New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[seanie]

From the Scheme for Community Councils;

Community councils should engage widely with their local communities to represent their views on the Neighbourhood Partnerships. It is essential that these views are demonstrated to be representative of the community and, accordingly, the community council will have in place recognised consultative mechanisms to validate their views; and devise strategies to secure greater involvement by all sectors of the community.

[Bob Jefferson]

I think that for the CC to retain any credibility, they have to take this very seriously. As has been said, they can't 'make' PPAG do anything but if a majority agrees that the claims on PPAG's website are misleading (and it would be very difficult to argue otherwise) then they must request that PPAG remove them immediately. If they fail to comply then the CC would have no option other than to rescind their membership at the next scheduled meeting at the end of April. What the community will not accept is a fudge. Failure to take decisive action will inevitably lead to calls for the CC to be disbanded until a new election can be held and if that means there is no CC until August 2013 then perhaps that is no bad thing.

[Bob Jefferson]

Can you help to collect signatures for our petition? Not everyone has access to the internet or knows about the Facebook Page so we have paper copies as well and have already collected well over 200 signatures. If you would like to help, please download and print the petition form and PM me when you want me to collect the completed sheets. We don't want people to sign who have already signed online and we are not encouraging young children to sign.

petition.pdf

(23.91 KiB) Downloaded 139 times

[Pal of Porty]

The PPC position of self declared neutrality is bollocks (don't know the latin legal term).

Say for example that in the community there was a small group of NIMBYS that raised funds for their cause through a series of misrepresentations and lies but they were opposed by the vast majority of the community. This should be really straight forward for the PCC to handle as they have a duty to represent the views of the community at large. By all means they must acknowledge the views of the small group but this must be in the appropriate context of what the majority of the community wants. Nuetrality, dictated by the 'inner sanctum' of the PCC simply does not meet what is required here.

Aside from the PPC adopted position and in many ways more importantly, surely there has to be some form of conduct guidlelines and standards of behaviour expected from members of groups which help to form the PCC. It is totally amoral that a group can hold it's position on the PCC while continually peddling misrepresentations, yet the PCC are happy to condone this.

Come on guys have a look at that moral compass inside you, behave with a responsibility that befits your postion and lend your weight to get this school built.

[Porty]

The PCC neutrality position was adopted before:

the consultation back in 2006
the planning application in 2011
the court decision in 2012
the "drop the appeal" petition currently ongoing with 1500 signatures plus

And it was adopted without ANY consultation with the community, not a shred. It was a suggestion from the chair at the time

Those are material changes. it is not up to the CC to dictate a neutral postion to the community, they must consult and reflect the view expressed. John Stewart is trying to get away with what PCC cannot tell PPAG whilst simultaneously dictating that PCC must be neutral. It doesn't work that way and we will be having it out.

[Makaveli]

I find it amazing that the PCC do not consult the community they are supposed to represent.

In the modern times we live in surely in can't be that hard to get a list of e-mail address's of local people and then set up a generic e-mail account so the PCC can then send out messages and questions on the big issues round Portobello?

This is surely the bare minimum that they should be doing as elected members.

On the issue of being neutral about the new school that is laughable as long as Diana Cairns is on the PCC and PPAG.

[rmolehusband]

If the CC claims to be neutral then they should not have a co-opted PPAG representative sitting on the council.

[Chas]

Surely the argument is that by taking a neutral stance the PCC is not fulfilling its obligations, namely that "It is essential that these views are demonstrated to be representative of the community ..."? The Portobello community is very clearly not 'neutral' on this issue.

[lg1726]

See below my email to them:

"Thank you for your reply to my query and for the details of the forthcoming meeting which I fully intend to attend.

I would however like to address some points that your reply has highlighted for me. You say that the PCC is required to take a neutral stance and yet there are previous occasions where the PCC have taken a very determined stance in respect of a particular planning applications, either in terms of residential or commercial developments where there have been supporters of the same application. On those aforementioned occasions the objections offered by the PCC have been put forward by the PCC as a representative body, alleging to represent the views of the community.

