Greener Leith News - Planning and Regeneration

New dreams for an old waterfront

2010-08-27T08:19:21Z

On Thursday the 26th of August, Greener Leith was lucky enough to be invited to a Charrette (that's a workshop in Architect speak) organised by the council, at Ocean Terminal.

The aim of the workshop was to look again at what had been achieved in the regeneration of the waterfront area (that's Granton, Newhaven and Leith Docks to most people) as part of a process for developing a new Area Development Framework. We were expressly told that this wasn't supposed to change any of the existing planning permissions that apply to the area, but the idea was that the workshop would 'influence' the thinking of key landowners like Forth Ports and the city planners in the future.

There were about 50 people in the audience, who were a mixture of politicians, landowners, councillors, housing association staff, public agencies, business representatives, and local organisations like Greener Leith and the community councils.

In the morning, we were asked to consider a few questions. First up, we were asked, "What kind of place will the Waterfront be if we continue to do what we have been doing?"

The post-it notes came back with words like 'souless', 'fragmented', 'monolithic', and 'inhuman' on them. Summing up, one of our facilitators, Diarmaid Lawlor, for Architecture & Design Scotland, told a story about how his two year old was 'bored out of his mind' when he took him on a walk along the waterfront path along the Western Edge of Western Harbour (the path in the photo above) even though the setting is totally spectacular and the place should, or could, in theory, be as exciting as Princes Street.

We then moved onto considering what kind of place the Waterfront should be. And this is where we asked for your ideas via Twitter. We got a huge response, and below we provide a flavour of some of the things that people outside the room were asking for:

We did our best to make sure all these tweets were transferred to post-it notes and added to the wall, to be considered by planners later. As you can see - it ended up pretty full!

Next up we heard from a Scot living in Manchester, Neil McInroy from the Centre for Local Economic Strategies. He proposed that a successful place is a 'resilient' place. So, for example, when it is shocked by a recession, or public sector cut backs, it can bounce back quickly. And when it is presented with an opportunity, it can react fast to make the most of it. Whilst he explained this, he was actually jumping up and down to illustrate the importance of 'boinginess' in places, as he put it.

It was interesting to hear planners and architects speaking about 'resilience' as a 'buzz word,' - this concept of local resilience is also a hot topic amongst environmental groups too. We also heard lot's of other metaphors to explain why the old approach of "Master Planning" hadn't worked. Rather than plan out absolutely everything, the council should 'conduct more and play less,' and regeneration is like a 'petri dish' where the council just needs to set the right conditions for desirable things to grow. The main metaphor of the day, was the body metaphor. If the council can focus on getting the 'beating hearts' of the neighbourhood right, then, so the current thinking goes, the rest will follow.

He encouraged us all to think about regeneration as a process that involves the Private Sector, the Public Sector and the Social Sector, and one of the exercises we did in groups was to try to estimate the relative sizes of these three economies, and the strength of the linkages between them. The implication being that a 'healthy heart' has all of these three areas pulsing along together.

In our group, looking at Leith, we came to the conclusion that the private sector was slightly bigger than the public sector, with the voluntary/social sector making up about 20% of the economy. However, when talking about the local economy it's quite hard to work out.

We made the point that some large businesses, like the new ASDA at Western Harbour, might actually remove money from the local economy as even though they've created jobs, they've also contributed to the demise of nearby businesses. Research by the New Economics Foundation undertaken in England showed that £1 spent with a local independent business is worth £1.76 to the local economy, and only 36 pence if it is spent in a business based outside the area. What does that really mean? Well, everytime a new large supermarket opens, 276 jobs are lost in the local economy.

A local economic resilience strategy might therefore need to look at how smaller, independent businesses can be attracted to the waterfront - and try not to rely so much on 'big box' retail.

However, we also heard how public sector service cuts can impact on the regeneration process. We heard a story from one resident of the new Granton flats, who had moved there with their family soon after the flats were built. Since they moved in, the recession kicked in, building stopped, the local primary school is to be closed, the bus services have been reduced, the tram connection to Granton looks more and more unlikely and they are stuck in negative equity unable to move anywhere else.

This personal story illustrated better than any amount of 'place making theory,' how public sector cuts can impact on the regeneration process too. If the city needs the Waterfront regeneration process to make progress, they must think about what impact any new round of cuts will have. This said, there were others in the audience who pointed out that it took 30 years to build Charlotte Square, and that the scale of the Waterfront regeneration is huge - perhaps patience is required and perhaps also people were led to believe that everything could be built in a day. What is it they say about Rome?

In the afternoon, we did more workshops, trying to identify the 'hearts' of the various neighbourhoods and the linkages in-between them. In Leith, we'd already done a widespread consultation on the top 10 local destinations and so the 'hearts' of Leith (no football jokes here please) we came up with were:

The Foot of the Walk
Leith Links
The Shore
Ocean Terminal

We also came up with a 'future heart' for the area - the docks area between Ocean Terminal and Western Harbour. This area has tremendous potential, with proposals to improve Ocean Terminal, ferries to Fife, and a more accessible waterfront.

