Pitz/Powerleague site

[Porty]

I can't see then getting housing permission there. I heard he (the bank) was looking for £3m and that the place is not particularly well constructed, making it more difficult to convert into some other use.

Maybe the council have some sort of swap deal in mind and need the Pitz cash to facilitate the exchange? I know Bowling is very popular for a wide age range but it never made sense to me to have 2 such substantial venues so close together.

[Dakota]

We have recently requested information from the City Council, which is not of National Security Interest, although it could be damaging to the Council. We quoted FOI coming into force 1st January, guess what, no records of any information pertaining to our request? (I hasten to add here, that 3 years ago they had 3 out of the original 5 volumes of the information we are looking for available).



Aye, the shredding machines will be working overtime in the Council Offices before 1st Jan.

Aye, I think you're right there... But did the Council say when/where/why the information was destroyed? Do they have a retention/destruction policy that they can point to. Ask for it. If the information no longer insists, they should know WHY it no longer exists.

If you believe the information might still exist, you have (once the act comes into force) the right to get another council official to review the decision. If you still aren't happy after all that, you have a right of appeal to Kevin Dunion, the Information Commissioner.

Dunion has a campaigning background and he is expected to take a pretty hard view of public bodies that do not comply with FOI.

[Gemini]

Thanks for this Dakota, We will certainly be taking your advice.

[Maria]

Thanks for the pointers Dakota. Very useful input.

[Brian McCrow]

If the Powerleague site was to be all housing the extra cash would fund the re-development of the Library and Community Centre sites. In fact there should be extra money generated as currently a smaller portion of the site is proposed for housing, which would generate cash for the Community Centre/Library on the site hence logically if it was all housing even more money would be generated for development of the current Library/Comunity Centre.

I would also like a debate about the use of the Town Hall as it is largely underexploited at present.

The Bowling Centre appears to be well used in the Winter months, what happens to the space in the Summer?

When I don't understand a situation from a logic standpoint I tend to think that there are deeper political currents, which probably aren't for the benefit of the community. Otherwise they would be being publically aired.

I understand that the sale is still going ahead on the 22nd December, can we raise an injunction to prevent this happening? Does anyone have knowledge on how to stop this sale before we've had public consultation?

[Porty]

I understand that the sale is still going ahead on the 22nd December, can we raise an injunction to prevent this happening? Does anyone have knowledge on how to stop this sale before we've had public consultation

I have had a look over the lease. I only have details of the rent review in 1998 and the rent still appears to be £7500pa, which is an absolute pittance. The lease states that on review (every 5 years) rent should be set at the "Open Market Value". I cannot believe that the OMV is only £7500. I wonder if there is scope for arguing that the council have not acted in the best interests of the community in setting the rent?

The last review was in 2003. The open market value is set by "Evidence", in other words what someone else would pay, it would be difficult to get evidence on a leisure facility like Powerleague. However, if someone or some organisation wrote to the council and said we willl give you £100,000 pa for the site as a Five a Side football venue, then the council would have grounds for asking the same from Powerleague. Powerleague would either have to pay up or give up the Lease. (They do have the right to appeal.)

Did the council seek such rental evidence at the last review? For example, one of Powerleagues competitors would definetly pay substantiually more. I am sure the Five a Side business model could stand a rent of circa £75,000 - £100,000 and still make a nice profit. If the council didn't seek OMV why not?

If the site was/is worth £100,000pa in rent with 5 year reviews then it is worth millions to a third party, who would buy the lease for the income stream. (Im guessing well over £10m) Easily enough to fund a library and a community centre WITHOUT the council having to sell the land.

This sort of strategy would appear aggressive but it is how these things are done in the commercial leasing world. Indeed its good business practice.

I wonder if the proposed Sale happening in 2004, one year afer a rent review, is yet another startling coincidence?

[Bob Jefferson]

Along with other Community Council members and Maggie LeMay, I was asked to stay behind after our meeting this afternoon to discuss the Pitz proposals with Lawrence Marshall and Maureen Child. I know that Lawrence also met with Stephen and Diana from PCATS this morning to discuss the situation.

