... in response to Brian McCrow, I agree that we need to try to get a handle on how much it would cost to build a new community centre and, perhaps as part of the same development or perhaps separately, a new library. We then need to work out how to get that money.
What I do know is that a new community centre was costed at around £2m by Iain Abbot and Richard Hawkins and that to demolish and rebuild on site would have meant that there was no source of money available to fund this. On its own, then, this idea was unachievable.
Given that Power League had indicated that they'd like to move and that they were no longer going to invest in their High Street site, it was therefore by no means improper of the Council to investigate whether getting a deal with Power League to move might both enable us to keep part of the site in recreational use by relocating the community centre there and at the same time provide an additional ring-fenced capital receipt by freeing up the existing community centre site for redevelopment to help pay for this. It might also be possible, as I suggested in my e-mail of last Friday (17 December) to include the library in with this in a more comprehensive redevelopment on the Adelphi Grove/Rosefield Avenue site whereby a new library fronting Rosefield Avenue be provided as part of the deal.
What we should also look into is whether there would be enough money from a more limited housing development above a new library on Rosefield Avenue to fund the construction of a new and potentially linked community centre building in Adelphi Grove. My own guess is that there wouldn't be and that's why we would then be crazy not to utilise the promised share for a community facility from the sale of two-thirds of the Power League site.
How much money can be raised and in what ways is a matter for conjecture until we see what offers come in. We'll soon have a better idea about this with respect to the Power League site at least. We can then consider our options in consultation with the various groups concerned and the wider community.
Until a deal was struck with Power League we were quite clearly told not to go public on all of this as this would weaken the Council's bargaining position. Once a deal was agreed re. the marketing of the site it contained commercial details which meant that it was presented to the Executive of the Council as a "B" agenda item - not for public disclosure. I can't pick and choose which Standards of Conduct in Public Life I wish to adhere to. These legal considerations do mean less disclosure than I would wish but they don't represent a deliberate attempt to hide information and the principles behind all this I've kept the key community groups informed about. The only information which I've not passed on is the exact details of the deal with Power League.
Pitz/Powerleague site
-
Brian McCrow
- Posts: 224
- Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 12:11
- Location: Portobello
Lawrence
Could we not sell all of the Powerleague site for housing thereby freeing up cash to rebuild both the Library and Community Centre in situ.
I'm unhappy at moving either of these from their present sites further away from the centre of Portobello.
I would also like to have the future use of the Town Hall included in the debate. I can't see why it can't be converted to provide more Community space.
Could we not sell all of the Powerleague site for housing thereby freeing up cash to rebuild both the Library and Community Centre in situ.
I'm unhappy at moving either of these from their present sites further away from the centre of Portobello.
I would also like to have the future use of the Town Hall included in the debate. I can't see why it can't be converted to provide more Community space.
-
Lawrence Marshall
- Posts: 49
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 22:34
- Location: Portobello & City Chambers
Brian,
I've already asked about considering selling the whole of the Power League site to see if that would let us keep both the library and the community centre where they currently are - although a total sale would seem to some to be pouring oil on the fire and in fact the Council only contemplated a sale of the Power League site because that was what was required to get Power League to move. A continuing recreational use (open space or community centre primarily) was always envisaged for that section to be retained in Council ownership (as much of the site as possible).
David Rogers responded to this suggestion of a total sale by stating that he was pretty sure that Power League would then ask for 50% of the additional money realised and that it would be far better to go ahead with the sale of two-thirds of the site, see what that gives us in terms of finance for a new community facility and then consider our options with respect to the third of the site remaining fully in Council ownership and over which Power League would no longer have any bargaining power.
That seemed a sensible response and I'm glad I asked him first before going public about this idea on Monday evening as I'd already run it by Ricky Henderson and Brian Fallon and in principle they weren't against this suggestion if it would allow us to rebuild the community centre and library in situ.
As I say, once we see what the bids which come in are worth and evaluated them against the various goals we have - i.e. we might well not accept the biggest monetary offer or indeed accept any at all - then we can calculate how much more money we need in order to get a new comunity centre and library and the various options open to realise this. I think there would be three:
1. build the community centre on that section of the Power League site left in Council ownership and redevelop the whole of the existing community centre/library site as flats with a requirement to build in a new library fronting Rosefield Avenue as part of that deal;
2. rebuild the community centre in situ as part of a wider redevelopment of the whole existing communitycentre/library site with flats above the library only (I doubt flats would be acceptable noise-wise, etc. above the community centre but this might be possible). Create a linear park on that part of the Power League site remaining in Council ownership;
3. sell the remaining part of the Power League site if 2. doesn't give us enough money in order to rebuild the community centre in situ and not to have to move it to the Figgate Burn.
These various options should be discussed with the community even if the exact financial figures might well have to remain commercially confidential.
They all do involve, though, getting a contribution towards a new community centre from the sale of two-thirds of the Power League site (that much has already been agreed by the Council).
Lawrence
I've already asked about considering selling the whole of the Power League site to see if that would let us keep both the library and the community centre where they currently are - although a total sale would seem to some to be pouring oil on the fire and in fact the Council only contemplated a sale of the Power League site because that was what was required to get Power League to move. A continuing recreational use (open space or community centre primarily) was always envisaged for that section to be retained in Council ownership (as much of the site as possible).
David Rogers responded to this suggestion of a total sale by stating that he was pretty sure that Power League would then ask for 50% of the additional money realised and that it would be far better to go ahead with the sale of two-thirds of the site, see what that gives us in terms of finance for a new community facility and then consider our options with respect to the third of the site remaining fully in Council ownership and over which Power League would no longer have any bargaining power.
That seemed a sensible response and I'm glad I asked him first before going public about this idea on Monday evening as I'd already run it by Ricky Henderson and Brian Fallon and in principle they weren't against this suggestion if it would allow us to rebuild the community centre and library in situ.
As I say, once we see what the bids which come in are worth and evaluated them against the various goals we have - i.e. we might well not accept the biggest monetary offer or indeed accept any at all - then we can calculate how much more money we need in order to get a new comunity centre and library and the various options open to realise this. I think there would be three:
1. build the community centre on that section of the Power League site left in Council ownership and redevelop the whole of the existing community centre/library site as flats with a requirement to build in a new library fronting Rosefield Avenue as part of that deal;
2. rebuild the community centre in situ as part of a wider redevelopment of the whole existing communitycentre/library site with flats above the library only (I doubt flats would be acceptable noise-wise, etc. above the community centre but this might be possible). Create a linear park on that part of the Power League site remaining in Council ownership;
3. sell the remaining part of the Power League site if 2. doesn't give us enough money in order to rebuild the community centre in situ and not to have to move it to the Figgate Burn.
These various options should be discussed with the community even if the exact financial figures might well have to remain commercially confidential.
They all do involve, though, getting a contribution towards a new community centre from the sale of two-thirds of the Power League site (that much has already been agreed by the Council).
Lawrence
-
Brian McCrow
- Posts: 224
- Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 12:11
- Location: Portobello
Lawrence
Great, we are now getting to some real data. How's about looking at some other options such as selling only 50% of the Powerleague site.
I think we should now be engaging the Community in all of these options.
I notice however you haven't included the Town Hall option, I'd really like to explore this option as well.
How do you propose the engagement of the Community in these discussions?
Great, we are now getting to some real data. How's about looking at some other options such as selling only 50% of the Powerleague site.
I think we should now be engaging the Community in all of these options.
I notice however you haven't included the Town Hall option, I'd really like to explore this option as well.
How do you propose the engagement of the Community in these discussions?
