6 terraced houses planned in front of Bath Place

Fred · Post by **Fred** » 11 Jul 2005, 22:48

I have just recieved notification for planning permission for the building of 6 terraced houses (multiple stories) in the area known as 19-24 Promenade - ie on the area of grass just in front of the Georgian houses on Bath Place at the bottom of Bath Street.
The plans were not available today but should be available very soon on http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning yet but I am cynical about the timing of this application (people away on holidays etc.)
The area is already damaged thanks to the Granny's attic flats a well as the worsened congestion as a result of those flats. This will hide the view of the cottages from the promenade which I know many people enjoy. The buildings will not match those of the listed buildings and housing that defines this conservation area and is not what the promenade needs.
Please write in and oppose this application to The Director of PLanning, City of Edinburgh Council, 1 Cockburn Street, Edinburgh EH1 1ZL or you can submit comments on the aforementioned website.
The deadline is 25/07/05.

Post by **wangi** » 11 Jul 2005, 22:58

Who owns the land? I'd always just assumed it was the council, but who is it really? This is the site once occupied by Marlborough Mansions?
I guess a better time to object would be once the plans are available for inspection... ?

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 11 Jul 2005, 23:04

This is the site once occupied by Marlborough Mansions?

Don't think so - Marlborough Mansions backed onto Straiton Place. Bath Place is that wee row of 'cottages' down the lane just before the Old Pier.

Post by **wangi** » 11 Jul 2005, 23:07

Got you, to the left at the bottom of Bath St, not the right:

http://www.pbase.com/wangi/image/42250946
- where you can see the "shadow" of the old building.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 11 Jul 2005, 23:10

yup!
There is a thread about this somewhere but it's too hot to go and look - even beside the sea!!

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 12 Jul 2005, 06:34

Poppy wrote:yup!
There is a thread about this somewhere but it's too hot to go and look - even beside the sea!!

http://porty.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=130
This was the one I remembered but there might be another?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 12 Jul 2005, 08:34

This is inevitable really. Bit of spare land etc.... The cottages should have been given the chance to buy the land and make gardens. Far more aesthetically pleasing, wouldn't "detract from the character of the conservation area" (that's an authentic Council quote by the way!), but, so what, let's build more flats

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » 13 Jul 2005, 17:16

Epykat wrote:The cottages should have been given the chance to buy the land and make gardens.

The problem there is that the land is privately owned. This has come up before, when Jamesie and Alex had a heated debate about rights to views/light etc. The site is an eyesore, and needs redeveloping, IMHO. Of course, if I lived in that row of cottages, I wouldn't be happy either.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 14 Jul 2005, 00:21

Dakota wrote: Of course, if I lived in that row of cottages, I wouldn't be happy either.

Perhaps, but are you truly happy now?

Post by **wangi** » 14 Jul 2005, 12:56

Application online: 05/02411/FUL & Plans (not online yet)

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 14 Jul 2005, 20:12

"The neighbours have been assured that the site is zoned for green space area, as identified in the local plan.

Neighbours kept the grass cut down for the first five years but stopped this in the hope the Council would step in and requisition the ground as
it has been left unattended by the owners for over the 10 year limit.

However like all things the Council could do for Portobello - this has not happened yet!"

This is a quote taken from Susan back in 2003 - some things never change

Beach Babe · Post by **Beach Babe** » 14 Jul 2005, 21:37

strangely enough, last week a few of us were walking past this bit when we all commented that it was odd that no-one had attempted to ask for planning permission to build on it. Little did we know.....

I agree that it is a bit of an eyesore as it is. Sadly it's probably inevitable that something gets built there but lets hope something has been learnt from the white monstrosity close by so that if there is to be building, it's at least in keeping with the older buildings

CatzVP · Post by **CatzVP** » 15 Jul 2005, 18:27

I thought Jack Strand, the guy that used to own Jacks Arcade "where the New Miama flats are" owned it. he had a rides set up there for a few years before it fell into the state it is in now.

