NW Portobello Masterplan

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Jun 2006, 20:28

From Lawrence Marshall. Comment at this stage is officially restricted to 'key stakeholders', such as PCC and PAS. However, you may wish to make your views known via Maureen or Lawrence.

Dear All

I've just received this long-awaited e-mail and thought that you might be interested in receiving a revised draft copy of the brief to be issued this summer to consultants by the Council in relation to the preparation of a Portobello North West Masterplan.

Prior, of course, to going out to tender and subsequently appointing consultants to draw up the Masterplan for this area, the Council intends to consult with key groups such as Portobello Community Council and the Portobello Amenity Society on the content of this revised draft brief. The brief will then be finalised and become an integral part of the tendering procedure.

I've forwarded this to you for your information and am sure that the various local representative folk and organisations involved will respond by the 21st of July. A Community Planning Exercise will be held once the consultants have been appointed.

I hope that this information is of interest to you.

Lawrence

NW Portobello Masterplan - Draft Consultants Brief

Masterplan Study Area

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Jul 2006, 13:05

From today's EN:

Portobello supermarket not shelved yet

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 Jul 2006, 16:56

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Jul 2006, 17:21

What do you read into this? Clearly BL want to build houses and are happy to stick in a few artist's studios and craft workshops to make it more appealing. PCATS seems happy to go along with this and CC members appear to be supportive, judging from the reaction to BL's recent presentation. The recommendation in the draft brief is therefore a huge spanner in the works and BL are very keen to enlist the support of the community in overturning this. Raising the spectre of a superstore is a smart move on their part.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 12 Jul 2006, 18:47

I can understand the desire to have an employment as part of the planning designation, in part because of what was there before and because you need a balance, but the way the draft brief is worded seems quite onerous;

However 50-60% of total floorspace created should be allocated for employment/business uses.

Depending on what's viable, 50-60% of total floorspace, could constitute considerably more than 50-60% of the site. On the other hand the brief also states;

Given the nature of the existing uses at Baileyfield Central, these would not form a compatible relationship with a possible future residential use. The redevelopment of this site should ideally be considered in conjunction with Baileyfield North. Were this to be pursued, this could allow for a greater level of residential to be developed on the Baileyfield North site, with a possible gradation towards business uses towards the south.

Which suggests degree of flexibility within the context of Baileyfield as a whole.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Jul 2006, 16:57

seanie wrote: I can understand the desire to have an employment as part of the planning designation, in part because of what was there before and because you need a balance, but the way the draft brief is worded seems quite onerous;
However 50-60% of total floorspace created should be allocated for employment/business uses.

Couple of questions for you Seanie:

The site is 100% employment/business at the moment in terms of previos and current usage So whilst 50/60% business/employmnt apparently does not suit BL developments, it is a big improvement or change on the existing situation.

In terms of planning use. I believe the area is zoned industrail. Willl this Masterplan consultation actually alter the designated use of the land or will it remain industrial but any planning applications be looked at in context of the consultation.

Also do you know about land values?

Different "types" of land have different values. I imagine that an acre of residential land would be worth more than say an acre of industrial land, dependent on the location of the piece of land in question? Where does Retail land sit in terms of value? For example I know that Fort Linnaird and The Fort are the most expensive retail parks in the UK.

seanie wrote:Depending on what's viable, 50-60% of total floorspace, could constitute considerably more than 50-60% of the site.

Im baffled by this. Can you please explain?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 13 Jul 2006, 18:49

I'm not really the person to ask about land values but it is hugely dependent on location and ultimately market driven. While the planning designation clearly affects notional value, actual value is determined by what someone is willing to pay for it, and that comes down to an assesment of likely return.

Given the housing market in Edinburgh I wouldn't imagine it's clear cut as to whether commercial or residential land was more valuable. It would depend on the nature of what could be developed on site, under either designation, and whether it was viable.

