New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[tufty]

Well said sceptic. I agree we all have the right to fight for what we believe in but there comes a time when most good citizens realise their desires have to be put aside for the greater good.

I hope people from all of Edinburgh are aware of what PPAG are costing us, not just in money but in lost opportunity and community spirit.

[Maria]

[Mark Cameron]

[wangi]

[lg1726]

[joeshmoe]

Can i suggest we ALL contact the Edinburgh councillors again and demand they pursue PPAG for court costs

The reason being is this is all just costing our taxpayer money

[Mark Cameron]

[Porty]

I thought he did a great job too. So did Malcolm Bett, Richard Brassington, the lady that took her daughter away for homework.......loads of people did. The one I fear for is "Wendy" who asked about the merit in placing the loss of a bit greenspace above children and education.. Diana asked for her name and then used it like the Master from Dr Who, chilling.

In my view DC's a nutjob and nasty with it. A future PCC Councillor?

[Sceptic]

Porty, you've noticed it too! As I said earlier, bully of the washouse!
As to previous posters pointing out that other areas may be onther community councils, but as I said, PHS is in PCC's area. What gives PCC the monopoly on this issue?
Will the PCC resign over the issue? Certainly not, they have their litttle bit of power and, far from being intimidated, use intimidation against others.How could you pass a motion of no confidence when the Chairman and his minions would never, on last night's performance, put it to the vote.
Could another Special meeting of the PCC be called with the motion that "This House has no confidence in the Portobello Community Council Members now sitting"? Possibly, but they would hold it in such a way, as last night's, that the vote would never be put.

[Maria]

[seanie]

Also PPAG are represented on Portobello Community Council but no others. So the the issue has drawn the PCC in to an extent that other relevant Community Councils haven't been.

[Makaveli]

The amount of representation on PCC of PPAG members is staggering to say the least!!!

I still can't believe that EC let this be allowed.

[Porty]

I think its time EC stepped in to help us. The liason office that oversees the city's community councils must have a very difficult job and they likely bat as much ofthe workload back to the Chairs. After all, they are the people closest to the issues and generally speaking will be fair and reasonable. In our case, up until now, EC have been complicit accessories to aid our CC in manufacturing community opinion about their "pet" planning applications etc.

The situation on Thursday was truly unbelievable. The Chair claims EC granted him the power to thwart the various requests the community had for PPAG. It flies in the face of the councillors' and the Chair's code of conduct. So either the chair is lying, or perhaps misinterpreted, the advice he got. Alternatively, EC set up a community council's as a channel for community views and then legal services told the chair it was up to him and only him, whether the community's request could be fulfilled. Which seems odd at best and perverse at worst.

Come on EC help us out here. Get someone to investigate a few of the planning responses from PCC since the current incumbent took the chair.(We can point you in the right direction) It is scandolous what's going on down here.

[Sceptic]

Perhaps I am not ex[laining myself correctly.
Yes, the school, at present is outwith the PCC Area, and, indeed, the new one will be.
But, PCC, in it's seeming defence of PPAG denies people who have no say in the matter because they live outwith PCC's area, the opportunity to state the case on behalf of their children.
The PCC should not be backing PPAG because of this. Before anyone says they are not, this is based on visual evidence of Thursday when the main shakers and movers of PPAG dictated how the meeting was run.
The proposition which was the reason for the Special meeting in the first place was ignored. All, so it seemed, was a resolute defence of PPAG. It could never in a thousand years be described as even handed, it was biased.

May one direct residents to the vote of "no confidence" in PCC on this site.

[Mark Cameron]

I don't intend to let this matter lie and hope the 200+ residents are of the same mind.

The decision John Stewart took on Thursday was a cop out. I have no beef with John himself as he and the amenity society have done a great deal of good for our community. However Thursday demonstrated to me that John is not fit for purpose as chair of our community council. I think there is an unhealthy influence from elsewhere in the group being brought to bear on him.

This is a direct lift of the first paragraph of the PCC website:

The Community Council is here to represent the residents & traders of Portobello. We try to take the majority view about local issues.

If you attended on Thursday youll know John did everything possible to say the PCC was responsible for representing all views. Which is it John? The statement above seems clear enough to me?

I think John should consider his position as chair which i believe is now untenable as a direct result of 'his choice' on how to handle the PFANS petition at the PCC meeting.

I will be emailing John to suggest this via the PCC website - http://www.portobellocc.org/contactus.html

You might wish to do the same?

[lg1726]

[Bob Jefferson]

[SheilaGilmore]

Edinburgh Labour has supported the building of a new Portobello High School for many years. We are satisfied that, after extensive investigation of potential sites, the proposal for building the new school at Portobello Park was the best option. This has been through extensive design and planning consultation. We respect the fact that there are people who have exercised their democratic right to oppose the plans, but we regret the delays that have been caused by the fact that a legal challenge (talked about from the outset) was made so late in the process. The three candidates below and the MP attended the demonstration at Portobello Park in April and Ewan Aitken sent his apologies and message of support. We are also committed to the retention of the golf course and have supported the return of the site of the old school to green space (subject to any use which could be made of part of the land for the benefit of St John's

Sheila Gilmore MP
Cllr Maureen Child (and Scottish Labour canidate for Portobello Craigmillar)
Cllr Ewan Aitken
Joan Griffiths - Scottish Labour candidate for Craigentinny Duddingston
Alexander Lunn - Scottish Labour candidate for Craigentinny Duddingston

admin: some council election related posts moved to

[Porty]

I believe there's a court hearing about cost allocation coming up in the next week or so. Know the date, who will be the judge and where, anyone?