-
Lawrence Marshall
- Posts: 49
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 22:34
- Location: Portobello & City Chambers
Brian,
I suspect the two-thirds scenario was what it took to get Power League to agree to move. Still, I can ask the question - after Christmas!
Needless to say, the details of any deal are left to our officials to negotiate since they're the experts. That's what they came back with and my primary concern was then to ensure that the remaining one-third of the site would be able to accommodate the new community centre folk wanted. I naturally consulted Iain Abbot about this and he said, while a bit tight, it was OK and it was a design challenge that he would be keen to take on if asked!
To be honest, I had been hoping that we might have been able to keep one 5-a-side pitch to go with the new community centre but, although this question probably wasn't put to them, I guess that Power League wouldn't have been too keen to have rival in the area.
As for consultation , we would no doubt start as always with Portobello Community Council and Portobello Amenity Society. The Portobello Community Centre Management Committee would also need to be involved. Beyond that the Portobello Working Group represents a wide range of interests. Its meetings are convened roughly twice a year by the Department of City Development and would be a useful wider sounding board involving local folk and Council officials from departments such as Environmental & Consumer Services, City Development and Culture & Leisure and Education.
Happy Christmas!
Lawrence
I suspect the two-thirds scenario was what it took to get Power League to agree to move. Still, I can ask the question - after Christmas!
Needless to say, the details of any deal are left to our officials to negotiate since they're the experts. That's what they came back with and my primary concern was then to ensure that the remaining one-third of the site would be able to accommodate the new community centre folk wanted. I naturally consulted Iain Abbot about this and he said, while a bit tight, it was OK and it was a design challenge that he would be keen to take on if asked!
To be honest, I had been hoping that we might have been able to keep one 5-a-side pitch to go with the new community centre but, although this question probably wasn't put to them, I guess that Power League wouldn't have been too keen to have rival in the area.
As for consultation , we would no doubt start as always with Portobello Community Council and Portobello Amenity Society. The Portobello Community Centre Management Committee would also need to be involved. Beyond that the Portobello Working Group represents a wide range of interests. Its meetings are convened roughly twice a year by the Department of City Development and would be a useful wider sounding board involving local folk and Council officials from departments such as Environmental & Consumer Services, City Development and Culture & Leisure and Education.
Happy Christmas!
Lawrence
Well, I sincerely hope that you aren't applying any of those statments to me! Yes, I'm angry, no I don't have a personal vendetta of any description and I certainly don't think what I said was ill informed nonsense. I took out of that meeting what I saw to be the facts based on what I was hearing. Maybe you were processing what you were hearing differently to me - that's your prerogative. And I'm really disappointed that you are applying any of the above statements to any of the people who took the time to attend that meeting. It was a PUBLIC meeting so that members of the PUBLIC could give THEIR VIEWS on what is happening.Bob Jefferson wrote: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
Enough of your nonsense - get back to the Play Pen!
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
Epykat, I confess that I don't recall what you said. I stand by my comments but I am merely the manufacturer of caps for others to try on. If you don't find one that fits then clearly my comments were not directed towards you.
It's so easy to be negative and cynical. Sometimes you just have to trust the people you have elected, bearing in mind that there's always an opportunity to elect someone else next time. Alternatively, anyone who thinks they can do a better job can stand for election themselves. Plus, you have the democratic right to attend public meetings and shout abuse at your local councillors in the safe knowledge that they won't shout back. It's not a job I could do. 'Dignified silence' is not my strong suit.
It's so easy to be negative and cynical. Sometimes you just have to trust the people you have elected, bearing in mind that there's always an opportunity to elect someone else next time. Alternatively, anyone who thinks they can do a better job can stand for election themselves. Plus, you have the democratic right to attend public meetings and shout abuse at your local councillors in the safe knowledge that they won't shout back. It's not a job I could do. 'Dignified silence' is not my strong suit.
Lawrence
Hope you had a good Christmas.
It is good that the Council has at least agreed to make a contribution towards a Community Centre. Have they given any indication as to what size of contribution they may make in either Pounds or Percentage? Also, from where will the rest of the funding derive?
How did you establish that a new Community Centre is the main priority for your constutuents?
Its also useful to learn that there will be consultation. What aspects of the Sale will be up for consultation? Will it include design aspects of the linear park and housing mix? Will there be an opportunity to influence the size of the "conribution" and the allocation of the rest of the sale proceeds?
Will it be possible or indeed adviseable to make part of any sale contract that the developer has to provide a community centre and or library? Has that type of thing been achieved in the past?
It is common for Property Developers to invest and build up "Banks" of development land with no immediate plans to do any developing. Some major builders have currently brought a halt to new develoments as they are concerned about a cooling Housing market . Developers are happy just to watch their Land investment appreciate and pick the correct time to bring housing to market. It is therefore not beyond the realms of possiblilty that the Powerleague site could be left vacant for many years. There is also the possibility that the new owners of the site could simply let Powerleague stay there for years to come. Is there anything that can be done legally to ensure that the new owners develop the site within a specific timeframe?
The site is currently being marketed rather than sold. This is presumably to establish a market value. Is there a possibility that once this value has been established that the Council simply buy out Anchor International without selling the land? (In other words "buy" vacant possession) AI get the equivalent percentage to what were going to get had the Land been sold to a third party.
Most people have assumed that Powerleague will be locating to another site in Portobello. As far as I am aware this is hearsay, can you confirm whether or not a "new" Portobello location is part of the Golden Handshake? (Powerleague only have 25 sites in the UK and 2 are in Edinburgh, there must be more desirable locations, which are in non-competitive markets.)
Porty (Stephen McIntyre)
Hope you had a good Christmas.
It is good that the Council has at least agreed to make a contribution towards a Community Centre. Have they given any indication as to what size of contribution they may make in either Pounds or Percentage? Also, from where will the rest of the funding derive?
How did you establish that a new Community Centre is the main priority for your constutuents?
Its also useful to learn that there will be consultation. What aspects of the Sale will be up for consultation? Will it include design aspects of the linear park and housing mix? Will there be an opportunity to influence the size of the "conribution" and the allocation of the rest of the sale proceeds?
Will it be possible or indeed adviseable to make part of any sale contract that the developer has to provide a community centre and or library? Has that type of thing been achieved in the past?
It is common for Property Developers to invest and build up "Banks" of development land with no immediate plans to do any developing. Some major builders have currently brought a halt to new develoments as they are concerned about a cooling Housing market . Developers are happy just to watch their Land investment appreciate and pick the correct time to bring housing to market. It is therefore not beyond the realms of possiblilty that the Powerleague site could be left vacant for many years. There is also the possibility that the new owners of the site could simply let Powerleague stay there for years to come. Is there anything that can be done legally to ensure that the new owners develop the site within a specific timeframe?
The site is currently being marketed rather than sold. This is presumably to establish a market value. Is there a possibility that once this value has been established that the Council simply buy out Anchor International without selling the land? (In other words "buy" vacant possession) AI get the equivalent percentage to what were going to get had the Land been sold to a third party.
Most people have assumed that Powerleague will be locating to another site in Portobello. As far as I am aware this is hearsay, can you confirm whether or not a "new" Portobello location is part of the Golden Handshake? (Powerleague only have 25 sites in the UK and 2 are in Edinburgh, there must be more desirable locations, which are in non-competitive markets.)
Porty (Stephen McIntyre)
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=14192005
I though this interesting in relation to earlier discussion on this topic re the council selling off land to make up shortfalls.However, it has been confirmed that there is a funding "black hole" of £98 million in the scheme. We also know that the plans for a third tram line, which would link the city centre to the Royal Infirmary and Newcraighall, will rely on congestion charging.
