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

[seanie]

[Makaveli]

I would love to know if the '3000' that signed the petition knew the exact reasons for building the school on the Porty Park or even if the full facts were ever show to them before signing.

[Porty]

Maka it really is going over old territory but here goes; the petition was neither for nor against a school in the park. The objective of the petition was to encourage the council to fully consult the people and and consider all potential sites. The petition was pointless, as the coumcil were legally obliged to do so in any case.

Save Porty Park- there seems to be some new blood recruited to the PPAG campaign, The likes of Knobby Sugar, Pret Sandwiches and Gary Windass. And they all appear to believe things like; PPAG have never suggested other parks, the council has to goto court, the council promised replacement land , the park was bequeathed and so on. It's like they are new to the game and haven't bothered to research. I wonder if one or all of them are having any doubts about joining in, as one by one the "facts" they were availed of, turn out not to be true.

[Porty]

Have you visited the Save Inverleith Park facebook page?

Save Porty Park and Rudyard Fraught are over there trying to forge an allegiance with SIP, who have their big day at planning in just a few weeks time. SIP would have to be stark, raving bonkers to throw their lot in with the Save Porty Park brigade. If there is one group in Edinburgh that is fully conversant with PPAG duplicity it is the Developmen Sub Committee. They know all about the requests to build onother parks and they don't like it. They were polite when Alison Connelly delivered her deputation but there was visible hostility shown to Councillor Hawkins by his fellow counccillors. SIP can only harm their cause if they align with Save Porty PArk,

Why would they want to? The situations are quite different. SIP are fighting to save a bit of a park and SPP have lost the fight to save their park. Why recruit losers, what good can it do. The day at planning could be described as SIIP's cup final. Now its good to have allegiances and theirs comfort in numbers but If you were going into the cup final and were allowed to merge with another club to strengthen your team, would you choose Hibs to try and help you win the Scottish Cup? I really don't think so.

[Makaveli]

Thanks for the clarification on the petition Porty. I had presumed that there was no way they had 3000 signatures opposing the new School or where it is to be built.

[Porty]

[wangi]

[wangi]

[wangi]

[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.

[seanie]

[saveportypark]

Sean - That is not true, the Antipodean was handing out a text based leaflet, as has been stated elsewhere. The publication you are holding in your hand in the EN was only published on the Facebook page, as a proposed publicity campaign. Either someone downloaded the flier, printed loads and took it upon themselves to mount a guerilla campaign while faking an Aussie accent, which I seriously doubt, or someone printed one off and then claimed to have been given it, entirely more believable.

[saveportypark]

The document referred to is attached, as Sean asks us to look for the word minor, I am pretty sure it is in there somewhere

[seanie]

The Counci's traffic survey, contained within the Traffic Assessment, does not 'describe the A1 as minor road'. A PowerPoint presentation, during the pre-planning consultation, describes Milton Road as a 'minor A road' compared to the A1 south of the Milton Junction. Milton road is a District Distributor Road which is a lesser classification than a Primary Distributor Road. So in defence of your claim that the Council's 'traffic survey described the A1 as a minor road' you've produced a document that;

A) isn't a traffic survey

B) doesn't describe the A1 as a minor road.

But that's OK. All you have to do is jiggle the words around and you can pretend it does.

[seanie]

Since you're here, what developments have been planned for Figgate & Quarry Parks in recent months?

[seanie]

[seanie]

And whilst you tell people you oppose development on any green space, PPAG did suggest Bingham Park, the Jewel and Greenbelt land as suitable alternatives for the school.

Didn't they Save Porty Park.

[Porty]

Seanie- don't forget that one leading PPAG campaigner, the one that made the deputation to the planning committee, also suggested building on Portobello Park, its true, she did. She had her St John's Scholl Board hat on at the time but its still the same person. Bottom line is, they don't really care about Portobello Park just that having 400 kids as neighbours is more palatible than 1400.

[Pal of Porty]

[seanie]

Let's not forget the " whopper.

So move the school from a site that's only 40% of the recommended minimum, to one that's only 20% of the recommended minimum? Could you tell us how you'd fit a secondary school of 1400 pupils onto the site of a primary school built for 270? Without losing any green space?

