New Portobello High School - planning application

Discussion and debate on the issues affecting Portobello

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby Porty » 26 Nov 2010, 13:55

seanie wrote:Humour value?


Most definitely. Not sure if you were part of the sub-group that wrote the letter, the supportive comments suggest you were. Did the oppo negotiate the use of BOLD with you?

Or did you acively encourage the emphasis, you sleekit devil.
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly
User avatar
Porty
 
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby wangi » 26 Nov 2010, 15:46

seanie wrote:In this instance, genuinely trying to judge the balance of opinion would've been difficult even if the PCC had the structures on place to do so. Letting the two 'extremes' voice their views at least gives soem satisfaction to them that their genuinely held views are expressed to some extent. A third, more middle of the road expression of views might've been welcome but that immediately raises the question of what is the middle of the road?


Well it's very strange that the PCC Chair confirms that the body is a statutory consultee for this planning application and then the ultimate response effectively chucks away that power. Rather than having a measure of the community feeling instead you get two watered down sections which will be in effect a subset of the PFANS and PPAG responses.

I wouldn't have taken too much to ask opinions on the High St; pick 10 names at random out of the electoral register; ...
User avatar
wangi
[admin]
 
Posts: 3436
Joined: 27 May 2004, 10:37

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby seanie » 26 Nov 2010, 18:39

I think we have to move in that direction and we need some element of randomness to avoid results being skewed by particular groups or lobbying. I like the idea of a community e-mail list that can be randomly dipped into to gauge opinion. Couple that with some occassional questionnaires, suggestion boxes and the odd on-line poll and you might get a reasonable idea of where opinion lies, although I think you'd need to get Community Councillors to refrain from trying to influence the results. They really need to adopt a more passive, reflective role; find out what the community thinks first before deciding on a position.
seanie
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby seashell » 26 Nov 2010, 21:24

Pal of Porty wrote:
seanie wrote:The Planning Portal now has the Community Council's response.


Why do many of the 'non-supportive' comments get written in bold? :?


It certainly gives the impression that these are considered more important points. Why isn't the same emphasis given to points in the supporting comments? IMO the use of that style strongly sugggests bias on behalf of PCC, whether this is intentional or not.
seashell
 
Posts: 491
Joined: 01 Feb 2005, 20:41

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby Porty » 04 Dec 2010, 13:57

Still no posting of support or objections on the planning website.

Even although I've always been sure that the Park/Golf Course is the best site for a new school, planning permission is required and that will come down to a decision by the Development Sub-Committee, who are not known for courageous decision making when faced with vociferous objectors. PPAG have undoubtedly been the proactive campaign group; Coffee Mornings, Street Collections, Quiz Nights, Fancy Dress, Park Parties, Seances, door to door canvassing, leaflets etc and they frequently play their trump card: it is an easy sell to garner support to prevent building on a "much loved" Park.

Shameful seems the appropriate way to describe PPAG's claims to speak for the "significant majority" however, the reveal may well be that more people object to, rather than support, a school in the park. If that does turn out to be the case i hope the DMSC have the balls to do the right thing.
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly
User avatar
Porty
 
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby seanie » 04 Dec 2010, 20:08

The reality is that people don't tend to write in if they're in favour, or not bothered by, a planning application. Only the people that are opposed are usually sufficiently motivated.

But then planning committees are aware of that so they shouldn't be surprised if objections outnumber supporting comments; that's what you'd expect.
seanie
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby wangi » 04 Dec 2010, 22:32

seanie wrote:The reality is that people don't tend to write in if they're in favour, or not bothered by, a planning application.

This was the only time i have responded to a planning application, I got the automated reply but not the further confirmation it mentions. Just wondering what the normal timeline is for getting that confirmation?

L/
Last edited by wangi on 06 Dec 2010, 19:53, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Got acknowledgement
User avatar
wangi
[admin]
 
Posts: 3436
Joined: 27 May 2004, 10:37

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby seanie » 17 Dec 2010, 17:44

Some additions have been made to the PPAG website, including the following;

It would be better for all concerned for a little honesty to enter the arguments for building on the Park.


I hope I get a new Irony Meter for Christmas.

