New Portobello High School - on going issues

[seanie]

From what I've read, Common Good seems a fairly complex and arcane legal area. I wouldn't really expect anyone to do it justice in a couple of hundred words. That being said there are a couple of additional points made in the article that don't correspond with my understanding of the legal situation.

There's the claim that "the Council is not entitled to use Common Good assets for the provision of statutory services". This claim appears to originate from Andy Wightman's evidence to the Holyrood Committee looking at Common Good issues. That view was contradicted by SOLAR, The Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland, who put the view that;

"Other than the requirement to have regard to the interests of the former burghs inhabitants, there is no specific legal requirement as to how the Common Good fund should be spent. There is nothing legally to stop the Local Authority from using the fund for one of its statutory purposes."

I haven't come across anything that really supports Andy Wightman's point of view but there is some evidence to support the latter opinion, in the form of recent court cases.

In 2004 South Lanarkshire Council went to court with proposals to construct a new PPP school on a park forming part of the Common Good. The LA assumed that such a use would form a disposal requiring the Court's permission but the Judges took the view that, since the land was still in LA ownership and in continued community use, building a school did not constitute a disposal and so the court's permission was uneccessary.

That judgment was relied on again in a later case, the summary of which can be viewed here .

Again a Local Authority was seeking permission to build schools on Common Good land, and the Court took the following view;

Although no opinions were issued, the decision in South Lanarkshire Council indicates that, for a transaction to amount to a "disposal" of land for the purposes of section 75(2), there must be an act whereby the local community are deprived of the benefit of the land in question. It seems to be implicit in the decision that the use of land held for the purposes of the public park to construct a school and playing fields does not involve any "disposal" for the purposes of the subsection. In view of that decision, which is obviously binding on me, I consider that there is no "disposal" in the present cases. It follows that section 75(2) has no application. In these circumstances I refused the prayers of the petitions as unnecessary.

The Court held the petition was uneccessary; the Local Authority did not need to seek the permission of the Court and could proceed.

It seems clear from these recent cases that the Courts do not take the view that Local Authorities cannot "use Common Good assets for the provision of statutory services."

And whilst there might still be a question as to whether such a use amounted to an alienation, the fact that the Courts don't regard it as a disposal is significant. Because the other claim made in the article is that the Council would "have to pay into the Common Good fund an amount equal to the market value of the land."

Now if a Local Authority sells a Common Good asset (unless the status is transferred) then the proceeds of the sale should indeed be credited to the Common Good fund. But such a sale amounts to a disposal. And the Courts appear to take the view that building schools on Common Good land is not a disposal. The land would still be Common Good, the only difference being that there would now be a School on it. In such circumstances there would be no requirement to pay a market value for the land since no transfer of ownership occurs.

There would arguably be a case that the LA should pay "rent" into the Common Good fund for occupying the land with a school, but that should be fairly straightforward. Afterall the Common Good fund is still owned and administered by the Council. It would be a paper exercise to satisfy accountancy procedures with no obvious revenue or capital implications.

[Bob Jefferson]

Porty, to be honest, I think that the Reporter has done its best to steer clear of the issue because the editorial board know that it is contentious, in much the same way that the Community Council has.

Yes, I think PFANS should have done more to ensure that their viewpoint was represented in the Reporter and probably underestimated its importance. Look at the circulation figures, and it's all local households.

The Reporter is an excellent local resource and one of the very few completely independent, not for profit newspapers in the country. I don't think that it can be accused of bias, but as you say it does depend upon donated articles and this particular one, on such as sensitive subject, only tells part of the story.

[Porty]

Agree with the body of your text and that it is a great asset, i'm a big fan, have been since Maureen ran it back in the day.

Do think they ought to check the accuracy of articles they host, particularly when it relates to a contentious issue, like the school. They could easily have done an upbeat piece about the prospect of us getting a new school without showing favour to one site or another.

[Bob Jefferson]

Do think they ought to check the accuracy of articles they host, particularly when it relates to a contentious issue, like the school.

