Portobelllo Community Council- Greatest Hits

[Bob Jefferson]

The other thing to bear in mind when reading the PCC minutes is that John gives a monthly report on behalf of PAS, so some of the more minor planning issues you quote form part of that PAS report as an independent body. Perhaps the minutes do not always make it clear which hat he is wearing. I think that's the problem - too many hats being swapped around by the same people for too long. I support regime change but no-one thus far seems prepared to step up to the plate.

[seanie]

I don't recall the last time there was a report from PAS, or the last time they exercised their authority to object on behalf of the PCC. That particular function seems to have fallen by the wayside.

[rathbone]

I support regime change but no-one thus far seems prepared to step up to the plate.

Down here in Rathboneland you can only serve on the Community Council for three years, then you have to step down for a minimum of one year before you are eligible for re-election. Chairs and secretaries have to rotate every three years as well. Sub-Committee minutes are published along with the CC minutes. This is all intended to ensure transparency and stop the formation of small cabals taking over the power . In practice it's not perfect, but it has meant a greater mix of people and prevented anyone getting too powerful.

I assume that PCC has no such requirement. Perhaps it should.

[Bob Jefferson]

Perhaps it should. Did PCC ever get round to adopting the model constitution and, if so, is there any such mechanism contained therein?

[Mark Cameron]

Is that the model that they were attempting to alter to increase the minimum required up to 50 people? Never did hear the outcome of that attempt to secure their positions...

[seanie]

The Council eventually acquiesced and allowed the modification, so 50 people are needed to trigger an EGM.

[Mark Cameron]

Staggering! Was there a pcc vote on that issue and if so how did that go?

[seanie]

Don't think there was a vote.

[Porty]

The Council eventually acquiesced and allowed the modification, so 50 people are needed to trigger an EGM.

Up from 25? Which I believe is the threshold for every other CC in Scotland, why does our CC want to create higher hurdles for the people they represent.

Sean and or Marya- I think you should suggest adopting the policies Rathbone has divulged. Why would anyone object?

Cutting to the chase- When it comes to matters planning, PCC has been led by a serial objector for many years. Things got dramatically worse when two or three other serial objecors joined up in the mid- 2000's. Now they are at helm and diminishing our Community Council. We have a democratic body, that voted almost unanimously against objecting to a planning application but those responsible for reporting the outcome are programmed to object, so that's what they did and will continue to do. Fuck you lot we are objecting!!

They use PCC to reinforce their personal objections.

[Mark Cameron]

Do you know who raised the issue of the increase Seanie? Was there overall agreement?

[seanie]

I can't really remember. There were certainly a number who thought increasing the number was important. Whilst others were OK with it as it stood, I don't think they felt particularly strongly about it. Be it 20 or 50 an EGM is likely to be a pretty rare occurrence; there aren't man issues of such urgency that they can't wait till the next meeting.

I find that people who don't have strong feelings tend to acquiesce to those that do.

[Bob Jefferson]

So what do you think was the motive behind seeking this amendment? And does the present constitution limit the length of time that an individual can hold the post of Chair, Secretary etc?

[seanie]

I think, although I'm not certain, that the PCC constitution had previously had a provision for 50 people to trigger an AGM, so in that sense it was preserving the status quo. There was also a concern that 20 was quite low, and so EGMs could be triggered too easily causing disruption.

There are no time limits in the standard constitution or scheme. That could cause difficulties. It varies across the country but there are areas where Community Councils struggle to have enough members so forcing people to stand down would put their viability under threat.

[Bob Jefferson]

Yeah, the fact that there have never been enough candidates to force an election in recent years speaks volumes. It's easy to snipe from the sidelines, but if people want to see change then they have to be prepared to get involved themselves. When are the next elections?

[Porty]

I'm not sure that's right Bob. I may be mistaken but in the last or penultimate elections there was potentially 18 candidtates for 15 posts and some people stood down to avoid elections, is that correct?

[Porty]

It's easy to snipe from the sidelines, but if people want to see change then they have to be prepared to get involved themselves. ?

Or those tasked with doing their PCC jobs could do what is asked of them without perversion.

[seanie]

I think there's an inherent problem with Community Councils. They exist first and foremost to represent the views of the community, but as said before determining the views of the community is difficult, so by and large Community Councils fall back on hoping that the views of those on the Community Council broadly mirror the views of the community at large. But Community Councils tend to be unrepresentative. Most people don't have the time or interest that's required to commit so you generally end up with people with a special interest or who have a strong interest in the community. But, peversely, that mitigates against being an effective Community Councillor. Because a Community Council should be putting the views of Community Councillors second to those of the community , should be able to recognise that distinction. But people who care deeply about things, who have strong views, who are those most likely to put in the personal effort to be a member of a Community Council, are also the kind of people least likely to play devil's advocate, put their own views second, and strive for an impartial approach. Why be impartial when you know you're right? That's a difficult square to circle. I think people who commit to being on a Community Council do so with the best of intentions, to represent and defend the interests of the community. But the question of whether their views actually do represent the community often goes unasked, let alone answered.

