WE hear the council is going to refuse planning permission for a really innovative and exciting development which would dramatically improve the Granton Harbour area, bringing life, work, people and hope to a semi-derelict and financially depressed part of the city.
They say, according to the Evening News, (‘Granton Harbour blueprint set to be sunk by city chiefs’, August 7) that there’s not enough social housing and they don’t want any competition for hotels in the centre of the city and they have unspecified doubts about the developer’s ability to complete the scheme.
Surely these are not serious objections to a scheme which could make such a difference to the whole area with a little enthusiastic support, involvement and genuine interest from the council.
They are in danger of passing up a real opportunity to work with a developer who is willing to pour money into the area and really make a difference here.
So what have the council got against Granton that they want to deprive it of a brighter future?
Joan and Terry Cole, Lower Granton Road, Edinburgh
Pavement parking is a dangerous practice
Here at Living Streets we were concerned to hear of the incidences of pavement parking at the Cowgate (Selfish Cowgate parkers ‘putting lives at risk’ – News, August 13).
Pavement parking creates a safety risk to all pedestrians, including those with limited mobility, and the crowds attracted by the Edinburgh Festival serve only to exacerbate this problem.
We have been working with the Scottish Parliament and Guide Dogs Scotland to end obstructive parking in Scotland, as this is a vital step to reclaiming the streets for everyone and will especially benefit those with impaired sight, the disabled and older people.
This latest incident shows why councils, including Edinburgh, have been working with Living Streets Scotland to gain adequate powers to protect both Edinburgh’s residents and visitors from pavement parking.
You can find out more about Living Streets’ campaign to end pavement parking at our website
Stuart Hay, Director, Living Streets Scotland, Rose Street, Edinburgh
Change on the buses would disrupt flow
In reply to Damian Killeen’s comments that change should be given on the buses (News, August 10). As a regular user of Edinburgh’s excellent public transport system I find that tourists soon adapt to the fare structure.
The day and family tickets are excellent value for money and the smart cards and NE cards are used by locals extensively.
With the traffic situation in the city, there is no way that schedules could be maintained if drivers had to give change.
The answer is to bring back conductors, that would be the perfect solution, but far too expensive and carrying money on the bus is a problem for the staff.
The present fare structure is working well in arguably the UK’s best public transport system.
George Ritchie, North Gyle Terrace, Edinburgh
It’s time for a ban on e-cigarettes, too
After many years fighting for a smoking ban against the powerful smoking lobby, the medical profession were successful because they were able to provide evidence of the many deaths that occurred due to smoking.
Now e-cigs are taking the place of cigarettes and some people are claiming that they should be allowed as it is helping them to stop smoking. This may be the case for some, but in my opinion they are there to make money for the owners of e-cigs who couldn’t care less if people stop smoking.
The fact that the e-cigs which are on sale look the same as real cigarettes makes a farce of the present government policy of covering up cigarettes in shops.
They are allowing e-cigs to be smoked in the walkways of our shopping centres. What is the effect of the large clouds of vapour which are exhaled on other members of the public, especially if the e-cig user has a cold or the flu?
The government should step in and ban e-cigs immediately for the long-term health of the general population and especially our children.
As for Forest that represents the interest of the smoking industry, they should be completely ignored, as for years, despite the evidence from the medical profession that thousands of people were dying of cancer, they still were against a ban on smoking.
John Connor, David Henderson Court, Dunfermline
Grey squirrels are unfairly targeted
Few wild animals suffer a more tarnished reputation than the grey squirrel. Greys are blamed for numerous atrocities – from environmental destruction to the near extinction of the red squirrel. As a consequence, they have been slaughtered in their millions, by means of poisoning, shooting and bludgeoning.
Animal Aid this week releases The True History of Grey Squirrels in Britain, which debunks these common misconceptions. The grey squirrel is not responsible for the demise of the red squirrel. Reds, too, were once labelled ‘pests’ and subsequently massacred in their thousands.
Greys are falsely blamed for large scale destruction of woodland. In reality, humans cause more environmental damage than a squirrel ever could.
However, for those people who do wish to deter squirrels from in and around their homes, Animal Aid has free advice sheets describing humane methods of deterrence. Anybody wishing to obtain any advice sheets is urged to contact us on 01732 364 546.
Tod Bradbury, Animal Aid, Tonbridge, Kent