New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[storky]

Desperation is a word that comes to mind when I see your new poster campaign.

Nevertheless the school is going to be built. I know for a fact that a number of councilors will be voting for the school build to proceed at the next council meeting (end of this month). Their opinions are that the risk is almost zero, even if PPAG do submit the appeal.

[Makaveli]

Desperation is a word that comes to mind when I see your new poster campaign.

As desperate as blocking comments from folk the SPP FB page? Now that is desperate.

[tufty]

desperation? I think that would be producing a poster of a child knocked over on the road, without due care and consideration to the design and message.

[seashell]

A Ode on Desperation

A desperate member of PPAG
Nipped out to the park for a fag.
All around she did stare
But found it empty and bare
For despite all her proud boast
That the park did play host
To folk from ‘cross the Porty-verse:
The truth was quite the reverse.
Which saddened that desperate member of PPAG.

In the depths of despair
She cried “this ain’t fair!”
And threw the fag down to the ground
Before taking one last look around:
But nary a dog walker was to be found
(no change there)
Only to her consternation
The fag started a conflagration,
And fueled by her desperation
It consumed the unfortunate member of PPAG.

And before anybody says anything, I am not suggesting self-immolation, by PPAG members or anyone else.

[Mark Cameron]

Desperation is a word that comes to mind when I see your new poster campaign.

Yes, desperate for our kids to have a school that's fit for purpose
Yes, desperate for the will of the majority of our community to be listened to
Yes, desperate for a small bunch of NIMBYs to admit defeat

Guilty as charged.

[seanie]

Porty school activists demand council meet

PORTOBELLO High School campaigners have demanded an emergency meeting of the community council in a bid to halt opposition to the project.

More than 70 residents have signed a special petition requiring Portobello Community Council, under the terms of its constitution, to convene an emergency meeting in 14 days.

[Mark Cameron]

This is good news Seanie.

We need to make sure a signifivant number of supporters of the school attend - will this be held in the usual hall or is the town hall an option?

Do we know whether the chair is pro school?

[wangi]

On Friday (6 Apr 2012) a petition was delivered to the co-Secretary of Portobello Community Council asking for a special meeting to be convened:

Petition on behalf of the Community of Portobello

We the undersigned members of the Portobello community request the Portobello community council (hereinafter referred to as the council) to convene a special meeting of the council within 14 days of this petition (in terms of the constitution of the council) to debate the following matters:

1. The inclusion by Portobello Park Action Group Association (PPAG) (a member of the council) of factual misrepresentations in public fund raising and other material including: claims made that they represent the significant majority of the community; that if a school is built on ground at Portobello park ‘housing will be built on the whole area’ of the park; that ‘the golf course will be lost if the school is built on the park’.

2. That the council request that PPAG remove any factual misrepresentation, including the aforementioned misrepresentations, from any publicity and fund raising materials and desist from further factual misrepresentation.

3. That PPAG:
- having lost their appeal to the Outer House of the Court of Session over the building of a new Portobello High School in a section of Portobello Park,
- in the knowledge that any further delay will be likely to result in the loss of the existing tender for the building of the school,
- in the knowledge that such a loss will delay indefinitely the building of a new school for the Portobello community and potentially new schools for the wider community of Edinburgh, be asked to drop their appeal to the Inner House of the Court of Session immediately in the interests of the community in general and the children and young people of Portobello in particular.

This petition was signed by 75 members of the Portobello community.

The constitution adopted by Portobello Community Council contains the following provision;

The COMMUNITY COUNCIL has a duty to be responsive to the community it represents. Should the COMMUNITY COUNCIL receive a common written request (petition), signed by at least 50 persons resident within the COMMUNITY COUNCIL area to convene a special meeting for a particular matter or matters to be debated, it shall call such a meeting, within 14 days of receipt of such a request and advertise it in the manner prescribed locally for special meetings called by the COMMUNITY COUNCIL.

