Woodwares closing / Sainsburys coming to Portobello

[Bob Jefferson]

Is this their standard Sainsbury Local shopfront design? Someone mentioned that they used something different in the New Town. Can we see an example of this?

[lg1726]

First it was over provision of alcohol and now this!

The bottom line is that some traders fear the arrival of Sainburys, but rather than up their game and gain from the increased footfall, they want to ride them out of town, sadly supported by some in our community who seem to think they have a mandate to speak for us all. I particularly like the line

An ATM in this Georgian facad is out of keeping. Another one in Portobello is not needed.

. No one asked me whether I want another ATM or not and after all, it is us who use the High Street who should determine what is needed or not - bloody arrogance. I picked up my leaflet yesterday evening in Fine Wine; in the morning I spend £40+ in Findlays and £10+ in Williamsons and another tenner in Fine Wine. In the afternoon I went to Asda, none of those shops sell loo roll, breakfast cereal or dishwasher tablets etc. Had I wanted to spend my money in a supermarket, then would have been the time and the arrival of Sainsburys will not change that. We all buy our loo roll somewhere and that is not affecting the local traders, so how does the arrival of a Sainsburys local make a difference?!

I for one will be lodging my overwhelming support for this development and I will be doing so on the basis that this development represents an clear demonstration of investment into regenerating our depleting High Street. We need to have shops there that keep people on the High Street to shop for the everyday items, loo roll etc. Without them what will there be to attract everyday shoppers there everyday? Stopping Sainsburys and other such developments will kill the High Street, not preserve it and certainly not progress it.

I will object to the objections!!

[Mark Cameron]

questions surely also need to be asked of the community council. what are they basing their intended objection on?

[seashell]

the personal opinions of the usual subjects?

[lg1726]

the personal opinions of the usual subjects? Aka ... and her mates.

Well yes - as always, but it is more than a tad annoying that this lot make up the majority of the PCC and so feel that they have the absolute mandate to speak for the community. What they offer is as you say their own personal opinions, but offered from the platform of the PCC gives these personal opinions credence in matters such as these.

All the more reason why we must make sure that the views of the community are offered and we are represented. I will be contacting the CEC to support the application and i have emailed the PCC to ask them if I have missed a crucial consultation exercise to elicit my views on this matter prior to their representation!!

[Bob Jefferson]

From John Stewart:

PCC has objected to the materials and to the design of the proposed shopfronts. We have not objected to Sainsbury's opening a local shop in Portobello. These are listed buildings in a conservation area. Sainsbury's has what they call a 'heritage' design of shopfronts which they have used on other listed buildings and in other conservation areas in Edinburgh but they are not proposing this type of shopfront in Portobello. I attach photographs of three such recent 'heritage' shopfronts in Edinburgh at Bruntsfield, Bernard Street, in Leith and Howe Street in the New Town.

PCC has looked at the relevant planning policies and guidelines regarding shopfronts as I am sure you have.

The proposals that Sainsbury’s have lodged go directly against the Council’s new “Guidance for Businesses”, August 2012, which is currently in draft form. I have attached a copy of this for your information. The proposals are also contrary to Policy Des 12 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. The new guidance states that:

“Large undivided areas of plate glass are out of keeping with small scale shops and give the appearance of a gaping hole over which the upper storeys look unsupported.”
“Shop fronts should be designed for their context and preserve and strengthen the unity of the street.”
“One shop front across two separate buildings” – as is proposed with nos. 222 and 224 – “will not normally be acceptable as it disrupts the vertical rhythm of the facades above.”

These guidelines also state that new design should respect the surrounding buildings and should use traditional materials.

It is therefore our view that an objection is justified as the current proposals contravene the guidelines set down by the Planning Department against which planning applications are judged. We would hope that Sainsbury's could be persuaded to lodge a new application which, in terms of the design and materials proposed, shows more respect for these listed buildings and the conservation area.

[Bob Jefferson]

John also sent these images of examples of where Sainsbury's has taken a more sensitive approach to its surroundings.

Howe Street

Bruntsfield

sainsbury's bruntsfield.jpg (4.97 KiB) Viewed 7854 times

Bernard Street

[Bob Jefferson]

Here is the document that John refers to and I have to say that it is very welcome and refreshing that the CC is responding in this way. If only they had shared their opinions with the community BEFORE they decided to object.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98946727/busin ... anning.pdf

[wangi]

"which is currently in draft form" ...