Yes I do, and I'm sure that it was published in good faith on the understanding that it was factually correct. But it is a complex area of law and they are volunteers after all.

They could easily have done an upbeat piece about the prospect of us getting a new school without showing favour to one site or another.

I think that the school, the parents forum and PFANS all have to do more to get that positive message across through the media.

[Porty]

Seanie, someone should send your latest post to the Portobello Reporter and to some senior councilors.

There would arguably be a case that the LA should pay "rent" into the Common Good fund for occupying the land with a school, but that should be fairly straightforward. Afterall the Common Good fund is still owned and administered by the Council. It would be a paper exercise to satisfy accountancy procedures with no obvious revenue or capital implications.

I have been thinking about the issue of "rent" and it seems to me that if it is ultimately proved that this CGL then it would be fair for the Council to reimburse the CGF for changing the use of the land. And it would be reasonable for that reimbursement to relate to the current revenue generated by the facility. Portobello Park generates revenue from the Letting of football pitches, it probably amounts to between £3k and £5k per annum. When it comes to the time the council should voluntarily and without obligation reimburse the CGF for this amount. (leave aside the likelihood that the land costs more to maintain than it generates).

So if and when PPAG take the financial compensation to court they will have to put forward a different formula or basis to justify the £Millions that they believe should be paid. That is going to very, very difficult to justify.

[seanie]

The idea of compensation for the residents of Portobello has absolutely no basis in law. The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which is the prime piece of legislation governing the administration of the Common Good, contains the general provision that such funds be administered "in the interests the former burghs inhabitants."

That can be interpreted widely but it lends weight to the idea that, for example, the Common Good assets that formerly belonged to Musselburgh should be used in the interests of the residents of Mussleburgh rather than the whole of East Lothian.

But the same Act exempts the major cities from such a provision, stating that such assets should be administered in the interests of all the inhabitants of the authority; in this instance all of Edinburgh.

So even if monies were to be paid into the Common Good fund as a result of locating a school on the park, Portobello would have no legal claim on that money. The fund should be administered in the interests of all of Edinburgh's inhabitants.

[Porty]

The Act certainly makes Diana's strong statement that : "The land belongs to the people of Portobello, who would have to be financially compensated via the common good fund for its loss." seem wholly inaccurate. - The people of Portobello do not own Portobello Park and we therefore have no claim for compensation.

Is there any way that PPAG could have The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 overturned or argue that it doesn't apply to them, say on the basis that it is unfair? [edit]

[seanie]

You could argue that the Park belongs to the people of Portobello in a metaphorical sense. But it certainly doesn't belong to them in any legal sense.

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

Bill for upgrading crumbling city schools soars £30 million

While the politicians dither and PPAG attempts to block the only available site, that's OUR money that is being wasted. Utter madness!

[Porty]

PPAG are stating thet the anonymous article on the front page of the Portobello Reporter is the source for the above claims about Common Good Land.

COMMON GOOD STATUS FOR PARK Source - The Portobello Reporter. The Independant Local Newspaper.

A REPORT to the City of Edinburgh Council has confirmed the legal opinion obtained by the Portobello Park Action Group that, because of the history of its acquisition, Portobello Park and Golf Course are Common Good land. This means that it must remain in Council ownership, with none sold for housing, and administered in the interests of the city's residents. The land was purchased in 1898, by the City of Edinburgh Corporation, for £25,000, to fulfil their obligation under the 1896 Edinburgh Extension Act to "acquire, dedicate and thereafter maintain for public use a public park or recreation ground".

The Council is not entitled to use Common Good assets for the provision of statutory services (such as education), so if it goes ahead with the plan to build a school on the park, it will have to go to court to obtain permission, and will also have to pay into the Common Good fund an amount equal to the market value of the land. The question of where the money for a new school will come from remains unanswered.

