New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[seanie]

I thnk you'll find that the council are seeking to use 92% of the park.

Portobello Park is over 50 acres in size. The school and playing fields combined will take up about 10 acres.

[Makaveli]

So about a fifth of the park or 20% if you want a percentage.

Wrong again Betty.

[wangi]

Reminder to sign the petition: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/dea ... ppeal.html

Currently 972 signatures.

[seanie]

Ah...but for 'accounting' purposes PPAG simply pretend that the golf course doesn't exist.

I wonder if they manage their financial accounts in a similarly creative way?

[Makaveli]

Maybe some of the PPAG can't see the golf course from their houses on Park Avenue so in their eyes it doesn't exist!!!

[Betty Windsor]

So about a fifth of the park or 20% if you want a percentage.

Wrong again Betty.

But do you accept that it is 92% of the park area EXCLUDING the golf course?

[Betty Windsor]

No. I'm not even a consultant. Who feeds you this tripe?

Thank you for clearing that up.

[seanie]

Seems on the high side to me. And since the all-weather pitches will be freely accessible they shouldn't really be included in the calculation. They're just an improvement to the existing pitches.

[Betty Windsor]

Re Friday's "mass demonstration".
I hope that permission was sought and a full risk assessment carried out. Is the risk assessment available to the wider public?

I am very excited to announce that I will be conducting tours around Magdalene and the Christians. These will be of an informal nature lasting around half an hour with a question and answer session at the end. I would invite any Porty/Joppa parent who, hitherto has not stepped foot into the area to join me.
I will post details of dates and times in due course.

Watch this space.

Tours around Magdelene and the Christians! This does sound quite exciting. When you are making the risk assessment available to the wider public, you might also make a relevance assessment available, that way the wider public would know what you are chatting on about.

I think it's very relevant that the majority of people who want this space have gardens as opposed to the majority of the people who live in the area who don't.
I never did get an answer about whether permission was sought for the "mass demonstration". Do you not think that using children in this way is a bit low? By the time you took out the politicians and the woman whose kids go to Heriots you'd be lucky if there were more than a dozen people. The PFANs callous disregard of the people of Magdalene and Christians is absolutely reprehensible.

[seanie]

Shall we remind ourselves of Lady Dorrian's comments on the school proposals?

Although the area available for dog-walking will be more limited then hitherto, the opportunities for recreation remain substantial, and in some ways will be increased.

Quite. Two freely accessible, floodlit, all-weather pitches will be a huge improvement in amenity for local kids and the wider community, and the improved path network will make the park more accessible.

[Chas]

[Betty Windsor]

Shall we remind ourselves of Lady Dorrian's comments on the school proposals?

Although the area available for dog-walking will be more limited then hitherto, the opportunities for recreation remain substantial, and in some ways will be increased.

Quite. Two freely accessible, floodlit, all-weather pitches will be a huge improvement in amenity for local kids and the wider community, and the improved path network will make the park more accessible.

Except it wont be free will it? They'll have to pay. You should take a walk up to Jack Kane one night and see how well the cat-flap system works.

[Porty]

The PFANs callous disregard of the people of Magdalene and Christians is absolutely reprehensible.

PPAG are in no position to lecture others on callous disregard, imagined or otherwise.

[Mark Cameron]

................I think it's very relevant that the majority of people who want this space have gardens as opposed to the majority of the people who live in the area who don't.

Where are these hundreds of residents from Magdalene and the Christians when I drive past? They must be taking part in a game of hide and seek (and be really good at it!) as there is almost never anyone there.

tell you what - rather than taking tours round these areas why don't you take some photographs of all these park users that the school is going to disadvantage. Shouldn't be too difficult if the park is that popular - I'll wait with baited breath for those shots.

[Pal of Porty]

...The PFANs callous disregard of the people of Magdalene and Christians is absolutely reprehensible.

There you again - the people living in Magdalene and Christians are more than capable of speaking up for themselves and many that I know have done so throughout this process.