[Porty]

With you all the way.

I believe that here in Portobello our community council is diverse and has the potential to represent a wide range of views. Maybe the age profile of councillors is a bit older than average but we do have some young blood, people with families, older people with young attitudes from a variety of backgrounds. Is it not the case that a wide range of views are expressed but often the reporting of outcomes is spiked and spun to best fit with the authors personal stance?

The group has got to be led in an appropriate, fair and reasonable manner. If they had a Community Council on Coronation Street with Norris and Mary running the show, I don't think they would take many people with them.

[Porty]

I don't recall the last time there was a report from PAS, or the last time they exercised their authority to object on behalf of the PCC. That particular function seems to have fallen by the wayside.

This is quite recent (about 15 meetings ago?)

263.9g Planning: John Stewart reported that he had objected to an application for a three
bedroom extension at 1 Duddingston Crescent on the grounds of overdevelopment.

There is an application to build a house in the grounds of 9A Joppa Park. PAS has no
strong feelings about it so will not object.

The Forthview Bar at King’s Place has applied for permission to build a massive extension of 130% the size of the existing premises. The main concerns are traffic,parking, noise nuisance, overshadowing of neighbouring properties and use of
inappropriate materials which will be out of keeping with the area. The closing date for objections is 7 November. John Stewart will object on behalf of the community council and another PAS member will object on their behalf. John encouraged as many community council members to object individually as possible

The relationship with PAS is murky. Accordng to the Minutes, the applications at Duddingston Crescent and the Forthview bar were never discussed at PCC. John just decided to object and on Forthview he encouraged everyone else to do so. Is there some sort of personal issue with the owner of the Forthview?

And when it comes to the proposed house in Joppa Park; PAS has no strong feelings so PCC will not object!!

This takes things to a whole new level. It is not local plans and policies that determine whether to object, it depends how 2 or 3 unelected people at PAS are feeling. It is outrageous.

[rmolehusband]

Accordng to the Minutes, the applications at Duddingston Crescent and the Forthview bar were never discussed at PCC.

Probably coincidence, but I don't believe either of those properties are actually in the PCC's ward, though they are both right on the border.

[wangi]

1 Duddingston Crescent is in the Craigmillar CC area; however Forthview Bar is within Portobello CC.

[Porty]

I wasn't aware.

I suppose if PAS are in a bad mood and having a slow objection month, they are quite prepared to push the boundaries. Inclusivness is good practice.

Be helpful if they kitted up in uniforms. Porty's colours; blue and yellow with a big "O" on the front and back. This would make it easier for people to identify the objection squad and put their tuppence worth in about their neighbours planned velux. it would certianly qualify as "community consultation" and it would put off people who support applications. Job done.

[Makaveli]

We just got planning permission through for a dormer window at the front of the house - didn't like to mention it on here in fear that the objection squad came into full effect!!!

[rmolehusband]

however Forthview Bar is within Portobello CC.

I though the dividing line was down the middle of King's Road, but you're right and it does make a lot more sense for the boundry to loop round and include the block of buildings on the north side.

[rmolehusband]

We just got planning permission through for a dormer window at the front of the house - didn't like to mention it on here in fear that the objection squad came into full effect!!!

Sshhhh! They still might appeal.

[Porty]

We just got planning permission through for a dormer window at the front of the house - didn't like to mention it on here in fear that the objection squad came into full effect!!!

You did well to slip under the radar, well done.

The thread title is "Greatest Hits" and it would be remiss to omit a vintage month for the objection squad;

248.9e Planning:

John Stewart reported on a flurry of applications.

*Car parking space in the garden at 21 Bath Street had been rejected because this was not a ‘new build’ as no. 19 had been.

*Permission had been granted to build a new residence at the back of 11–13 Bellfield Lane, meaning that a new street
was effectively growing down the back gardens here.

Objections had been lodged:

*to the plan to put two extra doors into the original frontage of the Blue Bean coffee house;

*to the planned signage where the Pop Inn was being converted into a William Hill betting shop, which was completely unsympathetic to the local conservation area;

*to an application to convert the Labour Party rooms to housing;

* to a plan to build mews houses in St Mary’s Lane; and

*to the visual impact of the new British Heart Foundation charity shop in one of the town’s vacant shops.