...
So what do we know about trams and tolls? The Executive has provided £375m for first two lines, and the council insists that the £98m shortfall will be paid for by "land sales and developer contributions". The third line is entirely dependent on tolls revenue
-
Lawrence Marshall
- Posts: 49
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 22:34
- Location: Portobello & City Chambers
The proposed sale of part of the Power League site has nothing to do with the £98m funding gap regarding Tram Lines 1 and 2. There are four sites proposed for sale along the routes of the trams. It is hoped that these will now emerge from planning blight to find themselves of interest to developers as a result of the tram routes running past them. These are: (i) Balbirnie Place; (ii) Roseburn Terrace; (iii) Maidencraig/South Groathill, and (iv) South Gyle/Broomhouse. A full report regarding all this was presented to the Executive of the Council on 15th June 2004 and can be accessed at http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=42057
Finally, new developments along and close to the tram lines will also be required, via the planning system, to make a financial contribution to the tram system from which, of course, many of these developments will undoubtedly benefit. The schedule of payments involved are also fully detailed in a report to the Planning Committee of 8th September 2004 which can be viewed at http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=52620
Lawrence
Finally, new developments along and close to the tram lines will also be required, via the planning system, to make a financial contribution to the tram system from which, of course, many of these developments will undoubtedly benefit. The schedule of payments involved are also fully detailed in a report to the Planning Committee of 8th September 2004 which can be viewed at http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=52620
Lawrence
-
Lawrence Marshall
- Posts: 49
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 22:34
- Location: Portobello & City Chambers
Stephen,
I meant to get back to you earlier - sorry for the delay.
The CEC contribution, if whatever permutation - see my posting of 23rd December above - involves a new library, will consist of the £400,000 already allocated for DDA compliance for the existing library (though some of that will have to be spent, I guess, in the meantime on the exisiting building to keep us minimally legal) plus part of the proceeds of the sale of the Power League site if this allows a further release of property elsewhere of greater value - so says the report of 15th June 2004 which I've just looked at again.
As for meeting the shortfall, please again see my posting above of 23rd December re. the possible options. In the end, though, it's up to myself and Maureen Child to ensure that, sitting down with the community and our officials, we work our way through the various options I outlined on the 23rd December to see which gives us the best deal. Ultimately we're trying to get a new community centre and in addition a new library on its existing site. If we can manage to re-build the community centre on its existing site as well, let's do so. But we'll need to see if this stacks up financially. If it does then I'm sure the linear park will proceed. If not then the community centre is likely to front Portobello High Street immediately west of the Figgate Burn.
I wouldn't say that a new community centre was the main priority for folk in Portobello but it's been on the agenda for a good number of years now - and featured in my election address of 2003 (as did the Power League site). There are quite a few issues I deal with that have a community aspect to them (rather than being of import to just a few individuals). The community centre has moved more centre stage because, a deal having been agreed with Power League, we have the possibility of making progress on this particular front. Other major priorities include a unified campus for Towerbank Primary School and a new Portobello High School with playing pitches - even more difficult (suggestions welcome!). Then there's further upgrades to the Promenade, youth issues, traffic issues, further reworking of the High Street between Adelphi Grove and Fishwives Causeway, the King's Road roundabout, storage space for all the archives held by the Portobello History Society, a possible Portobello museum/information centre, more shopfront improvements, building grants, sponsorship of a welcome increase in community events, etc., etc.. And that's on top of keeping funding all the existing services and facilities for young and old alike!
Regarding a possible tie-up deal with a developer whereby they provide a new community centre. library, etc., you only have to look at Piershill Library for an answer to that question! That was part of the deal that allowed "Safeway" to build a new, bigger store there. The principle would equally apply to a housing developer.
I very much doubt that anyone would buy the section of the Power League site that's up for sale as a "land bank". My guess is that it would be developed almost immediately. The demand for housing in Portobello would see to that and zoning for housing would be unlikely to pose any real problem. Legally, though, I doubt you could dictate the pace of development - but it might be worth running this by our officials to see if some form of clawback might be written in should a developer drag his feet to try to get more money out of the site.
The deal struck with Power League shares out the sale proceeds from the joint marketing exercise on an agreed basis. The Council has no money to otherwise "buy out" Power League from their current 99-year lease. They have to re-build elsewhere in the area, after all. Furthermore, re. the community centre, there's no money to re-build on the existing site either without releasing cash from the Power League site and from the existing community centre site.
Power League wish to remain in east Edinburgh. The deal struck moves them from a High Street location to one which currently has a football element anyway. There's no "golden handshake" - only a realistic deal that persuades them to move. The High Street is not particularly appropriate for 5-a-side football pitches. Not because they cause any great nuisance but simply because in urban design terms our High Street deserves better - hence why housing on this site supports rather than undermines the case against a nondescript supermarket surrounded by a sea of tarmac on the other side of the road and with all the traffic that would bring with it to the High Street.
Lawrence
I meant to get back to you earlier - sorry for the delay.
The CEC contribution, if whatever permutation - see my posting of 23rd December above - involves a new library, will consist of the £400,000 already allocated for DDA compliance for the existing library (though some of that will have to be spent, I guess, in the meantime on the exisiting building to keep us minimally legal) plus part of the proceeds of the sale of the Power League site if this allows a further release of property elsewhere of greater value - so says the report of 15th June 2004 which I've just looked at again.
As for meeting the shortfall, please again see my posting above of 23rd December re. the possible options. In the end, though, it's up to myself and Maureen Child to ensure that, sitting down with the community and our officials, we work our way through the various options I outlined on the 23rd December to see which gives us the best deal. Ultimately we're trying to get a new community centre and in addition a new library on its existing site. If we can manage to re-build the community centre on its existing site as well, let's do so. But we'll need to see if this stacks up financially. If it does then I'm sure the linear park will proceed. If not then the community centre is likely to front Portobello High Street immediately west of the Figgate Burn.
I wouldn't say that a new community centre was the main priority for folk in Portobello but it's been on the agenda for a good number of years now - and featured in my election address of 2003 (as did the Power League site). There are quite a few issues I deal with that have a community aspect to them (rather than being of import to just a few individuals). The community centre has moved more centre stage because, a deal having been agreed with Power League, we have the possibility of making progress on this particular front. Other major priorities include a unified campus for Towerbank Primary School and a new Portobello High School with playing pitches - even more difficult (suggestions welcome!). Then there's further upgrades to the Promenade, youth issues, traffic issues, further reworking of the High Street between Adelphi Grove and Fishwives Causeway, the King's Road roundabout, storage space for all the archives held by the Portobello History Society, a possible Portobello museum/information centre, more shopfront improvements, building grants, sponsorship of a welcome increase in community events, etc., etc.. And that's on top of keeping funding all the existing services and facilities for young and old alike!
Regarding a possible tie-up deal with a developer whereby they provide a new community centre. library, etc., you only have to look at Piershill Library for an answer to that question! That was part of the deal that allowed "Safeway" to build a new, bigger store there. The principle would equally apply to a housing developer.
I very much doubt that anyone would buy the section of the Power League site that's up for sale as a "land bank". My guess is that it would be developed almost immediately. The demand for housing in Portobello would see to that and zoning for housing would be unlikely to pose any real problem. Legally, though, I doubt you could dictate the pace of development - but it might be worth running this by our officials to see if some form of clawback might be written in should a developer drag his feet to try to get more money out of the site.
