We would like you to consider increasing the consultation period to sixteen weeks, for the following reasons:

1. This will allow time for the new Community Council (to be elected by 25th May) to contribute fully to the discussion.

The issue has raised considerable controversy locally, and it would seem that the Community Council elections will provide an ideal opportunity for local people to consider the issues in a democratic manner.

2. Members of the local community have been developing an Alternative Regeneration Strategy -

More time is needed to compare the alternative approach against that proposed by Mountgrange.

3. Extending the consultation period and giving consideration to the alternatives will demonstrate the council's commitment to the strategic aims expressed in "A Community Plan for Edinburgh", in particular number 2 "Listening to Communities" (http://download.edinburgh.gov.uk/CommunityPlanning/Edinburgh_community_p...)

4. The magnitude, importance and complexity of the scheme, which affects a key area of the Edinburgh World Heritage site, means the proposals could result in changes here that may last for many generations. A few extra weeks of consultation at this stage is a small delay to a scheme which will take years to complete and would result in a significant and permanent change to the historical pattern of development.

5. We would also like for there to be equal consideration of the alternative strategy -- for example, for the strategy to be presented at consultation meetings and to the Planning committee to compare how well the Alternative Strategy and the Mountgrange Plan would fulfil the Council's statutory duties regarding housing provision, recycling, transport, and the provision of a range of business opportunities and premises.

We believe that a plan based on the alternative strategy would meet the Council's Key strategic aims of Sustainable development, Social justice and Economic prosperity, and would also help the Council meet its challenges of ensuring clean, green and safe neighbourhoods, providing affordable housing, improving the city centre and improving labour supply.

6. The community should be given the chance to comment on the real alternatives and have their responses listened to. Many individuals as well as organisations are committed to preserving and enhancing Edinburgh’s built environment. They are also very concerned that the sustainability of new development in Edinburgh is maximised.

We would like to bring to the committee’s attention the Public Consultation that was carried out by PPS on behalf of Mountgrange over 3 days (2 of which were in the St James Centre) , where it is estimated that 2,500 people attended.

Only 219 questionnaires in total were returned.

The third day was held at the Canongate Kirk, and was visited by around 150-200 people, yet only 30 questionnaires were returned. The general feeling of most people leaving the exhibition was that the scheme would either never happen because the Council would not be allowed to agree the demolition of Listed Buildings and homes or that it was a done deal and there was nowhere on the questionnaire to vote no to the scheme.

Mountgrange refer to an information line as part of their consultation yet only a few people knew it existed. Only 20 or so calls were received.

There was no feedback on the consultation carried out, to the people who completed questionnaires or to the public generally.

No consideration has been given to the petition submitted to the Council against the closing of the Sunday Market or the concerns that the detailed plan for the redevelopment of the bus depot has not been submitted before consent was finally granted on 21st Feb this year.

The Mountgrange masterplan does not comply with advice received from the Edinburgh World Heritage Trust during the scoping exercise.

The concerns raised by Cockburn Association and Historic Scotland regarding the demolitions have been ignored.

The proposed 8-week consultation which the committee report refers to, should include a series of community planning workshops which are open to all members of the public and/or a community planning weekend, as was undertaken recently for the Grassmarket.

The proposed masterplan marks a significant departure from current, adopted Planning Policy and therefore an appropriate period for feedback and amendments should be included in the consultation exercise before the masterplan comes before Committee for determination.

This Plan is wholely dependant on the sale of land on East Market Street, including Common Good Land. The sale of all public assets must demonstrate Best Value yet there is little or no real community gain in the proposals and the land is being sold for less than it was valued at in 2002. Whilst the council are due to also get 20% of development profits we have no indication of what the profits may be or when the development will be completed and occupied. The land could be sterilised for years while contamination works are carried out and the decontamination may prove more expensive resulting in little or no profits.

If a change in the policy framework for the area is to be supported by the Committee it should be subject to referral to the Scottish Executive as the Council have a financial interest in the proposals.

Yesterday the winner of the Geddes memorial was announced. A glass memorial is to be displayed in the council’s new headquarters, inspired by the following

This is a green world, with animals comparatively few and small, and all dependent on the leaves. By leaves we live. Some people have strange ideas that they live by money. They think energy is generated by the circulation of coins. Whereas the world is mainly a vast leaf colony, growing on and forming a leafy soil, not a mere mineral mass: and we live not by the jingling of our coins, but by the fullness of our harvests.”
- Patrick Geddes