This poses two concerns for me; firstly previous objections by the PCC have therefore demonstrated a precedent for non-neutrality and indeed, for taking a very clear stance in respect of some applications. For example, the objections to the proposed supermarket application where the PCC clearly stated a position, also in respect of the recent application for the new build of a residential property in Bellfield Lane, an application which was supported by a number of local residents and yet PCC and locally elected members opposed this, claiming to do so as my representatives! Which brings me to my second concern; namely that the PCC make such claims asserting to represent me and yet do not seek to elicit my views on such matters. I fail to see how you can be a representative body and yet also claim a neutral position, surely that is an oxymoron? Were the PCC to be truly representative of the local community, it would seek to consult widely on such issues, including the current issue of the site of the new PHS and then act in accordance with the majority view, thereby taking the democratically determined position to council as our representative body.

I have lived in this area for 12 years and neither I nor my partner can recall being consulted by the PCC, ever. However, I will take the opportunity of the emergency meeting to seek the clarification of the role of the PCC and to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how you can claim to be both neutral and representative."

[gillian]

Well done Ig1726, couldn't have put it better myself (literally!)

Lets hope that all the anger/frustration/disquiet can be channelled efficently so that positive outcomes can be reached. It's going to take a very strong, experienced and neutral chair. Are we confident ?

[mr magnolia]

thanks too, lg - I had been wondering myself how to respond to the email from PCC. Some good thoughts there.
I wonder how many emails they got?

[lg1726]

Thanks Rosa - hmmm neutral chair????

Mr magnolia, i hope they were utterly swamped! I used there contact page of the www to ask about the emergency meeting and got the stock reply i assume you also did, but i just hope that they now have a flavour of the community view on this.

The view they are supposed to represent; oh and stay neutral!!

[Bob Jefferson]

BIGPIC_A4FLYER-paths.pdf

(621.22 KiB) Downloaded 258 times

Our new leaflet has on the reverse an A4 size copy of our latest poster. Copies will be available from our High Street stall tomorrow. Come and say hello!

[mr magnolia]

I see that the Evening News photo feature of this years P7s will be (coincidentally, I assume) running on 23 and 24 May. Another lost years children highlighted in glorious colour. For shame.

[Bob Jefferson]

Peter McColl comes out in favour of the school on the park and wants to return the current site to green space.

I think that any new school must go on the Park. At this stage I don’t see a realistic alternative.

Given the strength of the comments by Lady Dorrian in the initial case, it seem unlikely that the Park will be retained. No real good will come from taking it further, and so the campaigners should drop their appeal.

[wangi]

A couple of items from today. First off a news release and report from Edinburgh Council:
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/articl ... igh_school

Council Reinforces Commitment to New Portobello High School

Published Friday 20 April 2012

A report has been issued to Councillors today (20 April) calling for the construction of the new Portobello High School to begin as soon as the current appeal by PPAG (Portobello Park Action Group) is either withdrawn or concluded in the Council’s favour.

If the report is approved at the Council meeting next week, the only remaining obstacle to work beginning immediately will be PPAG's court appeal.

The appeal is due to be heard on 23 and 24 May 2012 although the judgement may take some time, meaning that the earliest the much needed new High School could open would be August 2014. However, if the appeal is dropped, the school could open its doors as early as January 2014.

Councillors will be asked to formally approve the appropriation of an area of land in Portobello Park under the powers of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The power to do this is something that the Council has asserted since 2008, a position that was fully supported in the recent judgement by Judge Lady Dorrian, in which she also dismissed the petition from PPAG on the grounds of their excessive delay.

In addition, Councillors will also be asked to approve the appropriation of the land under Section 20 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003. This provides local authorities with the power to do anything they consider likely to promote or improve the well-being of its area and persons within that area. This provides the Council with a separate legal power to allow the plans for the new Portobello High School to be taken forward.

Education Convener, Councillor Marilyne MacLaren, said: "We are extremely disappointed that PPAG is continuing to oppose our plans.

"In 2008 when PPAG initially said they would challenge the Council's decision in court, their view was based on the fact they believed that the approval of the Court was needed to go ahead with appropriation of the land at Portobello Park.

"Their recent argument now seems to be that we have the power to sell this land with the Court's approval, but not to appropriate it to build the school, even with Court approval. This is an argument which is very difficult to accept or understand.

