New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Mate of Marya]

Sorry Libby but I find your post quite difficult to follow.
I also read Mrs Mangle's post on page 53, and all the other posts from Mrs Mangle and I agree with most of her views in principle.

Well did Mate of Marya come in with her tuppence worth and say in a round about way, if you don't have Child/Children at this School then there was no need for any one to attend the Meeting

I didn't say that.
I said, "Surely all parents of PHS pupils or prospective parents are interested in finding out more information regarding the proposal to build a new PHS will attend the meeting on Wednesday at 8pm......" It was merely an observation that the majority of the "anti-school" brigade do not have children who attend or will attend the new PHS.
The fact that I then posted immediately after Mrs Mangle does not mean I was responding to her post. I think you misinterpreted my post.

I would like to know who made you Chief in Charge ?

Did I say I was? Is anyone?
This is an open forum for people to give their opinions. I was just giving mine, which I may add is very similar to Mrs Mangles.

Does it Not say a lot about Mrs Mangle, she does not have any Child/Children at this School but for the Sake of the Children's Education and Safety she is willing to give her support to the Cause.
I support Mrs Mangle 100%.
What will Mate of Marya be saying next ?

Well I've posted 12 times since.

If you don't live in the Porty Boundaries then stay of the Board.

Who doesn't live in the Porty Boundaries?
By board, do you mean this forum?

Let her have her Glory, bye making a Stupid Remark like that shows us what she is all about.
???

Who is having the glory?
....and who's making the stupid remarks?

[Mrs Mangle]

In answer to Libby and MoM,

Nobody on this forum know what post they are replying to, simply because it is a fast thread.

Surely it doesn't matter if you do or do not have a child at the schools, or live in the area.

I have attended a few of the meetings regarding the schools, and i really do think that a lot of people posting here are being taken in by these Councillors.
Councillors will ALWAYS say exactly what you want to hear, then you go away happy. I on about the piece in last nights Evening Rag, Ewan Aitken says " yes they can look at building 2 high schools" whatever, get real, that would bump the cost up.

It doesn't matter what side you are on for or against, take it from me, all these meeting and consultations are only a formality, this will go ahead, starting 25th April, at the planning meeting, the 1st part WILL be rubber stamped, so while the spirit of everyone is good, the banter here, chats over coffee, a pint down the pub. Pat youselves on the back for the fight you have done up till now, cause come the 25th, it will be over, as soon as the 1st part go's through planning.

Finally, maybe the reason some people are taking a interest in this, is because of the attitude of some of the Anti Brigade, i.e Golfer, nimby's, they look down on the parent's etc like they are dirt on their shoes, my opinion.

[Bob Jefferson]

Mrs M, local councillors are duty bound to listen to all alternative suggestions and to give them serious consideration. Now some of these proposals may be non-starters and some may be plain bonkers but even so I think we would expect that common courtesty would require Ewan to say that each and every option will be assessed on its merits, as I'm sure will be the case.

My concern is that if people like yourself believe that it will go ahead regardless, then those who support the proposal might start to think that they don't actually have to do anything themselves to make it happen. This would be a grave mistake because then the only voices that would be heard would be those who oppose the proposal. If the only messages Ewan, Ian Perry, Roy Jobson, Maureen, Lawrence etc get are from people against the proposal then they will find it extremely difficult to justify going ahead.

For those who support the proposal, at least in principle, then my advice is to demonstrate that support by emailing these people, posting on this thread, making your voice heard at meetings, signing the online petition, voting in our poll, writing to the Evening News and generally keeping up the pressure.

A small but well organised group of people is determined to scupper this deal and with it our only prospect of getting new schools for our kids and it's down to you to make sure that they don't succeed.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Lawrence's letter covers most of the bases, in fact he creates a few more bases. If he gets answers then it wil go some way to filter out most of the supposed "options".

Although I would like their to be an alternative, I'm firmly entrenched in the view that the on the table option is the only viable solution. I would not go as far as Mrs Mangle does but I do think once the option is in formal consultation the arguments on both sides will be crystallized and the pro's have by far and away the best case.

I understand that Maureen and Lawrence have to take council from all of their electorate . For those of us that are convinced about the proposal. I wonder if we should consider putting up two independent "pro-school" candidates at next years elections? Candidates that wanted to keep one school, in the heart of the community, with sports facilities etc. Are bound to have a wider appeal than those who have no solution or who would choose to place the school at the edge of the catchment.

Hopefully the decision will be taken by then but it could give us ongoing insurance that avoids the reversal of a "yes" to the proposal. What do you think?

[Stephen McIntyre]

Right, so what does all that mean? Is it?

