Funpark - Licensed Snooker Club

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 including a 32 page ANALYSIS OF CONTEXT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY and a 14 page COMMITTEE REPORT.

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

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

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

From today's EN:

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

by **Epykat** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:29

by **rapunzell** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:32

by **Epykat** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:36

by **rapunzell** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:38

by **Epykat** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:48

by **rapunzell** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:49

by **bearcub** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:56

by **Epykat** » 15 Apr 2007, 19:59

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.

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. :roll:

by **Epykat** » 15 Apr 2007, 20:22

by **rapunzell** » 15 Apr 2007, 20:25

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!)

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

by **Maria** » 15 Apr 2007, 21:20

by **bearcub** » 16 Apr 2007, 00:02

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?

by **Sandra** » 16 Apr 2007, 20:40

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

by **wangi** » 17 Apr 2007, 15:55

by **wangi** » 17 Apr 2007, 16:03

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

by **wangi** » 18 Apr 2007, 13:00

by **bearcub** » 18 Apr 2007, 21:21

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

by **Epykat** » 19 Apr 2007, 08:35

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

by **Dakota** » 19 Apr 2007, 10:02

by **joslow** » 28 Apr 2007, 19:31

Funpark - Licensed Snooker Club

Re: Here it is

Who is online