Fun Park Planning Application

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Mar 2009, 13:08

Almost certainly, but a financial contribution won't resolve the problem with school capacities. The Funpark site's not going to have much impact but together with the Scottish Power site there's potentially a big problem.

However, given that these areas are residential in planning terms, that problem rises inevitably.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 07 Mar 2009, 15:23

Marya wrote:The shadow argument doesn't just take in the prom, but the beach itself. I suppose that given the numbers who now use the beach, it won't be a major problem if folk all congregate on the only sunny bits of beach, on the rare days we get the weather for it. Mind you, I can't see all that many wanting to sit at cafe tables in the shadow of the building.

Quite true but that bit of beach is about the worse there is. The Prom is maximum height to the sand and it is rocky and messy. Ever tried sitting outside the Espy - even in good weather the shade can make it freezing down there with just a little breeze? I also agree that it is a great location for families with good primary schools, hopefully a new secondary, tons of space on the beach, the Ormelie and the Espy!

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 07 Mar 2009, 15:27

Widen the Prom from the Dalriada to nearly the Fun Park site. The width should be the same as the width at the bottom of John street where the new garden is. Plenty of room for everyone.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Mar 2009, 18:55

seanie wrote:And the quality of the buildings that have survived was affordable, in large measure, to the grotesque exploitation of the working classes.

I don't doubt this, and I'm not suggesting that we re-introduce slave labour, but surely progress has been made in the intervening centuries in building techniques and materials, making construction less labour-intensive? Do you think it is not viable to build housing that will still be around in 200 years time?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Mar 2009, 20:35

Considerable progress. Buildings today, technically, are pretty high quality and many will be around in 200 years time, albeit with a number of overhauls. But what condemns most buildings is obsolesence in use rather than failure of materials. Demands change, or technology, and a structure that's basically sound is no longer wanted. So economics militates against investment in longevity per se. In 40 years your building may no longer be needed so why spend the money to ensure it lasts for 200?

That's not a sustainable approach, but it is the economic reality that's shaped our built environment, and architects are pretty peripheral to that. Socio-economic factors really determine what get's built.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Mar 2009, 21:47

seanie wrote:In 40 years your building may no longer be needed so why spend the money to ensure it lasts for 200?

I understand the logic but I do find it rather depressing. If previous generations had employed this sort of short-term thinking then we wouldn't have an Old Town or a New Town to celebrate.

Perhaps we could explore the possibility of building a new virtual city from scratch in a new thread?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 Mar 2009, 01:12

The old town and the new town aren't the result of profound long term thinking. They're due to a mix of vanity, expediency, greed, socio-economic circumstance and fashion. What's built today is little different. Most of the 'old town' is newer than the 'new town' but that's unimportant compared to the perception. The past has commercial as well as sentimental value.

The previous generation that laid out classical Portobello in all its Georgian splendour, was a generation that also sent seven year olds up chimneys.

These two things were not unrelated.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Mar 2009, 13:40

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opini ... jp#3832291

Main letter in the EN. I don't have strong feelings either about the proposal. I notice the author is going down the "they are not listening" route with his "haven't read the brief" jibe.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 10 Mar 2009, 13:48

Worth mentioning perhaps, that though the developer has set the building back from the prom, he has been given Council/public land at the rear of the building to offset this.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Mar 2009, 13:48

[quote="Porty"]http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opini ... jp#3832291

Main letter in the EN. I don't have strong feelings either way about the proposal. I notice the author is going down the "they are not listening" route with his "haven't read the brief" jibe.

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 10 Mar 2009, 14:06

seanie wrote:.

The previous generation that laid out classical Portobello in all its Georgian splendour, was a generation that also sent seven year olds up chimneys.

These two things were not unrelated.

AH yes - now, if we went back to those enlightened times and put offenders to work by going up chimneys, how much more pleasant would walks along the prom be??? The least sign of trouble and it's "up that chimney with you, m'lad!" And the criminals would be doing a useful job, plus it would be easy to know where they were - safely away from us.

