If you can't stand the heat, and all that...Porty wrote:Gemini wrote:Porty wrote: Seem to remember you lambasting me for this
quote]
I did not lambast you, i did think you got a bit personal and I thought I'd let you know. Gemini, I dont really know you but I have to say my admiration is huge. I have watched you campaining and its selfless, not ego driven, its just you.
KODWYAD.
, don't think I want to know?
Dear All
The Council Executive to agreed to refer the report on the sale of two thirds of the Powerleague site be approved, subject to all the conditions and caveats about finding another site for Powerleague, which will be difficult. The Council have not agreed to the development of a new library on the site, but if the deal does go ahead to completion, there is a Council commitment to new community/library facilities. A fit for purpose community centre, library, road and pavements, local schools and investment in the Promenade and Edinburgh's seaside are all very high on a list of priorities for capital spending in Portobello. Especially schools.
There are already plans to invest in new pavements and landscaping for the Portobello High Street and work has begun at the west end. We do not necessarily require to ring fence Council receipts in order to achieve a large amount of investment in the public realm and public buildings in this area, although the sale of assets all across Edinburgh can always go some way to help achieve some or all of these aims. The investment for Portobello High School will require around £24 million. Towerbank Primary School has a shortfall of £1 million for investment. That funding will have to be found somewhere from the Council's capital programme, in addition to the proceeds from the sale of Towerbank Annexe in Bath Street.
There is a need and demand for a lot of investment in Portobello, which we need to discuss in the community - both what are the priorities and how we raise the funding. The best focus for that is the people elected to represent those community interests. You're stuck with me and Lawrence until 2007 and we have an excellent Portobello Community Council which is elected and is leading on a range of issues with us, including this one. If any of us are unrepresentative of your views, then the onus is on you to engage with elected representatives and persuade them of the sense of what you think.
This site belongs to the people of Edinburgh, although the people of Portobello and district have a huge stake in its future.
Thanks for the (comments?) you have made to me so far and over the last few months. People have asked me various questions. I hope I've captured most of them below, which everyone might find it useful for me to answer to all. Do let me know if there's any I missed out or if you want further clarification or more questions. Here goes:
What is meant by affordable? This usually means housing for rent through partnership with a housing association.
How much variation from the urban design principles are we talking about? There are no urban design principles for this site, just the concept drawing on which the site was marketed to give an idea of what might be acceptable.
Is there consideration of a car-free or low transport impact development? That is possible, but it largely depends on the developer's plans and potential buyers' demands.
If not, what links would there be to the main road, and would there be the possibility of cycling and walking along the linear park? This is part of the planning process, to be discussed by the applicant with Council officers before a detailed plan is submitted
Re the proposals for the Powerleague site I would question why there are so few affordable units being allocated or in the case of Keir Homes - none - this could be an opportunity to provide housing for people who are priced out of the market at the present time? The Council's planning policies insists on a proportion of affordable units in any large development. It could be 15% here. And it's usually housing for rent.
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. It is. We don't need ring fencing (although we've got it) to get money spent in Portobello as a priority.
Can I assume that committed monies for pavements etc are outside of this new money? Yes
Can I also assume that the new Portobello High School (PHS) will be funded separately? Yes
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? Yes. But where would we get the funds from?
When will we have a full debate on the regeneration of Portobello? We're doing this all the time, day in day out - and your elected representative need to hear it and reply to it. The debate has not got a beginning - or an end.
When will we sit down with Duddingston House Properties? Who has this as a project? I certainly won't be doing this. The ball is in DHP's court and the community and Council have made crystal clear what they want. The next move is there's and it better be in the direction of the urban design principles for the site.
If the council are concerned about Power League letting the maintenance of the site decline, are there no requirements in the lease that Power League maintain their property to a certain standard or the council have the right to terminate the lease? Apparently it was not that strict. I suspect it was hard for the District Council to get a recreational use commit to the site at the time.
Why are Power League being given such a large proportion of the potential sale price? They wanted 100% and had a buyer lined up. Powerleague were beaten back to 50% through negotiation. Lawrence and I would have wanted them out with no money whatsoever, but we didn't get it.