[Betty Windsor]

Seems on the high side to me. And since the all-weather pitches will be freely accessible they shouldn't really be included in the calculation. They're just an improvement to the existing pitches.

Get your ruler out Seanie, I'm sure you don't want to misrepresent the situation. You have to remember that not all your supporters even know where the park is, some of them believe the school is taking up a tiny 5%. Can't imagine where they got that idea.

[Betty Windsor]

...The PFANs callous disregard of the people of Magdalene and Christians is absolutely reprehensible.

There you again - the people living in Magdalene and Christians are more than capable of speaking up for themselves and many that I know have done so throughout this process. [/quote

Yes there I go again. I'm surprised you don't speak up for them more given that they make up a large portion of your clientele.

[Mark Cameron]

Betty you seem to be missing (or ignoring) a key thing in that the court listened the arguements and have ruled on it. Why can't you just let it go. Sometimes in life things go against you - PPAG need to show some dignity and move on.

[Betty Windsor]

Betty you seem to be missing (or ignoring) a key thing in that the court listened the arguements and have ruled on it. Why can't you just let it go. Sometimes in life things go against you - PPAG need to show some dignity and move on.

And maybe you need to start showing a bit of respect to other people with different opinions. What kind of example do you think you're showing your children? Do you really want them to get the message that you get what you want by making a lot of noise and ridiculing people who don't share your ideas/beliefs. Your intolerance is deeply disturbing to many people on both sides of this debate.

[Pal of Porty]

...The PFANs callous disregard of the people of Magdalene and Christians is absolutely reprehensible.

There you again - the people living in Magdalene and Christians are more than capable of speaking up for themselves and many that I know have done so throughout this process.

Yes there I go again. I'm surprised you don't speak up for them more given that they make up a large portion of your clientele.[/quote]


I am speaking up for many of them - they want a new school on the park too.

[storky]

Park group’s appeal ‘will delay city school revamps’

To put this whole thing to bed once and for all, I think PPAG should be terminated. NB Batty, I don't mean this literally - no violence is intended.

Whilst pursuing legal expense and forcing PPAG to put up a bond may swing it, bear in mind we are dealing with irrational people.

I believe PPAG will pursue whatever delaying tactics they can deploy to render the current tenders useless. Retendering will no doubt increase costs and potentially have a knock on effect with PHS or other Edinburgh schools.

If things get to that stage, I would suggest that EC sue PPAG for the difference in costs between current build costs and retendered costs - unless they drop their appeal immediately.

I have asked the local councillors about this plan. The only feedback I've had is that everything should be clear at the next full council meeting at the end of April. I guess appropriate action will follow....

[Betty Windsor]

I am speaking up for many of them - they want a new school on the park too.

I'm sure you are speaking up for many of them, that would be mostly parents I guess. I'm sure if you told them that they could have a new school and keep the park that they would choose that option. But let's face it , you know as well as I do that the rebuild on the site was off the agenda as soon as the council realised they might get away with building on the park.
Gettng the joppa/Porty parents to fight their battle for them was the gift that keeps on giving.

The support for this administration is not shared by the wider Edinburgh community. Only yesterday the latest episode showing the levels of corruption/incompetence of this administration were revealed. And yet you want a discredited administration to pursue a legitimate community action group for costs out of spite.

[gillian]

Re Friday's "mass demonstration".
I hope that permission was sought and a full risk assessment carried out. Is the risk assessment available to the wider public?

I am very excited to announce that I will be conducting tours around Magdalene and the Christians. These will be of an informal nature lasting around half an hour with a question and answer session at the end. I would invite any Porty/Joppa parent who, hitherto has not stepped foot into the area to join me.
I will post details of dates and times in due course.

Watch this space.

Tours around Magdelene and the Christians! This does sound quite exciting. When you are making the risk assessment available to the wider public, you might also make a relevance assessment available, that way the wider public would know what you are chatting on about.

