New Portobello High School - planning application

[Pal of Porty]

The Planning Portal now has the Community Council's response.

Why do many of the 'non-supportive' comments get written in bold?

[wangi]

I'd imagine it's the writing style of the person who wrote that section; compare with the PPAG blog.

The problem with a representation like that from Portobello Community Council is that it delivers the view of both PFANS and PPAG - the two extremes of the community view - rather than the views of the community. I would imagine the majority of people in the Portobello High School catchment have views that are somewhat between the two camps - but I've not canvassed for those views; but neither have PCC.

L/

[seanie]

It's a difficulty, but the consensus position isn't necessarily between two extremes. That's one of the problems of 'balance' in conventional news reporting; a minority view can be given disproportionate air time or space, be it on the topic of MMR or Climate Change.

In this instance, genuinely trying to judge the balance of opinion would've been difficult even if the PCC had the structures on place to do so. Letting the two 'extremes' voice their views at least gives soem satisfaction to them that their genuinely held views are expressed to some extent. A third, more middle of the road expression of views might've been welcome but that immediately raises the question of what is the middle of the road?

[Bob Jefferson]

Hilarious! Why did they bother? The views of PFANS and PPAG are already represented. What purpose does it serve to weld them together into this pointless Frankenstein letter?

[seanie]

Humour value?

[Porty]

Humour value?

Most definitely. Not sure if you were part of the sub-group that wrote the letter, the supportive comments suggest you were. Did the oppo negotiate the use of BOLD with you?

Or did you acively encourage the emphasis, you sleekit devil.

[wangi]

In this instance, genuinely trying to judge the balance of opinion would've been difficult even if the PCC had the structures on place to do so. Letting the two 'extremes' voice their views at least gives soem satisfaction to them that their genuinely held views are expressed to some extent. A third, more middle of the road expression of views might've been welcome but that immediately raises the question of what is the middle of the road?

Well it's very strange that the PCC Chair confirms that the body is a statutory consultee for this planning application and then the ultimate response effectively chucks away that power. Rather than having a measure of the community feeling instead you get two watered down sections which will be in effect a subset of the PFANS and PPAG responses.

I wouldn't have taken too much to ask opinions on the High St; pick 10 names at random out of the electoral register; ...

[seanie]

I think we have to move in that direction and we need some element of randomness to avoid results being skewed by particular groups or lobbying. I like the idea of a community e-mail list that can be randomly dipped into to gauge opinion. Couple that with some occassional questionnaires, suggestion boxes and the odd on-line poll and you might get a reasonable idea of where opinion lies, although I think you'd need to get Community Councillors to refrain from trying to influence the results. They really need to adopt a more passive, reflective role; find out what the community thinks first before deciding on a position.

[seashell]

The Planning Portal now has the Community Council's response.

Why do many of the 'non-supportive' comments get written in bold?

It certainly gives the impression that these are considered more important points. Why isn't the same emphasis given to points in the supporting comments? IMO the use of that style strongly sugggests bias on behalf of PCC, whether this is intentional or not.

[Porty]

Still no posting of support or objections on the planning website.

Even although I've always been sure that the Park/Golf Course is the best site for a new school, planning permission is required and that will come down to a decision by the Development Sub-Committee, who are not known for courageous decision making when faced with vociferous objectors. PPAG have undoubtedly been the proactive campaign group; Coffee Mornings, Street Collections, Quiz Nights, Fancy Dress, Park Parties, Seances, door to door canvassing, leaflets etc and they frequently play their trump card: it is an easy sell to garner support to prevent building on a "much loved" Park.

Shameful seems the appropriate way to describe PPAG's claims to speak for the "significant majority" however, the reveal may well be that more people object to, rather than support, a school in the park. If that does turn out to be the case i hope the DMSC have the balls to do the right thing.

[seanie]

The reality is that people don't tend to write in if they're in favour, or not bothered by, a planning application. Only the people that are opposed are usually sufficiently motivated.

But then planning committees are aware of that so they shouldn't be surprised if objections outnumber supporting comments; that's what you'd expect.

[wangi]

The reality is that people don't tend to write in if they're in favour, or not bothered by, a planning application.

This was the only time i have responded to a planning application, I got the automated reply but not the further confirmation it mentions. Just wondering what the normal timeline is for getting that confirmation?

L/

[seanie]

Some additions have been made to the PPAG website, including the following;

It would be better for all concerned for a little honesty to enter the arguments for building on the Park.

I hope I get a new Irony Meter for Christmas.

My last one exploded.

[Porty]

Your application was registered on 30 September 2010. The advertisement date will be 08.10.2010 We acknowledge receipt of your fee of £15950.
As a processing agreement has been signed, the expected determination date is 09.02.2011. This date is subject to review with the agreement of the signatories. It is intended your application will be decided by Committee Decision.

Seanie- does this mean the final decision will be made at committee on Feb 9th?

[seanie]

Pretty much. The report should be available from about a week earlier so we should know the Planners' recommendation in little over a week.

If it is approved it'll go to the full council for approval to proceed but that'll just be a formality.

[Porty]

So the 9th it is- what a day that could be, one way or the other. I wonder if any of our local councillors will pitch up to speak?

[seanie]

I might take the day off and go along myself.

[Porty]

I can't get the day off but I may try and get cover fpr a few hours. Meet in Starbucks at 9ish?

[seanie]

I'll pencil that in.

[seanie]

Just got confirmation that the 9th Feb is the intended date to go to committee.

