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

[Makaveli]

Got back from a month abroad today and drove past Porty Park today - was once again not unsurprised to see the park had one person on it (walking a dog) and no-one else!!!

It was 24 degrees according to the temp gauge in the car and the sun was out - so where were all the park users? And Mrs Makaveli tells me the schools are off so why were there no kids playing on it? Could it be there are better parks in and around Porty?

[seanie]

I'm sure when they look at your facebook page and see the Michael Jackson videos and attacks on me the donations will come rolling in. However we still have some points of clarification Save Porty Park/saveportypark;

Why, in defence of their claim that the Council's 'traffic survey described the A1 as a minor road’, have the Portobello Park Action Group cited a document that a) isn't a traffic survey and b) doesn't describe the A1 as a minor road?

Why have the Portobello Park Action Group provided three incompatible claims regarding the document containing this claim?

a)“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”

b)“Sean is holding a poster put up around the park, it was not handed round schools “

c)“we used the image on a poster but the text was different - that is why I know the version Sean has did not come from us”?

What are the developments that the Portobello Park Action Group claim have been planned for Figgate & Quarry Parks in recent months?

Why have the Portobello Park Action Group said that “the council stand to make a significant profit from the sale of the existing school site to property developers but have not said how this will be spent” when the council has indeed said how it will be spent; for capital investment in the school estate, specifically the remaining Wave 3 schools?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group say they oppose development on any green space, when the Portobello Park Action Group have suggested Bingham Park, Jewel Park and Greenbelt land as suitable alternatives for the high school?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group say it would be possible to build on the former Lismore School site without the loss of any green space, when that would mean moving the school from a site that's only 40% of the recommended minimum, to one that's only 20% of the recommended minimum?

How do the Portobello Park Action Group propose to fit a secondary school of 1400 pupils onto the site of a primary school built for 270 without losing any green space on Bingham Park?

When asking for donations for the Portobello Park Action Group legal case, why do they never mention to people that the established legal precedent is that permission from the courts is not required to develop schools on Common Good land?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group never explain to people that rulings from the Courts of Session have established that, since the land remains in council ownership and is used to the continuing benefit of the community, schools are compatible with the Common Good status and no permission from the Courts is required to proceed?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group state that “the Golf Course will be lost if the school is built on the Park” when the original high school sat close to the park quite happily for several decades?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group state that “housing will be built on the course” when there are no such proposals and such a development would be incompatible with the Common Good status of the land?

Since the Portobello Park Action Group profess concern about “the possibility of children being knocked down by speeding vehicles on Milton Road”, why have the Portobello Park Action Group spent the last three years promoting Lismore as a better site, when that would result in a fourfold increase in the number of children having to cross it?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group say that the school will result in the "loss of 25% of our precious parkland" when there are over 52Ha of parks in the local area, and the school and playing fields won't even take up 5Ha?

And have the Portobello Park Action Group found the Council’s traffic survey yet?

[seanie]

And this may not be of relevance but the Code of Conduct for Community Councilors, which incorporates Councilors as well, states;

It is unacceptable for community councillors to make personal remarks, make personal attacks or otherwise humiliate the other members either at meetings or in other settings such as internet forums.

So on the off-chance that any member of the Community Council is accusing me of dishonest behaviour, even under the cloak of anonymity, they're in breach of the Code of Conduct and should be reported to Edinburgh City Council immediately.

Just an observation...

[Epykat]

It is unacceptable for community councillors to make personal remarks, make personal attacks or otherwise humiliate the other members either at meetings or in other settings such as internet forums.

...

I don't know if you're a Community Councillor or not Sean, but either way I would say that it is unacceptable for anybody to do any of these things whether it's in a community/on a forum/in a chat room/on Facebook - so this really is the pot calling the kettle black! For years now this forum has been taken over by you and several others who continually make personal and defamatory remarks, personal attacks, humiliate, ridicule and generally demean anybody who doesn't share your passion for your 'school in the Park'. According to you and yours we're all stupid, dense, thick, lying NIMBYs who have no right to defend a 'dog's toilet' or dare to question how wonderful this is all going to be for the 'poor suffering children' and the WHOLE community. This is CLEARLY your opinion but not everybody's. This is a public forum which anybody can read (and, it used to be a brilliant and well used public forum - you may have noticed how posting numbers have dropped), it does not belong to you and you should maybe remember that before you make veiled threats - whoever they may be to. I'll also point you in the direction of the Guidelines for Talkporty - maybe you should have a wee read.