It looks as though the sale will go ahead as planned, although Maureen prefers to term it a 'marketing exercise'. Around 20 tenders, it is believed, have already been received.

The situation is by no means cut and dried. The Council is not obliged to accept any of the bids and there are still a number of scenarios under discussion.

I have asked both Maggie, from the Community Centre, and Joyce at the Library to post position statements.

[Bob Jefferson]

I have just received the following reply from Maureen Child to the PCATS circular concerning the forthcoming public meeting:

There is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation going the rounds about this.

The Powerleague site belongs to the people of Edinburgh, of which Portobello is by far the most important part.

No decision to sell this site can, or will, take place without the community of Portobello having a big say.

This site has to be seen within the context of the wider Portobello regeneration plans and that is what the Council Executive insisted upon.

The consideration of the planning application for the Superstore is a separate issue.

I am happy to attend the public meeting on Monday, explain the situation as I see it, help lay to rest the conspiracy theories and scotch some of the urban myths.

Maureen

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

Library plan 'another nail in the coffin' for Portobello

[Porty]

"Redeveloping the Powerleague site gives us an important chance to improve the character of the townscape."

Which means precisely nothing.

If the Council were getting Open Market Value rent for the PLS then it would be worth £7m + to rent.

[Bob Jefferson]

For the benefit of those of you who are not on Lawrence Marshall's distribution list, here is his latest missive on the subject:

Dear All,
I thought that it would be helpful if I provided folk with an update on where we are with trying to secure a better High Street entrance to Portobello, get a new community centre and a new library, oppose the superstore - and generally keep everybody happy!

As you know from my previous e-mails, it was always my belief that, since re-developing the community centre on its existing site was always going to be difficult financially given that it would involve demolition and rebuild without any possibility of a capital receipt, the Power League site offered probably the only means of finding an alternative site whilst also providing a financial contribution to make building a new community centre possible.

Given the immmediate proximity of the library to the community centre there had, of course, been discussion by the community centre management committee and others a few years ago regarding the possibility of linking a new community centre in Adelphi Grove with the library to form an integrated complex. This was not without difficulty logistically with differing opening hours and possibly separate entrances required but the idea was an attractive one and naturally transferred to discussion of a new integrated complex able to be custom built on the Power League site.

It's always been my view, though, that moving the library is a decision for the people of Portobello to make. The current library, though not on the High Street, nevertheless occupies a central and, unlike the community centre, clearly visible site. Against that, it is currently too small to meet the legitimate aspirations of the library service for an expanded children's area, a better community room and enhanced computer suite. It's also a building on two levels with all that implies for compliance with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. On top of that, it's a building dating from an era when quality architecture and construction were not exactly in vogue. Although problems with asbestos and more recently revealed structural defects might be able to be tackled one way or another, would that be flinging good money after bad?

Over the last week or so I've sought to try to square this circle. I've met with over 30 local folk representing the main groups involved and I've also been in discussion with the Director of City Development, our head of property development and the head of the city's library service. What I've put to them is this. Is it possible to get a new community centre in a way which would also allow us to realise a capital receipt to enable a new library to be provided on its existing site?

I believe that it is and, in principle, all these officials have given their assent to exploring this scenario - though obviously the details of this will require close examination to determine their financial viability and general acceptability.

We've always assumed, with the existing community centre relocated and the building itself in no fit state for conversion to anything, that demolition would follow - itself to be followed by the building of flats. But why not also put into this equation the current library site and thus enable a thorough re-development of the entire area for flats with the guarantee by legal contract that the developer provide a new library fronting Rosefield Avenue to the satisfaction of the library service and the local community? A library, after all, can sit perfectly well as part of a flatted development in a way which a community centre never could.