My last one exploded.
seanie
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby Porty » 22 Jan 2011, 14:38

processing letter on planning portal wrote:Your application was registered on 30 September 2010. The advertisement date will be 08.10.2010 We acknowledge receipt of your fee of £15950.
As a processing agreement has been signed, the expected determination date is 09.02.2011. This date is subject to review with the agreement of the signatories. It is intended your application will be decided by Committee Decision.



Seanie- does this mean the final decision will be made at committee on Feb 9th?
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly
User avatar
Porty
 
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby seanie » 22 Jan 2011, 15:53

Pretty much. The report should be available from about a week earlier so we should know the Planners' recommendation in little over a week.

If it is approved it'll go to the full council for approval to proceed but that'll just be a formality.
seanie
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby Porty » 23 Jan 2011, 11:59

So the 9th it is- what a day that could be, one way or the other. I wonder if any of our local councillors will pitch up to speak?
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly
User avatar
Porty
 
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby seanie » 23 Jan 2011, 17:23

I might take the day off and go along myself.
seanie
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby Porty » 24 Jan 2011, 20:26

I can't get the day off but I may try and get cover fpr a few hours. Meet in Starbucks at 9ish?
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly
User avatar
Porty
 
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby seanie » 24 Jan 2011, 21:13

I'll pencil that in.
seanie
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby seanie » 26 Jan 2011, 18:28

Just got confirmation that the 9th Feb is the intended date to go to committee.
seanie
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby seanie » 27 Jan 2011, 13:57

Scratch that - it's been changed to the 23rd.
seanie
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby seanie » 12 Feb 2011, 14:21

A timely reminder of the poor condition of Porty High.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Our-school39s-got-a-huge.6716850.jp
seanie
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby Doris » 12 Feb 2011, 19:40

Good grief! I can't believe that I drove past there yesterday and didn't notice that ! :lol: :lol:
Doris
 
Posts: 58
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 17:16

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby SoupDragon » 14 Feb 2011, 11:05

Call The Goodies they may have something to deal with it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J6uUMeAVW8
User avatar
SoupDragon
 
Posts: 2201
Joined: 03 Oct 2006, 11:02

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby Epykat » 14 Feb 2011, 17:50

seanie wrote:A timely reminder of the poor condition of Porty High.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Our-school39s-got-a-huge.6716850.jp



What have mice got to do with poor conditions? I've had mice, my house isn't in a poor condition.
Enough of your nonsense - get back to the Play Pen!
User avatar
Epykat
 
Posts: 3915
Joined: 04 Dec 2003, 22:35
Location: Portobello, Edinburgh

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby seanie » 14 Feb 2011, 18:45

Just a reflection of the poor condition in general.

Hopefully the go ahead for a new school will be forthcoming soon.
seanie
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby seanie » 17 Feb 2011, 12:58

The Report is out.

Recommended for Approval.
seanie
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby Maria » 17 Feb 2011, 13:39

From the report:
A total of 685 representations were received following press advertisement and neighbour notification. Of this total, there were 300 objections, 381 support and 4 general comments.


Wonder when PPAG will stop claiming to be the 'significant majority'??
User avatar
Maria
 
Posts: 4795
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 19:41
Location: Portobello

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby seanie » 17 Feb 2011, 13:56

Some bizarre comments in the Evening News;

Friends of Porty park vow to fight 'illegal' plans for new high school

Chair of the group, Roz Sutherland, said... "We were told the initial 'consultation' was educational, and it wasn't appropriate for us to discuss choice of site at that stage and the opportunity would come later."


The initial consultation, back in 2006, was about THE CHOICE OF SITE.

Public meetings were held about THE CHOICE OF SITE.

People were invited to comment on THE CHOICE OF SITE.

Comments were collated in a report detailing people's views on THE CHOICE OF SITE.

What on earth was the consultation about if it wasn't about THE CHOICE OF SITE?
seanie
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby Porty » 17 Feb 2011, 22:14

How did the Councillors' park visit go today? Certainly seems like the fog hasn't yet lifted for PPAG they still can't see things the way they really are.

381 for a school in the park and 300 against- That is very pleasing. Seems like there is just one hurdle to get over for the thousands that genuinely would like to see a new school for Portobello.