1. Be nice: Personal attacks against forum members will not be tolerated. This includes (but not limited to) attacks on the comments, ideas, language skills, spelling, punctuation, age, gender, sexual orientation, physical appearance, ability/disability, politics and cultural or religious beliefs of other forum members. Your right to freedom of speech has to be balanced with your responsibility not to cause offence. You are free to debate and to disagree, but in a manner that is respectful of the rights and feelings of others.

[seanie]

Your own post is a falsehood.

"According to you and yours we're all stupid, dense, thick, lying NIMBYs who have no right to defend a 'dog's toilet' or dare to question how wonderful this is all going to be for the 'poor suffering children' and the WHOLE community. "

Provide evidence for your claim that according to me all those who opposes the school on the park are "stupid, dense, thick, lying NIMBYs who have no right to defend a 'dog's toilet' or dare to question how wonderful this is all going to be for the 'poor suffering children' and the WHOLE community. "

Go on.

[rmolehusband]

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

It's scaremongering nonsense, but in this case possibly more a result of massaging the figures than PPAG's normal outright lies. I'm guessing the key is 'loss of 25% of Portobello's parkland' (Porty Greenkeepers Website) which leaves it open to debate as to what constitutes Portobello. Pull in the boundaries and you can rule out a lot of parks in your list. Overestimate the take on the park a bit and you can probably get to 25%.

[Epykat]

Your own post is a falsehood.

I had a feeling it might be.

Provide evidence for your claim

Tell you what, you provide evidence of yours.

[seanie]

It was your claim. I merely disputed it. It's for you to justify.

[wangi]

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinb ... 6801312.jp

Porty action group denies poster claim

Published Date: 14 July 2011
A CAMPAIGN group fighting to stop a new high school being built on a park denies handing out posters which have been described as "distasteful" by parents.

Portobello Park Action Group (PPAG) came under fire from parents after using a poster depicting a child who has been run over to promote its campaign.

While parents say the posters were distributed outside Towerbank Primary, PPAG denies handing them out.

...

[Bob Jefferson]

It was your claim. I merely disputed it. It's for you to justify.

If I may intervene for a moment, because let's face it, Epykat isn't going to find evidence to substantiate this claim. Sure, over the years there has been a bit of mud-slinging from both sides. After all, it has been a very emotive issue. More recently, I have to say I have been pretty disappointed at the way several PPAG supporters have conducted themselves. But at the end of the day it's sticks and stones and I don't imagine Sean, myself or any other of their targets are going to lose any sleep. But what is interesting, is that all the complaints of being bullied, ridiculed etc have come from the PPAG camp. And that is what it feels like to them. Why? Because they lose the debate, time after time. Their arguments are trounced and their claims are proven to be false. They are now on the brink of a humiliating defeat, having invested so much time, energy and (in some cases) substantial amounts of money and they don't like it. So they act in a defensive/aggressive fashion and see attacks on their arguments as attacks upon them personally. Maybe it's difficult to separate the two in such a small community but inevitably the school will be built on the park and we will have to draw a line under this and move on.

[seanie]

Provide evidence for your claim that according to me all those who opposes the school on the park are "stupid, dense, thick, lying NIMBYs who have no right to defend a 'dog's toilet' or dare to question how wonderful this is all going to be for the 'poor suffering children' and the WHOLE community. "

[Epykat]

If I may intervene for a moment, because let's face it, Epykat isn't going to find evidence to substantiate this claim..

Only because I have a life and it doesn't involve trawling through years worth of posts

I have been pretty disappointed at the way several PPAG supporters have conducted themselves. ..

Who are you classing as a PPAG supporter? Anybody who disagrees with you? I don't 'support' PPAG and I'm not a 'member' of PPAG, in fact I barely know any of them - but each to their own (as Sean says). And please don't get me started on disappointed! I truly can't believe some of the things that people I know and had a lot of time for, have written about other people on this forum.

Why? Because they lose the debate, time after time.

Debate? This has long since ceased to be a debate..a debate is generally two sides listening to each other and discussing, not one side banging on and on and on and on and calling all and sundry liars

Their arguments are trounced and their claims are proven to be false.

- well bully for you....

So they act in a defensive/aggressive fashion and see attacks on their arguments as attacks upon them personally. Maybe it's difficult to separate the two in such a small community

- as somebody who is not a member of any group but who has been in the firing line anyway, I can understand why someone might get the impression that they are being personally attacked. We're not in Court - you're not the Judge. Why should anyone answer to you? From where I'm standing the aggression is very much from your side.

we will have to draw a line under this and move on.