The key to all this, however, remains our ability, via sale of two-thirds of their current site, to buy out Power League from their leasing agreement with the Council which still has 84 years to run. It's the first vital step in the chain - as we've always recognised. That we can also thus create a more "High Street feel" to this entrance to Portobello is a not inconsiderable additional benefit.

I explained all of this to the community centre management commiteee when we met on Tuesday evening. They obviously wanted to be reassured that the new community centre would meet with their aspirations not only in terms of size but also in providing for them a High Street frontage for the first time. I hope that they were so reassured.

Thus, utilising Council assets across Portobello, we will hopefully have secured for the community as a whole a better gateway to the area, a new community centre, a new library and a good number of additional homes whose occupants will hopefully help contribute to the vibrancy of the town and usage of all its retail and leisure facilities.

I hope that this also helps answer the worries raised recently by PCATS that moving community facilities further west along Portobello High Street will play into the hands of Duddingston House Properties in that it will enable them to argue that their proposed superstore will no longer be so "peripheral". It will remain exactly as peripheral as it was before with respect to the crucial retail heart of Portobello. Moreover, by promoting an enhanced urban quality for the currently very poor Power League site I believe that we are reinforcing the Council's argument that the application submitted by Duddingston House Properties is unacceptable in design terms for a site so important in terms of conveying an appropriate first impression of the town. And that's before they even begin to justify their application in the face of arguments relating to traffic and retail impact.

PCATS had also asked in these last few days that we consider delaying any decision regarding the sale of the Power League site until after the local planning inquiry scheduled for March into the superstore application was over. I asked Councillor Maureen Child to accompany me when we met this morning with the Director of City Development and we both made the point that, with Christmas nearly upon the world, a delay to allow bidders more time to come to grips with the Council's aspirations for the site might be a good way forward here. Bids tend to arrive at the last moment anyway. Andrew Holmes, the Director, indicated that he would explore the possibility of setting a new date for bids of sometime in January. These would then need to be scrutinised by our officials. Meanwhile, the interconnected consideration of the redevelopment of the entire current community centre and library sites for housing and a new library could be undertaken by the Council as well as discussed more widely with the local community.

Whilst, then, consultation on these matters has unfortunately been hitherto constrained by dint of not wishing to weaken the Council's bargaining position via a vis Power League, the subsequent deal then being subject to legislation forbidding its public reporting, I've always maintained that the principles of the deal with Power League should be made public even if the financial details cannot be. I hope, therefore, that the above scenario will enable us to achieve the legitimate aspirations of the community. Indeed, along with the numerous recent e-mails and letters on all of this which I've received, a letter from a well respected local organisation also landed on my desk. It requested that their need for a storage space be taken into account when designing the new community centre. I'm happy to add that into the equation for all of this - but it did raise a wry smile on my face!

Finally, the issue was raised with me of why, given that the Council hopes to create a unified campus at Figgate Bank for Towerbank Primary School, we hadn't considered converting the Annexe in Bath Street into a new community centre. This was an option looked into by Iain Abbot and Richard Atkins a few years back when they undertook a survey of possible locations for a new community centre. They concluded at that time that it was not only a difficult building to convert for this purpose but, more fundamentally, was too small.

I hope that all this helps you to understand why we are where we are with all these complex issues at the moment.

Lawrence

[Porty]

Why are Powerleague not paying Open Market Value for their site?

[Gemini]

Quote Porty >>
Why are Powerleague not paying Open Market Value for their site?end quote>

Good question Porty, I/We hope that you come along to the public Meeting on Monday to put this to the Council reps.

[Porty]

I will try and make it along on Monday.

However, if I can't , then please feel free to ask on my behalf.

One other question you may wish to ask is: Why, less than a year into a 5 year rental review period are the council entereing into negotiations or rather doing a deal with PL?

Now, is when the Council's position is at its weakest. Why not wait untiil the next review in 2008? More poignantly why not do it last year?

[wangi]

PUBLIC MEETING

Monday 20th December 2004

St Mark’s Church
Abercorn Terrace, Portobello High St
(opp Red Giant)
At 7.30pm

Stop Portobello Land Grab

The Council wants to clear away the Library and Community Centre and relocate them at the Pitz site in another deal with developers. Who knows what they will have in mind for the vacated sites?

