for housing, commercial and cultural development is a pre-planning consultation.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Sep 2010, 22:07

In the absence of another readily available mechanism , I decided to conduct a straw poll of local residents using addresses in various contact lists.

The results can be foundhere.

I acknowledge all kinds of limitations, and it's only a small sample, but it was a genuine attempt to garner some feedback on where opinion might lie.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Sep 2010, 22:10

Consider it an attempt at "canvasing resident's views".

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2010, 23:06

Well, that let's you off the hook. What about the others?

Seriously, great work. The responses are excellent with lots of good points on each side. My only concern is that most people seem to be judging the proposal on the basis that it will include a Waitrose, when there is no guarantee that this will be the case. If you had left the 'W' word out from the outset and described it instead as simply an 18000 sq ft supermarket, I wonder how many people would still have voted 'yes'?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Sep 2010, 23:17

I know, I know....

But that's how the proposal's been put to us.

And at the end of the day you have to have some trust in people to consider wider aspects. Similarly, there may be another halfway house option between the last proposal and the new one. But then again there may not be. The bank might pull the plug and walk.

I don't know the likelihood of that and you can't go through every conceivable option. At the very least the straw poll suggests to me that people in general are unlikely to be overwhelmingly hostile to the proposal.

Unless of course I have a distinctly odd set of people in my contact lists.

Which is of course a possibility.

philip myerscough · Post by **philip myerscough** » 21 Sep 2010, 23:30

I've not yet worked out how to do links to pdf's and all that clever stuff so here at length is my response to the Chairman's comments on behalf of PCC

Dear John

Many thanks for the response attached to your email below. I have now had an opportunity to consider that and can respond as follows

Firstly can I clarify our own position. We are in effect managing this project on behalf of our funders. The ultimate decision on whether or not to proceed with an application will be theirs not ours. We will continue with the process of pre-planning consultation, detailed design and all associated work culminating in a detailed planning application for so long as we retain the funders’ support. To do so we need to demonstrate that we have a viable scheme that commands broad support and is likely to be successful both in the planning process and commercially.

We have considered the mix of uses in the scheme very carefully. The aim is to produce a scheme that is predominantly residential and which contains a complementary mix of associated commercial and community uses.

Turning now to your specific points –

There is planning guidance on the parking to be provided for a foodstore and our design will comply with that
We will commission an independent Retail Impact Assessment that will address the impact of the proposed foodstore on local shops and other nearby retailers. It will also address the impact upon traffic. That will be scrutinised and commented upon by professional officers within the Council. All that information will be publicly available. The outcome of the Retail Impact Assessment will be one of the factors that the Council Planning Department will consider when deciding whether or not to recommend our application for approval.
I don’t think Waitrose would consider locating in Portobello if they were not satisfied with the local demographic and if they were not satisfied that there is a need in this area that they can meet
It is understandable that there may be fear that the operator may change in the future. However once an operator controls a site it is highly unusual for them to give that up to another operator
Our questionnaire was designed to seek the views of the community on the specific issues which the PCC, through Councillor Hawkins, raised at committee on the previous application and to canvas views on various models of foodstore and other uses
If the impression was given at the open day to one resident that the Waitrose would only occupy one or two units within a row of shops I can only apologise for that.
I have no doubt that more than 500 new homes and more than 1000 new residents will result in an increase in the footfall along Portobello High Street
The Retail Impact Assessment will be independent and will be independently assessed by the Council officers
Around 100 people attended our open day. The day chosen was the only one that was available at the library at around that time. 100 does not sound like a big number but it is high for an event of this nature and more than 80 people completed the questionnaire. Note we will also be exhibiting our proposals in the library as they firm up.
We are speaking to the Royal British Legion about smaller premises for them within the development. The ultimate decision will be theirs as well as ours
The scheme incorporates a new public square for Portobello; a community garden which may be given over to allotments; artists studios; space for the music school should they want it; GP and dentist surgeries. The detailed architecture will be worked up as part of the detailed design and will be subject to public consultation and comment
We are delighted that many welcome the proposed reduction in heights and densities. This is a direct response to the objections of PCC to the previous scheme
The door to greater density and height has been firmly closed by the refusal of the previous scheme on those grounds at the instigation of PCC
The effect of the mix of house sizes and types upon local schools will be assessed by the Council and any impact will be dealt with
The way to prevent the site being bought by or landbanked by a major supermarket operator is to enthusiastically support our proposal for a viable mixed-use scheme
Our proposals are viable and have the backing of our funders. There is no reason to suppose that the scheme if consented will not be built
If any of our proposed occupiers walk away and we wish to incorporate alternatives, we will need to apply for fresh planning consent for that and the community will be able to comment
Most of the empty flats in Leith have now been taken over by Housing Associations and are fully occupied. The circumstances were highly exceptional. The development will only proceed at a pace that is supported by market demand
Detail of elevations etc will form part of the next stage of detailed design which will be consulted upon

