New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[seashell]

Gillian - why don't you just stick to the points raised instead of trying to poke at me? Personally, I have absolutely no interest in knowing who you are.

To get back to the issue at hand here (because you keep posting, but avoiding the issue):
PPAG lost. On two points.
They've now lost all credibility.
Many people doubt they have the money to pay the Council's legal expenses, far less fund an appeal.
Any thoughts about that?

[Betty Windsor]

The issue of what to do with the existing site is still undecided.

Dream on!

[seanie]

But do you now realise that what you said was untrue?

The overwhelming majority of Councillors did indeed vote in support of the report.

But not all the report.

They specifically excluded the recommendations regarding alternative open space measures and the existing site.

[Betty Windsor]

But do you now realise that what you said was untrue?

The overwhelming majority of Councillors did indeed vote in support of the report.

But not all the report.

They specifically excluded the recommendations regarding alternative open space measures and the existing site.

A cop-out by any other name

[seanie]

What you said was untrue. Repeat it and you're a liar.

[Betty Windsor]

Maureen signed the March 2010 report.

[Betty Windsor]

Surprising given the levels of dogshit that apparently plagues the park that so many parents allowed their children to sit on the grass. I thought Edinburgh Leisure would have supplied those wee blue shoes you get at the baths for their sojourn into Nether Magdalene. Did anyone venture into the schem?
Thought not.

[linksgreen]

As a former Porty-ite I've watched this case from afar, well Leith actually. It does strike me as undemocratic to threaten legitimate objectors with the legal costs but I can see the frustrations of those wanting a school built.

My main reason for logging on is that I hear that the motley crew who made up the Occupy Edinburgh campaign are seriously still looking for a new place to set up and the proposed area for the new school is one of the areas being looked at!!!

Don't shoot the messenger.

[seanie]

The report can be found here.

The only signatures on it are Dave Anderson's and Gillian Tee's.

[seanie]

Once again you've said something that turns out not to be true Gillian.

It's almost as if a pattern is emerging.

[seanie]

There's a pretty well established legal principle that people who win legal cases are entitled to seek costs from the people who lose, any amount to be determined by the courts depending on circumstances. I don't see anything intrinsically undemocratic about such a principle.

[Makaveli]

As a former Porty-ite I've watched this case from afar, well Leith actually. It does strike me as undemocratic to threaten legitimate objectors with the legal costs but I can see the frustrations of those wanting a school built.

My main reason for logging on is that I hear that the motley crew who made up the Occupy Edinburgh campaign are seriously still looking for a new place to set up and the proposed area for the new school is one of the areas being looked at!!!

Don't shoot the messenger.

Oh dear!!! I can't imagine how quickly PPAG might feel if they wake up one morning to find Occupy Edinburgh camped in 'their front gardens'!!!!

[Betty Windsor]

Maybe someone should organise a wassail through Magdalene Glen to highlight your plight.

[Porty]

What a novelty for Occupy Edinburgh . Be the first time they improved the tone of a neighbourhood .

[Porty]

Batty - you may be aware the driving force of PPAG is Alison Connelly and Diana Cairns. How come five suckers are legally responsible for costs whilst the gruesome get off Scot free? Same for you.

[Epykat]

As a former Porty-ite I've watched this case from afar, well Leith actually. It does strike me as undemocratic to threaten legitimate objectors with the legal costs but I can see the frustrations of those wanting a school built.

My main reason for logging on is that I hear that the motley crew who made up the Occupy Edinburgh campaign are seriously still looking for a new place to set up and the proposed area for the new school is one of the areas being looked at!!!

Don't shoot the messenger.

Shot?? Don't mention shot....they've got others lined up for that . I reckon hung, drawn and quartered at the very least.

[Paxetamor]

What a novelty for Occupy Edinburgh . Be the first time they improved the tone of a neighbourhood .

What do you mean by that statement? Are you going for a jokey retort or do you mean to be offensive to all of those who live in the vicinity, or should I say 'hood.

