Superstore - New Petrol Station - Parking - New Access

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 14 Jun 2006, 12:58

Poppy wrote:
Izzie wrote:I heard something along those lines as well

Does anyone know what is going on
A colleague of ours has had a letter from BL offering to buy their house ..........so not ALL tripe, then.

Are they in Gemini's row of cottages? If so - why do they have an offer and Gemini doesn't?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 14 Jun 2006, 13:52

Dadaist wrote:
Poppy wrote:
Izzie wrote:I heard something along those lines as well

Does anyone know what is going on
A colleague of ours has had a letter from BL offering to buy their house ..........so not ALL tripe, then.
Are they in Gemini's row of cottages? If so - why do they have an offer and Gemini doesn't?

I heard and I stress it's a rumour, albeit from a source that I trust, that the residents of the cottages (approx 22) have been offered more than market value. And that it is all or nothing, in other words everyone agrees or the deal is off. The deadline for this deal may have passed, hence Gemini's tripe announcement.

There is another part of the rumour that suggests that some of the properties are un-mortgageable due to acute subsidence. I am surprised by this as lenders are much more lenient than they used to be in such matters. If the properties are un-mortgageable then this will naturally downwardly affect the market value. If BL are ignoring that issue then it sounds like a really good opportunity for some. The cottages are located in the area that is to be subject to imminent west of Portobello public consultation. Perhaps this is someting that the proposed PCATS consultant could look into and advise on?

(edit deadline bit)

This post was moderated

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 15 Jun 2006, 09:26

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
ali wrote:
ali wrote:Did (or do ) PCATS have a written down constitution?
How is their committee elected? How many people are on the committee? How often do they meet? Are there minutes of their meetings?
The silence is deafening.
It is deafening.

Still deafening.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Jun 2006, 13:40

I spoke to Phil Myerscough from BL Developments this morning in an effort to sort out the â€˜tripeâ€™ from the truth in this matter. He was happy to set the record straight. The initial approach came, as previously stated, from the owners of Baileyfield Cottages. Phil insists that the development of the Scottish Power site was never predicated on getting Baileyfield residents out of their homes. Nevertheless, following meetings with the residents, an informal written offer was made by BL, subject to contract. A condition of the offer was that it had to be accepted by all of the residents concerned. Not everyone wanted to sell up and, as a result, the deal was off.

BL is now negotiating with those residents who remain willing to sell. A new offer is on the table, the details of which BL have asked me not to divulge. However, I think it is fair to say that they are being offered sums in excess of the market value of their homes and this â€˜premiumâ€™ will be the same for each owner in percentage terms. BL say that no deadline has been imposed and that the owners are under no pressure to sell unless that is what they want.

Izzie · Post by **Izzie** » 22 Jun 2006, 13:50

So not all TRIPE then

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Jun 2006, 15:01

Bob Jefferson wrote:I spoke to Phil Myerscough from BL Developments this morning in an effort to sort out the â€˜tripeâ€™ from the truth in this matter. He was happy to set the record straight. The initial approach came, as previously stated, from the owners of Baileyfield Cottages. Phil insists that the development of the Scottish Power site was never predicated on getting Baileyfield residents out of their homes. Nevertheless, following meetings with the residents, an informal written offer was made by BL, subject to contract. A condition of the offer was that it had to be accepted by all of the residents concerned. Not everyone wanted to sell up and, as a result, the deal was off.

BL is now negotiating with those residents who remain willing to sell. A new offer is on the table, the details of which BL have asked me not to divulge. However, I think it is fair to say that they are being offered sums in excess of the market value of their homes and this â€˜premiumâ€™ will be the same for each owner in percentage terms. BL say that no deadline has been imposed and that the owners are under no pressure to sell unless that is what they want.

But...............

Gemini wrote:As far as BL and BR, there is NO situation - repeat No situation, nothing zilch zero end of story...

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Jun 2006, 22:15

Anyone wishing further clarification on this matter, or with an interest in the Scottish Power site development in general, may be interested to know that BL Developments will be making a presentation to Portobello Community Council on Monday night. A presentation on the Waterfront project is also on the agenda, so it should be a very interesting meeting.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Jun 2006, 11:00

Stephen Hawkins wrote:Stephen, thanks for your suggestion and once we have got a development on the site that reflects the community's wishes then we'll consult on what to do with any excess monies. At present, the PCATS committee, and the vast majority of respondents to this consultation, believe that paying for professional input at some point in the masterplanning exercise is good use of this fund.