Up until "The feudal system of land tenure was brought to an end on 28 November 2004 when The Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 was brought into force." Portobello Park had burdens or restrictions that were enforceable. Once the law changed these burdens or restrictions (if they ever existed) could be waived or ignored? As Poppy stated "fly off".

[Bob Jefferson]

My understanding is that those who are using the 'dead man's grave' accusation are not challenging the legality of the situation, which I assume has been carefully checked by the Council's legal experts, but the ethics of the Council. They suggest that the Council could have allowed the restrictions on this land to remain in place, had they wanted, but instead have taken advantage of the situation for their own ends.

[Stephen McIntyre]

They suggest that the Council could have allowed the restrictions on this land to remain in place, had they wanted, but instead have taken advantage of the situation for their own ends.

Surely it is not up to the council. If the restrictions or burdens lapsed presumably the council would have had to re-apply to have restrictions put back in place. Why should the council put voluntary restrictions on something they own? I doubt a single one of us would do this voluntarily.

In any case, people and councils overcome supposed restrictions all the time. Many people in Duddingston Park overcame the restrictions on what was garden ground and built the houses that now look over the Park.

Prior to that developers overcame the agricultural restrictions pertaining to the land that Park Avenue sits on. Its nothing new, it is not underhand and people in stone and glass houses that sit on formerly restricted land have benefitted too.

[kings roader]

This situation is potentially a can of worms. A similar situation arose at the Jewel Park some 6 or 7 years ago. The land at the Jewel Park which is used as football pitches by Edina Hibs was originally part of Lady Wauchopes estate. Wauchope estate donated this to the Jewel mining community and was maintained by the Jewel Miners Club. As the maintainence of the land (football pitches) became a burden to the Jewel Club they transfered it to the Edinburgh council on the proviso that it was for recreation purposes for the local community. At the time it suited the council as it helped with their "green area" requirement. So everybody was happy !

Whats this got to do with anything you may ask ! Well around 6 or maybe 7 years ago, the council proposed to use the land to build a Fire Station. Of course Edina Hibs were not happy as they were going to lose their pitches and through letters from the Jewel and CISWO (miners organisation) Lawers, the council were reminded that they were gifted the land in the first place for recreational use. - The fire station is now at Newcraighall !!

Sorry to be long winded about it all - but if conditions are imposed when greenfield land is gifted to the council then they can be challenged - if proved of course !

[Dadaist]

At the "hijack" meeting, Ewan Aitken mentioned a bank/building society who had until a certain time to renew something and didn't.

Can anyone remember exactly what he said? It was during the brief bit when they discussed this - when he was asking if there was a Lwayer in the house - but I can't remember the detail other than the groan that went round the crowd.

[Stephen McIntyre]

From what Epykat said she heard at the meeting it sounds like Liverpool Victoria or one of these insurance congloms had probably purchased the superiority from the descendants of Miller. (Which evolved into Miiler construction) It is something these bodies were prone to doing over the years as it brought income from Feu duties and the power to charge exorbitant amounts of money for waiving and discharging burdens on request from your serfs.

What did the groans signify to you Dada?

[Epykat]

At the "hijack" meeting, Ewan Aitken mentioned a bank/building society who had until a certain time to renew something and didn't.

Can anyone remember exactly what he said? It was during the brief bit when they discussed this - when he was asking if there was a Lwayer in the house - but I can't remember the detail other than the groan that went round the crowd.

That was the bit when Ian Perry said that the feu rights had expired in 2004 and then said something along the lines of "unless there's a lawyer in the house who knows different" and then the woman stood up and I think she said she was a lawyer (sorry, to that lady if I'm wrong). The groan signified that we all knew the Council would come up with a loophole like that .......

[Dadaist]

What did the groans signify to you Dada?

I really don't know. It was more than a couple of people for sure. I don't know if it was because they were peeved at the LV (or whichever body) for not renewing whatever it was, or at the council for (allegedly) exploiting a loophole or something of that ilk.

I think they might have been under the impression that at a certain point in time, the council knew about whatever the thingy was that needed to be kept up to date, and kept quiet.

I'm not throwing any sort of accusation at them though - for the same reason that I didn't groan at the time Ewan Aitken was speaking - cos I ain't got no clue what it's all about.

I need a seanie guide to explain it all to me from starters but if it's half as complicated as Poppy is making out - oof.


edit -> added SM's quote

[wangi]

Anyone can go the ROS, stump up some cash (£10ish) and get a copy of the deeds etc, yeah?

