Port Edgar Marina and Sailing School Investment
Proposals
BACK
Public Consultation January/February 2006
B
The Queensferry & District Community Council also had a presence at the
display and invited comments on Post-It notes under the headings “Like”,
“Dislike” “Changes/ Improvements”). 323 individual Post-It notes were
collected at the end of the two days – the outcome of the Community
Council’s comments is available on the Community Council’s website: www.queensferrycommunitycouncil.org
Publicity
The display was publicised by articles in the local
press and by way of a leaflet (arrangements were made for this to delivered to
all households in the EH30 postcode, a circulation of approx. 4,000 – in
practice, however, some households reported that they did not receive the
leaflet).
A preview evening was held on Wednesday 18 January, where representatives were
invited from local community organisations and marina users, such as marina
businesses, yacht club, scouts and sea cadets. Approximately 40 people attended
the preview evening, including Councillor Fallon (as Executive Member for
Property) and Councillor Grubb (as local member). Councillor Henderson (as
Executive member for Culture and Leisure) was unable to attend.
The Display
278 people attended Friday’s display; 537 people
attended on the Saturday – a total attendance of 815.
The display was then moved to Queensferry Library,
where the boards were on view from Monday 23 January to Tuesday 14 February.
Finally, the display was moved to the West Local Development Committee meeting
on the evening of Tuesday 14 February 2006, where officers were in attendance to
answer questions.
Comments Received
Please note: In
order to respond as quickly as possible to the feedback received, it has not
been feasible to include every specific question in this composite response.
Where similar questions were asked or similar comments made, these have been
grouped together and in some cases paraphrased.
It is hoped, however, that the breadth of issues
raised, both in the written feedback and during the many discussions which some
of the 800 plus people attending the public display were able to have with the
Council and Edinburgh Leisure officials in attendance, have been reflected in
this summary document.
Access:
(Number of comments which included references to access issues: 32)
Society Road cannot take any more traffic/ Shore Road
cannot take any more traffic: Response:
·
All four access options have
an environmental impact e.g. increased traffic along existing residential
streets and/or heavy engineering works within established areas of woodland and
protected green open space.
§
Existing
shrubs and small trees to the north of the grassland would be
supplemented by additional planting to screen the road from existing
houses in Shore Road;
§
The
new road would join Shore Road to the west of existing housing.
§
Shore
Road would be closed off as a vehicle route (a hammer head for vehicles to turn
would be required) but access to the marina would be maintained for pedestrians
and cyclists
The grassland is a valuable green space/ The display
made no reference to the fact that the grassland is part of a Site of Importance
for Nature Conservation (SINC): Response:
·
This has been acknowledged
in the assessment of possible access options.
The grassland is a protected area of open space.
·
Given the site’s SINC
status, environmental consultants have undertaken a baseline study of the
grassland habitat and have advised that the route and design of the access road
is crucial to minimise any environmental impact. With this in mind, the
following measures are proposed
§
The
road should follow a line to the eastern edge of the grassland;
§
Existing
shrubs and small trees to the north of the grassland should be
supplemented by additional planting to screen the road from existing
houses in Shore Road;
§
The
new road should join Shore Road to the west of existing housing.
§
Shore
Road should be closed off as a vehicle route (a hammer head for vehicles to turn
would be required) but access to the marina would be maintained for pedestrians
and cyclists
The woodland is valuable amenity space/ Will management
of the woodland be done sensitively and will due consideration be given to the
diversity of flora and fauna? Response:
·
The preferred road access
route would leave the woodland intact.
·
As part of the proposals a management plan for the woodland will be
prepared and implemented. This will involve new and improved footpaths and
interpretive signage.
The old railway line – why isn’t this the preferred
route? Response:
·
This option would be the most expensive of the four options considered
due to the length of the new road and the extent of structural work required to
accommodate the access road.
·
This route could also have an adverse effect on the adjoining woodland.
The Council’s preferred route is the best of the four
options: Response:
·
This has been acknowledged
in the assessment of possible access options. It will be important, however, to
ensure that the environmental impact of the preferred route is minimised.
·
Detailed design work has yet to be undertaken, however, work to date by
consultant engineers confirms that an acceptable junction can be created within
the land owned by the Council.
·
To construct a footpath on the northern side of Hopetoun Road at this
point would involve land not owned by the Council.