I remember 20-25 years ago there used to be a couple of 2 or 3 story buildings where the empty land is now

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 15 Jul 2005, 19:34

CatzVP wrote:I thought Jack Strand, the guy that used to own Jacks Arcade "where the New Miama flats are" owned it. he had a rides set up there for a few years before it fell into the state it is in now.

I remember 20-25 years ago there used to be a couple of 2 or 3 story buildings where the empty land is now

I believe that's the surname that appears in the planning application, Catz.

Didn't he have shops and properties down the foot of Bath Street itself too?

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 17 Jul 2005, 23:16

I've been trying to view details of the application on the Council site and it's saying "application invalid".

Not quite sure what this might mean though.

Post by **wangi** » 17 Jul 2005, 23:42

ecm wrote:I've been trying to view details of the application on the Council site and it's saying "application invalid".

Not quite sure what this might mean though.

Whoever filled int he form didn't cross their t's and dot their i's.

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 17 Jul 2005, 23:46

wangi wrote:
ecm wrote:I've been trying to view details of the application on the Council site and it's saying "application invalid".

Not quite sure what this might mean though.
Whoever filled int he form didn't cross their t's and dot their i's.

Yeah, that's probably all it is. I was looking forward to seeing how they plan to fit in 6 houses.
I'll check again during the week.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 17 Jul 2005, 23:50

Seem to remember the last application didn't any further than this one for exactly the same reason.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 18 Jul 2005, 20:18

I would urge anyone who hopes that we can retain some of the historic character of Old Portobello, to object to the proposal to build 6 new terraced houses on the plot adjacent to the Prom, west of Bath Street.
IF we don't show our resistance to all these ugly new buildings going up in Portobello, where will it all end ?
Will our next battle be against developers taking away more valuable green open space, and maybe looking greedily at the grassy area adjacent to Straiton Place/Prom ?...
Fight this application and support the residents of Bath Place with their attempts to purchase the plot for garden usage.
This would keep the historic feel to that lovely area of the Prom that visitors often photograph and enjoy

Post by **wangi** » 18 Jul 2005, 20:37

Paul, there's nothing to object to - the application is invalid.

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 19 Jul 2005, 19:41

wangi wrote:Paul, there's nothing to object to - the application is invalid.

But presumably it'll be represented once whatever made it invalid is corrected.
I assume that fresh notifications will be sent out at this stage to neighbouring properties?

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 19 Jul 2005, 19:58

Thanks very much for that info Wangi
...call me a cynic, but I think this might well be a deliberate ploy to throw those of us that intend to object to the new houses, off our stride.
i.e.
If the agents acting on behalf of the developer suddenly make their application good, by doing all that is needed to submit a proper planning application, then we may not know about the progress of that application until after the closing date for objections.
With that thought in mind, I intend checking the City of Edinburgh, Planning Departments website as often as I can to keep checking the progress of this.
I hope everyone else with an interest in this matter is able to do the same.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 19 Jul 2005, 21:53

I don't think you're cynical at all. These things can and do happen, so keep your eyes and ears peeled and shout as loudly as you can

However, call me a cynic, but it probably won't do much good

Brenda · Post by **Brenda** » 22 Jul 2005, 10:32

Message on behalf of Portobello Amenity Soc :
The general public will have three weeks from the date of its appearing in the planning application lists to object to this proposal - it is not there yet.
Lists also appear in the E News on Fridays.
Only the immediate neighbours who received neighbour notification had until July 17 to object.

Brenda · Post by **Brenda** » 22 Jul 2005, 19:44

Correction to my previous post - neighbours, of course, have until July 25 to object.

Post by **wangi** » 22 Jul 2005, 20:21

Brenda, the application is "Application Invalid On Receipt" - there is nothing to object to (until it is re-submitted and notifications set out again).

Carol · Post by **Carol** » 22 Jul 2005, 21:08

Dear Brenda

Is there a difference between immediate neighbours and neighbours? I ask because only three flats were notified in this block (old tenement Foot of Bath Street / Promenade). Those were the three flats above the chip shop each with a side window looking on to the fenced land.

ras · Post by **ras** » 04 Aug 2005, 14:11

This application is now online.
Validated 27th July, notice posted today (050805)
21 days from today for any representations.
Unlikely that neighbours will have been renotified unless that was the reason that the application was invalid previously.

