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

[Porty]

Sean- St John's were removed from the PHS/St Johns process , the council were not confident about a) how the options were explained by the parent council and b) the lack of robust consultation and reporting of the views of the school community. It was decided to revisit the consultation at some point in the future.

(To be fair, the "plan" illustrating the 3 options wasn't particularly good. Although the parent council had attended numerous meetings to discuss the options and must have been aware what they were)

PHS has come in £5M under budget, which is more than half the dosh needed for a St John's replacement/refurbishment. Assuming the school can now have a proper consultation,is it too late for the St John's to gain a foothold and make a case for replacement/refurbishment at the time PHS is pulled down or shortly thereafter?

[seanie]

I've lost track of the other Wave 3 schools. James Gillespies did eventually get funding and I think it was out for pre-planning consultation recently, so it should be going ahead fairly soon. I think Boroughmuir had a sizeable sum allocated but I'm not sure if it was enough to fund the project. I think St John's scored equal third with Boroughmuir as a priority so it must be in line for consideration. I don't what's been done on that front since the prioritisation exercise, but that was a bit of a mess.

[seanie]

Had a look and James Gillespies is in for planning at the moment (same architects as PHS). Also found an update on Boroughmuir and it looks line the Council's still undecided between refurbishment or re-build on a new site.

[wangi]

The Edinburgh Reporter also had an article on the council meeting: http://www.theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2 ... mber-2011/

[seanie]

We may have underestimated Tom;

HE'S ON TO US!!!!

Burn the tapes and shred the files...we'll meet in the safe house....

[Porty]

Sean- Its quite probable that the school is being delayed on a false premise; schools cannot be built on common good land. And quite a few PPAG supporters believe that to be the case, I'm pretty sure Tom Freeman will too.

I think its likely to be a fabrication from one or two of the PPAG households that I mentioned on the EN. Not saying it is a deliberate deception but quite possibly a misinterpretation of something one of them read. Like how they spread the word that the Council was going to build St Johns a new school but leave the old one standing in the new playground and how they told the planning committee if permission was given, the school could be built anywhere on the golf course. Simply because there was a red line around the entire park to identify the site. Both totally absurd but that's what the PPAG hardcore believed.

You have published a number of decisions where permission has not been required to build schools on CG land. During your research have you discovered anything to the contrary?

[Porty]

[wangi]

I see that (very) high resolution version of the visual mock-ups have been added to the Planning Portal :




(click on the image for full size PDFs)

[seanie]

Late addition to the Portobello Community Council Agenda this evening; PPAG wish to update the PCC on the legal position on the school from their perspective.

[Bob Jefferson]

Can't see what they hope to achieve by this to be honest.

[seanie]

[Porty]

[Porty]

What did PPAG have to say and how did it go down?

[Maria]

It had been requested by several members that this item be placed instead on the agenda for October's meeting , but this was declined. When asked why it had been submitted for AOCB so late, Ros Sutherland, the PPAG rep, explained she had been suffering from flu, so couldn't submit it earlier.

The meeting was told by the Chair that it wasn't an item for open discussion, but was merely a report from a CC group member. Under AOCB, Ros, read out a statement from the group regarding the history of their current legal action from their perspective. Some questions were directed to Ros, but mostly she reiterated the line that PPAG were merely presenting a report and was not going to answer questions. She did, however,in reply to one question, say that their legal advice had been that a case could not be brought until a planning application had been made.

Cllr Child refuted many of the assertions made in the PPAG report.

[wangi]

[wangi]

[Franck]

Whatever else you can say about PPAG, they have got themselves an outstanding QC.

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Franck]

[seanie]

[Porty]

[Porty]

Thanks again Sean.

In my opinion, PPAG do not have the funds to see this through or to get the best legal advice. This appears to be supported by them not having taken action earlier. They held out hope the council would take themselves to court. It's been mentioned at several meetings, confirmed above and in the recent deputation.

Its not a particulalry bright strategy. Why shake hands with the devil if you can afford not to?

its akin to Alex Ferguson publically pleading with Barcelona to give Man Utd a three goal start in the Champions league. he asks them at meetings and then gets his lawyer to write. Self humiliating and zero chance of success. Tonto.

PPAG obvioulsy thought that having been turned away a couple of times the council would change their minds simply because a request came from a lawyer!!!What part of No don't they get?

I will be surprised if the council open the dialogue (with PPAG) that they spoke of prior to the show of strength at last weeks council meeting

I know not what they were expecting from last nights PCC meeting but now PPAG stand alone, in every sense.

[seanie]

As far as I can see PPAG have alternated between threatening the Council with court action, then asking the Council to pay for it;

December 2008 – Full Council meeting decides that, on legal advice, they will not be taking the matter to court.

December 2008 – Diana Cairns tells the Evening News that PPAG intend to launch a legal action.

June 2009 – Alison Connelly tells the Evening News that PPAG intend to launch a legal action.

February 2010 - PPAG writes to the Council suggesting a joint court action.

March 2010 – Council replies saying no, as already decided, they will not be taking the matter to court.

March 2010 – Full Council meeting confirms that, as already decided, they will not be taking the matter to court.

March 2010 – PPAG deputation to the Council states that they intend to launch a legal challenge.

September 2010 – PPAG writes to the Council stating that they intend to launch a legal challenge.

March 2011 – PPAG writes to the Council suggesting a joint court action.

April 2011 – Council replies saying no, as already decided, they will not be taking the matter to court.

July 2011 – PPAG finally launch a legal challenge.

Although they haven't yet raised the funds to see a court action through...

...the court action they've been threatening since December 2008.

[Porty]

[Puerto bella]

[seanie]

How so?

[Puerto bella]

'but there's no evidence he's given PPAG anything other than the oft quoted opinion on the alienation of CG Land, which was 5 years ago and is largely irrelevant now that no land will be sold off for housing.'

......you can take from this comment that the writer is suggesting that the QC may have failed in his duty and given out of date advice. I take from this that clearly this person has not worked directly with Mr Martin.

[Porty]

I fail to see how one could reach the conclusion you have from what i said. Im sure mr martin provided proper advice based on the question asked. From his answer or rather from what is oft quoted, it appears irrelevant, to a situation where there is to be no disposal of cg land thats my opinion. I have not worked with mr martin, josep guardiola or fergie.

[seanie]

As I've already said, the original opinion as quoted would appear to be perfectly reasonable and measured. But when it was given back in 2006 the principle question was whether the land was Common Good, and the prospect of housing on the park to fund the schools was still fresh. And the opinion is undeniably correct; if the land was Common Good (now agreed by the Council) then there would indeed be limitations on its alienation.

But as quoted it doesn't actually address the extent of those limitations and, as demonstrated in two cases in the Inner then Outer Houses of the Court if Session, the legal precedent is that schools can be built on Common Good land without permission from the courts.

That opinion of the Courts is of course open to challenge, but that's the legal precedent established.

admin: a number of posts split to

[wangi]

[seanie]

[Makaveli]

3 kids using the park on one of the nicest days of the year. Sums it up for me really. A very under used space which will be better utilised as a school.

If they want to go to a park then go a couple of hundred yards down the road and you can go to a nice park like the Figgy which even has a nice play area for kids. My kids would be insulted if I took them to Porty Park as it is a disgrace compared to the other nice parks we have in Porty!!!!

[Franck]

[wangi]

I agree Franck - there's no need to talk down Portobello Park.