Headline a bit misleading.
More about plans to build on all the Green Belt next to East Lothian.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
"Plans reveal 2500 homes to be built in Portobello transformation"
(30 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
This is the northern part of the proposed development area viewed from the Brunstane Burn path. The woods in the distance are Newhailes Estate.
There's a Crowdjustice appeal to raise funds to pay for a legal challenge.
Posted 8 years ago # -
A map showing the planned developmenets to the east of Edinburgh: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sciu2p3w183301z/16_04122_PPP-ENVIRONMENTAL_STATEMENT_-_FIGURES-p67.jpg
Porty Community Council consultation on New Brunstane: http://www.portobellocc.org/pccpn/2016/08/30/planning-application-for-1330-homes-school-local-centre-roads-at-brunstane-have-your-say/
And a chance to comment on the Baileyfield South masterplan: http://www.portobellocc.org/pccpn/2016/09/06/baileyfield-south-masterplan-for-500-homes/
L/
Posted 8 years ago # -
Aye, it's more Newcraighall way, south east of Brunstane station.
Posted 8 years ago # -
So is this going to be where the path from Gilberstoun to Newcraighall is?
Posted 8 years ago # -
All the way from there to the Brunstane Burn path and Newhailes.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"it's more Newcraighall way, south east of Brunstane station"
It extends in that direction too but the north part is east of the station, right up to Newhailes and the Brunstane Burn.
Posted 8 years ago # -
All the way from there to the Brunstane Burn path and Newhailes.
Sorry for being dumb, but does that mean the path goes? Or will it just be bordering the development?
PS The article predicts a 20% increase (to 618k) in the Edinburgh polulation in the next 20 years. Can you imagine what a hole Edinburgh would be with all those people?
Posted 8 years ago # -
The path is the southern boundary; see: https://www.dropbox.com/s/mzb8guz2l6tayx5/16_04122_PPP-_02__STRATEGIC_MASTERPLAN-3407906.pdf?dl=0
Posted 8 years ago # -
"Can you imagine what a hole Edinburgh would be with all those people?"
Depends whether they all cycle or not.
And if there is any greenspace to cycle to/through/by!
Posted 8 years ago # -
If you're going to chuck 1300 houses somewhere then you could get a lot worse than a site which is near to two railway stations, decent cycle paths and is actually in the city.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Also depends whether they ever want to visit a GP or not.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"near to two railway stations, decent cycle paths"
What is the current plan for a cycle route to Musselburgh Station?
(Shame the bridge was demolished.)
Posted 8 years ago # -
@chdot:
https://mobile.twitter.com/jasonrose_green/status/768113522580475904
"@jasonrose_green
Thrilled to learn a feasibility study is underway into Portobello-Musselburgh Active Travel Link. (Cycle path!) Consultation soon, I'm told."Will that include the station? Who knows.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Ta.
Suspect it means main road via Joppa though.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Is that the same Active Travel Link as discussed in this thread last year?
Posted 8 years ago # -
The Jason Rose tweet is referring to feasibility study linking Porty / Eastfield to Fisherrow / Musselburgh along the front - i.e. Musselburgh Road / Edinburgh Road.
There's already an offroad cycle path between Newcraighall (at the park) and QMU & Musselburgh railway station.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Ok, put it another way; is it better to leapfrog the greenbelt and put housing further away from where people work and want to live? In doing so reduce the chance of active travel (longer distances), public transport (no rail facilities, longer bus times) and push folk onto motoring?
Posted 8 years ago # -
"put it another way; is it better to leapfrog the greenbelt and put housing further away from where people work and want to live?"
Um.
That assumes so many things.
The desirability of Edinburgh growing at a significanly faster rate than other areas.
That it's better to allow developers to build on green fields than brown.
That filling in this particular bit of the so called Green Belt will result in nothing other than some much needed housing units.
That this would somehow stop more houses being built in E Lothian where some people are clearly happy to live - aided by significant roadbuilding (and improved rail services).
Etc.
I'm not following this one too closely as I expect to be disappointed.
There is much artificiality about council boundaries and "Green Belt", but I don't think Edinburgh and its residents will really benefit from a continuous urban sweep from Ratho to Wallyford.
Presumably Craigentinny and Portobello golf courses will be next - large open spaces with relatively little use.
Posted 8 years ago # -
@wangi, by your reasoning the next place to build on should be Newhailes Estate. It's also well located for trains, roads and cyclepaths.
Gilbertstoun, adjoining the proposed development should be a haven of cycling and walking. It's a short walk to Fort Kinnaird and to the station at Brunstane. But from years of commuting through there I can only say that I saw most people driving in and out.
I'd like to think that ELC will build cyclepaths to connect the development to Musselburgh and East Lothian. More likely they will have to spend more on the roads so people can drive down into Musselburgh.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, i'm not saying that i support the development, just that many of the concerns raised are worse if the development was somewhere more remote from Edinburgh.
A lot of folk are taking up the greenbelt as sacrosanct, rather than comparing the impact of leapfrog doughnut development to limited greenbelt release.