[seanie]

The aforementioned report to the Council also contained the followiing;

The City of Edinburgh Council has a statutory obligation under the Local Government etc., (Scotland) Act 1994, Section 15(4)(b) in administering property held as part of the common good to have regard to the interests of all of the inhabitants of the City. In effect the Council holds the Common Good Fund for the benefit of the City as a whole. A wide discretion is vested in the Council in its administration of the Common Good subject to the objects upon which the expenditure has been made being for the benefit of the City generally and not for any particular or limited class. Case law indicates that the courts will only
interfere with that discretion where it can be shown to be ultra vires, contrary to the general interests and welfare of the community as a whole and the like.

Which accords with everything else I've come across. Local Authorities have very wide discretion as to how they use Common Good assets, subject to the proviso they administer them with regard to the interests of their inhabitants.

I've not come across anything to support the notion that "the Council is not entitled to use Common Good assets for the provision of statutory services."

[Porty]

Seanie. The act seems to go to some length to protect the administration of cgl in favour of a 'limited class'. Could a school community be considered such a class?would the fact that it is also a statutory purpose qualify?

[Maria]

I'm assuming the new school would be open for community use, would that not make it less of a 'limited class' ?

[seanie]

The issues surrounding what is and isn't Common Good do seem quite complex. The CGF should be accounted for separately and there are restrictions and procedures to be followed when disposing of, and in some circumstances "alienating" Common Good assets.

But in terms of actually administering Common Good funds the position seems pretty straightforward. As long as the council administers the fund "with regard to the interests" of the citizens of Edinburgh it can pretty much use it in any way it wants. Of course there are other restrictions on how the Council can operate, but as long as they use the funds in a way that isn't illegal, outwith their powers or patently unreasonable, the courts won't intervene.

“The Common Good is corporate property and falls as such to be administered by the Council - and applied by them for the benefit of the community in such manner as, and using reasonable judgement as, they think proper” - Lord Kyllachy

[Porty]

That seems to allow plenty of scope. Given the legal precedents that Seanie's demonstrated I can't see the debate ever getting into this sort of nitty gritty even if it does get legal.

Can you imagine the PPAG QC arguing that the relatively small bit of land that will be used for a new PHS does not qualify for an appropriate use as it is for a "limited class"? - The Judges ponder for a while and one of them says "lets go on a site visit".

Judges - " So this is where the desired site is, how far does the boundary extend?"

PPAG QC "It extends 300 meters m'lud, far too much land for sole use by a limited class"

Judges - " hmm, I'm not so sure a facility that will offer services to tens of thousands of people, youngsters, teenagers, young parents, the middle- aged and even OAP's can accurately described as a "limited class" use. However, for now we will go along with your line of thinking"

Judges - "We are glad we came to visit, as even a scaled map cannot do justice to how large this piece of open space is. Pray tell us Right Honorable Compensation Claimer, what is the rest of this land used for, it must be 3 or 4 times the size of the intended School?"

PPAG QC- "splutter, splutter"

Judges - "sorry, we didn't catch that"

PPAG QC: " A golf course"

Let anger and mirth begin.

[seanie]

I think the “limited class” thing is a bit of a red herring. It’s really just emphasising that the CGF must be used in a way that can be interpreted as having benefit to the Edinburgh as a whole, even if the actual use is more narrowly focused.

For example, some local authorities use their CG to fund community groups and organisations. A particular group, with a particular interest, in a particular location, might not be of benefit to everyone. But you could easily justify such a use of CG funds with the general argument that such groups and organisations are beneficial to the community and should be supported.

Other Local Authorities use CG funds to for civic hospitality; ceremonies, events, functions etc. Presumably the argument is that such events are an important part of the Council’s role and bring wider benefits to the community; as such it is perfectly reasonable to use the CG fund to keep Councillors well stocked with canapés and cava. Whether or not you’d agree with that isn’t terribly relevant. Such a use is perfectly legal.

So as long as your use of the Common Good fund can, in some way, be construed as bringing some benefit (even indirectly) to the community as a whole, then you have a pretty free hand in how you use it.

[seanie]

Here's Andy Wightman's Common Good; A Quick Guide.

Page 1 quotes a Scottish Parliamentary answer on what constitutes the Common Good.

Essentially, the Common Good denoted all property of a Burgh not
acquired under statutory powers or held under special trusts.