... [more] ...

The full report can be found at http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings/me ... gh_council and is attached.

8.1_New_Portobello_High_School_Report_Final.pdf

(562.03 KiB) Downloaded 125 times

This was also picked up by STV Local:
http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/news/3042 ... gh-school/

Councillors expected to give Portobello High School the go ahead

The plans are to be considered at next week's full council meeting despite an ongoing legal battle over the land.

Councillors are expected to approve the construction of a new school despite an ongoing legal battle over the land.

They want to build the new Portobello High School on a 5.7 hectre section of Portobello Park in Edinburgh.

But local campaigners have held the project up by taking the City of Edinburgh Council to court, saying they have no right to build on common good land. The lost their case but have lodged an appeal at the Court of Session which is due to be heard next month.

The legal action has so far cost the council £75,000, which they are planning on suing Portobello Park Action Group (PPAG) for.

... [more] ...

[wangi]

Also a summary of the legal advice from Edinburgh Council's Legal Services to Portobello Community Council:

The petitioners are seeking:

1. a debate on the inclusion by Portobello Park Action Group Association (PPAG) of alleged factual misrepresentations in public fund-raising and other material;
2. that the CC requests the withdrawal of certain material from a group member’s website; and
3. that the CC requests that PPAG withdraws its appeal in the matter of the judicial review.

With regard to parts 2 and 3, the PCC cannot enforce the removal or deletion of any material from third-party websites or the withdrawal by PPAG of the appeal. However, the PCC may request the removal or deletion of material from third-party websites or request the withdrawal by PPAG of the appeal. It is up to the PCC to decide if it is appropriate to make any such request/s. In relation to Part 1, requesting a debate on the matter, in line with the PCC's purpose, you would be allowing parties to express their views which could then be passed to CEC.

The key issue is to ensure people are given their 'voice'. Section 51(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 Act provides that it is PCC's duty to "ascertain, co-ordinate and express to the local authorities... the views of the community which it represents". The Constitution further provides that the CC "shall be a means whereby the people of the area shall be able to voice their opinions on any matter affecting their lives, their welfare, their environment, its development and amenity" (Para 3(e)).

[wangi]

And here are copies of the build our school now posters. Click on them for higher res versions - print your own.



PDF of the first 5; PDF of the 6th.

And the flyers, click for PDF:



L/

[Bob Jefferson]

As with PFANS and most other groups of this kind, PPAG will not have a formal membership as such. There will be a small core of decision-makers, and an important subset is obviously the petitioners, but beyond that all they will have will be a small email distribution group of trusted supporters. I rather suspect that John does not want the school to be built on the park but he will maintain a 'neutral' position, as will other members who don't want to be drawn into it either.

Since someone seems to have misinterpreted this post, let me clarify that in the last sentence the word 'members' refers to members of Portobello Community Council. I am not suggesting in any way that John Stewart is a member of PPAG.

[Porty]

having trawled through pcc minutes I can't find record of precisely when the PCC neutrality policy was adopted. Can someone assist?

[Mark Cameron]

To save me trawling them too did you see any comment as to what consultation / research with the community was undertaken to reach a position of neutrality?

[Porty]

I served on PCC for about two years in 06/07, during that time there was no community consultation on any specific issues and there's been none since. Sean conducted a month long public consultation on the CC in general in sep/oct 11 and received quite a healthy response. We are 7 months down the line and the results of the consultation are yet to be made public. Why is that?

[Pal of Porty]

Very valid posts Porty & Mcdryburn as this self adopted stance of neutrality is clearly what J Stewart is trying to hide behind to keep his pals sweet, irrespective of what the majority of the community wants.

The legal advice given to the PCC as listed above, states it is definitely in the jurisdication of the PCC to REQUEST (not enforce) a member to remove material from it's website and therefore the motions proposed by the citizens of Portobello should be heard, fully discussed and granted (or not) as the case may be.

Nuetrality, however is just the Chair's way of not getting issues onto the floor. When we complained formally to the PCC over a planning issue, part of the PCC argument was that it was 'policy' to object to such applications. Having trawled my way through years of PCC minutes that were on the web site I could find no such adoption of the said 'policy' and furthermore the PCC were unable to produce any written evidence of the policy. I would not be surprised if it turns out that 'neutrality' is just another example of this type of practice.