[lg1726]

[Porty]

On a more basic level. Ros Sutherland told us the Golf Course was under threat, due to budget constraints. This is a real concern to PPAG. They are so concerned they're burning the City's cash with a futile legal case.

[lg1726]

And what else is likely to be under threat across all of Edinburgh and they are hell bent on frittering the over stretched budget on this legal challenge. Every single penny needed by CEC to go to court over this is money taken from core services - let's not forget that! For all of Edinburgh's tax payers!!!

[Bob Jefferson]

So, in effect, the only real threat to the Golf Course is from PPAG. How seven iron(ic) is that?

[seanie]

[Chas]

[Pal of Porty]

[Porty]

[Pal of Porty]

....And as for the word justice! The basis for the PPAG campaign is nothing more than NIMBYism disguised under a mask of environmentalism. Even now after the court ruling a malicious time delaying appeal has bean launched despite PPAG being in the significant minority in the community.

[Makaveli]

That is the worst part for me the NIMBYism. How on earth can they dress this up as an environmental campaign when THEY HAVE SUGGESTED OTHER PARKS to build the school on????!!!! It is so hypocritical and deluded that it makes you wonder about the state of mind of these people.

But as has been said before they have told so many lies I don't think they can keep up with them anymore!!!

[Mark Cameron]

Alledgedly Steven Hawkins may be looking to join the PCC. This should not be allowed to happen after the embarrasing and utterly disgraceful attempt to tell the 200 people sat in front of him at Thursday's meeting that the high school is in a good enough state to allow it to be used for a good few years yet.

Also pressure must be brought to bear on the current PCC PPAG supporters to leave the PCC.

I saw a copy of a very interesting letter to CEC today.

It states that under the terms of the Scheme for community councils an individual taking legal action on behalf of a segment of the community can't continue to serve on the CC if they continue to take legal action.

The fact that PPAG is an unincorporated association and as such has no legal identityin Scots Law. As such it can't raise legal action in its own right. Ergo its the members of PPAG who raise the action and consequently them individually who are sueing CEC (and being counter sued).

So seems to me that the bottom line is that these members can either cease the legal action or remove themselves immediately from the community council.

Why not write to the PCC chair and ask for 'his' take on this - I certainly will be.

[lg1726]

mcdryburn - do you have a reference for the bit about a CC member being in breach of the scheme for CCs? I have looked through the online stuff for CCs and can't find it, but would like to write and refer if possible.

[joeshmoe]

Can anyone confirm if CEC are definitely pursuing PPAG for the court costs and a bond for the next hearing?

They said thy would be but im sure i heard this may not be the case?

Financial pressure is the only way they will give up, if CEC aren't pursuing these costs i'll be contacting my Councillor again

[lg1726]

[arbie69]

lg1726, I think this is what you are looking for.

Dear XXXX

Having reviewed the relevant legislation, it seems clear to me that from
the date that PPAG decided to raise legal action against City of Edinburgh
Council the picture changed radically. You may be aware that an
unincorporated association like PPAG has no legal identity in Scots Law. As
such, it cannot raise legal action in its own right. It is the members of
PPAG who raise action. Consequently, any member of PPAG is now personally
suing CEC and being personally countersued for costs in respect of the
legal action.

As such, if you follow the terms set out in the Scheme for Community
Councils laid down by Edinburgh City Council, any member of a community
council who is also taking legal action on behalf of a segment of the
community must make a stark choice. Continue with the legal action or
remove themselves from community council membership.

You will be well aware that the Scheme for Community Councils requires that
community council members must:-

. - Establish and reflect, through the community council, the views of the
community as a whole, on any issue, irrespective of personal opinion.

- Take decisions solely in terms of the interest of the community that you
represent. You must not use your position as a community councillor to gain
financial, material, political or other personal benefit for yourself,
family or friends.

- Declare any any private and/or personal interests in a matter for the
community council and . . .withdraw from discussions and the decision
making process with regard to that matter.

- You must not place yourself under any financial or other obligation to
any individual or organisation that might reasonably be thought to
influence you in your representation of your community.

- In carrying out public business, including award of grants or decisions
regarding planning applications you should make decisions on merit and on
the basis of information which is publicly known.

It is therefore clearly the case that any member of Portobello Community
Council who is also a member of PPAG must make the choice to either
continue as a member of the PPAG group or stand down as a public official.

I am aware of three members who fit this description. Ros Sutherland, Diana
Cairns and Archie Burns. There may well be others.

No one would like to see free speech stifled, nor would we advocate
anything which prevents freedom of association, but unfortunately the rules
and regulations as laid down in the Scheme for Community Councils do not
allow for a community council member to take legal action on behalf of just
one segment of the community. Simply put, in taking legal action, they can
no longer be seen to be acting objectively on behalf of the whole
community, nor can they seen to be free from obligation to any individual
organisation that might reasonably be thought to influence their
representation of the community.

It is vital that you act quickly on this matter to maintain the integrity
of Portobello Community Council."

[lg1726]