And we came up with a possible 'broken heart' - the proposed Biomass Plant. We all felt that this proposal would have such a negative impact on the other local 'hearts,' especially the Shore, and Ocean Terminal areas, that it would in fact undermine the resilience of the local economy. It's a little known fact, but Leith has more Michellen starred restaurants than any other area of Scotland. Who will come to Leith to spend good money on a fine meal at the Shore, if they will be eating in the shadow of giant power station?

What happens next? The planners now intend to go away and come up with a revised local area development framework that will take account of all this feedback, with a view to guiding both public sector and private sector investment to take more account of the value of these existing centres - and the aspirations for the future neighbourhoods that may be built along the Waterfront.

Apparently, in about three weeks time, we'll be invited back to see the first draft of the revised area development framework. Needless to say, we'll be tweeting from that meeting too - and this time hopefully our phone battery will last a bit longer.

Greener Leith would like to thank everyone who gave us their ideas by Twitter on the day. You can follow Greener Leith on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/greenerleith

Climate camp targets Forth Energy

2010-08-23T14:43:49Z

You may not agree with their methods, but there might well be some truth behind their message. Today, a small group of climate camp activists 'occupied' the Forth Energy offices on Leith Docks to highlight the environmental problems that large scale biomass plants, like the one Forth Energy propose to build on Leith Docks, could cause. You can see them in the photo slideshow by Calvinsimages, below:

In a statement the protestors said:

"If built these power stations will mean even more wood imports from abroad and even more destruction of rainforests and old growth forests to be replaced with plantations of eucalyptus in places like South America. For example, the smokestack CO2 emissions from a biomass power station are commonly around 1.5 times greater than those from a coal power station with the same energy output. In addition to harming the global climate, these power stations will severely impact the health of the communities where they are built. All biomass burning releases significant quantities of nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Such pollution increases the risks of respiratory diseases, heart disease, cancer and premature mortatily including infant mortality and miscarriage. Leith power station alone would generate nitrogen oxide and particulates equivalent to 100,000 more cars while Edinburgh and Grangemouth power stations are 200m to the nearest home and Dundee power station just 100m"

A full planning application for the proposal is due to be submitted "within weeks," with Forth Energy apparently determined to ignore widely held local concerns over the scale and location of the plant.

The plant will burn around 1.3 million tonnes of wood that is to be shipped to Leith from foreign countries. Although Forth Ports have given a wooly commitment to source the fuel from "sustainable" sources, to date, the company has refused our calls for full public disclosure of their fuel sources on an annual basis, nor will they commit to using wood from forests that have been independently certified by the FSC - despite using the FSC logo in their presentation to councillors in Dundee (You can see the slide in question here)

Given that the Leith plant is likely to attract around £40million worth of public subsidy for each year of its operation, it is hardly surprising that some people feel very strongly that large scale Biomass is a poor use of tax payers money.

Inside Shrubhill

2010-08-20T14:57:48Z

The joy of photo sharing websites like Flickr is that sometimes you discover photos from places and times you would never normally get to see. Check out this slide show of the Shrubhill building site, taken in 2008. In the future it will probably become not one, but two hotels. These photos help to capture some of the sites past.

Thanks for sharing Steve.

Traffic reduction on the Shore

2010-07-28T09:00:37Z

Steps to make the Shore a more appealing place for locals and visitors alike, took a big step forwards yesterday when the City of Edinburgh Council agreed to fund detailed feasibility and further community consultation work. This action has been approved in response to a motion lodged by local Councillor Marjorie Thomas. Her motion read as follows:

"Council notes the success of the Traffic Free Day on the Shore in September 2009 and the local support from many residents and traders for reducing through traffic on the Shore, particularly the stretch from Sandport Bridge to Bernard Street.

Council, therefore, calls for a report into the feasibility of removing through traffic, excepting emergency vehicles, public transport and cycles, from Sandport Bridge to Bernard Street to be provided to the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee within two Committee cycles."

There is a growing groundswell of support for the idea that something needs to be done to reduce the levels of traffic using the Shore - particularly the HGV lorries that use the route as a short cut from the docks to Ferry Road.

Last year we organised Car Free Day on the Shore to coincide with European Mobility Week, and apart from a few local residents who were unfortunately inconvenienced because they had their cars moved without their knowledge, the event was largely viewed as a success.

Local group the Friends of the Water of Leith are at the forefront of the campaign, representing both businesses and residents in the area. They've uncovered several stories from local residents and businesses that highlight the problems high traffic levels are causing. These suggest that the historic buildings on The Shore are being damaged by the levels of traffic using the street, with reports of buildings cracking and shaking as a consequence of the larger vehicles using the streets. The traffic also causes disturbance and distress to residents living close to the road.

In addition, we wrote to 30,000 households in Leith and invited them to take part with our Future Travel Action plan. We asked residents the open question "What would help you walk, cycle or use public transport more?" More than 300 people responded to our survey and the most popular idea, by quite a long way, turned out to be measures to cut traffic on the Shore too.

It is clear that cutting traffic on the Shore could provide a number of benefits to the whole area. These include:

Better quality of life for local residents.
Improved road safety for pedestrians and cyclists in the area.
More opportunity for job creation/retention in the area, particularly in catering.
Improved scope to promote the area as a "destination" to tourists.
Better support for environmentally friendly transport modes like cycling and walking.

