Scottish Power Site Re-development 3 - supermarket + housing

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

[seanie]

[wangi]

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Maria]

[Porty]

[Maria]

[Porty]

[Maria]

[Bob Jefferson]

[allaboardtheskylark]

[allaboardtheskylark]

[allaboardtheskylark]

[seanie]

[Jeemy]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Maria]

[seanie]

[seanie]

[Maria]

[seanie]

There's always the Christmas Annual...

[seanie]

[allaboardtheskylark]

[seanie]

Part 3;

So what does the Portobello Community Council have to consider in response to the question being put to them?

First off they need to bear in mind their statutory duty; a Community Council exists to “to ascertain, co-ordinate and express...the views of the community which it represents”. So the views of the community are what’s important, not the views of who ever happens to be on the Community Council. But actually ascertaining the views of the community is genuinely difficult, especially given the number of issues that arise; most of the time the PCC can only hope that its members’ views are a reasonably representative proxy for the wider community.

Whatever one thinks about that, there’s little alternative in the present circumstances. A decision is required in a few weeks and there’s no way the PCC will be able to organise a proper consultation in that time. If we had a web-site where we routinely ran polls, questionnaires, invited feedback etc. that could possibly act as a vehicle for consultation at short notice; but we don’t.

All PCC members can reasonably do is speak to people within the community and try to get a feel for the balance of opinion. This is explicitly highlighted as the least objective method of gathering opinion in the Community Council Guidance notes but there’s not much else to be done. The poll is also useful to consider but, let’s face it, the numbers voting aren’t huge. More feedback on here as to what people think might also help.

So on the one hand the PCC should be considering the views of the community, as best as they can discern them, but they’ll inevitably be weighing up the pros and cons of the proposals as they see them. On that the issue probably comes down to judgement call on the effects of a retail development such as Waitrose.

Going back to the superstore, the big fear amongst many (not all) people, was that it would drag customers away from small local retailers and that the High Street would decline. That was why residential development with mixed use was suggested as a preferred alternative. The Inquiry that refused the superstore did not actually come to that conclusion, finding that a superstore in that location could be acceptable subject to other requirements being met. But I think it’s probably a safe bet that most people who opposed the Superstore didn’t accept that conclusion. And they will harbour the same fears about a Waitrose, albeit a much smaller operation. They may conclude that the High Street is struggling so much that any retail development is a threat.

There was a view expressed at the last PCC meeting that a higher rise, higher density development might be preferable to one with such a retail development. But that particular train has left the station; that was the previous scheme that the PCC vehemently objected to.

There is a converse view that the proposal could benefit the High Street. Not all retailers objected to the Superstore, feeling it would attract more shoppers to Portobello generally and they would gain some benefit. A Waitrose might make Portobello more attractive as a shopping destination, bringing in people from elsewhere and increasing footfall along the High Street. From that point of view a development that entices additional shoppers into the area would be beneficial.

Whatever view is taken on that, it would be hard to conclude that the proposals would have no beneficial effects. There would be upwards of 1,000 new local residents; surely some of them would use the shops on the High Street? And then there’s the mixed use provision; small businesses, artist studios etc. They could also help revitalise that end of Portobello. And from the description given the new proposals should keep a similar, relatively good proportion of Open Space. There should also be 25% affordable housing and Portobello does have a shortage of affordable housing. There are also benefits in the short term should the project proceed; the construction industry is on its knees at the moment and a development on this scale would keep a lot of people employed for a few years.

And, as well as considering the consequences should the proposal go ahead, you also need to consider what might happen should it not. There’s absolutely no way of knowing for sure what that will be, but if the site is sold on what then? Does it stay derelict for years? Would the next proposal for the site be better? Or would it be worse?

[Bob Jefferson]

If, as you suggest, the prime consideration among CC members is the effect the retail development has on the High Street, then they will have to take into account that, whatever BL are suggesting, there is no guarantee what we will end up with. We can't assume that it will be Waitrose. What effect would a Lidl or a Tesco Metro have on the High Street?

I don't think that a Waitrose would be such a direct threat but neither do I believe that it would benefit other local shops. People arrive by car at supermarkets, buy their stuff and then go home. I don't see any spin-off. In retrospect, maybe one extra storey wasn't such a big deal and at least some of those extra residents would have shopped in the High Street.

[seanie]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Maria]

[wangi]

Forcing Scotmid to up their game wouldn't be a bad thing.

You know Findlay's and Williamson's are great - but protectionism isn't too cool. Those businesses didn't get where they are by not having any competition - it's the quality of their product and service. And would it be a bad thing for them to have more accessible opening hours?

L/

[Jeemy]

WRT being overwhelmed - not at all, its really interesting to find out what the concerns are.

Having said that, I'm struggling to see what the concerns actually *are*. I appreciate a massive hypermarket aka the original plan might have raised a few eyebrows, but I don't quite see what the problem is now.

From my point of view, I was originally only planning to be there a year, maybe two, and then move Joppa-wards or City Centre-wards; as it is now, I'm happy where I am, my staff are gravitating towards the area, and I'm keen that the development goes ahead and I get rehoused on-site, rather than the site going into a holding state and I end up overlooking a wasteground for the next 10 years, or worse, evicted and changing areas.

I have to say, the concerns the High Street might decline; can be taken two ways. As far as I see it the High Street consists of a mixture of franchise/branch buildings (RBS, Greggs, Boots) and some really nice independents (flower shop, delis, hardware store) - these latter wouldn't suffer and might even profit from increased footfall?

This footfall obviously comes from the heavier traffic to the area; but its already pretty heavy out on the main road, no?

Most High Streets are already in free-fall given the events of the last few years; maybe getting in early with some influx of first-time buyers/relocators might actually invigorate Porty.

As part of my contribution to things, I'm slowly expanding the arts/support side of what we do to try and assist the community and contribute, which obviously goes both ways. I'm obviously coming late to the party and will definitely attend on the 27th, but; given I'm not biased either way, am I wrong in saying that it looks like Portobello has more to lose than to gain by this at the moment?

On a side note I do have to say that 9 or 10 stories seems very intrusive. The plans I saw weren't anything like this but they were 3-4 years back and have clearly been affected since by this lenders' thing.

[Franck]

This may have been covered, but what effect will the potential new development have on schooling provisions in Portobello?From what I can tell, both Towerbank and St. Johns are pretty much full already.

[seanie]

That depends on the housing mix of the development.

Whilst there were family units in the previous proposal they were a small proportion of the overall development. Two thirds of the units were studio & singled bed flats, that pretty much don't generate any pupils numbers whatsoever. So even though it was high density the effect on the catchment would've been very small. Given the situation at Towerbank any increase is problematic, but that's just something that has to be dealt with. If the site going to be developed residentially, which is what the community and the PCC seem to want, then that issue arises inevitably. In fact the PCC wanted more family housing in the last proposal which would've exacerbated the issue.

If the new proposals have a higher proportion of family housing that shouldn't be a problem. But if there are higher numbers of family housing that might begin to cause concerns.