The deal struck with Power League shares out the sale proceeds from the joint marketing exercise on an agreed basis. The Council has no money to otherwise "buy out" Power League from their current 99-year lease. They have to re-build elsewhere in the area, after all. Furthermore, re. the community centre, there's no money to re-build on the existing site either without releasing cash from the Power League site and from the existing community centre site.
Power League wish to remain in east Edinburgh. The deal struck moves them from a High Street location to one which currently has a football element anyway. There's no "golden handshake" - only a realistic deal that persuades them to move. The High Street is not particularly appropriate for 5-a-side football pitches. Not because they cause any great nuisance but simply because in urban design terms our High Street deserves better - hence why housing on this site supports rather than undermines the case against a nondescript supermarket surrounded by a sea of tarmac on the other side of the road and with all the traffic that would bring with it to the High Street.
Lawrence
-
Pal of Porty
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 13:41
- Location: Old Folks Home
- Contact:
Have the Council considered allowing the 99 year lease expire?
I have no problem with taking a long term view of what is best for the community. Rather than comprise now I would rather see a legacy for future generations.
I also challenge the need for a new community centre (and yes I do use it once a week). Could the Town Hall not be refurbished instead and double as a community centre?
I have no problem with taking a long term view of what is best for the community. Rather than comprise now I would rather see a legacy for future generations.
I also challenge the need for a new community centre (and yes I do use it once a week). Could the Town Hall not be refurbished instead and double as a community centre?
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Lawrence
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
From your comments I am still unclear as to what benefit will accrue to your constituents by the sale of the PL site?
We may, or most likely will not, achieve enough money for a new community centre. And what's more; you agree there is no evidence that a community centre is a priority for the constituents. You mention that it has been on the Agenda for some time and it has moved more "Centre Stage". I'm not sure what this means?
In my book this is not good enough reason for selling the land or good enough to support selling the land.
One reason you put forward for selling is the Council have no control over it at the moment. You go on to say;
"I very much doubt that anyone would buy the section of the Power League site that's up for sale as a "land bank". My guess is that it would be developed almost immediately. "
Developers are in the business of acquiring land banks whether it beEdinburgh or not. Persimmon Homes and MactAggart Mickel are two good examples of this. It is a possibility that the Powerleague Site could lie vacant or remain as a Football facility for years to come. You say have doubts and your guess is that it will not, but you cannot be certain. The council will still have no control. Should we be selling the site on this basis?
Finally, I am intrigued by this statement:
"There's no "golden handshake" - only a realistic deal that persuades them to move. "
Lawrence, its a golden goodbye, its silly to portray it as anything else.
More importantly, in what way, financially speaking, is this a realsitic deal? You spoke of Powerleague netting £2.5 to £3m, have you or anyone at the council got an understanding of exactly what this deal means to Anchor International, the owners of Powerleague?
It is clear that you support this sale. Can you offer us sound reasons and benefits that we (Your consituents) will definetly recieve as the result of the sale?
Stephen
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
From your comments I am still unclear as to what benefit will accrue to your constituents by the sale of the PL site?
We may, or most likely will not, achieve enough money for a new community centre. And what's more; you agree there is no evidence that a community centre is a priority for the constituents. You mention that it has been on the Agenda for some time and it has moved more "Centre Stage". I'm not sure what this means?
In my book this is not good enough reason for selling the land or good enough to support selling the land.
One reason you put forward for selling is the Council have no control over it at the moment. You go on to say;
"I very much doubt that anyone would buy the section of the Power League site that's up for sale as a "land bank". My guess is that it would be developed almost immediately. "
Developers are in the business of acquiring land banks whether it beEdinburgh or not. Persimmon Homes and MactAggart Mickel are two good examples of this. It is a possibility that the Powerleague Site could lie vacant or remain as a Football facility for years to come. You say have doubts and your guess is that it will not, but you cannot be certain. The council will still have no control. Should we be selling the site on this basis?
Finally, I am intrigued by this statement:
"There's no "golden handshake" - only a realistic deal that persuades them to move. "
Lawrence, its a golden goodbye, its silly to portray it as anything else.
More importantly, in what way, financially speaking, is this a realsitic deal? You spoke of Powerleague netting £2.5 to £3m, have you or anyone at the council got an understanding of exactly what this deal means to Anchor International, the owners of Powerleague?
It is clear that you support this sale. Can you offer us sound reasons and benefits that we (Your consituents) will definetly recieve as the result of the sale?
Stephen
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
From Maureen Child's most recent newsletter:
I was pleased that around 100 people came along on 20 December at St Mark's Church and we had a wide-ranging discussion on the back of this issue, courtesy PCATS. I hope some urban village myths were exploded and fears allayed. I am as active a member the Portobello Campaign Against the Superstore as PCATS they will allow me to be. Communications have improved a bit since, but they are still not as good as they could be. And it's not for want of me trying!
There were very good reasons for maintaining confidentiality on the Powerleague issue, in the very best interests of the community itself. There is still a very long way to go before a sale is any way a 'done deal'. It has taken me a very long time to get my head around the issue and accept that 84 years left of a 99 year lease is a huge stake in the site. It is tantamount to co-ownership with the Council. That is a situation, which the community helped insist upon all those years ago. Some of us are just as responsible as the Council for this state of affairs.
The agreement to jointly market two thirds of the site - not yet to sell - has taken a considerable time. Once the result of the marketing exercise is complete, and the bids evaluated and 'reality-checked', I want us to be in a position whereby the Councillors can present the community at large with clear choices on this as part of a very much bigger picture. That is why my colleagues and I already insisted - and it was a Council decision back in August 2004 - that the outcome of this marketing process be considered in the context of the wider regeneration of Portobello, including a much needed new Portobello High School. This was something we local Councillors had prepared months earlier, in best Blue Peter tradition.
There is no point in us consulting on things that really might never happen. We can still reserve the Powerleague site in perpetuity for leisure activity, which means Powerleague or its successors stay on there for another 84 years, doing the barest minimum to stick to the terms of the lease, investing nothing because they want to move.
The superstore planning application is a separate issue and a separate site. The perception that the two are connected is not the reality. Even if either were considered in a wider context, there is a strong argument that the current use is more compatible with a superstore than the housing which the Counicl and others in the community have suggested for the redevelopment of the Powerleague site. That said, as promised to the December 20 meeting, we have ensured that the report on this site only comes to Council for consideration after the finish of the Public Inquiry into the superstore site.
Personally, I am not in favour of moving Portobello Library to the Powerleague site. The indicative drawing and report in the site sale particulars firmly established the principle that the community should get much as we possibly can out of the sale of this site, if it goes ahead. It also persuaded the sport, culture and leisure director to agree to the report. That was important, as the site is held on that account.
These matters are still open for discussion and the sale might not go ahead. The final sale is dependant on the Council securing another site for Powerleague somewhere in the local area, and not necessarily where everyone fears it will go. Cheer up, it may never happen!
Parks and Greenfield Sites:
Letter from Herbert Coutts (Director of Culture and Leisure) to Resident in Park Avenue 16th Feb. 2005
I refer to your public question raised at the ELDC 18/01/05 in relation to above.
My normal approach as Director of Culture and Leisure is to resist the sale of public open space unless there is a clear public benefit from such a proposal.
The Council's Executive will shortly consider the first ever Parks and Gardens Strategy for the city, which includes recommendations to further protect and enhance its GREEN HERITAGE. Also, the Executive will soon see the draft Pitch Strategy , which includes proposals for the upgrading of sports pitches across the city.
