Hovercraft / ferry service from Fife to Portobello?

[rapunzell]

I'm only basing this on what I know so far, well ok, also on how much fun it was so get a close-up of the island, bouncing the waves with everyone else turning green and getting to Kirkcaldy in five mins instead of two hours, but I am all for the hovercraft plans as long as they don't don't mess it up.

[Grunk]

Judging by the minutes of the public consultation it could have done with a few more of us at the meeting.

[allaboardtheskylark]

Sadly grunk, there is a group of highly negative people in Portobello who dominate many of the "debates". They mostly go unchallenged due to apathy. Often they just wear us down with their negativity. They have severe sense of humour malfunction.

I have stayed out of the debates and "crept" around this website. Now it is time for affirmative action. I have got a pirates suit. If we could get a few volunteers to round up the grumps, we could commandeer the hover and I will make them walk the plank.

[Pal of Porty]

I will come too if the boat involved is the Skylark!

[seanie]

Portobello Community Council is going to object to the planning application on various grounds.

[wangi]

Portobello Community Council is going to object to the planning application on various grounds.

Seanie, would you be able to share the minutes regarding this decision when they are available; or in the meantime expand on the rational?

Thanks/L

[seanie]

Well the minutes should become publically available once approved so you'd have to wait a month or so for that. There were various objections as well so you'd be better waiting to see what's submitted officially on the Planning Portal as they might not all be included.

But as far a what was said in the meeting people objected to;

The potential noise disruption
The lack of parking facilites in Portobello leading to congestion
Interference with people walking along the Prom
The 'canyon' effect created by the proposed buildings
The materials of the buildings
Interference with people walking along the beach
Interference with kyaks/dinghies etc.
Impact on wildlife
Health and safety - children being run over by the hovercraft
It being near Portobello; Granton or Leith would be acceptable

Although I think it was agreed that we didn't object to a hovercraft crossing in principle.

[wangi]

Well the minutes should become publically available once approved so you'd have to wait a month or so for that. There were various objections as well so you'd be better waiting to see what's submitted officially on the Planning Portal as they might not all be included.

But as far a what was said in the meeting people objected to;

The potential noise disruption
The lack of parking facilites in Portobello leading to congestion
Interference with people walking along the Prom
The 'canyon' effect created by the proposed buildings
The materials of the buildings
Interference with people walking along the beach
Interference with kyaks/dinghies etc.
Impact on wildlife
Health and safety - children being run over by the hovercraft
It being near Portobello; Granton or Leith would be acceptable

Although I think it was agreed that we didn't object to a hovercraft crossing in principle.

Some of those reasons are a bit surprising.

The developer has selected a hovercraft which is significantly quieter than the one used in the trial. Now, as I said earlier in this thread they were utterly useless in communicating the scale difference in the noise generated by this new hovercraft. However they have clearly shown awareness in reducing noise by this choice and the location of the landing. Does the quoted noise level exceed any safety thresholds / recommendations or is there issue with the noise impact assessment which has been carried out?

The scheme is clearly directed toward getting those living in Fife into Edinburgh to their work - an alternative to rail via the Forth Bridge and cars over the Forth Road Bridge. As such what is the expectation of large numbers parking at Portobello to get to Fife? Especially given the earlier concerns (November CC minutes) about "the inability to buy travel tickets locally"?

The trial did impact on other Promenade users, with barriers restricting the Prom. However the proposal allows for free flow of the Prom, with hovercraft users walking across the Prom to the ramp. The building in the south side of the Prom is much smaller compared to existing buildings (bus garage). And on the Prom side it's a ramp with a 5.75 metre buffer, which is less than the wall / bank height on the north side of the Prom. Given the Prom is 12 metre wide at this point it would be a stretch to call this a canyon (compare the Cowgate).

Yes, the proposed building is crap. It's a portacabin doing the job of a bus shelter. It would have been nice to see something more fitting with the aspirations of the community.