[Stephen McIntyre]

I think they might have been under the impression that at a certain point in time, the council knew about whatever the thingy was that needed to be kept up to date, and kept quiet.

Im quoting Dada but also responding to Epykat.

It is not a loophole.

I'm guessing LV did not renew, as the ability to earn from the site had been removed by law. So there was nothing in it for them. The council did not change the law and the conseqences of that change in law meant there was no need for a loophole.

Previously, the council would have had to seek LV permission to develop Portobello Park. If granted the permission would have meant the lifting of the burden and the council would have had to pay for the privilege. It is no longer the case.

[Dadaist]

Yes - there was definitely a point in the meeting that Ian or Ewan (I forget who was answering) said "they didn't" in relation to whatever the renewable thingy was and that fact that, in his view, it was up to LV to renew - and maybe did a wee shruggy-shoulders thing too.

I've never exploited a legal loophole so I can't say either way if it was or if they did. The crowd reacted the exact same way my sister used to when I out-maneuvered her during a chess game.

[Epykat]

I don't know the ins and outs of these things, and neither do I want to - but this lady seemed to be quite knowledgeable about the whole thing and was adamant that whatever it is does not expire until August 2006 and that it can be renewed. Maybe she lurks on here somewhere and could put us right?

[Poppy]

Dada said

I think they might have been under the impression that at a certain point in time, the council knew about whatever the thingy was that needed to be kept up to date, and kept quiet.

Of course they 'kept quiet' - they were under no obligation to anything else! It was up to Liverpool Victoria to apply for any relevant burdens to be kept - however it is unlikely there were any they were legally entitled to hang on to or would have any desire/need to. They have no further interest in the land as they no longer get the feuduty (if ever any payable) and, more importantly, they can longer get money from the Council for 'varying' the burdens.

That last point is one of the main reasons for the FA Act - people were having to fork out money to their feudal superiors to build extensions etc. - on top of the building costs and getting planning permission/building permission. Some of these 'superiors' were making a good living out of variations - holding ordinary decent folk to ransome.

Having read the above would any one of us have read our title deeds and then written to the superior to ask them to enforce a burden that was against our interests?? I don't really think so!!

PS The Edina Hibs thing is a whole different ballgame ( ) - that happened before 28/11/2004.

[Dadaist]

Of course they 'kept quiet' - they were under no obligation to anything else!

Very true - like I said about playing chess, if you notice your opponent making a move which will undo their own defence, you don't tend to tell them what they have done before they remove their hand from the piece - or at least not if you intend moving in for the kill once it's too late!

[Poppy]

What the lady probably meant was that LV had until 08/06* to apply for keep certain burdens but as I've expliained above it seems unlikely they will or would want to!

And anyway, they could still allow the council to vary the condition, so I think this all a bit of a blind alleyed red herring!!

* although I thought the deadline had passed?

Edit re * bit

[Dadaist]

What the lady probably meant was that LV had until 08/06 to apply for keep certain burdens but as I've expliained above it seems unlikely they will or would want to!

And anyway, they could still allow the council to vary the condition, so I think this all a bit of a blind alleyed red herring!!

Ahh - that's an important point - so it's not like this could be used as a tactic by the golfers then?

Have I missed (or has there been) discussion about the sewage pipes underneath the park / golf course?

I wonder if the only thing that could save this ground is the discovery of ancient relics or an endangered species - and I don't mean golfers!

[Pal of Porty]

Could be a useful strategy - Lawrence could stand in the Ward across town where they will be building houses to pay for our new High School in Portobello!

[Stephen McIntyre]

[Have I missed (or has there been) discussion about the sewage pipes underneath the park / golf course?

This was mentioned at the PHS meeting. The council are aware of the issue. Although someone at the PFANS meeting took great delight pointing out that the counciillors had been unaware of the issue at the Gowans meeting.

Basically, they encountered a similar but unanticipated issue at St Thomas. It cost them £500k to fix. This time they are grateful for the heads up and will deal with it as the development progresses. It is not a deal breaker.

Does anyone know if the Park Avenue etc residents are seeking a bespoke meeting with the council?

[Poppy]

This is from Mr Poppy aka El Presidente who is almost an expert on this as he deals with this every day! Poor soul!

The Feudal Superiors (The Trustees of Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society) had up until 28 Nov. 2004 the right as Superiors, to enforce any real burdens which would have been imposed under the Feu Disposition of the Park. Up until that day they had the opportunity to record a Notice under Section 18 of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act 2000 (AFT) to effectively preserve these burdens. No such Notice was recorded in the Register of Sasines.

On 28 Nov. 2004 a real burden which was enforceable by, and only by, a Superior was extinguished unless it was subject to Sections 52 to 56 of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003.