However, the devil is in the detail and so we are pleased that the council is going to put in resources to work with local people to uncover how various traffic options will impact on the area. Some of the options we've proposed might be considered include:

Banning through car and lorry traffic, whilst leaving the road open to buses, pedestrians and cyclists (local access would be maintained).
As above, but additionally, making the street a one way street.
Fully closing the street to all motorised traffic (apart from local access) at weekends or Sundays.
Blocking the street at Sandport Place (outside Cafe Truva) removing all through traffic, but retaining parking and local access.

We've also received some concerned comments from some local residents too.

We've recieved a couple of comments during our consultation process that relate to local car access for residents, whether this is accessing private "off-street" parking or helping relatives with mobility problems to the shops. All of the options outlined above would preserve local access, and so people who live on, or near The Shore, would still be able to access their off-street parking spaces, and people would still be able to park for long enough to pick up and drop off people with mobility problems.

A second concern is over the impact on traffic levels elsewhere in Leith. It is of course true, that measures to reduce through traffic on the Shore may displace traffic to other nearby roads. However, it's a common misperception that traffic levels are 'fixed'. In fact, people choose their routes and their mode of transport according to which is most convenient. This means that over time people will avoid driving particular streets if they know they are congested, or they will take public transport, or cycle, or walk.

Other cities, like Copenhagen, have learnt that they can gradually 'manage traffic' out of their residential areas, because car traffic is in effect 'self managing'. In Leith, there is a wider decision to be taken - which streets should be regarded as arterial routes and which streets should be treated as residential streets?

It is possible that the traffic reduction measures on the Shore, if they get the go ahead, would not physically happen before the tram makes it to Leith. So, residents of the city will be able to take the tram to the Shore - there's two stops nearby. Also, by redesigning the street, it will become more appealing to pedestrians and cyclists - so it will encourage more people to use other forms of transport.

Also, the traffic modelling undertaken by TIE shows that when the tram is built it will reduce traffic throughout the harbour area. Therefore measures to cut traffic on The Shore will help to ensure that through traffic remains on the current arterial routes, rather than "rat running" through streets, like Henderson street that are not really wide enough to cope and largely residential in character.

Furthermore, the council and SUSTRANS are developing plans to develop a quality cycle link from the western end of Portobello promenade, to Sandport place, in order to provide a safe route East-West route across the city. So, if implemented this plan will also help to encourage more people to cycle, helping to cut local traffic.

You may have wondered about the photograph at the top of this blog post. No, it isn't Leith. But it is a European city with a proud maritime history, at a similar latitude to Leith. It is the Nyhaven, in Copenhagen. Once it was little more than a car park, just as The Shore now, is not much more than a bus station.

However, now it has been fully pedestrianised, and is a 'must visit' for tourists visiting the city. If hundreds of people are prepared to pay to eat outside in Copenhagen, then why not in Leith? Afterall, we already have more Michelin starred eateries than anywhere else in Scotland. Surely, we should be playing to our strengths if we are to keep jobs in our neighbourhood?

You can read the full council report here:

http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=142037

Seafield wind turbine takes a step forwards

2010-07-13T14:45:20Z

Portobello based community group PEDAL have received a £72,000 boost from the Scottish Government to conduct a detailed feasibility study, and pay for associated legal and planning costs relating to the construction of a 47.5m tall wind turbine on the Western part of the Portobello promenade towards Seafield.

According to a blog by Peter McColl, one of the volunteers involved in PEDAL, if successful, the project will be the first community owned, commercial wind turbine in any city in Scotland.

Project Manager Tom Black said “If it does go ahead, it could bring real benefits by reducing carbon emissions, bringing in money that would be made available for local projects, and raising awareness of the renewable energy resources that Edinburgh has on it’s doorstep.”

If the group gains all the necessary permissions, the group proposes to take out a commercial bank loan to fund the £470,000 capital costs of building the turbine. No further information on how any profits will be distributed was available at the time of writing.

You can see a large mock-up image of what the turbine will look like here (but it may take a while to load).

Meanwhile, Greener Leith is still in the process of working out a viable financial model that could see a small, community owned, hydro electricity generator built on the Water of Leith at Redbraes weir. Watch this space, as we'll be sure to update you on news of both projects as they emerge.

Poll results: Leithers want tram to run to Newhaven

2010-06-26T19:11:54Z

Earlier this week the Evening News ran a front page story based on a poll that they'd conducted of registered readers of their website. One can never accuse the Evening News of being modest when it comes to their polling skills. No caveats were given as to how representative a poll of registered Evening News website readers might be, the Evening News simply proclaimed "that the survey was the biggest to date on the scheme."

The results they got said 47.4% of voters said they'd like to scrap the tram project, so we thought that the contrast between those results and the results of our poll that we ran last week might be interesting. If we wanted, we could call our poll the 'biggest independent tram survey of Leithers ever undertaken.' But we won't, we'll just show you the results*:

So, there you have it. By our reckoning that's over 55% of Leithers who want to see the tram line continued to Newhaven - even if the council or the Scottish Government have to spend more than they originally intended on it. Could that be because Leithers have endured so much disruption over the last few years that it seems almost unthinkable that we wouldn't end up with a tram at the end of it?