The community is being left with a 'linear' strip of land which is probably unsuitable for building a decent-sized property for any community facilities. The Council is left with the rest of the site and possibly some public open space within the development. The design of the development, and contribution to public space, has yet to come.
There are no requirements made in the deal for any of the land sale money to be used for or in Portobello, so we could lose the site and get no benefit from the sale. That's not true. It would be wholly or partially ring fenced depending on Council agreement at its meeting on June 30. Portobello has huge need for spending which totally dwarfs this sum.
If Power League are given a new site by the Council, wherever that might be, are they buying it, leasing it or being given it? If they are leasing or being given a new site, does this give them future opportunities to benefit from any such land? I understand they will probably lease it, if it's Council land, although not on the same kinds of terms as the current site.
This commitment (to consultation) was made in December 2004. This is now June and, despite requests for updates, they were not forthcoming until one week before the deadline. Why not? The community got to know all the information we Councillors had as soon as the Councillors did. We had no updates either, except informal information that a good number of bids were in and they were being assessed. This process was delayed a bit, until after the Superstore Inquiry was finished and at the community's request. Councillors and community are not allowed to see the content of the bids. It is a closed process for good corporate governance reasons.
You are not the Councillor for Portobello, therefore I wonder why you took this huge burden (of consultation) upon yourself in the first instance? The job is shared with Lawrence Marshall and we are doing what we were elected and appointed to do - represent the best interests of Portobello and district. My ward starts at Marlborough Street, going east. Milton constituents use the local Portobello facilities and have just as much of a stake as any one of us who live in central Portobello. Lawrence is my Councillor too and I know what good job he does at first hand.
Perhaps the 450.000 people of Edinburgh are not fully aware of the council's mismanagement of this site from its inception? The Portobello community voice at that time absolutely insisted on a recreational use for the open air pool site and that is what they had for the last 15 years. They also opposed the demolition of the building in the first place, but unsuccessfully. That was before we all got so effective at campaigning. I suspect the Edinburgh District Council delivered what it could do at the time, with the best of intentions. Bad outcome, I agree.
Why was no information released until 7 days before? That is when the report papers get into the public domain,- one week before the meeting. I didn't get to see it any earlier either. The sale is not a done deal yet. There are a number of show-stoppers to the sale and redevelopment of the site.
Isn't the talk of consultation rather hollow if the Council officers are pressing for an immediate decision on the sale of the site? The consultation, which I have talked about consistently, over the last year or more, is about the regeneration of Portobello as a whole, of which this site is a part. Lawrence and I had to accept that it was impossible to have the kind of consultation we would have wanted on whether or not this site was sold and who to. That is because of the long term lease; the wish to avoid the Council and community being held to ransom by Powerleague holding out for an even bigger share of the proceeds; and Council sale procedures which are specifically set up to prevent corrupt decisions and cosy deals behind the scenes and to secure best value for the Council. Popular democracy, commercial sales and best value do not sit easily together. We did our best.
Why was no proper consultative process conducted? As Lawrence and I explained at the public meeting we had in December, keeping it out of the public domain enabled the Council to strike a deal with Powerleague which would be of advantage to Portobello. The Council officers and Councillors were not keen to sell to please Powerleague, but were prepared to contemplate it if we could secure investment in the regeneration of Portobello - both in public and private investment. Consultation is an ongoing process, not a one-off 'referendum' or 'debate'. I have been consulting all along, as much as I 'properly' could, and so has Lawrence.
I am not convinced there is as much opposition to the principle of the sale as (so far) only four individuals strongly assert there is. Not everyone was speaking with the same voice at the December public meeting about this site - or since. Of course, if people are given the misinformation that this is some kind of conspiracy against Portobello and its citizens, they will sign up to opposition.
Please do let me know if there is anything more you want to know or ask me - about this or any other Council, community or individual issue.