Any proposal to dispose of Culture and Leisure land is considered on its individual merits. Recently, the Gyle Park was extensively upgraded from funding realeased through the development of the David Llyod Centre in the park, realising amenity and community benefits.
A number of our parks receive additional protection under the NPFA schemes e.g. Jubilee and Millenium Parks, which further restrict the potential for land sale.
If a proposal is advanced to relocate Pitz Soccer to Portobello Park, it would be considered against the background outlined above.
Letter from Herbert Coutts (Director of Culture and Leisure) to Resident in Park Avenue 16th Feb. 2005
I refer to your public question raised at the ELDC 18/01/05 in relation to above.
My normal approach as Director of Culture and Leisure is to resist the sale of public open space unless there is a clear public benefit from such a proposal.
The Council's Executive will shortly consider the first ever Parks and Gardens Strategy for the city, which includes recommendations to further protect and enhance its GREEN HERITAGE. Also, the Executive will soon see the draft Pitch Strategy , which includes proposals for the upgrading of sports pitches across the city.
Any proposal to dispose of Culture and Leisure land is considered on its individual merits. Recently, the Gyle Park was extensively upgraded from funding realeased through the development of the David Llyod Centre in the park, realising amenity and community benefits.
A number of our parks receive additional protection under the NPFA schemes e.g. Jubilee and Millenium Parks, which further restrict the potential for land sale.
If a proposal is advanced to relocate Pitz Soccer to Portobello Park, it would be considered against the background outlined above.
As the cash dries up, so does Capital's game
IAN MACKAY
SCOTLAND are now in 86th place in the FIFA world rankings, but the country could be in an even worse position if facilities for grass-roots football were included in the equation - particularly in Edinburgh.
The best facilities available in the Capital for those who play the game at the bottom end of the scale are available at privately-owned sports grounds, while the council-owned pitches are, in some cases, the bottom of the barrel.
The ugly wooden building situated in the middle of East Pilton Park is a prime example of the total lack of investment in public-owned facilities for the people in this city.
The building is more suited to a bygone age than one in the Festival Capital of Scotland in the year 2005, but it is not alone in Edinburgh, with many other council-owned facilities suffering from lack of attention and maintenance.
More worryingly, there is the matter of sport fields disappearing altogether.
Bryan Maughan, club leader at Redpath Albion Boys’ Club, is the latest youth worker to express his grave concern at the loss of playing fields in Edinburgh.
This youth club official, already perturbed about the loss of parks and school playing fields, also expressed his support for the ongoing campaign in the Pink’s Local Heroes to highlight the current situation regarding facilities for young people wanting to play football in the Capital, saying: "I’ve been keeping a close eye on the loss of green recreational sites, mainly used for football.
"Even more disturbing is this council’s fervent clamour to acquire even more land for housing development. We pay roughly £138 per quarter for the use of Pilrig Park. The pitches get lined once - burned out - then nothing!
"It’s a ‘double whammy’, as we all pay council tax to maintain our recreational areas, but the council expects us to pay all over again for a service that is basically non-existent.
"The galling thing is, now that a large percentage of clubs have ‘loose leases’ on their playing areas, we’re all wary of complaining due to the possibility that the council’s head horticulturist may deem the playing areas as non-maintainable and deem it unsuitable for football, leaving us with nothing."
Mr Maughan went on to list land lost over the last two decades:
Portobello BottleWorks, Baileyfield: Football park now warehousing and depots.
• Morgan Recreation Ground, Peffermill: Was Moray House Sports Ground, now housing and overgrown in parts left unattended.
• Jock’s Lodge, Piershill: Was the home of Royal High School and former pupils’ clubs, now Safeway supermarket and houses.
• Holyrood: A small ground on the edge of Holyrood Park with two pitches used by Royal High, now part of the Scottish Parliament site.
• Hawkhill Recreation Ground: Was used by Leith Academy and Academicals and others for various sports, now a housing development, medical centre and care centre.
• Ferryfield: Was owned by Melville College, now housing development.
• Gypsy Brae: Was an area for rugby and football between Granton and Silverknowes. Nothing there now.
• Crewe Toll: Once housed facilities for tennis, bowls, rugby and football for employees of Ferranti, now a Deutsche Bank subsidiary office block.
• Muirhouse: A pitch for Ferranti was set up amid council housing, now disappeared.
• Ravelston Dykes: A field where hockey and lacrosse was played. Now housing.
• Meggetland: Used for sports by schools and Boroughmuir rugby club, now a third of the land is being developed for housing.
• Canal Field, North Meggetland: Was Edinburgh University Sports Ground, now housing.
• Gray’s Loan: Was home to Westhall Lawn Tennis Club, now housing.
• Craighouse: There was a football pitch at this former hospital, now a campus of Napier University and housing.
• Double Hedges, Kirk Brae, Liberton: Education-owned facility, now half of it is housing, with a few pitches and a rugby pitch all that remains.
• Colinton Mains Road: Formerly used by regiments stationed in Redford Barracks and Firrhill High School, now a Tesco supermarket, housing and other developments. A couple of poor quality pitches still in use.
• Gyle: Once football pitches, now the David Lloyd Club. Once had ten football pitches, now five.
• Turnhouse: Football and rugby pitches for use of servicemen based at the RAF station and visitors, now overgrown.
IAN MACKAY
SCOTLAND are now in 86th place in the FIFA world rankings, but the country could be in an even worse position if facilities for grass-roots football were included in the equation - particularly in Edinburgh.
The best facilities available in the Capital for those who play the game at the bottom end of the scale are available at privately-owned sports grounds, while the council-owned pitches are, in some cases, the bottom of the barrel.
The ugly wooden building situated in the middle of East Pilton Park is a prime example of the total lack of investment in public-owned facilities for the people in this city.
The building is more suited to a bygone age than one in the Festival Capital of Scotland in the year 2005, but it is not alone in Edinburgh, with many other council-owned facilities suffering from lack of attention and maintenance.
More worryingly, there is the matter of sport fields disappearing altogether.
Bryan Maughan, club leader at Redpath Albion Boys’ Club, is the latest youth worker to express his grave concern at the loss of playing fields in Edinburgh.
This youth club official, already perturbed about the loss of parks and school playing fields, also expressed his support for the ongoing campaign in the Pink’s Local Heroes to highlight the current situation regarding facilities for young people wanting to play football in the Capital, saying: "I’ve been keeping a close eye on the loss of green recreational sites, mainly used for football.
"Even more disturbing is this council’s fervent clamour to acquire even more land for housing development. We pay roughly £138 per quarter for the use of Pilrig Park. The pitches get lined once - burned out - then nothing!
"It’s a ‘double whammy’, as we all pay council tax to maintain our recreational areas, but the council expects us to pay all over again for a service that is basically non-existent.
"The galling thing is, now that a large percentage of clubs have ‘loose leases’ on their playing areas, we’re all wary of complaining due to the possibility that the council’s head horticulturist may deem the playing areas as non-maintainable and deem it unsuitable for football, leaving us with nothing."
Mr Maughan went on to list land lost over the last two decades:
Portobello BottleWorks, Baileyfield: Football park now warehousing and depots.
• Morgan Recreation Ground, Peffermill: Was Moray House Sports Ground, now housing and overgrown in parts left unattended.
• Jock’s Lodge, Piershill: Was the home of Royal High School and former pupils’ clubs, now Safeway supermarket and houses.
• Holyrood: A small ground on the edge of Holyrood Park with two pitches used by Royal High, now part of the Scottish Parliament site.
