New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[Mark Cameron]

If not everyone attends could we call for it to be rearranged in the town hall? Surely the chair's position becomes untenable should this turn out to be the case?

[Chas]

Surely the PCC have no right/mandate to limit the number of people attending any of their meetings and an emergency one in particular. If anyone is prevented from attending (by being refused admission) then the meeting has to be declared null and void.

[Sceptic]

And why, pray, would they do that?

When some at the top table are arch stirrers in PPAG?

You're having a giraffe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[joeshmoe]

Anyone summarise what happened tonight?

[cuth]

Yes, I can summarise. PPAG said they didn't want a school on the park. PFANS said they did. Both positions were repeated many times. That was about it.

[Pal of Porty]

The meeting was chaired with the same nuetrality of a jury of 12 SS soldiers trying Hitler. Nevertheless the people of Porty have made their voices heard and the minutes will have to show overwhelming support for the school on the park.

[joeshmoe]

Sigh, let's just get on with the legal hearing and be done with it, that's the endgame here

[Puerto bella]

.....and for those of us who arrived at 7.30 it was standing in the hallway - crowded out ; oh, and the police were on the doors.

[Pal of Porty]

Sigh, let's just get on with the legal hearing and be done with it, that's the endgame here

Couldn't agree more. The judge will put it all to rest soon and it will be full steam ahead.

[Mark Cameron]

It was great to see the clear majority being demonstrated by the turn out in favour of the appeal being dropped. It was disapointing that PPAG reeled out a predictable excuse as to why 99% in the hall were against their appeal - the argument was the majority of ppag supporters felt they couldn't attend as they felt intimidated. Predictable at best from a small band who will do anything now to drag this issue out. I'm sure there would be no objections to PCC holding a separate meeting exclusively for PPAG supporters so they could quite rightly be represented. However I believe the majority of them were actually in the hall tonight.

Top marks to Tom Ballantine and Sean Watters for giving the community an opportunity to vote, even though the chair felt he couldn't.

I think PPAG will trawl on with this appeal and there is nothing else we can do about it other than let justice take its course.

What I hope has comes out of this is that the community are now aware of who represents them on PCC and do not allow it (pcc) to be used for purposes other than for those that the majority of the community deem appropriate.

Also I think people will now be wary of any future 'calls to arms' from Diana Cairns for any new causes and will remember the significant part she played in the PPAG campaign.

[Paxetamor]

Oh, and evidence of my Porty credentials can be found in the following line.

YPR ya bas.
Franck

The bas/bass confusion could be exactly what the member of the YPR meant, maybe he intentionally spelt it wrong to prove his rebellious credentials. Either that or he was actually a member of the illiteratti. MYT(hon) ya bas. Complete with clenched fist and crooked pinkie, ya radge(sic)

Must dash, I think I feel a John Foxx song coming on.

[seanie]

Yes, I can summarise. PPAG said they didn't want a school on the park. PFANS said they did. Both positions were repeated many times. That was about it.

I have to say I disagree.

I sat on the stage tonight, listening to person after person asking questions of PPAG and expressing the view that the school should go ahead, and I didn't know half of them. It wasn't PFANS speaking, it was ordinary people within the community that may've not involved themselves before but have been motivated to come out and say what they think now.

To characterise what occured tonight as some kind of 50-50, they said this and then the other side disagreed, strikes me as a steaming pile of horseshit.

[Sceptic]

Basically, it was a waste of time, effort and money. A bit like PPAG's case really.

Wait until the ECHR has ruled in 2020, we may be able to proceed then.

The problem is that there really is no alternative to PHS for the children of the area. It's not as if they can enrol at another school. The nearest are Leith Acadamy, Castlebrae or Liberton. Could they take more pupils? I doubt it. Those who can afford it may elect to use private schools, but we are talking penny numbers. I suppose it is a bit galling, really, Holyrood has been built twice, really on the land PHS SHOULD have been built on to start with, in the time PHS has been built and allowed to crumble. Trying to teach or learn in a building that is well past it's best is dispiriting and demotivating. I DOES affect children's performance at exam time.

