Superstore - New Petrol Station - Parking - New Access

[dccairns]

This is in response to Paula's post of Saturday 31 January. Thanks for your kind comments; it is good to be appreciated. Thanks also to you for making your voice heard to the decision makers. Without people writing letters etc, this campaign would be going nowhere - it's a team effort and every action counts. I echo your comments about us winning this battle by working together. Let's keep up the momentum!

Diana

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

Vote Vote Vote on our online poll! If you have already voted, get your neighbours to vote. Get your friends and relations to vote! Tell everyone you meet about the poll. Let's get a HUGE number of votes and let's demonstrate that the OVERWHELMING majority of folk in Portobello don't want this development.

The poll will close at the end of the month. Let the people decide!

[bellybabe]

Having written to Mr Henderson to object to the extra parking space application, I was not very happy to receive a letter from him acknowledging receipt of my email but telling me I had written too late for my objections to be taken into account. I emailed him on January 31st, well within the deadline. It turns out, of course, that he hadn't read the planning application number properly, and so assumed I was complaining about the initial proposal. Without wanting to whinge too much, I was really very concerned by this. After all, i took the time and energy to register my objections to the initial proposal, well within the date, and then took further time to register my objections to the second application, and yet our Head of Planning didn't even read the numbers properly? How many people's objections might be being ignored simply because the Planning Department have not bothered to read the letters and emails properly? Surely in matters so important to us, the council should at least take as much trouble to read them as we take to write them? I have of course emailed him back to point out his mistake, and very much hope that this will mean my time was NOT wasted and my objection noted, but I'm really quite angry at the possibilities for DHP if our objections are not even being properly read!

[dccairns]

Thanks for bringing this mistake to the attention of the Forum. I hope anyone else who has had this response will contact the Council to point out its mistake. You are right though, it is very concerning that this has happened. We need to keep a close eye on things to make sure there are no more mistakes.

One other thing to look out for this weekend - starting tonight actually - are the traffic monitoring boxes at the Brighton Place junction and at the Baileyfield Crescent junction with Sir Harry Lauder Way. We are assured by the Traffic Officer that this will be taking place over this weekend. Please keep a look out for them as experience tells us we should not take anything for granted. Let's hope that this monitoring will reveal the true extent of the traffic problems in Portobello and the potential traffic chaos this development would cause.

[Cynthia]

Gemini also had a letter saying her objection was ruled out of order because consultation had closed - and she stated the correct no and was well within the time - she emailed back and complained and it was accepted but as Paula says how many others got that reply and had their comments rejected??

Why didn't they take more care? and why didn't they include the second application as an appendix of the first or show some link so comments are debarred by mistake? C!!

[Cynthia]

Sent to Cllr Lawrence Marshall, Susan Deacon MSP, Colin Fox MSP and Mark Ballard MSP - and re- sent today as no reply received

Re: Planning Application 04/00188/OUT

This is clearly linked to the P/App 03/03021/OUT as it states on the first
page under Description of Proposed Development "Car Parking for
Superstore, bus stop and Landscaping".

1)Can you clarify the position as to why objectors to the previous
application for a superstore, have not been advised in writing of this
clearly intertwined application, so that we could object?

2)Also I am advised that residents in Baileyfield Road have not received
any neighbour notification, neither have I in Portobello High Street, quite
near to the proposed development. Did neighbours on the Welmar Estate receive notification? They are directly opposite yet not named on the Planning Application map!(see 1 attributed to the Council - does this refer to the railings?! when the Power Leage is marked on the Map and is arguably further away!). Is this correctly following Planning Procedures for neighbour notification?

3) I would also like to know if the objections to the Superstore will be
taken into account with this Planning Application as they mention the
>Application is for car parking for the superstore?!

[Cynthia]

This is the reply I got today - I'll post the response when I get it....however feel free to write to Cllr Marshall yourselves if you are also concerned -
From Cllr L Marshall (lawrence.marshall@edinburgh.gov.uk)
Dear All,
please find below an e-mail I have just sent off to Alan
Henderson, Head of Planning and Strategy, and to Ian Smith, the Case Officer
re. these applications, relaying to them the concerns raised by Caroline.
Please understand, though, that our planning officers have to deal with
thousands of applications a year in Edinburgh and that, if my memory serves
me right, they're meant roughly to get through one per day - that includes
visiting the site, assessing representations and writing their report.