Not sure if I prefer this style or the 'Miami' style.

Fred · Post by **Fred** » 04 Aug 2005, 22:21

The plans have now been accepted and objections need to be registered by the 18th of August. The reference number is 05/02411/ful if you would like to view them.The plans are shocking - six very unsightly three storey high terraced houses completely blocking the Georgian cottages. There are garages on the ground floor at the back, however it is inconceivable how cars would have the space to park in these garages let alone negoiate each other on Bath Place. It would be criminal to let this happen and allow these greedy people to permanently spoil the look of our historic promenade

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 11 Aug 2005, 20:19

I agree wholeheartedly with Fred, and all the other folks that have the interests of the Historic feel for that area at the corner of Bath Place and Bath Street.
The row of cottages will be hidden from view if we all stand by and do nowt.
I think it's time that we let the authorities know that enough is enough.
If we let any more new buildings go up on the Prom area, we might as well forget we once had a conservation area that was worth fighting over to retain.
Lots of visitors think Edinburgh and Portobello are special because of the history, and lovely old buildings.
I think we all have a duty to make sure these aspects are retained for future generations of locals and visitors to enjoy.

I would urge anyone reading this posting to get online to the Planning page at City of Edinburgh Planning, and register their objections.
Alternatively, write to The head of Planning at Edinburgh Council, giving your views on this proposal.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 13 Aug 2005, 00:01

Just had a look at the application details, really dreadful!

IMPO, bolting these 3 level terraced houses onto the
Victorian Tenament at one side, and on the other side we
have the Miami style high rise - will make the area look downright
ugly and stupid. It's a crying shame.

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /02411/FUL

Have lodged objections.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Aug 2005, 00:09

Hideous, this should not pass planning. They will look almost as bad as the Seaview Hotel houses.

No way am I against a building on this site there used to be a building and the cottage owners can buy the land if they so wish. As far as their view is concerned,tough.

Do Paul and Fred know who was responsible for the anonymous lefelt that was deliverd to my house? Do either of you live in the cottages?

ras · Post by **ras** » 13 Aug 2005, 00:14

There have been a few references to the proposals not respecting the history of the Prom.
I would be interested to know if those objecting would remove their objection if the proposals were in keeping with what they perceived the appropriate architecture would be to repect the Prom. Historically there was a building on that site.
If the objections are predominantly based on the loss of view then the council will take very little notice as there is no right to a view.
I have utmost sympathy for those who may lose their view and I do not believe that just because a building once existed on a site should give automatic right to build.
I would assume that if those about to lose their view wanted to buy the land they would merely have to find Â£1 more than the profit the developer expects to make. The land is obviously extermely valuable to both the owner and the neighbours.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 13 Aug 2005, 22:18

ras wrote:There have been a few references to the proposals not respecting the history of the Prom.
I would be interested to know if those objecting would remove their objection if the proposals were in keeping with what they perceived the appropriate architecture would be to repect the Prom. Historically there was a building on that site.
If the objections are predominantly based on the loss of view then the council will take very little notice as there is no right to a view.
I have utmost sympathy for those who may lose their view and I do not believe that just because a building once existed on a site should give automatic right to build.
I would assume that if those about to lose their view wanted to buy the land they would merely have to find Â£1 more than the profit the developer expects to make. The land is obviously extermely valuable to both the owner and the neighbours.

How much light and privacy will be taken away from the existing cottages?
Will the cottages be devalued should this architectural abortion go ahead?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Aug 2005, 22:59

Can anyone recall what was there previously? Fish and Chip shop on the ground floor and a little amusement/fun garden?

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

6 terraced houses planned in front of Bath Place

6 terraced houses planned in front of Bath Place

19-24 Promenade

19-24 Promenade

Immediate Neighbours