Edinburgh Draft Open Space Audit

Post by **wangi** » 30 Jun 2009, 21:38

Guys, lets try and keep the Open Space Audit and PHS to their respective threads.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 30 Jun 2009, 21:48

Bob Jefferson wrote:..I find it rather sad that certain people are talking it down, dismissing it as 'little more than a pavement', solely in order to promote their own twisted agenda.

Don't worry Bob - The very same Usual Suspects of the PCC inner sanctum describe the Prom as a wonderful boulevard bathed in sunlight if they are opposing any developments on the Prom like the fun fair, Miami flats, Bath Street Lane villas, cycling etc

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 01 Jul 2009, 09:23

Well we now know for sure that PPAG and the PCC inner sanctum are actively campaigning to the get the Prom excluded from the Open Space Audit, so the rest of us need to get off our backsides and submit our views to Wangi's link:

edinburgh.gov.uk/openspacestrategy

As already discussed this is mainly driven by the desire to not build PHS on PP but at any level it is absolutely crazy.

Come on - it is nearly the summer holiday's and things slip under the radar.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 01 Jul 2009, 09:38

Here are some suggestions from the chair of PFANS that you may want to consider including in your response to the OPen Space Audit.

PPAG and a sizeable proportion of the Community Council are campaigning to have Portobello Promenade removed from the Council's Draft Open Space Audit currently out for consulation. Their arguments are utterly without merit. The intention is to reduce the amount of accessible space recorded in order to make the planning process for PHS as difficult as possible.

If you could find the time opinions to the contrary would be most helpful. The Consulation documents are linked from the main Council web page and comments can be sent to the following address or through the form on Wangi's link above:

openspacestrategy@edinburgh.gov.uk

They're only suggestions but variations on the following might be considered;

• I have recently become aware of a local campaign to have Portobello Promenade excluded from the Open Space Audit. This is ridiculous. The Promenade and the beach are main focus of activity in the Community and cannot be simply ignored.

• I’m astonished that Portobello Beach has not been included in the Draft Open Space Audit. The beach is an incredibly valuable asset to the local community and must be included.

• Planning Advice Note 65 advises that “all spaces, regardless of ownership and accessibility (i.e. public and private spaces) contribute to the amenity and character of an area and can be taken into account.” The two most significant spaces contributing to the amenity and character of Portobello are the beach and the promenade. Both should be included in the Open Space Audit.

• PAN 65 advises that the term ‘open space’ includes geological features. Surely an open space asset as important as Portobello beach should be included as such.

• The area of Bingham Park identified in the Draft Open Space Audit is too small. The closure of Lismore Primary school means the adjacent playing fields should now be included in the total for the park.

• The City of Edinburgh Parks & Gardens Strategy denotes the whole of Portobello Park, golf course and playing fields, as a City Park. Therefore all of the area, golf course and playing fields, should be recorded as accessible Open Space in the audit.

• The recently established status of Portobello Golf Course as Common Good land confirms the public right of access. As such the golf course should be recorded as accessible in a similar manner to Braidburn Hills.

Get submitting NOW!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 01 Jul 2009, 16:46

Anyone wanting Portobello Beach included within the Audit might wish to point out the following when writing to the Council;

Beaches aren't explicitly included within the suggested PAN65 typology, but reading the guidelines there would seem to be considerable leeway as to classifications. For example;

PAN 65/11 "A typology of spaces can be useful in preparing open space strategies and in setting development plan policies. Local authorities should make use of the typology in Table 1 as a starting point for auditing open space but may also consider whether some categories require further classification."

The typologies contained with PAN 65 are said to be a starting point, allowing Local Authorities flexibility and discretion regarding further classification. Given the importance of Portobello Beach, both in terms of amenity and in defining the character of the area, there is a compelling argument for it to be included within the Open Space Audit.

PAN 65/12 "Open space may serve a range of functions and some areas, particularly informal spaces, may not fit neatly into the typology. An appreciation of the hierarchy of open spaces can help councils to understand the different functions they perform and distinguish between spaces of strategic, local and neighbourhood importance. This should be tailored to fit local circumstances, and is usually most applicable to parks, greenspaces and woodland areas."

Since PAN 65 suggests typologies should be “tailored to fit local circumstances”, it would seem reasonable to tailor the classification of Natural Greenspace to include Portobello Beach, given its considerable importance to the area.

PAN 65/13 "All spaces, regardless of ownership and accessibility (i.e. public and private spaces) contribute to the amenity and character of an area and can be taken into account by councils when undertaking their open space audits and strategies."