Lawrence

my response - slightly rattled by the implications of that last sentence...

[Cynthia]

Perhaps its too late at night, but I found that last sentence's implications deeply disturbing in terms of our campaign and wrote this:

Thank you for your email and that you are now going to look into my concerns. These are not in anyway a criticism of any of the Planning Dept staff (re your last sentence), rather of the procedures which mean that two Planning Applications relating to the same proposal e.g. the proposed Superstore in Portobello, are treated apparently as entirely different. As evidence that this is confusing for staff, let alone for us as constituents, I cited that two people that I know of, so I presume there could be more, who lodged objections to the 2nd Application, were told that their objection was invalid as it was beyond the time. This was incorrect, and was notified as so by the objectors, and subsequently staff acknowledged this.

However the concern I raise is that the procedure whereby a Developer can lodge two (or maybe more) separate applications for basically the same proposed development, albeit for separate pieces of the development, with no link in terms of guaranteeing that previous objectors to the outline proposal of a superstore are advised of the subsequent application, or that their prior objections would be taken into account, is procedurally flawed. The evidence that two people have had their comments initially rejected because of confusion in the Planning Dept shows that this procedure, to my mind, is illogical and therefore confusing for staff, so how much more so for the public.

I draw this to your attention because I am sure you would not want this to be the case and you would want to do something about this in terms of the procedures, whether or not this requires legislation. I doubt you would not want to put the staff in this position of making entirely understandable mistakes because of the procedures being used, nor of confusing the local residents.

In addition, if staff do not have enough time to deal with applications, including those that are particularly sensitive and have caused a great deal of public concern, then the obvious answer is that those staff need more time allocated to deal with planning applications.

The community did not ask for these proposals and many residents are using our precious spare time - in terms of writing letters, watching out for further planning applications etc. This is because of the great concern felt about this proposal, the fact that similar developments e.g. Morrisons Superstore in W Lothian have been given their area's Council go ahead despite local objections, and the Scottish Executive agreement to the building of flats at the bottom of Bath Street despite local residents concerns. It is also because there is no right of appeal for local communities (third parties) once the Council have made their decision.

I have every sympathy with Planning Officers and Planning Staff - they too don't have a choice over the types of application that they have to deal with, and should be given far more time to deal with the ones that have caused a great deal of local concern, if they do not have the time to deal with these sufficiently now, as is implied by your last sentence.

As you know from the 300 people at the public meeting and the 3000 people who signed a petition against the superstore application, this is an issue concerning people across the whole local community, including shop keepers, and residents.

I trust you will look into the concerns I have raised specifically re this second application, which I have heard from quite a lot of people and I refer you to the Porty Online Forum at www.porty.org.uk to see a complaint to this effect from someone else.

[Guest]

And look who's causing problems now in Morningside - yes our old friends, Duddingston Properties - 'destroying communities, making a fast buck'.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinb ... =180882004

[Cynthia]

STOP THE SUPERSTORE PORTOBELLO

TUESDAY FEB 17TH AT 11 AM - come and support

GATHER TO PROTEST ALONG THE SITE FENCE
(ex Scottish Power Site – Porty High St)

Mark Ballard MSP (Scottish Green Party) will visit protestors
to support our Campaign …bring posters, drawings, banners, soft toys (to represent children), ribbons, …to say NO to the STORE, more lorries, traffic, accidents,
and YES to parks, safe cycling, affordable houses, play areas, safe walking, less fumes, locally owned small/medium size shops, keep the heart of the community etc

The Press have been invited and all supporting MSPs.
Mark Ballard is putting a motion about the terrible effects of a superstore on local shops, communities, traffic, etc to the Scottish Parliament and giving publicity to our campaign by highlighting the campaign against the superstore in Portobello.