I very much doubt that will be possible.

[Epykat]

Provide evidence for your claim. "[/i]

Sean, who do you think you are? My Dad?

[seanie]

So you could substantiate your accusation, but you won't because you can't be bothered?

Well that's me trumped. Who'd've thought you'd come up with such a devastating reply. Well done.

[Epykat]

So you could substantiate your accusation, but you won't because you can't be bothered? .

Got it in one!

[seanie]

Fine. But is there any reason you should be taken seriously? If you're just going to say things without justification, that's fairly vacuous.

[seanie]

We're also straying from the meat of the issue at hand;

Why, in defence of their claim that the Council's 'traffic survey described the A1 as a minor road’, have the Portobello Park Action Group cited a document that a) isn't a traffic survey and b) doesn't describe the A1 as a minor road?

Why have the Portobello Park Action Group provided three incompatible claims regarding the document containing this claim?

a)“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”

b)“Sean is holding a poster put up around the park, it was not handed round schools “

c)“we used the image on a poster but the text was different - that is why I know the version Sean has did not come from us”?

What are the developments that the Portobello Park Action Group claim have been planned for Figgate & Quarry Parks in recent months?

Why have the Portobello Park Action Group said that “the council stand to make a significant profit from the sale of the existing school site to property developers but have not said how this will be spent” when the council has indeed said how it will be spent; for capital investment in the school estate, specifically the remaining Wave 3 schools?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group say they oppose development on any green space, when the Portobello Park Action Group have suggested Bingham Park, Jewel Park and Greenbelt land as suitable alternatives for the high school?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group say it would be possible to build on the former Lismore School site without the loss of any green space, when that would mean moving the school from a site that's only 40% of the recommended minimum, to one that's only 20% of the recommended minimum?

How do the Portobello Park Action Group propose to fit a secondary school of 1400 pupils onto the site of a primary school built for 270 without losing any green space on Bingham Park?

When asking for donations for the Portobello Park Action Group legal case, why do they never mention to people that the established legal precedent is that permission from the courts is not required to develop schools on Common Good land?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group never explain to people that rulings from the Courts of Session have established that, since the land remains in council ownership and is used to the continuing benefit of the community, schools are compatible with the Common Good status and no permission from the Courts is required to proceed?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group state that “the Golf Course will be lost if the school is built on the Park” when the original high school sat close to the park quite happily for several decades?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group state that “housing will be built on the course” when there are no such proposals and such a development would be incompatible with the Common Good status of the land?

Since the Portobello Park Action Group profess concern about “the possibility of children being knocked down by speeding vehicles on Milton Road”, why have the Portobello Park Action Group spent the last three years promoting Lismore as a better site, when that would result in a fourfold increase in the number of children having to cross it?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group say that the school will result in the "loss of 25% of our precious parkland" when there are over 52Ha of parks in the local area, and the school and playing fields won't even take up 5Ha?

And have the Portobello Park Action Group found the Council’s traffic survey yet?

[wangi]

Portobello residents recently got a flier though the door from Portobello Park Action Group (PPAG) and supporters headed 'Save Porty Park - It's Not Too Late!' They are asking you to make a financial contribution to their planned legal challenge to the Council in Court on the use of this land for building a new Portobello High School. They make some misleading statements in the flier. Several local people have got back to me for clarification on some points so I'll try to give you my take on it for everyone:

(1) Those youngsters who would have to cross Milton Road to get to the new School site, will also have to cross the same road to get to school on the current site. The main pedestrian accesses are not taken from the pavement on the main road. Planned changes on Milton Road, including a new controlled pedestrian crossing, and a reduction in the speed limit, are designed to make it safer for pedestrians than it currently is. A concerned youngster who wants both a new school and to keep the park, apparently arranged for his/her beautifully drawn and designed leaflet to be handed out at Towerbank School. It depicts a child knocked down by a car on the road in front of the new school. That got a lot of coverage in the Evening News on Monday 11 July and was - in effect - scaremongering by someone who supports PPAG's campaign.

(2) The sale of the current Portobello High School site for flats is not at all certain. It may well be restored to green space, in whole or in part. That question is still open to be fought for by the local community, when and if the time comes. Some people might have forgotten, we do need a new or refurbished and extended St John's Primary School, with play and sports space, next door to the current Porty High. That fact has not slipped my mind!