Stephen, like me you attended the Portobello Community Council meeting last night where Lawrence Marshall stated quite clearly that Duddingston House Properties have no interest in the former Scottish Power site or in the general area that includes Bailyfield Industrial Estate.

Furthermore, Phil Myerscough of BL Developments categorically stated that his company have no relationship or dealngs with DHP. That seems very clear to me.

As part of a justification for PCATS desire to retain and spend community money, you urge us to do the following:

Stephen Hawkins wrote:Remember, Duddingston House Properties (and their supermarket paymasters) still claim to have an 'interest' in how the west end of Portobello is developed.

The trouble is I can't remember DHP making any such claim. I can't remember any "supermarket paymasters" making any such claim. Can you provide us with some evidence?

Cleopas · Post by **Cleopas** » 27 Jun 2006, 20:38

My auntie is in one of the last wee cottages on Baileyfeild next to Harry Lauder Road ... at the moment, it looks like they've been offered above market price.

She is defo NOT happy about what's happening, but apparently that row of cottages will be demolished. She only got her patio finished last year!!!

She says she's taking take the offer when it's made and moving to Fife.

Developers are a company called BL ...

I just spoke with my auntie five minutes ago.

Sorry, that's all I know at present. I didn't get a chance to ask about the compulsory purchase ... but she may have got that wrong ... she's over 70, so it's possible.

This post was moderated

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 27 Jun 2006, 21:09

Cleopas wrote: apparently that row of cottages will be demolished

Developers are a company called BL ...

This compulsory purchase/demolition thing seems a bit strange to me - developers cannot do it, it can only be done by the local authority or Scottish Ministers, depending on what the land is needed for.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Jun 2006, 21:17

Cleopas, Poppy is right - there is no question here of compulsory purchase as far as I am aware. If your auntie wants to sell up that's fine, but I would hate to think that anyone, and particularly an elderly lady, feels that they have no choice in the matter or under pressure to give up their home.

Cleopas · Post by **Cleopas** » 27 Jun 2006, 21:32

What's annoying is how much she's worked on her wee house over the years even past her retiral. She loves her house and pottering about in the garden ... though she'd clip you across the ear if you say she's elderly ... and yes ... she feels pressured. I can only repeat what she says she's been told ... I haven't seen any papers or anything. My dad sees to all that stuff for her. So, no ... she doesn't particularly want to sell up ... she just feels she's being given no choice ... so she'll take the best offer she can get. Her daughters (my cuzzes) both live in Fife, so it's natural she'd move to be nearer to them at her age.

(I never said that! Age never came into it! I'll deny it if anyone mentions it!)

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jun 2006, 12:09

Cleopas, your aunt must appreciate the support and advice you are able to give her. It must be so easy to feel isoilated in a situation like this.

Shared information and advice can be of tremendous benefit and perhaps, thanks to your fellow POL posters, you can now re-assure her that CPO is not a possibility.

Do you know if the residents of the BR cottages have appointed a spokesperson?

Cleopas · Post by **Cleopas** » 28 Jun 2006, 12:45

My dad does all that. I'm just there if she needs me. Which isn't much, cos she's a very capable lady!

Believe me, she's clipped the back of my head often enough with the epithet "Stupid boy!" since I was knee-high to my ancestral assegai!

Knowing what she's like, I feel more for her daughters. The eldest (in Kinghorn) was saying the other day, "Please God, don't let her move into my town!"

I'm going to see her this week, so I'll try and get more info for everyone. Just can't tell her outright, cos my auntie likes her privacy. She'd kill me for blabbing "her business."

I've always beleived in community spirit though, so I'll find out what I can. This does affect that end of Porty hugely.

Wish me luck for going into the "Dragon's Den"!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jun 2006, 12:50

Good luck!!!

Now I feel sorry for BL.

Cleopas · Post by **Cleopas** » 28 Jun 2006, 12:57

No don't ... they're big boys. They can take care of themselves ... and are.

