Portobello Community Council

[Puerto bella]

No

[Porty]

Not sure if the Minutes are the vehicle for reporting what occurred. Wasn't there chat about a separate summary being prepared to inform the council? Marya, Sean?

The minutes really ought to mention the 40 plus people who could not be accommodated.

[Snow White]

I don't see any mention in the minutes of Diana Cairn's refusal to answer the question of whether the person who admitted at the meeting to writing a letter sent to Park Ave dwellers was indeed the same author she had earlier referred to.

[Porty]

To be fair on DC John Stewart shielded her from having to answer. Questions had to go through the chair and he never asked, quick change of subject is my recollection.

[Mark Cameron]

Not sure if the Minutes are the vehicle for reporting what occurred. Wasn't there chat about a separate summary being prepared to inform the council? Marya, Sean?.

If that's the case id like access to that too, before Its submitted preferably.

[Bob Jefferson]

I don't see any mention in the minutes of Diana Cairn's refusal to answer the question of whether the person who admitted at the meeting to writing a letter sent to Park Ave dwellers was indeed the same author she had earlier referred to.

Yes. I had my hand raised for most of the evening before I finally got the opportunity to ask a couple of questions. The first, a simple point of clarification re the letter of 'intimidation', was ignored and the second, asking at what point the Chair felt it would be appropriate to take action re PPAG's website was dismissed (avoided) as 'hypothetical'. Yet it is an important point. PPAG currently have a number of misleading statements on their website and are represented on the CC. John doesn't feel that it is appropriate for the CC to ask them to remove them. Under what circumstances would it be appropriate? How about if they developed the theme of it all being the fault of 'incomers', which seems popular among some PPAG supporters. Would John still feel that the CC couldn't intervene? It may be hypothetical but it's a perfectly valid question and one that deserves an answer.

[Pal of Porty]

I don't see any mention in the minutes of Diana Cairn's refusal to answer the question of whether the person who admitted at the meeting to writing a letter sent to Park Ave dwellers was indeed the same author she had earlier referred to.

Now now Snow White.... you will be getting accused of intimidation and bullying if you dare ask a question of the chosen one.

[geofflynn]

I've been digging in the Public Planning Portal to see who's been commenting on local applications. Can you see any patterns emerging?

http://bit.ly/Kepv6M

[Porty]

Yeah- John Stewart made 10 personal objection in total, 8 of those he was the only objector. The guy deserves an ASBO.

However, it is good to see that PCC appear to have objected to very little in the last year, which is an improvemnet.

The blame is not entirely John Stewart's, for years, possibly 20, he was the sole PCC voice on planning matters. He would turn up at meetings and say someting along the lines of "there's a proposal to build a house in a garden at bath street, I've written to object on behalf of PCC" and we would all just sit there and let him get on with it.

Its only a couple of years since the Portobello Reporter published an article where John told the community that PAS (a far from transparent group, which meets at his house) are delegated to respond on planning applications on behalf of PCC.

He never did clear that up, despite reams of correspondence on the matter.

Then the school proposal came along and suddenlly people started paying attention to what was being said on their behalf. The misery PCC have doled out some of their constutuents is woeful. Anne and Belle's are the latest victims. I remember one bloke being redusced to tears at a PCC meeting when John would not budge on his objection.

[Puerto bella]

The debate on this very issue continues in an identifiable forum on Facebook for anyone who is interested.

To all the CC lurkers on here though - you'll need to let everyone know who you are before you can join in and continue your monitoring of what we're saying - unless of course your 'cutters and pasters' are on the ball again :0

....and before anyone says - No I'm not being paranoid.

Very interesting discussion on the antics of the CC planning enforcement officer.

[Porty]

Do you have a link PB?

[Mark Cameron]

There are discussions on the Portobello High Street group and also on Portobello CC - time for change page.

[Porty]

ok thanks.

[Mark Cameron]

I wrote to all members of PCC asking that they consider their vote carefully at the forthcoming AGM later this month to bring about positive change in our community council.

My letter and so far a reply from a couple of community councillors are available here ==> https://www.facebook.com/PortyCCTimeForChange

[Charlie]

Some people have been posting summary information on planning objections from EC planning site (and if I could find them again, I'd link to the info. I'm so useless!). The main point raised was about the same people raising planning objections.

