Portobello Community Council

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 17 Sep 2010, 09:47

I agree.

But...

There are some very strong feelings within the PCC about Talk Porty, and Portobello Online suffers from guilt by association. If I host something separately there's likely to be less hostility towards it from within the PCC.

I might need some advice on the automatic e-mail forwarding thingy though.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 17 Sep 2010, 09:55

Franck wrote:
Marya wrote:
C'mon. I didn't say it would be instantaneous, especially when it only involves 3 folk (one of whom already had my personal email anyway).

Well, I'm not going to start spamming your email, quite frankly I've got better things to do with my time.Cheers for the vote of confidence,though.

I don't mean you personally will suddenly become my number one correspondant on email Franck, merely that the more contact lists one's email appears on the more likely it is that you get spam mail or worse. In the last week I've had two friends contact me telling me to ignore any emails from them as their PCs have been infected and their email contacts harvested. It is a common problem.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 17 Sep 2010, 09:58

It happenned to me over the summer. I came back from holiday to find dozens of e-mails from people asking why I was trying to flog them "high qulity electrical goods".

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 17 Sep 2010, 10:05

Marya wrote: I don't mean you personally will suddenly become my number one correspondant on email Franck, merely that the more contact lists one's email appears on the more likely it is that you get spam mail or worse. In the last week I've had two friends contact me telling me to ignore any emails from them as their PCs have been infected and their email contacts harvested. It is a common problem.

Fair doo's the inference was there, though.Maybe it's my current defence mode in overdrive.

All the guff from hotmail accounts I'm guessing?

Post by **wangi** » 17 Sep 2010, 10:08

seanie wrote:There are some very strong feelings within the PCC about Talk Porty, and Portobello Online suffers from guilt by association. If I host something separately there's likely to be less hostility towards it from within the PCC.

Well I think it maybe came about the other way round; but I know what you're saying. However any website will suffer from the same perception I think until the fundamental sticking points are discussed openly... I'm more than willing to talk this through with PCC members at their next meeting, or at any other time.

And if you need any help - give me a shout.

L/

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 17 Sep 2010, 10:16

Franck wrote:[
Fair doo's the inference was there, though.Maybe it's my current defence mode in overdrive.

All the guff from hotmail accounts I'm guessing?

Yeah, sorry, didn't think anyone would interpret it that way.

The recent ones appear to come from my friends' email accounts (neither of them are hotmail accounts), so you are more likely to open them rather than just press the delete button.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 17 Sep 2010, 10:21

With all this discussion about contactability, I was curious to see just how PCC compared in comparison to other community councils out there. Porty has already linked to the website of the Morningside Council as an example of good practice.

I haven't got the time (or will power quite frankly) to trawl through the details of all the community councils listed on the City of Edinburgh home pages, but had a look at the first 20 community councils on their list, which are named in alphabetical order. Here are the results;

Working website - 12/20

Photos of serving members - 0/20

Contact details
13/20 offered a single email contact
1/20 offered 3 phone numbers and 1 email
1/20 2 general site email addresses
1/20 had broken link to contact details
1/20 offered 9 site email contacts
2/20 offered 4 site email contacts
1/20 offered 3 personal email contacts

Ordinary Members list with individual contact details
0/20

List of names only of ordinary members

7/20

No list of ordinary members provided

13/20

Now , I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to be a bit more like Morningside council regarding communication, but it looks like Portobello isn't really so unusual.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Sep 2010, 10:32

You don't need to set up your own website for email forwarding. Anyone hosting a website can offer this service.

So, my suggestion would be that you email each of the members asking them whether they are prepared to receive email from members of the community (in a manner that does not reveal their personal email addresses) and then contact Anna Herriman, who is responsible for the Neighbourhood Partnership website, and ask her to set it up for you.

So the contact address would be something like:

portobellocc@edinburghnp.org.uk

After that, all you have to do is make people aware of its existence. Talkporty and POL can assist you in that.

Anna's contact details are:

email - anna.herriman@edinburgh.gov.uk
tel - 0131 469 3853

Makaveli · Post by **Makaveli** » 17 Sep 2010, 10:33

There really is no need for all this anyway as I was just reading through the MOM for the PCC meeting held on the 29th of March 2010 and found this:-

277.5x All, to consider how the Community Council can improve its communication networks (276.

.
277.5y All, to send contact information to Brenda Molony (276.

.
(Done, and Brenda has circulated the collected information to all Community Councillors)

So one can only presume that the matter is in hand and we should have something up and running soon

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Sep 2010, 11:07

Marya wrote:Now , I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to be a bit more like Morningside council regarding communication, but it looks like Portobello isn't really so unusual.