On a point of law, could a child sue PPAG for holding up the new PHS and adversly affecting the child's exam results and subsequent career? Do we have any barrack room lawyers reading?

Meanwhile the sad saga goes on.

[seanie]

Not for much longer. The appeal is set for 23rd & 24th May, and the ruling should come fairly quickly.

[lg1726]

I have to say that I have seen any meeting ever chaired in such a bombastic, bordering on aggressive manner. If it were not so serious, it might have been funny. It was a bit like a sketch from an old Terry & June programme! On a more serious note, Ros Sutherland's reference to ECHR was disturbing and I fear that if PPAG have a long term game plan, it is to delay this to such an extend that the Council and everyone will capitulate to a "Plan B" just to get a school at any cost. If they lose this appeal will it be the UK Supreme Court and then onto the European Court of Human Rights, which may well take us up to 2020?! Persistence by the Council to pursue legal costs at each and every stage may deter them, but I fear that they are out to delay, delay, delay and force a Plan B!

[tufty]

Our oldest is about to start highers. The hall where the exams will be held is draughty, cold and dim. If it's windy or wet the background distractions will be too much for some of the pupils. This is a concern from a pupil.
It is not a level playing field, it is not equality. The government have guidelines and policy to ensure all children have equal rights. Somewhere along the line they are failing here. What about the rights of the child?
Lets hope for calm sunny exam days and that only two more years have to face the prospect of exams in poor conditions.

[storky]

I have to say that I have seen any meeting ever chaired in such a bombastic, bordering on aggressive manner. If it were not so serious, it might have been funny. It was a bit like a sketch from an old Terry & June programme! On a more serious note, Ros Sutherland's reference to ECHR was disturbing and I fear that if PPAG have a long term game plan, it is to delay this to such an extend that the Council and everyone will capitulate to a "Plan B" just to get a school at any cost. If they lose this appeal will it be the UK Supreme Court and then onto the European Court of Human Rights, which may well take us up to 2020?! Persistence by the Council to pursue legal costs at each and every stage may deter them, but I fear that they are out to delay, delay, delay and force a Plan B!

Agreed! I think this is what PPAG's tactics are; to draw things out as long as possible. I've not heard how the council meeting went yesterday, but looking at the agenda (which I posted a few days ago), it didn't look like EC were going to ask PPAG to put up a bond prior to the appeal. This would be very disappointing, especially as they were well warned.

I predict that PPAG will lose the appeal, but they will then pursue another legal avenue as you suggest. They are determined as you saw from last night. I seriously think EC have to look at other measures.

[arbie69]

I seriously think EC have to look at other measures.

And possibly so do the Portobello residents.

[rmolehusband]

I have mixed feelings about last night's meeting. One one hand, as Sean has already mentioned, it was great to see such a large and passionate turn out in support of getting the school built now. Ros Sutherland was utterly drubbed and, while I didn't relish her humiliation, there was always a small danger than PPAG could have managed to put on a show and presented themselves as, at least, coherent so it was good to see they couldn't. I counted four hands in support of PPAG from the floor, two of which sat behind me and I'm pleased to say they were treated with respect during and after the meeting.

On the downside there was no real debate on the real issue of this meeting, the fact that PPAG behaves in a way inconsistent with its membership of the CC and the fact that the procedural eunuch that chairs the CC is unwilling to do allow anything to be done about it. There were a few attempts in questions, Wangi's being a good example, to address this but Sutherland simply dodged the issue (did you spot she had the cheek to read from a copy of the PCC guidelines passed to her by Diana Cairns in answering your question? Her refusal to answer the second time appeared to be because, despite frantic searching, she couldn't find the relevant section)

To me though, the highlight of the night was Stephen Hawkins. What an utter idiot? I could see Cairns egging him on from the platform, but he seemed reluctant to speak. After a good 10 minutes increasingly frantic gesticulation from Cairns he finally got to his feet and launched into what can only be described as the most crass and ill advised statement I've ever witnessed. I struggled to think of anything he could have said more likely to inflame the meeting, to the point that I started to wonder if that was his plan.

