Superstore - New Petrol Station - Parking - New Access

[Hawkeye]

[bearcub]

Many thanks for your daily updates on this Hawkeye, I've not been able to make it along this week but it's been great to get the daily reviews.

[Gemini]

From today's EN:

[Bob Jefferson]

I don't think compensation comes into it. We don't want the Superstore full stop and no amount of money is going to make the development palatable to the people of Portobello. We won't be bought off and half a million quid won't make a scrap of difference to the long term viability of our community if this goes ahead.

Shove your money Mr Farmer.

[Gemini]

quote BOB>> I don't think compensation comes into it. We don't want the Superstore full stop and no amount of money is going to make the development palatable to the people of Portobello. end quote>>

I think I can safely say that PCATS are advocating exactly what Bob has stated. We have worked bloody hard for more than a year, in our own time, raising a massive amount of money from this amazing community to pay for the experts needed to fight this case. £500.000 or £5.000.000 will not change our minds.

How the hell can £500.000 stop local traders from closing down? answers on a post card to Trevor Davis and the Planning Committee.

Don't want to say much more on this - or I could be barred from POL

an angry Gemini

[Bob Jefferson]

[Cynthia]

quote BOB>> I don't think compensation comes into it. We don't want the Superstore full stop and no amount of money is going to make the development palatable to the people of Portobello. end quote>>

Couldn't agree more, for once Bob, -I was horrified to read the Council via Cllr Trevor Davies being quoted in the E News tonight as saying "Without this condition (£500,000 payment) the proposal is unacceptable, but with this condition it is more acceptable". Who asked people in Portobello if this makes the superstore more acceptable? No one - ? I thought so - nothing new there then.....

Our message is and should be NO SUPERSTORE - WHATEVER MONEY THE DEVELOPERS OFFER - let's face it they are out to make millions on this site - probably over £50 million profit as one retail expert advised - so what is £500,000 to them? - however I agree with Bob - even giving millions to the Council it would not compensate for killing off our shops and community and bringing an extra 1,000 plus cars per hour into Porty (and as Stephen from PCATS pointed out who is to say they would actually pay this and what it would be spent on, and whether that would even be in Porty?)

Keep up the fight - Portobello people......and well done so far to us all including those speaking and attending the PLI, including the Campaign ofcourse.....C

[Bob Jefferson]

Carla, nice to see you back after a long absence. Keep up the good work. We all appreciate your efforts on our behalf.

[Epykat]

[Brian McCrow]

[Gemini]

Can we honestly say that a Superstore will be a Sustainable Development, and Portobello will remain a Sustainable community, should the appeal be granted in DHP's favour?


http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/env ... ssd-08.asp

[Gemini]

Response, I received personally from a resident of Porty. with reference to Brian's posting -

quote Brian>>

A cash payment towards Portobello amenity would be sensible if the Reporter were to rule in favour of the Superstore as this would go some way to repairing/compensating for the expected impact on our local amenity. end quote<<







Quote Resident>>
No amount of money
will ensure that we still have a High Street with the diversity of shops
for basic living as well as other special shops attracting people to Portobello.
There will be no High Street so what does he suggest the money is spent on?
HOW DO YOU COMPENSATE FOR SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE REPLACED, ONCE IT HAS GONE
IT'S GONE>> end quote

[Brian McCrow]

Gemini

I was talking about a CONTINGENCY situation. Of course, we don't want the Superstore for the reasons you stated HOWEVER the Reporter MAY rule in favour of the Superstore. In which case we should have a negotiated position with the developers. Once the Reporter rules there will be no negotiation.

If we don't consider the possibility you're doing the ostrich head in the sand and in that position your backside is exposed for a good kicking.

[Bob Jefferson]

[Hawkeye]

Today at the Inquiry

Firstly, can I apologise to everyone who might have been coming along tomorrow to hear Joanna Blythman speak. As usual things didn’t go exactly to plan and she had to be summoned from distant Craiglockart to give evidence this afternoon.

To start with today, Susan Deacon, our local MSP, gave her statement in which she said that no other issue in her experience had generated so much opposition from the local community. This was across the board and she refuted claims by Duddingston House Properties that it was a political campaign. Susan gave a very clear definition of where she and the community felt that the town centre is and how this contributes to our sense of place.

Arthur Jeffery, a Baileyfield resident, was next and gave a feeling of what it will be like for those who would have to live with the superstore in their back garden. He then went on to emphasise the effects of moving the bus stops and the delay when drivers change over.

Councillor Lawrence Marshall again stressed the urban design principles that had been drawn up with the knowledge of the then owners Scottish Power. He gave a robust defence of the council’s policy of trying to limit car journeys. After describing his involvement in the planning committee meetings, the Duddingston House QC thought he had him as Lawrence had chaired the meeting that approved the superstore in Corstorphine. However, it was carefully explained that each situation is different and that this store is out of centre. At one point Lawrence said that ‘the traffic would be knackered’,
the Duddingston QC raised a laugh by asking if that was a technical term.

