New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[storky]

Can anyone confirm if CEC are definitely pursuing PPAG for the court costs and a bond for the next hearing?

They said thy would be but im sure i heard this may not be the case?

Financial pressure is the only way they will give up, if CEC aren't pursuing these costs i'll be contacting my Councillor again

Prior to last Thursday's Council meeting, further to reviewing their agenda, I did challenge key councilors why they were not ensuring a bond was in place prior to the appeal. The main reply was that pursuing the £70k legal costs should persuade them to drop the appeal. I challenged this and have had no reply since.

I would like to see the minutes from last Thu meeting. I will request and post.

[joeshmoe]

Can anyone confirm if CEC are definitely pursuing PPAG for the court costs and a bond for the next hearing?

They said thy would be but im sure i heard this may not be the case?

Financial pressure is the only way they will give up, if CEC aren't pursuing these costs i'll be contacting my Councillor again

Prior to last Thursday's Council meeting, further to reviewing their agenda, I did challenge key councilors why they were not ensuring a bond was in place prior to the appeal. The main reply was that pursuing the £70k legal costs should persuade them to drop the appeal. I challenged this and have had no reply since.

I would like to see the minutes from last Thu meeting. I will request and post.

Thanks Storky, this all comes back to taxpayers money being utterly wasted in court appeals, delays etc. CEC had stated this and i for one want to ensure they stay true to their word and pursue them for these costs forthwith

[rathbone]

Thanks - i did a bit of trawling and found the CEC missive it comes from - http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/f ... l_guidance Page 26 makes interesting reading!!!

So does this from page 13:

"There is little point in taking up time a meetings to discuss problems that are based simply on misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the facts. Remember, if in doubt, check it out!

At some point it may be that you will find some conflict between your own personal views and those of the community that you are representing. If such a situation does arise, try to make sure that the views of the community take preedence. Experience shows that if the views of individuals on the Council are allowed to take precedence then the community will very quickly lose confidence in the Council and its work may be subsequently devalued."

[seanie]

Can anyone confirm if CEC are definitely pursuing PPAG for the court costs and a bond for the next hearing?

They said thy would be but im sure i heard this may not be the case?

Financial pressure is the only way they will give up, if CEC aren't pursuing these costs i'll be contacting my Councillor again

Prior to last Thursday's Council meeting, further to reviewing their agenda, I did challenge key councilors why they were not ensuring a bond was in place prior to the appeal. The main reply was that pursuing the £70k legal costs should persuade them to drop the appeal. I challenged this and have had no reply since.

I would like to see the minutes from last Thu meeting. I will request and post.

The claim for costs is being pursed and may go back before Lady Dorrian shortly. The option of a bond was considered, and hasn't been completely ruled out, but as I understand it pursuing it could've complicated the timeline for hearing the appeal. Having got an early court date the Council didn't want to jeopardise that with additional pleadings.

[lg1726]

Thanks - i did a bit of trawling and found the CEC missive it comes from - http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/f ... l_guidance Page 26 makes interesting reading!!!

So does this from page 13:

The whole meeting on Thursday appears a travesty in reading this document. There are so many points to include in a letter that it's hard to know where to start!!

[gillian]

Alledgedly Steven Hawkins may be looking to join the PCC..

Surely not, See this is what I don't get. The next time anyone "joins" the CC it will be after an election, that much is now obvious. Why would anyone vote for people who, are prepared to distort the truth, go against the wishes of the community, be unwilling to consult the community, pass notes to the chair of a public meeting telling him what to do, speak at a public meeting because your partner was gesturing for you to do so from the stage........etc.

These people are not unintelligent so why do they think they can continue to get away with this behaviour , AND believe that they may be allowed to continue in public office??

Am I missing something, I could put my cat up against certain members of the cc and be sure he would get more votes than them.

[Bob Jefferson]

Is your cat looking for an agent?

Vote Rosa's Cat! You know it makes purrfect sense!

[Makaveli]

Bob have there not been enough catty remarks on this issue already???

[wangi]

Surely not, See this is what I don't get. The next time anyone "joins" the CC it will be after an election

An "in" as a group rep for some group, say Big Things on the Beach? Or even just "co-opted" on till the next "elections" to cover a resignation...

[Bob Jefferson]

Available from all good stockists:

[BeachBum]

I've been following the community debate with great interest for a long time now, seems like a really really long time.

I agree that the appeal should be dropped. I support a new school being built on the land & hope that work can start as soon as possible.

I do wonder though if campaigners will remove fly stickering once their campaign is over? (I realise its well intentioned)

Stickering of street furniture such as street lighting columns makes the place look like a s##t tip, in my opinion.

droptheappeal.JPG (40.35 KiB) Viewed 14428 times

[wangi]

What you've got there BeachBum is the emotive result of last Thursday's meeting when those stickers were dished out for placing on jackets etc. I never got one. On the way home they ended up on lamp posts etc I guess.

Tell you what - keep a wee list and when this school build breaks ground I'll remove them personally for you.

(as for the other sticker there, it's also pretty cool; see greenerleith.org ... i-love-you-because-you-pick-up-your-dog-poo)

[Bob Jefferson]

I've spotted those stickers as well BB. They appear to lead from the Espy. I'll be glad to help wangi remove them when the great day comes.

