New Portobello High School - PPAG win legal appeal

[seanie]

[little miss moffat]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/109463626/Por ... ing-Report

Portobello Public Meeting Report

[David Robertson]

Waste of a read, waste of time and totally ineffective !

Only my opinion of course !

[Pal of Porty]

[little miss moffat]

Email received from Keiza Dugdale, too long to post lol - but took this part out of it: Myself, Sheila and Maureen will write again to the Committee saying that we have received substantial negative feedback to the report from attendees and recognise the error we have made in the attempts to analyse the results. More focus should therefore be given to the raw data.

I have asked for a copy of the proposed letter and new analysis.

[David Robertson]

[little miss moffat]

Yeah, no problem David.

I emailed her last night, along with Maureen Child, the email I have is her response to my email. But will gladly sent it on to you - I just didnt want to put the long email on here lol.

Btw - I am happy to copy and paste the whole email if others want to read it.

[Doris]

Just received this from Kezia Dugdale:

This is just a further note to say that we have now withdrawn the report from the Council and deleted it from our respective websites.

I am personally very sorry that we’ve got to a point where this endeavour, started with the best of intentions, is seen to be potentially damaging the case for a new school on the park and viewed as misrepresenting the views of the community.

I hope you can accept my apology and be assured that my commitment to a new school on the park, as soon as possible, is unstinting.

Kind regards,
Kez Dugdale

[David Robertson]

[Doris]

The conclusions drawn by the report were not backed up statistically. As Sheila Gilmore herself wrote "[The Report] offers a quantitative outcome from what was intended to be, and indeed was a qualitative process.

[neilking]

[little miss moffat]

[little miss moffat]

Just received another email from Maureen Child, have copied and pasted comments re schools:

There is a lot going on at present with very major changes, proposals and issues surrounding schools - Castlebrae, Portobello and St John's RC Primary Schools - which will require a lot of local discussion and debate, consultation and deliberation to get the best possible solutions. I am taking a break for a few days from Friday morning(yes, again!) but I will be back well in time for the full Council Meeting on 26 October. The full report on the way forward Portobello High School and St John's does also refer to the opportunities for a new school in Craigmillar. I have seen and commented upon a draft of the report, the final version of which will be available to the public on http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/cpol by the 20 October. Look out for it.

I am totally committed to doing all I possibly can to help establish excellent new and refurbished schools in the hearts of all our local communities. My very strong preference is still for the 'School in the Park' for Portobello High - a real common good which I firmly believe the vast majority in Portobello and the wider catchment area really do want, even although some are dead set against it and determined that there must have been a reasonable alternative site.

I also want a brand new school in Craigmillar which specialises in science in relation to bioscience and medicine ASAP. And let's remember St John's community will have its own aspirations!

[Mark Cameron]

Kezia Dugdale has confirmed the report has been withdrawn and has apologised.

[wangi]

[David Robertson]

[Porty]

That's not fair David, the meeting was very well run and well intentioned- this is one of the rare occassions where there is total justification for blaming the messenger!

[David Robertson]

[wangi]

[Porty]

David - differing is perfectly okay and I will bow to your experience. I wasn't there, was opining on the basis of what many said- up until the summation!!

[Sceptic]

See what I meant about lack of strategic thought re Education in the East of Edinburgh?

When, and if, they get round to rebuilding around Richmond Church, will they consider Education when they submit plans?

There I go being silly again!

[David Robertson]

[gillian]

Here's what I don't understand, who is actually in the position of saying " right lets go ahead with this line of action, this is the way forward, this is what has to happen next" to get a new PHS
Is it the councillors?, the lawyers? the Education Dept? Are we waiting for one person or a group of people to make a decision? What decision has to be made?
Sorry to be dim, but I have kind of lost the plot, literally!!

[seanie]

Officials are preparing a report for the Council meeting on the 25th. It'll be in the public domain on the 18th. That will set out what options there are for pursuing the school as planned, and alternative sites/strategies, and will make recommendations on what actions to take next. It's for Cllrs to make decisions on that.

[gillian]

Thank you seanie.

[David Robertson]

[seanie]

Having followed this process closely for the last 6 and a half years, I have to say that on the whole I've found that Council officials have handled it pretty well. The consultation on site options back in 2006 was pretty thorough and although there was a bit of a hiatus through 2007-2008 because of finance, from the prioritisation process and selection of PHS as the priority school onwards the project's been handled well. The pre-planning and planning process was very thorough.

[portygeoff]

Cut to the chase Kesia. Private members bill, 6 -9 mths if big Kenny shows his metal and gets the G'ment on board. 2 years to build, new school in under 3 years. Can't see anything quicker. Closest would be be a rebuild on site, plans needed, new place for St John needed, minimum 6 - 8 years if you are lucky.

Plan A on the park via Parliamentary Bill,
Plan B common good disputed in court,
Plan C sell part of park to trust.

[Porty]

[David Robertson]

[little miss moffat]

Finance and Resources Committee report on Common Good Annual Performance 2008/09

Common Good Property
3.8 During the year, the review of Portobello Park and Inch Park was completed and Legal Services Division concluded that these sites should be assets of the Common Good.

http://www.scottishcommons.org/docs/fin ... 090825.pdf

[neilking]

Interesting.

It's significant this report is dated August 2009 - i.e. long after the report of January 2008 referenced in the Dorrian judgement in which the Council concluded there were "facts and circumstances" indicating CG and indeed long after November 2008 when the QCs gave their opinion on the basis of taking it as read that the park was CG.

What on earth was one department of the Council doing "completing reviews" of whether the park was CG when other departments had apparently long since concluded it was CG? Right hand, conspiracy, left hand, cock up?

The scottishcommons.org link in LMM's post suggests Andy Wightman's got something to do this as a few years back he was noising up the Council telling them they ought to include lots of extra properties in their list of CG.

On the subject of Andy Wightman, he's now changed his mind on another common good case - Bught Park in Inverness which Highland Council want to appropriate for a by-pass. See http://www.andywightman.com/?p=373#comments. Seems like AW's having a bit of a patchy record where it comes to advising people to "assert" common good.

[Mark Cameron]

Kezia setting her stall out and making it clear the views at the public meeting where firmly behind a build on the park.

[David Robertson]

[seanie]

It takes time to evaluate options, get legal advice, look at timescales, costs, risks etc. The report that comes out next week will be the result of that and it will make recommendations to Cllrs on what to do next. The Cllrs will then decide on the 25th.