New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[Porty]

One couldn't make it up.

[Betty Windsor]

As to QCs, I have to say the Council's one is pretty impressive too.

Who is the Council's QC?

Obviously I didn't read your post properly. Can't remember her name. Sorry.

[seanie]

The evidence of the usage survey supports the widespread impression that the park is little used by anybody other than dog walkers. You certainly see precious few children in it.

With accessible all-weather pitches we should see far more.

[Porty]

As to QCs, I have to say the Council's one is pretty impressive too.

Who is the Council's QC?

Obviously I didn't read your post properly. Can't remember her name. Sorry.

One still couldn't make it up.

[seanie]

As to QCs, I have to say the Council's one is pretty impressive too.

Who is the Council's QC?

Sarah Wolffe?

[Porty]

Think the Golf Club has been around for 150 Years but the park is not that old.

[seanie]

And the land was acquired in 1898 so no, it's not 150 years old. You're confusing the golf club with the golf course.

[Porty]

And its much more recently that almost the entire area was sports surface. Id say until the early 80s there were rugby and football pitches. Little or no park.

[Paxetamor]

Sean,it always seems that you don't recognise dog walkers as part of the community that would use a park. It's like saying nobody uses the golf course apart from golfers.
I take it you don't drive past at the weekends during the football season when there are actual youths playing, I know you'll find this hard to believe, FOOTBALL. I did not make this up.

[seanie]

The two accessible all-weather pitches will be able to sustain far more use than the poor quality grass pitches at present, and dog walkers will still be able to walk around the remaining park on improved paths.

[Porty]

The two accessible all-weather pitches will be able to sustain far more use than the poor quality grass pitches at present, and dog walkers will still be able to walk around the remaining park on improved paths.

And will they still be part of the community?

[Porty]

Even the ones with poodles?

[Paxetamor]

Have you seen the size of the remaining park! Folk'll get dizzy.

[Porty]

Have you seen the size of the remaining park! Folk'll get dizzy.

Nah, we completely missed that. What size will it be? Im presuming you agree school kids and staff should be considered a higher priority than dogs when it comes to precious space?

[Chas]

I take it you don't drive past at the weekends during the football season when there are actual youths playing

Here, here. The greatest number of people I'vee ver seen on the park in recent years were the regular football sessions. And they are the ones who have already been 'chucked off' the land. Where is their campaign to 'save our pitches'? Is there one? If not, perhaps it's because they see that there is a [slim & slimming] chance that they might actually benefit in the long run? The dog walker brigade are fewer in number but risk spoiling things for the significant majority. I'm no fan of losing green space, but I can see the ultimate benefit in this case.

[Bob Jefferson]

How many generations will benefit? 2 or 3 maybe until it's deemed unfit for purpose and sold. The park has been there for 150 years, we will never get it back.

Sure, at some point in the future they will have to re-build the school. Nothing lasts forever. But at least next time there will be an obvious solution. Chances are, the Portobello Park site will still be considered suitable for the new school.

Wait until the dust has settled. In 10 years time, people will be wondering what all the fuss was about. People will still walk their dogs and jog but many more will come to make use of the community facilities. The whole area around the park will have a vibrancy it sadly lacks at the moment. And hundreds of local children will finally have a school that they and their teachers deserve.

[Betty Windsor]

I take it you don't drive past at the weekends during the football season when there are actual youths playing

Here, here. The greatest number of people I'vee ver seen on the park in recent years were the regular football sessions. And they are the ones who have already been 'chucked off' the land. Where is their campaign to 'save our pitches'? Is there one? If not, perhaps it's because they see that there is a [slim & slimming] chance that they might actually benefit in the long run? The dog walker brigade are fewer in number but risk spoiling things for the significant majority. I'm no fan of losing green space, but I can see the ultimate benefit in this case.

A lot of the football sessions were children and some may have parents who think a new school is more important than saving the land they play football on once a week..
As far as signifcant majority goes for everyone person I know who wants to build on the park I know two who want to save it.

[rmolehusband]

I think the whole "underused park" argument is dangerous and diverting, the loss of any parkland is obviously regrettable. The decision to build on the park is a compromise between the needs of a new school and the loss of parkland amenity - the fact that Porty Park is currently underused may be relevant in balancing the pros and cons, but in fairness any potential amenity should also be taken into account.

The irony in that is that many locals are very happy that it is so underused, comments such as "the private end of the park" and "like taking away my garden" demonstrate just how it is viewed by some PPAG members - as a private garden. Similarly, specific objections were raised against the all weather pitches, not on the basis of loss of parkland, but on the basis of nuisance to the residents of houses on the other side of the road.

Now, fair enough, if you don't want to have a school or an all weather pitch opposite your house you're entitled to that view and entitled to object to the plans, but at least have the decency to say why and don't try to dress it up as some community spirited environmentalism as PPAG do.

Rest assured, in an alternate universe, where there is a better site for the new PHS, and the council are proposing making more use of Porty Park by building a multi use games area, all weather pitches, a mountain bike trail, a play park and a picnic site in the SW corner, that the same NIMBY's will still be objecting with the same sham arguments.


(I fully appreciate that not all people who oppose the building of the new school are either members of PPAG or NIMBYs, but a significant majority are both.)

[Betty Windsor]

(I fully appreciate that not all people who oppose the building of the new school are either members of PPAG or NIMBYs, but a significant majority are both.)

You know that do you. Have you been out canvassing the 15,000+ in the area who might have an opinion?