In accordance with the terms of the constitution and the provision that "special meetings shall require at least 10 days public notice", a public meeting should now be called to debate the matters set out in the petition. The meeting should be called for no later than Friday 20th April, and not before Monday 16th April.

[seanie]

An e-mail notifying that the petition had been submitted also ;made the following point;

Portobello Community Council’s constitution also requires the following;

“All meetings of the COMMUNITY COUNCIL and its committees (subject to 11(h), above) shall be open to members of the public. Proper provision is to be made for the accommodation of members of the public and the opportunity should be afforded at each meeting to permit members of the public to address the COMMUNITY COUNCIL, under the guidance of the Chairperson.”

Given the level of public interest in this matter, the Community Council’s usual venue for meetings will not provide proper provision for the public to attend; the Town Hall, Community Centre, or Portobello High School may be sufficient.

[Mark Cameron]

reminds me of that immortal line from Jaws......"you're gonna need a bigger boat"

[bellybabe]

I would have signed that petition if I'd known about it. Will be in attendance if at all possible. It's high time the PCC represented the community as a whole.
BB

[Bob Jefferson]

We only needed 50 signatures, the other 20 or so were just an insurance policy.

[Doris]

A quote from Save Porty Park's facebook page:

"There are posters around Portobello suggesting that PPAG's appeal will delay the school by 6 years. This not true. So far, the court action has not caused any delay. The Council could not begin work until they appropriated the land and they have not formally completed that process - a process they began in October 2011. They don't seem to be in much of a hurry, do they?"

Oh dear, more mis-information for their supporters perhaps?

[seanie]

Do you want to know what that exhaustive formal process entails?

Under the 1959 Town Planning Act the Council's intention to appropriate must be advertised twice inviting responses. An advert was duly placed two Tuesdays in succession, in the Scotsman I think, back in October.

And having received responses, the Council are required to consider them.

And that's it.

That's the full extent of what the Council has to do.

[Makaveli]

And having received responses, the Council are required to consider them.

And that's it.

That's the full extent of what the Council has to do.

Seanie do we know if the council have considered the responses? If so do they then have to announce anywhere about the appropriation?

[seanie]

The relevant clause, in it's entirety is;

F2(2A)Before exercising any power of appropriation in relation to land which consists, or forms part of a common or of an open space (not being land which is held for use as allotments) an authority to whom this Part of this Act applies—
(a)shall, for at least two consecutive weeks in a newspaper circulating in their area, publish a notice of the proposed appropriation; and
(b)shall consider any objections to that appropriation which may be made to them.

I can't imagine any objections would've thrown up anything new that hadn't already been considered and rejected on multiple previous occasions . So I imagine any considering would've been pretty brief.

[Pal of Porty]

As a local trader I am aware of at least two well know local shops that have been threatened by a key PPAG player with loss of trade if they continue to display the 'support the school' posters.

I need 3 large posters to display in my shop can anyone supply me? Any PPAG member wishing to come in and reprimand me can feel free.

[Makaveli]

Loss of trade? There is only about half a dozen or so in PPAG!!!!

Seriously though that is pretty disgusting behaviour if they have been in threatening shops with a boycott!!! What next will they be sending the heavies in to extort money out them to pay their legal costs?

[Bob Jefferson]

I need 3 large posters to display in my shop can anyone supply me? Any PPAG member wishing to come in and reprimand me can feel free.

I think I may be able to help you there. Thank you for your support and thanks to all the other traders who are resisting the pressure from PPAG supporters to remove our posters. I'm sure we will continue to support ALL of our local shopkeepers in these difficult trading conditions.