Some of the comments people added to the poll include the following:

"Get behind the project and stop moaning"

"For goodness sake get on with it. Investment in public transport costs money"

"Company should honour their contract or be sacked"

"Edinburgh councillors should sell their organs to fund the trams"

"I believe a community led review of what's happened is required. This would cover: where we are and how we've got there, which options we now face and which is the best to pursue. This would not be dissimilar to a Truth & Reconciliation Committee..."

The council met earlier this week to discuss the tram project. You can hear the opinions of some Edinburgh bloggers who went to the meeting with the Guardian Edinburgh blogger Tom Allan below. They included former Greener Leith board member, Fay Young.

Listen!

Tom also interviewed the leader of the SNP group on the council, Cllr Steve Cardownie on what he thinks should happen next.

Listen!

*these poll results are based on the votes of 76 people who visited our website in the last week. We don't know anything about them.

Dock regeneration gets major boost.

2010-06-26T18:48:39Z

Plans for the regeneration of the docks took a huge step forwards on Wednesday as the City of Edinburgh Council planning committee granted outline planning permission for Forth Ports to develop the first two, so called 'urban villages' on the area around Ocean Terminal.

At the same meeting councillors agreed to grant Outline Planning Permission for the whole docks masterplan too - agreeing to "agree later" on the contributions that Forth Ports must make to support the public infrastructure required as development proceeds. The debate before permission for the masteplan was given was interesting. Many of the councillors were clearly concerned that Forth Ports would be able to avoid paying the amount of 'developer contribution' that the various reports and senior council officers have assessed as necessary, if the 'jam tomorrow' deal that would see payments phased over the lifetime of the development went through.

Cllr Munro asked whether payments would be index linked. Cllr Morris, Cllr Burgess and Cllr Child were concerned that the agreement would leave the council at risk - although Cllr Child said she did not want to appear "risk averse." Indeed, the impression we got was that no-one wanted to be accused of jeapordising the continued regeneration of the docks by asking too many probing questions.

And this, despite the fact that Forth Ports now do not have to pay anything towards new schools, transport improvements in the surrounding area, and a tram contribution of just £3.6 million. Forth Ports conceded that it will take them around 10-15 years to complete the development of the first two villages, and so the council is unlikley to receive any more significant financial contribution towards public infrastructure for at least a decade.

A further point of debate was the stated aim of building a 'carbon zero' development. Forth Ports have an independent report which suggested that it was commercially impossible to get anywhere close to zero carbon, as if they were forced to build to higher standards on the docks then private developers would just build elsewhere. Cllr Burgess and Cllr Childs both voiced concerned that current financing models were not sufficient to deliver a low carbon development.

Whilst planning officials say that they're confident that the Scottish Government will permit the City of Edinburgh Council to borrow more money against future tax revenues created by regeneration on the tax (so called 'Tax Incremental Finance' or 'TIF'), Cllr Child said she was worried that this would only be useful for financing 'regeneration bling' and not things like low carbon energy infrastructure, or cycle paths, that the development really needs to make it work. This is because TIF borrowing is only likely to be approved by the government if they believe that the things it pays for will lead directly to an increased tax take. This seemed to imply that people thought TIF could be used to pay for roads, but not cycle paths - but no-one really knows as it's never been done in Scotland before. And, there is still no guarantee that Edinburgh will be allowed to borrow millions of pounds to support the public infrastructure in the area.

Despite all these uncertainties, the planning committee voted to give outline planning permission for the Forth Ports Masterplan - with no new conditions, and therefore ignored the concerns of senior transport officials that the local transport infrastructure could not cope without investment from the developers.

Cllr Burgess and Cllr Morris proposed an alternative ammendment to reject planning permission until greater commitments were by Forth Ports to fund transport infrastructure and on the carbon impact of the project. This ammendment was rejected, so Cllr Burgess and Cllr Morris were the only two not to vote in favour.

The meeting then went on to consider the Outline Planning Application for the first two urban villages, covering the area around Ocean Terminal.

Greener Leith was invited to make a joint statement representing the combined views, of Leith Links Community Council, Leith Central Community Council and Greener Leith to this part of the planning meeting.

In our statement we called for a number of things:

More early investment in the transport facilities in the area around the docks, as the negative traffic impacts will affect 'old Leith' much more than the new development. The improvements needed are set out in the North Edinburgh Transport Action Plan (NETAP).
More 'family' home in the development. 5% of homes in the new villages will be 3 bedrooms or more.
More affordable homes in the development. 25% of homes in the new villages will be 'affordable' homes.
More support from the public sector, and more leadership from Forth Ports in developing decentralised, diversified low carbon energy infrastructure in the docks - with an element of community ownership.
Conditions on the developers to deliver investment in green space and public realm early on in the development - rather than leaving this until everything else is built.
More detail on the tram/boat/bike/bus/pedestrian interchange will work at Ocean Terminal and a commitment to building the highest quality pedestrian and cycle infrastructure throughout the development.
A further reduction in the heights of the tallest buildings, as they will dominate they rest of Leith, where many parts are designated conservation areas.