[Mark Cameron]

...have asked John Stewart whether there was any discussion between PCC and sainsbury to see if theyre willing to adopt a heritage frontage or if the default position of objecting was taken. Will let you know what JS says.

[wangi]

[seashell]

So why wasn't this discussed at the meeting on 24 September?
Am I the only person who thinks they had already decided to object, but didn't want it discussed?

[seashell]

the personal opinions of the usual subjects? Aka ... and her mates.

Well yes - as always, but it is more than a tad annoying that this lot make up the majority of the PCC and so feel that they have the absolute mandate to speak for the community. What they offer is as you say their own personal opinions, but offered from the platform of the PCC gives these personal opinions credence in matters such as these.

All the more reason why we must make sure that the views of the community are offered and we are represented. I will be contacting the CEC to support the application and i have emailed the PCC to ask them if I have missed a crucial consultation exercise to elicit my views on this matter prior to their representation!!

even more annoying gived that it wasn't on the agenda to discuss at the meeting on 24 September. Could it possibly be that the cabal had already decided to object and this was a deliberate omission?

[Makaveli]

Yet again no consultaion from the PCC - why? Why does this continue to happen?

If it wasn't for this website I would be none the wiser to the fact that the PCC had decided for me that I wanted to object!!

Portobello is a farce of place.

[Maria]

Had been holding off posting, but feel there is a danger that people may end up supporting something simply, because 'the usual suspects' are organising a campaign against, which could result in us shooting ourselves in the foot.

First of all, if asked for my personal view, I would place myself in the 'Sorry to see Woodwares go, but not against Sainsbury's' camp. I did, however, agree at the last CC meeting that the plans submitted by Sainsbury's for Portobello's listed buildings were less preferable to ones used elsewhere in the city. The 'heritage' designs shops that I have seen elsewhere (I saw one, for example, in Lancaster that looked very smart) look less intrusive than what is currently planned by Sainsbury's for Portobello. I would urge people to look at the photos (posted by Bob earlier in this thread) of some of Sainsbury's 'heritage style' examples around Edinburgh and see what they think of them, before deciding whether or not to support Sainsbury's current application for alterations. I believe that in other conservation areas, Sainsbury's have automatically offered their 'heritage' design as the first option and I am puzzled as to why they did not do so here.

Secondly, do not underestimate the possible noise from cooling plant. I do not profess any specialist knowledge here or strong views on this issue, but it may be perhaps worth investigating if you live nearby. I know residents of some houses in Craigleith will happily warn you what that may be like, as they have been fighting a battle over intrusive noise from cooling plants, installed by Sainsbury's, when they extended their Blackhall store.

Thirdly, yes, the current Woodwares/Home store frontage may not be a thing of great beauty , but surely that isn't a reason to hold back from asking Sainsbury's to provide a more subtle design? Several local shops have, in recent years, used grants to restore their frontages, which does not mean they have ended up looking like something out of the ark. I'm thinking of 'Carlo's' as an example, here. Others, such as 'Shapes' on Brighton Place have also had to adhere to retaining some original features, when replacing their windows, yet I don't think the premises look 'dated' or twee in any way.

Finally, be aware that on Geoff Lynn's consultation document, the plan used does not show the full extent of the alterations. The old butcher's shop/paint shop will also have its frontage altered. A small omission no doubt to some, but could be more major for others.*

edit: * Believe this has now been rectified. Thanks, Geoff.

[Maria]

It was discussed under 'Planning' Seashell.

[lg1726]

Thirdly, yes, the current Woodwares/Home store frontage may not be a thing of great beauty , but surely that isn't a reason to hold back from asking Sainsbury's to provide a more subtle design? Several local shops have, in recent years, used grants to restore their frontages, which does not mean they have ended up looking like something out of the ark. I'm thinking of 'Carlo's' as an example, here. Others, such as 'Shapes' on Brighton Place have also had to adhere to retaining some original features, when replacing their windows, yet I don't think the premises look 'dated' or twee in any way.

