New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[Bob Jefferson]

[Maria]

[Pal of Porty]

[Mark Cameron]

This is absolutely ridiculous. When are the next community council election due - any member of PPAG who sits on the community council should not be surprised to find they are not re-elected next time round for this utter disgrace against the children of Portobello. There may have been apathy in the past about the members of the CC but that won't be the case next time. I'm f'ing raging at this lot - show some dignity PPAG and give up!

[Betty Windsor]

From the EN website - the story so far in a nutshell .....

BRING BACK THE OLD WEBSITE
Monday, April 2, 2012 at 10:11 AM

STEP 1: Sell the land that the current school is on ------------------------------STEP 2: Steal common good land to build the school in a different location---------------------------------------------------------------STEP 3: Look all innocent and tell a pack of lies to get parents and their wee angels to go and batter the people who are protesting about us taking common good land. -------------------------------------------STEP 4: Use this as a green light to have talks with developers and size up all the other green belt land whilst selling off school properties in valuable locations. -------------------------------------------------------STEP 5: Lose the hospitality records (done this before and got away with it).

[seanie]

The current school site hasn't been sold and a decision has yet been made on what to do with it. As for the Park, Common Good assets are legally owned by the Council to be used to the benefit of the Community. Schools don't conflict with that Common Good purpose. The land will still be Common Good and no sale or disposal occurs.

[seanie]

As already explained, a report went to full Council back in March '10 that recommended the future sale of the site for further investment in the Wave 3 schools. The Councillors didn't accept this aspect of the report and so no final decision has been made on the existing site. The departmental view almost certainly remains that a capital receipt would be the preferred option, but that's not their decision to make. The decision has to be made by Councillors.

[seanie]

As it happens the St John's site is about half the size it should be so an opportunity will arise for it to be refurbished or re-built on an expanded site. However, since the PPAG appeal could have the knock on effect of preventing the Council for bidding for additional funds, any such capital investment could be delayed considerably.

[Betty Windsor]

Re Friday's "mass demonstration".
I hope that permission was sought and a full risk assessment carried out. Is the risk assessment available to the wider public?

I am very excited to announce that I will be conducting tours around Magdalene and the Christians. These will be of an informal nature lasting around half an hour with a question and answer session at the end. I would invite any Porty/Joppa parent who, hitherto has not stepped foot into the area to join me.
I will post details of dates and times in due course.

Watch this space.

[Lashylass]

Another quote from the Evening News:-
116tartantt
Monday, April 2, 2012 at 12:14 AM Councillor Marilyne MacLaren is quoted as saying that she is "extremely angry, & talks of a misguided few having no rationality or logic, & being obsessive" She also talks of putting the education & wellbeing of the children before the Park, & speaks of the protectors of Portobello Park as having lost their moral compass. She also speaks of the Court action as a petty spoiling exercise. This lady has lost the plot, weeks before she loses her seat on the Council. As if her part in the trams overspend & overrun was not enough, she wants to run roughshod over the wishes of the people of Portobello, & destroy their historic greenspace. Historic it is, as it dates back to the absorption of Portobello's Council, in to Edinburgh in 1896, & was designated as perpetual green space for the common good. The only plan that this Council seem to have, is to build on green space, & sell off the common good assets that belong to the people, as witness the proposed "sale" of the Waverley Market site, (Common Good land again) to Sir David Murray of Ibrox fame. Let people be in no doubt, that the Council will build house on the whole of the remaining Park, if they get away with this school nonsense. That was their original plan, (documentary evidence exists) as they planned to build a new golf course at the border with Musselburgh. This in addition to houses on the present school site. The present school site is larger in area, than Musselburgh Grammar, with a similar school role, & they have a grass pitch. Had the Council not been so obstinate, then the rebuilt school on the present site, would now be operational! So, just who is misguided & jeopordising the education & well being of the children? It is you, Councillor MacLaren, who has lost your moral compass in spectacular style. It is not good enough for councillors, who are in a position of such power for such a short period of time, to get away with taking decisions which resound long after they have gone. E.G. Those councillors who were responsible for building the current High School on the old playing fields, heralded as the all singing, all dancing new super duper answer to the educational needs of Portobello. Fast forward 50 years, & it is regarded as unfit for purpose. Value for money? I dont think so. Dont repeat the mistake, & dont go short term. Were the school ever to be located to the Park, then the main proponents should be held responsible for the death of pupils caused by the location on the A1. 1300 children spilling out on to this major artery is an accident waiting to happen, & either councillor MacLaren or councillor Child, or both, should have their personal liberty used as surety. I.E Jail them when the first predictable death occurs. Can I suggest, that, if any one doubts the importance of the centuries old common good in Scotland, then look it up on the internet. It has been sucessfully defended by councillors of all persuations until now. Political pygmies now. Finally, to say that taking Court action is a "petty spoiling exercise" Makes me wonder about Councillor MacLaren's state of mind. Surely she MUST know that the personal sacrafices made by ordinary civic minded people forced to spend time & money to protect the green spaces that belong to all of us. She, on the otjher hand, has nothing to lose, as the council has wasted money, (Ours!) & time, forcing their will, rather than rebuilding on site. It is David v Goliath. The most vociferous supporters for turning our Park in to a concrete jungle, are Estate Agents! That tells it's own story.
Report Unsuitable