GIVEN THE PROPOSED APPROVAL IN MERCHISTON FOR A SUPERSTORE, I THINK THE MESSAGE IS WE NEED TO CAMPAIGN EVEN MORE - THEY HAD ONLY 70 OBJECTION LETTERS AND THE PLANNING DEPT HAVE RECOMMENDED THE GO AHEAD - so don't be put off by warnings to "stop campaigning or else you'll upset the decision makers" - we need to learn from the experience of the Bath St flats and now the Merchiston superstore, carla

[Maria]

Well done!Your publicity drive is already reaping rewards ahead of Tuesday's protest(which I fully intend to participate in incidentally), as I noticed that as I tuned in to get my daily fix of teletext news on Saturday, CATS had been given prime billing
I'm concerned though that the traffic study was arranged for the first weekend of the midterm break, as there are many people away for the holiday and this must surely have an impact on traffic volume

[Cynthia]

A big thank you to all who came to the demo in front of the proposed superstore site today and hung banners, posters, pictures, toys and writings on the railings. The chanting was great once we got over our embarrassment. There were probably about 70 people, maybe more, including children - and Mark Ballard MSP told us about the motion he is putting to the Scottish Parliament. More about this later, on this website, as we will all have a job to do to lobby msp's, particularly labour ones including susan deacon, to support this so it gets discussed. This motion mentions the dire state of Porty if this superstore goes ahead plus our campaign. I don't know if we will get in the Evg News tomorrow but we deserve to. A great trial run for further protests - watch this space!

Carla aka caroline

[Lizzie]

I was one of the people who knew about and was able to come along to the Demo this morning and whilst it was quite a good turn out I am sure a lot of more people would have been there if it had been advertised with perhaps some posters up in the local shops to inform those who do not have access to the website. I have since spoken to quite a few of my neighbours today who said if they had known about the demonstration then they too would have been there. The only small poster I saw was the one in the stationers in the High Street.

[Cynthia]

Hi Lizzie, thanks for coming along and don't worry too much about the size of today's event - it was actually just going to be very small and a walkabout and pics with Mark Ballard and we just decided to try for a smallish lobby to make the pics more interesting and use the event as a trial run at a protest - I am really glad it went well - sun shone, the press came albeit a bit late, people turned up and we had a good chant anti-superstore slogans (please can people think up some more!) - yes I take your point - I am quite sure we could have got 200 or more, even on a weekday, and next time if this seems the right thing to do, e.g. if its when the planning application is being decided, I think we should go for it - it was a wee bit about building our confidence, including the organisers' - speaking for myself!!

when the planning application date is known, we have contingency plans to leaflet the whole of Porty, Joppa and Craigentinny, and if anyone wants to volunteer to do their street please let us know - either post a private message on here or email the website at info@pcats.org.uk - head it help with leafletting -

any other views of today and suggestions - welcome - please put on here too - Carla

[Lizzie]

OK Carla I understand - I thought you did a super job today - well done.
I live at the Bridge Street end of Portobello and would be more than happy to deliver leaflets round my area if needed.
You can let me know and meanwhile I'll have a go at trying to think up some new chants!

[Guest]

Here are some photos from this morning's events, courtesy of Carla:

[Cynthia]

Support Scottish Parliament Motion S2M-920# Mark Ballard (Lothians) (Green) : Community Right toOppose Supermarket Developments

Please all help the campaign by....write/email your MSPs (all of them!) to
a) support the motion (wording below), supporting our campaign against a superstore in Portobello, and highlighting the negative effect on communities and
b) can you email this, if you agree with it, to friends etc and copy on paper to anyone who doesn't have email with address of MSPs - all at The Scottish Parliament, EH99 1SP.

You might also want to point out to people that, if these applications are approved at local level, there is no right of appeal for third parties (ie communities) whereas developers/planning applicants can appeal to the Scottish Executive - in other words biased in favour of developers - which is something else we need to change.