That said, there are still a fair few which look very out of keeping and pretty tacky and looking at the above DC email it does rather appear that this objection and the one clearly intended upon application for off sales licence is less about the issue of how the store will look/what it will sell, but more about that traders and some residents do not want Sainsburys. Clearly the PCC have consulted with the local traders judging by the co-ordinated responses to the planning application, yet have not done so with the local residents and perhaps this is the issue most irksome in all this. If there is to be a PCC response to this and indeed, to the off sales licence pro-porting to be the held views of the wider community, then surely that position should be asserted and agreed before submission.

With respect the the content of the DC email; I own and operate a small consultancy firm, we have seen our turnover decline in the recent recession years and our profit margins consistently squeezed, year on year. Every month there are new such businesses appearing, people being made redundant from the corporate world setting up their own stall at a time when the available work is gradually diminishing. Less opportunities and more competition can make for some pretty buttock clenching months, but that's business. There is no DC equivalent putting their knickers on the outside and fighting off the emerging competition to my market! Each time I have to look at the potential impact of this, check my client needs against deliverables and shine up my USP. Some might even say that it sharpens up my practice and that it ultimately benefits my clients!!!

[seashell]

Marya - I agree totally that many, many people have come to the point where they see DC protesting against something and once more placing herself as the self-appointed voice of the community and automatically take the opposing point of view simply because of her past record. And for this she has only herself to blame.

However, there is a more serious issue here - in that it appears that while traders appear to have been consulted, the local populace have not been. Once again the PCC know best - by magic. It could even be viewed as an diversionary tactic to try to delay Sainsbury's opening or even an attempt to make things difficult for them in the hope they might give up.

Yet again we see a small group of people who are supposed to represent the community going on their own sweet way and it is no wonder that there is an atmosphere of "if they are against it, then I'm for it", which is not the best way for any progress to be beneficial. It is a mystery to me why consultation frightens the PCC, but it clearly does. Surely if they are so convinced they are right then there is no risk in opening things up to the community and being clear, open and transparent?

[seashell]

Thanks, Marya - I was going by the posts above.

[Bob Jefferson]

And it's not difficult to consult. Geoff Lynn has demonstrated that now on several occasions. At this point, the Chair should be trying to co-opt Geoff and use his talents on behalf of the Community Council.

On this occasion, I think the 'usual suspects' may have some merit in their arguments. Maybe that Georgian doorway could be preserved. Perhaps the 'heritage' design would be more in keeping. But I can't help feeling, like many of you, that they are simply against Sainsbury's and just want to make life as difficult as possible by objecting to every aspect of every application.

The main point here though, is that we want to be consulted. Give us the facts and share your thoughts BEFORE a decision is made, not afterwards.

[Franck]

I agree with the shop front looking pretty naff and agree that the objection raised is correct, the one in Bernard street looks much nicer.

[seashell]

And it's not difficult to consult. Geoff Lynn has demonstrated that now on several occasions. At this point, the Chair should be trying to co-opt Geoff and use his talents on behalf of the Community Council.

On this occasion, I think the 'usual suspects' may have some merit in their arguments. Maybe that Georgian doorway could be preserved. Perhaps the 'heritage' design would be more in keeping. But I can't help feeling, like many of you, that they are simply against Sainsbury's and just want to make life as difficult as possible by objecting to every aspect of every application.

The main point here though, is that we want to be consulted. Give us the facts and share your thoughts BEFORE a decision is made, not afterwards.

It's not rocket science, is it?
It's the fact that the PCC continually refuses to consult that makes everyone suspicious of what their actual agenda is.

[bearcub]

But I can't help feeling, like many of you, that they are simply against Sainsbury's and just want to make life as difficult as possible by objecting to every aspect of every application.

Going by the email Wangi copied in this thread earlier, I think it's fair to say it's more than just a feeling.

I know it's selective quoting, but I can't help but think the following from the second paragraph of DC's email is most apt..."all we can do is object".

The fact the email is even sent to PCATS supporters is galling. I supported PCATS, but that was because I didn't want a huge 24 hr superstore on our doorsteps, due to the impact I could see that having on the whole High Street. The acronym 'Portobello Campaign Against THE Superstore' was suitable for that campaign...but it wasn't 'Portobello Campaign Against EVERY Superstore' or 'Every Development', so why is it still being used?