This is the most quiet area of the beach and during the community consultation there was assurances the disruption when the hovercraft was coming on to the ramp would be a couple of minutes. That doesn't sound like a big disruption to the few users, and indeed I'm sure would be an attraction to other potential users of the beach (the trial generated a lot of interest photographing and seeing the hovercraft itself).

The rules of the sea (for reference see article on Wikipedia) would seem to cover the kayaks / dinghies concerns. It would be interesting to hear specific comments from those potentially directly affected here - Portobello Sailing & Kayaking Club, Fisherrow harbour... ?

A comprehensive report on the impact to wildlife seems to have been carried out by AMEC Earth & Environmental, and its conclusions seem pretty straightforward...

"children being run over by the hovercraft" indeed. Lets ban cars, trains and bikes while we're at it. I thought this thing (from earlier objection points) was damn noisy and big?

Leith is a locked harbour - getting a boat / hovercraft through the locks would add significant time to the journey, I imagine it would make it not commercially viable. Granton has poor transport links.

This is a good opportunity for Portobello. Personally I feel "we" should be behind this, while also trying to ensure it delivers as much as possible for Portobello. That's decent waiting room infrastructure; ticketing to/from Portobello in addition to Edinburgh & Leith; linking into local bus services (i.e. 69 service).

There is a lot of information included in the planning application which addresses many of these concerns. The planning application can be accessed here but important ancillary documents contained within it are (with direct inks to their content):

• Application form
  Design statement
  Commercial case
  General plans
  Wildlife impact appraisal
  Noise impact appraisal
  Notes from public consultation in Portobello

L/

[Maria]

Can I start by saying that I am in favour of a ferry link to Fife and I know I'm not the only one on the CC, or in Portobello, who has that view.

I believe, however, that it isn't just individuals on the CC that have concerns about the appearance of the structures, as the planning office have also asked for potential adjustments to the application. For example, I believe there has been a suggestion from the planning officer of some sort of art work on the prom side of the ramp and further detailed views of how the waiting room will appear from the prom have been requested.

The parking issue is a real potential problem. There are several hundred parking places being made available in Fife, but only 6 (disabled) parking places being provided this end. I wasn't at the public meeting, but believe that when asked about this Stagecoach said that boarding from this end people will either get the bus or park on Seafield and its environs. I suspect it will be the latter. When there was parking on Seafield earlier last year, during the roundabout replacement, it caused serious congestion.

Stagecoach are paying for bus links into Ocean Terminal and the city centre, but say they won't be paying for transport into Portobello. Again this was raised at the public meeting. It would seem Portobello isn't seen as a passenger destination by Stagecoach.

Kenny MacAskill MSP, who was also at the CC meeting, said he supported a ferry link, but believed it would make more sense to have a ferry crossing dock at Ocean Terminal, which will be the destination for some passengers and will soon offer a tram link to the city centre for others. He says the technology exists to enable a hovercraft landing point there. Stagecoach's argument against this, allegedly, is that it will cause too much disruption for the property owners in Platinium point. The flat owners in King's Road can make of that what they want.

[wangi]

The parking issue is a real potential problem. There are several hundred parking places being made available in Fife, but only 6 (disabled) parking places being provided this end. I wasn't at the public meeting, but believe that when asked about this Stagecoach said that boarding from this end people will either get the bus or park on Seafield and its environs. I suspect it will be the latter. When there was parking on Seafield earlier last year, during the roundabout replacement, it caused serious congestion.

But what's the expectation here - how many people do you see driving to Portobello to travel onto Fife? Isn't the bulk of the potential traffic in the other direction, as in those who live in Fife and work in Edinburgh?

Stagecoach are paying for bus links into Ocean Terminal and the city centre, but say they won't be paying for transport into Portobello. Again this was raised at the public meeting. It would seem Portobello isn't seen as a passenger destination by Stagecoach.

What Stagecoach said at the consultation meeting was they would investigate the issue with Lothian Buses.