An in-depth rationale for using the High Street was delivered by Elisabeth McCulloch who presented a staggering list of what can be bought or done on Portobello High Street including topping up one’s tan. She went on to say how much the High Street contributes to the community spirit and sense of identity.

Another Baileyfield resident, Ian McGregor, also stressed the effect on noise, privacy and security that the superstore would have. On top of this is the worry about the unknown fill material to the former clay pit and that the superstore is against the approved use of this land.

Irene Richardson took another slant altogether and that was the loss of the educational benefits to young children that the High Street has as opposed to the isolating and anonymous feel of a superstore. Irene highlighted the way connections can be made about where our food comes from in local shops and how local traders add to the gaining of social skills in youngsters.

Mr Wallace emphasised that with 12 other stores within easy reach, who needs this one and that the increased traffic will contribute to more accidents.

The last Baileyfield resident to give evidence, Anne Ward, returned to the issues of land instability, noise and pollution. Anne pointed out that land stability is a material consideration when considering this kind of application by quoting the guidance from England ( there being no such similar document in Scotland). This was noted by the reporter who asked all parties to consider what conditions should be applied if the appeal was allowed.

The last independent witness, Mr Young, questioned the research methodology used by the consultant to justify the superstore but nevertheless pointed out that only 3.4% of those questioned wanted a superstore. Mr Young robustly defended his objection and emphasised that there were a large number of existing superstores in the catchment area.

For the traders, Graham Kitchener immediately threw a spanner in the works of Duddingston’s argument by giving up to date vacancy rates for the shops in Portobello. According to the council 18% are vacant. Graham scotched this inaccuracy. He also refuted a previous suggestion that the town is dying on its feet by giving an example of a recent rent increase that showed how buoyant trade is in Portobello.

The last witness of the day was Joanna Blythman who led evidence on just how much the supermarkets have changed shopping patterns, reduced quality, choice and conned people into believing they are saving money. She also gave a dire prediction on the effect of the superstore on the existing shops should the superstore be approved and after rigourous cross examination left no one in any doubt as to the governments cosy friendship with the fat-cat executives of the big supermarket chains.

So, only two witnesses tomorrow, Dr Gordon McCulloch followed by Keith Hargest the PCATS retail expert. Tomorrow you will see what we have got for our money.

Proceedings start at 9:30 - see you there.

[Bob Jefferson]

[Gemini]

[Hawkeye]

Today at the Inquiry


The marvellous attendance from members of the community continued today with even more new faces, toddlers and babes in push chairs. This most certainly proves that this is the most important development proposed for Portobello in many long years.

Dr. Gordon McCulloch entered the fray this morning giving his opinion as to how the superstore will harm the health of the local people and disadvantage the frail and elderly should it be given approval. He also highlighted the poor level of service from superstore pharmacies in contrast to the High Street chemists. His research has latterly revealed that the levels of diesel particulates predicted for the High Street will exceed new guidelines introduced at the start of this year. I think the Evening News may pick up on this one.

The other witness today was the retail expert, Keith Hargest, who was employed by PCATS as the council did not put up a specialist on the economic impact of the superstore on the existing town centre. He was cool, confident, non sensational and gave a clear indication that the superstore would probably close down the Co-op which would then lead to the loss of other shops. Unfortunately, retail planning is not an exact science and that’s why Keith Hargest’s non-sensational approach provides a measured, believable argument against the superstore.

A lot will depend on whether the superstore is judged to be out of centre or edge of centre. Fine distinctions lost on those of us who inhabit the real world. But Keith gave very clear reasons as to why he considered it to be out of centre - that is beyond the normal shopping frontages and not visible from the main shopping area. Much was made of Graham Kitchener’s weekend survey of vacant shops which showed that only 8% of shops were vacant (this includes shops being refurbished) as opposed to the council’s figure of 18%. For this, and many other things, we are glad that we have our own expert.

Well that’s it for a while. My apologies to those supporters who may have turned up this afternoon to find that we finished at 12:30 as the developer’s QC didn’t have too many questions for our expert.

We reconvene on Thursday 17th March at 9:30 to consider the traffic implications. As usual all are welcome to witness what outsiders want to do to our community.

[Gemini]

quote hawkeye>>

The other witness today was the retail expert, Keith Hargest, who was employed by PCATS as the council did not put up a specialist on the economic impact of the superstore on the existing town centre.<<


After listening to the debate on the 'Retail Impact' thank the Lord we did not take the very bad advice given to the group last summer - that PCATS did not need any experts - and that we were the experts cause we live in Portobello

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

[scossie5]

[quote="Hawkeye"]Today at the Inquiry


...even more new faces, toddlers and babes in push chairs.