As to floorspace, well it means the internal area of a building or buildings. A medium to high density housing development, 3-4 storey tenements/flats, might have the same total floorspace as a single storey retail development but could be accomodated on a smaller site. So a 50-50 split between residential and commercial in terms of floorspace doesn't necessarily mean a 50-50 split in terms of the site. But again it depends on what's actually proposed.

However the draft brief does suggest mixed-use development and that's generally associated with a more integrated, smaller scale variety of uses; residential, live-work, retail, business and amenity.

Hiving off part of the site to a retailer and building nothing but houses on the remainder wouldn't really come under that designation.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Jul 2006, 18:29

From today's EN:

New wave of protests over Porty development plans

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Jul 2006, 10:52

Trevor Davies has now responded to those groups and individuals who have expressed concern re the brief and I have requested an electronic copy of his letter for publication on this thread.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 31 Jul 2006, 11:45

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** » 16 Aug 2006, 13:37

From today's EN at:

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1198252006

Time for Davies to deliver on promise

I AM pleased that Trevor Davies has responded to the huge concern in Portobello about the initial draft of the brief for a masterplan for the former Scottish Power site (News, August 14).

I thank all those who expressed their concern to him. We await the clear statement in the final brief that there will be no superstore or significant retail in the whole area of the masterplan and not just on the former Scottish Power site. It is a pity that this had not been included in the initial brief.

However, it gives me great concern that having been promised a "blank page" consultation with the community we find that this is only going to happen once the consultant has drawn up a full draft masterplan for the area.

Whichever consultant is appointed, they will have produced to the best of their professional ability a plan that they regard as being the optimum solution. What chance has the community to influence these powerful professionals?

The community was promised a blank page and this can only come at the start of the process. I ask Trevor Davies to deliver this promise and start with participation of the community to arrive at a masterplan which accords with the desires of the community, those of the developer and to the benefit of Portobello and Edinburgh together.

Stephen Hawkins, Chair, Portobello Campaign Against The Superstore, West Brighton Crescent, Edinburgh

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Aug 2006, 13:01

And Trevor's response in today's EN:

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1204512006

'Blank page' community consultation will happen

IT is a pity that Stephen Hawkins, the chair of Portobello Campaign Against the Superstore, in his letter to you (August 16), should attack me on the basis of an erroneous paragraph in your newspaper rather than the actual letter I sent to him and his colleagues. Having supported his and other local views on the superstore by rejecting the planning application and winning the appeal, I find that disappointing.

Your report, and his quote, says that the "blank page" consultation with the community "will only happen once the consultant has drawn up a full draft masterplan for the area". This is nonsense.

What my personal letter to him actually says is: "There will, as promised, be a 'blank page' discussion with the Portobello community early in the process - once the 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."

That remains the case. Discussion, then draft plan, then more discussion. It's as simple as that.

Let's debate the future of Portobello based on reason and facts - not on rumour and hearsay.

Councillor Trevor Davies Convenor of the Planning Committee, Edinburgh City Council, City Chamber, High Street, Edinburgh

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Aug 2006, 16:25

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€

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Sep 2006, 18:25

Some more light reading for the weekend:

NW Portobello Masterplan Study Framework

mehitabel · Post by **mehitabel** » 08 Oct 2006, 15:40

have only had time for a quick scan here - as also trying to keep up with potential impact on Portobello 'amenities' ( lets hope in a good way) of new school(s) development in Porty.

What is clear is that development of a Portobello masterplan presents a great opportunity to build on local strengths and learning built up through previous community consultation activity eg through the Supermarket 'adventure' .
It is going to be really important to make sure that all stakeholders ( public and private bodies, all Council departments and the various local 'interest' groups involved can manage to avoid getting sidelined into extended 'single issue' wrangling and manage some joined up thinking to ensure that this 'masterplan'( as with school plans) can be agreed within reasonable timescales and is really fit for purpose and future proofed .

This will take a degree of willingness on all sides to reach consensus and dare I say it - compromise. This won't be easy but will be worth it if we can end up with a local plan which the community really owns because it has the commitment and ideas of local people build into it from the start.