Anyway, while there are some committed and honest members, the community council as an organisation is clearly a joke. Watching Cairns pass an unending stream of notes to the chair, and indicating to him who to allow to speak next (Alison Connely at one point, and then Hawkins later ) suggests that she may in fact have his testicles in a pickle jar on her mantelpiece. PCC happy to come out in unequivocal support or opposition on matters when it suits, and with far less of a mandate to act than they were given last night - why won't they act in this case?

Doing what was asked of them with respect to PPAG would probably have made little or no difference to the school being built, but any representative CC faced with last night's show of support would have no choice but to do so, and to not do so by hiding behind an argument of neutrality is at best weak and at worst, as in this case, hypocritical and corrupt.

What now, take a leaf out of PPAGs book appeal it! Call another EGM, propose that a vote be taken on both neutrality and on PPAG's continuing membership. Word it in such a way that the poor imitation of Nicolas Parsons who chairs out CC can't give them the benefit of the doubt. If that fails, call another one.

[wangi]

So, the venue was chocker. No surprise and especially frustrating given the Town Hall had been reserved on two dates for this event. Thanks to those who got me a seat; and apologies to all those I squeezed past!


No room at the CC! by Lee Kindness, on Flickr

On the downside there was no real debate on the real issue of this meeting, the fact that PPAG behaves in a way inconsistent with its membership of the CC and the fact that the procedural eunuch that chairs the CC is unwilling to do allow anything to be done about it. There were a few attempts in questions, Wangi's being a good example, to address this but Sutherland simply dodged the issue (did you spot she had the cheek to read from a copy of the PCC guidelines passed to her by Diana Cairns in answering your question? Her refusal to answer the second time appeared to be because, despite frantic searching, she couldn't find the relevant section)

And of course had Ros listed to the question I had asked she would have known I wasn't looking for a verbatim quote. I can find that myself. I just thought I would embrace the teacherly order of proceeding and ask her to explain the community councillor's code of conduct in her own words. To show she understood the intent of the code. She couldn't.

To me though, the highlight of the night was Stephen Hawkins. What an utter idiot? I could see Cairns egging him on from the platform, but he seemed reluctant to speak. After a good 10 minutes increasingly frantic gesticulation from Cairns he finally got to his feet and launched into what can only be described as the most crass and ill advised statement I've ever witnessed. I struggled to think of anything he could have said more likely to inflame the meeting, to the point that I started to wonder if that was his plan.

He was bang out of order; and the Chair was too for letting him address the audience. Everyone else addressed the Chair with their questions & comments. But no, Hawkins gave us a theatrical performance. No wonder the hall was its liveliest then - it was needlessly conformational.

L/

[arbie69]

For the benefit of those who didn't attend.

Hawkins (in the style of Kilroy Silk, tanned and well kempt) strode across the front of the audience, up and down the aisle and suggested that because of the ongoing delays, funds that had been diverted from other schools budgets to keep Porty High going had now in fact left Porty High in a better state than it had been for years !!! and it could keep going !!!

At this point the jeers got to much and he sat back down.

[gilo]

Arbie69 welcome, you make me laugh!

The chair was extraordinary and very provocative. He was itching for something to happen and tried his best to provoke it and it didn't, which is to the tremendous credit of all who attended.

There was an excruciating interchange at the end when Diana Cairns said local residents had been intimidated by a letter sent to them. The chair allowed her to say this. The author of the letter gave a painstaking account of the contents, it was transparent there was no intimidation. Diana was asked, by Bobolo I think, to clarify whether this was indeed the letter of 'intimidation' she referred to. The chair intervened saying that question was off topic. Diana raised it and the chair stopped a point of clarification.

many other examples.

[storky]

What I particularly enjoyed was that Ros Sutherland was a spent force after 1.5 hours of grilling. She looked drained and out of it. Perhaps the pressure is getting too much?

She avoided question after question and the floor typically didn't accept this and demanded an answer. She was way out her depth.

As other people have mentioned; there were many great highlights.

[arbie69]

imho PPAG really do prioritise green space over the education of 1400 children. How very sad that makes me feel

When environmentalism goes bad

My favourite suggestion from last nights PCC meeting was the one to ballot the catchment children and ask them if they wanted a new school now or retain the top of Portobello park

[Sceptic]

Delaying Tactics? PPAG Cunctator?
The only way is the Council is to apply for costs in court. Demand costs at each stage. It seems that it will be the only way that PPAG will back down. If it does go on, some people will have a real problem.

