Takeaways, restaurants & Community Council representations

[wangi]

admin: split from the ; see also the thread for related discussion.

I was browsing recent planning applications (slow evening) and notices that to turn the now closed craft shop into a "cake shop and tea house" was rejected on the basis of not allowing the number of non-retail shops to exceed a 1/3 threshold. (according to two objections, the figure is current 44%, this would take it to 48%). A similar application to convert 'Klaze' has been withdrawn, I wonder if they saw the writing on the wall for the same reason.

I can understand the reason behind the rule, the desire to protect the retail utility of the high street, but I'm not so sure this is necessarily the right choice for Porty High Street, especially with so many units now empty and little likelihood of new retail business springing up in the current economic climate.

I have no self interest in this case, other than an unhealthy interest in tea and cakes, but it strikes me that with combined retail/cafe nature of the business it would have been a good addition to the high street. What do folks think, should the rule be relaxed or at least a little more wiggle room, or is it saving our high street from becoming a line of cafes and sandwich bars?


As an aside, there were of course the usual objectors, Diana Cairns and Stephen Hawkings, plus one other. The PCC submission was a comment, but frankly reads to me as as near an objection as is possible without actually using the word 'object' - I can't see how that fits in with the minutes of PCC's discussion on these cases, PCC democracy in action?

[Makaveli]

I agree with you that a wee bit of 'wiggle room' could be applied for in certain cases. Obviously there needs to limits on each business type but I would prefer to not see any empty units on the high street.

As for the usual objectors - it's nae much of a surprise really is it? The same names the same people - all getting a bit boring and predictable.

[wangi]

For reference here are some posts regarding the discussion of that application at the community council back in June: viewtopic.php?p=87643#p87643

[Porty]

Was the "Get Creative" application discussed at PCC?

Their comment, and that of Diana Cairns, seems inaccurate. They both claim the current non-retail use is 44% rising to 48% if the application is granted. The officers report gives the true picture. Its a pity these numpties don't get their facts straight before going into print.

However it is clear that rule ref 9 is breached, there are already too many non-retail uses on this section of the High street. The application looked doomed from the start. And it's almost certainly down to the intervention of Councillor Hawkins. The cafe application would have sailed through just a few months ago.

[wangi]

There appears to be a significant anomaly between two recent planning decisions in this section of the High Street- which is; Even Numbers 100 -162 Portobello High Street.

Molehusband provided a link to the "Get Creative" application on the Councils Plannig Portal. The officers report refers to 28 units. However, in an earlier report (also in October 2011) relating to 134 Portobello High Street (Cheque Centre). The officers report refers to just 24 units in the same run of shops, a difference of 4 units.

Here's a link to the Cheque Centre application, the officers report is contained therein:

[Porty]

Looks like Subway has been resurrected in the old "Klaze" site. Good luck to the owners.

[Porty]

[rmolehusband]

[Porty]

It could just be ads to hook a franchisee. Not sure if a cold food sandwich retailer could slip through as a class 1?

Has anyone got a version of adobe that will perform copy and paste the pcc and cairns objection letters relating to the tea and cakes application? Would be good to directly compare the content.

[Puerto bella]

Numbers/ percentages of empty, retail, non retail uses change fairly frequently.
As an aside this reminded me of an interesting debate at today's Local Review Body at the council. There were many anomolies between officer stats in reports and facts that you find in a locality - this particular one was in relation to Ferry Road but it was the third item on a four item agenda where officers had made fundamental mistakes in figs, measurements and facts on each item. Embarrasing to watch it all unfold.
I have an email in front of me at present from a Group Leader in Planning apologising for their cock ups and putting it down to lack of resources, volume of work etc.
Who mentioned privatisation.........

[Pal of Porty]

The posters in the old Klaze site are advertising a 'Franchise Opportunity' so it looks like Subway retained the head lease and were looking to sub lease the unit to another business. Must be hoping now that it will be easier to find a franchisee with the shop sorted.

[Porty]

I guess it is embarrassing but it also can have serious, potentially fatal, consequences for the aspirations of people who wish to invest in our High Street.

In the last 6 months there has been 3 change of use applications for premises within 100-162 Portobello High Street.

In May 2011 the officers report, on our application at 152-154 Portobello High Street, did not state the number of premises in the run, just that our application would bring the total up to one third non retail use and therefore be acceptable-change of use granted. (We were furious at having to make an application in the first place as (95%)of our transactions are retail. Most pawnbrokers, UK wide are classs 1. The enforcement order emanated from one of our local councillors so the Council took a tough stance. Rather than fight the decision we were advised that to save money and time we should apply for the change of use, as it was a shoo in. We spent £700 to get the approval but we are definitely a retail business taking up one of the non-retail allocations. The councillor made the complaint 3 months before we opened and could not possibly have known how we would set our stall out)

In October 2011 the officers report on the Cheque Centre- 134 PHS, who had been trading for 5 years without change of use approval, said that there are 24 premises in the run. The application breached the policy but officers recommended it should be granted. ( The Cheque Centre operated in Portobello's Conservation Area without change of use and without complaint from public, councillor. PCC or PAS, for 5 years)

In October 2011 the officers report on 100 PHS , tea and cake shop, stated there are 28 shops in the run but refused the application.