It's a point Andy Wightman expands upon on the next page;

Up until the 19th century, when local government was more clearly organised and given specific statutory functions together with the statutory means to raise taxes, all burgh property and revenue was deemed common good.

As statutes covering public health, police, housing, sanitation and other such matters emerged, local government grew in scale and raised a correspondingly greater proportion of its income from rates. Property acquired using statutory powers contained in specific Acts (for example, the Edinburgh Improvement Acts, Planning Acts and Housing Acts) did not form part of the common good. Thus over time as local government expanded, the Common Good Fund (which consisted of a range of moveable and heritable assets of the burgh), became a smaller and smaller element in the total finances of the burgh.

Just for emphasis;

Property acquired using statutory powers contained in specific Acts (for example, the Edinburgh Improvement Acts, Planning Acts and Housing Acts) did not form part of the common good.

So, it would appear, the Park was purchased to by the City of Edinburgh Corporation to"fulfil their obligation under the 1896 Edinburgh Extension Act." If so, then the very fact it was purchased to fulfil a statutory obligation would suggest the land is not Common Good.

However things aren't quite so clear cut. I've skimmed over Andrew Fergusons book again and he does note there are grey areas where assets might have been acquired using statutory powers and still be part of the Common Good. Again this appears to refute the claim that Common Good assets cannot be used to fulfil statutory obligations. So it would seem possible that, even if acquired using statutory powers, the park could still be Common Good.

However, given everything else about how LA's are allowed to use the Common Good, and the recent Court cases that have given consent to the principle of building schools on Common Good land,it's not obvious that it makes much difference either way.

[Porty]

Thanks for your research Seanie. Leaving Planning issues aside, have you found any evidence whatsoever of a potential impediment to building one or two Schools on Portobello Park, should it prove to be CGL?

On the subject of Planning, the decision to leave the Golf Course in situ will make the requirement for replacement of open space far less onerous than it would have been. Perhaps the only limited class who will be displaced are dog walkers. Surely they won't mind walking a bit further to the Figgate, Rosefield Brighton Parks or even Joppa Quarry?

[seanie]

From what I can find, and in particular the recent court cases, no. But there is still a possible issue regarding alienation short of disposal. The court opinions in those two cases seems to imply it's not an issue but it doesn't appear to have been directly addressed. Earlier case law recognises instances of alienation short of disposal- effectively denying the community use without actually selling the asset in question.

The recent court actions ruled that building a school on Common Good land did not constitute a disposal and as such permission was not required under the terms of the Local Government Scotland Act. The reasoning, that the land would still be in community use, suggests that the courts would not consider it an alienation either but that wasn't specifically articulated.

So that's still a slightly grey area. However given the recent precedents of courts giving the green light to building school on Common Good land it might not be an issue at all.

[Bob Jefferson]

The Council's feasibility studies relating to the five 'Wave 3' schools, including PHS, are now complete. PHS Parent Council will have an opportunity to discuss the report with Marilyne Maclaren, Convenor of Children and Families at a meeting on 17 March.

A 'leaked' copy of the feasibility study has come into my possession and will be of great interest to anyone who has been following events so far.

If nothing else, I recommend you take a look at Appendix A, a 'vision' for a new PHS resulting from a workshop held between teachers, pupils and members of the community. It's exciting, it's inspirational and it's achievable. Let's make it happen!

Council Feasibility Study

[Bob Jefferson]

From the PPAG website:

Portobello Park Action Group Update

Portobello Park Action Group (PPAG) has been campaigning now for more than 2 years to save Portobello Park from development.

As you probably remember, in January 2006, the City Council announced plans to re-build Portobello High School (PHS) and St John’s Primary on Portobello Park/Golf Course, and to fund these new schools by building houses on the site to be sold to raise capital. Given the amount of public opposition at the time, the council conceded that they could not build houses, but in December 2006, they took the decision to push forward with their plans to rebuild PHS on the Park, and St John’s Primary on the existing PHS site, with the remainder of the existing PHS site and the existing St John’s site to be sold off for development. This was all to be subject to the condition that space was identified locally to replace Portobello Park.

