Portobelllo Community Council- Greatest Hits

[Porty]

Christmas is coming and I've been browsing PCC minutes. Thought I'd put a compilation together on some of their more memorable moments- good and not so good.

here's one from 2005, it reminds me of Trumpton.

•7. Police Station clock: There was some feeling that the chimes were an hour ahead of the clock. The Chairman agreed to investigate this.
* Action: Robert Gatliff to check that the Police Station clock is chiming correctly.

And from the same era, it is a pity this one hasn't happened.

• 233.6k Train named for Portobello: Stephen Hawkins wondered what the difficulty would be in getting a train or locomotive named for Portobello when one had recently been named “National Galleries of Scotland”; no one had an answer to that.

What would be a good name?

[rmolehusband]

I was thinking about a tee-shirt to reflect our civic pride, anyone want one....

[Porty]

lol- i'll take two!!

[Pal of Porty]

Fantastic T shirt - you have a best seller on your hands there!

[Bob Jefferson]

I'm not entirely sure that we have a Community Council that can laugh at itself.

[Porty]

Well we will see.

I'm really enjoying going over the minutes there is a strong sense of decency and good intentions. It is staggering how long it takes to get things done. (except objecting). The baptist clock has been ongoing for about a decade abd so has the BL development site.

One has to keep in mind that they only get together about 25 hours a year and their time is given freely.

I don't know what research Robert would have done on the chimes but I have a picture of him standing on the high street, ears cocked. I don't know if he ever reported back, the minutes are not all there.

I'm currently reading the bit wher the "gang of four" tried to get POL (Talkporty's predecssor) cl;osed down. That wasn't so good.

[Bob Jefferson]

I remember the meeting we had. I still have the PowerPoint presentation.

[Bazza]

I've served on a couple of committees for other groups, and it's gotta be said, getting things done is difficult. There are always people who want to rant, to let off steam, or just have a natter. People often have very little idea how to manage a meeting, how to manage time, etc. So I'm not surprised if the PCC suffer from these kind of problems too.

Nice T-shirt by the way!

[Porty]

Here's a nice one:

39.4f Signs, Plaques and coadestone:

Celia Butterworth reported that the Helen Hopekirk plaque had been unveiled on 20th May in the presence of Helen Hopekirk’s nephew. The Ned Barnie plaque was in place and would be unveiled shortly. Robert Gatliff recorded the widespread appreciation for Archie Foley and his helpers in organising the excellent concert in memory of Helen Hopekirk.

[Bob Jefferson]

Yes, let's not forget that there are a lot of good people in the Community Council who have very quietly and without fuss or recognition being doing some great work in Portobello for many years.

[Porty]

I'm a bit baffled by this one:

198.5g Harry Lauder
Lectern made and foundations started but due to a misunderstanding the process has been delayed (lectern not ready in time) The Council has agreed to pay for the labour which leaves more money available for further planting.

Presumably its some sort of memorial?

[Pal of Porty]

Is it not the Harry Lauder garden in the Town Hall?

[Bob Jefferson]

I remember the meeting we had. I still have the PowerPoint presentation.

It was quite a meeting. This is one of the slides I used. There was a witches cackling sound that accompanied it.

[Porty]

Was this the start of it?

241.4g Portobello Online (240.8h):
Maria Devoy reported that there had not been a meeting of the sub-group despite her best efforts to organise one in July or August. However, the three moderators/administrators had met to deal with complaints made by four people. It was agreed that members of the sub-group would meet following the Community Council meeting and agree a date promptly. Maria reported that only four people out of a total of over 550 registered users had complained. In dealing with these complaints: one had been upheld; an informal request to remove a group of postings was agreed in acknowledgment of the effect on the complainant at being the focus of them; another thread had posts edited to protect the privacy of a group of residents; and the fourth was denied. Maria had received phone calls from two of the complainants, which is not part of the agreed complaints procedure. A general discussion on the contributions to Portobello Online took place. A member of the public and some Community Council members said they had concerns about the disrespect and personal insults shown to individuals, and the tone and content of some contributors who remained anonymous; Lewis Waugh (Portobello High School) had hoped to use the discussion forum in education, but found the standard of 3 debate unacceptable. It was suggested that these contributions do not reflect our community and could affect the reputation of Portobello. John Stewart suggested the removal of all posts subject to a complaint until it was resolved. It was also suggested that no anonymous postings be allowed, and that a more formal discussion site be separated from the “chat room”.
It was reported that the majority of its users were very positive about the Forum. There was a clear policy and guidelines used by moderators and their role was not to act as censors. Removing a post subject to complaint could be unworkable and might result in ‘reprisal’ complaints and disruption. The use of anonymous user names was normal practice for such sites as POL. People made personal decisions to choose to read the contributions or not. It was acknowledged by the Community Council that this was a difficult issue. It was reported that Bob Jefferson had resigned as a moderator. In summing up, Robert Gatliff recognised the difficulty of the moderator’s task; he thanked Paula, Bob and Maria for their work. He asked the sub-group to meet as a matter of urgency to try and resolve the outstanding complaints through the complaints procedure. This group was also invited to consider any additional measures that could improve the forum