[seanie]

Scratch that - it's been changed to the 23rd.

[seanie]

A timely reminder of the poor condition of Porty High.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topst ... 6716850.jp

[Doris]

Good grief! I can't believe that I drove past there yesterday and didn't notice that !

[SoupDragon]

Call The Goodies they may have something to deal with it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J6uUMeAVW8

[Epykat]

A timely reminder of the poor condition of Porty High.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topst ... 6716850.jp

What have mice got to do with poor conditions? I've had mice, my house isn't in a poor condition.

[seanie]

Just a reflection of the poor condition in general.

Hopefully the go ahead for a new school will be forthcoming soon.

[seanie]

The Report is out.

Recommended for Approval.

[Maria]

From the report:

A total of 685 representations were received following press advertisement and neighbour notification. Of this total, there were 300 objections, 381 support and 4 general comments.

Wonder when PPAG will stop claiming to be the 'significant majority'??

[seanie]

Some bizarre comments in the Evening News;

Friends of Porty park vow to fight 'illegal' plans for new high school

Chair of the group, Roz Sutherland, said... "We were told the initial 'consultation' was educational, and it wasn't appropriate for us to discuss choice of site at that stage and the opportunity would come later."

The initial consultation, back in 2006, was about THE CHOICE OF SITE.

Public meetings were held about THE CHOICE OF SITE.

People were invited to comment on THE CHOICE OF SITE.

Comments were collated in a report detailing people's views on THE CHOICE OF SITE.

What on earth was the consultation about if it wasn't about THE CHOICE OF SITE?

[Porty]

How did the Councillors' park visit go today? Certainly seems like the fog hasn't yet lifted for PPAG they still can't see things the way they really are.

381 for a school in the park and 300 against- That is very pleasing. Seems like there is just one hurdle to get over for the thousands that genuinely would like to see a new school for Portobello.

I find it quite amazing that there has recently been two planning applications in Portobello attracting significantly more public support than objections. First of all there was Bellfield Lane and now the School. Let's hope the Councillors remain consistent and unanimoulsy choose to vote FOR

[wangi]

All of the support, object and general comments are now up on the planning portal:

Planning and Building Standards Portal, Case File: 10/02830/FUL

[rmolehusband]

All of the support, object and general comments are now up on the planning portal

Not that I read them all, but I happened to notice that a comment from one Susan McVie is listed as an objection when it reads to me like a supporting comment.

(http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... =526559487 - long email somewhere in the middle [admin: on page 19])

How accurate is the 381 to 300 figure supposed to be, and doesn't 382 to 299 sound better?

Anyway, a good result, and great work on the petition Seanie.

[wangi]

Also "protocol for the meeting":

Protocol for the hearing

Introduction

The Council is committed to extending public involvement in the planning process. Hearings allow members of the public to have the opportunity to put their views on planning applications direct to the Councillors on the Development Management Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee members have the report on the application, which contains a summary of the comments received. Copies of the actual letters are available for Councillors to view. The Sub-Committee members have had the opportunity to visit the site.

For this meeting three groups will be heard and each will have 10 minutes to make their points. The time limit will be strictly enforced and speakers will be advised when they have 1 minute left.

Speakers should keep to "material planning matters" that the Sub-Committee can take into account. Any visual material must be submitted to the Head of Legal and Administrative Services at least 24 hours before the meeting (telephone (0131) 529 4230). Speakers will not be able to use other visual aids or to distribute handouts except for a transcript of presentations.

The Process

1. Presentation of the report on the application by the Head of Planning 10.00 am
2. Representations by the Portobello Community Council 10.20 am
3. Representations by the Portobello Park Action Group 10.30 am
4. Representations by the Towerbank School Council 10.40 am
5. Questions by members to the representatives I Head of Planning 10.50 am
(note: timing as approximate beyond this point)
6. Presentation by the applicant 11.10 am
7. Questions by members to the applicant I Head of Planning 11.20 am
8. Comments (if any) by local Ward Member(s) 11.30 am
9. Debate and decision by the Sub-Committee 11.40 am

Decisions will generally be to approve or refuse. Conditions of approval or reasons for refusal may be considered at a subsequent meeting. If the application is continued for further information, the Hearing will not be reopened at a later stage, and contributors will not be invited to speak again. In such cases, the public can attend the meeting to observe the discussion from the gallery.

Alastair Maclean
Head of Legal and Administrative Services

[Porty]

Some of the objectors concerns are legitimate but the majority of their objections have litle or nothing to do with a planning decision.
I confess I am enjoying browsing the objections. i equate it to having several issues of Viz (in its pomp) delivered all at one time.

Dear Sir

Although I think I am wasting my time as I have been informed that you have already placed the pipes for the new school. I have also been informed by a lawyer that you are going ahead with the school whatever happens.............Also as a council I believe you have been very underhand with this issue so what's new.

I wonder what on earth makes her think she is wasting her time with this letter?

[rmolehusband]

Also "protocol for the meeting":

2. Representations by the Portobello Community Council 10.20 am
3. Representations by the Portobello Park Action Group 10.30 am
4. Representations by the Towerbank School Council 10.40 am

It's pretty clear what way #3 will go, and I'm guessing #4 will speak strongly in favour, but what of our own dear community council. Is there any chance that it will fairly reflect the views of the community, both for and against, or will the temptation of addressing the planning committee prove too much and the veneer of impartiality will slip? What's the spoken equivalent of bold type - will the supporting views delivered in a quiet tone while the opposing views are delivered as if by Brian Blessed himself?