[Maria]

[
But what's the expectation here - how many people do you see driving to Portobello to travel onto Fife? Isn't the bulk of the potential traffic in the other direction, as in those who live in Fife and work in Edinburgh?

Personally, I wouldn't have thought very many at all, though I've been told Stagecoach expect a 40/60 split. Wouldn't take very many parked cars, however, to cause problems on Seafield.

What Stagecoach said at the consultation meeting was they would investigate the issue with Lothian Buses.

Didn't know that. Did they say if they would be prepared to offer some kind of subsidy?

[Grunk]

So the obvious answer to the transport issue would be to extend the tram line along the disused railway that runs the entire length of seafield to ocean terminal.
Perhaps even connecting to the south sub railway, so everyone in Edinburgh could get access to the ferry link within 8 minutes from their local station.
The extension would then allow for the park and ride at newcraighall, or even using the derelict car park at big W. In fact Bilfinger Berger could be doing this extension just now since they cannot start the work they are contracted for, becasue the utility diversions aren't complete.

For information, a person can be run over by a hovercraft (of any size) without injury.

The noise is substantially lower than before and it isn't even heard that often.

This is a great opportunity for Portobello, I really can't see why people are opposed to it. This kind of transport link will not only directly help the local economy, but will be a key asset for the local area, when the council are divvying up resources.

So, How do we go about being in support of something in Porty?

[seanie]

The traffic assessment submitted with the application indicate weekday passenger flows in the AM of 840 Kirkauldy-Portobello, 75 Portobello-Kirkauldy, and PM flows of 295 Kirkcauldy-Portobello, 1060 Portobello-Kirkauldy.

From that I'd expect the split to over 80/20, and given the transport links on the Edinburgh side Id' also expect that proportionally fewer passengers travelling from Portobello will arrive by car in comparison to those at Kirkcauldy.

[Makaveli]

This is a fantastic opportunity for Porty I really hope that the minority don't screw it up!!!!

[Maria]

The traffic assessment submitted with the application indicate weekday passenger flows in the AM of 840 Kirkauldy-Portobello, 75 Portobello-Kirkauldy, and PM flows of 295 Kirkcauldy-Portobello, 1060 Portobello-Kirkauldy.

From that I'd expect the split to over 80/20, and given the transport links on the Edinburgh side Id' also expect that proportionally fewer passengers travelling from Portobello will arrive by car in comparison to those at Kirkcauldy.

An 80/20 split sounds more like it Seanie. There can't be all that many who will regularly commute to Kirkcaldy, though I still think we'd need near enough 100% of those commuters to arrive by bus in order to avoid parking problems.

So the obvious answer to the transport issue would be to extend the tram line along the disused railway that runs the entire length of seafield to ocean terminal.

The chance of that is probably the same as the likelihood of a rocket ship connection between Portobello and Leith.

[Bob Jefferson]

I think the parking issue depends on how far people are prepared to walk. Currently, there is plenty of parking space at that end of Portobello at Bridge Street and Powerleague/Indoor Bowls Centre.

In answer to Grunk's question, I'm afraid that it's just a fact of life that you very rarely get groups who are 'pro' anything. It's so much easier to be cynical and negative.

[seanie]

From those figures I'd reckon about 950 passengers travelling to Edinburgh & 185 travelling to Kirckauldy on weekdays. I can't see 185 cars being accomodated all that conveniently, but I don't know what percentage of that would actually be realistic.

[wangi]

What Stagecoach said at the consultation meeting was they would investigate the issue with Lothian Buses.

Didn't know that. Did they say if they would be prepared to offer some kind of subsidy?

It's in the minutes too

They never said either way with regard to subsidy. It was apparent they'd assumed people wanting to visit Portobello would walk.

[Maria]

What Stagecoach said at the consultation meeting was they would investigate the issue with Lothian Buses.

Didn't know that. Did they say if they would be prepared to offer some kind of subsidy?