[Porty]

What I particularly enjoyed was that Ros Sutherland was a spent force after 1.5 hours of grilling. She looked drained and out of it. Perhaps the pressure is getting too much?

She avoided question after question and the floor typically didn't accept this and demanded an answer. She was way out her depth.

As other people have mentioned; there were many great highlights.

"As a teacher for some 36 years, I am probably best placed in this room to comment on the fit for purposeness of a school"- being one.

[gillian]

What is the petition with 3,000 signatures that Ros Sutherland was talking about?

The passing of notes and pointing out to the chair who should speak was so out of order. Why why why do they think they can get away with it? Maybe because they have done for years I suppose.

Can there be a vote of no confidence in the CC? Or are we all getting worked up about nothing, as effectively they have very little power?

[rmolehusband]

imho PPAG really do prioritise green space over the education of 1400 children

I disagree. The significant majority of PPAG are NIMBYs, pure and simple. They do not want the school on 'their' park. Some others are simply serial opposers who view progress with suspicion.

There may be a few, but I think you'd be hard pushed to find anyone left within PPAG who oppose the school on genuine environmental grounds. I was initially against the idea of building on the park on environmental grounds, changed my mind as I looked at the bigger picture.

[seanie]

What is the petition with 3,000 signatures that Ros Sutherland was talking about?

The passing of notes and pointing out to the chair who should speak was so out of order. Why why why do they think they can get away with it? Maybe because they have done for years I suppose.

Can there be a vote of no confidence in the CC? Or are we all getting worked up about nothing, as effectively they have very little power?

The petition dates back to 2006. The full text is as follows;

We call upon the City of Edinburgh Council to consider and evaluate a full range of options and alternatives, cost comparisons and funding options for the re-provisioning of Portobello High School and St Johns Primary School. We oppose the use of Portobello Golf Course and Park for re-siting the schools and building houses on. This land belongs to the people of Edinburgh and should not be sold or built on until a full debate is had and all the options, including keeping the land for public recreation, have been fully consulted upon with people who use the facility, live or work in Portobello and Joppa.

[seanie]

The PPAG deputation to the Council yesterday also invoked the petition as evidence that the community supported them. I told the Council that, in my opinion, using that petition to justify themselves in the current context was simply dishonest.

[Pal of Porty]

We counted 8 written notes passed from Diana Cairns to John 'neutrality' Stewart thoughout the proceedings and after about 5 minutes of the Chair's arrogant, patronising and highly dismissive behaviour I was beginning to think that neutrality would be a good place to be!

Despite the Chair's best efforts however, the meeting was conducted in a respectful and dignified manner and yet again proved that PPAG's scaremongering tactics (PFANS bully boys, intimidation etc), a feature of their entire campaign were as untrue as their claims that houses are going on the golf course.

Personally, I have never been of the opinion that PPAG would ever drop their appeal as some of their members live in a bubble totally devoid of reality and the world around them. There cannot be any other explanation for Councillor Hawkins assertions that the current PHS build is fine.

[Porty]

Published on Friday 27 April 2012 12:13

Appeal blow in school fight

PORTOBELLO Community Council has refused to ask a protest group to drop its appeal which is delaying the building of a new high school that has overwhelming support from residents.


More than 200 people packed into an emergency meeting of the community council last night, the vast majority of whom were in favour of the new school being built on Portobello Park.

Earlier this month, more than 70 backers of the new school signed a special petition requiring Portobello Community Council to convene the emergency meeting.

It followed Portobello Park Action Group’s (PPAG) decision to appeal a Court of Session judgement in favour of the plans, which could delay the new school by up to two years.

Community council chair, John Stewart, said it would not ask PPAG to drop its appeal during last night’s meeting at Portobello Community Centre, much to the anger of frustrated parents.

He said: “I, as chair, decided we could not ask PPAG to withdraw its appeal. There will therefore be no voting by the community council on this point.

