Scottish Power Site Re-development 3 - supermarket + housing

[Bob Jefferson]

True, but on the other hand, if they have NO interest in the site, then they would have no problem in saying so, as I believe is the situation in this case. Marya's poll, limited as it is, shows that some people would like a Waitrose, while many others would be happy with any operator. However, as there has been no large-scale consultation, and the PCC shows no interest in conducting one, no-one really knows what the views of the community are. BL is not going to get the cast-iron assurance from the CC it would like and will simply have to take its chances with the planning process or follow through with its threat to walk away from the table. If BL believes that a retail impact assessment will favour its proposals, as they claim, then let's see it so we can all make an informed decision. Sure, it's a risk and it may be money wasted if the application is unsuccessful, but that's the nature of the business they are in. I won't lose any sleep either way.

[Porty]

[Porty]

As for PCC. I think they need to withdraw their objection to the new proposal, at least until they conduct some community consultation.

[philip myerscough]

[Porty]

Unlikely- unless the letter happens to be a commendation for tireless effort in engaging with the community? If the letter is not on display would it be worth an FOI request?

It is commonplace for developers to "talk up" their developments, as a means of attracting interest and support. For example I recall when Ocean Terminal was proposed, the "anchor" store was trumpeted as John Lewis, which never happened. I don't think so, but even if the Waitrose interest is flannel, it is acceptable for the developer to portray the proposal in the best light possible. At this stage of the game there is no way BL could have a contract or a written agreement from Waitrose to open a store for which they have yet to get planning permission.

It is interesting to know that only Morrisons and Asda have ruled themselves out but hardly surprising given their existing presence in the locale. Presumably the "potential operators" who were approached include Scotmid and Somerfield who by default have not declared themselves out. Could the portobello community cope with two Scotmids? Would it be helpful to have a choice of venues to fail to find what ones looking for?

[gillian]

[wangi]

This wasn't discussed at all at the last PCC meeting.

[Porty]

It was discussed at the previous meeting. There was no vote. However, after the meeting, guess which local luminary felt qualified to write to the planners to tell them what the majority of those present at the PCC didn't want? And even felt confident enough to state what the minority did want............????

[Makaveli]

I wasn't there but I am pretty sure I could take a guess!!!!

[gillian]

So let me get this right. The future plans for the Scottish Power site were discussed at the September mtg of the PCC. It was apparently a lengthy and at times heated disussion. One of the main areas of contention was that the PCC were not taking into account or indeed seeking opinions from the local community. There was no vote taken. The minutes have not been posted here so I have not yet read them but I didn't get the impression that a mandate to inform the planners of a PCC decision was given to anyone.

Nevertheless a member of the PCC communicated with the planners stating that the majority of the PCC members were not in favour, didn't want ...or whatever.What was written is probably not that important.
If all of this is correct, then I do not understand how this can be considered right and proper.

Porty, is this letter to the planners available for us to see?

[Porty]

[Porty]

The letters are copies. a result of an FOI request. Scanned; so a bit haphazard. Bottom line is: PCC did not declare a position, partly because they felt it inappropriate to take a vote. Councillor Hawkins took it upon himself to avail the planners of the PCC position. According to his letter the majority of those present at the PCC meeting were against a supermarket. And according to his letter a minority were prepared to accept whatever the developer offered..

The Councillor has been challenged to substantiate the PCC position he purveyed to the planners. He has no answer. He can't have.There was no vote.

[gillian]

Blimey!

[seashell]

so what happens now? If the Councillor "cannot substantiate" what he wrote in an offical capacity, surely he must now write a factual account or face allegations of (at the very least) using his official position to advance a personal agenda or of deliberately misrepresenting the views of the community he is elected to represent? Either way, he is batting on a very sticky wicket.

[wangi]

[Grunk]

Perhaps Instead of "Supermarket" the proposal should say 18000sq ft Convenience Store.

As Councillor Hawkins pointed out at some point in the past the interested parties in Portobello said no to a supermarket.

There is, after all, absolutely no difference between a single retail premesis taking up the whole site with the logistics, transport and local economy implications associated with a huge outlet and a small metro style supermarket that will have an a correspondingly reduced hinterland and supporting infrastructure.

What is his problem with a load of plush new residences some studios, retail space and a store?

I actually think one of the worst things you can do in a new development is to create residences without some kind of retail space, it means that the community becomes closed and people will leave there homes, get in their cars and drive to wherever they need to go to get supplies, if folk have a local place to go (walk) to, they may consider ranging even further afield to take in other things the town has to offer.

Otherwise It creates a soulless urban area without a sense of community.