Funpark - Licensed Snooker Club

Post by **wangi** » 10 Nov 2006, 23:47

Carol wrote:06/04681/OUT

Thanks, i was looking for Harbour Xxx...

Anyway, at this point the developer hasn't dotted their i's correctly, so there's nothing to see.

L/

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Nov 2006, 17:59

There are two separate applications for this site, for reasons I can't fathom, unless 06/04681/OUT is just an application to extend the time of their current outline consent.

All the action is at 03/01754/OUT including a 32 page ANALYSIS OF CONTEXT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY and a 14 page COMMITTEE REPORT.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Nov 2006, 18:10

From Lawrence Marshall:

I thought that you might be interested in this e-mail from Francis Newton.

I spoke with Francis yesterday following two local residents approaching me at this week's East LDC meeting with a circular from The Kilns Neighbourhood Watch Group about the re-development of the FunPark site.

I was a little surprised to see the whole site earmarked for re-development since the outline planning consent given in November 2003 clearly referred to demolition of only one amusement arcade building (i.e. the shed structure immediately to the north of the kilns) with the arcade to the east being retained. I notice, however, from the Analysis of Context and Development Strategy document drawn up by The Morrison Group that 3 phases of re-development are seen as possible.

Whatever, this design brief draft is just that and will, according to Francis Newton, be presented to the Planning Committee "within the next 6 months". This would then inform any subsequent full planning application where the reserved matters referred to in the November 2003 report would have to be addressed, i.e. layout, siting, design, height, external appearance, parking, access, landscape, open space. and drainage.

Normally reserved matters need to be addressed within 3 years of outline consent but it's felt reasonable in this case to allow an extension of this period - which seems OK to me given the large number of requests placed upon the owners by Planning via archaeological digs, North West Portobello Master Plan, etc..

Dear Cllr Marshall and Cllr Child,

I've started to receive a number of emails in relation to the above. I see these have also been copied to you, and thought I should therefore brief you as to the current position with this application.

A design brief is currently being prepared by the developer for the wider site, as a condition of the original outline consent for residential granted back in 2003 (03/01754/FUL) This needs to be approved by the Planning Committee in advance of any reserved matters application being submitted.

Although it is not a statutory requirement to reconsult in relation to the discharge of a condition, given the importance of the site, we asked that the developer present their proposals to Portobello Community Council and Portobello Amenity Society to obtain local views.

We recently met with the developer and discussed a number of issues that we feel still need to be addressed (some of these were also raised in the presentations made to the Community Council and Amenity Society)

The developer has recently applied for an extension of time to their current outline consent, as the period in which to submit reserved matters is about to expire. This will mean that the design brief will not now be considered by Planning Committee during November as intended, and assuming the extension of time is granted, will allow further time for the various issues to be considered.

The latest version of the design brief, which is still in draft form, can be viewed on the Planning Portal (03/01754/FUL)

Once the design brief has been submitted in a finalised, I am proposing to send further copies to the Community Council and Amenity Society for their comments, which will then be reported to the Planning Committee.

Should you have any further queries regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Francis Newton
Development Quality East Team - Urban Design
Planning & Strategy

PortyConvert · Post by **PortyConvert** » 23 Jan 2007, 16:47

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... geCount=32

I find it amazing that in section 3.05 :

To the south of the site 2 storey houses and flats in a variety of block combinations were built on the site of the old potteries. The demolition of the potteries and the development of the housig was done by City of Edinburgh Council. The housing does not address the existing street patterns and thus the clarity of circulation is lost.

But sticking a 5 storey monster in there will improve the "character" of the area.......????

I'd welcome the arcade being knocked down for flats... but 2 storey to fit in with the surrounding area rather than things towering down on the established houses....

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Feb 2007, 18:07

From today's EN:

Snooker club in the frame for a facelift

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:07

From the Fun Park Action Group:

Dear Neighbours,
9th April 2007

A revised Design Brief (ref 06/04681/OUT) for the development of flats on the Funpark Site on the Prom at the bottom of Bridge Street/Pipe Street has been placed in the Library. You can also view it at the Planning Offices (address below) or online at http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... portal.jsp (click on ‘View Planning Applications Online’ and then search by the reference above and then click on ‘Associated Documents’, where you will see ‘Amended Design Brief’). Please take some time to view the brief and put in objections/comments. This is the largest single development that we have seen along the Prom and has major implications for the surrounding neighbourhood and local road network. Some points of major concern, which you might want to include in a letter or email to the Council are:

Height – The height has been reduced to 5 storeys but would still result in massive overshadowing of the Promenade, the beach and adjacent buildings, particularly in winter when the sun is low. The proposal is much higher than the Kilns (see drawings in section 7.11) and does not respect the neighbouring 2-storey housing along Bridge Street and the Promenade.

Density - The density of the proposed development results in a monolithic structure, 5 times the length of any existing building along the Prom (see the pullout drawing at the end).

