Edinburgh Draft Open Space Audit

[wangi]

[Pal of Porty]

[Pal of Porty]

Well we now know for sure that PPAG and the PCC inner sanctum are actively campaigning to the get the Prom excluded from the Open Space Audit, so the rest of us need to get off our backsides and submit our views to Wangi's link:



As already discussed this is mainly driven by the desire to not build PHS on PP but at any level it is absolutely crazy.

Come on - it is nearly the summer holiday's and things slip under the radar.

[Pal of Porty]

Here are some suggestions from the chair of PFANS that you may want to consider including in your response to the OPen Space Audit.

PPAG and a sizeable proportion of the Community Council are campaigning to have Portobello Promenade removed from the Council's Draft Open Space Audit currently out for consulation. Their arguments are utterly without merit. The intention is to reduce the amount of accessible space recorded in order to make the planning process for PHS as difficult as possible.

If you could find the time opinions to the contrary would be most helpful. The Consulation documents are linked from the main Council web page and comments can be sent to the following address or through the form on Wangi's link above:

openspacestrategy@edinburgh.gov.uk

They're only suggestions but variations on the following might be considered;


• I have recently become aware of a local campaign to have Portobello Promenade excluded from the Open Space Audit. This is ridiculous. The Promenade and the beach are main focus of activity in the Community and cannot be simply ignored.

• I’m astonished that Portobello Beach has not been included in the Draft Open Space Audit. The beach is an incredibly valuable asset to the local community and must be included.

• Planning Advice Note 65 advises that “all spaces, regardless of ownership and accessibility (i.e. public and private spaces) contribute to the amenity and character of an area and can be taken into account.” The two most significant spaces contributing to the amenity and character of Portobello are the beach and the promenade. Both should be included in the Open Space Audit.

• PAN 65 advises that the term ‘open space’ includes geological features. Surely an open space asset as important as Portobello beach should be included as such.

• The area of Bingham Park identified in the Draft Open Space Audit is too small. The closure of Lismore Primary school means the adjacent playing fields should now be included in the total for the park.

• The City of Edinburgh Parks & Gardens Strategy denotes the whole of Portobello Park, golf course and playing fields, as a City Park. Therefore all of the area, golf course and playing fields, should be recorded as accessible Open Space in the audit.

• The recently established status of Portobello Golf Course as Common Good land confirms the public right of access. As such the golf course should be recorded as accessible in a similar manner to Braidburn Hills.

Get submitting NOW!

[seanie]

[seanie]

[Porty]

Based on your research and custom and practice from other LA it is difficult to grasp why the beach has not been included? Perhaps the council are wary of being accused of over egging the OS by its inclusion.

Think I will suggest they produce a percentage with and without the beach.

[seanie]

I don't think there is an established 'custom and practice' when it comes to Open Space Audits & Strategy.

The requirement for Local Autohrities to conduct them was established a few years ago but it's taken time to translate into action. PAN 65 gives the basic starting point but there is obviously flexibility designed in to account for local circumstances.

That seems reasonable. East Lothian has a considerable coastline, so a particular beach there may not have the same value as Open Space as one in an urban context such as Edinburgh.

I actually think think the Draft Audit is fairly reasonable overall. But the exclusion of Portobello Beach would seriously misrepresent the character and amenity of the area.

Who could honestly argue that the Beach and Promenade aren't central to the life and character of Portobello?

[Porty]

Diana cairns has argued against it and John Stewarts rather perverse and poorly informed views on planning makes him another contender- as for honest argument? that's an altogether different matter.

I'm guessing the former was "little more than a pavement" and the latter was arguing the prom was not a local asset- am I warm?

[Puerto bella]

PAN 65 gives a clear definition of open space for the purposes of the guidance and the use of the term in open space audits. It also provides a list of types of open space. This is the starting point. All the conjecture in the posts above is of little value and at times misleading unless the actual purpose of any open space audit and the remit of PAN65 is clearly understood.

[Porty]

Agreed- but I don't see much difference to what seanie is saying do you?

Surely a draft audit is bound to foster conjecture, particularly the first time its been conducted? I see reasonableness being a good yard stick and it is simply unreasonable to consider the prom and beach as anything other than significant, accessible open space.

[seanie]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[allaboardtheskylark]

[Porty]

[Porty]