The Bellfield Lane discussion on this thread was also interesting given the objections to building on lanes. (I'm personally not a fan of building new stuff on the lanes, but I am a fan of great design and the Bellfield lane site had already had a building on it).

It got me interested enough to take a short trawl through the planning portal, focusing on the lanes and objections to lane development. To cut a boring story short, there's a remarkably similar planning application on another lane which had no objections (John Street Lane 11/02369/FUL).

I'm not saying anyone should object, it's probably a great planning application. But it feels a bit odd.

Why go to town objecting to one and not the other?

[Porty]

I'm not saying anyone should object, it's probably a great planning application. But it feels a bit odd. Why go to town objecting to one and not the other?

That's what PCC do.

Anne and Belle's was the fourth change of use application on Porty High Street in six months.PCC said nothing about two and commented on the other two, totally inconsistent.

At other times "consistency" is a mantra that must be obeyed.

Bellfield lane: they invoked "consistency" as the chief reason for objecting to the highest profile new build. They had objected to previous applications in the street and were concerned to be seen as being inconsistent if they did not object, its all in the Minutes.

So they went for consistency and in some ways achieved it. All of the previous applications they had objected to were granted and so was this one. They consistetly pissed people off, objecting and losing, over and over again. . Nevermind that the overwheming majority of those choosing to respond were in favour of the application, in the interests of consistency, PCC simply had to object.

Why, it is just like our friends over at PPAG, indeed you couldn't get a fag paper between them.

So why the inconsistency; John Street Lane v Bellfield Lane? The answer is quite simple.Generally speaking If one or more of Hawkins, Cairns, Hosking or Stewart decide to object to a planning application, PCC generally follows suit and they don't let go

No matter the desirability or merits of an application, no matter what the community have to say- they have a target and are happy to use PCC that'ts you, me and the silent majority, to bludgeon anything they don't like.

What else could it be?

John Street Lane is a PCC anomaly, as Stewart did submit a personal objection and PCC stayed silent, he never brought it up with them. Perhaps he was concerned PCC would come out in support , after the shameful Bellfield Lane travesty, I think that must be it. He had two votes on Bellfiled Lane and not a word to say to the PCC on JSL.

[Mark Cameron]

It seems a number of people who had like the Portobello CC - Time for Change 'Page' were not receiving notifications and updates.

I've created a Group instead to resolve this and you'll find it here:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2222668 ... 831219832/

If you're interested pop over and join. Oh and if any of your FB friends had liked the page let them know about the Group too please.

[fresian]

Just had a look at the planning application list. I was wonedring wy PCC would have no problem with PV panels at the back of the roof on Bath Street, but would object to having them in Windsor Place

[geofflynn]

Open letter to PCC: 88 residents and business owners in Portobello signed an open letter asking Portobello Community Council to address a number of concerns.

It is important to note that this is not about taking sides on a particularly vexed local issue.

This is about ensuring that the community council is able to continue its good work without getting bogged down in accusations of partiality on any local matter.

---

The Open letter to Portobello Community Councillors signed by 88 residents and business owners can be seen here → http://bit.ly/K3Gzzx


John Stewart’s reply letter (which is a personal reply) can be read here →http://bit.ly/LPJRJg


Related docs:-
Annie and Belle cafe timeline --> http://bit.ly/JAqmDS
Planning applications over last 12 months --> http://bit.ly/Jqt0e4
Matrix of who's who and on which committee --> http://bit.ly/Kct4vT
Find media comments by PCC members → http://bit.ly/LxE7gM

----

PCC AGM is tonight (Monday, 28th May, 2012). 7.30, in Portobello Baptist Church Hall, 185 Portobello High Street

[Bob Jefferson]

News just in from the PCC AGM. John Stewart still Chair, Brenda still Vice Chair, Diana still Joint Sec, Sean replaces Nick Stroud as the other Joint Sec. The old guard still very much in control. Very disappointing.

[Porty]

VERY

[Lashylass]

So what does that tell you?

[Peter Bradley]

Oh I dont know - I was going to get SKY but following the antics of our PCC is far more enjoyable - it has it all - tragedy, comedy, horror, drama and my personal favourite, farce. The script writer is extremely talented - where does he get the ideas from and dont get me started about the cast - world class casting although one or two of my personal favourites do tend to overact on occasion (well OK every occasion). I was gutted when one of the cast was written out of the story but I suspect a suprise recall a la Bobby Ewing. Keep up the good work folks, I think an award must be due soon.