The Council had no funding in place for the new schools, other than the planned receipts from land at the existing sites, and they were therefore considering PPP schemes. Plans were put on hold until under after the Scottish Government and local authority elections were held in May 2007. As you may have heard in the news, the new government are not in favour of PPP schemes, and therefore the council have been unable to secure funding. The council are now in the process of considering alternative funding mechanisms for the new schools, but in the meantime, there are other developments affecting the proposals:

The council have now recognised that Portobello Park forms part of Edinburgh’s Common Good Fund. This gives the Park legal protection, and means that if the council wish to use the park for a statutory function (i.e. education), then they need to get permission from the courts to do so. Over and above that, the accounting arrangements mean that the council must maintain the value of the common good fund, so if they effectively dispose of a common good asset, by using it for another purpose, then they must pay its value into the common good fund.

Secondly, a Protected View has now been recognised from the Hope Lane side of the park (near the football changing rooms) towards Arthur Seat. This is likely to present a significant planning hurdle to any new building, which would destroy that view.

PPAG maintains the position that the council, in 2006, made a flawed decision to build on Portobello Park. They failed to take into account the strength of local opinion against the plan, and they failed to acknowledge that the park is common good land. They conducted feasibility studies into the options for improving facilities at PHS, and they undertook a statutory education consultation, but these studies were not objective, and the conclusions appear to have been determined in advance. Whilst PPAG recognise that the facilities at PHS should be improved, it is our belief that the council have not given adequate consideration to alternative means of delivering it.

We are now keen to ensure that our local politicians are fully aware of local opinion, and therefore would like to ask as many people as possible to write to Cllr Marilyne Maclaren indicating their support for the preservation of Portobello Park as common good land. We have attached a sample letter. Please feel free to use it, or better still write one of your own. By letting the Council know what YOU want, you can help to influence the future of Portobello for the benefit of all.

[Bob Jefferson]

PPAG sample letter referred to:

Dear Cllr MacLaren

I am writing to you to indicate my support for the preservation of Portobello Park. Some of my reasons are as follows :

· Accessibility of Portobello Park. It is currently used by walkers, children playing, joggers, people on their way to and from work/school/golf.
The importance of green space is increasingly recognised. It is becoming a scarce resource in East Edinburgh, and we should be protecting it.

· The health of local residents is enhanced by access to Portobello Park. People of all ages, but particularly the very young and the elderly benefit from easy access to open space. If they have to travel to open spaces, they will not be able to get there, and health will be affected. This is particularly important in the face of increasing childhood obesity

· It is enjoyed as an open view by commuters, motorists and pedestrians travelling along Milton Road. This open view contributes to the ambience of the whole area, and helps make Edinburgh the beautiful, pleasant city that it is. To destroy this view is short-sighted, and damaging to the future of Edinburgh.

· Although the golf course is not directly affected at the moment, it is hard to see how it can survive, adjacent to a large high school, with hundreds of children spilling out at lunchtime and home time. There is also a safety issue for the schoolchildren.

· Proximity to a major road into the city centre presents serious road safety issues for both pedestrians and vehicle access to the proposed school.

· There is no green space available locally to replace Portobello Park. The council’s decision in December 2006 was on condition that such a replacement was found, and it would be disingenuous of the council to push ahead without fulfilling this condition

· Feasibility reports have been produced (in the run up to PPP2) concluding that it would be feasible to refurbish the existing PHS. This proves that Portobello Park is NOT the only option, and therefore its legal position as common good land should be preserved.

· It would be cheaper to refurbish the existing building, and the negative environmental impact from demolishing a structurally sound concrete building, and the landfill implications from that, could be avoided.

· In funding terms, the very high costs of PPP schemes are no longer politically or financially acceptable, and greater emphasis will be placed on affordability of future building projects. This means that the council have a greater responsibility for ensuring value for money and affordability. Many of the other schools in " Wave 3" are now looking at refurbishment as an alternative to rebuild. Why should PHS be any different?