However, we weren't the only people invited to make representations to the planning committee. Leith Harbour and Newhaven Community Council made a representation too. Here are some of the key things they called for:

Greater detail on the transport interchange at Ocean Terminal and they were also concerned about the capacity of the existing transport infrastructure in the surrounding area.
Tall building to be built to a quality design - but not opposed in principle. Keen that 'bland international styles' are not used to avoid 'Western Harbour mk 2'. Building styles should do more to reflect existing local character.
A diversity of employment opportunities - and they reccommended that more industrial uses may be appropriate for the east end of the docks.

Next up it was the Cockburn Association. The made the following points:

The regeneration of Leith Docks has not 'gained sufficient momentum' - partly because key buildings, like Ocean Terminal and Victoria Quay are 'inward looking.'
The development must play to it's strengths. They say the current plans don't remedy past mistakes or make the place unique.
Call for more active uses of the water - as too much is 'dead space.'
The Cockburn Assocation are also very concerned over the proposals for tall buildings in the development.

After these representations, councillors were able to ask questions. We were asked to clarify our views about renewable energy generation, and at the end we were pleased to hear the council officials conceed that more needs to be done to support the development of community owned, decentralised energy infrastructure in the docks.

Forth Ports were then invited to speak, and alongside two of their staff, was Keith Anderson from the Port of Leith Housing Association. Forth Ports said that, so far, all the money they've made from the regeneration of the docks has been reinvested back into the area. They argued that the area around the harbour will be the 'heart' of the new area, and that high-density development was therefore justified.

They then went to admit that the changes they'd made as a consequence of the consultation on the proposals has improved the plans - and that they weren't too proud to admit it. In the current plans there is less housing, and the buildings are less tall, in order to preserve some views up to the world heritage site in the city centre. There are also less parking places. It also emerged that they are in active discussion with a private developer to build and run a 5000 seater venue on the docks and that they see it taking 10 -15 years to complete the construction of these two villages.

Keith Anderson said that the 'livable' aspects of the neighbourhood were important, but that he also accepted the need for high density too - as the area will be the focus point for the rest of the docks regeneration. He picked up the point made by the Leith and Newhaven Community Council, that 'bland internationalism' design should not form part of this development, and he went on to point out that Port of Leith Housing Assocation have just won an award for the design of their Goosander Place development on Western Harbour.

Again the councillors then had a chance to quiz the speakers. As well as more debate over transport and energy, Cllr Munn asked for more detail about the provision of Car Club facilities and the 'temporary' green space proposed by Forth Ports to help improve the amenity of the area whilst everything else is being built. No further detail was given. Also, questions were asked about the provision of alternative accomodation for the Leith Sea Cadets. Again, no firm commitment was given.

Cllr Hinds also voiced scepticism of the proposals by Forth Ports to deliver more family homes in later phases of the development - saying "I've been here before with Waterfront Edinburgh and we keep getting told the affordable homes are going to be built in the next phase, and then it's the phase after that."

Cllr Munro made a passionate speech, calling for the planning committee to attach conditions to improve on the percentage of family and affordable homes, and demanding more money is provided up front for transport improvements in the surrounding area concluding "if we tighten up the conditions on this planning application would could get a development that the city can be really proud of."

However, when it came to the final decision, no further conditions were attached to the application and it sailed straight through. Again, only Cllrs Burgess and Morris voted against, still unconvinced that Forth Ports will ever pay enough for transport improvements, or deliver a low carbon development.

Given that these planning applications are amongst the largest, and most important ever considered by the city council, it was remarkable how few councillors took part in the debate. Indeed, there were at least six who said absolutely nothing for the whole meeting. Was this because the administration had already agreed to nod this one through? We'll never know. At the very least, Leithers can take some reassurance from the fact that at least all our local councillors did participate in the discussion.

Everyone agrees that the regeneration of the docks shouldn't be left to stagnate but whether the decisions taken this week will leave the council exposed to too much risk remains to be seen. No-one seems to know whether Forth Ports have been let off the hook lightly - or whether this was the only realistic decision that could've been made to restart the docks renaisance. Only time will tell.

Now we understand.

2010-06-19T09:23:41Z

Leithers might be forgiven for wondering why the Tram information sign at the Foot of the Walk has been left lying around in various poses over the last few weeks. Perhaps it's because no-one knows whether it's worth reinstalling it or not.

You can't fail to have missed the recent news stories that suggest we may not see a tram in Leith for some years yet. Take your pick from:

Please tell us what you think should happen next by voting in the poll below.

New biomass research leads to MSP questions

2010-06-18T21:27:11Z

New Biomass research that claims to fill a "an important scientific gap in our understanding of the greenhouse gas implications of wood energy," has led local MSP Malcolm Chisholm to write a letter to the Scottish Government. In the letter he hopes the "Scottish Government will reconsider its enthusiasm for electricity from biomass in the light of this research as well as in response to all the other objections that have been made by local people and myself."

What does this new research say?