I'm all for prioritisation of brownfield development, but the current legislation isn't geared toward that. The local authorities need to identify x units of future housing and the developers can then pick from that regardless of the current land use.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"I'm all for prioritisation of brownfield development, but the current legislation isn't geared toward that. The local authorities need to identify x units of future housing and the developers can then pick from that regardless of the current land use."
The Planning system is certainly under threat and often LAs are reluctant to resist developments because they believe SG will side with developers.
This is particularly 'undemocratic' where there is 'agreed' land use designation after detailed Local Plan consultation processes.
Posted 8 years ago # -
hat filling in this particular bit of the so called Green Belt will result in nothing other than some much needed housing units.
I'm going to make a sweeping generalisation here (so feel free to build a bridge out of me), but it does appear that the developments creeping into the green belt are of the mid-to-upper market private estate with 2.4 cars sort. More central developments are generally high market "apartments" or student farms. The brownfield sites here and there seem in the hitherto less desirable bits of town (e.g. Granton and Leith docklands, Shrubhill etc.) would appear to be providing the bulk of the lower-mid market, entry-level / young-family / affordable sort of housing that is quite probably the most in immediate need.
There was a time when councils built swathes of what we now call social housing on the green fields bounding the city. This was both pre- and post-war. Pre-war the private sector around Edinburgh was certainly busy building the bungalowlands that dominate much of the suburbs. Now we appear to be building a further ring outside this of private detached and semis that the estate agents might call "aspirational".
There are currently three small-ish brownfield developments going on round us. One is the old Thynes / Stewarts printworks on Marionville Road, the second is off Lower London Road on the old Sunnybank Dairy site and the third is off Abbey Lane which is the rear half of the wee industrial estate there by the railway. These are all mid-market flats aimed at the aspirational professional classes, although the one at Sunnybank was brought down from 7 to 5 stories through planning only to try and sneak it back up to 6 by adding an extra storey funded by a social housing agency. The cynical half of me (the larger half) can't help but think that developers will be more than happy to start making retrospective applications with the social housing funders / providers to start tweaking their constructions by adding in the odd bit of social/affordable housing here and there for maximum financial gain.
"Yes, we will build 5 affordable units but only if you let us build 7 storeys of unaffordable ones".
Posted 8 years ago # -
@k
Think that is a reasonable assessment.
You'll have seen -
"
will enable more than 370 new homes to be built at Shrubhill with over 60% of them being affordable
"
http://www.citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11196&page=15#post-230534
But wots 2 b dun?
Posted 8 years ago # -
But wots 2 b dun?
Hey, I never said I had all (or any) of the answers!
Posted 8 years ago # -
"This is particularly 'undemocratic' where there is 'agreed' land use designation after detailed Local Plan consultation processes."
Umm, but. The agreed landuse for the Brunstane fields, following the LDP2 consultation was its inclusion as a housing site. The Planning Reporter passed that through with very minor tweaks and you can be sure it'll be in the approved local plan shortly.1330 units = 332 affordable, without any shenanigans going on.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Ah.
As I said, I wasn't paying close attention.
Think I'll move somewhere with no more 'building land' available.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Well, one answer would be one in, one out for housing and local population, with a target for Edinburgh not to grow but for the lives of those already here to be prioritised for increased quality. Empty homes and second homes to be targeted. Cant see any of that ever happening until sea levels rise and Arthurs Seat is a scorched wasteland though.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Well ultimately we (or "they", you know "them") could take a long hard look at why Edinburgh is functioning as an employment sink, sucking in employees from an ever-expanding commuter belt. Does Edinburgh need to grow at the expense of stagnancy or depopuplation amongst Scotland's other large towns and cities? But this would take national, not local, action. And pretty much any government of the last 50 or 60 years hasn't managed to crack it.
Posted 8 years ago # -
It's chicken and egg.
Edinburgh is seen as a desirable place to live by many. Not only existing residents such as ourselves. Ask most Londoners of your acquaintance for example: many would relocate here in a shot if they had the right job lined up. Edinburgh also has a high proportion of well educated residents, constituting a skilled workforce. It's a liveable city with four universities, many very good schools, galleries/museums, theatres, etc. and of course the Festivals. Edinburgh is the capital, with the seat of government and associated civil servants, quangos etc, based here.
Consequently many employers, especially but not exclusively in sectors like finance, find Edinburgh a good place to set up shop. They can draw upon a pool of skilled labour, be close to government, and benefit from the connections and prestige the city has to offer.
In comparison other Scottish cities have only some of these attributes, and others which can be sometimes off-putting for employers and prospective residents alike.
These factors together have helped Edinburgh to grow economically, and that drives inward migration to the city as well as increased inward commuting.
There are also external factors such as increased global mobility, more people coming here from elsewhere in the EU, and the recent economic doldrums in Aberdeen. Anecdotally quite a large proportion of parents at my kid's primary school used to live until recently outwith the UK (some returning here, most not). Also I've met a few young people from the Aberdeen area who have moved here in the past year because of the employment opportunities in Edinburgh.
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