The motion below will give the campaign well deserved support and publicity in the Scottish Parliament but it has to have a considerable number of MSPs signatures before it can be debated - this is therefore urgent if we are to get publicity before the decision is made in Portobello. Please do what you can to support this motion by emailing your Constituency and List MSPs. Thanks, Caroline Hosking for the Campaign (CATS). You can find also MSPs email addresses through this link http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/index.htm

Motion S2M-920# Mark Ballard (Lothians) (Green) : Community Right toOppose Supermarket Developments- That the Parliament notes the report by the New Economics Foundation, Ghost Town Britain, which demonstrates the negative impact that supermarkets can have on communities and local economies; considers that a good example of the problems with superstores is the situation in Portobello where residents calculate that 41 retail outlets have closed, become charity shops, been converted to dwellings or been demolished and where remaining shops are struggling and the community is faced with an application from a developer for planning permission to erect a superstore in the High Street despite the presence of one superstore in the town and a further eight within a two mile radius; believes that the Scottish Executive should provide incentives for shopping in locally-owned and run outlets and prioritise such outlets in all legislation relating to planning and urban regeneration, and further believes that a comprehensive network of post offices, rather than incorporating post office functions into superstores, is a key way of supporting local economies.
Carla

[dccairns]

Did anyone see any evidence of traffic monitoring last weekend (12-15 February) at the Brighton Place/Portobello High Street junction or the Baileyfield Crescent/Sir Harry Lauder Way junction? There would have been boxes low down attached to posts or people counting. Please post your reply here if you did.

Thanks

Diana

[Guest]

The report 'Ghost Town Britain' referred to earlier by Carla is available as a free pdf download here:

http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads ... 114309.pdf

[Jamesie]

[Cynthia]

[Guest]

Drat! I was looking out for the EN article but I must have missed it. Which edition did it appear in? It didn't make the online edition.

I have been advised of an article on the demo that appears on the East Edin & Musselburgh SSP website at:

http://www.edinburgh-east-ssp.org/ssp_p ... /index.htm

Incidentally, I am always amused by estimates of turnouts for demos and how widely they vary. My son, who was there, had thought there were between 30-40 people present. Carla estimates 70+ and the SSP reckon there were over a hundred!

Below is another photo, this time courtesy of Peter Ross.

[Cynthia]

Our Treasurer has again asked me to say a donation, however small, would be very very helpful for leaflets, posters etc -

If you want to donate direct you can go into the Bank of Scotland, 153 Porty High St and donate to our a/c: C.A.T.S., Branch Code: 80-18-31 a/c no: 00842504 or send a cheque payable to C.A.T.S., c/o D.Alexander, 32 Marlborough St, EH15 2BJ

We are currently ordering more posters for windows (so keep them up or put one up - don't be shy you are in good company!) and some badges.

Don't forget to email or write to as many MSPs as you can in Lothians and elsewhere too if you want to support Mark Ballard's motion re superstores, mentioning Porty's plight. (earlier on thread or contact info@pcats.org.uk and www.pcats.org.uk for info)

[bellybabe]

On the traffic monitoring front, i never saw a thing, and since we can't really get anywhere without going through that junction, its absence was noticeable. I did notice cameras go up a few weeks before that - my six year old was fascinated by the process and asked me lots of questions about it. ("Why do we need cameras there, mummy?" - "I don't know, babe, maybe it's to catch out all those people who frequently almost run us over going through the red lights at 8.35 each morning..."!) However, I didn't see any evidence of any such thing actually in use at the junction. Surprise surprise.
Paula

[Cynthia]

Thanks BB aka Paula - that confirms what we thought - no traffic monitoring last weekend when they were supposed to be doing it - we'll get on the case!
This is a reminder can you particularly contact Susan Deacon MSP to support and sign the following motion to Scottish Parliament - so we can get it debated in Parl and give us publicity as well as raising the devastating effects of superstores on local communities.
Email Susan Deacon MSP at susan.deacon.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
Write to: Susan Deacon MSP, The Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh EH99 1SP
or drop a line in to her office on Porty High St
to sign the Motion below and get it discussed. If Susan Deacon signs it its likely to be signed by other Labour MSPs and get debated. Please don't worry too much about the wording - its' the sentiment that is important - it can always be amended - but that would still mean it could get debated..

Motion S2M-920# Mark Ballard (Lothians) (Green) : Community Right toOppose Supermarket Developments- That the Parliament notes the report by the New Economics Foundation, Ghost Town Britain, which demonstrates the negative impact that supermarkets can have on communities and local economies; considers that a good example of the problems with superstores is the situation in Portobello where residents calculate that 41 retail outlets have closed, become charity shops, been converted to dwellings or been demolished and where remaining shops are struggling and the community is faced with an application from a developer for planning permission to erect a superstore in the High Street despite the presence of one superstore in the town and a further eight within a two mile radius; believes that the Scottish Executive should provide incentives for shopping in locally-owned and run outlets and prioritise such outlets in all legislation relating to planning and urban regeneration, and further believes that a comprehensive network of post offices, rather than incorporating post office functions into superstores, is a key way of supporting local economies.