[joeshmoe]

From Ewan Aitken

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear All

Please accept my apologies for this general e mail rather than a personal one but I have had so many on this issue it seemed easier to send one to you all

You will see from the message below that I and others have been pushing for the issue of costs to be pursued as the best way of getting PPAG to drop their disgraceful appeal. Maureen Child and I will also be taking a motion to this months council meeting on the subject and will be looking for as many ways as possible to face PPAG down and get this school started.

thank you for your support on this issue

yours

ewan aitken

Ewan Aitken
Labour Councillor for Craigentinny/Duddingston Ward

[Epykat]

To get back to the issue you keep trying to avoid: given that PPAG lost on all counts, and now face a huge legal bill, how are they going to pay for an appeal?

That's a bit like the "why the delay?" question that Seanie kept asking. Why or how would Betty know that? You're confusing your PPAG members again. Unless there's something she hasn't been telling me she really wouldn't be privvy to their personal accounts. Then again, maybe she's not who I think she is.....

[Porty]

What a novelty for Occupy Edinburgh . Be the first time they improved the tone of a neighbourhood .

What do you mean by that statement? ...... do you mean to be offensive to all of those who live in the vicinity, or should I say 'hood.

My goodness!! Not at all. I truly believe an influx of people who genuinely believe in their cause and who are prepared to make sacrifices to further that cause, would improve the Mean tone of the neighbourhood.

[Porty]

So Betty- how come the PPAG activists who have the highest public profile are off the hook for legal costs?

The Park Avenue Five are in a precarious position, they depend on zealots for the info they get from their QC. DC tells us he says there are strong grounds for appeal. I suggest they get in writing before putting up the bond. it makes no sense whatsoever.

[Porty]

As a former Porty-ite I've watched this case from afar, well Leith actually. It does strike me as undemocratic to threaten legitimate objectors with the legal costs.

The petition was refused, in the first instance, due to delay.Perhaps you should read the judgment, it might help you understand why the Council and the majority of those who expressed a view are so determined. PPAG picking up the costs is fair and just.

[tufty]

Big w- it is well known among Road Safety professionals that people take the quickest route, the underpasses would not be used by all of the pupils, they would run, dodge and cross the A1 in packs, as school children do.

The idea that in planning a council makes a decision based on what is avaialable at the time, and then simply changes it when a new option opens is about the daftest thing I've heard in years. Nothing would ever happen and planning would be fluid and difficult to pin down.
Reading the comments here it is clear by the absurd suggestions of PPAG supporters that they have very little foundation to build their case on, but their lack of imagination does not stop them repeating their tall tails and nonsense.
Fact: planning was open, transparent, legal and approved.
Fact: school is required and the park is the best option available, after research, consultation and impartial study by paid professionals.
Fact: the courts found in favour of the build
Fact: My council tax money is being wasted on this delay
Fact: my three kids will miss the new school
Fact: I care about the future for thousands of kids who deserve a warm, dry, safe, modern place to learn, who live in all of the catchment. working sience labs, computers, windows that close, clean working toilets, all floors safe to use, some where to eat lunch, interactive white boards for teaching, access for disabled, somewhere quiet for young people with additional needs to feel safe in, health and safety standards that meet todays requirements, sound proof music rooms, a stage, seating for an audience, PE pitches, halls, warm changing rooms, showers, a pool.
Fact: there is an awful load of Bull being posted here by a few people who have nothing else to do but care about their own interests.
Fact: I work in one of the schemes that keep being mentioned, the children and families living in these areas are desperate for a new school and pool. Most didn't use the park and don't use it.

Looking forward to the personal attacks as I doubt you can think of intelligent answers to the facts.

[Porty]

I'm in the tufty club.

[Makaveli]

Me too.

[storky]

What happens next with respect to the appeal? Is it simply a case of waiting for PPAG to withdraw their appeal? Is there a certain timeline for this? I'd appreciate any answers, otherwise I will ask the council (I may do this anyway).

If there is some option for PPAG to delay things substantially, perhaps the council have to really play hard and force them to drop their appeal asap. I'm thinking along the lines of; drop your case now, before we submit a claim for increased costs incurred through the retender process.