Not very consistent is it and we have a prominent, empty shop as a result.

[wangi]

[rmolehusband]

[wangi]

[seanie]

It's a bit unfortunate but the PCC comment on the 100 High Street application was interpreted by the Planners as an objection although that wasn't the intention of the Community Council.

[Pal of Porty]

[rmolehusband]

[seanie]

Not sure who drafted it but I can ask. In any event, although the 100 letter wasn't circulated it was closely based on the previous one that was, presumably with no objections. So if the PCC has sent a letter that didn't do a great job of expressing the opinions if the PCC any failing is a collective one.

Bear in mind that it's quite appropriate for the PCC to express a range of views, even contradictory ones. In this case we maybe got the balance a bit wrong and overemphasised the opinions against in comparison to those that weren't.

[Mark Cameron]

Is the correspondence issued by th pcc available for the community to view? If it is can we see it on the website and how often is it posted?

[seanie]

There used to be a folder in the library containing correspondence but it got mislaid for a while during the refurbishment. Don't know if it's been replaced but I can check. The website has minutes but I don't think there's correspondence.

[seanie]

Also, it turns out the 100 letter was circulated.

[rmolehusband]

[Porty]

Was the letter circulated in time to allow commen prior to submission?

The fact remains, one solitary objection was made by the public, a vote took place at PCC eleven to two against objecting, yet PCC still objected. This is described as "unfortunate".

It is unfortunate that the solitary objector is the also the secretary of PCC. It also unfortunate that the very same secretary was the person who instigated the vote to object, as she wanted to object. Collectively if PCC wish to improve their fortunes in representations they make to the public and others, they should get rid. That's the stark truth.

[Mark Cameron]

Now the pcc have a website would they be open to posting any submissions on there say one month before submitting? Would give people an opportunity to input before the horse has bolted.

Also if pcc invited any interested individuals from the community to let them have an email address they could have a distribution list to which they could issue an email advising of any new posts to the website. That way anyone interested could see what was being issued removing the I wasn't aware claims.

[Bob Jefferson]

I don't think that it would be practical to open up a debate with the community prior to submission. However, all submissions should be available to the public and it would be a relatively simple matter to add them to the CC website. Much better than leaving hard copies in the Library where they can be lost or stolen.

[Porty]

Looking at the guidelines for CC PCC should nt be wasting their time commenting on planning issues that are of such little interest to the community.

Anything that improves transparency should be embraced. CC not only have to be fair they have to be seen to be fair. there has been 4 Chang of use applications on phs in the last 6 months and PCC ignored two of them . in what way is that fair? Looks like they have favourites doesnt it Sean?

[seanie]

With planning applications you only have 21 days to comment, and with the PCC meeting once a month that can make it difficult to meet deadlines. With larger applications, when there a pre-application consultations there would be an opportunity to consult the community, but it's not likely to be practical with smaller stuff. There is an argument that Community Councils shouldn't be bothering with the smaller stuff, but on the other hand the cumulative effect of lots of small applications could be significant.

I think any inconsistency here is accidental; some applications were discussed because someone raised them, others weren't because nobody did. Maybe we just need to notify everyone of live applications prior to meetings so at least nothing gets missed accidentally, even if many applications don't end up being discussed anyway.

As for the letter, with hindsight I don't think it got the balance right. I agree that it reads like an objection but then if nobody commented when it was circulated maybe others feel differently.

[Mark Cameron]

Thanks Seanie. I didn't realise there was only a 3 week window. How are PCC made aware of an application and at that point could it be posted to the website (and distribution list)? That way if there are people with an interest on the list and there is a meeting before the submission is required they may be compelled to come along.

I can see it's a difficult balance to please everyone but being transparent from the earliest point in the process may go some way to preventing this type of concern.

[seanie]

I checked and there is indeed a correspondence file in the library although it's in need of updating; last letter is 5th May. I'll ask the secretaries to do it.

[seanie]

I'm not sure how the PCC is notified. The council does produce a weekly list of applications, split into neighbourhood partnership areas and identifying the relevant Community Council. I don't suppose it would be difficult to extract that and post it somewhere. There are also various planning alerts that you can sign up to that send automatic notifications but they seem to suffer from glitches and quirks. There's also a planning page on Portobello on-line listing applications the PCC website links to, but that's suffered in the past from glitches as well. Seems to be working at the moment though.

[seashell]

Maybe there should be an offical motion to censure at the next PCC, in that the letter did the reverse of what it was intended to? And the writer invited to tender their resignation forthwith?

[seanie]

That's a bit OTT. The letter's not that egregious, it just got the balance a bit wrong.

[Porty]

[Porty]