Regeneration plan for Seafield 'unrealistic' landowners say
The authority's latest 10-year development plan, running through to 2032, designates the 40-hectare area as a 'potential housing site' and a masterplan has now been drawn up. Alongside new properties, a school, GP surgery, shops and cafes, it shows a new waterfront park and promenade to connect with the one at Portobello.
Hundreds of new affordable homes at Seafield will 'help address the city's housing emergency' amid a record 5,000 homeless households in the capital, council planning convener James Dalgleish said last year.
Read more from our new investigation, The Future of Edinburgh:
However the ambitious project is unlikely to come to fruition for decades yet, largely due to a number of hurdles. Chief among them is landowners unwilling to sell up. The relocation of Lothian Buses' Marine Depot, at the east of the site, also poses a significant challenge.
'They don't necessarily want to move'
Iain Whyte, the Conservative councillor for Craigentinny-Duddingston, which includes Seafield, told The Herald: 'The biggest blocker, frankly, to anything happening there is the landowners of a significant chunk of it have tenants in place, a steady income, that suits their financial and business model and they don't want to change that.
'When they speak, they speak on behalf of some of the others that are there as well and I think that means this, if it's a plan that's going to work, you're probably talking 20 years before you see anything significantly change there.
'I just think the biggest problem the council has got is that it allocated that site for nearly 3,000 houses in its plan for the city, the 2030 City Plan for development, to try and find the housing numbers that are needed for the growing population.
'Doing things like that when there's no prospect of it being developed within the timescales they're talking about gives you an indication of why we're not meeting the housing numbers needed — and is the real reason, if any, why they're having to declare a housing emergency.'
He added: 'I don't know if anyone's ever asked Lothian Buses where they think they're going to move their depot to. Because I don't think it's easy for them. It's fine for the council to sit there and say 'oh well, car showrooms aren't a very good use of the land' but there's an awful lot more in there and they don't necessarily want to move.'
'Their land should not be considered for housing'
Council documents reveal some developers hold concerns about 'timescales and the difficulty of delivering a masterplan when such a small area of the plan is actually capable of coming forward in the short/medium term'.
They also show that Royal London, which owns Seafield Industrial Estate covering a large part of the proposed development site, 'do not support proposals for residential development on their site'.
In their response to a consultation on City Plan 2030, an agent representing the pensions and investment giant warned that the site 'does not present a realistic option for residential development'.
They said: 'The owner [...] has no intention of releasing the land for housing use over the Plan period and their land holding should not be considered for residential or urban area housing led mixed use.'
The response went on to say Royal London was not approached by the council prior to the land being identified for consideration for redevelopment. 'The identification of their land holding for this purpose is considered to be inappropriate,' it said.
Proposed redevelopment site at Seafield (Image: City of Edinburgh Council)
The estate, consisting of 18 fully let industrial units, has been under the company's ownership for over 25 years, is 'one of the larger complete industrial holdings' within their property fund.
The agent said 'significant capital investment' has been directed into the industrial units in recent years including 'acquisition of adjacent holdings, replacement roofs, cladding renewal, unit subdivision and road/service yard replacement ensuring the accommodation is fit for modern requirements'.
They added: 'Tenants undertake a range of business operations comprising urban industry, trades, distribution and local services which support their local market, of which a significant proportion comprises the established urban area of north east Edinburgh.
'The removal of an established employment area against a backdrop of limited industrial supply and constrained demand will only serve to exacerbate poverty rates in the local area.'
Royal London was contacted for comment.
Read more from The Future of Edinburgh series:
Councillor Whyte compared the plan to proposals for the local authority's ongoing regeneration of Granton Waterfront 'which we were talking about developing 30 years ago and is only now starting to come to fruition'.
He said: 'I think this will take a very long time indeed.'
Asked about the prospect of the council using Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) in a bid to accelerate work, he said: 'That would be incredibly expensive and the council doesn't have much money.
