New Portobello High School - planning application

[Pal of Porty]

[wangi]

I'd imagine it's the writing style of the person who wrote that section; compare with the .

The problem with a representation like that from Portobello Community Council is that it delivers the view of both PFANS and PPAG - the two extremes of the community view - rather than the views of the community. I would imagine the majority of people in the Portobello High School catchment have views that are somewhat between the two camps - but I've not canvassed for those views; but neither have PCC.

L/

[seanie]

It's a difficulty, but the consensus position isn't necessarily between two extremes. That's one of the problems of 'balance' in conventional news reporting; a minority view can be given disproportionate air time or space, be it on the topic of MMR or Climate Change.

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?

[Bob Jefferson]

Hilarious! Why did they bother? The views of PFANS and PPAG are already represented. What purpose does it serve to weld them together into this pointless Frankenstein letter?

[seanie]

Humour value?

[Porty]

[wangi]

[seanie]

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.

[seashell]

[Porty]

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.

[seanie]

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.

[wangi]

[seanie]

[Porty]

[seanie]

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.

[Porty]

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?

[seanie]

I might take the day off and go along myself.

[Porty]

I can't get the day off but I may try and get cover fpr a few hours. Meet in Starbucks at 9ish?

[seanie]

I'll pencil that in.

[seanie]

Just got confirmation that the 9th Feb is the intended date to go to committee.

[seanie]

Scratch that - it's been changed to the 23rd.

[seanie]

A timely reminder of the poor condition of Porty High.

[Doris]

Good grief! I can't believe that I drove past there yesterday and didn't notice that !

[SoupDragon]

Call The Goodies they may have something to deal with it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J6uUMeAVW8

[Epykat]

[seanie]

Just a reflection of the poor condition in general.

Hopefully the go ahead for a new school will be forthcoming soon.

[seanie]

The is out.

Recommended for Approval.

[Maria]

[seanie]

[Porty]

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

[wangi]

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

[rmolehusband]

[wangi]

[Porty]

[rmolehusband]