At the Edinburgh East Local Development Committee meeting on the 23rd of Janaury 2007, the City of Edinburgh Council gave a presentation on the key points of the Meadowbank Development Brief and how it fits with the National Sports Facilities Strategy. They stressed their desire to have feedback on the proposals for Meadowbank sent to them by the March the 9th deadline.
There were a number of concerns raised by members of the public after the presentation. One of these related to 8.2 of the development brief, which states that the Meadowbank site will be marketed in early 2007, after the finalised development brief has been approved.
It was suggested that this is too soon to allow for feedback from the consultation period to be properly considered and that a revised draft should be prepared once the consultation period has ended. This should be presented to the community for further consideration before a finalised version is approved. This was supported (I think) by Cllr Ewan Aitken on the committee and added to the following committee motion.
The East Local Development Committee –
• Welcomes the commitment of City of Edinburgh Council to a new local sports facility in east Edinburgh as part of the package of improving sports facilities across the city.
• Notes that this will help increase the sports facilities across the city.
• Agrees that any new facility should be in place before the present facilities are closed.
• Agrees to respond to the consultation on the planning brief expressing the view that the choice for the new sports facility should allow for it to be built before the present site facilities are closed.
• Agrees to respond to the consultation on the planning brief with respect to affordable housing on the Meadowbank site should include significant number of family houses with access to front and back gardens.
• Agrees that a revised draft should be prepared once the consultation period has ended and that the revised draft should be presented to the community for further consideration before a finalised version is approved.
Cllr Lawrence Marshall objected to the motion, Cllr Marjorie Thomas said that the motion should not be accepted as more time was needed to consider the implications. (A position strongly supported by many members of the public in attendance). Cllr Ian Perry supported the motion and it was accepted by the Convener Cllr Shami Khan.