When I know more ... you'll all be the first to know.

Cleopas · Post by **Cleopas** » 29 Jun 2006, 08:19

I've just replied to a pm on the Baileyfield issue. Please don't anyone else pm me about it. I'd reproduce what the pm said, but it was a pm, therefore I must respect privacy. But, in future, if anyone has anything to say to me about it ... do it here ... and don't do it behind the forum's back. This is a Porty-wide issue and I'm all for open discussion on the board.

Cleopas · Post by **Cleopas** » 30 Jun 2006, 12:37

I have to apologise to the residents of Baileyfield because I mentioned some things I shouldn't have, which was for their eyes alone. I stuck my big neb in where it shouldn't have gone ... so it's now out. Sorry. I never intended to annoy anyone ... nor was it malicious. Merely misguided and I am sorry about that.

Of course, there is still a valid interest in what's going into that space and how it's going to affect the community at large ... and that is for the developers to bring up sooner or later.

But I hope the residents can forgive my faux pas.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 Jun 2006, 13:12

Cleopas, I wouldn't beat yourself up too much about it. The developers themselves have volunteered most of the information we have and other residents are talking quite openly about the offer that is being made. No-one has discussed the value of individual properties, although the sale prices will of course be in the public domain.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 Jun 2006, 14:24

I would like to make it quite clear that my earlier post (see below) resulted from a telephone conversation I had with Phil Myerscough, the MD of BL. My motive in contacting him was to present the facts from the developer's point of view. The exact text of the post was approved by BL before I posted. Those who see this as an intrusion into their private affairs may wish to take this up with BL. If BL ask us to edit or remove the post then we will of course be happy to comply.

Bob Jefferson wrote:I spoke to Phil Myerscough from BL Developments this morning in an effort to sort out the â€˜tripeâ€™ from the truth in this matter. He was happy to set the record straight. The initial approach came, as previously stated, from the owners of Baileyfield Cottages. Phil insists that the development of the Scottish Power site was never predicated on getting Baileyfield residents out of their homes. Nevertheless, following meetings with the residents, an informal written offer was made by BL, subject to contract. A condition of the offer was that it had to be accepted by all of the residents concerned. Not everyone wanted to sell up and, as a result, the deal was off.

BL is now negotiating with those residents who remain willing to sell. A new offer is on the table, the details of which BL have asked me not to divulge. However, I think it is fair to say that they are being offered sums in excess of the market value of their homes and this â€˜premiumâ€™ will be the same for each owner in percentage terms. BL say that no deadline has been imposed and that the owners are under no pressure to sell unless that is what they want.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Aug 2006, 13:21

[quote="Bob Jefferson"]And here is the text of that letter:

[quote]NW PORTOBELLO MASTERPLAN

You, and many others, wrote to me recently about your worries over plans for the future of North West Portobello.

It seems that most of these worries arose from what many people thought was a draft plan that had already been prepared. In fact, this document is only intended to become the background for a contract to employ an independent expert to write the plan for the area. The plan itself will be written in consultation with local people.

So, I wish to make a number of things clear.

â€¢ The document some have seen is a draft framework for the employment of an independent consultant, not a draft plan for the area. As a draft, it had not been approved by senior Council staff nor by councillors. I saw the draft before I went on holiday and asked for changes, because it did not say what I understand the local community wants. It is currently being re-written in the light of comments that we have received.

â€¢ This draft was referred to at a recent community meeting, and talked about in the press, by one of the companies who own the land. The landowner had this draft document because the Council was consulting them privately, as a possible co-funder of the consultant, on its content. It is most unfortunate that this public discussion has caused such distress locally.

â€¢ There will, as promised, be a â€œblank pageâ€

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Aug 2006, 13:39

From today's EN:

City rules out superstore on ScottishPower site

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 18 Aug 2006, 12:08

Just as a matter of interest, Face the facts/You & Yours are doing a feature on Tesco and their habit of flouting planning regulations everywhere at 12.30 today on R4.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Aug 2006, 16:24

Letter to Robert Gatliff from Alan Henderson
Robert W Gatliff Date: 17 August 2006
Chair
Portobello Community Council Your Ref:
rwga@bgs.ac.uk
Our Ref: FN/ER/065

Dear Mr Gatliff

NW Portobello Masterplan

You, and many others, recently wrote to Planning regarding plans for the future of North West Portobello.