Since all spaces contributing to the amenity and character of an area can be taken into account, it would seem odd to exclude the single most obvious defining feature of Portobello; the beach. On the contrary, omitting the beach would be to mischaracterize the amenity and character of the area. And since the PAN 65 definition of Natural Greenspace is wide enough to include 'Open Water' (Annex 1) it would seem that the beach could also be reasonably included.

Finally Greenspace Scotland’s ‘Guide to the assessment planning and strategic development of greenspace’ says the following;

"In recent years,a number of new terms have been used to describe particular types of open space and the term greenspace has become widely adopted. Greenspace refers to those open spaces comprising green or vegetated spaces, including water and beaches (emphasis added) but excluding streetscapes and urban civic spaces.”

Since Greenspace Scotland consider beaches to fall within the definition of 'greenspace' it would again seem reasonable to include Portobello Beach within this category.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 01 Jul 2009, 18:43

It might also be worth pointing out that other Local Authorites have included beaches within their Open Space Strategy.

Dundee city has a wide diversity of public open spaces covering 1393 Ha, which accounts for 28% of the urban area (figures to be revised on basis of GIS 2007 Greenspace Audit). This includes; woodlands, beaches, parks, allotment gardens, wildlife sites, burns and ponds.

If other Local Authorities have already included beaches then it's difficult to see a difficulty in Edinburgh doing so.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Jul 2009, 21:36

Based on your research and custom and practice from other LA it is difficult to grasp why the beach has not been included? Perhaps the council are wary of being accused of over egging the OS by its inclusion.

Think I will suggest they produce a percentage with and without the beach.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 01 Jul 2009, 23:33

I don't think there is an established 'custom and practice' when it comes to Open Space Audits & Strategy.

The requirement for Local Autohrities to conduct them was established a few years ago but it's taken time to translate into action. PAN 65 gives the basic starting point but there is obviously flexibility designed in to account for local circumstances.

That seems reasonable. East Lothian has a considerable coastline, so a particular beach there may not have the same value as Open Space as one in an urban context such as Edinburgh.

I actually think think the Draft Audit is fairly reasonable overall. But the exclusion of Portobello Beach would seriously misrepresent the character and amenity of the area.

Who could honestly argue that the Beach and Promenade aren't central to the life and character of Portobello?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Jul 2009, 00:11

Diana cairns has argued against it and John Stewarts rather perverse and poorly informed views on planning makes him another contender- as for honest argument? that's an altogether different matter.

I'm guessing the former was "little more than a pavement" and the latter was arguing the prom was not a local asset- am I warm?

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 02 Jul 2009, 00:18

PAN 65 gives a clear definition of open space for the purposes of the guidance and the use of the term in open space audits. It also provides a list of types of open space. This is the starting point. All the conjecture in the posts above is of little value and at times misleading unless the actual purpose of any open space audit and the remit of PAN65 is clearly understood.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Jul 2009, 01:02

Agreed- but I don't see much difference to what seanie is saying do you?

Surely a draft audit is bound to foster conjecture, particularly the first time its been conducted? I see reasonableness being a good yard stick and it is simply unreasonable to consider the prom and beach as anything other than significant, accessible open space.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Jul 2009, 08:10

I'll quote it again;

PAN 65/13 "All spaces, regardless of ownership and accessibility (i.e. public and private spaces) contribute to the amenity and character of an area and can be taken into account by councils when undertaking their open space audits and strategies."

I think you'd be hard pressed to argue the beach doesn't make a huge contibution to the amenity and character of Portobello.

And since PAN 65 describes the typologies as a 'starting point', capable of further classification and being 'tailored to fit local circumstances', it would seem reasonable to extend the definition of Natural Greenspace to include the beach.

In fact not doing so would be unreasonable. To exclude the beach entirely would misrepresent the amenity and character of Portobello in the Open Space Audit.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Jul 2009, 16:06

It seems that the "community orchard" that PEDAL are leasing from the council has been omitted from the OSA.

Not sure how big it is (may have changed since Dingo the Donkey moved out) but there's lots of people that live within 400M.

I'm fairly sure the council will include this community asset/bit of land as part of their compensatory usage provision for PHS on the park.- they would be mad not too, after all it is less than 10 minutes walk.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Jul 2009, 20:33

Here is the traffic news:

Reports are coming in of severe congestion on the Portobello Promenade transport corridor. Apparently, some Towerbank P7 parents have had the audacity to use the 'mere pavement' as a venue to celebrate their children's last day at Primary School, treating the place as though it were an accessible open space.

The congestion was made worse by several police cars and the coastguard who thought they could smell burning sausages and felt obliged to investigate.

Further along the transport corridor, many people were spotted consuming alcohol, including myself.

Meanwhile, hundreds of people were having fun on the beach and many were surprised to learn that this was not in fact an accessible open space as it appeared to be open and erm, accessible.

More news to follow....