'We're in the top five most indebted councils in the UK, so would it make sense to go further into debt and have the interest payments to CPO land that private individuals and companies are making best use of in the market at the moment?'
However, he added it was 'useful to have a masterplan so you don't get piecemeal development along there'.
'Fabulous opportunity'
Cathy Maclean from Action Porty, the community group behind Scotland's first ever urban community land buy out in Portobello, agreed it would be 'quite a while before things get going' as 'a lot of the people who own those sites don't want to sell and have no plans to sell'.
But she stressed the site presented a 'fabulous opportunity' as there were so few capital cities with 'a brownfield site right on the beach to develop".
Seafield is currently mostly car showrooms and industrial units (Image: Google) She said more housing was badly needed and 'so much' had been built in Portobello in recent years 'with a dramatic loss of amenities at the same'.
This led Action Porty to successfully complete a community buyout of Portobello Old Parish Church after the Church of Scotland announced its intention to sell the property. It reopened as Bellfield, a community centre, in 2018.
Maclean said if the Seafield redevelopment ever goes ahead it would be 'welcome from Portobello as a sort of sister community, rather than particularly part of it,' however added: 'In practice it will become a part of Portobello because that's the way people are, they enjoy walking along the Prom.
'At some point it's all going to join up between Leith and right the way along Seahaven.'
'There has to be continuity between the two areas'
While Seafield's regeneration is clearly still a long-way off, some details in the masterplan are already raising eyebrows.
The council's visualisation of what the area could look like one day shows people enjoying the would-be promenade and leafy waterfront park.
'If you look at it it looks amazing,' said Kirsty Pattison, chair of Craigentinny and Meadowbank Community Council, whose boundary includes Seafield, 'but if you dig into the details and look at what the masterplanning is and the height of the buildings proposed, it doesn't correlate with that picture at all.'
A visualisation of the council's Seafield masterplan (Image: City of Edinburgh Council) She said in terms of the height of the buildings there is 'tension between what it's supposed to look like and what is actually being proposed'.
'What they're proposing, from the top of the prom if you're looking south-east it gives you expansive views of the beach and you can see Joppa. Some of that might be lost, so it's important to preserve this place.'
Ensuring the new neighbourhood is well connected with adjacent communities will be crucial, Ms Pattison said. 'We want to make sure there's improved landscape connections between Craigentinny and Seafield, because Seafield is part of our district.
'There has to be continuity between the two areas so we can preserve popular beach walks.
'There's a beach walk that connects Craigentinny to the western part of the beach and we want that put into the masterplan to make sure it's preserved. That is vital. People use it all the time - it's such a popular connection.'
'There's also issues around rising sea levels, it's all fine and well saying we're going to redevelop Seafield - but what are we going to put in place for flooding?'
Ms MacLean similarly raised concerns over the impact of climate change in the future. 'I don't think you can say any flood defences are going to be effective when you don't know what's coming,' she said.
'A lot of the standards these environmental consultants look at are based on what used to be called once in every 200 year chance of flooding. That's changed quite dramatically. Nobody really knows, if the truth be told.'
Edinburgh Council said the risk of coastal flooding 'is increasing due to rising sea levels and coastal erosion caused by climate change,' adding: 'This is a key consideration in the redevelopment of Seafield.'
Since initial engagement about the plans in 2023 'we have needed to take additional time to engage with a range of stakeholders,' it said. 'This is to ensure that places are developed along the coastline that are resilient in the face of climate change impacts'.
Read more:
Now, the authority is preparing a Coastal Change Adaptation Plan and said it will 'update the draft masterplan in line with the recommendations'.
The 'Seafield stench'
One of the biggest constraints historically associated with making the area residential has been the 'Seafield stench' from the waste water treatment plant to the west - the largest of its kind in Scotland.
Odours emitting from the works are a longstanding issue. Between 2022 and 2024 Scottish Water and Veolia invested over £10 million to add additional capacity and address concerns around the smells. However, the council said last year the issue 'has not been fully resolved at this time'.