Offers by 22nd December - Why the Rush?

These shady moves will jeopardise PCATS case against the Superstore developers and put vital amenities away from the centre of Portobello. We have always suspected that the Council and developers have ongoing agendas where our interests come a distant third. The people of Portobello should decide how their land is used and where the amenities are sited.

Let’s hear how you feel about these important issues. Tell your neighbours. Come to the meeting and speak your mind. Don’t let the Council get away with flogging off our assets.

PCATS is calling this meeting but we shall be asking why this has not already been done by our local councillors.

Hope you will join us.

Bump...

And I see the Council has just delayed plans to sell off the former Leith Theatre: http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1451112004

[dccairns]

Thanks, Wangi. You saved me a job there. Maybe see you tonight for a spladoosh. And yes, the Leith Theatre piece did ring a few bells...rush to sell off, no public consultation, etc.

[Porty]

Quite a heated meeting and I feel MC got quite a bit of undeserved stick. There was much talk of a "bigger picture" but one issue that was not raised was the Council's own bigger picture.

Maureen quite rightly said that the Council need to raise £20M per annum from the sale of capital assets such as the PL site. Which means that the sale of the PL site is already either in this years budget or next years budget. With 58 councillors who need to make ends meet and only 2 Portobello councillors I believe we face an uphill struggle. Regardless of what I believe is an absolute conviction from Maureen (and somewhat less from Lawrence) that she does not want this to happen.

Im afraid that Lawrence's numbers do not stack up. In fact I got the distinct impression he hasn't even done any numbers. The council will only get 50% of the sale proceeds which are at best anticipated to be £7m. So they shall be left with £3.5m. Lawrence seems to think we might see a large chunk of this money to build a Community Centre and a new Library. He also quoted a figure of £2m for a new community centre. I would say forget all of the other issues, even although they are important and just look at the numbers. It doesn't stack up and is short-termism in the extreme.

[Epykat]

As far as I could see neither of them were all that 'committed' to anything apart from making money at our expense! Lawrence only talks flats, flats and more flats as far as the eye can see right along to the Cat and Dog Home and beyond. In his own words he wants 'a built up High Street at the West End' as an entrance to Portobello. It appears that Powerleague have the Council by the short and curlies and are calling all the shots. Who's to say that once Powerleague are safely ensconced in the Golf Course site (doesn't bear thinking about that we're going to lose that lovely open space too) they won't decide in another five years that they want to hold the Council to ransom again and the whole scenario begins over with the selling off of the Golf Course for housing? I came away from that meeting feeling very pessimistic for the future of Portobello. The girl from Friends of the Earth was fantastic however albeit she was the bearer of bad tidings - at least she was talking realistically and not giving us a lot of flannel. I have a very bad feeling about all of this.........

[foxy]

The council will only get 50% of the sale proceeds which are at best anticipated to be £7m. So they shall be left with £3.5m. Lawrence seems to think we might see a large chunk of this money to build a Community Centre and a new Library. He also quoted a figure of £2m for a new community centre. I would say forget all of the other issues, even although they are important and just look at the numbers. It doesn't stack up and is short-termism in the extreme.

Is the council under any obligation to actually plough any of this money back into Portobello Developments?

Does it not just go in the general coffers?

[Porty]

As far as I could see neither of them were all that 'committed' to anything apart from making money at our expense!

EK, I strongly disagree with both of those statements. The fact is that a poor financial decision was taken 20 years ago, that's when we lost the money. Secondly, I don't doubt Maureen and in terms of realism Siobhan from FOTE was not at the races by comparison.

[Porty]

Is the council under any obligation to actually plough any of this money back into Portobello Developments? Does it not just go in the general coffers?

No and Yes.

[Brian McCrow]

Sorry I couldn't make it to the meeting due to prior committments down South.