I think it's very relevant that the majority of people who want this space have gardens as opposed to the majority of the people who live in the area who don't.
I never did get an answer about whether permission was sought for the "mass demonstration". Do you not think that using children in this way is a bit low? By the time you took out the politicians and the woman whose kids go to Heriots you'd be lucky if there were more than a dozen people. The PFANs callous disregard of the people of Magdalene and Christians is absolutely reprehensible.

Thanks for making that a little clearer, just to be sure is this what you are saying ?

You know that the majority of people who want the school to be built on Portobello Park live in houses with gardens.

The people who live in the Christians and Magdalene and who don't have gardens are less likely to want the new school on the park.

If the above is true, could you tell us what methods of consultation you used. I am genuinely interested in
hearing.

As to the demo, maybe you were there counting, I don't know, but there were a lot more there than you are saying. And what better way to get the point across than letting the affected children have their say.

[Chas]

But let's face it , you know as well as I do that the rebuild on the site was off the agenda as soon as the council realised they might get away with building on the park.

Where is the evidence for this statement? I am fully aware that a rebuild on site was considered but I understood that it was "off the agenda" only after being shown to be unfeasible (if I recall correctly because there was a need to decant the school but no alternative accommodation was available).

And why is it that it is only those of us who are [reluctantly] in favour of the school being built on the park that can point to undisputed/undesputable facts in support of our case?

[Porty]

I don't have a garden, i don't have kids who will attend the school, I don't live in the area, I'm from the Christians, went to school in Magdalene- so I'm hardly Bett'y's stereotypical school in the park supporter.

In no way could I profess to speak on behalf of the people who live or who are from Magdalene or the Christians. However, i have spoken with many; at work, in the pub, in the street - i know a lot of people. The overwhelming perception people have is a) the school is being built on the golf course and b) the scheme will include housing.

They got this idea from the council's original proposal, which was abandoned some six years ago. the myth continues to be perpetuated by PPAG who have lied continually throughout.

Once people are availed of the truth they seem generally in favour of a school in th epark (with pitches)

As for Betty's imagined "PFANS v the poor people of Magadalene/Christians/" She made it up. In reality she is no closer or more representative of those people than anyone else here. It is a desperado that deals in unsubstantiated claims as the facts don't fit her discourse.

[Pal of Porty]

I'm sure you are speaking up for many of them, that would be mostly parents I guess. I'm sure if you told them that they could have a new school and keep the park that they would choose that option.

Yes I agree, it would be mostly parents now I think about it.

I also think that the vast majority of the Porty community would like a new a new school and keep the park but the independent Consultation which reported back on some 20+ potential sites found that the site which could deliver the best all round option was the park.

[rmolehusband]

tell you what - rather than taking tours round these areas why don't you take some photographs of all these park users that the school is going to disadvantage.

She can't, as I believe Betty comes over to Figgate Park to walk her dog.
(by coincidence, that's the same Figgate Park that PPAG proposed building a new school on)

[Betty Windsor]

For anyone actually interested in the truth I've attached the timeline of events.
If some of you could open your minds for 5 mnutes and entertain the possibility that the council has pulled a fast one here, read on.

[seashell]

[quote="Betty Windsor]
you want ... to pursue a legitimate community action group for costs .[/quote]

Yes, that's exactly what most people here and many across Edinburgh want the Council to do.
Let's put this in context: after PPAG announced they were appealing Lady Dorrian's very clear and forthright decision, the Council decided that enough was enough and that they would claim for expenses against PPAG, as they are entitled to do in terms of the law.
It is also the view of many people, including myself, that having lost the case on all counts, PPAG are now engaged in spoiling tactics designed not only to drag out the inevitable conclusion, but also to cost the people of Edinburgh even more money. Let's not forget that PPAG were appealing the Council's decision to use the park on the grounds that this was not permitted under the Act. While Lady Dorrian found on mora (and isn't it ironic they are now engaging in more time-delaying tactics?) she also ruled that the appropriation was fine - just as the council had said it was all along.
It therefore seems entirely right and appropriate that the people of Edinburgh should no longer have to fund this legitimate group's tactics when their arguments have been found to have no basis in law.

