New Portobello High School - PPAG/"Save Porty Park"

[Makaveli]

Got back from a month abroad today and drove past Porty Park today - was once again not unsurprised to see the park had one person on it (walking a dog) and no-one else!!!

It was 24 degrees according to the temp gauge in the car and the sun was out - so where were all the park users? And Mrs Makaveli tells me the schools are off so why were there no kids playing on it? Could it be there are better parks in and around Porty?

[seanie]

I'm sure when they look at your facebook page and see the Michael Jackson videos and attacks on me the donations will come rolling in. However we still have some points of clarification Save Porty Park/saveportypark;

Why, in defence of their claim that the Council's 'traffic survey described the A1 as a minor road’, have the Portobello Park Action Group cited a document that a) isn't a traffic survey and b) doesn't describe the A1 as a minor road?

Why have the Portobello Park Action Group provided three incompatible claims regarding the document containing this claim?

a)“What Sean has in his hands has NEVER been printed by PPAG. It was on our facebook page for a very short time (as confirmed by Sean Watters and others), its' purpose was to get feedback from supporters”

b)“Sean is holding a poster put up around the park, it was not handed round schools “

c)“we used the image on a poster but the text was different - that is why I know the version Sean has did not come from us”?

What are the developments that the Portobello Park Action Group claim have been planned for Figgate & Quarry Parks in recent months?

Why have the Portobello Park Action Group said that “the council stand to make a significant profit from the sale of the existing school site to property developers but have not said how this will be spent” when the council has indeed said how it will be spent; for capital investment in the school estate, specifically the remaining Wave 3 schools?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group say they oppose development on any green space, when the Portobello Park Action Group have suggested Bingham Park, Jewel Park and Greenbelt land as suitable alternatives for the high school?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group say it would be possible to build on the former Lismore School site without the loss of any green space, when that would mean moving the school from a site that's only 40% of the recommended minimum, to one that's only 20% of the recommended minimum?

How do the Portobello Park Action Group propose to fit a secondary school of 1400 pupils onto the site of a primary school built for 270 without losing any green space on Bingham Park?

When asking for donations for the Portobello Park Action Group legal case, why do they never mention to people that the established legal precedent is that permission from the courts is not required to develop schools on Common Good land?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group never explain to people that rulings from the Courts of Session have established that, since the land remains in council ownership and is used to the continuing benefit of the community, schools are compatible with the Common Good status and no permission from the Courts is required to proceed?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group state that “the Golf Course will be lost if the school is built on the Park” when the original high school sat close to the park quite happily for several decades?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group state that “housing will be built on the course” when there are no such proposals and such a development would be incompatible with the Common Good status of the land?

Since the Portobello Park Action Group profess concern about “the possibility of children being knocked down by speeding vehicles on Milton Road”, why have the Portobello Park Action Group spent the last three years promoting Lismore as a better site, when that would result in a fourfold increase in the number of children having to cross it?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group say that the school will result in the "loss of 25% of our precious parkland" when there are over 52Ha of parks in the local area, and the school and playing fields won't even take up 5Ha?

And have the Portobello Park Action Group found the Council’s traffic survey yet?

[seanie]

[Epykat]

[seanie]

[rmolehusband]

[Epykat]

[seanie]

It was your claim. I merely disputed it. It's for you to justify.

[wangi]

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

Provide evidence for your claim that according to me all those who opposes the school on the park are "stupid, dense, thick, lying NIMBYs who have no right to defend a 'dog's toilet' or dare to question how wonderful this is all going to be for the 'poor suffering children' and the WHOLE community. "

[Epykat]

[Epykat]

[seanie]

So you could substantiate your accusation, but you won't because you can't be bothered?

Well that's me trumped. Who'd've thought you'd come up with such a devastating reply. Well done.

[Epykat]

[seanie]

Fine. But is there any reason you should be taken seriously? If you're just going to say things without justification, that's fairly vacuous.

[seanie]

We're also straying from the meat of the issue at hand;

Why, in defence of their claim that the Council's 'traffic survey described the A1 as a minor road’, have the Portobello Park Action Group cited a document that a) isn't a traffic survey and b) doesn't describe the A1 as a minor road?

Why have the Portobello Park Action Group provided three incompatible claims regarding the document containing this claim?

a)“What Sean has in his hands has NEVER been printed by PPAG. It was on our facebook page for a very short time (as confirmed by Sean Watters and others), its' purpose was to get feedback from supporters”

b)“Sean is holding a poster put up around the park, it was not handed round schools “

c)“we used the image on a poster but the text was different - that is why I know the version Sean has did not come from us”?

What are the developments that the Portobello Park Action Group claim have been planned for Figgate & Quarry Parks in recent months?

Why have the Portobello Park Action Group said that “the council stand to make a significant profit from the sale of the existing school site to property developers but have not said how this will be spent” when the council has indeed said how it will be spent; for capital investment in the school estate, specifically the remaining Wave 3 schools?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group say they oppose development on any green space, when the Portobello Park Action Group have suggested Bingham Park, Jewel Park and Greenbelt land as suitable alternatives for the high school?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group say it would be possible to build on the former Lismore School site without the loss of any green space, when that would mean moving the school from a site that's only 40% of the recommended minimum, to one that's only 20% of the recommended minimum?

How do the Portobello Park Action Group propose to fit a secondary school of 1400 pupils onto the site of a primary school built for 270 without losing any green space on Bingham Park?