Wow!! All hands to the pump. Up to 8 objections a month all without mention of actual planning policy, and not a one that's of any interest to the wider community, way to go.

[Porty]

The PCC attitude to the conservation area seems to be totally at odds with planners and planning policy. The City Council have strict but flexible guidelines relating to the building of new single dwelling homes in our conservation area. As long as policies are adhered to and design standards are achieved, approval is granted. I'm aware of 7 applications for indivdual new build homes in the last 5 years or so and 6 of those were approved (a couple on appeal). PCC's policy is draconian in comparison:

Land near 5 Marlborough Street – This has been brought forward before for a single storey building which was refused because it was out of character. The only change to this application is the change to the appearance – it is now a different facing. It is PCC policy to object to this type of development in any conservation area. It was agreed that a letter of objection be written.

ACTION: John to write to Planning

A policy to object? Doesn't seem to gel with the spirit or intent of the prevailing planning policies, does it? Why does a Community Council have an objection policy when they exist to reflect community views? Surely they ought to be evaluating how proposed applications stand up to prevailing policy and then deciding whether to support, object or not comment?

Thing is; there is something very odd about the PCC policy. Iv'e written several times and some CC have made inquiries and there is no record of PCC ever having adopted such a policy, none. So the question is; from where did John Stewart magic up this policy? It sounds more like a policy Portobello Amenity Society would have or perhaps a policy John adheres to personally. Either way, it doesn't seem right to be quoting policies which have never been adopted.

PCC need to clarify what they are when it comes to planning matters, are they a Community Council, are they Portobello Amenity Society or are they something worse?

[seanie]

I can shed some light. There was no 'policy' as such, at least nothing was ever formally discussed and adpoted. More it was a sort of 'custom' that emerged.

[Porty]

Eh??? We have the Chair of Portobello Amenity Society insisting it is customary for PCC to object to new build dwellings in the conservation area and no discussion required. No wonder PCC are so often at odds with the community they serve.

Sean, there's a lot of clever people in that room. Does anyone ever say:

"Hang on a minute John. recenty we have objected to half a dozen single new build applications in the conservation area and they have all been approved. Isn't it time we dropped the objection custom?

Our time and resources are limited. The planners clearly place little worth on our objections. Why don't we devote our energy to something positive. We are not Portobello Amenity Society no matter how much you would like us to be"

Why does noboby step up and say enough is enough, we look foolish.

[Porty]

And the one we didn't object to was rejected on almost every key criteria.

[Mark Cameron]

Porty you'd better edit this thread title before the next PCC meeting or you might find PAC lodge an objection to the introduction of a single new build l in Portobelllo

[Porty]

My typos are legendary. 3 lll's in portobelllo- well i never.

[Pal of Porty]

I was staggered this morning to see the PCC being ripped apart by learned individuals on the BBC's Breakfast News this morning. They were really giving them some stick. Oh how I laughed when I realised that PCC stood for Press Complaints Commission.

[Porty]

Be helpful if they kitted up in uniforms. Porty's colours; blue and yellow with a big "O" on the front and back. This would make it easier for people to identify the objection squad and put their tuppence worth in about their neighbours planned velux. .

I have had some feedback that this kind of sarcasm is not particularly helpful and that PCC are unlikely to act on demand of a few neighbours, well.................

274.9h Planning:
John Stewart reported that three residents in Bellfield Lane were objecting to an application to build a new house in a back garden there. Several other houses had already been built in this way, effectively creating a new street in this conservation area. It was generally agreed that the Community Council should support the neighbours' objections on the grounds of over-development and health & safety.

3 residents is enough for PCC to get involved in what is essentially a neighbour feud.

My use of "objection squad" was has also been called into question, well...

Diana Cairns mentioned the Planning Concordat, feeling that it was unreasonable of the City Council to expect us to respond to it. Very few other community councils seemed to have responded, but those that don't respond by 11th December risked having policies imposed upon them. It was generally agreed that Diana should register our objection to this demand.
• Action: John Stewart to object to the proposed development in Bellfield Lane.
• Action: Diana Cairns to object to the City Council's handling of the Planning Concordat.

It seems PCC were objecting to the councils request for input on a planning matter. Its like someone has got in their heads the council have it in for PCC and Community Councils in general..

I don't know what to make of it, other than objection for objection sake. I suggest objection squad is entirely appropriate.

[SoupDragon]

I was staggered this morning to see the PCC being ripped apart by learned individuals on the BBC's Breakfast News this morning. They were really giving them some stick. Oh how I laughed when I realised that PCC stood for Press Complaints Commission.

I think there would be a bigger turnout at Portobello CC meetings if anyone thought Hugh Grant might turn up