It's in the minutes too

Erm, haven't read the minutes Had taken my information from what a member of the CC had said at Monday night's meeting. My bad.

admin: posts relating to authority of Portobello Community council have been split to http://forum.talkporty.org/viewtopic.php?t=4793

[cuth]

admin: merged

This is an extract from an item placed on the OJEU tender portal earlier this week:

The City of Edinburgh Council and Fife Council are considering options by undertaking a market sounding exercise for the procurement of a Cross Forth passenger vessel service across the Forth Estuary between Fife and Edinburgh. The route could be a combination of one or more of the following points - Burntisland, Kirkcaldy, Granton, Leith and Portobello. Other potential routes will also be considered. The anticipated crossing time should be around 20 minutes or better.

There is no preferred vessel type although its capacity should be no less than 75 passengers, be DDA compliant and operate in wave heights up to 2m.

The service will ideally operate seven days a week, 16 hours a day with a 30 minute or better frequency during peak times. It is expected that this will be a self financing operation and no public subsidy will be available for its operation.
It is expected that arrangements should be in place for integrated public transport on both sides of the Forth and passenger waiting facilities should also be provided. It is anticipated that the capital costs associated with the construction of Port/Landing infrastructure would be borne by the Operator.

There has been an extensive study on the feasibility of a Cross Forth Passenger Vessel service including business viability reports, infrastructure option reports, demand forecasting reports and a STAG appraisal and will be made available at a later stage.

The operation, length and management of the service have yet to be confirmed.
Water transport services. Transport services \(excl. Waste transport\). Ships and similar vessels for the transport of persons or goods.Ferry transport services.

[Bob Jefferson]

From the EN Letters Page recently:

New neighbour would be ferry noisy in Portobello

[Bob Jefferson]

And the article referred to:

Forth hovercraft moves closer

[wangi]

The planning application received a number of updated documents in September/October; see:

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /03359/FUL

In amongst these would seem to be a change to the façade of the slip area on the Prom to suggest beach huts? See this PDF for full detail; excerpt attached.

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... =506954639

[wangi]

http://news.scotsman.com/transport-news ... 6699114.jp

Hovercraft bid left deflated
A PROPOSED hovercraft link to Portobello from Kirkcaldy is set to be dealt a major blow next week.
Fife Council is expected to call a halt to efforts to attract potential operators because of a lack of interest and funding.

However, Stagecoach, which carried out a 2007 trial, said the project was not dead. A spokesman said the company was still interested in providing bus links and infrastructure for a future hovercraft or ferry service.

The company is to continue with applications for landing and passenger facilities and will then reappraise the business case for a cross-Forth link.

Edinburgh and Fife councils are both willing to offer non-financial support.

And: http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Fife/a ... water.html

[rapunzell]

I don't know what council non-financial support means. Perhaps the councillors are going to give big hugs to all the workmen

[seanie]

A report is finally going to the Planning Committee recommending approval for the hovercraft terminal. Interestingly the report contains the following;

The application was advertised on 15 January 2010 and attracted 23 representations; 17 of the representations are objections including from Councillor Stephen Hawkins, Portobello Community Council, Portobello Amenity Society and a letter signed by 10 residents of 9 Promenade Terrace; 3 of the representations are general comments; and 3 of the representations are in support.

[Franck]

A report is finally going to the Planning Committee recommending approval for the hovercraft terminal. Interestingly the report contains the following;

The application was advertised on 15 January 2010 and attracted 23 representations; 17 of the representations are objections including from Councillor Stephen Hawkins, Portobello Community Council, Portobello Amenity Society and a letter signed by 10 residents of 9 Promenade Terrace; 3 of the representations are general comments; and 3 of the representations are in support.

I find it quite amazing that a local councillor and the community council object to something that brings more people into Portobello, whether that's passing thru on their way to work or as day trippers from Fife.The lack of a bus service from the terminal to Portobello is asking too much, it's a 10 minute stroll along the prom to central Portobello.

I cycle along that stretch of prom every day and it's pretty desolate offering nothing but a place to walk the dog...I notice the pathway mentioned at MFI/Halfords is being widened, possibly in relation to this?