The Council should prepare a Green Travel Plan: Access
for cyclists and walkers; City Car Club on site; public transport into the site;
traffic calming of surrounding streets; travel awareness campaign; home zone
layout/ What about Bus links/ public transport? Response:
·
Once
the Council has chosen a preferred developer, the developer will be responsible
for submitting a planning application which will include their proposals for
access. The planning application will include a Traffic Impact Assessment and an
Environmental Impact Assessment.
·
In
the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan there are several transport policies
applicable to the development of
Port Edgar which are aimed at reducing car journeys and encouraging the use of
public transport.
The development will just draw more traffic into the
centre of Queensferry/ Wider issue of traffic in Queensferry: Response:
·
Once
the Council has chosen a preferred developer, the developer will be responsible
for submitting a planning application which will include their proposals for
access. The planning application will include a Traffic Impact Assessment and an
Environmental Impact Assessment.
·
The comments received about traffic levels within Queensferry have been
passed to colleagues with the City Development Department’s Transport
service so they can take account of them in the context of their transport
strategies for the wider area.
·
At present, security of the marina site is an important issue –
regrettably, repeated incidents of unauthorised access, vandalism and thefts
from boats has meant that access to the site from the west has had to be closed.
·
It is possible that a pedestrian and cycle access could be created as
part the redevelopment of the western part of the site, as the secure marina
area will be located to the east.
Why not build an access road from the west across the
land reserved for the proposed Forth Bridge/ The only logical access to Port
Edgar is from the west: Response:
·
Consultants employed by the Council have explored this option in the past
– the response from the Scottish Executive at the time was that all of the
land was required for any future proposals to build a Forth Bridge.
·
Uncertainty over the proposed Forth Bridge remains and it is unlikely
that any detailed design for such a bridge would be available in sufficient time
to allow the Council to enter into meaningful negotiations to incorporate an
access road for Port Edgar. Any lengthy delay in delivering the investment
proposals for Port Edgar could be critical.
·
The Council does not own the land that would be required and has no
control over the timescales or decision making.
·
Purchasing the land from the Scottish Executive could be a lengthy and
costly process in any event, given that land has an existing residential
planning consent. This would add substantially to the overall project costs for
Port Edgar and has no control over the timescales or decision making.
·
This raises similar issues to the proposal to build an access road over
the land reserved for the proposed Forth Bridge i.e. the Council does not own
the land and has no control over the timescales or decision making process
involved in delivering such an option.
·
This was a frequent comment made at the display.
·
The housing site will be marketed on the basis that the housing developer
constructs the new access road before developing the housing.
·
The exact phasing of the marine engineering and land based improvements
to the marina is not yet known, but it is likely that the access road would be
in place in time to serve most of the construction related traffic, other than
perhaps the construction of the new business units and possibly some of the
initial stages of the marine engineering.
Pontoons:Response: The
final layout of the pontoon system is subject to computer modelling and whilst
they were shown on the architect plans as being north to south the final layout
may well be east to west to account for prevailing winds.
The number of proposed new berths is initially to
increase the number of berths from the current 280 operational berths to 395
with further options to increase this to 550 subject to future demand.
There is currently no provision to provide drying out
moorings. An option to include starter berths is being considered.
Slipway: Response: The
new slipway proposed will be suitable to accommodate vessels of up to 2m draft
at all states of the tide.
It has been recognised that with the layout of
buildings shown for the Marina Offices etc, that access to the proposed new
slipway was not ideal. The buildings will be re-orientated to ensure that a
suitable turning circle for vehicles with trailers is available. Parking will
also be identified close by for the storage of the trailer and vehicle.
Breakwater and Piled Wave Screen: Response: The
proposed extension to the east breakwater and the positioning of the piled wave
screen are both subject to the results received when computer modelling of
various tide, wind and wave conditions has been carried out. It is envisaged
that the computer modelling will be completed by the end of this year thereafter
a review of the layout will be carried out.
No problems are anticipated in accommodating the Yacht
Club race starter box on the intended east breakwater.
Dredged Sink Hole: Response: The
dredged sink hole was a recommendation given by our Marine Engineers as a way of
combating the ongoing problems with silt entering the harbour. This has still to
be established though and once the computer modelling has been carried out we
will see how effective or otherwise the proposal to create a dredged sink hole
will be.