(3) The PPAG campaign material asserts, without foundation, that Portobello Golf Course will be lost if the school is built on the park and housing built there instead. Well, no! In 2008, we had confirmation that this whole area has Common Good status. A publicly-owned and run school has been established as a Common Good use through the establishment of at least two precedents. It has been tested in the Courts Of Session for Common Good sites elsewhere in Scotland. Any sale of Common Good land into private hands - if it is ever seriously suggested - will be vigorously and successfully opposed, by me among others. The new building has been skilfully designed, and the school community intend to ensure that the golf course and school can function well together. That is what I fully expect to happen.

(4) The option to rebuild Portobello High School on the same extremely tight site was put into an outline initial bid for Scottish Government funding in 2003. It was suggested as a possible site again in 2006. BUT this choice runs very, very far behind the school in the park option. The bid for funding in 2003 was not taken further largely because it was cramped and very far from ideal then. It is still very far from ideal now.

I hope those four points provide you with some balance to PPAG's assertions. Of course, I leave you to judge who to believe and what you do about it!

[saveportypark]

God - It's all getting a bit heated. Sean, thanks for repeating all your complaints/comments about the whole flier issue but we've kind of been there before. I was sort of hoping you might have answered the question rather than just rant on. I have explained the reason for differing quotes relating to the leaflet but I will repeat them. What Sean is brandishing wason the Save Porty Park facebook site for comments by other members, it was quickly removed (a point gloatingly confirmed by Sean and others) and has only been used as a poster with different text, never distributed at schools. So how did this become an Evening News story? As I asked did you print it off yourself Sean or has someone else lied to you and left you looking a bit silly? If it was someone else why don't you ask them to post what actually happened to back up your story? If you're going to call people liar you had better be squeaky clean yourself.

[seanie]

So when you said on the Evening News site that;

Sean - You are a master at changing the subject. Who gave you the leaflet that was supposedly distributed round the schools? You are accusing us of lying but you are the one who went to the press with a story full of mis-truths and a fabricated flier.

What did you mean by a fabricated flyer?

[seanie]

You've reverted to admitting that the item in question was posted on your facebook site but only "for comments by other members". Here's a suggestion; if you don't intend your 'productions' to be open to public scrutiny, don't post them on Facebook.

Because once you've put it in the public domain you've lost control. Even if you weren't ready to distribute the poster, how can you be sure a sympathiser didn't print it off and hand it out themselves?

[seanie]

As to how I came across your propaganda...

I was not on the school run the day leaflets were being handed out. I was first told about it by either text or e-mail. I was subsequently given a crumped A4 copy of the "poster" in dispute. My focus was on the lie about the Council's traffic survey rather than the image,

And you still haven't squared your incompatible claims;

a)“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”

b)“Sean is holding a poster put up around the park, it was not handed round schools “

c)“we used the image on a poster but the text was different - that is why I know the version Sean has did not come from us”?

[seanie]

So what about this other flyer of yours and the "loss of 25% of our precious parkland" claim?

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.

So go on saveportypark, tell us which local parks you're ignoring in your calculation.

Which of them aren't "precious parkland" in the view of PPAG?

As if we didn't know....

[Porty]

God - It's all getting a bit heated. Sean, thanks for repeating all your complaints/comments about the whole flier issue but we've kind of been there before.

Yes we have and you have not addressed a single one of the questions Sean has put to you. Its the same old; PPAG are offered facts and questioned about why they are purveying falsehoods? They ignore the questions, truth is they can't provide a credible explanation. But Sean, Bobby and myself don't give up, we keep asking and before you know it we are supposedly bullying. However, had the issues been addressed we wouldn't have to go on.

Saveportypark- I think you would do yourself and everyone else a favour by taking the points one by one and explain why you claim the things you do- step up.

[wangi]

On "Save Porty Park"'s Facebook page:

The petition for Judicial Review against the decision of the City of Edinburgh Council taken in respect of the proposed Portobello High School has been lodged in the Court of Session.

[seanie]

Anyone know the timescales for hearings etc?

[wangi]

Nothing jumped out when I had a quick skim of the rolls; so I'm guessing a date hasn't yet been set.

[rmolehusband]

The petition for Judicial Review against the decision of the City of Edinburgh Council taken in respect of the proposed Portobello High School has been lodged in the Court of Session.

A JR would look at the process rather than the decision.

