New Portobello High School - PPAG win legal appeal

[neilking]

[mr magnolia]

[wangi]

[Maria]

[gillian]

[fenton]

[Maria]

[fenton]

[Maria]

[tufty]

Reading comments and suggestions for a new location, split, decant etc etc etc.

Is the golf course common good land? Can the council build it there?

I await the interesting come backs.

[Maria]

The golf course is part of Portobello Park, Tufty. The letter to 'The Scotsman' dated 15/05/1900, which Wangi posted further up this page, makes entertaining reading

[tufty]

Thanks Marya, I had read the text above, and just wondered when the golf course changed the origional park, and it seems without full backing of locals, at that time did it's status change.
Having had a house full of disappointed teenagers this week I would see the school built on stilts in the sea to get it done. The laugh is my kids were probably never getting it but they know how much it's needed.

[mr magnolia]

[Bob Jefferson]

Unfortunately, I suspect that there is no simple answer as to whether Portobello Park is CG or not. PPAG said it was, the Council said it wasn't. Andy Wightman said in his opinion it was, the Council conceded that it was, perhaps on the basis of the precedents set in Lanarkshire, where it didn't seem to matter anyway. There doesn't seem to be any agreement over precisely what constitutes CG either and if the Council now declared that it wasn't, they would be sure to face a legal challenge. It's one big mess.

[Mark Cameron]

and this probably makes it messier.........http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-eveni ... -1-2532804

[wangi]

[Bob Jefferson]

I'm sure Neil is correct in that the current law doesn't appear to make much sense and can't possibly be what the legislators intended, but my concern is that such an 'amendment' would attract opposition on a national basis from environmental groups opposed to what they would see as an erosion of protection to CG. A Private Act, on the other hand, could deal specifically with Portobello Park. But there is no reason why the 2 approaches could not be taken concurrently, along with an appeal to the Supreme Court AND a review over whether the park is in fact CG in any case.

[Mark Cameron]

I received a reply from Maureen Child saying everything is being considered, but it doesn't look like this option (selling the park) is possible. I've gone back to try to establish whether this is because the CEC don't want to sell the land or whether they think legally they couldn't do it.

I think if it's possible to sell it then that is the option we need to press for.

[jb5370]

[wangi]

jb, it's currently reading:

275: On Portobello Park - get it built, politicians make it happen
18: Next to Holyrood High share playing fields
6: At Castlebrae, Craigmillar

[neilking]

[neilking]

[mr magnolia]

[Bob Jefferson]

[gillian]

A pint?? I'll host a party!!

[Bob Jefferson]

Please print and display

gib.pdf

(356.14 KiB) Downloaded 348 times

[Sceptic]

"Get it Built" is fine, Bob.

Problem is, where?

There might only be Craigmillar available. We could end up with one school there with about 2,000 pupils and staff.

Getting plans drawn up, obtaining finance and only then start building, it could be 2020 before we have any solution.

But, is the solution the one everyone wants?

[Bob Jefferson]

I don't think many people are taking Craigmillar seriously as an option. In my opinion, there is only one site and only ever has been one site.

[Betty Windsor]

[Bob Jefferson]

Check the poll Betty. It's not just my view. The vast majority want the school to go ahead on the park. Who is to say that an appeal to the Supreme Court won't overturn the decision again?

[Betty Windsor]

[Epykat]

[Mark Cameron]

So Betty and Epykat where should a school fit for 1400 Portobello kids be built?

[Bob Jefferson]

They don't know and they don't care, though I'm sure at least one of them will suggest that it could be re-built onsite. No doubt the Council will review all of the options once again, but a site that was too small 6 years ago is unlikely to have grown in the interim, just as a site that was badly located in the catchment area will not have moved. Let's remind ourselves of the 3 options that remained:

1. Portobello Park
2. Golf Course
3. Existing site PLUS St John's

So if the Council can't build on the first 2 because it's inalienable CG, that leaves the existing site + St John's. Leaving aside the logistical nightmare of a 2 year decant costing millions of pounds, this site is too small and, furthermore, St John's do not want to move.

But this is far from being over. We have a site that has overwhelming support within the community, based upon every measure that has been applied, we have planning permission, a design ready to go and a contractor ready to start work. Unfortunately, we also have a law relating to CG that makes no sense and is probably the result of a drafting error. There are several means to overcome this hurdle, none of which is easy and all of which have a similar timescale. We should pursue all of them, including an appeal to the Supreme Court.

As a final thought, if CG is our land then let us decide how we use it. PPAG still claim they represent the significant majority. In that case, I'm sure that they would be happy for the matter to be decided by a local referendum, as Andy Wightman has suggested.

[seanie]

The issue at the heart of this is still the same. The school urgently needs replaced. This is also an opportunity to rectify a mistake of 50 years ago when the largest school in Edinburgh was built on a site that was far too small.

The reasons for choosing the park site still hold; it was the best of very limited options. And considerable time, effort and resources have been put into that. It would foolish to throw that away without at least looking at what options exist to proceed as planned, be it through a legal or legislative route.