Follwed by:

241.4g: Stephen Hawkins pointed out that Porty Online’s complaints procedure did not exclude telephone calls from the contact methods, so asked that the sentence about Maria Devoy receiving telephone calls be deleted.

I presume Diana was one of the complainers invading Marya's homelife and Stephen didn't want her name besmirched, as a result.

[Porty]

Still ongoing?

274.3h Office Bearers to consider how to put letters and other Community Council documents in the public domain (273.6);
John Stewart will discuss this with Joyce Campbell when the Library reopens. Ongoing.

[Porty]

Three months go by:

275.3c Office Bearers to consider how to put letters and other Community Council documents in the public
domain (274.3h). John Stewart has spoken to Joyce Campbell about this but agreed to defer the final
decision until staff have settled into the redeveloped Library. Ongoing.

[Porty]

And

276.4e John Stewart to talk to Joyce Campbell about the Community Council’s presence in the Library
(275.3k). Joyce has unfortunately been ill. Ongoing.

[Porty]

277.4 Minutes of February meeting
In item 276.4h John Stewart pointed out that PAS is authorised to object to planning applications on behalf of the Community Council when timescales warrant this.

A tiny unelected group is authorised to respond to planning applications on behalf of an entire community?
Sean, is this true and who gave authorisation?

[seanie]

I think the origins of the arrangement may be lost in the mists of time. PAS were a Planning sub-committee of the PCC able to object on its behalf, but what the scope of their remit was I'm not sure. Presumably they still are since I don't recall any decision to change the situation. That being said I don't recall the last time they actually submitted a comment on the PCCs behalf so it may be a custom that's lapsed.

[Porty]

March of last year doesn't reallly qualify as "mists of time" -its about a dozen meetings ago and JS went out of his way to make the point, wonder who authorised the practice?

[seanie]

Look at the minutes from the meeting before and see if it's any clearer.

[Bob Jefferson]

You mean this?

276.4h Community Council to clarify its relationship with Portobello Amenity Society (275.5). John Stewart explained that PAS looked at all planning applications affecting Portobello and notified the Community Council of any which cause particular concern. It is completely separate from the Community Council, though with several members in common, and the two act independently.

So this was something that John said at the February meeting, but it wasn't minuted at the time but was accepted as an amendment at the March meeting?

[Bob Jefferson]

This is from John's profile piece in the Summer edition of the Portobello Reporter:

His community involvement began in1979, when Abercorn Amenity Association was formed by a group of people who lived round Abercorn Park, aka the Daisy Park, in the same year as Portobello was designated a conservation area. The group changed the name in 1981 to Portobello Amenity Society (PAS), to widen its monitoring of planning applications and roads and traffic issues, and now has over 250 members.

John became Chairman of PAS in 1993 and five years later he joined Portobello Community Council (PCC) as its representative. He now writes to Planning on major development issues on behalf of both organisations, and was elected Chair of PCC in 2008.

So John joined PCC in 1998 and by that point had a wealth of experience in commenting on planning matters. If an application came along that PAS wanted to support/object to/comment upon then you can see how easy it would be for him to write another letter in similar terms on behalf of PCC, whose members would be all too happy not to have to bother with it themselves. During my time this happened quite often. John would give us a brief background to the application, state the reasons for the stance PAS was adopting, ask if we would like him to write on behalf of the PCC and members would generally all nod their heads in approval and that would be it. And you can imagine that after several years of this, it just becomes the norm. And, until comparatively recently, it was a very satisfactory arrangement for all concerned.

