New Portobello High School - planning application granted

[seashell]

Depends on whether they actually file a case and what the grounds are, e.g. would it be a new case or an appeal hearing? But even if they go ahead with an action it still could be sisted while background discussions go on, with the hope of an out-of-court agreement being reached. It's a very, very expensive business and I would imagine any advocate taking thier case on would want to be assured his fees were going to be paid.

[seanie]

It wouldn't be an appeal; there are no legal proceedings to date. Either it would be some kind of 'judicial review' of the process to date, or it would most likely be a challenge to a previous decision in the Inner House in a separate case.

[Porty]

£80,000 is not much. Theres about 125 residences that face directly onto the park. If there really is substantial anti school feeling its only 640 quid a head.

[Maria]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Porty]

[seanie]

Already out to tender and expected on site in November.

[seanie]

Interesting on developments in legal actions. Scots courts have started limiting costs to losing parties. However, if the figures in the case are anything to go by, you'd still need upwards of £80,000 to take a case the Court of Session as well as an additional £30,000 plus to cover costs to the other side if you lose.

Also there's an element of reciprocity if costs are capped so should you win you may only get a portion of you own costs back.

Raising over £110,000 may be a bit of a stretch between now and November.

[wangi]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[Makaveli]

Cannae believe that someone has put in 4 grand!!! They must really not want the school there.

Like others have said the park is just a big dog toilet and the land is much better used for the new school which will be bringing jobs to the area.

Also if the people that live in these houses that overlook the park are worried about the value of their property then I don't think they should be as it is proven all over the country that people will pay extra for houses near schools and i am sure this being a brand new built school child places will become highly sought after.

See it's not all bad PPAG people

[Bob Jefferson]

If residents of Park Avenue, and its environs, have that sort of money to waste on a hopeless and pointless cause, then perhaps they might consider giving it instead to a more deserving local charity. I guess not too many of them intend to send their children to Portobello High then? Not good enough perhaps?

[Porty]

Seanie - I got a copy of the Email sent to me too, from a Diana? At least It was notable for not being anonymous, which is unusual for a PPAG communication.

Do they really expect people to believe the Council are "are trying to speed up the process and deliver the school six months earlier than planned. They are trying to get the school started before we get to court"?

If PPAG have a case and sufficent funding to instigate court action to stop a school on the park, what difference would the commencement of construction make? Methinks none whatsoever.

I have serious doubts about someone having donated £4k, you will note the emphasis on donations remaining anonymous, I suspect the £4k will be the proceeds of the 5 years of fundraising efforts from PPAG but I guess we, and most of them, will never know.

[seanie]

They're not bringing the start date of the school forward anyway, they're seeing if they can bring completion forward. Basically they're asking the tendering contractors if they can build it in 18 months rather than 24.

[Porty]

[Pal of Porty]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[seanie]

[seanie]

[seanie]

Surely it would've been better to launch any legal action back then. Given how advanced the project is, and the considerable resources already expended on it, I can't see the Courts being keen on interfering. Particularly when the Council's position is based on previous decisions from those self same Courts; that schools can be built on Common Good land without permission from the Courts.

[Bob Jefferson]

On the other hand, and I know this is particularly mean, I can't help feeling that maybe they deserve to lose their money?

[Porty]

[Porty]

[seanie]

I hear the PPAG fundraising campaign may be targeting the organic market tomorrow.

[Makaveli]

I am currently overseas just now so didn't get a chance to go to the Organic Market today and the wife was busy so didn't get along either - was there any PPAG fundraiser's there?

[wangi]

Not that I saw

[Porty]

I was there but didn't spot any.

[wangi]

Portobello High School has been a divisive issue over the last few years, but whatever disagreements there have been, very few doubt that the school is in urgent need of replacement. The shortcomings of the existing campus are clear. The building itself is unfit for purpose and at the end of its useful life, but more significantly the site itself is fundamentally too small. It has never been big enough to accommodate the necessary facilities. Back in 2006, during the consultation on site options, what quickly became clear was that very few sites could redress this shortcoming. Most sites suggested were not viable; they were too small, badly located, not in Council ownership, or too costly to develop. In comparison, the pitch area of Portobello Park stood out.

Is it the ideal site for a new school? No; building on green space is never going to be ideal. But is this site the best of what were extremely limited options? Yes; it is well located within the catchment, is easily accessible, and most importantly finally establishes the school on a site big enough to sustain the necessary facilities. Portobello Park is the best available site.

Regrettably the new school will result in a loss of green space; few if any of us are keen to see that. But at the end of the day it comes down to whether the benefits to the community of the new school outweigh that loss. It’s not easy to satisfy everybody but the proposed design strikes a good balance, reflected in the fact that more local people supported the planning application than objected to it.

There will still be public open space, golfers will still golf, walkers will still be able to exercise whilst enjoying the views, and accessible all-weather pitches will be of far more use than the poor quality pitches at present. In addition to that 1400 children a year will finally get a first rate educational environment that will also benefit the wider community.

Which is why it is disappointing to see continued opposition to what is such an exciting prospect. There has long been talk of a legal challenge to building the school on the park, but little if any action. Now, with a new school so close, the Portobello Park Action Group have begun fundraising for a court action based on the Common Good status of the land. However there is comfort in the fact that any such challenge is likely to fail, as the Council’s position is based on recent rulings from the Court of Session itself.

In 2004 South Lanarkshire Council, and in 2006 North Lanarkshire Council, brought cases to the Inner and Outer Courts of Session respectively. They were seeking permission to build schools on Common Good land. In both cases the Courts dismissed the petitions as unnecessary; permission was not required. The Courts took the view that the disposal or alienation of Common Good land only occurred when “the community are deprived of the benefit of the land in question.” Since schools and playing fields constitute a benefit to the community, the Common Good status of the land remains unchanged. To be successful any legal action will need to establish, not that the Council is wrong, but that the Court of Session itself was wrong.

So the many people within our community who are enthusiastic about the prospect of a new Portobello High School have every reason to remain optimistic.


Admin: posts releated to PPAG's "Save Porty Park" campaign on Facebook, leafleting and flyposting have been split to the thread.