• Hawkhill Recreation Ground: Was used by Leith Academy and Academicals and others for various sports, now a housing development, medical centre and care centre.
• Ferryfield: Was owned by Melville College, now housing development.
• Gypsy Brae: Was an area for rugby and football between Granton and Silverknowes. Nothing there now.
• Crewe Toll: Once housed facilities for tennis, bowls, rugby and football for employees of Ferranti, now a Deutsche Bank subsidiary office block.
• Muirhouse: A pitch for Ferranti was set up amid council housing, now disappeared.
• Ravelston Dykes: A field where hockey and lacrosse was played. Now housing.
• Meggetland: Used for sports by schools and Boroughmuir rugby club, now a third of the land is being developed for housing.
• Canal Field, North Meggetland: Was Edinburgh University Sports Ground, now housing.
• Gray’s Loan: Was home to Westhall Lawn Tennis Club, now housing.
• Craighouse: There was a football pitch at this former hospital, now a campus of Napier University and housing.
• Double Hedges, Kirk Brae, Liberton: Education-owned facility, now half of it is housing, with a few pitches and a rugby pitch all that remains.
• Colinton Mains Road: Formerly used by regiments stationed in Redford Barracks and Firrhill High School, now a Tesco supermarket, housing and other developments. A couple of poor quality pitches still in use.
• Gyle: Once football pitches, now the David Lloyd Club. Once had ten football pitches, now five.
• Turnhouse: Football and rugby pitches for use of servicemen based at the RAF station and visitors, now overgrown.
A bigger footballing travesty is the fact that Hibs and Hearts play at seperate grounds. And Edinburgh, home of the largest most diverse culture and arts festival in the World does not have even a modest size concert venue.
Furthermore, Football is a dying sport in Scotland, I believe that for the first time ever it is no longer the majority sport played by primary school children. I view this as a good development. Our citizens are obviously disillusioned by cheating, lying, greed and inanity. Trust Football to blame the sale of land for its crisis. The sport is badly organised and so poor at investing in itself. F*** it and all who sail in it.
Furthermore, Football is a dying sport in Scotland, I believe that for the first time ever it is no longer the majority sport played by primary school children. I view this as a good development. Our citizens are obviously disillusioned by cheating, lying, greed and inanity. Trust Football to blame the sale of land for its crisis. The sport is badly organised and so poor at investing in itself. F*** it and all who sail in it.
Perhaps the reason why football is a dying sport (in your opinion) is because the Pitches are being sold off?
In my opinion, football is as popular as ever with all ages.
I agree that the Beckhams and Ronaldo's of this world are earning obscene amounts of money - for not only playing but advertising various products, but thats the name of the game , good or bad. These guys are likened to Pop Idols.
I enjoy football, probably because I had little opportunity to watch anything else on TV, growing up with two football mad Brothers.
Football is a game which only requires a ball, it keeps kids happy/healthy and even more importantly out of trouble.
In my opinion, football is as popular as ever with all ages.
I agree that the Beckhams and Ronaldo's of this world are earning obscene amounts of money - for not only playing but advertising various products, but thats the name of the game , good or bad. These guys are likened to Pop Idols.
I enjoy football, probably because I had little opportunity to watch anything else on TV, growing up with two football mad Brothers.
Football is a game which only requires a ball, it keeps kids happy/healthy and even more importantly out of trouble.
Meggetland
Ok its not Portobello but.....
Match point to developer as housing gets go-ahead
COUNCILLORS have approved controversial plans to build 78 flats and an underground car park on former playing fields at Meggetland.
The proposal forms part of a larger sports and residential development which is already under way on the Colinton Road site.
A detailed planning application by developer Applecross was given the go-ahead this week. But the flats scheme - which drew protests from campaigners - already had approval in principle as part of the overall plan following a public inquiry.
The underground car park would be used solely by residents and visitors to the flats.
But the Craiglockhart Community Council claimed the facility would lead to additional cars and more traffic congestion in the area. The group’s letter of objection read: "Obviously the secure parking has advantages for prospective purchasers but an increase overall on the site is not attractive to other users of Meggetland who have enjoyed the area as a green lung."
The controversial building work on the former playing fields at Meggetland sparked massive protests from local residents and campaigners in 2003. And as part of the agreed deal, Applecross is paying £6 million for new rugby, football, cricket and all-weather pitches, floodlighting and changing rooms.
But the project hit delays earlier this week when contractors ruptured a water main and caused a spectacular 80-foot spout.
Match point to developer as housing gets go-ahead
COUNCILLORS have approved controversial plans to build 78 flats and an underground car park on former playing fields at Meggetland.
The proposal forms part of a larger sports and residential development which is already under way on the Colinton Road site.
A detailed planning application by developer Applecross was given the go-ahead this week. But the flats scheme - which drew protests from campaigners - already had approval in principle as part of the overall plan following a public inquiry.
The underground car park would be used solely by residents and visitors to the flats.
But the Craiglockhart Community Council claimed the facility would lead to additional cars and more traffic congestion in the area. The group’s letter of objection read: "Obviously the secure parking has advantages for prospective purchasers but an increase overall on the site is not attractive to other users of Meggetland who have enjoyed the area as a green lung."
The controversial building work on the former playing fields at Meggetland sparked massive protests from local residents and campaigners in 2003. And as part of the agreed deal, Applecross is paying £6 million for new rugby, football, cricket and all-weather pitches, floodlighting and changing rooms.
But the project hit delays earlier this week when contractors ruptured a water main and caused a spectacular 80-foot spout.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
Received today via Maureen Child's email distribution list:
Appendix
ReportFollowing our discussions at Portobello Community Council last night, please find attached the report about the proposed sale of the Powerleague site, which I finally got a hold of this morning. The Director of City Development assures me it is not commercially confidential and it will go on the main agenda for next week's Council Executive Meeting ( 7 June).
You will see that the Council is still committing to a community consultation on this as part of Portobello's regeneration (as I requested) and that includes the necessity to build a fit-for-purpose Portobello High School.
Please note that Council officers are saying that we need a decision on the sale of this site now. This report could go through the scrutiny process and through full Council before final decision is made so we have more than a week - but I would be grateful for some a steer from you now! Questions and comment would be very welcome.
This does not commit the Council to moving the Powerleague operation to any particular site; the south side of Portobello golf course is not the only option. Neither does the report commit us to relocating Portobello library or Portobello community centre. There are still showstoppers to finalising this particular sale and I want to help maximise the opportunites for Portobello if it goes ahead.
Please circulate this as widely as you like, in any form you like, to aid our continuing dialogue about our community's continued development. And let me have your views on this and other issues.
Maureen
Appendix
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
So, £4M to the Council and £4M to the sitting tenants plus council-owned land to re-house their facilities. Not a bad deal - for Powerleague at least! And what do we get? £4M surely? Well, not quite. In fact (correct me if I'm wrong) only around £1m will go back into the regeneration of Portobello.
Is this really the best deal we can broker?
Is this really the best deal we can broker?
Pitz Site...Here we go again
So we move Pitz to Portobello Park and build houses by the beach. Then Pitz closes and we build houses on that site. Can we not just build house on Portobello Park and be done with it. Just kidding.
On the library/community centre site, it should remain in the 'centre' of Portobello. Redevelop the current site.
On the library/community centre site, it should remain in the 'centre' of Portobello. Redevelop the current site.
-
Brian McCrow
- Posts: 224
- Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 12:11
- Location: Portobello
Maureen
It would perhaps be useful to show the Community Council or a subset thereof the plans submitted by the top 2 contendors so we can understand more clearly the extent of the linear park.
