We are sailing, well almost...

[Bob Jefferson]

For all you Porty sailing enthusiasts, here is the news you have been waiting for!

[bearcub]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Sandra]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Gedge]

I love the idea of being able to potter around doing a bit of sailing without having to travel miles first but I am a bit worried about the interaction of sailing boats and small paddling children. And I like the atmosphere of people being able to sit around carefreely on the beach without someone asking them to get out of the way so they can wheel their boat to the water. Or someone seeing the stretch of beach between the boathouse and the water as "theirs"

[Bob Jefferson]

I'm sure that commonsense will prevail but God help them if they try to commandeer Rapunzell's wheelchair access ramp as a slipway.

[impossiblevoices]

[Maria]

I was present at the CC meeting when Jonathon announced his idea. He got a really positive response and I, like many others, am really excited that he's trying to make it a reality.

I'm looking forward to having a cafe on the Prom and may even be persuaded into a kayak. Just maybe mind!

[osbert]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Jonathan Bendit]

[Maria]

From today's EN :

[Porty]

[rapunzell]

[impossiblevoices]

[Bob Jefferson]

[rapunzell]

[Jonathan Bendit]

[slvrpe]

[SoupDragon]

[Jonathan Bendit]

The detailed plan for use of the dinghy park ground is evolving. The aim is to create a secure space with as little visual impact as possible. The benches are to remain but we would like to move them forward. The cut-out is about 10' deep and I believe this could be reduced to around 3' to accommodate the benches and give the dinghies a little more room.

The fencing options are many and varied but essentially come down to mesh or vertical bars. Some designs are more subtle / suitable than others. I plan to look at as many as possible to find the best option. In terms of the ground itself, I would like to retain much of the greenery, to keep the trees, so long as their proximity to the fence does not reduce the site's security. The grass would remain, although boats are best parked on something which restricts grass, since mowing around them can be difficult and potentially damaging. So the space would in general be grassy but under the boats we would put down matting.

As regards the shrubs, until we are under pressure for space, I believe those running along the back could remain - assuming the fencers could work around them. The bushes in the middle would eventually have to go and the area turfed as they are bang slap in the middle of the site! We will add plants where appropriate to soften anything which needs it.

I am committed to doing this as thoughtfully as I can with as little negative impact as possible. I believe that if we get the project off the ground the positive contribution to Portobello and the Prom will be significant.

[SoupDragon]

When will the council planning dept have plans available to show the general public?

[Carol]

Dear Jonathan

Are you the owner of the ground floor accommodation at the foot of Bath Street and do you know if the residents in the old building above the pub (26 Promenade) will be notified?

[Jonathan Bendit]

In response to slurpe (30/9/06) There are no plans to build anything new. The planning application that the neighbourhood notification concerned was for change of use to cafe/bistro watersports club for 55/1 Bath street. In terms of appearance, this only concerned the addition of doors on the front and side of the building and changes to the windows. As far as the land is concerned, the aim is to use it as a compound for dinghies, kayaks, rescue boat etc. Clearly this would have to be secure hence the need for fencing. The factors determining the choice of fencing will be: its capacity to keep the space secure, ie both strong and hard to climb, it will have to be reasonably high - 7' - ;its appearance and finally the price.

[Jonathan Bendit]

In response to SoupDragon; and for anyone interested; the current planning application will be withdrawn following the discovery last week that sometime during August, Gregor Properties 'inadvertently ' reversed the numbering of the two flats; G1 becoming Flat 2 and G2 became Flat 1! Gregor’s solicitors claim to have notified mine but I only heard via a resident of No 55 who suggested I might want to check which flat I had actually purchased! This 'minor' administrative bungle meant that all the correspondence that referred to my intention to buy Flat G1 (East side) had, as far as Gregor Properties was concerned, referred to the Western flat! To make matters worse they have now sold the Eastern flat. In spite of my deposit on the Eastern flat I have no legal claim against them.

Having done the rage, fury despair thing, I have decided that the main disadvantage will be the lack of immediate access from the dinghy park into the club / cafe. This, I have decided is little more than a minor inconvenience and I am now committed to continuing with the plan by acquiring the Western flat opposite the pub.

The aim now is to re apply for both cafe and Dingy Park.

In terms of who gets notified, I took advice from my architect and made the neighbourhood notifications where he suggested. Since the new application will be for the building opposite the pub, residents above may now be included in the neighbourhood notifications. I am unsure what the rules are here, but will take advice.

As for details of the plans for the land with the application, I shall aim now to firm up on the details of fencing, visual impact, access etc and either put a document up, either on this site or attach it with the application.

[sylvanian]

Sorry if this has been endlessly debated already but this is a classic example of the planning system being cynically played for commercial ends by the developers and the Council being too weak to stick to their guns. They began by ignoring the planning consent requirement to reuse the perfectly good stone from the buildings which existed on the site at ground floor level (what happened to this stone I wonder) and then seemed to have done nothing to fulfil the agreement to provide non-domestic use for the ground floor units.
The selling of one of the properties as a flat makes a nonsense of the design for the building, one of the principle selling points for consent to demolish the previous building.

The sailing school idea would mitigate some of this sad tale and be really positive for the Prom and Portobello.

[Jonathan Bendit]

Update: Dear all thanks for all support to date. All feedback and ideas are very welcome. The current aim is to have a new and revised planning application submitted by the end of October. A part of this will be the document described in an earlier posting which will explain my thoughts on every aspect of the dinghy park - its use - hours etc, its appearance, the maintenance of its appearance, security, noise, access etc.

I have been lucky enough to be offered help by a landscape architect who will guide me through the process of creating a secure, visually appealing, minimal-impact dinghy park.

[Porty]

[Carol]

[Bob Jefferson]

From the EN, 19 October 2006:

[Bob Jefferson]

[Carol]

Hi Bob

It is a compliment to Jonathan and a polite way of saying (in my opinion) Gregor Development / Properties / Shore are not real speculative developers. I don't know who the poster Sylvanian is but if you read his posting - he knows what I'm on about.

I will come back and explain once I have had something to eat.

[SoupDragon]

[Porty]