Dredged Berthing Area: Response:
Dredging of the berthing areas identified on the plan
will be carried out to achieve 3m below chart datum.
Sailing School Dinghies: Response: An
area of pontoon space will be provided on the east of the main pier to be
utilised by the Sailing School for the berthing of their dinghies. There will be
no change to the amount of space that is currently used.
West Pier: Response: Whilst
the proposal shown on the current plan is to partially demolish the west pier,
developers will also be given the option to develop the West pier as a public
amenity.
Other Boating Issues
Hard Standing: Response: We
currently have 190 boats on hard standing areas throughout the Marina. The area
identified (ie, 200 car parking spaces allocated for winter boat storage) will
accommodate approximately 60 boats.
Edinburgh Leisure Staff: Response: The
Marina Manager and Assistant Manager have been consulting regularly with all the
Marina staff re the proposals. Feedback from Edinburgh Leisure continues and we
are working together in reviewing any areas of concern.
Consideration of other Marinas: Response: Both
Council and Edinburgh Leisure staff have paid visits to Largs and Kip Marinas
along with a number of other Marinas to review operations.
Parking Charges: Response: At
this stage Edinburgh Leisure has no intention to introduce charges for parking.
Marina Fees: Response: No
decision has been taken yet to increase fees upon the Marina being developed, it
is inevitable however that a slight increase will occur.
Marina Security: Response: A
review of security measures will be carried once the final design has been
agreed. It is envisaged however, that secure areas will include the pontoon and
boat parking areas.
Environmental:
As indicated in the display material, Port Edgar harbour is:
o
a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
o
an area proposed for designation as wetlands of international importance
(Ramsar Site)
o
in the Forth Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA)
·
The latter provides European status protection to birds that
feed and in some cases nest within the harbour.
·
Once
the Council has chosen a preferred developer, the developer will be responsible
for submitting a planning application accompanied by an Environmental Impact
Assessment.
·
Similarly
the Council’s own marine engineering proposals will be subject to scrutiny by
Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
·
The water/sewage treatment plant is owned by Scottish Water and will
remain in its current location.
The grassland is a SINC and proposed LNR: Response:
· In addition to the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment, the proposals will be subject to an Appropriate Assessment procedure which will ensure that the environmental impact of every aspect of the development will be closely scrutinized not only by the Council as statutory planning authority but also relevant agencies such as Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
How
will the woodland area be managed during and after construction? Response:
Expressions of support/ positive comments:
·
Apart
from some further consideration to the pontoon layout the concept is innovative,
imaginative and overdue.
·
Just
wanted to say that I think this is a fantastic idea to regenerate the Port. I
have used the sailing facilities in the past and the whole place has a tired
look. To regenerate it as you propose would, I believe, be great for the area,
bring in new business and generate more income for the South Queensferry area.
·
I
can understand local people’s mistrust of change but with its disrepair and
the buildings and their service in danger of becoming hazardous, change is
unavoidable. I consider that the plan is forward-thinking and the best way of
making use of ratepayers money to the benefit of the area and is citizens.
·
I
would love to see Port Edgar developed. Houses along the front will make the
place alive and the facilities at the Marina deserve developing.
·
An
exciting proposal for development of greatly under-utilised resource.
Congratulations.
·
I
was at the display at the Marina and thought how well everything was presented
on the display boards and also by the Council officials who were able to answer
questions clearly.
·
I
visited the recent exhibition at Port Edgar and spoke to several people involved
with the new plans and I was glad to see that these are the most realistic
produced to date, if followed through, Port Edgar could indeed become one of the
best public marinas in the UK.
·
The
displays and explanations provided were helpful. Though the layout of buildings
and respective heights was not immediately apparent, these were explained by the
staff.
·
Better than previous proposals – most realistic to date.
General Comments:
Two days wasn’t long enough: Response:
The venue for the display was not accessible for
disabled people and did not comply with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA):
Response:
Concerned about the impact of new business space on
existing businesses in Queensferry: Response:
·
The
Council is intending to borrow funds estimated to be in the region of £3.5m. A
business case has to be made to show that the Council’s investment will
generate additional income which will help to cover the costs of borrowing. A
business case could not be made, however, to fund the entire project costs of
approximately £13m through Council borrowing.