It appears that some confusion has arisen from what many people thought was a draft plan that had already been prepared. In fact, this document is only intended to become the background for a contract to employ an independent expert to write the draft plan for the area. The plan itself will be written in consultation with local people, before it is considered by the Councilâ€™s Planning Committee.

Further to the comments we have received, we felt it would be appropriate to clarify a number of issues in relation to the forthcoming exercise;-

Â· The document some have seen is a draft framework for the employment of an independent consultant, not a draft plan for the area. As a draft, it had not been approved by the Planning Committee, and is now being amended in the light of comments and feedback we have received.

Â· This draft was referred to at a recent meeting of the Community Council, and talked about in the press, by one of the companies who own the land. The landowner had this document because the Council was consulting them privately, as possible co-funder of the consultant, on its content. It is most unfortunate that this public discussion has caused such distress locally.

Â· Much of the feedback we have received has expressed concern regarding the form that public consultation might take. Councillor Davies has given a commitment that a â€˜blank pageâ€™ discussion will take place with the Portobello community early in the process â€“ once an independent consultant who will write the plan has been appointed by the Council and can take part in and listen to that discussion. There will also be opportunities later on for the local community to comment on and debate the draft plan, before it comes to the Planning Committee for decision.

Â· The â€˜blank pageâ€™ discussion, however, like the Masterplan itself, will have to take account of planning law and existing planning policy, which itself can have the force of law. It will also have to reflect the needs of the City as well of those of the neighbourhood. It was these existing policies and constraints which the draft consultantâ€™s framework has set out.

Â· Concern has also been expressed regarding statements in the draft framework about providing land for employment and the potential mix of uses on the Baileyfield sites. At present, most of North West Portobello is zoned for 100% employment use â€“ industry and commerce. However, the Council believes that both living and employment needs are important and that is the pattern of mixed use, which makes Portobello a special and successful place. We think that mixed use should happen in North West Portobello too. One option is to suggest to the consultant that the present 100% Industry/business zoning for the area to perhaps reduced to 50% or thereabouts. Any new business uses developed would then be restricted to those which would be compatible with residential uses. However, the balance of uses for the plan area is one issue that will be discussed during the public consultation process.

Â· This guidance does not imply that the Council is seeking a large superstore for the Baileyfield site or the wider North West Portobello area. Nor does it â€œopen the door to a fresh supermarket bidâ€

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Sep 2006, 12:59

Different persepective from todays EN re the Tesco Metro at Morningside. Different strokes for different folks.

APPARENTLY local residents are "dismayed" that there is to be a Tesco Metro store at Meggetland and you report that "there are two Tesco stores within walking distance of the site" (News, September 11).
Having parents who live directly opposite the proposed site and a good knowledge of their neighbours, I am surprised that the Evening News did not consider the local support for the plan.

The previous occupant of the site, a petrol station, offered locals a convenient and necessary place to buy basics such as milk, bread and newspapers. Since its demise they have had to walk to the nearest shop, which is a considerable effort for many who have disabilities, poor eyesight and are of advanced years.
T
his is an area where many elderly people live and there is in fact a sheltered housing development a few metres from the proposed site.
The truth is that a Tesco Metro on this site would be convenient and beneficial for many local residents.

As for the other two Tesco stores apparently within walking distance, I am fit and in my forties, and while I may be able to walk to one of those stores, I certainly wouldn't contemplate walking back carrying shopping.
My mother and the majority of her neighbours would not even consider it.
I understand the worries of the local shopkeepers in Happy Valley, but the range of shops there is very limited and do not offer things such as fresh meat or fish.

You say a "leading food writer" Joanna Blythman is leading the fight to oppose the building of this store. I can only assume that Ms Blythman has full use of her physical abilities to walk over a mile to her local supermarket and also a car should she need to venture further afield for her food necessities.

Isn't it time that the "no changes on our doorstep" brigade acknowledged that new facilities often mean improved access for the least able in our community and that not everyone can jump into their 4 x 4 to do their weekly shopping at a superstore?
T Cantle, Craiglockhart Drive North, Edinburgh[/b]

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Sep 2006, 13:41

Store wars 2 for traders in Portobello

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Sep 2006, 13:54

In my view a metro store would be far more damaging to the retailers on Portobello High Street than a superstore would ever have been. Diana Cairns and PCATS are right to be concerned.