Best wishes
Maureen
Why wait? If you have something to say, let's hear it. Or is it just a re-hash of previous conspiracy theories?Gemini wrote:Maybe when the PCATS journal is rleased for public scrutiny - in about 30 years, you will understand where I/we were coming from. Suffice to say, We gained an insight into what really was going on behind the scenes
Why wait? If you have something to say, let's hear it. Or is it just a re-hash of previous conspiracy theories?[/quote]Gemini wrote:Maybe when the PCATS journal is released for public scrutiny - in about 30 years, you will understand where I/we were coming from. Suffice to say, We gained an insight into what really was going on behind the scenes
How convenient. I'm sure we are looking forward to the release of this information. Or perhaps it's all in your imagination? The internet seems to be full of imaginative people at the moment.Gemini wrote:My 'quoted' posting, is no conspiracy theory - it is a fact. Unfortunately I cannot take up the gauntlet, as I am not at liberty to divulge what occurred without discussing it with PCATS! you will , I hope, appreciate my temporary reticence!
Bob, do stop trying to take the moral high ground on the subject, you were made fully aware of what happened at the meeting with the Councillors and PCATS last year -Bob Jefferson wrote:How convenient. I'm sure we are looking forward to the release of this information. Or perhaps it's all in your imagination? The internet seems to be full of imaginative people at the moment.Gemini wrote:My 'quoted' posting, is no conspiracy theory - it is a fact. Unfortunately I cannot take up the gauntlet, as I am not at liberty to divulge what occurred without discussing it with PCATS! you will , I hope, appreciate my temporary reticence!
Cllr ChildIf any of us are unrepresentative of your views, then the onus is on you to engage with elected representatives and persuade them of the sense of what you think.
Is that the collective 'we' or purely your own agenda?Bob Jefferson wrote:Gemini, what I don't like is insinuation. I prefer to deal in facts. What facts about the way the Council handled this situation would you like to make a point about? Is it a startling revelation that we were previously unaware of? Is it a resignation issue? Why can't you speak plainly about it?
I have more than covered this in my previous posting, you are probably more aware of 'the issues' than most of POL's.
Unless you can be more specific, we are left to conclude that there is in fact no substance behind your vague accusations and that they are personally, or perhaps politically, motivated.
Well, this may just be a rumour, and it isn't the only option, but I think it might be going on an area which is big, green, tree lined, marked out with football nets, near a main road and has lovely views of Arthur's Seat. But I might be wrong - hopefully.Robin! wrote:I hear its confirmed that the Pitz will be going
I take it that flats will be go there and where will the pitz move to?
The top of portobello golf course?Epykat wrote:Well, this may just be a rumour, and it isn't the only option, but I think it might be going on an area which is big, green, tree lined, marked out with football nets, near a main road and has lovely views of Arthur's Seat. But I might be wrong - hopefully.Robin! wrote:I hear its confirmed that the Pitz will be going
I take it that flats will be go there and where will the pitz move to?
The Council has yet to formally, and finally, decide on the disposal of some of this site for housing development, with the Council's share going towards community facilities in Portobello. Although the principle has been established, with community centre, the community they consulted, and local Elected Members' input.
We have undertaken a wide range of discussions and debate about this with a wide range of people in the local community. And we will continue to consult in the context of the wider issues of regeneration and investment in local Portobello facilities, including schools, community centre and library.
The local Councillors have consistently argued that this needs to be seen as a package from which Portobello continues to benefit. A report went to the Council Executive, with full consultation with the two most involved Councillors, was called in to a Council scrutiny panel to look at the implications for local sporting facilities, a move which I welcome. The report will be considered by the full Council in July.
Thank you very much for participating in the meeting last night. I was very pleased with all your contributions. It was good to get some of the options in the open and hear the responses.
Although I get the feeling many would like to keep the Powerleague site as a football site, there was was good support for developing the site as a housing and leisure facility with re-development of the Community Centre and library on their current sites. I think there was a clear message to encourage us to keep looking at the bigger picture and face some of the difficult questions.
Tom Smith has volunteered to analyse the results of the questionnaire, which we can review at the Community Council meeting at the end of the month.
The High School seems to be the most significant problem, but the message was clear that Portobello does not want to lose it's green spaces and expects the Council not to have to sell off sites to build a new school - or indeed anything else. This will be a big challenge for the City Council to face, but one that will become increasingly important across the city if the Council has to sell off the "family silver" and cut amenities everytime something major needs replacing. Clearly this is not a sustainable policy in the long run.