[Mark Cameron]

Do PAS have 250 members? Are they consulted on each application - if so then that's starting to feel like a wider section of the community is being consulted.

[Bob Jefferson]

I assume that means that 250 people have paid their annual subscription. I've attended a few PAS meetings in the past and there were generally around 6 to 8 people in attendance.

[seanie]

And those 6 to 8 are unlikely to be demographically representative.

There is a genuine difficulty here that the core statutory purpose of a Community Council is to relay the views of the community to relevant parties, principally the Council. All the guidance and codes are explicit; Community Councils need to reflect the views of the wider community and individual Community Councillors need to put their own opinions second to that. But actually determining the views of the wider community is genuinely difficult, especially for a group of volunteers who meet once a month for a couple of hours.

Faced with the practical difficulties, most Community Councils don't do much to seek the views of the wider community. Instead they hope that, as a group, they are reasonably representative of the community as a whole. That can work reasonably well if people are careful about controversial things or at least express themselves with some restraint and acknowledgement that they may not be representing that wider view. In the past our Community Council avoided votes and would only comment when there was a clear consensus. That approach meant that the community views may not have been represented, but at least there was no risk of misrepresentation.

But over the last couple of years that approach has changed and we comment on things when the consensus is far less clear or there is none. I'm not sure we've found the correct approach to that.

[Puerto bella]

The CC web site says you comment on Major planning applications - is that still the case or is it all?

[Porty]

Applications like single shop change of use or individual new build homes,like the ones in bellfield lane, do not constitute major applications so the answer must be NO.

I believe the section you quote from also says"we try to represent the majority view" which indicates the author has failed to properly interpret cc guidelines. have a read yourself and let us know what you think.

[seanie]

The PCC doesn't comment on all applications and the emphasis is supposed to be on larger applications, but there is an argument that minor applications can have a major cumulative effect.

[Mark Cameron]

And those 6 to 8 are unlikely to be demographically representative.

There is a genuine difficulty here that the core statutory purpose of a Community Council is to relay the views of the community to relevant parties, principally the Council. All the guidance and codes are explicit; Community Councils need to reflect the views of the wider community and individual Community Councillors need to put their own opinions second to that. But actually determining the views of the wider community is genuinely difficult, especially for a group of volunteers who meet once a month for a couple of hours.

Faced with the practical difficulties, most Community Councils don't do much to seek the views of the wider community. Instead they hope that, as a group, they are reasonably representative of the community as a whole. That can work reasonably well if people are careful about controversial things or at least express themselves with some restraint and acknowledgement that they may not be representing that wider view. In the past our Community Council avoided votes and would only comment when there was a clear consensus. That approach meant that the community views may not have been represented, but at least there was no risk of misrepresentation.

But over the last couple of years that approach has changed and we comment on things when the consensus is far less clear or there is none. I'm not sure we've found the correct approach to that.

So 6 to 8 people's views being put forward by PAS - doesn't seem very representative of the community.

I agree with you Seanie. Gathering feedback can be difficult BUT if that is a core purpose of a CC then if they are unable to meet that requirement I would question whether they should even be allowed to comment on behalf of the community.

There are lots of ways to gather feedback - a PCC Facebook page, an PCC email distribution list, a grafiti wall in the schools/library being a few cheap options. Or use some CC funds to employ the services of an external orgainisation (a friend who is on the CC in Oxton did this to help them build their Community Action Plan -http://www.oxtonchannel.org.uk/cap.html).

Some of these methods might not be 100% scientific but surely offer some sort of gauge rather than the minority at PCC making all the calls that affect the community based on their own views?

It's understandable why some people are questioning whether a some people on a CC who don't appear able to engage the community on matters they are voting / taking a view on and appear not to be transparent in their dealings may actually be satisfying their own views/needs rather than that of the community.

[seanie]

Community Councils can also get a certain the reputation. The Council is only interested in the views they express to the extent they do actually represent the views of the community. If a Community Council is perceived to be pursuing its own agenda or not actually being representative, they're more likely to be ignored.