It isn't. But why can't we be at the forefront rather than dragging reluctantly behind? And some of those single points of contact could well be email forwarding addresses.

Post by **wangi** » 17 Sep 2010, 11:18

It quite ironic really... Zip back to 2005: "won the 'Highly Commended' award (runner's up place) in the 'Community Enhancement through the Internet' section of the Calor Scottish Community of the Year 2005 Awards today ... Portobello Community Council also won 'Commended' certificates in two other categories; Old People and Community Life"; see: http://forum.talkporty.org/viewtopic.php?t=2029

L/

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Sep 2010, 11:40

Ironic. Sad. Frustrating.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 17 Sep 2010, 13:47

I believe your initiative is good Seanie. Have you circulated PCC members with the suggestion/offer?

Bob's idea is good to but lets face it Bob; the current PCC is never going to follow advice or suggestion from you or I.

As some have already alluded; it is not so much a technical problem but one of general communication. In my experience emails to either of the current PCC addresses are neither acknowledged nor passed on.

There are many good people on PCC and I think a lot of them would be unhappy that communications from the public are not being passed on. Some have already told me so.

Things are moving on; Seanie has made a reasonable and sensible offer that will help Community Councillors and the Community better communicate. And PCC members now realise that their Email addresses are publically available in an easy to use format. Perhaps those two factors will serve as a catalyst?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 17 Sep 2010, 13:52

I've been asked to hold off producing any web page etc. as apparently there have been several conversations with the Council's community liaison officer about setting a web-site up. So hopefully one will appear soon.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 17 Sep 2010, 14:14

Surprised you only just found this out? A website will need designed and a design will need a brief and a brief will need consultation.

There can hardly be a better time to assess PCC members preferences for Email contact. And, if you can knock up a temporary web page in an hour, and it improves contactability, why not just go ahead and do it?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 17 Sep 2010, 14:18

I wouldn't want to cause any upset.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 17 Sep 2010, 14:22

Leave that to me and Bob.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Sep 2010, 14:27

seanie wrote:I've been asked to hold off producing any web page etc. as apparently there have been several conversations with the Council's community liaison officer about setting a web-site up. So hopefully one will appear soon.

Is this Galaxy? That's months away, if it ever happens.

OK, here is an interim compromise solution. Will you, Sean Watters, undertake to manually forward emails from members of the community to other community council members who are interested enough to hear the views of those people they are supposed to be representing? (You might want to set up a separate email account for this purpose.)

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 17 Sep 2010, 14:36

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Sep 2010, 14:45

Thank you. Please inform us of the email address you wish to use for this purpose in due course.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 17 Sep 2010, 14:51

Should I shove a broom up me a**e and give the floor a quick sweep while I'm at it?

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 17 Sep 2010, 15:07

seanie wrote:Should I shove a broom up me a**e and give the floor a quick sweep while I'm at it?

This new look community council offers a much improved service, kudos Seanie.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 18 Sep 2010, 14:17

theppfp@gmail.com

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Sep 2010, 10:24

admin: following 8 posts merged from the scottish power, rd 3 thread

seanie wrote:
Porty wrote:Seanie, that is pretty strong stuff- disassociating yourself from the Community Councils' offical account of the meetings outcome?
We've yet to see the 'official' account of the meeting's outome. That will be the minutes.

Have PCC ceased publishing minutes on-line?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 19 Sep 2010, 10:36

I don't think so. I don't know why the May minutes aren't up because they were presumably agreed at the June meeting. The June minutes haven't been agreed yet as the August meeting was all taken up with BL and the High School. So they won't be available until after the September meeting.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 19 Sep 2010, 11:13

seanie wrote: I don't know why the May minutes aren't up....

Bob is experiencing some technical problems at the moment. Soon as his 'puter is better they will be online.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 19 Sep 2010, 12:46

Up and running again, £250 later. Fortunately didn't lose any data and will now get round to the backlog including those missing CC minutes.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Sep 2010, 12:53

272.11g Planning
We discussed our response to the latest BL Devts plans for the Baileyfield site. There were 21 days from the meeting in which to make further representation. It was agreed that John Stewart, Caroline Hosking, Celia Butterworh, Anne Ward and Diana Cairns would meet to discuss the plans so that they could respond to them. Caroline Hosking was asked to convene the meeting. We agreed that BL Devts have not listened to our concerns. The plans have been changed to allow more light into the courtyards but the development would still present a monolithic aspect along Portobello High Street. Archie Burns raised concerns about the parking and traffic impact and agreed to send points about traffic and parking to the group. Dawson Currie said he still had concerns about the block with the vennels (Block E) and Margaret Munro expressed concerns about maintenance of the public areas, especially if it was taken on by the council. Caroline Hosking expressed concern about the loss of vistas, particularly because of the higher blocks behind the high street frontage.
John Stewart said we should ask for materials to be changed from brick, or at least to a different colour of brick. Suzanne McIntosh suggested that we request that 1% of the value of the whole development be set aside for some kind of art work. The scheme is called “Percentage for Art” and a legal agreement needs to be put in place at the outset of the development.