I am grateful to you for taking the time to consider these points, and hope that you will be able to understand the wider implications for Portobello and for Edinburgh, in setting precedents for the protection of our green spaces

Yours sincerely

[seanie]

Over and above that, the accounting arrangements mean that the council must maintain the value of the common good fund, so if they effectively dispose of a common good asset, by using it for another purpose, then they must pay its value into the common good fund.

Just to reiterate, the courts take a different view as to what constitutes disposing of a Common Good Asset;

It seems to be implicit in the decision that the use of land held for the purposes of the public park to construct a school and playing fields does not involve any "disposal" for the purposes of the subsection. In view of that decision, which is obviously binding on me, I consider that there is no "disposal" in the present cases.

[Bob Jefferson]

I think that we should address the draft letter point by point. Let's start with:

· Accessibility of Portobello Park. It is currently used by walkers, children playing, joggers, people on their way to and from work/school/golf.
The importance of green space is increasingly recognised. It is becoming a scarce resource in East Edinburgh, and we should be protecting it.

From what I have seen, it is used in the main by people playing football. The football pitches, available for community use, will remain and will probably be improved. In addition, it is likely that an all-weather pitch will also be available for out of school hours community use. So, good news for football players of all ages.

The other people who use the park are dog walkers and people taking short cuts. I'm sure that the dog walkers won't mind walking a few more yards to the beautiful Figgate Park. Ditto joggers and 'walkers'. I have never actually witnessed children playing in Portobello Park (other than organised games of football or staged PPAG stunts) but I don't deny it may happen.

Is green space becoming a 'scarce resource' in East Edinburgh? Not that I can see. Where are the examples to back up this claim?

[Porty]

The PPAG communications are fundamentally flawed. In my opinion it is not worth dissecting each and every point to underline the mendacity.

Essentially it is the same tripe they have purveyed since the outset. They had their chances in the chamber and failed miserably. The 2 pincer strategy of simply make things up and suggest building on a different park ensured that not a single councillor put their hand up in support of saving the Park. At any of the meeting that took place. They persuaded no-one.

Its nonsense to say that the consultation was narrow. It is an insult to the dozens of local groups and organisations contributed and so did hundreds of residents. It is all there in black and white in the consutation report.

I'm quite encouraged if this is all that they have to bring. We are now moving into the realms of legality and planning guidelines. Objections have to be substantiated and proved to contravene the law. If the planned School does not fit with the planners then no matter how much shouting PFANS do, it won't happen. In the converse situation the same applies to PPAG. Numbers of complaints may prolong but it won't influence the decision.

Hijacking meetings is not going to work, manufacturincg statistics is not going to work, portraying potential risks to children or to a golf course is not going to work, claiming disposition is not going to work, arguing that a protected viw will be breached is not going to work, lying about refurbishment costs is not going to work, claims to harness local opinion is not going to work,underming the statutory consultation is not going to work. claiming for financial compensation is not going to work., conducting one-off parties in the park is not going to work- PPAG are struggling, just like they have from the outset. They are campaigning from a dishonest premise and it shows.

[Maria]

At the moment, securing funding is surely the major obstacle. PPAG don't have to do anything; the Scottish Government is doing it all for them.

[Porty]

I cannot argue with that.

[Bob Jefferson]

Moving on to the second point in the PPAG letter:

People of all ages, but particularly the very young and the elderly benefit from easy access to open space. If they have to travel to open spaces, they will not be able to get there, and health will be affected. This is particularly important in the face of increasing childhood obesity.

It really beggars belief that PPAG have the audacity to use this argument. They accept the health benefits of easy access to green space but want to 'save' it for local residents while 1450 local children are squashed into a concrete monstrosity like chickens in a battery farm with barely room to turn around. Environmental justice? I think not.

PHS has no green space. Children who should be running around in green space are sitting on buses, waiting to be transported to Jack Kane.

The Sustainable Development Commission, the Government's independent watchdog on sustainable development, recently produced a report entitled 'Every Child's Future Matters', from which I quote:

Merely viewing nature through a window has health benefits. Time spent in green space has particular value for children with symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, benefiting their concentration and self-discipline.