Currently, all biomass power generation is regarded as 'carbon neutral' as it is assumed that a new tree will be planted to replace the one that was cut down and burnt. It is taken for granted that as the newly planted tree grows, it will re-absorb the CO2 released by the tree used as fuel, and thus over time the climate changing CO2 balances out with no net harm to the climate.

The trouble is, this new research shows that this balancing act can take many, many decades to complete. Worst of all, burning biomass in a straight replacement of conventional coal fired electricity generation actually releases more CO2 than a coal fired plant in the first decades of it's operation - even if the fuel is sourced from sustainably managed forest. If the fuel is from less well managed forests, then the time that plant takes to pay it's 'carbon debt' increases by many more decades. It would appear then, that large scale biomass, where the heat is not used efficiently, and where no independent guarantee is given on the sustainable sourcing of the fuel, should be regarded by public policy as ' slow renewables' - and the public subsidy attached to it significantly reduced to take account of this.

Why does this matter?

The science says that we need to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million (ppm). The trouble is we're currently at about 390ppm and this number is going in the wrong direction. In fact it's going up by about 2ppm per year and this has lot's of profound implications. That's why the Scottish government passed the Climate Change Act in 2009. The act requires that Scottish carbon emissions are reduced by 80% by 2050, and that the government adopts annual emissions reduction targets. The key point is that we need to cut our emissions now - not fifty or one hundred years in the future.

Forth Energy are currently proposing to build a massive biomass plant on Leith Docks, and so far, we've not seen any plausible uses for the massive amount of heat that the plant will generate - certainly none that will be in place at the time of its construction. Forth Ports themselves acknowledge that the redevelopment of the area will take many decades. Given this, if Forth Energy get the go ahead for their huge biomass plant, it will have to dump some, or more probably, all the heat it generates into the sea - just like a large conventional coal fired power plant.

And if this is the case, then these new plants may do much less to help Scotland meet it's carbon emissions targets in the timescales that the legislation requires. Indeed, the plant could be in 'carbon debt' for at least the first 20 - 50 years of it's operation. In fact, in the worst case scenario they may even hinder our progress up to 2050. Given this, we believe that the Scottish Government must seriously consider this research before giving the green light to these proposals - afterall once built, they will attract a £40million annual public subsidy for 'renewable energy generation.'

You can read the full text of Malcolm Chisholms letter to John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Enterprise and Sustainable Economic Growth by clicking here.

You can read the Manomet Biomass research by clicking here.

Is there another way?

Yes, there is - and we've blogged about it before. Indeed, Forth Ports have a back up plan in case the giant biomass plant proposal is rejected by the Scottish Government. There is a planning application set to be considered next week by the City of Edinburgh Council from Forth Ports for the first two 'urban villages' and in it there are two much smaller energy centres, each running off different fuel supplies. Building a diversified, decentralised renewable energy system in Leith docks would be much less wasteful, and much better for the climate - as the power system would 'scale-up' alongside other developments, with much less excess capacity, wasted heat and because of the diversity of fuel supplies - a lower carbon 'debt' to pay off.

The council are minded to grant planning permission for this proposal, and Greener Leith, along with Leith Links Community Council and Leith Central Community Council has been invited to make a joint representation at the hearing.

We plan to support this diversified, decentralised approach to powering the regeneration of the docks in the planning hearing (although we still have things to say about other aspects of the plan!). You can read a draft of our joint statement and comment on it, over in the Greener Leith Social.

Leithers - Do you want to dance?

2010-06-17T12:51:50Z

Dancebase, the 'national centre for dance' in Scotland, working together with the Leith Theatre Trust, have put plans on the table to hire the Thomas Morton Hall from the City of Edinburgh Council for two years with the aim of refurbishing it, and begining a programme of community classes, professional dance and outreach activity from autumn 2010.

"This could mean more classes for more people and the chance to bring this wonderful community facility back to life." The proposal also includes the following sample timetable:

Whilst we're sure those of us who harbour inner puritan leanings may be alarmed at the prospect of state funded "burlesque for beginners courses" on our doorsteps, in these straitened times we have to recognise that this proposal may be the only way to get the investment in, the hall upgraded and more people using this marvelous building.

It's a shame that the plans will have no impact on improving the main part of Leith Theatre, and it would appear that there's not really that much spare time for other community events. However, we suppose it's one step at a time, if you'll pardon the pun...

You can read more about the proposal and vote on it here:

http://www.dancebase.co.uk/news/Dance-Base/dance-base-leith-theatre-proposal.html

The Leith Theatre Trust are holding an open day at Leith Theatre this Sunday 20 June from 15.30-17.30. Everyone is welcome to visit, see the spaces and discuss the proposals.

There's also a Leith Theatre Trust Facebook Group if you like that sort of thing.

Town Centres Survey

2010-06-14T13:22:54Z

The City Development department are running a brief consultation on what people like and dislike about their local "town centres." There are two areas of Leith designated as Town Centres. They are Leith Walk, and part of Great Junction Street called "Leith Central". Here's what they say:

"The Council is committed to maintaining and enhancing Edinburgh's network of town centres as attractive, viable and vibrant places. To help us identify what plans and projects are needed to achieve this, tell us what you think about...town centres by completing our short questionnaire."