I am delighted that PCC wishes to continue in dialogue with us on this important scheme and I look forward to those discussions.

Kind regards

Philip Myerscough

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2010, 23:43

seanie wrote:Unless of course I have a distinctly odd set of people in my contact lists.

I wouldn't say odd but I think the adage 'birds of a feather' probably applies here. Predominantly middle-class, professional, articulate. In short, probably the type that would welcome a Waitrose.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Sep 2010, 23:54

Unlike those horny-handed sons of toil on the PCC then?

Bob, I sent it to about 230 individuals, from addresses I'd got in various contexts. If you don't think it's of value then ignore it. Given the amount of grief I'm getting I really can't be bothered defending my actions anymore.

I did what I could.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Sep 2010, 02:42

Well, given that it's one of the very few pieces of evidence we have as to what people actually want, I would say it is of considerable value. I also acknowledge Marya's online poll as further evidence. However, rather than seek the views of the community, it would seem that some members have already made their minds up and are actively campaigning against the proposals. A leaflet that is currently being circulated is headed 'NEW SUPERSTORE THREAT TO PORTOBELLO HIGH STREET'. The author, no doubt, wishes to remain anonymous.

Makaveli · Post by **Makaveli** » 22 Sep 2010, 03:27

If what Bob says above is correct I find that a bit disturbing. I also presume by 'members' Bob you mean PCC members?

I still can't see why the PCC are so dead set against this development? It would be nice to hear from them why they have chosen this position.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Sep 2010, 04:22

Several members of Portobello Community Council are what I would term hard-core PCATS supporters. You could write to them to ask why they have chosen this position. Do copy us in to any response you get.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Sep 2010, 10:50

Why has the Community Council not consulted with local people over the BL proposals? That is the question people are asking. The answer can be found in this single paragraph:

The community council also feels that any revised planning application which BL submits must be in agreement with the development brief for the area, the North West Portobello Development Brief. The NW Portobello Development Brief represents a clear indication of the views of local residents and this has to be acknowledged by the community council in determining its stance on your revised proposals.

In other words, the CC has already consulted as far as those who are running the show are concerned, and that consultation is expressed in the NWPDB. There is no need for further consultation. They already have:

a clear indication of the views of local residents

Post by **wangi** » 22 Sep 2010, 11:43

philip myerscough wrote:I've not yet worked out how to do links to pdf's and all that clever stuff

Email them to

and I can assist.

L/

Post by **wangi** » 22 Sep 2010, 12:12

Porty wrote:BL- one Community Councillor has already publically disassocaited themselves from the PCC position, there may be more. I know several people who have stated "that's not the meeting I was at". So it is much the same as last year.

Well the specific list of comments noted as being raised during the discussion look fair enough to me and seem to reflect the proceedings. What's missing is any sort of weighting on them, but...

The following section:

The majority of the community council also feels that any revised planning application which BL submits must be in agreement with the development brief for the area, the North West Portobello Development Brief. The NW Portobello Development Brief represents a clear indication of the views of local residents and this has to be acknowledged by the community council in determining its stance on your revised proposals.

Is obviously post the public CC meeting and sourced from a discussion between community councillors. I cannot recall this coming up at all during the public meeting.

The tone of the language throughout the document is very telling.

