NW Portobello Masterplan

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Nov 2007, 19:31

From Maureen Child:

A public meeting on the masterplan for North West Portobello will take place on Wednesday 14 November at 7.30 pm in Portobello Town Hall, mainly presented by the consultants, who produced it following a consultation process with ‘key stakeholders’ and an exhibition in Portobello Library. It will be convened by Portobello Community Council. There are questionnaires in the Portobello Library and the local shops to gauge public opinion on various aspects of the draft masterplan, which the consultants have produced. The library has a box for completed questionnaires. They will also be available to fill in at the public meeting.

This will be a chance to get a first impression of the draft masterplan, which the consultants have produced and which the Council’s planning officers have yet to review, evaluate and report on. When the planning officers have completed their study, a report will go to the Council’s Planning Committee to be held on December 6. Planning officers will then ask Councillors to agree to start public consultation on the draft masterplan.

There will also be an opportunity to discuss how the public consultation on the draft masterplan will betaken forward in the New Year at the Portobello - Craigmillar Neighbourhood Partnership Meeting on Wednesday 28 November starting at 7pm at the Hay’s Business Centre. That is about the process, not the content.

At the following Neighbourhood Partnership Meeting in Portobello Town Hall on Wednesday 23 January, there will be even more detailed information available on the draft masterplan

Only when that whole process of consultation and evaluation of the plan is complete, will it come back to the Planning Committee and a final Masterplan be agreed for NW Portobello, which will guide future development in that area over the next 15 years or so..

I hope that’s clear! (;

You are welcome to any or all of these meetings.

Regards

Maureen

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 14 Nov 2007, 16:34

Wee reminder of tonight's Public meeting.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 18 Nov 2007, 21:19

Anyone know how this went? I had hoped to make it along, but was unable to make it on the night.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Nov 2007, 21:40

What happened?

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 27 Nov 2007, 22:11

Marya wrote:Anyone know how this went?

This from Maureen Child's newsletter which I received by email today:

NW Portobello ‘Masterplan’

If the 250 people who came to Portobello Town Hall hoped to hear some detail from the consultants, they would be disappointed. But it was a meeting mainly intended to outline the process, as I tried to make clear to those whom I contacted. This draft framework is not the same as a planning application and it is there to help guide developers and architects as to what might prove acceptable over the next 15 years or so. The Planning Committee will get a report from planning officers and will start the period of consultation for at least two months from 9 December. It is important that those 250 people – and many more - do read the documents carefully, discuss it, and feed in to that consultation and don’t feel they have ‘had their say’ already.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Nov 2007, 19:32

From what Maureen says it sounds like people came along expecting one thing and got another. Whose meeting was it and what expectations did they communicate?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 22 Jan 2008, 14:53

From an email received today from Maureen Child:

The form of consultation on the draft North West Portobello ‘masterplan’ is one of the topics to be discussed at the Portobello/Craigmillar Neighbourhood Partnership Meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) evening. The formal meeting starts at 7pm at Portobello Town Hall and is open to the public. The meeting, tomorrow, starts with a ‘drop in ‘session with staff who can take questions and give advice on local issues and concerns at 6pm.

An exhibition of the NW Portobello proposals are currently exhibited in the Portobello Library and will be on display for at least another month, with written comments invited by the end of February. Copies of the documents are available for viewing at Portobello Library together with enlarged prints of some of the maps and diagrams; and at the Council's offices in Waverley Court, and on the Council's web-site.

The Planning team at the City Development Department is Stephen Hajducki, John Deffenbaugh, Lesley Carus and Francis Newton. Please contact them on 0131-529 3922 or by e-mail if you have any queries or difficulty in getting hold of copies of the reports.

Please send your views, comments and constructive suggestions to:
Planning - Major Strategic Developments Team
City of Edinburgh Council City Development Department
G.3 Waverley Court
4 East Market Street
Edinburgh EH8 8BG
or by e-mail to stephen.hajducki@edinburgh.gov.uk
to arrive before 29 February 2008.

The team will also be at the library at the following times to help answer your enquiries:

Mornings 10.00 to 13.00 - Wednesday 30th January, Wednesday 6th February
Afternoons 13.30 to 16.30 - Tuesday 29th January, Monday 4th February
Evenings 17.00 to 20.00 - Monday 28th January, Tuesday 5th February

The Council would like as many people as possible to have the opportunity to comment, so do ass this information on to others who you think might be interested. There are also spare posters repeating this information at the library – please take one if you have somewhere suitable to display it.