Winners all round, I'd say.

Bring back Georgian sensibilities!!!!

(Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt - my tongue is very firmly in my cheek here)

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 11 Mar 2009, 10:11

Marya wrote:Worth mentioning perhaps, that though the developer has set the building back from the prom, he has been given Council/public land at the rear of the building to offset this.

Definitely worth mentioning - I thought we were only gaining. I did not realise that they were getting the prom back at the rear of the development.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Mar 2009, 08:57

The minutes from the Community Council meeting in February are now available online at:

http://porty.org.uk/council/pdf/MinutesFeb09.pdf

This is the relevant section relating to discussion on the Fun Park development:

266.4 Planning Application for the former Funpark Site, Portobello Promenade

This item was introduced by John Stewart, who circulated copies of some parts of the Application. Members of the public had attended for this specific item, and raised a number of points of concern.

This Application appears to differ little from the plans discussed previously by the Community Council, following a presentation by the Architects. The Application is for 73 flats, a Café and a two storey Amusement Arcade on ground and basement levels, with underground car parking. It was noted that the proposed two L-shaped blocks would be five times as long as, and two metres higher than, the new building on the site of Grannie’s Attic, at the bottom of Bath Street. There have been two concessions to our comments: 1) The height of the corner blocks has been lowered by 1 storey, from 6 to 5 storeys, losing only 4 flats on the original proposal 2) The proposal has widened the view to the Kilns from the front a little.

Concerns agreed by the meeting included:

-The ground floor is raised by 4 feet, to allow for half the underground car parking and so effectively the building heights are mainly 4.5 storeys, with 5.5 storeys at each of the corner blocks on the Promenade, and 3.5 storeys on Pipe Lane. This is not in keeping with NW Portobello Development Brief.

-Significant concerns about privacy and daylight issues for residents in neighbouring properties.

-The Kilns will not be visible (at 11.8metres) behind the 4.5 storey (13.6 metres) or 5.5 storey (16.6 metres) buildings. The only views from the Promenade of the kilns will be through an opening, and looking over a 4 foot polished concrete wall. The variety of design materials is concerning, and the Kilns will not stand out well against some of these. The loss of land around the Kilns means there will not be room for a free standing interpretative building which explains the history of the kilns.

-The flat aluminium and sedum roofs, are not in keeping with adjacent pitched roofs or with the Conservation Area, and there are concerns about the practicality of sedum on roofs, in the windy salty microclimate of Portobello.

-Shadowing on the Promenade, beach and adjacent houses was felt likely to be greater than shown and there were concerns that sunpath modelling had not included late evening in summer, or any times in winter when the sun is low. Experience shows that there are very long shadows cast onto the Promenade and beach from the new building on the Grannie’s Attic site.

-This Application does not meet the recommendations of the NWPortobello Development Brief in many aspects and these should be pointed out in the Community Council response eg re heights of buildings; the mass and scale should derive from existing adjacent buildings; that the Kilns should have an improved setting, with increased visibility; that building on the Promenade should minimise overshadowing.

-The application appears to contravene NE Edinburgh Local Plan especially Policy E25, as it is not carefully integrated with its surroundings as regards scale, form, siting, alignment and materials.

-There is a loss of public land, and the land to be ‘exchanged’ for this on the Promenade does not make up for this, not least because the development intrudes on this exchanged land with steps and ramps to the development. The loss of part of ‘Bridge Street’ Square to the development is very concerning. This is despite the Application stating in one part it will not be affected, but showing it to be in the development on the Survey Plan.

-The Promenade frontage is not an active one with leisure facilities, but private terraces attached to ground floor flats, raised four foot on polished concrete.

-Increased traffic and car parking problems in the narrow streets are major concerns as this is a cul de sac with only one main road exit way, with poor visibility at the junction with Portobello High Street. Residents are opposed to the opening up of the dividing walls at Pipe Street or Tower Street, due to possible rat runs and the narrow roads.