I find it quite amazing that there has recently been two planning applications in Portobello attracting significantly more public support than objections. First of all there was Bellfield Lane and now the School. Let's hope the Councillors remain consistent and unanimoulsy choose to vote FOR
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly
User avatar
Porty
 
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby wangi » 18 Feb 2011, 09:58

All of the support, object and general comments are now up on the planning portal:

Planning and Building Standards Portal, Case File: 10/02830/FUL
User avatar
wangi
[admin]
 
Posts: 3436
Joined: 27 May 2004, 10:37

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby rmolehusband » 18 Feb 2011, 15:07

wangi wrote:All of the support, object and general comments are now up on the planning portal


Not that I read them all, but I happened to notice that a comment from one Susan McVie is listed as an objection when it reads to me like a supporting comment.

(http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... =526559487 - long email somewhere in the middle [admin: on page 19])

How accurate is the 381 to 300 figure supposed to be, and doesn't 382 to 299 sound better?

Anyway, a good result, and great work on the petition Seanie.
Last edited by rmolehusband on 18 Feb 2011, 15:39, edited 1 time in total.
rmolehusband
 
Posts: 205
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 13:12
Location: Porty

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby wangi » 18 Feb 2011, 15:09

Also "protocol for the meeting":
Protocol for the hearing

Introduction

The Council is committed to extending public involvement in the planning process. Hearings allow members of the public to have the opportunity to put their views on planning applications direct to the Councillors on the Development Management Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee members have the report on the application, which contains a summary of the comments received. Copies of the actual letters are available for Councillors to view. The Sub-Committee members have had the opportunity to visit the site.

For this meeting three groups will be heard and each will have 10 minutes to make their points. The time limit will be strictly enforced and speakers will be advised when they have 1 minute left.

Speakers should keep to "material planning matters" that the Sub-Committee can take into account. Any visual material must be submitted to the Head of Legal and Administrative Services at least 24 hours before the meeting (telephone (0131) 529 4230). Speakers will not be able to use other visual aids or to distribute handouts except for a transcript of presentations.

The Process

1. Presentation of the report on the application by the Head of Planning 10.00 am
2. Representations by the Portobello Community Council 10.20 am
3. Representations by the Portobello Park Action Group 10.30 am
4. Representations by the Towerbank School Council 10.40 am
5. Questions by members to the representatives I Head of Planning 10.50 am
(note: timing as approximate beyond this point)
6. Presentation by the applicant 11.10 am
7. Questions by members to the applicant I Head of Planning 11.20 am
8. Comments (if any) by local Ward Member(s) 11.30 am
9. Debate and decision by the Sub-Committee 11.40 am

Decisions will generally be to approve or refuse. Conditions of approval or reasons for refusal may be considered at a subsequent meeting. If the application is continued for further information, the Hearing will not be reopened at a later stage, and contributors will not be invited to speak again. In such cases, the public can attend the meeting to observe the discussion from the gallery.

Alastair Maclean
Head of Legal and Administrative Services
Attachments
devsub_23.02.11_10.00am_item_03.pdf
(5.26 MiB) Downloaded 61 times
User avatar
wangi
[admin]
 
Posts: 3436
Joined: 27 May 2004, 10:37

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby Porty » 18 Feb 2011, 15:43

Some of the objectors concerns are legitimate but the majority of their objections have litle or nothing to do with a planning decision.
I confess I am enjoying browsing the objections. i equate it to having several issues of Viz (in its pomp) delivered all at one time.
Resident of Park Avenue wrote:
Dear Sir

Although I think I am wasting my time as I have been informed that you have already placed the pipes for the new school. I have also been informed by a lawyer that you are going ahead with the school whatever happens.............Also as a council I believe you have been very underhand with this issue so what's new.



I wonder what on earth makes her think she is wasting her time with this letter?
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly
User avatar
Porty
 
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby rmolehusband » 18 Feb 2011, 15:51

wangi wrote:Also "protocol for the meeting":
2. Representations by the Portobello Community Council 10.20 am
3. Representations by the Portobello Park Action Group 10.30 am
4. Representations by the Towerbank School Council 10.40 am


It's pretty clear what way #3 will go, and I'm guessing #4 will speak strongly in favour, but what of our own dear community council. Is there any chance that it will fairly reflect the views of the community, both for and against, or will the temptation of addressing the planning committee prove too much and the veneer of impartiality will slip? What's the spoken equivalent of bold type - will the supporting views delivered in a quiet tone while the opposing views are delivered as if by Brian Blessed himself?
rmolehusband
 
Posts: 205
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 13:12
Location: Porty

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby Porty » 18 Feb 2011, 17:01

Have you seen the EN today? The chair of PCC is making it pretty clear what he thinks "The fact that Portobello Park is also common good land makes this decision even more regrettable."