What is certain is that change is inevitable and coming up fast. We cannot stop change happening - but we have a great chance here to demonstrate to decision makers that the Portobello community (which like any other contains a diversity of needs and viewpoints) is ready to meet the challenge and can contribute usefully and productively to the planning process, and help move our community forward into the 21st Century as a 'model' for the rest of the city /region/country.
Any plan will also need to have built in flexibility to accommodate and deal with 'unforeseen' development opportunities which might have positive or negative economic and social impacts on Portobello such as for example the Stagecoach 'Hovercrafts from Fife' proposals - which could be upon us within months.
Also issues re pedestrian access to North West Portobello eg Figgate Burn corridor/Prom etc will also need to tie in to any safe routes to schools discussions( depending where schools end up being sited)-which ties into walking and cycling policy generally which in turn feeds into the local 'health' agenda..... as well as public transport , car use, parking etc etc .

Denise · Post by **Denise** » 04 Apr 2007, 12:34

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index ... =519812007

from todays evening news,
consultants have been appointed?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 04 Apr 2007, 21:26

http://www.cadell2.co.uk/cadell2_flash.htm

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 04 Apr 2007, 21:46

Glad they're planning improvements to the Figgate Burn, definitely something with potential that could be made more of...

rapunzell · Post by **rapunzell** » 04 Apr 2007, 22:02

Have the council announced how much they're paying the consultancy firm to do this?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 04 Apr 2007, 22:33

rapunzell wrote:Have the council announced how much they're paying the consultancy firm to do this?

The issue for me is value for money and not how much they cost.

rapunzell · Post by **rapunzell** » 04 Apr 2007, 22:43

Pal of Porty wrote:
rapunzell wrote:Have the council announced how much they're paying the consultancy firm to do this?
The issue for me is value for money and not how much they cost.

I'm very keen on value for money too, as nothing is worth the fortunes they've paid to certain glossy firms in the past, especially when they've then had no money left over for actual work!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 May 2007, 20:43

From the EN:

Race is on to decide future of fun park

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Jun 2007, 12:53

From Maureen Child:

Public Consultation on the Portobello West Masterplan - Starts Today

This will be a very important plan which will set the framework for how this part of our town will be developed in future. The area stretches from the Portobello bypass to the Promenade. The crucial public consultation is about to start, conducted by consultants Cadell for the Council’s planning committee. There has already been one ‘stakeholder’ workshop to help produce options which are now available for everyone to look at.

It is really essential that as many local people as possible comment on the plan and have their say on what they want to happen. We’ve already stopped a superstore that was totally inappropriate for the site. Now you can help to determine what actually does get built at this important gateway site to Portobello.

Following a workshop with various groups in Portobello an exhibition will be held from today, Monday 25th June to Saturday 30th June in Portobello Library. All three local Councillors for Portobello/Craigmillar are hopeful that the exhibition will extend for another fortnight to give as many people as possible a chance to see it and give their views on it.

There will be cards available for you to make your comments on as well as a book to get your opinions on the record. Please do visit the exhibition and make your contribution on the good and bad points in the options displayed - or what you feel is missing.

Maureen

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Jun 2007, 15:44

In fact, the exhibition won't be available in the library until tomorrow morning. The information boards will be available to view at tonight's CC meeting and I hope to make it available in pdf format in the near future. The deadline for responses has been extended to 17 July.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 26 Jun 2007, 09:43

The architects behind the consultation are very eager for feedback and will be monitoring this thread so please let them know what you think about their proposals so far.

I had a quick look last night, at the CC meeting, at the suggestions arising from earlier consultation, but intend to go along to the library to look at them in more detail.

However, at first glance, I really like the emphasis on open space and the fact that the Figgate Burn is being made more of a feature, but I'm not convinced that moving the library from its current central location would be that popular.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 26 Jun 2007, 13:23

Just back from the library where I had a look at the Consultancy presentation.

In general, I have to say that I think it will make Portobello a better place. I really like the idea of a Figgy Burn corridor leading down to the Prom and that we will also get a new library and community centre. Both current buildings are well past their sell by date.