The noise aspect is slightly more understandable, but given it's plenty far away from any houses, I reckon that's nonsense too.My mother in law lives in the flats on promenade terrace and she has no objections.

And I see that one suggestion from our councillor suggests it should go to Leith to tie (see what I did there?) in with the trams...well that's not an argument anymore, is it?

The more I read about PCC and their blanker object-to-anything approach, the more I think it should be disbanded.

[Porty]

275.7 Application for permanent hovercraft service
Stagecoach has lodged a planning application for a passenger terminal for the Portobello end of its planned
hovercraft service. John Stewart circulated several plans to indicate what was proposed. The site has been
moved a little to the west of the one used for the pilot service. There would be a concrete ramp on the beach
for the hovercraft and passengers would cross the Promenade to and from the terminal building, which
appeared to be a very basic, functional prefabricated unit with parking spaces for six disabled drivers and no
parking at all for the general public. Buses would take commuters on to Edinburgh or Leith.
Issues were suggested to include the principle of having a hovercraft service at all, the quality of the terminal
building, public safety, car parking and traffic, noise, and impact on local wildlife and other beach and sea
users. The City Council planning official monitoring the application had requested further details from
Stagecoach. Sean Watters thought from his soundings that some local people were in favour of the new
service. Archie Burns could see no evidence that the service would bring economic benefit to Portobello,
and it was observed that there seemed to be no plan for a bus service connecting Portobello with the
terminal. Dawson Currie suggested that we should try and achieve some planning gain for our town.
Lawrence Marshall did not think the noise would be a problem for King’s Road residents, and said that
although fuel consumption per mile was much greater for hovercraft than for trains, the directness of the
crossing meant that fuel cost per passenger-trip would be better by hovercraft. Kenny MacAskill observed
that Leith would be a more logical destination than Portobello.
It was agreed that John Stewart would write to the Planning Department objecting to this particular
application on several specific grounds, while supporting the principle of a hovercraft service from Fife to
Edinburgh, and also to Jonathan Bendit to seek the Sailing Club’s view.
* Action: John Stewart to write objecting to this particular application in terms of the poor
design and materials proposed for the terminal building, the lack of parking, and raising
questions about noise levels, location, safety issues and environmental impact, while
supporting the idea of the proposed hovercraft service in principle.

[Porty]

276.4l John Stewart to object to specific aspects of the proposed hovercraft terminal (275.7). Done; letter circulated with agenda.

Anyone else see it prior to submission?

[Porty]

http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-eveni ... _1_1977392

[Porty]

The planning application is on the agenda today, after a recent site visit by the DMSC. Officers are again proposing it is granted. We will see.

[cuth]

Just received the following email:

Dear PMAG,

The Planning Application for a Hovercraft slipway etc was TURNED DOWN today by the Council's Planning (Dev Man Sub Committee) on traffic/parking, visual (appearance/effect on the Prom) and noise grounds, I have just heard. The vote was apparently 6 against, 5 in favour, so many thanks once again to those of you who emailed in to tell Councillors of your concerns. I feel sure this made a difference.

I presume the Applicants can appeal or put in another planning application but for now this is a victory for common sense and a relief to those of us who were affected by the noise, disruption of the Prom and beach, parking problems etc of the trials.

I'll keep you updated of any further developments. (Please let me know if you no longer wish to receive emails from me about issues affecting NW Portobello and do feel free to pass this email on to anyone who would like to be added to my email list)

Caroline (Hosking) for NW Portobello Masterplan Action Group

[Bazza]

[wangi]

That's a shame, but rather irrelevant given lack of funding and firm commitment to operate.

As I said earlier in the thread a few times Stagecoach really damaged their own case by expecting people to understand what a 5dB noise reduction is. And utterly failing to give meaningful examples to describe it.

(Another victory for Portobello Against Absolutely F' Everything)

[Bazza]

(Another victory for Portobello Against Absolutely F' Everything)

Indeed. And a great loss for Porty and Embra.