New Portobello High School - planning application

[Porty]

Have you seen the EN today? The chair of PCC is making it pretty clear what he thinks "The fact that Portobello Park is also common good land makes this decision even more regrettable."

I wondered the same as you. If his speech echoes the PCC written submission I expect him to shout out the negatives and whisper the positives.

[wangi]

[wangi]

[Maria]

[Porty]

[Porty]

Reading through the objections it seems to me (and I am no expert) that people misunderstand the premise on which the transfer of ownership of Portobello Park to Edinburgh City Council was made. I continually see reference along the lines "the land was gifted to the people of edinburgh to be used in perpetuity as a Public Park". I' have read the sales contract several times and i interepret what happened as;

The land was sold to the council for the sum of £25,000, there was no gift. The land was owned by Miller's who were property developers who owned other substantial tracts of land in the area, which they no doubt wished to develop. It is common for developers to trade off assets to councils in order to facilitate their commercial ambitions or even just to show goodwill. The modern day equivalent could be the requirement for developers, hoteliers and retailers to make contributions to the Trams as a condition of obtaing planning permission.

In this case Milers either offered or were approached to purvey the land to the council. Had the council wanted the land for development (for housing or whatever) then the price would likely have been much higher or Millers would not have sold. The land was transferred on the understanding that it would not be developed. So a contractual burden was put in place to protect Miller's interest NOT that of "the people of Edinburgh". There is no chance the council or indeed anyone would voluntarily burden land that they were about to purchase.

In contrast Millers would not have wished to dispose of land at a knockdown price only to create the opportunity for a competitor to enter the market. Without "burdening" the land there would be nothing to prevent the council from becoming housing developers or indeed selling onto a commercial third party. So Miller's restricted potential uses of the land by introducing a burden or feu as part of the sale contract. A burden that dictated the land should be used for recreation purposes. The council bought the land with the good and honest intention of using it for recreational purposes and Miller's made sure with the contract. A purely commercial decision.

The feu or burden on the land was then sold to the Liverpool Victoria Insurance company.Insurance companies regularaly invested in feu's in the hope that at some point the new owners would seek permssion to develop and that permssion would come at a cost. it proved to be a poor investment for LV as no approach was made in more than 100 years.

In 2004 the feudal reform act came into force and the burdens on Portobello Park lapsed. The council now owned unburdened land, which they sought to use to provide a critical and valauble public asset. So the idea that the park changed hands in some philantropic gesture of perpectual sanctitude is total bunkum. Millers wanted to ensure the council didn't pull a fast one on them, that's all

[seanie]

So the Council were playing the long game and have been planning this since 1898?

Devious swines.

[Bob Jefferson]

I think a PCATS-type situation could occur with the funds that PPAG has raised and it presents an interesting dilemma. Either they use the money to finance a legal case they have no hope of winning, or what? Will the account be made public? PPAG complain that they are branded as child haters. Perhaps they should donate the money to a local children's charity? Or if they want to prove their green credentials, they could give it to Friends of the Earth. Any other suggestions?

[wangi]

[wangi]

[Maria]

[Bob Jefferson]

Seanie is currently working on a very similar project. Maybe you guys should get together to save duplicating work?

[wangi]

[seanie]

Still needs some tweaking but I've got a supporters map here;

[seanie]

Combined map, although there's still a few bugs;

[Bob Jefferson]

It's a picture worth a thousand words. No further analysis required. What we have is a graphic representation of pure nimbyism. Outwith Park Avenue and one or two surrounding streets there is overwhelming support for the application among the Portobello community. Point proven. Game over.

[seanie]

I hesitate to say this, but I'm not sure it does demonstrate overwhelming support, although I do think it effectively demolishes any suggestion that PPAG speak for the majority.

The reality is that even quite minor Planning Applications can generate a lot of objections since they can affect people close by. Supporting comments are less common but sometimes, where people feel strongly, you can get a substantial turn out; in this instance more than the opposition.

But I have yet to see anyone write into a Planning Consultation to say;

"Not bothered either way."

I suspect the overwhelming majority neither strongly support, nor strongly oppose the proposal. The overwhelming majority might not be too bothered either way.

[seanie]

[wangi]

Better late than never; another view of something pretty similar:


(view: ; ; )

The dots are scaled by the number of representations at that postcode; with a bit movement to avoid overlaid points.

I started off with a list of address of the the representations received, but which didn't have the type of representation () and then worked through the representation on the to fill in the type of representation ( [especially the first worksheet]). That gave me 287 objections, 381 support, 4 comments and 3 question marks.

It does show the clumping of the objections...

[seanie]

I think yours is betters overall, although the green could be a little bit stronger.

I hate you by the way.

[Makaveli]

Quality work folks - tells it's own story!!!

[wangi]

[Makaveli]

Notice a load of 'Save the Portobello Park' posters have gone up round the park - must have gone up at the weekend as I am sure they weren't there when I did the nursery run last week.

[rmolehusband]

Great work, both of you. Really interesting to see the source of the responses like that.

I'm slightly confused by Duddingston Road's relatively high number of objections. You'd have thought they've had been happy to see the school moved away, even if they do end up with flats instead.

[Maria]

[Porty]

[seanie]

View of the school from

[Porty]

[Porty]

[seanie]

Did the link work for you? I'm having difficulties; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

[Makaveli]

Tried the link a few times and it works fine for me.

[seanie]

Cheers. Embedding the actual picture was beyond my technical capabilities.

[wangi]

[Maria]

Copy the photo/jpg to your desktop then use 'Upload attachment' from the bottom of the reply box.

[seanie]

And look...you can still see Arthur's Seat...