[Porty]

So what does that tell you?

I think we both know the answer to that.

[geofflynn]

My notes from the PCC meeting, 28 May, 2012 --> http://bit.ly/KbuytZ

[Porty]

http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-eveni ... -1-2326789

[Mark Cameron]

So what does that tell you?

Eh.....that the majority of PCC believe that they are representing the community.

Show me the evidence of consultation on matters they've interfered with and I might have some respect but no one has been able to point to me that.

Lashylass does that sound like a CC representing it's community or do you believe that little gaggle should be making the decisions based on what they 'believe' the community would want - with no consultation.

Yes they give their time freely but that is only to be commended if they actually follow the Scheme for Community Councils which I'm finding it difficult to get evidence of. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong though as it would mean there is actually consuation taking place.

Over to you......

[Porty]

Don't hold your breath- it doesn't do factual engagement.

Geoff's letter had 90 or so signatures. With the exception of the recent EM, where PCC HAD to act, it is the largest representation made to PCC, by its public,in recent memory, possibly ever. It was completley ignored, not a mention.

[regent]

I totally agree porty it is tragic. I was at the meeting and watched as the feedback was given by various people and organisations. Electronic or written info would have been just as adequate. If provided in advance people could indicate anything they wanted to change etc. Then the meeting could be used to discuss and decide matters that the community raise. The info should be available for the community to comment on in advance, or to inform whether we want to attend the meeting. The format of the meeting is out of date, cumbersome and ineffectual. I signed that letter and feel let down by those who are supposed to represent me. Where is my answer? Where is the discussion? Does it take an extra ordinary meeting to be heard? Was there an active decision to ignore the letter? Who made the decision to ignore it?

[Puerto bella]

Good post Regent. Agree. CCs will never be representative given that they are not elected - they elect themselves. They will never be representative of a cross section of the community as they are constructed and constituted in such a way that precludes the involvement of many talented people. They provide no voice to the less articulate, poorer, ethnic minorities....need I go on. Look around the table and see how representative they are of all groups of our society. They should surely be a vehicle to reach out to everyone.They are archaic in their methods of communication as they tend to be dominated by older people, with time to give who tend not to be so au fait with how people communicate nowadays and fear social media as a communication tool. This isnt just our CC - its happening all over Scotland - we should be worried that these groups have been given more 'power' in the planning process yet dont represent the very people they were set up to represent. This is an issue that should be made clear to your local elected members.

[seanie]

I recently came across the Community Councils Short Life Working Group. One of the discussion papers is instructive of a certain attitude.

The general thrust is "we can't consult everybody so let us not consult anybody and just decide for ourselves; we can't consult on every issue so let us not consult on any issue and just decide for ourselves."

They want more powers and less accountability.

[Makaveli]

The thing is that in these modern times we have the ability to consult with others from every demographic as the internet is readily available to almost all. If not on computer then on smart phones. Most cafes and bars you go to these days have free WIFI so it is not like you can say that only well off folk have access to the internet that simply isn't true.

The PCC need to be setting up a way that consultation can be heard quickly and easily through either online polls or the setting up of an e-mail distribution list so that others, rather than the usual (maybe that should be unusual), suspects are getting to make comment on local issues and passing it off as what the majority wants.

[SoupDragon]

Makaveli, you're making a BIG assumption in thinking the PCC WANT to know the people of Portobellos views.

[Makaveli]

I know very naive of me - but I like to think that some of the people on the PCC are open to this kind of community engagement.

[Puerto bella]

In short: Some on the CC do want to engage and some think they do and some are just happy getting on with their special interest.
Having spent time speaking to a substantial number of the CC members either face to face, by email or through Fb groups as I see it we have a situation where we have a lot of well meaning people although some seem to have lost their way though over The single issue and both sides see themselves as the good guys and somewhere in the middle lies the reality. What concerns me most of all is that there are some who are so entrenched in their position that they cannot or will not concede an inch or even recogise the validity of the opposition view.
Through this whole exercise I have spoken to and built bridges with people I thought i'd never speak to to be honest and have learnt more about their perspective on things.
They are all hopefully reasonable people so should be able to try make it work in theory but for that to happen we need those who are entrenched to open their eyes and stop the stubborn attitude that is not conducive to healthy community engagement.