“The community council cannot support the legitimate views of one group over another, they have to take a balanced view of the concerns of the whole community.”

Local resident Ewan Kenny hit back, saying: “You’re neutering the community council. You are disempowering a community body – is that a wise move? Is that a democracy?”

Residents at the meeting complained that statements made on the PPAG website were inaccurate and misleading, including claims that the golf course would be lost if the school was built on the park.

However, Mr Stewart said: “I personally, as chair, decided that we could discuss the content of the website but that we could not ask PPAG to either withdraw certain material from the website or withdraw the appeal. That’s my personal decision.”
The majority of questions raised during the heated meeting, which lasted two hours, were directed at PPAG – a member organisation of the community council – with several pleas made for the group to drop its appeal.

But Ros Sutherland, of PPAG, said: “Our message is clear and always has been. We support a new high school for Portobello. We can and should be able to retain valuable green space for current and future generations, and have a new school.”

Councillor Stephen Hawkins attracted jeers from the crowd when he claimed that the current Portobello High School “is now in better condition than it has been for years, because it’s had money spent on it”.

Earlier in the meeting, parent Abby Tindell said: “The site is there, the kids are waiting, it would appear that the community as a majority want this to happen – what are we waiting for?”

Back of the net!

The community council is perfectly entitled to support the legitmate requests of one group over the illegitimate claims of another group. Anyome who thinks otherwise has a hidden agenda.

[Chas]

Over the last while and through statements made at last nights PCC meeting it has become clear to me that, as PPAG constantly assert, the Golf Course is indeed under threat. However the threat is not - as PPAG state - that it will have houses built on it, but rather that CEC through Edinburgh Leisure are struggling to find the funds to maintain it in it's present form. If the Council can't find the money to maintain the space as a Golf Course, what then? It was made very clear last night that the community would unite against any move by the Council to sell the land off to a developer. So that would leave them with no option to maintain the current Golf Course land as a simple open space; a park.

Using PPAG's method of calculation, that would actually increase the total parkland in 'Portobello' (they don't count the Golf Course in their claim that we will lose 25% of 'Portobello's parkland', in case you're new to this discussion). So, if we accept that in the long term the Golf Course may become a victim of the economic times, then we would actually be able to have the School (on the park) and not only keep the total area of parkland we presently have, but gain more. Better still, I think I am right in saying that a long time ago there was a suggestion (and reluctant acceptance by some of the golfers?) that it would be possible to relocate the Golf Course to a site in Brunstane.

It does seem to me that there is no bad outcome from all of this but I am certain that PPAG will carry on regardless, essentially arguing for nothing to change, even when a net gain is possible. Why? Because the cant see further than their own front yard!

[Sceptic]

It is not that PCC have no power, it is that they can pass on to The City of Edinburgh Council it's version of the Opinions of the People of Portobello, only they don't ask the people of Portobello for their opinion, if you look at the representation, they cover only some parts of Portobello, they do not cover the Durhams, Southfield, Northfield, Mountcastle, Wakefield etc. perhaps they do not look on them as being parts of "Portobello". The problem is that PHS draws children from those areas.
For long enough, some PCC members have been "bullies of the washouse", they have got their own way on matters and think they can do no wrong. Their opposition to Viridor was an example. Logic took no part in it, it was just a NIMBY exercise, ok, so they won, fair enough. The school is different, they are causing problems not only in Portobello, but all over Edinburgh with their selfish antics. They will be stopped, they must be stopped. The only way is CEC to obtain costs in the court, then what happens? Will they be made responsible for their collective actions on an individual basis? Will they expect the people of Portobell to help pay for their actions? They will get precious little. It will be their own bloody minded fault.

The sooner this nonsense is stopped once and for all, the better.

[rmolehusband]

The irony is there is no division in the community in this matter. In fact, as demonstrated last night, the community is unusually united on this one. Reminds me of Blackadder...

BLACKADDER: I was under the impression that it was common maritime practice for a ship to have a crew.
CAPTAIN RUM: Opinion is divided on the subject.
BLACKADDER: Oh, really?
CAPTAIN RUM: Yes. All the other captains say it is; I say it isn't.