[wangi]

Andy Wightman is a respected authority on Common Good in Scotland. He is the author of The Poor Had No Lawyers: Who Owns Scotland and How They Got it. He has made the some comments about the recent court ruling on Portobello Park and PPAG's claims. Lets remind ourselves what PPAG have said on their website:

Aside from the loss of a substantial area of public open space (25% of Portobello's parkland), the consequences of this decision are disastrous, in that it sets a precedent and gives carte blanche to councils to take and use common good assets in any way they wish without any checks and balances being applied. If this judgement is allowed to stand, no-one will be able to challenge decisions to appropriate or alienate common good land in law. This means that councils, especially in these cash-strapped times, could sell off, or appropriate for other uses, common good assets, riding roughshod over local opinion, and get away with it. This is no longer an issue for Portobello but for the whole of Scotland.
...
If we do not appeal, a legal precedent will have been set that enables councils all over Scotland to play fast and loose with our common good assets. Which green space will be next?

Andy Wightman's comments are:

I found Lady Dorrian's ruling very useful since it clarifies the law on the question of appropriation of common good land. This had been the subject of some confusion in earlier cases. Having said that, I think the law on common good is not fit for purpose and we need a new statutory basis for how it is administered. That, however, is a debate for another day.

The implications of the ruling are clear. Councils can appropriate common good land and use it for another purpose. My best source of advice informs me, however, that in such circumstances, the common good fund should be compensated by way of equivalent land elsewhere or by of a financial transfer between the Council department appropriating the land and the common good fund.

As for PPAG's specific claim on their website, viz

the consequences of this decision are disastrous, in that it sets a precedent and gives carte blanche to councils to take and use common good assets in any way they wish without any checks and balances being applied.

This is misleading. Yes, Councils have carte blanche to use common good assets in any way they see fit. But that has always been the case since the abolition of Town Councils in 1975. even before then, it was the Town Council that had "carte blanche" to use common good in any way they saw fit. Nothing has changed in this regard. All that has happened is that the law has been clarified.

If this judgement is allowed to stand, no-one will be able to challenge decisions to appropriate or alienate common good land in law.

The second assertion is more than misleading - it is simply incorrect. If the judgement is allowed to stand then people will still be able to challenge decisions to appropriate (but they won't get far it is true so long as Lady Dorrian's ruling holds). They will also be able to challenge alienations (the removal of land from the control of the Council via sale or lease) - successfully in many cases. The Portobello decision has no bearing whatsoever on alienations.

This means that councils, especially in these cash-strapped times, could sell off, or appropriate for other uses, common good assets, riding roughshod over local opinion, and get away with it. This is no longer an issue for Portobello but for the whole of Scotland.

Councils can appropriate but as I have argued above, this has always been the case. But it is nonsense to suggest that the ruling provides a green light for selling off common good assets. Sales will be governed by existing legal precedent and the Portobello case has no bearing on them.

For what it is worth, I think any further appeal would turn on grounds that are extremely narrow and would be unlikely to succeed.

L/

[Bob Jefferson]

Print, distribute as you consider appropriate.

andy.pdf

(30.93 KiB) Downloaded 404 times

[Bob Jefferson]

Even the most ardent PPAG supporter must now see that it is a hopeless cause. When Andy Wightman signs a petition, asking you to drop the appeal, it really does spell the end. On Easter Monday, let's call a truce. Please, drop the appeal and let's get on with the rest of our lives.

[rmolehusband]

More ProPAGanda in the Scotsman today.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/school-row-1-2223889

They're now pegging their support off the number of objections received to the school panning application. I suspect this is still wildly optimistic but at least, and it's a small concession, they have publicly admitted they hold very much a minority view.

I notice that Ros "build it on another Park" Sutherland is not on the list of signatories. Has she parted company with PPAG?

[seanie]

Bit of a Freudian slip to say the school will be delayed months rather than years.

Clearly they're not expecting their appeal to succeed, just drag things out.

Just as well Court of Session judges never read the Scotsman eh?

[gillian]

Did Ros Sutherland really say that the school should be built on another park?

[rmolehusband]

Did Ros Sutherland really say that the school should be built on another park?

She suggested, in a letter to the Scotsman, that a replacement for St. Johns primary be build on Figgate Park.

PPAGs cunning plan was, presumably, that the land freed up on the existing St. Johns site could be added to the PHS site to maybe make it just big enough for the new school, thus avoiding any need to build it on Porty park. No hypocrisy there, eh?

