Letters: Park Nimbys won’t care as Porty is left to wither away

Plan to build on park has been overturned
Plan to build on park has been overturned
1
Have your say

No doubt the selfish members of Portobello Park Action Group are celebrating their victory, which will ensure that generations of schoolchildren will be denied the right to be educated in a modern school with all the appropriate facilities.

There is no other site available in the Portobello area for such a school. Therefore, there is a distinct possibility, that many families with school-age children will move away from Portobello.

Without children, a town dies. No doubt the Nimbys of the action group are indifferent to this happening to Portobello!

AA Miller, Clackmae Road, Edinburgh

Question marks about legal team

Now that the ruling is in favour of PPAG’s appeal, I have no doubt that Edinburgh City Council will try to have it overturned.

Whether residents are in favour of the school being built on the park or against it, surely the council has questions to answer.

The first thing to do when considering building on Common Good land should have been to clarify the legal position.

Instead of this they pushed ahead with appointing an architect, producing detailed plans and schedules, obtaining planning consent and going out to tender.

The cost of this must run into thousands of pounds which will probably all be wasted. Assuming the council’s legal department recommended them to push ahead, questions must be asked of their competence.

John M Tulloch, Duddingston Park South, Edinburgh

Proposals would help area evolve

I WAS disturbed to hear that despite their obvious attempts to try to get closer to the facts about the Accies’ proposals to keep sport in Stockbridge, misinformation is still being spread about the proposals.

The document handed out at the Save Stockbridge public meeting on Wednesday quite falsely describes the wall at Raeburn Place as listed, when it is not.

The usual exaggerated descriptions of the proposals as “massive” are to be expected, even though a cursory glance at the posters put out by Save Stockbridge itself shows that it is quite clearly anything but.

The proposals are for up to nine new shops.

All the same dire predictions that were made for Stockbridge in relation to these proposals were made when Sainsbury’s came to Stockbridge, and two years on Stockbridge is still thriving through the longest economic downturn for more than 100 years.

Indeed,a new shop, Peter’s Yard, has opened recently selling wonderful, high-quality bread, a sign that high-quality retail does want to come to the area.

The protesters deliberately exaggerate the impact of nine new shops to build up support for their campaign.

The facts are that new shops will allow existing retailers to expand into Stockbridge and allow other retailers with an interest to come into the area.

Healthy town centres need to change and evolve in order to be successful.

I would like to see Accies survive and flourish and I would also like to see Stockbridge as a shopping area flourish and I believe the Accies’ proposals go a long way to achieving both of these aspirations.

Let’s have a debate based on the facts rather than the false and exaggerated claims of a small minority of activists.

Shaun Vigers, Comely Bank, Edinburgh

Retailers have been kept in loop

I WAS surprised to read your article quoting businesses on Leith Walk as saying they are being left “in the dark” over plans to improve the area (Evening News, September 11).

I met with the Leith Business Association to discuss Leith Walk in July and a detailed letter has recently been sent responding to issues that they raised point by point.

In addition, the association is aware that consultation on developing improvement options for the area is pending and that arrangements for a further meeting with me are presently being finalised.

Information on the Leith Improvement programme and plans for consultation are also posted on the city council’s website.

Councillor Lesley Hinds, Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment committee