When asking for donations for the Portobello Park Action Group legal case, why do they never mention to people that the established legal precedent is that permission from the courts is not required to develop schools on Common Good land?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group never explain to people that rulings from the Courts of Session have established that, since the land remains in council ownership and is used to the continuing benefit of the community, schools are compatible with the Common Good status and no permission from the Courts is required to proceed?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group state that “the Golf Course will be lost if the school is built on the Park” when the original high school sat close to the park quite happily for several decades?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group state that “housing will be built on the course” when there are no such proposals and such a development would be incompatible with the Common Good status of the land?

Since the Portobello Park Action Group profess concern about “the possibility of children being knocked down by speeding vehicles on Milton Road”, why have the Portobello Park Action Group spent the last three years promoting Lismore as a better site, when that would result in a fourfold increase in the number of children having to cross it?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group say that the school will result in the "loss of 25% of our precious parkland" when there are over 52Ha of parks in the local area, and the school and playing fields won't even take up 5Ha?

And have the Portobello Park Action Group found the Council’s traffic survey yet?

[wangi]

[saveportypark]

God - It's all getting a bit heated. Sean, thanks for repeating all your complaints/comments about the whole flier issue but we've kind of been there before. I was sort of hoping you might have answered the question rather than just rant on. I have explained the reason for differing quotes relating to the leaflet but I will repeat them. What Sean is brandishing wason the Save Porty Park facebook site for comments by other members, it was quickly removed (a point gloatingly confirmed by Sean and others) and has only been used as a poster with different text, never distributed at schools. So how did this become an Evening News story? As I asked did you print it off yourself Sean or has someone else lied to you and left you looking a bit silly? If it was someone else why don't you ask them to post what actually happened to back up your story? If you're going to call people liar you had better be squeaky clean yourself.

[seanie]

[seanie]

You've reverted to admitting that the item in question was posted on your facebook site but only "for comments by other members". Here's a suggestion; if you don't intend your 'productions' to be open to public scrutiny, don't post them on Facebook.

Because once you've put it in the public domain you've lost control. Even if you weren't ready to distribute the poster, how can you be sure a sympathiser didn't print it off and hand it out themselves?

[seanie]

As to how I came across your propaganda...

I was not on the school run the day leaflets were being handed out. I was first told about it by either text or e-mail. I was subsequently given a crumped A4 copy of the "poster" in dispute. My focus was on the lie about the Council's traffic survey rather than the image,

And you still haven't squared your incompatible claims;

a)“What Sean has in his hands has NEVER been printed by PPAG. It was on our facebook page for a very short time (as confirmed by Sean Watters and others), its' purpose was to get feedback from supporters”

b)“Sean is holding a poster put up around the park, it was not handed round schools “

c)“we used the image on a poster but the text was different - that is why I know the version Sean has did not come from us”?

[seanie]

So what about this other flyer of yours and the "loss of 25% of our precious parkland" claim?

Rosefield Park - 1.34Ha
Brighton Park - 0.86Ha
Abercorn Park - 0.79Ha
Bingham Park - 3.88Ha
Jewel Park - 11.46Ha
Portobello Community Garden - 0.13Ha
Straiton Park - 0.35Ha
Joppa Quarry Park - 2.42Ha
Figgate Park - 10.97Ha
Portobello Park - 20.00Ha

That’s over 52Ha of local parks. The school and playing fields won't even take up 5Ha.

So go on saveportypark, tell us which local parks you're ignoring in your calculation.

Which of them aren't "precious parkland" in the view of PPAG?

As if we didn't know....

[Porty]

[wangi]

[seanie]

Anyone know the timescales for hearings etc?

[wangi]

Nothing jumped out when I had a quick skim of the ; so I'm guessing a date hasn't yet been set.

[rmolehusband]

[seanie]

The Common Good issue is irrelevant in planning terms. And I can't see any procedural grounds. If they're challenging the Council's right to build on Common Good land then that's challenging the previous decisions of the Courts of Session. Any such argument might be protracted.

[wangi]

On Prortygreenkeepers:
Some intriguing responses...

[Porty]

[seanie]

PPAG aren't telling the truth about what the Council decided in March 2010. Cllr Child is right, the Council haven't yet taken a final decision on the existing site. Instead they kept their options open.

PPAG quote the report recommending the site be sold, but to find out what the Council decided you need to read the minutes of the meeting. There you'll see that the Council didn't accept this aspect of the report and decided that compensatory open space should be given further consideration. They also reaffirmed that, should any of the site be sold, the money would be ring-fenced for capital investment in schools.

Given the financial situation there will be strong departmental pressure to sell and raise some capital. But St John's needs a larger site (and capital investment), the open space issue is still being considered, and the Council has yet to take a decision.

So Maureen is correct; it is still a live issue.

[seanie]

[seanie]

[saveportypark]

Sean - At the risk of repeating myself let's go back to the Evening News leaflet story. You were given a crumpled leaflet by someone at school, the one you had looked pretty smooth, I assume you printed it yourself. We have never printed the leaflet that included the A1 comment, it was on the facebook page for a short time and then removed. You have suggested that a rogue supporter may have taken it upon him/herself to mount a one man campaign, fairly unlikely but pretty much disproved by the mentions of an Antipodean who had a big wad of the text fliers that we used and nothing else.
The conflicting comments are because initial reaction was provoked by the "parents shock at tasteless flier" feel of the story - when no such thing had been used at schools. Only on closer inspection did we notice that you were brandishing the version that was on our facebook site for a short time. You claim to have been focusing on the "false A1 claim" rather than the tasteless image, however this claim was made on neither the leaflet that was sent round schools nor on the posters round the park. This leaves the story looking very short on truth and high on mock outrage over a child's drawing.
I assume there are many parents of kids who would have supposedly received this flier who post on Talk Porty - not one person has come forward to back this tale up. Don't you find that a touch surprising if there were so many shocked parents?