I would not wish any community buildings to move to this site because of the future implications on the Scottish Power site development vis a vis a Superstore. I would like to see the Library and Community Centre replaced with an integrated building in the same space. I didn't understand Lawrence's proposition on monday night but I assume it related to an even more fundamental replacement including the shops opposite the Police station. If that is the case it seems well worth exploring. I guess it may mean relocating some of the current residents but that may be necessary anyway as those buildings look a bit suspect building and maintenance wise.
I would also like the Town Hall to be featured more strongly in the regeneration of Portobello. I believe that a new floor could be constructed at the first floor level to maintain the current lower hall with a reduced ceiling and new spaces upstairs to house a museum, Youth Club etc.
Can you explain why the total amount of £3.96M isn't being spent in Portobello and/or exactly what proportion will be spent in Portobello. Can I assume that committed monies for pavements etc are outside of this new money? Can I also assume that the new PHS will be funded separately. Incidentally has anyone thought about rebuilding PHS on the same plot by demolishing the low level buildings to the North side in order to build the new school in this space and then demolishing the current multi storey building for further school buildings.
When will we have a full debate on the regeneration of Portobello?
When will we sit down with Duddingston Properties? Who has this as a project?
I'd like to have more visibility within the Community Council and the wider Community of Council plans and responsible officers so we can make sure our thinking and the Council's are fully integrated. This will bring the maximum focus on what we all agree needs to be done. I know that our local Councillors have a remit to do this but I believe it will be stronger with the Community behind it. As you know I would like the Community Council to be much more pro-active than they have been of late. I think these changes are more important as we move to PR voting as I'm still not clear how we will be able to manage a community such as Portobello with an increased number of new Councillors.
Finally, on balance I'm in favour of selling off the Pitz.
Hope that helps.
Brian
It would perhaps be useful to show the Community Council or a subset thereof the plans submitted by the top 2 contendors so we can understand more clearly the extent of the linear park.
I would not wish any community buildings to move to this site because of the future implications on the Scottish Power site development vis a vis a Superstore. I would like to see the Library and Community Centre replaced with an integrated building in the same space. I didn't understand Lawrence's proposition on monday night but I assume it related to an even more fundamental replacement including the shops opposite the Police station. If that is the case it seems well worth exploring. I guess it may mean relocating some of the current residents but that may be necessary anyway as those buildings look a bit suspect building and maintenance wise.
I would also like the Town Hall to be featured more strongly in the regeneration of Portobello. I believe that a new floor could be constructed at the first floor level to maintain the current lower hall with a reduced ceiling and new spaces upstairs to house a museum, Youth Club etc.
Can you explain why the total amount of £3.96M isn't being spent in Portobello and/or exactly what proportion will be spent in Portobello. Can I assume that committed monies for pavements etc are outside of this new money? Can I also assume that the new PHS will be funded separately. Incidentally has anyone thought about rebuilding PHS on the same plot by demolishing the low level buildings to the North side in order to build the new school in this space and then demolishing the current multi storey building for further school buildings.
When will we have a full debate on the regeneration of Portobello?
When will we sit down with Duddingston Properties? Who has this as a project?
I'd like to have more visibility within the Community Council and the wider Community of Council plans and responsible officers so we can make sure our thinking and the Council's are fully integrated. This will bring the maximum focus on what we all agree needs to be done. I know that our local Councillors have a remit to do this but I believe it will be stronger with the Community behind it. As you know I would like the Community Council to be much more pro-active than they have been of late. I think these changes are more important as we move to PR voting as I'm still not clear how we will be able to manage a community such as Portobello with an increased number of new Councillors.
Finally, on balance I'm in favour of selling off the Pitz.
Hope that helps.
Brian
-
Brian McCrow
- Posts: 224
- Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 12:11
- Location: Portobello
Reply from Cllr Maureen Child
Brian
Thanks. That's very helpful feedback.
The issue about the linear park and open space is still open to discussions at the planning stage. The ranking is on the basis of number of units. There are firm plans until we have a potential buyer. The EU procurement rules will not allow us that degree of public scrutiny of bids. We only see the headlines.
I agree with you about community buildings and their siting and there is some merit in what Lawrence was saying, so I'd welcome exploring these options. Lawrence was telling me a bit more about possibilities on this today. He's talked to our colleague responsible for housing and she thinks it could be possible.
Interesting idea of a museum and use of the town Hal. Iain Abbot and the Portobello Community Centre Management consolation already looked at this as a possibility.
There is a presumption against ringfencing of capital receipts, but my idea is that we pull in very much more investment for library, community centre, Portobello High School and other facilities - taking us way beyond £4 million. Only if we get a whole strategic package can the Council justify ring-fencing - and that's what I hope to be able to achieve here over the next 6 months. Lawrence is not so convinced, but all these things are coming to a head together in the next 6 months.
The consultation is ongoing and we will get into higher gear from here on in. It's not just one big meeting. There has to be other elements to it.
Duddingston Properties have to want to sit down with people in the community and - to date - they have not shown any interest whatever in doing so. They are toatlly focussed ontheir onw commercial interest, I beleive. I await their next move with baited breath! Susan Deacon's put down a challenge to them. PCATS are still leading on this, although Stephen Hawkins is wanting PCATS to link into Community Council more.
The Portobello Community Council is the most proactive and strategic there is, but it can be more so. I agree that Councillors need the community behind them.
Brian
Thanks. That's very helpful feedback.
The issue about the linear park and open space is still open to discussions at the planning stage. The ranking is on the basis of number of units. There are firm plans until we have a potential buyer. The EU procurement rules will not allow us that degree of public scrutiny of bids. We only see the headlines.
I agree with you about community buildings and their siting and there is some merit in what Lawrence was saying, so I'd welcome exploring these options. Lawrence was telling me a bit more about possibilities on this today. He's talked to our colleague responsible for housing and she thinks it could be possible.
Interesting idea of a museum and use of the town Hal. Iain Abbot and the Portobello Community Centre Management consolation already looked at this as a possibility.
There is a presumption against ringfencing of capital receipts, but my idea is that we pull in very much more investment for library, community centre, Portobello High School and other facilities - taking us way beyond £4 million. Only if we get a whole strategic package can the Council justify ring-fencing - and that's what I hope to be able to achieve here over the next 6 months. Lawrence is not so convinced, but all these things are coming to a head together in the next 6 months.
The consultation is ongoing and we will get into higher gear from here on in. It's not just one big meeting. There has to be other elements to it.
Duddingston Properties have to want to sit down with people in the community and - to date - they have not shown any interest whatever in doing so. They are toatlly focussed ontheir onw commercial interest, I beleive. I await their next move with baited breath! Susan Deacon's put down a challenge to them. PCATS are still leading on this, although Stephen Hawkins is wanting PCATS to link into Community Council more.
The Portobello Community Council is the most proactive and strategic there is, but it can be more so. I agree that Councillors need the community behind them.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
Letter from Lawrence Marshall to EN (as yet unpublished):
Dear Sir,
When, as the local councillor, I spoke at the Council Executive meeting yesterday (Tuesday 7th June) which approved the sale of two-thirds of the Pitz site on Portobello High Street, I supported this sale but added some important caveats.
My support is primarily based on the belief that 5-a-side football pitches have not enhanced the townscape at the entrance to Portobello - housing will be an improvement and will include 21 very much needed flats for social rent.
Secondly, the ring-fencing of part of the sale proceeds allows us to begin to make progress on providing the new community centre and library that Portobello needs.