[seanie]

[saveportypark]

The facts about the Evening News article
What Sean has in his hands has NEVER been printed by PPAG. It was on our facebook page for a very short time ( as confirmed by Sean Watters and others), its' purpose was to get feedback from supporters. It was copied from our site and posted by NPHSiTP and subsequently defaced. At this point we removed it as it was not meant for public use at that stage.
The leaflet that was distributed at schools is available to view at www.facebook.com/saveportypark, on it there are no images and no contentious descriptions of the A1. So we did leaflet schools but not with what Sean claims we did - what he says was distributed could just have been printed from the NPHSITP facebook site. The poster that we have used in the park has no mention of 'A1 as a minor road' - that part was remove before publication.
So to summarise the basis of the story - parents are angry at a tasteless flier which was distributed at their schools (it wasn't) . The offending flier contained contentious claims about the status of the A1. (it didn't). That only leaves whether the poster was in good taste - a matter of opinion at best. Hardly big news, it's all been fabrictaed and the Evening News gulped it down whole

Sean Watters is the one who is making it all up, not PPAG

[seanie]

I suspect the most likely explanation here is that the Portobello Park Action Group aren't all that organised. Save Porty Park could well be a number of people operating under the one pseudonym, hence the flatly contradictory staements, and they don't actually know what their supporters are printing off and handing out.

It's all a bit shambolic.

[seanie]

[wangi]

[seanie]

Shall we add that to the list of things for you to clarify Save Porty Park?

[seanie]

[Pal of Porty]

PPAG's concern about children and the A1 was rarely mentioned if at all, during the lengthy consultation process about the High School. Only when all their other plans failed and there was nowhere left to turn, did they resort to 'traffic' being a key issue once the planning process was actually under way. Rather ironically, the consultants took on board what PPAG said during the planning process and incorporated improvements into the final design based on their input. A feather in their cap in my opinion but I guess PPAG don't really feel like it is!

[Pal of Porty]

PHS is going on Portobello Park and that's the way it is.

PPAG traffic concerns are a red herring and totally unfounded and anyone taking time to read the final Planning Report can see this is the case.

Their final throw of the NIMBY dice is to get the cash to go to court and even if they mangaged this there is no way they will get previous High Court precedents overturned.

PHS is going on Portobello Park and that's the way it is.

[seanie]

And what's this "loss of 25% of our precious parkland" nonsense;

Rosefield Park - 1.34Ha
Brighton Park - 0.86Ha
Abercorn Park - 0.79Ha
Bingham Park - 3.88Ha
Jewel Park - 11.46Ha
Portobello Community Garden - 0.13Ha
Straiton Park - 0.35Ha
Joppa Quarry Park - 2.42Ha
Figgate Park - 10.97Ha
Portobello Park - 20.00Ha

That’s over 52Ha of local parks. The school and playing fields won't even take up 5Ha. By what perverse calculation did you arrive at 25%?

[Porty]

Sean, the key could be the use of the word "our" in "our precious parkland". If one takes "our" to mean Portobello's Parkland then t the PPAG maths are clearly nonsense. However, if you take "our" to mean PPAG's park then 5Ha/20Ha is 25% - simples.

[saveportypark]

Sean -You are trying to create a smokescreen to cover the fact you have been caught out. To repeat what we have said before regarding inaccuracies in the Evening News story. The leaflet that was distributed round schools was text only and has been posted on this topic, feel free to be outraged and debate the points made in it and the rights and wrongs of handing it to parents - this actually happened. There was a poster with the "tasteless" image distributed in the park, no mention of A1 on it, as we were waiting for clarification on it - again your outrage and indignity is both expected and predictable. However to repeat my point the story in the EN is a lie perpetrated by Sean, either deliberately or unwittingly by believing someone else's claim they received the leaflet at a school. Our initial reaction was because we presumed someone had taken down a poster, it was only on closer inspection that it was obvious that it was the version that had been removed from our site and used on ANPHSITP site that he was brandishing. There is still not a single post from anyone saying they got one of these at a school - surprising if there was sufficient outrage to merit a shock/horror story in the EN.

[seanie]

[seanie]

I must retract that last statement and apologise.

I must also apologise for any other accusations of lying I may have made against PPAG at other times.

I was wrong.

Lying is a deliberate act of deception, so in order to lie the first essential step is to recognise and understand the truth, so that one can conceal it.

Since PPAG fail so often at that first hurdle, they're rarely competent enough to lie.

My apologies.

[saveportypark]

Sean - own up, you printed this off your own facebook site and went running to the press. As you have boasted, this was taken off our facebook site immediately it went up. The only place it has been seen since is on the myriad of places you have posted it - we have used the artwork on a poster but with different wording. As I have said before there have been a couple of slightly different comments made by different people but it's a lot easier for you, you are a one man publicity machine. On the plus side a lot of people who thought the school in the park was a done deal now realise that there is still a chance that the decision can be changed, so thanks for the publicity - SPP