Many thanks too to all who helped organise the event. I think some of us were worried that the publicity could have been better, and the weather was going to be against us, but I thought the turn out was excellent.
Yes, it WAS a good meeting and well done to everyone!
If we are to avoid using Portobello's much loved green spaces, then everyone - thousands of us in Portobello and beyond - have to realise the immense scale of that challenge. It's not just a challenge for elected politicians and Council officers. Meeting the community's needs and aspirations is the equivalent of the south face of the Aegar for our community and we are ALL at base camp without tents and equipment.
It's not just a question of us having creative ideas and 'just say no' to what comes forward from the forces of darkness in Council officialdom or politicians - paid or unpaid. Council officers and Elected Members are between several rocks and hard places.
The Council and Counicllors have had ALL the creative ideas that came up last night already, and a good few more. The difference is, your elected politicians and officers are charged with actually delivering something on the ground in a reasonable timescale. They can't build schools in the air. That's what some of our creative ideas may turn out to be.
The choices we face may not be as easy open as people seem to think. There has to be space for ALL of us to explore ALL those options which are real possibilities and do that calmly and rationally. Last night was a very good attempt at that.
Maureen
Thanks for this - a good turnout (I made it around 200) and a good meeting.
I'm glad that we've got broad agreement on a new community centre and library. There are a few options re. the library that we'll need to explore further: (i) rebuild on existing site with flats above to pay for this (but maybe wouldn't allow a new library on one level because of length); (ii) knock down 1-6 Williamfield Square and shops beneath and build library on High Street with entrance towards new civic space/square with flats above (incl. flats for those losing their home through this demolition - 2 of these homes are currently for sale and the Director of Housing has said that he'll try his best to help rebuy these); (iii) compulsorily purchase only the shops at Williamfield Square, building the library underneath the existing flats but extended as well onto the pavement bounding Rosefield Avenue and with a possible extension northwards under and beyond the existing canopy in front of the shops.
As for the Power League site, I hope very much that we can achieve the new East Edinburgh Sports Centre beside the Indoor Bowls Centre. There's a great synergy here in terms of sharing facilities and management, it's a pleasant location, is well located for access throughout east Edinburgh and, as part of this, is well served that way by public transport.
"Sub-Zero" is a great idea - contactable at subzeroscotland@hotmail.com -and I know that they'll work hard to try to achieve what they wish on that part of the Power League site remaining after sale. They're certainly upbeat about this.
As you know, I view the issue of a new Portobello High School as a separate matter. It's a bit of a shame that it came to dominate the discussion last night - but since I'd been open to the School Board, etc. about this, I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised that it was raised as an issue! The option of using part of the golf course has been put to us by officials and is a result of the failure of Portobello High School's PPP bid and the resulting increase in pressure from the school community to secure a new school and one with playing fields. To re-build on the current site is an option but destroys value with no compensating capital receipt. You then have to find £25m to re-build the school - and no playing fields. That could take many, many years to find the money for - certainly beyond PPP2 which hasn't even started yet.
That said, maybe that's what it will come to - I'm not a dictator but there's a multiplicity of views to represent on this issue, some not capable of compromise, I guess.
As you know, I argued strongly for the Council to consider the Power League site, incl. the Indoor Bowls Centre - we would have had to buy the Richard Corsie Centre to re-provision the bowling and would still have had to buy out Power League but it would have been a High School on the High Street. That wasn't acceptable to Education who thought it wouldn't work - a 3/4 storey building on a too small site and on the edge of the catchment area.
I did wonder about the Freightliner site but I could well understand concerns about this site's remoteness and being sandwiched between a main railway and a main road.
I hope that people will now understand the need for a new High School and I hope too that people will feel free to come up with their own ways of resolving this - sometimes folk come up with ideas we've not had.
Once again, for me last night was primarily about trying to find ways forward regarding a new community centre, library and the Power League site. I feel we made some progress on this and hopefully with further information we can reach some conclusion on this in the next few months to enable us to report back to the Council as required following agreement to buy out Power League through sale of two-thirds of the site and thus secure the finance available for a new community facility in Portobello.
Lawrence
and deserves what he gets: either full Rent or Hook slung.