-The appearance of such massive blocks was considered detrimental and not an attractive addition to promote the Promenade and Edinburgh’s seaside.

-The absence of affordable housing is unacceptable.

-The 5.5 storey corner blocks are described as landmark buildings but they will be hiding Portobello’s historic landmarks of the Kilns, and detrimental to the landmark of the Promenade.

-Vistas/views of the sea will be lost because of this building, adding to previously lost views from Portobello’s streets due to development. This takes away from the character of the area.

-Section 75 Planning Gain – a question was raised as to how much the Council would receive under this, but this was not known.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 18 Mar 2009, 12:14

Looking at the photo above, I wonder how they can give the go ahead for a building like that, yet people in the old tenements aren't allowed to change their rotting sash and casement windows for double glazed ones (upvc or other).

I'd like to see the architects in Edinburgh stop being lazy and actually design a modern building that fits with the surroundings.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 18 Mar 2009, 12:42

uPVC is the Devil's material.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 18 Mar 2009, 13:17

You would sell you soul for a set of uPVC windows?

that's a bit extreme.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 18 Mar 2009, 14:07

No. But many are tempted by it's easy 'virtues' of cheap availability, and are blind to its toxic, ugly shoddiness.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 18 Mar 2009, 17:55

So a lot like women's temptation for us ?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 19 Mar 2009, 14:38

I'll get your coat...

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 31 Mar 2009, 11:54

Marya wrote:A point ,no one has made so far, is that this development consists mainly of 4 bedroomed flats i.e. it will be marketed to families. It is a welcome move away from one and two bedroomed 'executive' flats......

Oops! I got that wrong. Apparently, when the plans say '4 bed' it doesn't mean 4 bedrooms, but space for 4 beds i.e. 2 bedrooms.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Mar 2009, 12:39

I wondered about that.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Dec 2009, 13:39

Recommended for approval.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Dec 2009, 18:13

From today's EN:

Game over for arcade as flats get approved

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Jan 2010, 11:32

From Minutes of the Sub-Dev Committee meeting 16/12/2009- not exactly a foregone concusion.

3 1 Pipe Lane, Edinburgh - Flats

The Sub-Committee considered a planning application (ref. 09/00248/FUL) for the demolition of amusement arcade and the erection of 73 flats with associated underground parking, amusement arcade and café with landscaped public and private gardens, at 1 Pipe Lane, Edinburgh. The site was located at the western end of the promenade at Portobello and extended to 0.6 hectares in area.

The Head of Planning reported on the application and the planning considerations involved. The scheme had been the subject of extensive community consultation and the original scheme had been revised. In summary, he considered that the revised proposals would introduce a positive element to the promenade frontage and would maximise the historic environment of the kilns. He recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. A total of 90 letters of representation had been received.

Councillor Hawkins, as a local ward member, said that there was considerable opposition to the proposals from local residents and he considered it to be contrary to the Design Brief for this site and likely to have a detrimental effect on the setting of the promenade and the kilns and on the amenity of the surrounding area.

Motion

To grant planning permission, as recommended by the Head of Planning, with a further condition to be added in regard to ‘landscaping/fencing’ (relative to gardens, etc. for the flats) and subject to a prior legal agreement, as detailed in the report by the Head of Planning.

- moved by Councillor Lowrie, seconded by Councillor Rose.

Amendment

That the Sub-Committee be minded to refuse planning permission on grounds principally that it was contrary to the guidance contained in the North-West Portobello Development Brief regarding the promenade frontage; that the height and design, and materials proposed, were inappropriate for this key site; that the importance of the setting of the kilns and their historical character and attraction were not respected in the design, and that the development would result in over-shadowing of the promenade and the beach – with the Head of Planning requested to report back on suitable wording of these reasons.

- moved by Councillor Child, seconded by Councillor Hinds.

Voting

For the motion - 7
For the amendment - 7

There being an equality of votes cast, the Convener gave his casting vote in favour of the motion.