It said: 'The Council, along with SEPA, carry out ongoing monitoring of odours relating to the Works. However, the council does not have the ability to force all odours to be stopped.
'Scottish Water has committed to developing a new facility to replace the Seafield facility after 2030. This should be considered alongside the timescales of the masterplan as it is likely to reduce the impact of odours around the facility.
'Odours relating to the Works are not a significant issue for the bulk of the masterplan area. However, if odours persist, this is likely to shape how development of the northernmost part of the area comes forward.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
23 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Assisted dying Bill not now or never moment, says Cleverly ahead of crucial vote
The House of Commons is debating a Bill to change the law in England and Wales, ahead of a crunch afternoon vote. The outcome would lead to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill either clearing the House of Commons and moving to the Lords, or falling completely – with a warning the latter could mean the issue might not return to Westminster for a decade. The relatively narrow majority of 55 from the historic yes vote in November means every vote will count on Friday. Some MPs have already confirmed they will switch sides to oppose a Bill they describe as 'drastically weakened', after a High Court judge safeguard was scrapped and replaced with expert panels. As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and the three-member panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has insisted the multidisciplinary panels represent a strengthening of the legislation, incorporating wider expert knowledge to assess assisted dying applications. Opening her debate, Ms Leadbeater said her Bill is 'cogent' and 'workable', with 'one simple thread running through it – the need to correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. She pushed back on concerns raised about the Bill by some doctors and medical bodies, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych), noting: 'We have different views in this House and different people in different professions have different views.' She noted that all the royal colleges have a neutral position on assisted dying. Some members of RCPsych also wrote recently to distance themselves from the college's criticism of the Bill and pledge their support for it. MPs have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines – although voting is not mandatory and others present on Friday could formally abstain. Ms Leadbeater warned that choosing not to support the assisted dying Bill is 'not a neutral act', but rather 'a vote for the status quo'. Repeating her warning that the issue is unlikely to be broached again for a decade if her Bill fails, she told the Commons: 'It fills me with despair to think MPs could be here in another 10 years' time hearing the same stories.' But, leading opposition to the Bill, Conservative former minister Sir James said while this is 'an important moment', there will be 'plenty of opportunities' in future for the issue to be discussed. Sir James said: 'I disagree with her (Ms Leadbeater's) assessment that it is now or never, and it is this Bill or no Bill, and that to vote against this at third reading is a vote to maintain the status quo. 'None of those things are true. There will be plenty of opportunities.' The Bill would fall if 28 MPs switched directly from voting yes to no, but only if all other MPs voted the same way as in November, including those who abstained. Ms Leadbeater this week appeared to remain confident her Bill will pass, acknowledging that while she expected 'some small movement in the middle', she did not 'anticipate that that majority would be heavily eroded'. All eyes will be on whether Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and senior colleagues continue their support for the Bill. Sir Keir indicated earlier this week that he had not changed his mind since voting yes last year, saying his 'position is long-standing and well-known'. Downing Street declined to 'speculate on the PM's movements today' when asked about his attendance at the Commons debate. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described Ms Leadbeater's work on the proposed legislation as 'extremely helpful', but confirmed in April that he still intended to vote against it. Ahead of the debate, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch urged her MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide'. A vote must be called before 2.30pm, as per parliamentary procedure. Friday's session began with considerations of outstanding amendments to the Bill, including one to prevent a person meeting the requirements for an assisted death 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking'. The amendment – accepted without the need for a vote – combined with existing safeguards in the Bill, would rule out people with eating disorders falling into its scope, Ms Leadbeater has said. Another amendment, requiring ministers to report within a year of the Bill passing on how assisted dying could affect palliative care, was also approved by MPs. Marie Curie welcomed the amendment, but warned that 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need' and urged a palliative care strategy for England 'supported by a sustainable funding settlement – which puts palliative and end of life care at the heart of NHS priorities for the coming years'. Supporters and opponents of a change in the law gathered at Westminster early on Friday, holding placards saying 'Let us choose' and 'Don't make doctors killers'. Among the high-profile supporters were Dame Prue Leith, who said she is 'quietly confident' about the outcome of the vote, and Dame Esther Rantzen's daughter Rebecca Wilcox. Opposition campaigner and disability advocate George Fielding turned out to urge parliamentarians to vote no, saying: 'What MPs are deciding on is whether they want to give people assistance to die before they have assistance to live.' A YouGov poll of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, surveyed last month and published on Thursday, suggested public support for the Bill remains at 73% – unchanged from November. The proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle has risen slightly, to 75% from 73% in November.