After 29th February the planning officers will collate all the representations, list out the points, and consider how to address each of them. These will appear in a table. This will allow the planning officers to draw up a Development Brief for the Planning Committee. This document then acts as supplementary development advice to guide new development and give them a base against which to assess it.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 29 Jan 2008, 12:21

Just a reminder that you can view the proposed North West Masterplan in the library. You can also ask questions from planners at the following times:

-Mornings 10.00 to 13.00 - Wednesday 30th January, Wednesday 6th February
-Afternoons 13.30 to 16.30 - Tuesday 29th January, Monday 4th February
-Evenings 17.00 to 20.00 - Monday 28th January, Tuesday 5th February

The plans include cramming the community centre to the cafe area above the bowling centre and moving the library away from its current central location. The linear park along the Figgate Burn that everyone liked has been changed into back gardens of new houses and the Bridge Street car park will be built on. The Baileyfield Road cottages are gone to be replaced with a 'raised linear park'. There are also proposals to build 10 storey high blocks of flats etc. If any of this concerns you then let stephen.hajducki@edinburgh.gov.uk know.

If you can't get along to the library then view it online here

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Feb 2008, 16:57

Spotted on Regen.net, 'the most authoritative and up-to-date website for regeneration professionals.':

Second Opinion - Portobello, Edinburgh

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 02 Feb 2008, 12:50

Marya wrote: There are also proposals to build 10 storey high blocks of flats etc.

Thats taller than the high school!

As a resident of Adelphi place you have piqued my interest.My house looks onto what is currently the standard life buildings, any chance of them being replaced by a ten story building would be a catastrophe from my selfish point of view.

I'm off to the library for a wee looky...

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 03 Feb 2008, 00:21

Interesting to know what the owners of the Baileyfield Cottage think of the proposals?
And ...if they decide not to play ball with the developers whether the 10 storey flats can still be accommodated, could you potentially end up with them sitting next to each other?
If I were a resident in Baileyfield I'd be getting some good legal representation as of now because this isn't going to go away and CPO is not out of the question. They should also perhaps think about speaking to Planning Aid and/ or the Royal Town Planning Institute with a view to getting some good planning representation.
Can you trust CEC to get this thing right?
Also, a developer taking on too much in uncertain economic times could spell disaster.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 03 Feb 2008, 13:11

The masterplan isn't really a proposed development, but rather a framework that would guide what is and isn't acceptable as and when development proposals come forward for particular sites. It's important in that it'd establish principles but any development would likely take place over years, in a piecemeal fashion. And CPO's for private development is completely out of the question.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Feb 2008, 20:04

I'm hoping to get along on Tuesday evening to button-hole the guys from Planning. I've taken a look at the stuff in the Library and, in my opinion, it amounts to little more than a bunch of high-rise flats dressed up in pretentious nonsense. 'Moi' would have a field day with it.

I don't know anyone who wants to see either the library or the community centre re-located. The 'linear park' around the Figgate Burn sounded exciting but it now appears that even less of the burn will be available to the public than at present. We are losing 65 car parking spaces at Bridge Street that aren't going to be replaced - an absurdity if we hope to attract day trippers to the beach and if the hovercraft crossing goes ahead, as now seems more likely. It's also conveniently placed for Towerbank parents taking their kids to school.

I want to see the alternative seanie vision for NW Portobello. Could we commission you to knock something up within 48 hrs at a cost of £0:00?

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 03 Feb 2008, 20:44

seanie wrote:The masterplan isn't really a proposed development, but rather a framework that would guide what is and isn't acceptable as and when development proposals come forward for particular sites. It's important in that it'd establish principles but any development would likely take place over years, in a piecemeal fashion. And CPO's for private development is completely out of the question.

Yes Seanie, I agree,it is a framework but it does set the general principles for any future proposed development and if those are as shown on the conceptual drawings then it worries me that general UD principles for designing high quality places seem to be lacking somewhat.

Most important of those, for me, is having due regard to the locality and how the right sort of 'fit' would be achieved. This seems to have been sidelined somewhat in favour of maximising floorspace.

Secondly, the purpose of the masterplan should address phasing and deliverability. CPO is a tool to enable this and if it is not on the table then how serious is the Council about aiding the site aquisition?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 03 Feb 2008, 22:04

I wouldn't think that the Council has considered "aiding the site acquisition" in any way shape or form. This process is intended to come up with a planning framework that would shape future development, as and when it came about. Apects of the plan would probably encourage certain development, but it would still most likely to occur in a piecemeal fashion as individual sites come up for potential redevelopment. It could take decades.

I have mixed feelings about the proposals but there's one aspect I think is fairly reasonable that I suspect most people might disagree with. That's the density. I think they're proposing a density of aroung 65 dwellings per hectare. That strikes me as pretty realistic; I certainly wouldn't expect it to be much less. But alongside that they've managed to incorporate a higher than normal percentage of open space of around 35% compared to a more typical figure of around 20%. But they'll have achieved that partly by including a few high rise blocks. The element of high density housing frees up a bit more open space.

I think that commercial and planning pressures probably force a difficult choice. If you want a higher amount of open space you need to accept some higher density development to maintain the overall density. On the other hand if such higher rise development is unacceptable then you'll end up with less open space as again the overall density will need to be maintained.