Glad to read that our presence was welcome rather than a hindrance. We debated quite a while before bringing the wee ones in, but wanted to show our support.

I thought they did well!

[Gemini]

Glad to read that our presence was welcome rather than a hindrance. We debated quite a while before bringing the wee ones in, but wanted to show our support.




What great children - we were all impressed -how did you manage to keep them amused and contented?

My son at that age, would have been screaming blue murder.

[scossie5]

you didn't notice the unending stream of snacks?!

[Gemini]

[Bob Jefferson]

Conditions on the Outline Planning Approval

As you will no doubt be aware from the Evening News, the council have indicated to the reporter the conditions they would have applied to this application for a superstore had they decided to approve it. The Scottish Executive reporter will now set any conditions if she decides to allow the appeal. The Evening News article was wrong to suggest that Trevor Davies said give us £500,000 and that would make it acceptable. Under cross-examination he said that the money would be used to lessen the effect of the superstore on the existing town centre.

We have the opportunity to suggest our own conditions but they have to be reasonable, precise and enforceable. However, some people may think that in doing so, we are accepting the superstore. I would like to make it quite clear that we are still completely opposed to the superstore but the suggesting of conditions is a secondary tactic as we cannot say with certainty that the reporter will refuse the appeal. It could be that the conditions are just sufficient to discourage, say TESCO, from taking on the site even when planning permission has been given. For instance, Duddingston House Properties bragged about getting permission to change the garden centre at Holy Corner into a supermarket but what they didn't say was that they haven't got a supermarket interested yet because of a restriction on parking spaces.

The conditions that we might suggest are : Opening hours 08:00 to 20:00; no deliveries after 18:00 or on Sundays; limit of 3000 sq m floorspace; no illuminated signage and none over 1 m high or on the roof; the subsidence to Baileyfield cottages be remedied before work commences; no future extension to the store to be permitted; no chemist, post office, bank, opticians or photo processing; no restrictions on who uses the car park or time limit; high quality landscape screening to the car park; a payment up front of between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 to fund a Town Centre Manager and other initiatives for Portobello town centre over a five year period (this is in addition to whatever the council has planned to spend). There is no guarantee that the reporter will agree to any of these but if you don't ask, you don't get.

There are two questions I would like supporters' opinions on. Firstly, should we suggest conditions after making it clear that we are still totally opposed to the development? and secondly, what should those conditions be? These have to be given to the reporter at the time of closing submissions which will be Tuesday 22nd March so if you wish to reply please let me have your comments by Saturday 19th.

Thank you for your continued support.

Stephen Hawkins

[Brian McCrow]

[dccairns]

Just a reminder that the public inquiry reconvenes tomorrow at 9.30 am at the British Legion to hear the traffic evidence. This may run over until Friday. There will be a site visit, possibly Friday or Monday, and closing submissions from all parties will be heard on Tuesday 22 March.

See you there to find out how to magic 1,000 plus cars into thin air!

[Hawkeye]

[bearcub]

[Hawkeye]

Today at the Inquiry

After yesterday’s slow and stifling examination of the traffic evidence this morning’s presentation by our traffic expert, Andrew Carrie, came as light relief with one or two humorous moments. However, this hid a methodical demolition of the developer’s traffic arguments that left no one in any doubt that they had not shown how the extra traffic will not significantly add to congestion in Portobello.

One observer today said that Andrew, especially in comparison to what happened yesterday, made his arguments, based on common sense, understandable. He also showed a wealth of experience and prior knowledge of the situation in Portobello, having been involved with several past traffic schemes. His input to traffic management when he worked for Lothian Region even had the reporter remarking “how did they manage when you left?â€Â

[Gemini]

[Bob Jefferson]

I am very disappointed not to be able to attend the summing up on Tuesday morning. I had intended to take a day's leave but unfortunately I have a meeting in the morning that I can't get out of.

I do hope that as many people as possible will turn up to demonstrate the overwhelming opposition to this unwanted and unneccessary development.

Again, I offer my congratualtions to everyone involved in the campaign for the excellent job they have done on our behalf.

[Maria]

I fully intend to attend on Tuesday morning, barring major illness or meteor strike. Like you Bob, I'm very grateful to the members of PCATS who have put so much time and effort, on behalf of us all, into this campaign.

[Epykat]

Unfortunately I won't be able to make it but I sincerely wish you lots of luck and thanks for all the hard work you've put in. Fingers crossed....

[Bob Jefferson]

Two more precognition statements. The first is from Elisabeth McCulloch, who has lived and shopped in Portobello for the last 17 years. The second comes from her husband, Dr G McCulloch, a local GP.

The quality of argument in both submissions is excellent and I have nothing but praise for all the precognition statements I have read so far so far from opponents of the Superstore. The Reporter can't fail to be impressed.