I made it clear, though, that what remains of the Pitz site is not a suitable location for a new library. It could accommodate a new community centre - and I believe this sale, together with that of the existing community centre site, means we now have enough money to build a new community centre.
However, I believe we can do even better than that and, by also redeveloping the current library site and maybe a High Street site nearby, we can get a new library either on its existing site or on the High Street and maybe also a new community centre there as well as part of a new community complex more centrally located than even the current facilties are.
If that stacks up financially, then the Council would seek to turn the remainder of the Pitz site into a linear park allowing access to the Promenade from the High Street alongside the Figgate Burn. If not, then that remaining site itself could make up any financial deficit in plans to re-build community facilities centrally.
Finally, all these permutations need to be studied carefully by the local community to see what best meets their aspirations. A motion was passed yesterday giving instructions that such consultation take place with a report to come back to the Council within 6 months.
Councillor Lawrence Marshall
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
The text from Lawrence's email on the subject:
Dear All,
This is an important site and potentially the proceeds from its sale allows us to break the impasse of many years which has prevented the building of a new community centre. As I say, housing here should also improve the entrance to Portobello as well as providing more local residents to support existing facilities and shops. 21 affordable flats will also be most welcome. Portobello has very few Council houses left and yet the waiting list for the Portobello area numbers in the thousands.
If this sale, by then allowing us to look at the existing community centre and library sites as well, means that we can piece together an even more attractive funding package that allows a new library also to be built and perhaps even on the High Street, so much the better.
I made it clear yesterday that I didn't think linking this to the provision of a new Portobello High School with playing fields was helpful. That's a much bigger issue - and the funding of that alone would come in around £25m or more. A separate report will now instead be produced about a new High School. Let's keep things tight and more manageable.
We'll sit down soon in the community to discuss the possible permutations and I also made it clear at the Council Executive yesterday that PCATS should be included in this consultation grouping.
Lawrence
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
And the draft minute from the CEC Executive meeting concerned:
3 Powerleague Site, 10 Westbank Street, Portobello (Agenda item number 11)
Authority was sought to dispose of two-thirds of the Powerleague site in Portobello to the party making the most attractive offer, Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd. The wider issue of regeneration in Portobello would be addressed in a further report to be submitted within six months. In the meantime consultation was proposed on public facilities through reapplication of disposal proceeds. A capital receipt of about £3.96 million was expected as the Council’s share of the purchase price.
Councillor Marshall, local ward member, supported the proposed disposal.
Decision
1) To dispose of two thirds of the Powerleague site at 10 Westbank Street, Portobello to Taylor Woodrow Developments, subject to terms and conditions to be agreed by the Director of City Development and the Council Solicitor.
2) If the proposed sale did not proceed to completion on terms acceptable to the Council and Powerleague Group Limited, to revert to the offer from Miller Homes and then Kier Homes on a whom failing basis.
3) To welcome the proposals and to stress the need for full public consultation on community facilities as detailed in the report by the Director of City Development; this consultation to be led by local elected members.
4) To call for a report on a site for the new Portobello High School.
5) To recommend that the Council approve the proposal to ringfence the capital receipt.
6) To refer the report to the East Local Development Committee.
(Reference – Executive of the Council 24 July 2004 (item 39); report no E/41/05-06/CD by the Director of City Development, submitted.)
-
Pal of Porty
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 13:41
- Location: Old Folks Home
- Contact:
Would that be the impasse that allowed a 99 year lease to be given away in the first place? After all - the only thing the lease produced is "a belief that 5-a-side football pitches have not enhanced the townscape at the entrance to Portobello."Bob Jefferson wrote:The text from Lawrence's email on the subject:
Dear All,
This is an important site and potentially the proceeds from its sale allows us to break the impasse of many years.......Lawrence
Yet again again we are left debating what 's best to do with the remaining crumbs after the crown jewels have been given away!
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Sold down the river. Taylor Woodrow have paid £53,000 per plot for 140 Homes. To put that in perspective, there is currently a tiny plot in Seaview Terrace being marketed at £95,000. There is a plot that will take 2 semi-detached houses in Argyle Cres just sold for £300,000+. The Pitz site is arguaby more desirable than both.
I'm tempted to slate the Council for being un-commercial but it comes down to the old adage you pay peanuts you get monkeys. The disposal of this Asset is nothing short of scandalous, no matter how it is dressed up.
In my view the council should have stuck with the 84 year lease. You made one error of judgement don't compound it.
Pitz would have either had to invest at some points during that 84 year lease or clear out. Meanwhile the council should have borrowed against the land value.
Temptation has proved too much.I have to say too COEC you could not run a p iss up in a brewery. You are like a prostitute that craves instant money, when you should be custodians of this precious city. You got f***** up the a ss by Powerleague. What did you learn? Enough to get f***** up the a ss by Powerleague and Taylor Woodrow. Its a financial gang bang and you are the whores.
I'm tempted to slate the Council for being un-commercial but it comes down to the old adage you pay peanuts you get monkeys. The disposal of this Asset is nothing short of scandalous, no matter how it is dressed up.
In my view the council should have stuck with the 84 year lease. You made one error of judgement don't compound it.
Pitz would have either had to invest at some points during that 84 year lease or clear out. Meanwhile the council should have borrowed against the land value.
Temptation has proved too much.I have to say too COEC you could not run a p iss up in a brewery. You are like a prostitute that craves instant money, when you should be custodians of this precious city. You got f***** up the a ss by Powerleague. What did you learn? Enough to get f***** up the a ss by Powerleague and Taylor Woodrow. Its a financial gang bang and you are the whores.
What a wonderful imagePorty wrote: You got f***** up the a ss by Powerleague. What did you learn? Enough to get f***** up the a ss by Powerleague and Taylor Woodrow. Its a financial gang bang and you are the whores.
Doesn't really affect me but agree with what you're saying. If you have assets you keep hold of them or sell them for the most amount of other assets (ie money) you can get.
May sound awfully materialistic
but surely that's the point of having land/houses/etc.Porty wrote:Sold down the river. Taylor Woodrow have paid £53,000 per plot for 140 Homes. To put that in perspective, there is currently a tiny plot in Seaview Terrace being marketed at £95,000. There is a plot that will take 2 semi-detached houses in Argyle Cres just sold for £300,000+. The Pitz site is arguaby more desirable than both.
I'm tempted to slate the Council for being un-commercial but it comes down to the old adage you pay peanuts you get monkeys. The disposal of this Asset is nothing short of scandalous, no matter how it is dressed up.
In my view the council should have stuck with the 84 year lease. You made one error of judgement don't compound it.
Pitz would have either had to invest at some points during that 84 year lease or clear out. Meanwhile the council should have borrowed against the land value.
Temptation has proved too much.I have to say too COEC you could not run a p iss up in a brewery. You are like a prostitute that craves instant money, when you should be custodians of this precious city. You got f***** up the a ss by Powerleague. What did you learn? Enough to get f***** up the a ss by Powerleague and Taylor Woodrow. Its a financial gang bang and you are the whores.
I could not have put it any better Porty - 'Sold down the river' the accusation I made to the Councillors at St. Mark's Pubilc Meeting, last December! (albeit re another issue - that PCATS were involved in earlier in the year) Seem to remember you lambasting me for this
Regardless of this, promises were made at that very same meeting, about consultation in the communityby our esteemed rep. from Joppa/Milton ward, a posting by her, through Bob, was put on the Forum just last week - Although - A member of PCATS was appointed to contact both reps on a weekly basis regarding the PITZ site, negative feeback since March!
IMO the Monkey's are getting too many peanuts!