As yet we don't have any evidence to support the story, just Diana's fears, but it does seem feasible. Privately I have predicted such a move, its one of the reasons I didn't want money spent on a consultant for the NW masterplan. The other site which has potential for a metro store is the site pf Phoenix house.

In the case of the red giant, i don't know what could be done to combat it? It is already a retail unit, change of use may not be required. However, if there is hard evidence of a proposal to open a metro store there and PCATS want to campaign against it. I would support them.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Sep 2006, 11:48

[quote="Dadaist"April 25th 2006"]Tell you what would be funny though - an expensive PCATS victory memorial sited next to a big supermarket which was built because PCATS had spent all their money![/quote]

Stephen McIntyre April 25th 2006 wrote:That would be nearly as funny as a Supermarket proposal appearing somewhere other than the west end of Portobello and all the PCATS money being spent on a consultation that is already community inclusive.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 24 Sep 2006, 12:13

Parking would be a problem for such a store where the Red Giant is, wouldn't it??

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Sep 2006, 12:57

Poppy wrote:Parking would be a problem for such a store where the Red Giant is, wouldn't it??

I don't know much about metro/express stores that most of the big chains (not asda) are rolling out. If you look at Tesco Metro at Newington, there is no parking, Safeway at Shandwick Place is much the same, Somerfiedl in Muss is not an express but its parking is remote from the store. In the area around the red giant there is free parking and few restrictions. To me the red giant is the wrong "pitch" for an express as its at the periphery of the High Street and at the poorer retail end. However, if it has free and unrestricted on-street parking then that alone may prove enough to attract a lot of the custom from the core high street.

What size are these stores and how does that relate to RG? What's delivery access like?

Is there anyone here who has planning knowledge who can tell us if a change of use would be required from non-food retail to food retail? (if in fact those categories exist?)

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 24 Sep 2006, 17:24

I would say that RG is about the size of the one in Shandwick Place - but one never knows how much accommodation is hidden from view in these places!! My point about the parking is that the examples you give are on streets with a lot of passing trade so they get customers in that way unlike where RG is.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Sep 2006, 10:14

Poppy wrote:My point about the parking is that the examples you give are on streets with a lot of passing trade so they get customers in that way unlike where RG is.

Agreed. As I opined RG doesn't strike me as the best pitch or location. However, potential sites are scarce in Portobello, there are 3 at most. And locating in the RG premises would probably provide the path of least resistance in terms of planning.

It may be a "weak" site but it would be really harmful for PH Street. Most people don't do their weekly or monthly shop in Porty, they pop out for stuff or go to buy fresh. A Metro store would hurt.

As you know these stores are very popular. I drove past a Metro store in Leith Walk the other night about 9 40 and it was heaving.

Anyway its all speculation at the mo lets hope it stays that way.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 25 Sep 2006, 12:03

Porty wrote: Anyway its all speculation at the mo lets hope it stays that way.

Agreed. Gossip & titlle-tattle!! Tsk.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 25 Sep 2006, 14:30

Porty wrote:
As you know these stores are very popular. I drove past a Metro store in Leith Walk the other night about 9 40 and it was heaving.

Yes, that particular one put my friend out of business...

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Sep 2006, 13:41

From today's EN:

Fight in store for the pound of the suburbs

In Portobello, where residents and traders managed to fight off the threat of a Tesco superstore, there are now concerns that the former Red Giant outlet on the High Street could end up in Tesco hands and become a Metro.

John Stewart, chair of the Portobello Amenity Society, says: "Portobello High Street has, unlike others, two good butchers, fruit shops, bakers, a fishmonger's which has been there for six generations, and two delis - it has everything people want, plus the fact that you get to know the shopkeepers and they know you.

"And while it [Tesco Metro] might be a smaller store, it will still be part of a multi-national so can use tactics which would put small local shops out of business by under-cutting prices. When we were fighting the large superstore we did a lot of research and discovered that the local shops get by on very small profit margins, so they could be put out of business very easily."