[Pal of Porty]

People are flocking to the display in the High Street to sign the petition for PPAG to 'Drop The Appeal' and at points during the day there have even been queues forming. The citizens of Porty are really starting to make their voice heard and it is great to see so many people making a bee line for the stall to sign the petition without even being asked. I have had to do 3 separate print runs to keep them going with signature sheets to keep up with demand.

Still, PPAG are the ones with the significant majority aren't they?

[Sceptic]

It would seem that the main consideration is to stop civil war breaking out within the Community Council. When it seems that at least one of the Office Bearers of the Council is one of the chief stirrers within PPAG, how can the Council gainsay PPAG? On top of that, how does the Council arrive at their decisions? When you look at their make up, it only leaves you wondering how can they sat they represent Portobello. The area around St John's and St James' churches is not Portobello. They do seem to be unrepresentative of the people of the rest of Portobello.
I do have to say that my only contact is on the High Street, being harangued unless I support them. Being told I am betraying Portobello unless I sign their petition is not my idea of persuasion.

[Bob Jefferson]

Lots of shops already displaying our new poster and, sadly, more evidence today that others have been bullied into not displaying them by PPAG supporters. This time it's the Fine Wine Company who have been threatened with a boycott. Two guesses.

[Mark Cameron]

Surely that can't be true Bob. Over on Save Porty Park there is a statement that says a comment I added to an evening news article about that very practice was chastised as being defamatory. I'd like an apology as it seems I was right. I'll not hold my breath.

What would be satisfying however is if one or more of the affected traders attend the emergency PCC meeting, gain confidence that the majority are with PFANS on this issue and confront those perpetrating these threats face to face in front of the community.

[gillian]

Lots of shops already displaying our new poster and, sadly, more evidence today that others have been bullied into not displaying them by PPAG supporters. This time it's the Fine Wine Company who have been threatened with a boycott. Two guesses.

This is incredible, are PPAG actually going into shops and openly threatening boycotts? If this is the case then they are dafter, or more desperate than we thought. They must know that it would become public knowledge that this is what they are doing? What are they up to??

[Bob Jefferson]

In a word, desperation. I assured them that they would continue to have my service regardless of whether they displayed our poster or not. The only reason I approached them was because I was told that the owner supported the new school, which turns out to be true. Having said that, I'm 10 weeks into a self-imposed alcohol ban so hope they don't take my absence the wrong way!

[Makaveli]

I can't believe they are still threatening shopkeepers with boycotts!!! How low are these people? I would be ashamed to go into a shop and say something like that.

Shame on them.

[Mark Cameron]

Bob are any of these traders willing to attend Thursdays PCC meeting to give an account of there experience? It's totally unacceptable for this sort of behaviour to go unchecked.

[gillian]

In a word, desperation. I assured them that they would continue to have my service regardless of whether they displayed our poster or not. The only reason I approached them was because I was told that the owner supported the new school, which turns out to be true. Having said that, I'm 10 weeks into a self-imposed alcohol ban so hope they don't take my absence the wrong way!

You could always go in to buy your wife a cheeky wee bottle, she surely deserves it!

Is there a game plan for the CC mtg or do we just all turn up?

[Bob Jefferson]

Both off the booze, but prepared to crack open the champers when the school finally gets the go-ahead. Fine Wine should stock up for that day! Re the CC meeting, we obviously want as many supporters there as possible and I would encourage you to get there early if you want a seat.

[Chas]

...crack open the champers when the school finally gets the go-ahead. Fine Wine should stock up for that day!

Good idea. I'll make a point of buying our bottle there.

[Porty]

Lots of shops already displaying our new poster and, sadly, more evidence today that others have been bullied into not displaying them by PPAG supporters. This time it's the Fine Wine Company who have been threatened with a boycott. Two guesses.

It could be someone that feels immune from public remonstration at the PCC meeting this Thursday. If that is the case the suspects may include : Burns. Ward, Moloney, Stewart, Cairns, Hawkins or Sutherland. Some of those are more likely candidtates than others.

Did you get a description Bob?