I wondered the same as you. If his speech echoes the PCC written submission I expect him to shout out the negatives and whisper the positives. :shock:
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly
User avatar
Porty
 
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby Bob Jefferson » 18 Feb 2011, 17:27

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinb ... 6720394.jp
New school passes key test
By GEMMA FRASER, Education Reporter
THE first images of the proposed new Portobello High School were released today, as it emerged the controversial plans have been recommended for the go-ahead.
The project has created a divide amongst Portobello residents for years, with campaigns to stop the new school being built on Portobello Park running alongside those to replace the crumbling 1960s building in Duddingston Road.

The council's planning department has received a total of 685 representations from people with an interest in the development, with support for the application narrowly overtaking the number of objections at 381 submissions.

While the supporters welcome the improved facilities, the objections include the loss of open space, traffic congestion, the issue of the park being common good land and the "poor design" of the new school.

The £41.5 million high school is due to open in January 2014, if the planning application goes through as recommended by officials.

It is set to become Edinburgh's first "golf academy" and will feature two all-weather pitches and a 25-metre swimming pool for use by pupils and the local community.

In his report recommending councillors approve the plans, John Bury, head of planning, said the benefits of a new school outweighed the loss of open space in the park.

...
Last edited by wangi on 18 Feb 2011, 17:39, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: to add quote of start of article
User avatar
Bob Jefferson
 
Posts: 6208
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby wangi » 18 Feb 2011, 17:38

Porty wrote:Have you seen the EN today? The chair of PCC is making it pretty clear what he thinks "The fact that Portobello Park is also common good land makes this decision even more regrettable."

Erm, to be fair that's with him "wearing the hat" as Chair of Portobello Amenity Society; not in any capacity as Chair of PCC.

It's perfectly reasonable for two bodies to have the same Chair and come to different stances, reflecting the views of the relevant members / community.

They just need to remember which hat is which!
User avatar
wangi
[admin]
 
Posts: 3436
Joined: 27 May 2004, 10:37

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby Maria » 18 Feb 2011, 20:45

rmolehusband wrote:
wangi wrote:All of the support, object and general comments are now up on the planning portal


Not that I read them all, but I happened to notice that a comment from one Susan McVie is listed as an objection when it reads to me like a supporting comment.

(http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... =526559487 - long email somewhere in the middle [admin: on page 19])

How accurate is the 381 to 300 figure supposed to be, and doesn't 382 to 299 sound better?

Anyway, a good result, and great work on the petition Seanie.



See the Council portal has now been updated to show Professor McVie's letter as a comment of support. Well spotted, rmolehusband.
User avatar
Maria
 
Posts: 4795
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 19:41
Location: Portobello

Re: New Portobello High School - planning application

Postby Porty » 19 Feb 2011, 11:51

wangi wrote:
Porty wrote:Have you seen the EN today? The chair of PCC is making it pretty clear what he thinks "The fact that Portobello Park is also common good land makes this decision even more regrettable."

Erm, to be fair that's with him "wearing the hat" as Chair of Portobello Amenity Society; not in any capacity as Chair of PCC.

It's perfectly reasonable for two bodies to have the same Chair and come to different stances, reflecting the views of the relevant members / community.

They just need to remember which hat is which!


I totally agree butthe Chairperson himself told us what his position is. You may recall that the Porty Reporter recently asked him to pen a piece on the role and activities of the Portobello Amenity Society. And he informed us:

Chairperson of Portobello Amenity Society wrote:“PAS is represented on Portobello Community Council and monitors new planning applications and responds on its behalf”


PHS is a new planning application and he claims PAS have a mandate for PCC to respond to such applications on its behalf. He clearly believes, is prepared to publically state that there is in fact just one head and one hat. In the EN he is quoted on behalf of PAS he, and he alone, also tells ut that PAS respond on behalf of PCC. I therefore think its reasonable to surmise that he believes he is speaking for both groups. Why else would he inform the Portobello community that PAS were tasked to represent them in response to new planning applications?
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly
User avatar
Porty
 
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

PreviousNext

Return to Portobello Matters

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


cron