I had heard that the decision might be put off until January 2005. Was this discussed at the meeting?

In my view if the Council is prepared to move the decision date by one month then they can move to even later as there's no pressing need for a quick decision as far as I can see.

Let's have a proper consultation with full costing not back of fag package stuff.

Did an action plan emerge from the meeting?

[Porty]

Brian, I think the date mentioned was Jan 8th. However, this is not a sale its a marketing exercise, there is a considerable difference.

The council have not yet decided to sell and according to Maureen will not do until ther has been a consultation. She also expressed her opinion that she did not want it to happen.

There was no action plan agreed.

In my opinion the Council are testing the market to see what the site is worth, without committing themselves. Powerleague stand to get 50% of the value of the site as a Golden handshake, so I guess before they shake anyone's hand they want to know how much for?

I cannot see anyway that this deal will make commercial sense for the Council with perhaps one exception; they are so strapped that they simply must sell £20m (Maureens figure) of capital assets to balance the budget.

We should just let Anchor International sit there until such time as it becomes unviale for them or the lease expires, whichever is the sooner? (They are a very profitable company and cash rich)

IMHO someone has sold Lawrence a fairytale that sees Portobello getting enough money for new amenities out of this transaction. I would love to see Lawrence, or anyone else for that matter, quantifying these claims.

[Bob Jefferson]

I was also at last night's meeting, sitting just behind Epykat in fact. I wonder sometimes about the value of this type of meeting. Had it been an online discussion I would have been tempted to make much use of the edit, move and delete functions.

However, beyond the incoherent rage, personal vendetta and ill-informed nonsense I think we did make some progress. The sale/marketing exercise has at least been delayed and there seemed to be general agreement that it should be further postponed until the outcome of the Superstore Public Inquiry.

Maureen is now on holiday so I would suggest emailing Lawrence with any further queries regarding the issue, posting his reply for our information.

It is also clear that there are still problems to be resolved between PCATS and the Council. Maureen has offered to facilitate meetings and complains that she is being left out of the loop.

I was once again disappointed at the manner in which a small and unrepresentative number of PCATS supporters contrive to bring the campaign into disrepute in their treatment of Maureen Child. Free speech or not, any group requires discipline.

I was impressed by the woman from FOTE. She is a tough cookie and knows her stuff. I'm glad she is on our side. I'm also very pleased that the user-friendly Stephen Hawkins has recently taken over as Chair of PCATS, as someone who can pull together the disparate elements of the campaign and get people working together effectively to a common cause.

These are complex issues. I think we all need time to take it all in, to consider the various options and to seek further clarification on the many unanswered questions - some of which are only beginning to occur to us.

[Lawrence Marshall]

Dear All,
regarding the rent charged for the Power League site I asked David Rogers, the Council's property development manager, to respond. I only got this yesterday afternoon (20 December) but referred to it at last night's meeting at St. Mark's church.
My initial reaction when this rental level was pointed out to me was that the rent was very low indeed - but I guess that just goes to show how much financial gain the Council has been willing to forfeit over the past 15 years in order to retain this site in recreational use, albeit one which our planners and many in Portobello and the city think gives an unfavourable first impression of Portobello.

Lawrence

* * * * *

Dear Councillor Marshall
Thanks for forwarding on the copy email from your constituent. Our subsequent telephone conversation refers.

As indicated then the correspondent appears to have confused ground rent with occupational rent. What Powerleague have is the expended balance (84 years) of a 99 year institutional ground lease. In other words all the equipment and buildings were put there at Powerleague's expense. All they pay rent on is the actual ground. The ground rent payable is by its nature a small proportion of the occupational rents.

The open market rent at rent review is decided by reference to market evidence. There is little evidence available for five-a-side facilties. In Britain the overwhelming proportion of these are taken by two parties, Powerleague and their arch rival company Goals. The operations run by other companies are on a much smaller scale by comparison. In Edinburgh both major facilities (Portobello and Sighthill) are run by Powerleague on ground leases from the Council. The two such facilites are Marcos at Chesser which is owned outright and the smaller operation run by Edinburgh Leisure as part of the Gracemount Leisure Centre.