Their best chance would be to claim that Gillian Dunn's inability to use the planning portal constitutes a failure in the planning process and that the council need to do a re-run with a more idiot proof system.

More likely, I guess they want the review to say that the Council exceeded it's legal authority in granting planning permission due to the whole common good red herring. Clutching at the shadows of straws there.

[seanie]

The Common Good issue is irrelevant in planning terms. And I can't see any procedural grounds. If they're challenging the Council's right to build on Common Good land then that's challenging the previous decisions of the Courts of Session. Any such argument might be protracted.

[wangi]

On Prortygreenkeepers: CLLR CHILD JUMPS ON PFANS BANDWAGON
Some intriguing responses...

[Porty]

On Prortygreenkeepers: CLLR CHILD JUMPS ON PFANS BANDWAGON

Maureen states;

"A concerned youngster who wants both a new school and to keep the park, apparently arranged for his/her beautifully drawn and designed leaflet to be handed out at Towerbank School. It depicts a child knocked down by a car on the road in front of the new school. That got a lot of coverage in the Evening News on Monday 11 July and was - in effect - scaremongering by someone who supports PPAG's campaign"

So she didn't say it was PPAG and she didn't say it happened!! So PPAG supporters, why not waste yourtime asking Maureen to withdraw the assertion she didn't make? And they have the audacity to suggest she is misrepresenting her constituents.

[seanie]

PPAG aren't telling the truth about what the Council decided in March 2010. Cllr Child is right, the Council haven't yet taken a final decision on the existing site. Instead they kept their options open.

PPAG quote the report recommending the site be sold, but to find out what the Council decided you need to read the minutes of the meeting. There you'll see that the Council didn't accept this aspect of the report and decided that compensatory open space should be given further consideration. They also reaffirmed that, should any of the site be sold, the money would be ring-fenced for capital investment in schools.

Given the financial situation there will be strong departmental pressure to sell and raise some capital. But St John's needs a larger site (and capital investment), the open space issue is still being considered, and the Council has yet to take a decision.

So Maureen is correct; it is still a live issue.

[seanie]

The two relevant motions being;

2) To approve the revised approach to open space compensation set out in the Directors’ report with the exception of the matter of the provision, or otherwise, of alternative open space. This would be considered by the Portobello and Craigmillar Neighbourhood Partnership in assessing the implementation of the Open Space Strategy in the local area.

5) To ring-fence any receipt from the disposal of the site of the existing Portobello High School for future reinvestment into the Children and Families estate.

Whilst the existing site may yet be sold to realise a capital receipt, the issue is still open.

[seanie]

The most comical retort is this;

The red line designating the boundary for the planning application for the school encompassed the whole of the park and GC. Why?

Why?

Because when anyone submits a planning application they have to provide a location map with the site boundary outlined in red. That's the rule.

The proposed site is on a Portobello Park, land owned by the council on a single title deed. So the boundary of that land has to be marked by a line around the whole park.

And the significance of this is zero.

You can't put a planning application in for a velux window and, having got permission, build a 4 bedroom extension.

"But I put a red line around the whole site. I can build what I want"

Yet this cretinous argument has repeatedly been advance by the Portobello Park Action Group.

Even at the planning committee meeting, PPAG made this very claim.

"If you give permission, you give permission to build anywhere within the Park"

The look of incredulity on the Councillors' faces, at someone saying something quite so ridiculous, was a sight to behold.

[saveportypark]

Sean - At the risk of repeating myself let's go back to the Evening News leaflet story. You were given a crumpled leaflet by someone at school, the one you had looked pretty smooth, I assume you printed it yourself. We have never printed the leaflet that included the A1 comment, it was on the facebook page for a short time and then removed. You have suggested that a rogue supporter may have taken it upon him/herself to mount a one man campaign, fairly unlikely but pretty much disproved by the mentions of an Antipodean who had a big wad of the text fliers that we used and nothing else.
The conflicting comments are because initial reaction was provoked by the "parents shock at tasteless flier" feel of the story - when no such thing had been used at schools. Only on closer inspection did we notice that you were brandishing the version that was on our facebook site for a short time. You claim to have been focusing on the "false A1 claim" rather than the tasteless image, however this claim was made on neither the leaflet that was sent round schools nor on the posters round the park. This leaves the story looking very short on truth and high on mock outrage over a child's drawing.
I assume there are many parents of kids who would have supposedly received this flier who post on Talk Porty - not one person has come forward to back this tale up. Don't you find that a touch surprising if there were so many shocked parents?