•Action: Suzanne to send bullet points to John for inclusion in the CC’s letter. We agreed that responses would be made by BRRA, PMAG, PCATS and PAS, as well as PCC.
We had been told that the BL Developments plan and the Funpark development would both be considered at the planning committee meeting of 28 October.
Action: John Stewart to write to John Bury and Jim Lowrie to ask for both plans to go to the full planning committee. It was agreed that John would make a deputation on behalf of PAS and that Diana would make a deputation on behalf of PCC. Cllr Hawkins said he would address the committee as ward councillor.
We discussed the Funpark development. The City Archaeologist has asked for a mitigation strategy to be put in place for the kilns, in order to protect them from damage during the construction period. Historic Scotland has objected strongly to the development, expressing concerns about the safety of the kilns. We agreed to refer to their objections in our letters.
SEPA has withdrawn its objections. The level of the site is 0.6m - 0.9m above the surrounding ground levels; this will necessitate the wall height to be raised, or for a wave return wall to be built. The ramp previously shown at the front of the building should be within the curtilage of the building but the latest plans do not show the ramp. Alison Robinson mentioned that the promenade surface was to be continued to the kilns instead of the ramp.

•Action: John Stewart to check this with the planning officer, Lesley Carus.
Damian Killeen mentioned the fact that there was no mention in the application of the Design Brief for the Promenade. Caroline Hosking said that she was concerned that, with pushing the development back from the Promenade, it was going to encroach more on the Bridge St square and would mean the loss of trees and shrubs which are an essential part of the enjoyment of this space by residents and which encourage wild birds to the square.

The above is an extract from PCC Minutes in September 09. Something stinks doesn't it?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 19 Sep 2010, 13:07

Minutes from May and June now online.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Sep 2010, 13:47

Thanks Bob. If anyone is in any doubt that our Community Council is getting it badly wrong. may I draw your attention to item 280.7 in the June meeting.

280.7 Application to develop “Big W” site.

A planning application has been submitted to retail food from this site responses due by 23rd of July though Diana Cairns has requested an extension. She is collecting grounds for objection

Action: All, to encourage as many as possible to object to this application.
Action: Diana Cairns to write to object to application

No need to discuss, no need to consult lets tell the people what to do. Do you think they are trying to starve us?

Makaveli · Post by **Makaveli** » 19 Sep 2010, 15:19

And how are they going to collect grounds for rejection? Are they going to ask anyone but themsleves?

I know nobody has asked me and I live round the corner from there!!!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 19 Sep 2010, 18:57

Post deleted.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Sep 2010, 09:19

It is dumb isn’t it? The planners accepted our arguments but approved it all the same. So here we are again with same objections as last time.

Seanie, I did notice that the June Minutes were draft, And now that I've highlighted the omission of the consultations with the community I fully expect that detail (surveys, on-line polls, letters of objection etc) to make the final Minutes. It could be we discover that Diana Cairns was gathering supportive comments along with objections?

At the moment the draft reads like ; "Diana Cairns doesn't want food retailed from the Big W site. She has our blessing to go out and secure support for her position and as a Community Council we are certain the entire community does not want a food retailer in this locale.”

Not really the spirit behind the Community Council concept is it?

Responses had to be in by July 23rd. Was Diana’s letter circulated prior to submission? Where can we see a copy?

(edited)

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Sep 2010, 19:54

As a point of information, all CC minutes are effectively 'drafts' in that they are not ratified until the following meeting. That's why, if you take a look, they all say 'Draft Minutes' at the top. Because of this, you have to read any particular set of minutes in conjunction with the following set to be absolutely sure of what was agreed. It's not ideal but that's the way it has worked for a very long time. To my knowledge, ratified minutes are never circulated nor published.

The June minutes were produced on 9 August but I didn't receive them until 2 September. (Despite repeated requests, I do not receive an 'official' copy of the minutes and have to rely on friends on the CC to forward me their copy.) Then my computer went in for repair and I didn't get round to adding them until Sunday.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Sep 2010, 20:08

seanie wrote:theppfp@gmail.com

So, just to clarify, seanie has kindly offered to forward email to each of the CC members. This now means that members of the community can use this email address to write with their comments on the BL development, safe in the knowledge that they will be passed on, without upsetting individual members by using their private email addresses.

Just out of interest seanie, what does ppfp stand for?

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Portobello Community Council

tmp