[Guest]

With 272 votes so far, our superstore online poll has become our most popular to date. We have now decided to extend it until the end of March to give as many people as possible the opportunity to vote. Dare the planning committee defy 91.5% of local people? I don't think so. But the more people we can persuade to vote, the more representative we can claim the poll is.

Let's aim for 500 votes. If everyone who has voted so far persuades just one other person to vote we will achieve that. Let's send the decision makers a message they can't afford to ignore.

On another note, I was 'reliably' informed recently that the superstore WILL go ahead - it's all 'cut and dried' apparently. I don't believe these stories for a minute and they do a great disservice to the people who work under a great deal of pressure in the Planning Dept and also to the councillors who serve on the Planning Committee. To be honest, I'm getting pretty fed up with the nonsense and paranoia that seems to surround every application that comes up in Portobello. OK, we've had a spate of unwanted developments recently but not all developers are intrinsically evil and not all council officials are 'on the take'. One or two people need to take a reality check.

[Cynthia]

I am posting a request from Gemini - who asks if "anyone was familiar with the reasons why the Mitchell Buildings were demolished and/or lived there, (we) think we know that it was due to 'subsidence' however, there may be people out there in porty land who know lot's more - which in turn may help our case".

Mitchell Buildings I gather was a tenement where Kwik Fit now is and it had to be demolished - anyone know anything about this please post here...

still no news on when the Planning Application will be considered by the Committee but we will go into overdrive to let everyone know when we know - you can help by checking the Council Website at www.edinburgh.gov.uk and click on Planning and Portal and Public Access and Planning Application 03/03021/OUT

if anyone wants a poster (large and small) - we have more - post a private message to me here and I will get one to you....Carla

[dccairns]

Developing Carla's theme and referring back to my post of 2 Feb on the "Lack of democracy in planning process" thread, I would like to ask people who feel strongly about this to write to Gavin Strang as our Westminster MP to ask him to support the Early Day motion No 169 in support of the Local Sustainability Bill which is being tabled at Westminster by the New Economics Foundation and currently has the support of over a third of MPs.

The Bill seeks:

the promotion of local economies
the promotion of local services
the protection of the environment
the reduction of social exclusion and
measures to increase involvement in the democratic process.

This legislation is long overdue and if this Bill were to become law in England it would hasten the adoption of a similar Bill for Scotland.

If you want to find out more about this Bill, please go to www.localworks.org

[Guest]

With 328 votes in so far, the people of Portobello have made their position crystal clear. It's a resounding NO to the superstore.

We have had 100 posts from people opposed to the superstore and a grand total of ZERO against. Still, there's good news for the developers - 25 people have voted FOR the superstore. Assuming that they have not misunderstood the question that means that Tesco (or whoever) can count on 25 regular customers.

Oh dear, perhaps the business case doesn't look quite so robust after all.

[Cynthia]

Supermarket chains in the UK hand out 17bn plastic bags each year - enough to cover Sussex and Surrey. (from BBC Home Page website)- no doubt our new superstore if it ever gets here, and not if we can help it, will contribute greatly to this - should we not only buy bags we can re use but also perhaps supermarkets who give out plastic bags should be expected to have plastic recycling banks in their stores/car parks and/or use recycled/recyclable plastic or even better paper ones. C

[Epykat]

[Cynthia]

[administrator]

The superstore poll has now been closed. We had intended to run it until the end of March but I think that everyone who was likely to vote has done so by now. I was also concerned that because we changed the timeout setting half way through it might allow some people to vote more than once. Above all, we want to ensure that the poll is representative and stands up to scrutiny.

Here are the stats:

Option 1: Yes - votes: 26 (7.54%)
Option 2: No - votes: 317 (91.88%)
Option 3: Don't know - votes: 2 (0.58%)

It's a resounding NO to the superstore and a large enough sample to be statistically significant. The people of Portobello have spoken. Ignore us at your peril.