Court action is risky.
There is always the possibility you will lose and that expenses will be awarded against you.
PPAG lost.
And now many people are wondering how they are going to fund their appeal, regardless of whether or not they have to pay the Council first. It's an interesting point, but one on which they have been very silent.

[seashell]

For anyone actually interested in the truth I've attached the timeline of events.
If some of you could open your minds for 5 mnutes and entertain the possibility that the council has pulled a fast one here, read on.

I'll just stick with Lady Dorrian's findings, thank you very much. The rest is all water under the bridge and not relevant.

[gillian]

"Yes there I go again. I'm surprised you don't speak up for them more given that they make up a large portion of your clientele"

This comment has made me realise that you are not worth arguing with, in what way does who goes into PoP's shop have anything whatsoever to do with the argument about where a new school should go? Don't bother answering, you have made one offensive comment too many for me.

[Betty Windsor]

For anyone actually interested in the truth I've attached the timeline of events.
If some of you could open your minds for 5 mnutes and entertain the possibility that the council has pulled a fast one here, read on.

I'll just stick with Lady Dorrian's findings, thank you very much. The rest is all water under the bridge and not relevant.

I think the truth is always relevant and will always surface sooner or later.

[seanie]

Indeed;

“The decision which is challenged was made at the latest by March 2010 and it would have been open to the petitioners to challenge the decision at that date. Had they done so, not only would the grounds be the same (as was the case in e.g Simson) but it would be the same decision which would have been challenged. There has therefore been a considerable delay in bringing this petition.”

“Had I been with the petitioners on the issue of mora [delay], I would nevertheless have refused the petition on the merits.”

[wangi]

The support for this administration is not shared by the wider Edinburgh community. Only yesterday the latest episode showing the levels of corruption/incompetence of this administration were revealed. And yet you want a discredited administration to pursue a legitimate community action group for costs out of spite.

You know, I think this statement is at the centre of both your and PPAG's thinking. The council is seen as some sort of evil entity, which is simply out to screw over the people of Edinburgh. It doesn't make mistakes - it's all part of some master plan. Tin foil hats and conspiracy theories. That's certainly the view of the "top lefters" (from my perspective in the cheap seats) of Portobello Community Council.

Now, I will criticise the council with the best of them. But only when it is deserved. Edinburgh Council is a large organisation: having bent folk in property repairs or incompetents trying to setup a toy tram set does not imply they're off to flog all the Common Good. You need to consider things case-by-case. The council is staffed by those doing as little as possible, those trying their best and others who genuinely pull out all the stops - like any other big corporation.

Your timeline only really shows that community consultation & PPAG's persistence that Portobello Park was common good resulted in a rethink. It resulted in no homes being built on the park as part of this proposal; and due to the now agreed common good status for good. But rather than take that as a huge victory PPAG is recycling scare stories that the council will build homes on the golf course. It is lies & rubbish - harking back to the start of the process; now long overtaken by events.

The attempt make this some sort of class struggle is also way off the mark. Portobello is not some homogeneous area of the filthy rich. The school's catchment area has wide range of housing types & cost... Ironically with many of the largest and most expensive forming the core of PPAG's support and bank-rolling the pressure to prevent a school on their doorstep. A great new school will benefit the kids in Magadalene and the Christians as much as everywhere else in the area. Ironically without the initial push to "save the golf course" (which is saved) we could have ended up with a more equitable split of the park area - with the school towards the north of the site, rather than the south. That would have left the park where it is. But anyway, that's done.

L/

[seashell]

that might just read that you are suggesting Lady Dorrian's decision did not reflect the facts of the matter... If you recall, a timeline was presented by PPAG as one of their pieces of evidence.

Of course, there is the inconvenient truth about PPAG being sued for expenses and the legitimate concerns people have about how they could possibly fund an appeal, which leads to the inevitable conclusion that it may be a spoiling tactic when the battle is already lost.