[Chas]

I'm in the tufty club.

Me too!

[Porty]

Storky- my understanding is PPAG have 14 days to lodge the grounds of their appeal. The council have 28 days to respond. Date for court is indefinite.

If I'm reading the signals correctly (MM) the council will respond rapido and will likely already be pressing the courts for an early hearing. There is real sense of urgency as they do not want to lose the contractor. Not sure what effect the "bond" will have.

[storky]

Storky- my understanding is PPAG have 14 days to lodge the grounds of their appeal. The council have 28 days to respond. Date for court is indefinite..

Thanks Porty. I'll ping the councillors and discuss 'Plan B'.

[joeshmoe]

Storky- my understanding is PPAG have 14 days to lodge the grounds of their appeal. The council have 28 days to respond. Date for court is indefinite.

If I'm reading the signals correctly (MM) the council will respond rapido and will likely already be pressing the courts for an early hearing. There is real sense of urgency as they do not want to lose the contractor. Not sure what effect the "bond" will have.

I think too, the Council have made it very clear they will not let this rest and will push it hard all the way to avoid the unnecessary additional cost to the taxpayer. PPAG will be pursued for costs, they will have to state grounds for appeal and will have to put up a bond for any appeal to take place

In many respects this has gone past the community against PPAG, they are now against the Council directly and will have to put up or shut up. Do they have more money than sense?

[gillian]

I'm in the tufty club.

Me too, any badges going?

[Porty]

In many respects this has gone past the community against PPAG, they are now against the Council directly and will have to put up or shut up.

Spot on.

Do they have more money than sense?

Thing is; during the 3rd day in court ,our counsel to Lady Dorrian, said in the event that the judgment was not with the council. All they Council need do is form a single purpose company(SPC), dispone the land to that entity and then the school would be built. SPC are a commonly used vehicle.

One wonders why the council don't just push ahead and do this? The option is still very much open to them.Sure, they may have to seek permission from the court but they may not. And why would a court say no to a new school for a community.

It would also be quite a smart thing to do, if the Council were the money grabbers that PPAG depict. Once the land is disponed, it will no longer be common good and in 30 or 40 years time the Council (in SPC form) could build a replacement school on the former Golf Course (assuming it closes due to dwindling numbers, which is almost a racing certainty) and sell the land the school stood on.

Point being, if by some miracle PPAG "win" this stage of the War (no victories to date) they will not stop the school on the park.

[seanie]

I don't have school age children and therefore schools and their catchment areas don't really concern me.

[Puerto bella]

Who are all these new 'tags' and where have they been lurking for the past goodness knows how long? I do believe my unpleasant mantle has been well and truely snatched from me.
Whoever started the Occupy myth - that's a peach, made us chortle.
Love your pic Lashylass.

[seanie]

Save Porty Park has finally updated their Facebook page after a month, although it's only a re-hash of their press release. One aspect is worth highlighting again though;

If this judgement is allowed to stand, it means it will be impossible to challenge decisions to appropriate or alienate common good land in law. This means that councils, especially in these cash-strapped times, could sell off, or appropriate for other uses, our common good assets, regardless of public opinion and with no compensation to the common good fund.

The emphasis added is mine.

The disposal (selling) of inalienable Common Good land is regulated by Section 75 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Nothing in this recent judgement affects that in any way. This case has nothing to do with disposal.

In fact it was a key part of PPAG's case that this wouldn't be a disposal as they didn't want the mechansim of Section 75 to be available to the Council. As it happens everyone concurred; PPAG's Counsel, the Council's Counsel, and the Judge all agreed that the case didn't involve a disposal. This point was listed in the judgement as a point that was not in dispute;

(4) The use of land at the park for a new school by the Council would involve "appropriation" of the land and not a "disposal".

So the selling of land, which would have to be a disposal, has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

So why are PPAG suggesting that this ruling means Council's 'could sell off' Common Good assets with impunity?

Because they're liars.

Liars who are willing to tell lies in order to gain support from people who are too trusting to realise that PPAG are liars.