New Portobello High School - planning application granted

[rmolehusband]

[seanie]

[Lima]

I notice they still state on their homepage that they represent a significant majority which has proven to be untrue, I wonder how long it will be until they reflect the truth?????

[seanie]

I wouldn't hold my breath...

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

Free speech seems to be a concept that PPAG are struggling with. This is my latest post to be deleted from their Comments section:

Re-building on-site was never a realistic option. Why? Because the site is too small. However you configured it, you would end up with another towerblock design without playing fields. It soon became clear that building on the park was the only suitable site. Ipso facto, by opposing the site you were opposing the possibility of a new school.

[Lima]

I have also had several comments deleted, on Friday evening there were around 15 comments against their latest story and this dropped down to 8 last night due to their removal of comments not aligned to their agenda.

[Bob Jefferson]

I think that what is unfortunate about the PPAG campaign is the way they have consistently misled their supporters, particularly over site selection. Seanie presented the facts over and over again on this forum and elsewhere,and I'm sure that helped, but a lot of people took what PPAG told them as gospel. They genuinely believed that they were fighting to save green space and that alternative suitable sites existed. They believed that this was the majority view in Portobello. They believed that the Council had no right to build on the park because it was Common Good land. As all of these claims turn out to be lies, myths and wishful thinking, many of the people who objected must begin to question the integrity of the PPAG leadership. And they haven't finished yet. They want more money to take their kamikaze campaign to its hell-bent final crackpot conclusion.

[Porty]

Have they still got a rep on the PCC? I hope someone requests their accounts information (I believe groups have to supply accounts as a condition of membership) and the same goes for PCATS. PCATS have denied all along that they have donated funds to PPAG, there is no transparency, so there's little option but to take their word for it, which is not good enough when making public statements about raising £80,000.

admin: replies on this point have been moved to .

[joeshmoe]

how long do they have to object given the Council want to start building works asap?

and surely there is little chance of them raising this 80k, who's going to stump up for a lost cause with no legal footing?

[Porty]

Stump and no footing- sounds a bit limp!!

[seanie]

Drastic editing on the PPAG web-site...

[Bob Jefferson]

Yep, it's slash and burn through free speech with all dissenting voices crushed.

[wangi]

[wangi]

[seanie]

Difficult to see how it could become an election issue since all the main parties have supported the relocation of the High School.

[tom nimmo]

I agree. The days of a new High School being an election issue are long gone. Mind you, if a potential candidate thought there were votes to be had by trying to block the school then he/she would be seriously ill-informed indeed.

[seanie]

Flogging a dead horse I know but...

...the last Portygreenkeepers 'Lastest News' has disappeared.

Can't tell whether it's incompetent web-site design or Stalinist revisionism.

[Bob Jefferson]

Meanwhile, it's still costing millions to keep the old school up to standard. From the EN:

[wangi]

I have heard, from what I consider to be a totally reliable source, that PPAG are approaching residents of ParK Avenue and asking for a four figure donation towards their legal fighting fund. The target is £80k

[seanie]

Really? Still seems unlikely to me. Unless some protection against costs could be obtained, which is very rare, there's the risk of having to pay some or all of the Council's legal costs should the action be unsuccessful. £80,000 isn't going to cover that eventuality.

[Porty]

Yeah that's my view too. When is construction scheduled to start?

[seanie]

Not sure. I think they had been hoping for late Autumn but I have a vague recollection of someone telling me that the new year was more likely.

[Pal of Porty]

[Porty]

They may well be targeting other streets but the source/horse's mouth lives in Park Avenue and doesn't know about other streets. Wouldn't be surprised if PPAG are asking other groups for any money they have left over from their campaigns. I'm sure I saw one of them talking to themselves on the high Street on Tuesday.

[Maria]

[seanie]

It also seems to me, although legal matters aren't something I know much about, that any legal case would probably have to go to the Inner House of the Court of Session; a much more protected and costly process than going to the Sherrif Court. £80,000 seems on the optimistic side.

[Porty]

[Maria]

Can't recall ever having a tea time, or any other meal time, conversation along those lines.

I do recall a PONGS meeting, where a total figure of sums raised was given along with the cost of fees, which had to be deducted. There was a residual amount, but I can't remember exactly what that was. It wasn't vast.Perhaps others present at that meeting have a better memory? I haven't seen paper accounts.

[Porty]

You'll have had your tea.

[Poppy]

[seanie]

I think the first order to restrict costs was only made earlier this year, in relation to the proposed Hunterston power station. That limited potential costs to £30,000. So even if such an order is obtained you might still be looking to raise £30,000-£40,000 to cover the other sides costs before you think about your own.

[cuth]

That is only the costs that you have to pay the other side if you lose according to the BBC article. You still have to pay your own costs, which may be how a figure of £80k was arrived at.

[seashell]

Inner House means you're looking at hiring senior counsel - and that costs about £10k per day of hearing. Plus it could take about 18 months before the case is heard, with costs adding up all the time.

[seanie]

In the meantime the project will be progressing and may be on site in less than 9 months. Are the courts likely to grant an injunction when actual proceedings might not be forthcoming?