There's a danger of getting to caught up in the fine detail of what is only a framework plan. The really important elements are the strategic decisions such as density, as they'll have a more profound impact in the long-term.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Feb 2008, 22:23

C'mon, get your HB2 out. You know you want to.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 03 Feb 2008, 22:33

Bob Jefferson wrote:C'mon, get your HB2 out. You know you want to.

And the tracing paper - its always here at the ready. I'm an old fashioned girl at heart and makes me much happier than CAD.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Feb 2008, 22:42

Architects nowadays, they are all cads.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 03 Feb 2008, 22:49

For my final year thesis I designed a crematorium and necropolis in Glasgow.

A visiting professor said it looked like a cross between a petrol station and a deep fat fryer.

The world's probably a better place for me having jacked in architecture.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Feb 2008, 18:14

I was interested to learn recently that:

a group of Heriot Watt urban design students is devising an alternative masterplan for NW Portobello as part of their course.

The draft plan will be presented on 21 February, but places are limited to around 30 with priority given to signed-up members of Portobello Masterplan Action Group (PMAG).

In an effort to make the plan available to a broader section of the community, I offered to host an online version.

Alas, this has not been possible, as the following reply from Caroline Hosking explains:

Just thought I should let you know that I have checked with the organisers of the event and it is not possible to take up your suggestion of using the internet for the students' masterplans, for a number of reasons, including issues related to the students.

I hope that clarifies the situation.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 16 Feb 2008, 16:09

Bob Jefferson wrote:
a group of Heriot Watt urban design students is devising an alternative masterplan for NW Portobello as part of their course.

Part of the UD course has been a Portobello project for years now but their remit extends much wider than the Cadell2 commission.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 26 Feb 2008, 13:47

Wee reminder that the last date for comments (if you are objecting to any of the proposals then you need to state this and give reasons) is this Friday 29 February 2008

email: stephen.hajducki@edinburgh.gov.uk

or write to him at Planning, City of Edinburgh Council, City Development Dept. , G.3 Waverly court, 4 East Market St, Edinburgh EH8 8BG

If you wish pro-forma letters can be obtained from PMAG c/o Caroline Hosking email: hoskingcaroline@hotmail.com Tel 669 5262

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 May 2008, 19:05

From Maureen Child:

Dear All

This is the report for Planning Committee next week about the NW Portobello Masterplan.

I have more detail if you want it, so let me know – more KB for your inbox!

Many of the main issues raised in the consultation have been accepted and the brief has been changed.

Maureen

NW Portobello Development Brief - Introduction

Appendices including the brief itself to follow.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 May 2008, 19:09

Note, in particular:

3.35 In the light of this further assessment, and following discussions with internal stakeholders, the Department agrees with certain of the points made in the representations, and recommends that the following elements of the Master Plan are not pursued further in the final Development Brief as presented in Appendix 1:

• the inclusion of a metro-type supermarket on the High Street

• the higher flatted blocks along Harry Lauder road edge

• the loss of the Bridge Street public car park

• the Figgate Burn between High Street and Promenade being lost to public access behind private back gardens

• student accommodation as the gateway building

• a landmark building on the east side of High Street at Kings Road

• development rising to 5 storeys on the Promenade

• sedum-roofed buildings at the landscaped edge

• development of the 5-a-side football pitches unless another local site is provided

• move of the library and community centre from their present sites unless further studies show this to be a desirable option

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 May 2008, 19:18

"• move of the library and community centre from their present sites unless further studies show this to be a desirable option"

Should that read undesirable?

How many storeys will the "Higher" flat to HLR be?

The flats on the promenade; were they originally going to be 6 storeys but are now 5? - I can't recall.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 May 2008, 20:39

From the look of it they appear to have accepted an overall density of 70/Ha. Knocking a few storeys off here and there is pretty trivial compared to incorporating that into the development framework.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 May 2008, 20:50

I haven't seen the amended brief itself yet but 3.35 suggests that some major concessions have been made, based on the consultation and resultant feedback.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 May 2008, 09:53

Here is the rest of the document:

Appendix 1 - Development Brief

Appendix 1a - Map

Appendix 2 - Consultations Register

Appendix 3 - Summary of Consultation Points

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 May 2008, 12:07

Appendix 3- Summary of Consultation Points

I like the simpliciy of the list. It is an easy to follow summary.

The list is pretty comprehensive but rather ironically omits the complaints about the consultation process itself of which there were around 6 from the 201 respondents.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 May 2008, 12:19

I think the brief is damned good and congratualtions to those that took time to input. It appears to have made a significant difference.

Superstore campaigners in particular must be very happy at retail being restricted to one corner shop. I wonder if it will be on a corner?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 May 2008, 13:16

From today's EN:

Supermarket plan scrapped in new Porty blueprint

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 May 2008, 22:10

PMAG still has reservations, as detailed in this extract from their latest newsletter:

Post by **wangi** » 06 Jun 2008, 16:20

Grunk wrote:Is there an information anywhere on how they voted on the masterplan issues?

Anything in the public domain will be on the "Council Papers Online" section of the council website: http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/. Happy searching - it can be infuriating trying to find what you are after.