[Maria]

Ho hum. More of the same paranoid, council-bashing, delusional rantings. Says it all, doesn't it?

[Pal of Porty]

[Porty]

[Porty]

[seashell]

[Epykat]

[seanie]

PPAG must be hoping that judges don't read the press.

Imagine a judge reads PPAG's claims about the recent ruling giving the green light to the sale of Common Good assets with impunity. They might then have a look at Lady Dorrian's judgement, only to find that no, the case has nothing to do with the sale of Commin Good land at all. They'll even read of PPAG's QC arguing that the proposal most certainly wasn't a disposal. What provisional conclusions might a judge form from that?

A) That PPAG are too stupid to understand their own QC's arguments? Or;

B) PPAG will tell any old lies to support their cause?

[seashell]

I'll have a g&t if it's on offer, Porty!

[seanie]

[seanie]

Come to think of it, PPAG's legal counsel might not be too chuffed. There's PPAG, spreading absolute nonsense about the recent ruling opening the floodgates to the sale of Common Good land, and an outside observer might conclude that PPAG's legal counsel had told them that was the implication of the ruling. And if that was the case one could only conclude that PPAG's legal advisors were idiots.

[Makaveli]

My kids probably won't go to the new school but as a right minded person I can see that even though the park would not be my number one choice for the school (or any school on any park) - in these circumstances it is the best option. Only 25% of the park is going to be used for the school so that is a good thing no?

And the fact that the rest of the park will be getting an upgrade with new paths for joggers and dog walkers alike then it really is the best solution allround.

[seanie]

[seanie]

[Makaveli]

Careful seashell cos now Betty will be out looking for anyone wearing a fluffy pink duffel coat walking a dog!!!

[wangi]

admin: posts related to "Big W" have been split to . Posts regarding speculation of a user's identity have been removed - please remember our .

[storky]

[gillian]

[Pal of Porty]

[Pal of Porty]

[seanie]

[Betty Windsor]

[Betty Windsor]

[Betty Windsor]

Seanie - Have you received any remuneration directly or indirectly from the council for consultancy work connected with the new high school?

[seanie]

No. I'm not even a consultant. Who feeds you this tripe?

[Mark Cameron]

Heading towards 1000 signatures on the petition for PPAG to drop their appeal with names of those in our community in favour being shown openly. Where is PPAGs list of members against the school - are they willing to stick their names down and show the rest of the community who (and how many) are blocking this development?