In its time the Pitz was the first five-a-side facility of its type in Scotland and those involved were actively trying to encourage the company to invest in the area. The ground rent payable was always going to be seen as low and there is little market evidence available with which to try and justify any significant increase.

So long as Powerleague continue to observe the terms of the lease they have the right to occupy the site for the next 84 years. Any question of the site becoming available for regeneration therefore depends on the Council and Powerleague being able to strike a bargain which involves combining the interests of landlord and tenant to give early termination of the lease. Negotations with Powerleague hae been running for some two years and a decision has to be made within that company as to whether to reinvest or relocate. Throughout these dealings both the Council and Powerleague have been thoroughly commercial in their approach.

Taking your contituents illustration, what a third party would pay to receive an income of £100K per annum will depend on the perceived security of that investment and the capitalisation rate chosen. The figure is likely to be in the order of £1 million or perhaps slightly more, certainly not tens of millions as suggested by your contituent. There would be no benefit to the Council in selling on the investment as this would only lose control of the site altogether.

In summary what has been agreed with Powerleague is that they combine their tenants interest with the Council's landlord interest to market two thirds of the site, the remaining one third reverting back to the outright control of the Council. Assuming the transaction proceeds the Council will then be in control of the eastern third of the presently held by Powerleague which when added to ground already in Council control creates a significant site towards regeneration of Portobello Town Centre. Any proposals for this land will be the subject of full discussion and consultation with the local community.

I trust this is helpful for your meeting this evening.
David

----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Marshall
To: David Rogers
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:41 PM
Subject: Fw: Portobello citizen's response to Powerleague site sale?



David,
is the rent really such a small amount? And why? Was that reflected in our dealings with Power League - or did it work against getting them to agree to move?!

Lawrence


----- Original Message -----
From: aw011a7840
To: Lawrence Marshall
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:17 PM
Subject: Portobello citizen's response to Powerleague site sale?


In light of the attached, it would be prudent if the Council could answer these questions posed by a citizen of Portobello/Edinburgh, or can this be answered at the Public Meeting on Monday?


I have had a look over the lease. I only have details of the rent review in 1998 and the rent still appears to be £7500pa, which is an absolute pittance. The lease states that on review (every 5 years) rent should be set at the "Open Market Value". I cannot believe that the OMV is only £7500. I wonder if there is scope for arguing that the council have not acted in the best interests of the community in setting the rent?

The last review was in 2003. The open market value is set by "Evidence", in other words what someone else would pay, it would be difficult to get evidence on a leisure facility like Powerleague. However, if someone or some organisation wrote to the council and said we willl give you £100,000 pa for the site as a Five a Side football venue, then the council would have grounds for asking the same from Powerleague. Powerleague would either have to pay up or give up the Lease. (They do have the right to appeal.)

Did the council seek such rental evidence at the last review? For example, one of Powerleagues competitors would definetly pay substantiually more. I am sure the Five a Side business model could stand a rent of circa £75,000 - £100,000 and still make a nice profit. If the council didn't seek OMV why not?

If the site was/is worth £100,000pa in rent with 5 year reviews then it is worth millions to a third party, who would buy the lease for the income stream. (Im guessing well over £10m) Easily enough to fund a library and a community centre WITHOUT the council having to sell the land.

This sort of strategy would appear aggressive but it is how these things are done in the commercial leasing world. Indeed its good business practice.

A Ward

[Porty]

Bob, I cannot let this pass, you say:

Unlike Porty, I was impressed by the woman from FOTE. She is a tough cookie and knows her stuff. I'm glad she is on our side.

I said:

Secondly, I don't doubt Maureen and in terms of realism Siobhan from FOTE was not at the races by comparison.

I did not say I was unimpressed. In actual fact I was impressed by her passion and knowledge of public inquiries.

In what ways did you think Siobhan was more realistic than Maureen?