[seanie]

PPAG also suggested Bingham Park, the Jewel and Greenbelt land as suitable alternative sites for PHS.

It's recorded in the 2006 report on consultation responses.

[Makaveli]

So how can they so unashamedly keep banging on about being an environmental group when they are in fact NIMBY's in their truest form?

The hypocrisy is mind blowing!!!!

[seashell]

That letter is also grammatically incorrect....

It refers to Porty Park and then to 'other suitable brownfield sites'.
Since when was Porty Park a brownfield site?
So now they are not only factually incorrect, but also ignorant of the Queen's English. You would think that if you were sending a letter off to the Scotman you would get somebody vaguely literate to check it over for you first.

BTW - just look at the outrageous 5th response from Ghost, who is openly praising the bully-boy tactics PPAG employ. Pathetic.

[Porty]

Wow that is a great contribution from Andy Wightman, surely it must register with the non-hardcore PPAG?

As for PPAG bullying shopkeepers, as bad as they are, I find it hard to believe, is there any truth in it? Did Findlay's and Mica remove window posters? Was on the high street yesterday and saw the stationers was still well postered.

I ought to be able to find out if anything went down, as I was responsible for contacting the owner of Shapes to ask about using his other, empty, shop unit (Southfield Stationers). I will ask him if had contact with anyone from PPAG since his generous donation?

I should say our phone call (Shapes and I) lasted all of two minutes. Soon as he found out the purpose he said "the appeal shoud be dropped" I got half way through asking him for use of the shop and he offered before I'd finished. The owners/agents of two other empty units were also amenable.

[Bob Jefferson]

I was out for a walk earlier and it's great to see our posters all over Portobello. Some people are using the original 'Dear PPAG' one, some have printed their own copies of the newer ones, while others are using posters their own kids have designed. They are in local shops and homes all over town. There's a real feeling of solidarity in the community, people who don't normally get involved in local issues but realising that this is something we all need to get behind. The lovely ladies in Annie and Belle knew all about it and had already signed the petition when Emily and I went in for coffee this morning. It's a real shame that PPAG have resorted to lies and dirty tricks but it just shows how desperate they are. Even their own supporters must see now that it's all over. I don't think any of us particularly want to witness their death throes. We just want an end to this lunacy.

[Bob Jefferson]

As for PPAG bullying shopkeepers, as bad as they are, I find it hard to believe, is there any truth in it? Did Findlay's and Mica remove window posters? Was on the high street yesterday and saw the stationers was still well postered.

I ought to be able to find out if anything went down, as I was responsible for contacting the owner of Shapes to ask about using his other, empty, shop unit (Southfield Stationers). I will ask him if had contact with anyone from PPAG since his generous donation?

Yeah, they all got the treatment. To be fair, not all of the local traders really know what's going on and they are obviously getting conflicting stories, not to mention being lied to, so I don't blame anyone who has removed a poster. More will be going up this week anyway.

[Porty]

The dirty tricks would soon be forgotten if the hardcore would concede gracefully. Perhaps I am naive but the bright and decent people on the PPAG periphery are bound to be swayed by the opinion of Andy Wightman and others. Along with the strenght of feeling in the community.
The core of the group are deliberately spinning the judgment so as it appears different to what it actually is.

Enough is enough folks, let the kids have their School, please pretty please!! Come back into the fold.

[Bob Jefferson]

I agree. There must be a lot of people out there who originally gave their support to PPAG, for whatever reason, who must regret that decision now. PPAG's reputation is at absolute rock-bottom and some of their recent actions are just beyond the pale. The truth about the posters needs to come out and we need statements from the traders concerned. Similarly, there is no way that Ros Sutherland should get away with the email she circulated to CC members and others. I've been too busy the last couple of days to give it much thought but I'm not backing down until she retracts it and issues me with an apology.

[Porty]

Well I'm in Porty tomorrow after about 11. Think you are bringing PoP some posters, let's meet up and get the skinny on what's been going on.