·
There
have also been discussions with Sportscotland about the possibility of Lottery
funding, but this is likely to be a relatively small percentage of the overall
£13m project costs.
·
Scottish
Executive funding for Council owned sports and leisure facilities is not
generally available.
How will disruption to the public living nearby be
minimised during construction? Response
·
Construction traffic is clearly a concern for neighbouring residents.
The housing site will be marketed on the basis that the housing developer
constructs the new access road before developing the housing.
·
The exact phasing of the marine engineering and land based improvements
to the marina is not yet known, but it is likely that the access road would be
in place in time to serve most of the construction related traffic, other than
perhaps the construction of the new business units and possibly some of the
initial stages of the marine engineering.
·
It may also be possible to schedule construction traffic to avoid
existing peak traffic flows.
Port
Edgar is of historical significance/ Many of the buildings are of architectural
and historical interest – they should not be demolished but restored and
converted as appropriate:
Response
·
The
physical development of both the marina/ sailing school and housing will be the
subject of planning applications which will have to satisfy the Council as
statutory planning authority that the proposals are appropriate for the site.
·
There
are currently no listed buildings or structures at Port Edgar, however, Historic
Scotland are aware of the proposals.
·
It
is proposed to include within the development interpretive signage linked to
waymarked paths which will encourage visitors to explore the site and learn more
of Port Edgar’s history and natural heritage. This could be linked to existing
features on site which refer to Port Edgar’s naval past e.g. the Algerines
Association cairn erected in 1988 as a memorial to the Minesweeping and Fishery
Protection Services of the Royal Navy.
·
The
physical development of both the marina/ sailing school and housing will be the
subject of planning applications which will provide the opportunity for formal
objections to the proposals to be submitted and considered by the Council as
statutory planning authority.
·
Given
that the Council has an interest in the land at Port Edgar, the Scottish
Executive has the powers, if they choose, to call in any decision by the Council
to grant planning permission.
Will the green area to the back of the Scout Hall,
bounded by fencing, remain available to Scout Hall users? Response:
·
Yes, the green area is part of the Scout Hall lease.
·
Both the Scout Hall and the green area will remain untouched by the
development.
·
All of the proceeds from the sale of part of the site for housing will be
reinvested in the marina and sailing school. This will be supplemented by
Council borrowing to safeguard the future of an important, publicly owned sport
and leisure facility.
·
It
is acknowledged that the drawings displayed were intended merely to give an
indication as to what the housing might look like. These sketches were based on approximately
70 town houses and 80 flats
i.e. a total of 150 residential units.
·
Once
a preferred developer has been chosen, the developer will be responsible for
submitting a planning application.
·
The
Council’s display and the supporting leaflet indicated that a preferred
developer will be chosen by competitive tender and that the specific design and
layout of the housing will then be the subject of a planning application.
·
The
Council will market the housing land on the basis of the masterplan referred to
in the public display material. Developers will be expected to
submit bids which comply with the masterplan i.e. development proposals
are likely to include a mix of town housing (two-three storey terraced housing
with integral garages) at the west end of the site and four-five storey flats at
the eastern end of the site.
·
The
Council will market the housing land on the basis of the masterplan referred to
in the public display material. Developers will be expected to
submit bids which comply with the masterplan i.e. development proposals
are likely to include a mix of town housing (two-three storey terraced housing
with integral garages) at the west end of the site and four-five storey flats at
the eastern end of the site.
·
As
indicated in the display material, the tallest existing building on site is the
equivalent of a modern four storey block of flats.
·
The
eastern part of the site is capable of accommodating buildings of four to five
storeys due to the depth of the existing woodland and the difference in levels
between the site and existing housing the south.
·
Two to three storey housing is considered more appropriate for the
western half of the site – anything higher would impact too greatly on
existing housing in Society Road.
The trees in the woodland behind Port Edgar are
deciduous – in the winter they will not screen the housing and flats from the
residents in Society Road: Response:
A thinly disguised housing scheme/ Is it not the case
that you are mis-representing these proposals as a leisure development when it
is in fact primarily a housing development?: Response:
The housing is taking up too much boat storage space:
Response:
Can the infrastructure of South Queensferry support all
the additional housing? Response:
·
The statutory planning process will address this issue when the
Council’s preferred developer submits a planning application for the housing
development, however, responsibility for infrastructure provision will
ultimately rest with the developer.