New Portobello High School - on going issues

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[Porty]

The Act certainly makes Diana's strong statement that : "The land belongs to the people of Portobello, who would have to be financially compensated via the common good fund for its loss." seem wholly inaccurate. - The people of Portobello do not own Portobello Park and we therefore have no claim for compensation.

Is there any way that PPAG could have The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 overturned or argue that it doesn't apply to them, say on the basis that it is unfair? [edit]

[seanie]

You could argue that the Park belongs to the people of Portobello in a metaphorical sense. But it certainly doesn't belong to them in any legal sense.

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:



While the politicians dither and PPAG attempts to block the only available site, that's OUR money that is being wasted. Utter madness!

[Porty]

PPAG are stating thet the anonymous article on the front page of the Portobello Reporter is the source for the above claims about Common Good Land.

COMMON GOOD STATUS FOR PARK Source - The Portobello Reporter. The Independant Local Newspaper.

A REPORT to the City of Edinburgh Council has confirmed the legal opinion obtained by the Portobello Park Action Group that, because of the history of its acquisition, Portobello Park and Golf Course are Common Good land. This means that it must remain in Council ownership, with none sold for housing, and administered in the interests of the city's residents. The land was purchased in 1898, by the City of Edinburgh Corporation, for £25,000, to fulfil their obligation under the 1896 Edinburgh Extension Act to "acquire, dedicate and thereafter maintain for public use a public park or recreation ground".

The Council is not entitled to use Common Good assets for the provision of statutory services (such as education), so if it goes ahead with the plan to build a school on the park, it will have to go to court to obtain permission, and will also have to pay into the Common Good fund an amount equal to the market value of the land. The question of where the money for a new school will come from remains unanswered.

[seanie]

[Porty]

Seanie. The act seems to go to some length to protect the administration of cgl in favour of a 'limited class'. Could a school community be considered such a class?would the fact that it is also a statutory purpose qualify?

[Maria]

[seanie]

[Porty]

That seems to allow plenty of scope. Given the legal precedents that Seanie's demonstrated I can't see the debate ever getting into this sort of nitty gritty even if it does get legal.

Can you imagine the PPAG QC arguing that the relatively small bit of land that will be used for a new PHS does not qualify for an appropriate use as it is for a "limited class"? - The Judges ponder for a while and one of them says "lets go on a site visit".

Judges - " So this is where the desired site is, how far does the boundary extend?"

PPAG QC "It extends 300 meters m'lud, far too much land for sole use by a limited class"

Judges - " hmm, I'm not so sure a facility that will offer services to tens of thousands of people, youngsters, teenagers, young parents, the middle- aged and even OAP's can accurately described as a "limited class" use. However, for now we will go along with your line of thinking"

Judges - "We are glad we came to visit, as even a scaled map cannot do justice to how large this piece of open space is. Pray tell us Right Honorable Compensation Claimer, what is the rest of this land used for, it must be 3 or 4 times the size of the intended School?"

PPAG QC- "splutter, splutter"

Judges - "sorry, we didn't catch that"

PPAG QC: " A golf course"

Let anger and mirth begin.

[seanie]

I think the “limited class” thing is a bit of a red herring. It’s really just emphasising that the CGF must be used in a way that can be interpreted as having benefit to the Edinburgh as a whole, even if the actual use is more narrowly focused.

For example, some local authorities use their CG to fund community groups and organisations. A particular group, with a particular interest, in a particular location, might not be of benefit to everyone. But you could easily justify such a use of CG funds with the general argument that such groups and organisations are beneficial to the community and should be supported.

Other Local Authorities use CG funds to for civic hospitality; ceremonies, events, functions etc. Presumably the argument is that such events are an important part of the Council’s role and bring wider benefits to the community; as such it is perfectly reasonable to use the CG fund to keep Councillors well stocked with canapés and cava. Whether or not you’d agree with that isn’t terribly relevant. Such a use is perfectly legal.

So as long as your use of the Common Good fund can, in some way, be construed as bringing some benefit (even indirectly) to the community as a whole, then you have a pretty free hand in how you use it.

[seanie]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

The Council's feasibility studies relating to the five 'Wave 3' schools, including PHS, are now complete. PHS Parent Council will have an opportunity to discuss the report with Marilyne Maclaren, Convenor of Children and Families at a meeting on 17 March.

A 'leaked' copy of the feasibility study has come into my possession and will be of great interest to anyone who has been following events so far.

If nothing else, I recommend you take a look at Appendix A, a 'vision' for a new PHS resulting from a workshop held between teachers, pupils and members of the community. It's exciting, it's inspirational and it's achievable. Let's make it happen!

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

The PPAG communications are fundamentally flawed. In my opinion it is not worth dissecting each and every point to underline the mendacity.

Essentially it is the same tripe they have purveyed since the outset. They had their chances in the chamber and failed miserably. The 2 pincer strategy of simply make things up and suggest building on a different park ensured that not a single councillor put their hand up in support of saving the Park. At any of the meeting that took place. They persuaded no-one.

Its nonsense to say that the consultation was narrow. It is an insult to the dozens of local groups and organisations contributed and so did hundreds of residents. It is all there in black and white in the consutation report.

I'm quite encouraged if this is all that they have to bring. We are now moving into the realms of legality and planning guidelines. Objections have to be substantiated and proved to contravene the law. If the planned School does not fit with the planners then no matter how much shouting PFANS do, it won't happen. In the converse situation the same applies to PPAG. Numbers of complaints may prolong but it won't influence the decision.

Hijacking meetings is not going to work, manufacturincg statistics is not going to work, portraying potential risks to children or to a golf course is not going to work, claiming disposition is not going to work, arguing that a protected viw will be breached is not going to work, lying about refurbishment costs is not going to work, claims to harness local opinion is not going to work,underming the statutory consultation is not going to work. claiming for financial compensation is not going to work., conducting one-off parties in the park is not going to work- PPAG are struggling, just like they have from the outset. They are campaigning from a dishonest premise and it shows.

[Maria]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Maria]

I know of at least one PPAG supporter, who will be sending her family of 4 children to PHS, but it shouldn't be about whether you have kids or where they go to school. It is just as easy to accuse PFANS supporters of being selfish as the majority do have kids either currently at or going to PHS.

Whether you have children or not, a new school will benefit all the community for generations to come.

[Porty]