Length - The block of flats would stretch from Bridge Street (road beside Figgate Burn) to Pipe Lane (road beside Public Toilets), and continues inwards from the Prom at both ends, up Bridge St and Pipe Lane (see section 7.08 )

Boundaries – The proposed development extends beyond the existing Funpark site wall/building at either end, encroaching on publicly-owned green space.

The Kilns - The present views of the Kilns from the Prom to east and west of the Funpark will be lost. The insertion of a glass panel in the middle of the flats would allow a glimpse of the Kilns from the Prom but would prevent people passing through.

Roads & access – A block of flats on this scale will generate lots more traffic in the entire Bridge St/Pipe Street area. The two proposals for dealing with it fail to address traffic flow, pedestrian safety and existing residents’ parking needs (see sections 7.08.1-2).

Environmental – The design brief proposes underground parking for the flats and claims that the sea does not come over the Prom. Anyone walking there regularly knows waves frequently break over the stretch by the Funpark wall.

Wider Context – This site is included within the area for the N.W. Portobello Master Plan. Full public consultation on the N.W. Portobello Master Plan should begin before any proposal on the Fun Park site is agreed.

The feeling so far seems that people would like to make sure that any development respects the existing character of the Prom and surrounding houses.

Comments need to be submitted by 23rd April 2007 to the following:

Francis Newton, Planning Officer, email: francis.newton@edinburgh.gov.uk
Alan Henderson, Head of Planning, email: alan.henderson@edinburgh.gov.uk (both at CEC Planning & Strategy, Waverley Court, 4 East Market St, EH8 8GB, Tel. 529 6435)
Cllr Lawrence Marshall, email: lawrence.marshall@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Maureen Child, email: maureen.child@edinburgh.gov.uk
Cllr Trevor Davies, email: trevor.davies@edinburgh.gov.uk
(all at City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh EH1 1YJ, Tel 200 2000)

For further information please contact:

Caroline Hosking on 669 5262, or email: hoskingcaroline@hotmail.com
Ian Campbell or Margaret O’Neill on 657 3237, or email: stillmith@blueyonder.co.uk

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:29

Environmental – The design brief proposes underground parking for the flats and claims that the sea does not come over the Prom. Anyone walking there regularly knows waves frequently break over the stretch by the Funpark wall.

Does anybody ever check these things out before they come up with plans like this? Anybody who has been a local for any length of time could tell them that this is the best bit of the whole beach to play at dodge the waves when it's a choppy sea. I've been playing there for about 40 years

. No wonder people don't have any faith in planners.

rapunzell · Post by **rapunzell** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:32

This icon photo was taken during a dodge the wave session by the amusement wall

The waves won...

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:36

rapunzell wrote:This icon photo was taken during a dodge the wave session by the amusement wall The waves won...

I remember taking my kids there when they were about 3 in a double buggy one really stormy day and they loved it. We got soaked! Our dog loved it as well, she used to bark at the waves

. The residents will have such fun wading through the water in the underground car park

rapunzell · Post by **rapunzell** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:38

and peeling the seaweed off the car windscreens

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:48

And removing the crabs from the underside of the car

rapunzell · Post by **rapunzell** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:49

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:56

Think the flats look ok, certainly better than the funpark that's there at the moment, although I reckon 4 stories should be the maximum height.

Definitely a planner that doesn't know Porty if they think the waves don't come over the Prom at that site!

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:59

I've got no objections to the flats. It's bound to be better than what's there at the moment and it'll be fun on here listening to them all moaning about their flooded cars.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Apr 2007, 20:17

I don't think that the action group opposes development of the site per se, it's just the scale of the development that is out of keeping with neighbouring buildings.

I think that the newsletter makes a number of valid points. I'm happy to support the notion that this development should be considered in the wider context of the NW Portobello Master Plan, and that planning consent is delayed in the interim. My only reservation is that, as a result of this, a very small number of people may end up making some very major decisions which are not necessarily in our best interest. We all have a stake in this and we should be wary of any particular group that purports to speak on behalf of the community.

rapunzell · Post by **rapunzell** » 15 Apr 2007, 20:19

I'd like to see flats and cafes built there, set well back to allow seating and views, a decent sized carpark and good cycle paths, and definately a little pottery workshop and visitor/local history centre for the kilns before they are 'lost'. I still think it's the best site for a boat club too.

I'd opt for a max height of two stories, the latter because there are houses already built behind in the dip and there's enough of a feeling of being pushed off the prom just by the big white harled wall already.

Oooh, I'd better watch that wanting to make the best of the area doesn't make the outsider Porty critics imagine that I'm being nimby and unsupportive of the developers' freedom to express themselves.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 15 Apr 2007, 20:22

Bob Jefferson wrote:a very small number of people may end up making some very major decisions which are not necessarily in our best interest.