You may wish to suggest improvements that were popular in our We Love Leith consultation. You can see the results here:

http://weloveleith.uservoice.com/

Planners puzzled by Evening News article

2010-06-07T09:25:05Z

Over the weekend, lot's of people were interested to read this dramatic article from the Evening News, claiming that Forth Ports were about to spring 'a surprise new plan' on the council for Leith Harbour. We were too, because if you check the council planning portal, you can see that the last time revised plans were submitted was, er, on the 1st of April. So, we phoned the planning department and they confirmed that they were as bemused as we were about the Evening News article. They have no knowledge of any new proposals.

And whilst the 26 storey hotel may not be the most appealing part of the design for most people, and we'd still like to see Leith Theatre renovated before the development of any new public venue on the docks, we pointed out in April that many of the changes are positive - they mean lower buildings, a lower density of housing and less parking spaces. These are things that local community groups called for in their response to the planning application.

Whilst the Evening News may claim that 'full details of the plans have not been announced,' we found it pretty easy to get the artists impression (above) of what the proposal would look like straight off the developers website - tall hotel and 6000 seater venue included. All the other documents are on the council planning portal here:

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/portal/submissions.do?action=ViewPublicCaseDetails&applicationRef=08/04232/OUT

Biomass planning workshop report

2010-06-06T21:00:47Z

Anyone sensible in Edinburgh was probably outside enjoying the summer weather this weekend. However, it's perhaps a measure of how strong local concerns are about the proposed Forth Energy Biomass plant on Leith docks that around 40 local residents braved the City Chambers to attend a Planning Aid Scotland led workshop on how the planning system deals with large energy proposals. Most of those in attendance had a link to one of the community councils - although representatives from Greener Leith, Leith Links Residents Association and Port of Leith Housing Association were also there too.

Unlike most planing applications, the Forth Energy Biomass proposal will be decided by the Scottish Government via the Energy Consents Unit. The aim of the workshop was primarily to help people understand how decisions will be made about the Biomass plant, who will make them, and when local people will have an opportunity to participate in the decision making process.

The Leith Neighbourhood Partnership should be congratulated for funding the workshop, as this is the first time that an application of this type has been made within the City of Edinburgh Council area - indeed, it transpired that there is not one planner in the council with direct experience of this process either.

In a nutshell, there are five main stages to the decision making process. We try to give a brief description of each stage below. You can download our notes from the workshop here.

Initial Enquiry/Scoping

During this stage the developer works together with the Scottish Government to identify the issues that the a full application should take into account. The only statutory consultees are the Local Authority, SEPA and SNH. However, it's best practice to consult more widely. Forth Energy have completed this stage. The related documents are here:

Forth Energy Scoping Statement and Addendum.
Greener Leith submission to Leith scoping consultation.
Greener Leith blog posts on other organisations responses to the Leith scoping consultation: "The Questions Forth Energy Must Answer & "Biomass PR Fail"
Scottish Government "General Biomass Scoping Advice"
Scottish Government "Port of Leith Biomass Scoping Opinion"

Application

In this phase, the developer formally submits a complete application to the Energy Consents Unit. All the documents should be available for public view, and this must be advertised.

Public and community groups have the right to comment on upon the proposal - but Local Authority, SNH and SEPA are only statutory consultees. No statutory requirement for community engagement, although this is regarded as 'best practice'.

If the Local Authority objects, and there’s no way to come to resolution, then the Scottish Minister must call a public enquiry.

Forth Energy are currently preparing a full application for Leith, and are due to submit it later this year.

Determination

This is where it starts to get complicated! The Energy Consents Unit at the Scottish Government takes account of all the information provided by the developer and all the responses recieved from the statutory consultees and anyone else who formally submits an opinion on the proposal.

They then make a recommendation to the Scottish Minister responsible who is Jim Mather MSP.

If the Scottish Government gives consent for the plant to go ahead, this means that the proposal has "in principle" permission to be built - and it has "deemed planning permission".

However, consent is usually given with conditions attached - and it then falls to the local authority planning committee to come to agreement with the developer on how those conditions shall be fulfilled. This is the last stage of the process.

Discharge of Conditions

Before development can commence the local authority and the developer must negotiate together on how the detail of the conditions attached to the consent.

Helpfully, Forth Energy, in their presentation to Dundee councillors produced the flow chart below to illustrate this process.

Of course the diagram above assumes that eventually the process leads to 'Consent to Build.' We learnt at the workshop that if the City of Edinburgh Council objects to the consent at the 'application stage' then this will force a public enquiry into the proposal. A process that could take many, many more months and may of course lead to the application being dismissed.

From what we understand from local councillors who attended a separate briefing last week from Forth Energy, the current proposals for Leith are pretty similar to the ones outlined in their Scoping documents. So, despite the virtually universal local consensus that the proposed plant for Leith is too large, and in the wrong place - Forth Energy seem determined to proceed.

Whilst the Edinburgh briefing to councillors has not yet appeared on the Forth Energy website, a briefing given to Dundee councillors on a similar (albeit smaller) plant proposed there has been uploaded - perhaps because they have produced some 'pretty pictures' of what it may look like, along with some spectacular architect speak.