Although not having seen what these burdens are there is no way that they will have been preserved under any of these sections -

(a) They are not a "Common Scheme", i.e. they do not form a group of "related properties"

(b) the park is not a sheltered or retirement housing development and

(c ) any burdens will not be "facility burdens" (e.g. maintaining mutual fences)

Any comments relating to Feuduty are totally irrelevant.

Feuduty was extinguished on 28 Nov. 2004 although by Section 8 of AFT the (former) Superior has 2 years from the appointed day to serve a Notice on the (former) vassal for compensation. This has NO effect on the enforceability or otherwise of real burdens.

How exciting is his job!!

[Stephen McIntyre]

That's a fair point. Labour have to get this through a vote and its nip and tuck. Can you imagine any other councillor supporting housing in his Ward to facilitate a school in Portobello? Somehow I don't think so. It would likely scupper the whole proposal. Which may be Lawrence's intent?

Edit added last 2 sentences.

[Dadaist]

Watch out - now that two of you have endorsed this, it means the EN can now run a story entitled "PFANS plan to stand against local councillors as golf wars spill onto the hustings"

Lawrence and Maureen must have some loyal voters who would rather vote for the whole councillor (or even because/despite they are Neo-Labour) than a single issue - so could this not lead to their respective votes being split, Tories getting in by default, Labour losing control of Edinburgh and the eventual downfall of western civilisation?

[Stephen McIntyre]

Lawrence and Maureen must have some loyal voters who would rather vote for the whole councillor (or even because/despite they are Neo-Labour) than a single issue - so could this not lead to their respective votes being split, Tories getting in by default, Labour losing control of Edinburgh and the eventual downfall of western civilisation?

I suppose it could. However, the intended strategy would be dead in the water if Lawrence and/or Maureen decide to fully support the proposal.

It also begs the question; will the Lib Dem candidates for 2007 stand on a "No"" manifesto?

[seanie]

“Edinburgh?

Portobello here. Could we have a quick chat…

You see….we need new schools. We realise money’s tight and that housing development is realistically required to fund it.

But we don’t really want the housing here in Portobello.

We were thinking of building houses in the rest of Edinburgh to pay for our schools.

You wouldn’t mind would you?â€

[Dadaist]

If anyone thinks that the rest of Edinburgh could or would stump up most, or even all, of the cash to fund a project of this scale then they’re living on a different planet from the one I’m on.

Telos?

[Stephen McIntyre]

Thanks Poppy and than FEP too. Three questions:

Pre-Nov 28 2004 could the residents of Park Avenue or indeed the Golfers have approached LV to urge them to continue enforcement of the real burdens?

And, if LV had agreed would it have made a material difference to the current council proposal?

And if Park Avenue residents had been advised by their Solicitors that Portobello Park was preserved ad finitum for any future development, would they have been mis-advised?

[Stephen McIntyre]

Lawrence's latest funding idea would scupper the whole proposal. It is a complete non-starter.

[Alison Connelly]

..

[Dadaist]

Pre-Nov 28 2004 could the residents of Park Avenue or indeed the Golfers have approached LV to urge them to continue enforcement of the real burdens?

If any of them had done, I would have liked the next shot of their crystal ball so I could get the lottery numbers!

[Stephen McIntyre]

Surely they didn't need crystal balls? It sounds like they have access to lawyers, maybe some of them are lawyers? The 2000 Act and its implications were public if not common knowledge. Why did the residents/golfers not intervene to preserve their position? (He said groaning)

[Dadaist]

Surely they didn't need crystal balls? It sounds like they have access to lawyers, maybe some of them are lawyers? The 2000 Act and its implications were public if not common knowledge. Why did the residents/golfers not intervene to preserve their position? (He said groaning)

In the case of the residents I can understand your point as there was always potential for them to become adversaries of the council.

In the case of the golfers - maybe they thought that the council were just those nice people that came to cut the grass.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Surely they didn't need crystal balls? It sounds like they have access to lawyers, maybe some of them are lawyers? The 2000 Act and its implications were public if not common knowledge. Why did the residents/golfers not intervene to preserve their position? (He said groaning)

In the case of the residents I can understand your point as there was always potential for them to become adversaries of the council.

Maybe they did nothing as they had been led to believe or convinced themselves that they had infinite rights to an unrestricted view? There is definitely an element that believes this is the case. I seem to recall having a debate with one across in the school thread.

In the case of the golfers - maybe they thought that the council were just those nice people that came to cut the grass.

When it comes to this issue, they were right. The council did little more than cut the grass. No-one else did either.