No, we wouldn't want that but it sometimes happens.

rapunzell · Post by **rapunzell** » 15 Apr 2007, 20:25

I can see the Miami Lump farce being outshadowed by this next bit of coastal design that probably looked fabulous as a miniature on the board room table...

Post by **wangi** » 15 Apr 2007, 20:27

Can we ensure that whatever is built on the site has red neon? Would be a shame to loose that!

(and yes, i'm actually being serious!)

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Apr 2007, 20:31

wangi wrote:Can we ensure that whatever is built on the site has red neon? Would be a shame to loose that!

(and yes, i'm actually being serious!)

I'm sure that the Portobello Amenity Society will take this on board.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 15 Apr 2007, 21:20

I can't get the council planning portal to load so haven't seen the revised plans but I'm assuming that they won't have been modified that much from those used in the presentation to the Community Council? If that is the case then the height of the building, when viewed from the beach, even prior to losing a storey was in keeping with and did not exceed the other tall buildings along the Prom. I also thought that the development was to gradually reduce in height at the sides so that it matched that of neighbouring housing. Anyone know if this is still the case?

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 16 Apr 2007, 00:02

Marya wrote:I also thought that the development was to gradually reduce in height at the sides so that it matched that of neighbouring housing. Anyone know if this is still the case?

Yes, the plans show a stepped design back from the prom, from 5 stories facing the beach to 2 (or 1?) at the 'back'.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Apr 2007, 09:56

I quite like the look of the flats and my recollection is the same as Marya's. The newsletter is flowery and if objections are lodged then they will need to be against specific rules. I'm sure the Fun Park Action Group know this,as they have some experienced objectors.

I don't think "overshadowing" of an empty space is much of a reason for complaint even if it is the Prom. I also wasn't aware that length of a building figured much. Will it be longer than the Open Air Pool was?

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 16 Apr 2007, 20:40

anything will be better than is there just now.

Height wise, have the residents behind the flats had their say?

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 17 Apr 2007, 15:19

I was trying to look at the plans online but can't get onto the portal ( sound very Star trek )
Are they still available at the library?

Post by **wangi** » 17 Apr 2007, 15:55

SoupDragon wrote:I was trying to look at the plans online but can't get onto the portal ( sound very Star trek )
Are they still available at the library?

You can go direct to this link to view the docs: http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /04681/OUT

Post by **wangi** » 17 Apr 2007, 16:03

Bloody buggers have used a few of my photos in that without permission or credit...

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 17 Apr 2007, 17:00

Thanks for the link, Wangi
i tried but I was getting "no reports" when putting in the application number and couldn't get it to search.
I'd complain about the breach of copywrite.

I see the seem to plan on having balconies and taking down the big wall. haven't they seen the tides along there.
Lots of stuff about areas without buffers but the tide has always been bad along that end, look at the diffrent levels of sand.

Now someone enterprisng could set up a wet suit and scuba loan for the residents to get to their cars in the underground park!

Considering how deep the pile driver had to go for the Miami flats wonder how far down they'll have to go for that, given they'll be creating an undeground area.

Post by **wangi** » 18 Apr 2007, 13:00

Another "Porty moans" article in the EN: http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinb ... =596442007

Five-storey flats will ruin our prom, warn Porty protesters

A VISION of five-storey tenement flats on Portobello promenade has sparked an angry response from the community.

...

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 18 Apr 2007, 21:21

wangi wrote:Another "Porty moans" article in the EN

Seems to be a favourite pastime in EN towers at the moment.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 18 Apr 2007, 22:01

well then, I'll wont buy the EN, moan, moan,

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 19 Apr 2007, 08:35

How can the flats overshadow a non existent kiln? And the other one has been so badly 'repaired' that it deserves to be hidden

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 19 Apr 2007, 08:59

wangi wrote:Another "Porty moans" article in the EN:

Anyone want to join a new group I am forming called PAGAPAG?

It stands for Portobello Action Group Against Portobello Action Groups.

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » 19 Apr 2007, 10:02

wangi wrote:Bloody buggers have used a few of my photos in that without permission or credit...

Commercial use of images without permission..? High-profile development? Send them an invoice. So long as the amount is reasonable, they'll probably calcualte it's easier to pay it than kick up a fuss. I think the Evening News might run a story ... or at least publish a letter. The images are your copyright: the developers don't have a leg to stand on.

I'm not sure how many of your photos they've used, but I'd be looking for between £40 to £120.

joslow · Post by **joslow** » 28 Apr 2007, 19:31

I think the plans for the Fun Park look fine,
I know a lot of people are not happy about the height but it's not really the end of the world, the place at present is an eyesore and the wall alongside the sea needs something done about it!

For all the problems and complaints about the flats at the bottom of Bath Street they certainly look better than Grannies Attick and the old arcade did when they were open.

You have to move on and Portobello is no different from anywhere else!

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Funpark - Licensed Snooker Club

Re: Here it is