Forth Ports name game is a slap in the face for Leith

Published on Saturday 13 December 2008 10:49

Do you think Forth Ports should have reflected the history and traditions of Leith in the new name?

Tel: [phone]

I READ about landowner Forth Ports' bewildering attempts to change the name from Leith Harbour into Edinburgh Harbour (Fury over Leith snub as dock rebranded Edinburgh Harbour, Evening News, December 11).

I agree with Sir Tom Farmer who said he was "amazed they have chosen the name Edinburgh Harbour when Leith is the oldest port in Scotland and has a great name known all over the world".

Forth Ports' attempt to rebrand the name of Leith from the former dockland regeneration area has shown the company to be out of tune with the community of Leith who strongly believe, as I do, that the name Leith Harbour is the only option.

Since the start of Europe's largest Waterfront development on the former industrial land around Leith docks, Forth Ports has reiterated the company's commitment to implementing the best practice in all aspects of the development progress, particularly community involvement.

If Forth Ports truly believes in community involvement, then I can't believe the decision to change the name of Leith docks into Edinburgh Harbour.

How can Forth Ports actually believe the development will be economically more profitable if it changes the development name from Leith to Edinburgh Harbour?

Leith is a part of the city of Edinburgh after the amalgamation in 1920. However, the name Leith is still seen by the majority of the community as something rather special and to be protected, not just obliterated by a property developer such as Forth Ports.

The first records of Leith harbour go as far back as the early 1100s. Since that time, kings and queens along with great historical seafarers have sailed from Leith harbour. The history surrounding its maritime harbour is second to none.

Forth Ports' decision to name the development as Edinburgh Harbour and not Leith is a slap in the face to the community and ignores its great historical heritage.

Lawrence Dinse, Crewe Road North, Edinburgh

South helps spare us from confusion

I'M afraid Harry Watson (Letters, December 11) is wrong. The settlement on the south shore of the Firth has been the Royal Burgh of Queensferry for a long, long time. To save confusion in postal deliveries, public transport etc the south shore village sometimes has South added to its description.

Further up the Forth there are Alloa and South Alloa.

Long may the News refer to the former home of VAT 69 as Queensferry.

Colin C Maclean, Hillpark Avenue, Edinburgh

Help for homeless should be backed

I WRITE in response to Sue Gyford's article "Neighbours fight to stop B&B turning into homeless hostel" (News, December 8).

I found the protests and the comments quite disturbing. The owner, I am sure, is not turning his B&B into a homeless hostel; he is actually providing B&B acommodation for temporarily homeless people.

I stayed at the Hotel Ceilidh-Donia in May 2005 (not homeless, may I add) and remember a warm welcome. The rooms, bar and restaurant had recently been refurbished to a high standard, the staff were very professional and could not help you more.

Unfortunately, things went downhill in life for myself, and I was made homeless some time later. The council offered me very comfortable B&B accommodation on Dalkeith Road near Cameron Toll. The other homeless residents there caused no trouble and there was always professional help at hand. After some six weeks I was offered a council flat. Thank God for this system.

I can understand to some degree the concerns of the property owners living near to the Hotel Ceilidh-Donia, but they should try to reach out to people, who sometimes can lose their way in life.

I am sure if these plans get the go-ahead, the temporary residents would benefit from some positive local support, rather than local teachers and bankers thinking they were from a different civilisation.

Mr Gordon McFarlane, Murrayburn Place, Edinburgh

Park will be lost if building begins

I AM writing to correct some of the claims made in Stephen McIntyre's letter (Time for us all to work together on a new Porty High, December 8). It is strange that he starts off by insulting people in the community and then finishes by saying he hopes we can all work together.

First, the claim that a "few locals that rather selfishly argued that the education of our young people was somehow against the common good" is completely untrue.

The many people who oppose the development of the park for anything simply wanted the council to acknowledge that the Park was common good land. This they denied for two years and then they finally admitted that it was indeed common good land. They got that wrong so how do we know that their latest opinion is correct?

Then there is the question of compensation of the common good account of which no mention has been made. The common good issue is far from resolved.

Secondly, the claim that the majority of the city support a new Portobello High School on Portobello Park is clearly incorrect as evidenced by the number of signatories on our petitions (more than 3000) and the results of the 2006 public consultation of parents and residents which showed that a rebuild on the current site was the most popular option.

Third, there is still the planning process to be gone through, not to mention the replacement of green space in the area promised as part of the 2006 council decision, a matter on which the council has gone eerily quiet, maybe because there isn't any, as revealed by questions asked by Councillor Henderson at the October full council meeting.

There has never been a full debate about the loss of Portobello Park or the sustainability of building on green, open land as opposed to brown field sites. Portobello Park was created for the enjoyment of all in perpetuity. Once built on it will be lost forever.

Diana Cairns, West Brighton Crescent, Edinburgh