Decision

To resolve to grant planning permission, as recommended by the Head of Planning and with a further condition to be added in regard to ‘landscaping/fencing’, and subject to a prior legal agreement and other informatives, as detailed in the report by the Head of Planning.

(Reference – by the Head of Planning, 16 December 2009, submitted.)

Lima · Post by **Lima** » 07 Jan 2010, 20:55

Not sure there was that much of an opposition to the plans. I received confirmation from the council that my objection had been noted but I never submitted an objection.

Think a lot of the objections were sent by an individual or small minority. I had previously objected to the waste transfer facility and think that is where they got my details from.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Jan 2010, 21:03

Or somebody objected using your name and address.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Jan 2010, 13:52

Or maybe you supported the application and got treated as an objector?

Can't see how they would tie up the Waste Transfer Site with Pipe Lane. In my view Sean's is the most likely explanation.
Check the councils website here to see if "you" or someone on your behalf, sent in a letter of objection:

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /00248/FUL

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 Jan 2010, 14:04

I popped a comment into a box at the library re. the Scottish Power site and got a letter noting my objection even though what I said was favourable. Applications only usually get objections so they can be caught out by supporting statements.

PortyConvert · Post by **PortyConvert** » 02 Feb 2010, 01:41

Scaffolding has gone up around the fallen Kiln - its up to the height of the intact one... are the restoring it back to its previous height?

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 02 Feb 2010, 13:33

Believe that is the case.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Feb 2010, 14:58

There's a small aspect of the Fun Park planning process that I think is instructive, given recent comments both on knowledge of planning policies and the importance of an informed opinion. Numerous objectors, including the Community Council, cited two aspects of the proposal they though breached the NW Portobello Development Brief.

One of which related directly to the height, the Development Brief stating that;

Promenade: of a height which minimises overshadowing of the Promenade and beach; depends on layout but likely to be 3 storey frontage with 4th storey set back

Now I'm not convinced by objections based on that because the building was set back from the site boundary. By setting the building back the building could go higher without making a significant difference to the degree of overshadowing. But regardless of my opinion, that is an entirely reasonable objection to put forward and clearly relevant.

However, the other point that was repeatedly made was that the proposal was not "stepping down near Bridge St & Westbank to minimise impact on the adjoining housing" as recommended in the NWPDB.

However, if you read the NWPDB you'll see what this phrase actually refers to.

East of the High Street: stepping down near Bridge St & Westbank to minimise impact on the adjoining housing

East of the High Street.

That recommendation is about development on the High Street. In conjunction with the other recommendations it's effectively saying that buildings to the western end of the High Street can take their heights from the Kings Road tenement but, as you move east you have to start scaling it down.

It's got nothing to do with the Fun Park site, and it's pointless making objections that are simply irrelevant.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 04 Feb 2010, 14:11

Precisely- making irrelevant objections is pointless. It could also be damaging to the overall context of how an objectors representation is viewed by both officials and politicians.

If an individual or group regularly make irrelevant or inaccurate representations, reasonable people stop listening, taking little heed of what's said. Much better to stick to reasonable objections that refer to the prevailing policies.

If attending a planning related meeting at City Chambers where representations from members of the public are taken. One can observe the negative body language of the councillors when a known "objector" and planning zealot gets up to speak. It is a totally different reception to a reasonable, relevant and well considered representation from an individual or group that are passionate about their issue but don't have an axe to grind with the planners or council.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 04 Feb 2010, 14:46

Just in practical terms, if you're going to object to something then the better your understanding of the relevant polices, the more persuasive you're likely to be.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 09 Mar 2010, 17:08

There was some discussion earlier in this thread about the underground parking being vulnerable to high tides. I took these shots of the Funpark site last month.

I reckon the future residents might find themselves clearing the seaweed from their windscreens on occasion

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Mar 2010, 17:31

The ramp down to the car park is shown to the south side of the building and starts about half a metre above the level of the prom. If the sea's high enough to flood that they'll be plenty of other properties in trouble too.