South Wales Guardian
24 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
MPs share their own stories as assisted dying debate continues
Debating the proposal to roll out assisted dying in the UK, Sir James Cleverly described losing his 'closest friend earlier this year' and said his opposition did not come from 'a position of ignorance'. The Conservative former minister said he and 'the vast majority' of lawmakers were 'sympathetic with the underlying motivation of' the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, 'which is to ease suffering in others and to try and avoid suffering where possible'. But he warned MPs not to 'sub-contract' scrutiny of the draft new law to peers, if the Bill clears the Commons after Friday's third reading debate. Backing the proposal, Conservative MP Mark Garnier said 'the time has come where we need to end suffering where suffering can be put aside, and not try to do something which is going to be super perfect and allow too many more people to suffer in the future'. He told MPs that his mother died after a 'huge amount of pain', following a diagnosis in 2012 of pancreatic cancer. Sir James, who described himself as an atheist, said: 'I've had this said to me on a number of occasions, 'if you had seen someone suffering, you would agree with this Bill'. 'Well, Mr Speaker, I have seen someone suffering – my closest friend earlier this year died painfully of oesophageal cancer and I was with him in the final weeks of his life. 'So I come at this not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance.' Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden Dame Siobhain McDonagh intervened in Sir James's speech and said: 'On Tuesday, it is the second anniversary of my sister's death. 'Three weeks prior to her death, we took her to hospital because she had a blood infection, and in spite of agreeing to allow her into intensive care to sort out that blood infection, the consultant decided that she shouldn't go because she had a brain tumour and she was going to die. 'She was going to die, but not at that moment. 'I'm sure Mr Speaker can understand that a very big row ensued. I won that row. 'She was made well, she came home and she died peacefully. What does (Sir James) think would happen in identical circumstances, if this Bill existed?' Sir James replied: 'She asks me to speculate into a set of circumstances which are personal and painful, and I suspect she and I both know that the outcome could have been very, very different, and the moments that she had with her sister, just like the moments I had with my dear friend, those moments might have been lost.' He had earlier said MPs 'were promised the gold-standard, a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards', which were removed when a committee of MPs scrutinised the Bill. He added: 'I've also heard where people are saying, 'well, there are problems, there are still issues, there are still concerns I have', well, 'the Lords will have their work to do'. 'But I don't think it is right and none of us should think that it is right to sub-contract our job to the other place (the House of Lords).' Mr Garnier, who is also a former minister, told the Commons he had watched 'the start of the decline for something as painful and as difficult as pancreatic cancer' after his mother's diagnosis. 'My mother wasn't frightened of dying at all,' he continued. 'My mother would talk about it and she knew that she was going to die, but she was terrified of the pain, and on many occasions she said to me and Caroline my wife, 'can we make it end?' 'And of course we couldn't, but she had very, very good care from the NHS.' Mr Garnier later added: 'Contrary to this, I found myself two or three years ago going to the memorial service of one of my constituents who was a truly wonderful person, and she too had died of pancreatic cancer. 'But because she had been in Spain at the time – she spent quite a lot of time in Spain with her husband – she had the opportunity to go through the state-provided assisted dying programme that they do there. 'And I spoke to her widower – very briefly, but I spoke to him – and he was fascinating about it. He said it was an extraordinary, incredibly sad thing to have gone through, but it was something that made her suffering much less.' He said he was 'yet to be persuaded' that paving the way for assisted dying was 'a bad thing to do', and added: 'The only way I can possibly end today is by going through the 'aye' lobby.' If MPs back the Bill at third reading, it will face further scrutiny in the House of Lords at a later date.