[Lawrence Marshall]

Dear All,
one further e-mail from David Rogers.
This relates to the request from Stephen Hawkins and Diana Cairns when I met with them last Tuesday morning (14 December) that the Council consider postponing the date by which bids for the Power League site had to be received.
I undertook to try my best on this front and thus met with Andrew Holmes, the Director of City Development (David Rogers' ultimate departmental boss), early on Thursday morning (16 December). I asked Maureen Child to come along to help strengthen the sense of urgency about this.
Andrew Holmes agreed to a postponement over the Christmas and New Year period and undertook to get back to me.
Please find pasted in below another e-mail from David Rogers giving a new date for the receipt of bids of 8th January (my guess is this should actually read the 7th as the 8th is a Saturday. It doesn't much matter).
I've subsequently been able to speak directly with David this afternoon and it's his belief that, by the time all these bids are analysed, any subsequent decision about which bid, if any, to accept is unlikely to be able to be reported to the Council for final decision before the end of the public local inquiry into the superstore planning application.
I still believe that a housing development on part of the Power League site strengthens the Council's and the community's case for a mixed use development (predominantly housing, no doubt) across the road on the Scottish Power site.
Nevertheless, I hope that these efforts by myself and Maureen Child to avoid any decision on the Power League site being arrived at prior to or during the local public inquiry will be welcome.

Lawrence

* * * * *

Dear Councillor Marshall

Further to your meeting with Andrew on Thursday concerning the above, I have arranged for the opening of offers to be put back until Friday 8 January 2005. This means that nothing further will be done on the proposed transaction until after that date which I hope is helpful in removing a possible area of contention over the Festive period.

yours sincerely

David Rogers
(dictated by David Rogers and sent on his behalf)
Audrey Dutton
Secretary to
David Rogers, Property Development Manager

[Bob Jefferson]

I was copied the following correspondence today:

Siobhan

You mentioned at the meeting last night held to discuss the Power League site on Portobello High Street that you felt that Council officials had been both tardy and less than fully co-operative with respect to your preparing the community's case against the superstore proposed for the former Scottish Power site across the road.

I do hope that, although leading evidence as separate witnesses, the Council will afford you the courtesy of discussions which will help us all better to marshal and co-ordinate our arguments at the PLI.

I'm therefore copying this e-mail to Alan Henderson, Trevor Davies and Alan Squair asking that they contact you directly so that you can put to them the many concerns which you raised last night.

Please don't hesitate to get back in touch with me if necessary - as Maureen said last night, that's what we're here for (but we need to know about such concerns to be able to do something about them).

Lawrence

[Lawrence Marshall]

... one further posting.
The lady who at last night's meeting expressed her abhorrence of having community facilities sited on the Power League site because she felt that this seemed so far away and so unlike the rest of the High Street (too wide, no shops or houses, etc.) actually in part made my point for me. The entrance to Portobello is sub-standard, detached in perception from the rest of the High Street into which it leads. We need to do something about that.
The two sites critical to integrating Portobello's gateway into the rest of the area are the former Scottish Power site and the current Power League site. The Council's urban design principles for both these sites are, perhaps not surprisingly, very similar in their belief that appropriately designed housing would offer much benefit over what these sites currently contribute. That housing is needed in Portobello - the Council waiting list of those indicating a wish to live in the area runs into the thousands - only serves to highlight the further benefits which housing would bring. And more folk living locally equals a strengthened community.
As for the current car showrooms, warehouses, garages, etc. stretching from King's Road to the Cat and Dog Home, I haven't yet found anybody who thinks these an appropriate way for Edinburgh to utilise its spectacular waterfront in this location. It will no doubt take much time to change the character of such a large area but a marker needs to be laid down. I'm sure that public open space and an improved Promenade experience will feature heavily in any future discussions - perhaps even some leisure facilities (though I doubt that we can resurrect Marine Gardens!). But it would be crazy to think that housing wouldn't form a large part of that equation. It did for the Victorians who built Portobello and Joppa and future generations have every right to receive the same consideration as did our forebears.
So, those of you who currently live well in Portobello, please consider housing an appropriate means by which we can repair the damaged parts of the area and hopefully bring public benefit along with it.