L/

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 22 Sep 2010, 12:34

Seanie :
Can you check your link to the document you posted?
I'm not sure if it's been taken down or if there is a problem my end as I can't see it.

Cheers,

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 22 Sep 2010, 12:37

Try this.

Post by **wangi** » 22 Sep 2010, 12:41

They work for me Grunk; but have also mirrored them on Talk Porty:

The PCC's initial response: hosted on Google Docs / on Talk Porty
Seanie's letter in response: hosted on Google Docs / on Talk Porty
Seanie's straw poll: hosted on Google Docs / on Talk Porty

philip myerscough · Post by **philip myerscough** » 22 Sep 2010, 20:10

I failed to address one particular concern raised in the Chairman's letter on behalf of PCC. That was the concern about the lanes within our proposed design. While I understand that they may not be everyone's cup of tea it is at the end of the day up to B L as developer to decide in conjuction with the planners whether or not they will provide an attractive environment. We have taken advice on the micro-climate they will create and we are satisfied that, rather than creating the feared windtunnels, they will, in fact, create oases of calm. They are private spaces to which only the occupiers of the flats will have access not public routes through the development.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 23 Sep 2010, 23:16

Apologies. I missed a response to my straw poll. An updated version can be found here along with a couple of additional comments received. For those who don't wish to trawl through the document the comment missed was;

Hi Sean,

Thanks for this. On a purely selfish basis, I'd love a Waitrose. My life would be easier as we wouldn't have to drive to a supermarket (which we don't do a lot mind) and meals would be tastier. I'm also not keen on the eye sore that the SP site has become, so would like to see something developed there. However, the question is about what might be developed.

I'm afraid in principle I can't support it. I want to see our independent High St strengthened, with more (and more profitable) local shops springing up. This can only happen when the economic (and social) conditions are right. And a new superstore would worsen those conditions I suspect. Also, the fact that more people would be driving to shop in Porty is definitely not a selling point for me.

Thanks for asking,

Post by **wangi** » 24 Sep 2010, 20:53

Here's a overview of the proposed scheme - click to view high-res PDF:

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » 26 Sep 2010, 16:18

Hi,
I am Fiona, manager of Verden Studios. What is the meeting tomorrow? I have been unable to find information other than it being mentioned on numerous posts. If it is an open meeting, either Jamie or myself would be interested in attending. If so, could you please let me know the time and location.
Regards,
Fiona

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 26 Sep 2010, 17:24

Hi Fiona. Tomorrow's meeting is the regular monthly meeting of the Portobello Community Council. It starts at 7.30 and is held in the Baptist Church Hall, which is behind the Portobello Bar on the High Street. You enter via a passageway beside the Portobello Bar and the Royal Bank of Scotland. It is a public meeting, open to all and you'd be most welcome.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » 27 Sep 2010, 15:15

Thanks,
I'll be there, I won't be able to stay much after 8.30 unfortunately as I have commitments at 9pm, I hope that's ok.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 27 Sep 2010, 15:21

No problem, Fiona. People frequently leave early or arrive late.

Mark Cameron · Post by **Mark Cameron** » 27 Sep 2010, 21:09

There appear to be rumours doing the rounds that the Waitrose interest is not a genuine interest at all. Instead it's being suggested Waitrose name is being used as a front to get favourable backing to the idea of a supermarket on the BL site.

Phil What can you do to quell these rumours? Are you able to confirm 100% that Waitrose are indeed interested and are the only business being considered for this development site?

philip myerscough · Post by **philip myerscough** » 27 Sep 2010, 23:26

I just want to apologise for the heated nature of my responses to some of the questions at the Community Council meeting this evening. But I find it very frustrating when I try to consult with the community through PCC only to find my way to the community blocked by people who do not want to consult. Then all I hear is the same old opinions from the same old individuals who think they know best. To quote your chair from a discussion I had with him at the open day at the Town Hall - "Just because it's what the people of Portobello want doesn't mean it's good for Portobello"
I'm beginning to think there is no way forward here unless someone can tell me otherwise.

philip myerscough · Post by **philip myerscough** » 27 Sep 2010, 23:29

mcdryburn wrote:Are you able to confirm 100% that Waitrose are indeed interested and are the only business being considered for this development site?