North Wales Chronicle
24 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
MPs share their own stories as assisted dying debate continues
Debating the proposal to roll out assisted dying in the UK, Sir James Cleverly described losing his 'closest friend earlier this year' and said his opposition did not come from 'a position of ignorance'. The Conservative former minister said he and 'the vast majority' of lawmakers were 'sympathetic with the underlying motivation of' the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, 'which is to ease suffering in others and to try and avoid suffering where possible'. But he warned MPs not to 'sub-contract' scrutiny of the draft new law to peers, if the Bill clears the Commons after Friday's third reading debate. Backing the proposal, Conservative MP Mark Garnier said 'the time has come where we need to end suffering where suffering can be put aside, and not try to do something which is going to be super perfect and allow too many more people to suffer in the future'. He told MPs that his mother died after a 'huge amount of pain', following a diagnosis in 2012 of pancreatic cancer. Sir James, who described himself as an atheist, said: 'I've had this said to me on a number of occasions, 'if you had seen someone suffering, you would agree with this Bill'. 'Well, Mr Speaker, I have seen someone suffering – my closest friend earlier this year died painfully of oesophageal cancer and I was with him in the final weeks of his life. 'So I come at this not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance.' Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden Dame Siobhain McDonagh intervened in Sir James's speech and said: 'On Tuesday, it is the second anniversary of my sister's death. 'Three weeks prior to her death, we took her to hospital because she had a blood infection, and in spite of agreeing to allow her into intensive care to sort out that blood infection, the consultant decided that she shouldn't go because she had a brain tumour and she was going to die. 'She was going to die, but not at that moment. 'I'm sure Mr Speaker can understand that a very big row ensued. I won that row. 'She was made well, she came home and she died peacefully. What does (Sir James) think would happen in identical circumstances, if this Bill existed?' Sir James replied: 'She asks me to speculate into a set of circumstances which are personal and painful, and I suspect she and I both know that the outcome could have been very, very different, and the moments that she had with her sister, just like the moments I had with my dear friend, those moments might have been lost.' He had earlier said MPs 'were promised the gold-standard, a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards', which were removed when a committee of MPs scrutinised the Bill. He added: 'I've also heard where people are saying, 'well, there are problems, there are still issues, there are still concerns I have', well, 'the Lords will have their work to do'. 'But I don't think it is right and none of us should think that it is right to sub-contract our job to the other place (the House of Lords).' Mr Garnier, who is also a former minister, told the Commons he had watched 'the start of the decline for something as painful and as difficult as pancreatic cancer' after his mother's diagnosis. 'My mother wasn't frightened of dying at all,' he continued. 'My mother would talk about it and she knew that she was going to die, but she was terrified of the pain, and on many occasions she said to me and Caroline my wife, 'can we make it end?' 'And of course we couldn't, but she had very, very good care from the NHS.' Mr Garnier later added: 'Contrary to this, I found myself two or three years ago going to the memorial service of one of my constituents who was a truly wonderful person, and she too had died of pancreatic cancer. 'But because she had been in Spain at the time – she spent quite a lot of time in Spain with her husband – she had the opportunity to go through the state-provided assisted dying programme that they do there. 'And I spoke to her widower – very briefly, but I spoke to him – and he was fascinating about it. He said it was an extraordinary, incredibly sad thing to have gone through, but it was something that made her suffering much less.' He said he was 'yet to be persuaded' that paving the way for assisted dying was 'a bad thing to do', and added: 'The only way I can possibly end today is by going through the 'aye' lobby.' If MPs back the Bill at third reading, it will face further scrutiny in the House of Lords at a later date.