Lawrence

[Brian McCrow]

Lawrence

Delaying the decision on opening the bids to the 7/8th Jan makes no difference as the original premise on which the bids are based has not been subjected to public consultation.

What we are pressing for is public consultation. I also note from an earlier statement by a Council worker that the Community will be consulted on the one third of the site, which will be turned over to Community use.

We want consultation on all of the site.

We also do not want any bids to be opened until after the Public Enquiry takes place.

I would like to see real commercial figures rather than being offered poor insights into some numbers. I still don't understand the comment on the commercial nature of the rent especially as no comparative figures were stated.

This dim and dingy release of information makes me very annoyed as I want to be treated as a grown up citizen who can handle very serious commercial data.

Perhaps we should start having demonstrations at the Council Chambers until they start acting in a truely democratic manner. Our elected members should be representing us not hiding information.

[Gemini]

However, beyond the incoherent rage, personal vendetta and ill-informed nonsense I think we did make some progress

Perhaps we should put the subject raised by Mr. Jefferson to bed once and for all.

Firstly, Bob, you were not at the Council meeting attended by PCATS, (I take it this is what you are referring to?) therefore, on whose information do you base your statement? perhaps you were a fly on the wall.. we have been led to believe that you have been briefed on what happend at this meeting by both sides, although we are all supposed to be on the same side! but for whatever reason, you choose to listen to only one side of the story, which is of course your choice, but please do not infer that we are ill informed and are waging personal vendettas against anyone, the right to expression is still a fundemental freedom, as far as I am aware.

I am not embarrased to say that I was more than a bit angry with the Local Representation at last night's meeting, this probably stems from years of listening to the same old twaddle.

Maureen Child set out 'her' vision for Portobello, and it all sounds very nice and tidy, but the realities are another matter entirely.

[Porty]

Lawrence, I would like to consider your posts a bit more prior to responding and I'm sure I will have more questions for you. Meanwhile, I would like to respond to this:

on behalf of David RogersTaking your contituents illustration, what a third party would pay to receive an income of £100K per annum will depend on the perceived security of that investment and the capitalisation rate chosen. The figure is likely to be in the order of £1 million or perhaps slightly more, certainly not tens of millions as suggested by your contituent. There would be no benefit to the Council in selling on the investment as this would only lose control of the site altogether.

I must apologise for getting one too many zero's in my calculation. David is correct in saying that the value would be closer to £1M than £10M. Having said this the Revenue that will likely revert to the Council from a sale of the land will be a lot closer to £1m than £10m and even less to the Portobello Community.

It is a bit ironic that David states that a downside of selling the investment will result in losing control of the site altogether. This is the way things currently stand.

[Porty]

However, beyond the incoherent rage, personal vendetta and ill-informed nonsense I think we did make some progress

Perhaps we should put the subject raised by Mr. Jefferson to bed once and for all.Firstly, Bob, you were not at the Council meeting attended by PCATS, (I take it this is what you are referring to?)

I think Bob could have chosen slightly different words but I assume he is referring to Monday nights meeting. I don't know who it was that accused Maureen Child of selling "us" down the river but I thought it disgraceful in any forum. I also thought it woefully inaccurate. I cannot see how such behaviour helps the PCAT's cause. The meeting started with someone bellowing at the Councillors, it is not on.

Siobhan made her views on the lack of co-operation known and look what happens? Straight away Lawrence writes to the parties concerned.

You go on to say:

I am not embarrased to say that I was more than a bit angry with the Local Representation at last night's meeting, this probably stems from years of listening to the same old twaddle.

Is it twaddle or is it cold hard facts that don't change easily?

[Porty]

In any case let's cut out the bickering and work together.

[Porty]

I just realised, Im talking to myself.