PS - The comment cards at the library have not arrived yet.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Jun 2007, 14:11

I thought it looked very good. A nice mix and what looks like plenty pf greenspace. I'm in tow minds about the relocation of the community centre and library but it does look good down on the beach.

I found some of the boards difficult to read due to the graphics and a bit confused by the close colourings of some types of residential building and light commercial.

The Fun Park development wasn't quite the footprint I expected and the new flats in Rosefiled will havd a good view of the bowling club. I was also surprised by the addition of student acoomdation rather than a hotel. Is there govt money available for student accom? Seems to be quite a bit of it going on.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Jun 2007, 21:43

The entire exhibition, online for your convenience:

Masterplan Process

Consultation

History

Context (1)

Context (2)

Proposition (1)

Phasing

Proposition (2)

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Jun 2007, 22:06

Marya wrote:I'm not convinced that moving the library from its current central location would be that popular.

According to Maggie Le May, the Community Centre still has its own plans to re-build on-site with flats above and this may include the library.

portyallmydays · Post by **portyallmydays** » 27 Jun 2007, 07:55

I've had a quick look at the presentatin slides and find it all very interesting. My main concern is the Indoor Bowling Centre which appeared to have some negative comments against it at the workshop. I have played at this club since it opened and have served on Committees throughout that time as well as playing for the team in the Scottish Leagues every year. Since Edinburgh Indoor Bowling Club (at the Richard Corsie Centre) has ceased to exist, there would be a severe lack of facilities for bowlers in East Edinburgh if a decision was made to replace it, especially as a lot of bowlers joined from EIBC and the membership is currently very healthy, as well as the Council run events being well subscribed.
It still appeared to be on the later plans but with the current car park being replaced! Anybody know anything else?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 27 Jun 2007, 09:55

I'm pretty sure that the architects present at the CC meeting on Monday night said that the indoor bowling would be staying and car parking was to be improved. However, would be good if someone else could confirm this as I'm not 100% certain.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Jun 2007, 22:18

Nice photo of my sycamore tree!

I support the idea of a linear park around the Figgate Burn and generally making more of a feature of it.

I like the idea of making a feature of the kilns.

Agree that more needs to be done for cyclists.

Like the idea, in principle, of better connections between Figgate Park and Rosefield Park but also mindful of why the perimeter fence went up a few years back.

If it is feasible to re-build both the library and the community centre onsite with flats above then maybe that's a better option than re-locating?

I'm not convinced that a student block of flats is the landmark building to signal the gateway to Edinburgh's seaside but admittedly it's better than Tesco.

Other than that I can't make much of these pictures. Pretty as some of the patterns are, I can't really imagine how they translate into real buildings. The text is a bit silly and pretentious in places and the overlaid graphics don't help.

Lizzie · Post by **Lizzie** » 04 Jul 2007, 18:04

For anyone interested there is a meeting tonight in the Community Centre at 7.30pm organised by the FUNPARK ACTION GROUP made up of a group of residents who formed to campaign for any development to respect the character of the prom and surrounding houses.

The meeting is to discuss their response to the NW Portobello Masterplan and specifically proposals relating to the Funpark and surrounding area.

I only found out about this meeting about half an hour ago or would have posted sooner

PortyConvert · Post by **PortyConvert** » 04 Jul 2007, 20:49

I just got the letter through the door this morning and unfortunately couldn't make it tonight - anything interesting come out of the meeting?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 Aug 2007, 10:06

The North West Portobello Development Plan was discussed at last night's CC meeting . Cllr Hawkins informed the meeting that he had found out on Fri that the report was due to go before the planning committee in Oct. All present (which included members of a local group who do not approve of the proposed design of the masterplan) agreed that this was a concern. Minutes of a previous CC meeting showed that a public meeting had been promised at the start of the consultation proccess, but this has not transpired. The CC agreed to request that the CEC hold such a meeting before the final report is presented to the planning committee.