In fact, when you read it, you'll no doubt want to move to Dundee just so that you can live next to it. Here's what the architects plan to do with the power station in Dundee:

"Utilize the potential of transparency and light to create a marker on the Dundee skyline and Tay
estuary beyond symbolic of a sustainable future.

Recognize the unique qualities of the site on the water’s edge, evoking the imagery of Dundee’s maritime past whilst giving a glimpse of its future.

The metaphor of the long ship, the Discovery being used as a means of bringing order and identity to the disparate elements of the biomass plant.

Create a clear visual separation between the lower linear storage structures and the high level boiler equipment in order to reduce the sense of bulk and increase the drama of the architectural beacon.

Create a translucent ground level, to visually reduce the apparent height of the storage areas by increasing the horizontal emphasis, and give the sense the station is hovering above the quayside, about to begin a journey towards a more sustainable future."

Whilst we know that not all Dundonians are delighted about the prospect of living adjacent to a power station that appears to hover above them, we can only wait to see what the architects working for Forth Energy propose for Leith. Afterall, here Forth Energy have provided us with little more than a line drawing, drawn from a very long, long way away.

There's also one very interesting slide on page 13 called "ensuring sustainabiltiy', which you can see below. Read it, and tell us whether Forth Energy are now committed to only burning fuel from certified sustainable sources. It's very difficult to tell, and we wonder what impression someone might come away with after hearing this presentation. When we met them earlier this year, they declined to make a commitment to only use FSC certified wood, yet the FSC logo features now on their slides.

It wil be very interesting to see what 'agreed sustainability standards' really means when the full application is submitted to the Scottish Government. Afterall, it is rumoured that the proposed plant could attract more than £10,000 worth of public subsidy each hour that it operates.

Water of Leith Management Plan Consultation

2010-06-04T11:03:02Z

The Water of Leith Conservation Trust are hosting a series of consultation documents on a management plan for the Water of Leith. The plan aims to coordinate the acvtivities of a range of public, voluntary and private organisations around the river so that they're acting for a common purpose.

The scope of the management plan is described like this:

"The plan focuses on management of the river from where it leaves Harperrig Reservoir, to where it enters Leith Docks at the Victoria Swing Bridge. It also considers some aspects of management of Harperrig Reservoir, and the Bavelaw Burn, which is a major tributary of the Water of Leith. Within this area, the main concentration has been on issues associated with the river between Balerno and Leith.

The Water of Leith Action Group identified a number of topics that should be addressed by the management plan: water quality, flow and flood prevention, biodiversity, geodiversity, habitat management and invasive species, access and recreation, planning and development, built heritage, landscape, archaeology, reservoirs, micro hydro, education and interpretation, and community involvement. These are all included in this plan."

We've noted a few things that have been left out of the plan. One, is the issue of siltation of the Water of Leith on the Shore. We know this is of concern to local residents in the area. We'll also be suggesting that measures to encourage more walking and cycling are included in the plan. Given how popular the Water of Leith paths are for these activities it's surprising that they feature very rarely in the plan.

The plan aims to cover the period 2010-2020, so it's important that as many people as possible have their say now. For more info see:

http://www.waterofleith.org.uk/management/

MSP demands "major, large scale changes," to Biomass plans

2010-05-26T08:51:04Z

In a strongly worded statement, SNP MSP Shirley-Anne Sommerville has announced that she's written to Forth Energy letting them know that she cannot support their current proposals for a Biomass plant in Leith Docks without "major, large scale changes." On this webpage the MSP, who is also a member of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee at Holyrood, says:

"The vast majority of people responding to the consultation I carried out share my concern that this is the wrong scheme in the wrong location. Biomass does have a role to play in providing for Edinburgh's future energy needs but I cannot support this proposal unless Forth Energy listen to local concerns and make major, large scale changes.

The location is simply wrong - it's too close to housing, and in an area zoned for further residential development. The scale of the plant is too vast given the stunning skyline it will impinge upon and its impact on the local community. It's noticeable that the biomass power stations Forth Energy want to build in other Scottish ports would be half the capacity of the one proposed for Leith.

I also believe Forth Energy have failed to prove the green credentials of the plant - vital for any biomass scheme. A power plant which imports much its wood from North America is about as far form a locally sustainable power station as you can get.

But first and foremost I am calling on Forth Energy to carry out a proper consultation exercise. Too many local people are completely in the dark about what is going on. A display at Ocean Terminal and meetings with Community Councils are not sufficient - they need to engage directly and extensively with residents.

This proposal is a major departure from the Forth Port's original masterplan and should not proceed without people being able to have their say on something which will have a huge impact on their local community."

Shirley-Anne Sommerville is a local list MSP for the Lothians, and of course she is also in the SNP - the party that must decide whether to give these energy plants the go ahead.

We're delighted that she's come to the same conclusion as many other local politicians and community groups - that the Leith plant is too large, unsustainable and in the wrong place - and we hope she'll use her influence in the Scottish Government to ensure the plans, as currently proposed, do not get the go ahead.