[Porty]

So John joined PCC in 1998 and by that point had a wealth of experience in commenting on planning matters. If an application came along that PAS wanted to support/object to/comment upon then you can see how easy it would be for him to write another letter in similar terms on behalf of PCC, whose members would be all too happy not to have to bother with it themselves. During my time this happened quite often. John would give us a brief background to the application, state the reasons for the stance PAS was adopting, ask if we would like him to write on behalf of the PCC and members would generally all nod their heads in approval and that would be it. And you can imagine that after several years of this, it just becomes the norm. And, until comparatively recently, it was a very satisfactory arrangement for all concerned.

Excellent summation and nail on head. John's "wealth of experince in commenting on planning matters" became systemic at PCC.Trouble is PAS are an unelected group of about 6 to 8 active people. Who as well as being interested in larger applications also comment on everything from paint colours to broken doors on telephone boxes. An extract from the PAS Chairman's annual report:

PAS has also had continuing dialogue with the Council regarding
road signage, shopfront paint colours, litter bin provision, and
graffiti removal. We have alerted the Council to the need to repair
the door of the phone box at the top of Bellfield Street and to repair
several of the bollards on the Promenade. We alerted Enforcement
to the hideous shop front at 98 Portobello High Street which was
put up without planning permission being sought and fortunately
they have insisted that this should be removed which has now been
done. We have also complained to Enforcement about a number of
satellite dishes, especially on listed buildings on the High Street
and have persuaded them to take action to have some of these
removed.

.

Mainly issues of minor importance, that should not be appearing on the radar of a busy Community Council. It has become the norm for 15 Community Councillors , 3 Ward Councillors, up to 15 representatives of local interest groups to endorse stuff like this:

238.3e Planning:
John Stewart reported that the application involving the Seahaven Hotel had been withdrawn, but he would be asking the Planning Department about building work currently being carried out at the Hotel. There was no objection to an application involving two garages in Pittville Street but he had asked that an appearance more fitting to their environment be used.

PCC, whose focus should be on major or larger planning applications, have been sidetracked by an unelected group with an entirely different agenda. The appearance of some garages in Pittville Street may be of interest to people who live in the immediate vicinity but its not why the Scottish Government and City Council fund/ support Community Councils.

[Porty]

So 6 to 8 people's views being put forward by PAS - doesn't seem very representative of the community.

If it turns out that some of those 6 to 8 people include those responsible for misrepresenting the PCC vote, the poop would thicken. Where can one find minutes or anything which identifies the people who run the group who are "authorised to respond to planning applications on behalf of PCC?"

[Porty]

But over the last couple of years that approach has changed and we comment on things when the consensus is far less clear or there is none. I'm not sure we've found the correct approach to that.

Which was predicted by the then Chair when he confiscated a planning response from Diana Cairns due to concern over balanced representation.

269.10a – Response to CEC Open Space Strategy271.8a CEC Open Space Strategy
Last month it had been agreed for Diana to write a response to the CEC Open Space Strategy and circulate it around interested parties. However this proved to be contentious and agreement could not be reached so the Chair had taken it out of her hands. He thought that both the majority and minority opinions should be expressed in the letter. The final version had not been seen or agreed by all members

He went on to say:

There was a lengthy discussion around how best to deal with this in the future, which included the possibility of voting, for which there was strong support, so that it is democratically decided, although it was acknowledged that previously things like planning applications were usually decided by consensus. It was also noted that people are entitled to their individual opinion but the PCC is there to represent the views of the community and should be able to justify the stance taken to the community. There was also concern that some people are more vocal than others and that it was important that all views are heard and people feel that they have been fairly represented. It was also felt that there is clearly a split in the community over some issues and that this has the potential to be difficult unless some way forward was found. It was noted that this issue would not easily be resolved and that it was something that the new PCC could determine how to proceed when they form the new community council.

A leopard doesn't change its spots.

[Bob Jefferson]

Where can one find minutes or anything which identifies the people who run the group who are "authorised to respond to planning applications on behalf of PCC?"

Minutes of monthly PAS meetings are restricted, as far as I know, to attendees. I have offered to publish them in the past but they are, perhaps understandably, against this idea. The minutes of their AGMs and annual Chairman's reports are published on POL.