[Paxetamor]

Im presuming you agree school kids and staff should be considered a higher priority than dogs when it comes to precious space?

I didn't realise it was a dog v kids and staff thing. I thought it was about keeping parkland from the threat of being built on. But, since you ask, dogs are dogs, I don't consider them at all. Children grow up and teachers move on.

I think I was getting confused when you all started going on about the park only being there since the eighties. I meant the Golfy. Did you mean to say that the Golf Club was there before the Golf Course? What was the point of that?

[rmolehusband]

A lot of the football sessions were children and some may have parents who think a new school is more important than saving the land they play football on once a week.

That's democracy for you. Are you suggesting these parents are wrong, especially given that their children will still be able to play football there once the school is built?

As far as signifcant majority goes for everyone person I know who wants to build on the park I know two who want to save it.

Well it's a shame these people didn't make their feelings on the subject known to the council during the planning process, they certainly had ample opportunity, as did you. But then you didn't respond to the planning process, did you, so maybe they couldn't be bothered either. Perhaps the council should employ a team of clairvoyants to make sure everyone's voice is heard?

How many people of each view do you know, roughly, to the nearest 10 perhaps?

[seanie]

Did you mean to say that the Golf Club was there before the Golf Course? What was the point of that?

The golf club is indeed older than the golf course. See if you can work out why that might be.

[rmolehusband]

(I fully appreciate that not all people who oppose the building of the new school are either members of PPAG or NIMBYs, but a significant majority are both.)

You know that do you.

Yes, I'm fairly confident.

I only need to know one person who person who is opposed to the new school as is not a member of PPAG in order for the first part of the statement, "I fully appreciate that not all people who oppose the building of the new school are either members of PPAG or NIMBYs", to be true. I do, so it is.

I think it safe to assume, without canvassing anyone, that the "significant majority" of people who do oppose it are, or were, members of PPAG. Do you disagree with that assumption?

That just leaves the issue of NIMBYism. That I will admit is subjective, but it is surely clear to anyone that the concentration of objectors from around the park combined with PPAGs public support for building on pretty much any other park meets the criteria.

Have you been out canvassing the 15,000+ in the area who might have an opinion?

I dont need to.
The council have already done so.
The results are in.
Shock, horror, out of everyone interested enough to respond, more people support building on the park than opposed it.
Democracy!

[Mark Cameron]

Betty Windsor wrote: I wouldn't go as far as that. It just doesn't look very democratic from where I'm sitting.

What 'doesn't look very democratic' from where I'm sitting is that the democratic process appears to have been followed and a decision made but as PPAG can't stomach that decision they are now playing a cynical game to drag things out.

Don't play the 'democracy' card - you're making yourself look foolish.

[Paxetamor]

The golf club is indeed older than the golf course. See if you can work out why that might be.

Sorry seanie, it's beyond me. Do you think that you and your entourage will enlighten me?

[seanie]

150 years ago the golf club were playing on a golf course, but not where the golf course is now. Because the park where the golf course is now was only acquired in 1898, and before that it was farmland.

[Paxetamor]

Am I missing something? I know that this is a bit off the subject but why would you build a golf club there but go elsewhere( I can't work out where) to actually play golf?

[seanie]

The golf club, as an institution, is over 150 years old. The golf course used to be in what's now the bypass/freightliner area.

The park dates from after 1898.

[Paxetamor]

Thanks for clearing that wee mystery up for me. I don't know if I would have ever figured that out.

[Porty]

We are not an entourage.

Its a bit like Arsenal FC they have been around since 1886 but played at Woolwich, Highbury and more recently Emirates.

Portobello Golf Club played at a course on the other side of the tracks and according to the PPAG historian that land was confiscated by the council in the 1880's so that they could build a freightliner terminal. Bonkers I know.

[Porty]

I think the whole "underused park" argument is dangerous and diverting, the loss of any parkland is obviously regrettable. The decision to build on the park is a compromise between the needs of a new school and the loss of parkland amenity - the fact that Porty Park is currently underused may be relevant in balancing the pros and cons, but in fairness any potential amenity should also be taken into account.

The irony in that is that many locals are very happy that it is so underused, comments such as "the private end of the park" and "like taking away my garden" demonstrate just how it is viewed by some PPAG members - as a private garden. Similarly, specific objections were raised against the all weather pitches, not on the basis of loss of parkland, but on the basis of nuisance to the residents of houses on the other side of the road.

Now, fair enough, if you don't want to have a school or an all weather pitch opposite your house you're entitled to that view and entitled to object to the plans, but at least have the decency to say why and don't try to dress it up as some community spirited environmentalism as PPAG do.

May I just add that being a NIMBY in no way makes you a bad person and it is a perfectly valid reason to object to something you don't want in your back yard.

[Bob Jefferson]

Question. If Lady Dorrian finds in favour of the Council, do PPAG have any further recourse to appeal? Is there a higher court or will this finally be an end to it?

[rmolehusband]

Question. If Lady Dorrian finds in favour of the Council, do PPAG have any further recourse to appeal? Is there a higher court or will this finally be an end to it?

I believe any decision from the Court of Session can be appealed in the Supreme Court so my guess would be that they could appeal. However, I suspect any appeal would have to be on the basis of a procedural issue with the way the original case was handled, rather than simply that they disagreed with Her Ladyship's decision.

[rmolehusband]

So, anyone know how it went today? Is it yet another rollover or are we now awaiting a decision?

[Porty]

No rollover both QC s did their clients proud.