The email appears to assume all PCATS supporters are against the new development, and is also instructing all recipients on what to do...object, object, object. No acknowledgement that there may be different viewpoints, no pretence at considering other viewpoints or canvassing opinion outside of that which supports their position.

Maybe they do have a point about the frontage, and maybe myself and others are just against the objection because of who is involved (not 100% true, but will have an impact). But can there be any surprise that that is the case, considering why people are so fed up with the constant objections and over-riding "we know best" attitude from the usual suspects.

[Makaveli]

It was that phrase that got me too Bearcub 'all we can do is object' as if they have to object on some level!!!

I think your post above sums up what most people probably feel about this issue. If only the PCC would go out and ask first.

[lg1726]

as if they have to object on some level!!!

yes they do it seems - she states and the licence when that application is made! Clearly it is their intent to object because they can.

I find the bit about the ATM more than a tad annoying

An ATM in this Georgian façade is out of keeping. Another one in Portobello is not needed

I quite like the idea of an ATM slightly further down the High Street. There are none from the vets down to Malcolm's at the Morton Street. Who says another one is not needed?!

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but surely the High Street and the traders on it are there to provide us, the shoppers with what we need and want. Not to tell us what we need, what is best for us!?

[seashell]

You are wrong.
DC is there to tell you what is right. It is her way or the high way.
It matters not a jot if *you* would find an ATM outside a convenience store handy - like to find out how much money you had left at the end of the month. That doesn't enter into the scheme as laid down by DC. Therefore it is wrong and must be objected to. End of story.

To paraphrase Descarte: DC objects, therefore she is.

That's just the way it is.

[lg1726]

admin: split from Portobello Community Council thread.

It seems that Portobello Community Council are to object to the Sainsbury's planning applications for changes to their planned shop at 222-228 High Street.

I am not aware of any consultation they have undertaken amongst the community in Portobello so it is important that you make your views known to the planning department.

Whether you wish to object, support or merely comment on the plans you can use this form to generate a response and send it on to the planning dept. http://bit.ly/Rm7mbl

Right that's me done it! I have heard that Sainsburys have had a meeting with the planning officer and they are already looking at revising the frontage, but this has been done in consultation with the planning department and not as a consequence of any of the objections. That said, if I was spinning for them I would encourage them to make a great deal of their willingness to respond to feedback and to listen to the community. So watch this space, but I'm not their spin doctor!!!

[Sceptic]

Discussion on a POSITIVE thread is most encouraging. Sainsburys want to have their shop, the Planning Departrment, probably, are happy that they do open. However, when we have an " anti" protest over details, everyone's hearts sink. Given the RBD debacle and the LLoyds TSB/BoS card system failure, another ATM does give us another option. Discussion over frontage, rather than sheer rejection is fine.
I have always saod, Finlays, Williamsons and Fine Wine will have their place in Portobello High Street. Sainsburys will, probably, not want to compete with them. They will compete with Scotmid, Kost Koncious etc. If they cannot, too bad, if they can, fine.

[Porty]

I agree that the "heritage" style of shopfront is far more appropriate and it's the sort of issue a CC should get involved in. They ought to consult prior to making representation .

As for DC and PCats - I'm with bearcub. They were a single issue group which has been corrupted and misused by its founders.

[lg1726]

I sent in my supporting comments etc. and today I got an email asking me if I would be willing to participate in a BBC documentary on planning! Apparently the CEC planning office is involved in this and the Sainsbury's job in Portobello is one they are following and they want to speak to people who wish to support the application!!

Help - should I?????

[seashell]

definitely.
You obviously made some pertinent points.
For far too long DC has been the self-appointed 'community spokesperson' on anything to do with Porty and there is little opportunity for other voices to be heard. Take this chance and make your points and show what comunity representation is really about. Also where the PCC lets the community down by lack of consultation.

And good luck!

[gillian]

Deffo, go for it Ig. Great opportunity to show what is going on. Maybe just maybe, when it becomes clear how undemocratic and consultationless the situation is around here, we may get some changes.

[Makaveli]

Go for it lg1726 - why not??? It's your chance to have a say.

[lg1726]

OK - I'll phone the BBC woman and agree to do this! I take you all with me in spirit (40% proof of course!!).

[gillian]

Hope they don't make you sign some secrecy clause, then you will be able to keep us all informed. Very exciting.