We have spoken to all of the operators. All are interested to a greater or lesser degree. We are running with Waitrose because we think that is the best fit and because we THINK it is what the people of Portobello would prefer.

Post by **wangi** » 28 Sep 2010, 10:00

philip myerscough wrote:I just want to apologise for the heated nature of my responses to some of the questions at the Community Council meeting this evening. But I find it very frustrating when I try to consult with the community through PCC only to find my way to the community blocked by people who do not want to consult. Then all I hear is the same old opinions from the same old individuals who think they know best. To quote your chair from a discussion I had with him at the open day at the Town Hall - "Just because it's what the people of Portobello want doesn't mean it's good for Portobello"
I'm beginning to think there is no way forward here unless someone can tell me otherwise.

Hi Phil, after you left there was some more heated discussion which sadly didn't seem to result in any decision. The community council is clearly split on both this issue and how to even consult (or not) regarding it.

Looks like you have a few options: walk away; wait it out for PCC (realistically a few months?); or progress with your plans based on the feedback you have received from the public directly.

Don't envy your position.

(and sorry - didn't manage to introduce myself!)

Post by **wangi** » 28 Sep 2010, 10:30

Quoting this from here, since it is relevant to this thread:

philip myerscough wrote:A representative of Verden Studios came along to speak about what their business is doing in the community. They open up their studios on friday afternoons when school is closed and charge £5 per hour for rooms where young people, mostly male, come to play together. About how the future of their business is inextricably tied into the future of our scheme. They had to leave before the debate commenced. At the very same meeting there was talk in relation to youth "crime" of the lack of facilities in Portobello for young people. Why is the butchers being given so much attention and their business being ignored?

All the focus is on the foodstore. Why? This is a mixed use development, principally residential. New people in Portobello. New community facilites. Arts studios. Verden. Medical and therapies and pharmacy.

philip myerscough · Post by **philip myerscough** » 28 Sep 2010, 12:05

From: Philip Myerscough
Sent: 28 September 2010 11:06
To: John Stewart
Cc: Lesley Carus; Guy Morgan; Anthony McDonnell; David Sibbald
Subject: RE: The Former Scottish Power Site
John

Thank you for your most helpful response on behalf of PCC.

I apologise for turning up unannounced last night. I had thought that the monthly meetings of PCC are public meetings that anyone with an interest can attend. Clearly I got that wrong.

As someone with a significant business interest in Portobello it would be my intention to attend all future meetings of PCC with your kind permission.

Regards
Phil

Philip Myerscough
Managing Director
B L Developments
From: John Stewart [mailto:johnmacgregorstewart@talktalk.net]
Sent: 28 September 2010 10:16
To: Philip Myerscough
Cc: Lesley Carus
Subject: The Former Scottish Power Site
Phil,

Thank you for attending the community council meeting last night, answering our questions and participating in the discussion regarding your application, although it would have been courteous of you to have informed us beforehand that you were attending the meeting.

As you are aware, the community council is unable to answer your question whether it will support or object to a food store of 18,000 sq.ft. being part of your revised plans for this site.

Our response therefore to you at the pre-application consultation stage of your application remains the same as the response which we have already submitted.

Regards,

John.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Scottish Power Site Re-development 3 - supermarket + housing

B L Response to PCC Comments on Proposal

Re: B L Response to PCC Comments on Proposal

B L Response to PCC Comments on Proposal

Re: Scottish Power Site Re-development 3 - supermarket + hou

Re: Scottish Power Site Re-development 3 - supermarket + hou

Re: Scottish Power Site Re-development 3 - supermarket + hou

Re: Scottish Power Site Re-development 3 - supermarket + hou

Waitrose interest - Question for Phil Myerscough

Re: Scottish Power Site Re-development 3 - supermarket + hou

Re: Waitrose interest - Question for Phil Myerscough

Re: Scottish Power Site Re-development 3 - supermarket + hou

Re: Scottish Power Site Re-development 3 - supermarket + hou

Re: Scottish Power Site Re-development 3 - supermarket + hou