Children spending time playing in natural areas experience adventure and risk-taking as well as developing self-confidence, social skills and respect for the value of nature.

How many PPAG supporters have children who will be attending PHS do you imagine?

[Porty]

People of all ages, but particularly the very young and the elderly benefit from easy access to open space. If they have to travel to open spaces, they will not be able to get there, and health will be affected. This is particularly important in the face of increasing childhood obesity.

Bob, its not worth dissecting. Can you guage the impact on a person with even a modicum of intelligence when they receive a communication that states

" If they have to travel to open spaces, they will not be able to get there"

Straight in the bin, methinks

[Porty]

The opportunity for sport is just too tempting:

and health will be affected. This is particularly important in the face of increasing childhood obesity.

If Portobello Park is currently playing an important role in combating childhood obesity, why is it on the increase? I'm beginning to think its all the Park's fault!!

I would have to travel there to take a look at this phenomenon but the very fact I have to travel precludes me from being able to get there. I feel trapped. Think I'll have another donut.

[Bob Jefferson]

Can you guage the impact on a person with even a modicum of intelligence when they receive a communication that states

" If they have to travel to open spaces, they will not be able to get there"

Yeah, must admit I had a chuckle at that one. I was thinking of visiting an open space myself later today, but the futility of such an action has left me feeling rather depressed. On the plus side, I am thinking about getting my place of work re-designated as an open space.

[Porty]

How many PPAG supporters have children who will be attending PHS do you imagine?

I'm on dodgy ground here cos' I'm a PFANS supporter and I won't have children who will be attending PHS. I do pride myself in my imagination Bob but you've set us a toughie there, as we don't know the real extent of their support? I guess all we can do is look at the key figureheads (the ones of have made representations to the council and a few others) in the organisation and extrapolate the results. let me see:

(Assumed its ok to use names as the individuals concerned have either spoken out, gone into print or demonstrated in support of PPAG and are no doubt proud of their contributions)

admin: list removed - I don't see the need to list the details of who is is in what "camp", or the benefit of such a list. Anyone is of course free to associate themselves here with their views but that's their choice.

Apologies if I left anyone out. I know or know of most of those people and the situation regarding their children's (if any) education. There's 19 of them but I'll leave Bucky out for the moment as I don't think his kids will travel from Arizona.

So (18 times average number of school age kids likely to attend PHS) x (generous factor of 3 to avoid accusations of loading the calculation against PPAG) x ( say another 20 genuine supporters) = None!!!

I may be out 100% but I don't imagine so.

[Bob Jefferson]

OK, you lost me a little there on your methodology. Let's look at it another way, and I throw this challenge open to PPAG. There are thousands of parents living in the area whose children will one day attend PHS. How many of these support the PPAG position? I don't know of any.

[Maria]

I know of at least one PPAG supporter, who will be sending her family of 4 children to PHS, but it shouldn't be about whether you have kids or where they go to school. It is just as easy to accuse PFANS supporters of being selfish as the majority do have kids either currently at or going to PHS.

Whether you have children or not, a new school will benefit all the community for generations to come.

[Porty]

.... but it shouldn't be about whether you have kids or where they go to school

I like to think I've proved that. I'm so driven to get this new School because I feel indebted for what the place gave me. I loved my time there and I want it to be the best it can be for years to come. My grandchildren may go there.

Whether you have children or not, a new school will benefit all the community for generations to come.

Out of all the words that have been said on this subject here on TP/POL i doubt there's any truer. Which is why I cannot fathom why PPAG are against the school in the park whilst simultaneously claiming they have our children's best interests at heart. I cannot fathom why Diana Cairns wants to be compensated financially for investment in education, that benefits the wider community.

I don't want to help PPAG but maybe you should get the PPAG supporter with the 4 kids who will go to Porty to step up and play a major role in the organisation. It would certainly give them a bit of balance. I get letters and emails almost every day, many from young people, bemoaning what they see as PPAG's selfish stance. The focus is almost always on the fact that they don't have kids who will be affected. Now that may be the wrong way to look at it but many people do.