NW Portobello Masterplan

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

And here is the text of that letter:

[quote]NW PORTOBELLO MASTERPLAN

You, and many others, wrote to me recently about your worries over plans for the future of North West Portobello.

It seems that most of these worries arose from what many people thought was a draft plan that had already been prepared. In fact, this document is only intended to become the background for a contract to employ an independent expert to write the plan for the area. The plan itself will be written in consultation with local people.

So, I wish to make a number of things clear.

• The document some have seen is a draft framework for the employment of an independent consultant, not a draft plan for the area. As a draft, it had not been approved by senior Council staff nor by councillors. I saw the draft before I went on holiday and asked for changes, because it did not say what I understand the local community wants. It is currently being re-written in the light of comments that we have received.

• This draft was referred to at a recent community meeting, and talked about in the press, by one of the companies who own the land. The landowner had this draft document because the Council was consulting them privately, as a possible co-funder of the consultant, on its content. It is most unfortunate that this public discussion has caused such distress locally.

• There will, as promised, be a “blank pageâ€

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

Letter to Robert Gatliff from Alan Henderson
Robert W Gatliff Date: 17 August 2006
Chair
Portobello Community Council Your Ref:
rwga@bgs.ac.uk
Our Ref: FN/ER/065


Dear Mr Gatliff

NW Portobello Masterplan

You, and many others, recently wrote to Planning regarding plans for the future of North West Portobello.

It appears that some confusion has arisen from what many people thought was a draft plan that had already been prepared. In fact, this document is only intended to become the background for a contract to employ an independent expert to write the draft plan for the area. The plan itself will be written in consultation with local people, before it is considered by the Council’s Planning Committee.

Further to the comments we have received, we felt it would be appropriate to clarify a number of issues in relation to the forthcoming exercise;-

· The document some have seen is a draft framework for the employment of an independent consultant, not a draft plan for the area. As a draft, it had not been approved by the Planning Committee, and is now being amended in the light of comments and feedback we have received.

· This draft was referred to at a recent meeting of the Community Council, and talked about in the press, by one of the companies who own the land. The landowner had this document because the Council was consulting them privately, as possible co-funder of the consultant, on its content. It is most unfortunate that this public discussion has caused such distress locally.

· Much of the feedback we have received has expressed concern regarding the form that public consultation might take. Councillor Davies has given a commitment that a ‘blank page’ discussion will take place with the Portobello community early in the process – once an independent consultant who will write the plan has been appointed by the Council and can take part in and listen to that discussion. There will also be opportunities later on for the local community to comment on and debate the draft plan, before it comes to the Planning Committee for decision.

· The ‘blank page’ discussion, however, like the Masterplan itself, will have to take account of planning law and existing planning policy, which itself can have the force of law. It will also have to reflect the needs of the City as well of those of the neighbourhood. It was these existing policies and constraints which the draft consultant’s framework has set out.

· Concern has also been expressed regarding statements in the draft framework about providing land for employment and the potential mix of uses on the Baileyfield sites. At present, most of North West Portobello is zoned for 100% employment use – industry and commerce. However, the Council believes that both living and employment needs are important and that is the pattern of mixed use, which makes Portobello a special and successful place. We think that mixed use should happen in North West Portobello too. One option is to suggest to the consultant that the present 100% Industry/business zoning for the area to perhaps reduced to 50% or thereabouts. Any new business uses developed would then be restricted to those which would be compatible with residential uses. However, the balance of uses for the plan area is one issue that will be discussed during the public consultation process.

· This guidance does not imply that the Council is seeking a large superstore for the Baileyfield site or the wider North West Portobello area. Nor does it “open the door to a fresh supermarket bidâ€

[Bob Jefferson]

Some more light reading for the weekend:

[mehitabel]

[Denise]

from todays evening news,
consultants have been appointed?

[seanie]

[bearcub]

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

[rapunzell]

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

[Pal of Porty]

[rapunzell]

[Bob Jefferson]

From the EN:

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

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

[Maria]

[Pal of Porty]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

The entire exhibition, online for your convenience:

[Bob Jefferson]

[portyallmydays]

[Maria]

[Bob Jefferson]

Nice photo of my sycamore tree!



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

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

Agree that more needs to be done for cyclists.

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

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

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

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

[Lizzie]

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

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

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

[PortyConvert]

[Maria]