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Mar 2010, 18:44

COUNCIL ASKS FOR YOUR VIEWS ON EDINBURGH'S OPEN SPACES

For the first time in over 40 years, the City of Edinburgh Council is making a comprehensive plan for open space in the city. And they want your views. The preparation of an open space strategy is a recent requirement of national planning policy. The policy requires the creation of an audit, a strategy and action plans. The strategy will ensure that a coordinated approach is taken to protecting and developing the city’s network of open space. It is accompanied by 12 action plans, one for each Neighbourhood Partnership area, setting out site-specific proposals for change in open spaces.

A draft open space strategy had been drawn up and is open to public consultation from today, Friday 26 March until Friday 21 May. It is the first strategy of its kind for Edinburgh, and will be updated every five years.

The strategy will be used to inform planning decisions on loss and provision of open space in new developments, and future management and investment decisions regarding existing open spaces.

Cllr Robert Aldridge, Environment Leader, said:

“Edinburgh is fortunate to have many wonderful parks and green spaces, and in fact approximately 50 per cent of the city is open space. Residents and visitors value and enjoy these open spaces and we want to protect them and enhance them for future generations. I strongly encourage residents to give us their views during the consultation period.”

A programme of public workshops has been planned to provide information and gain views.Alongside the consultation, the Council is running 12 public workshops for people to attend and find out more information.

For Portobello the workshop will take place at Portobello Library from 6:30-8pm on Wednesday 12 May. Additionally, a staffed information stall will be provided at Ecofusion, Holyrood Park on Sunday 11 April and Edinburgh Farmers Market on Saturday 17 April.

The draft strategy and accompanying action plans can be viewed at: www.edinburgh.gov.uk/openspacestrategy

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 May 2010, 13:00

Portobello Park Action Group are applying their usual approach to consultations that don't appear to be going their way. You will recall that just a cursory look from PPAG, (as opposed to actually measuring) was enough for them to establish the former Lismore site was indeed large enough to accomodate the new PHS. In realty the site was something like a 1/3rd of the size of the existing site, which in itself was deemed to be too small.

The PPAG strategy on Open Space is similar. They choose to lie to their supporters by claimning the draft report staes thet we "have a huge amount of open space" - I doubt any rational person would believe this to be true.

As proof they encorage their supporters, not to study the report and evaluate the measured approach of the consultation but merely to look at the map. They obvioulsy feel that their supporters are better at grasping coloured pictures rather than factuak informed debate and due process. I "wonder" why that is?

PPAG wrote:
OPEN SPACE STRATEGY MEETING - 12 MAY AT 6.30 PM IN PORTOBELLO LIBRARY

You will remember last year that the council carried out consultation on its proposed strategy for managing and setting standards for open space provision in the city. This has now become a Draft Open Space Strategy (www.edinburgh.gov.uk/openspacestrategy).

Interestingly, one of the parks identified in the Action Plan for improvement is Portobello Park, which, it is claimed, will be improved by being built on!

By considering Portobello and Craigmillar as a whole, the strategy claims we have a huge amount of open space. However, looking at the map of Portobello shows this not to be correct. Nor do the figures take into account how the loss of Portobello Park would affect the amount of open space available to local residents.

The strategy will be used to make decisions about developments on open space, so please come along to the above meeting to make your views heard.

Has the draft strategy counted the beach in the tally of open space?

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 11 May 2010, 14:21

Perhaps they will enlighten us on the PPAG open space strategy on a certain featureless area of open space in the Figgate Park. Lets face it, if the school were to be built on Figgate Park, a 27 storey school on Bingham Park, the Jewel, a piece of green space next to the bypass we would not hear a peep from any of these people. It is and always has been a NIMBY outfit.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 May 2010, 15:00

Daft strategy is about the extent of the PPAG hand.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Jul 2010, 14:12

seanie wrote:More fun at the Community Council.

A number of Community Councillors take the view that the promenade isn't an important civic space and so should be removed from the open space audit.

I believe the phrase "little more than a pavement" was used by someone at one point.

Do you think that accurately reflects the views of the Portobello Community?

Herald review of Beach House wrote:

This was the first time I have ever fully understood the recreational potential of Porty – beachwise, that is. It looked uncannily like the grand beaches of Normandy, reminiscent of elegant resorts like Houlgate, Cabourg, Trouville and Deauville. The promenade was buzzy and thronged. Lots of immaculately coiffed elderly ladies out for a stroll, cyclists, toddlers on trikes, a parade of tattoos, yapping little dogs on leads, barefoot kids threading their way in and out, trying hard not to drop their cones – you had all the elements of an urban passeggiata, an ever-changing procession of human life. Without this level of activity, a promenade feels dead and sad. Not Portobello, it’s very much alive.