[BeachBum]

Tell you what - keep a wee list and when this school build breaks ground I'll remove them personally for you.

I've spotted those stickers as well BB. They appear to lead from the Espy. I'll be glad to help wangi remove them when the great day comes.

That would be really considerate to remove them when the campaign is over. Thanks.

[Lashylass]

Why wait? Just do it now.

[Mark Cameron]

Same could be said for the new school lashy.

[Pal of Porty]

Stickering of street furniture such as street lighting columns makes the place look like a s##t tip, in my opinion.

droptheappeal.JPG

I have just removed the sticker that was in your photo.

[Mark Cameron]

yeah pop but why did you stick an A3 poster in it's place?

I too will join the 'clear up crew' when the school gets underway.

[gillian]

Why wait? Just do it now.

Go Lashylass! that's the spirit. So glad you have seen the light.

[Sceptic]

How about starting on Friday, clearing the "Vote for" tags that will be hanging from EVERY lampost from Kings Road to Eastfield. Perhaps this is SOMETHING useful for PCC to arrange for once.

[lg1726]

Can anyone confirm if CEC are definitely pursuing PPAG for the court costs and a bond for the next hearing?

They said thy would be but im sure i heard this may not be the case?

Financial pressure is the only way they will give up, if CEC aren't pursuing these costs i'll be contacting my Councillor again

Prior to last Thursday's Council meeting, further to reviewing their agenda, I did challenge key councilors why they were not ensuring a bond was in place prior to the appeal. The main reply was that pursuing the £70k legal costs should persuade them to drop the appeal. I challenged this and have had no reply since.

I would like to see the minutes from last Thu meeting. I will request and post.

The claim for costs is being pursed and may go back before Lady Dorrian shortly. The option of a bond was considered, and hasn't been completely ruled out, but as I understand it pursuing it could've complicated the timeline for hearing the appeal. Having got an early court date the Council didn't want to jeopardise that with additional pleadings.

I found an interesting article today when poking about for something completely different. In short, it would appear that the QC acting for PPAG acted for the Trump organisation in there claims against a campaigner who brought a case (not dissimilar to the current PPAG one) against Trump. Said QC stated

they were entitled to have the proceedings which Mrs Forbes chose to bring against them decided "irrespective of emotion"

The article goes on to say

expenses were a normal part of the court process, and there were "consequences to playing games with the Scottish judicial system".

Love it!!!

[seanie]

There's a claim that keeps coming up that the existing site was the Council's 'second choice' back in 2006. This is not true.

The consultation on site options noted that the size of site required under the School Premises Regulations Act (1967) would be 6.7Ha. Given the practical difficulties of finding a site that size they compromised on an optimum of 4.5Ha that would allow for one all-weather pitch, with further off site playing fields required. At 2.9 Ha the existing site was immediately discounted. However, the existing site PLUS the St John's site was taken to the final consultation. At 3.5 Ha this would still have been challenging but maybe just about doable.

That's the reason why, back in 2006, PPAG suggested St John's be re-built on Figgate Park; so the combined sites could be used for PHS. When they got heavily criticised they changed their tune and claimed that they meant the St John's site could be turned into playing fields for St John's, and now they claim they never suggested St John's be built on Figgate at all. However this is yet another lie. Ros Sutherland's letter to the Evening News suggesting just that is still available on t'internet.

The 3 options that went to consultation were therefore; PHS on the golfcourse part of Portobello Park; PHS on the pitch area of Portobello Park; or PHS on the combined sites of St John's and PHS. The existing site was not even an option, let alone 'second choice'.

If anyone tells you it was, they're not telling the truth.

[Pal of Porty]

A key player in PPAG also suggested on Talk Porty that St John's should be built on Portobello Park. This was a last ditch PPAG attempt to keep PHS off the park and compromise with a smaller primary school once they saw it was beginning to look inevitable that PHS would be going there. Yet again we have evidence to back this up as I took a screen capture the second I saw the post as I was so gobsmacked that a group pertaining to have green credentials were trying to build on yet another park!

[seanie]

St John's on the park was the official response from the St John's School Board, with PHS on the combined sites.

It was only when their delegation turned up to the full Council meeting in December '06 that they announced they'd changed their minds and wanted a refurbishment instead.



(date corrected)

[Porty]

Yes that's correct Sean. The SJSB said and declared whatever suited PPAG without so much as a by your leave to the school community. I clearly recall Manson and Connelly being booed as they left the chambers.

Pop - you don't need a screen capture. Alison Connelly, the green space lover, deleted all her 200+ posts from POL/TP to cover her tracks. Unfortunately for Alison, she could not delete quotes from her posts that others included. Here's what she said on the evening of Tuesday October 3rd 2006 and it can still be viewed midway down page 76 of the original schools thread:

Alison Connelly wrote:
.Instead, how about putting St John's on Portobello Park (a lot less of the Park would be used up, leaving more for football pitches/woodland reserves ( ) and so on, and much less traffic congestion on the narrow roads surrounding the park. Personaly I'd prefer to see any new school build on a brown-field site, but the Council have indicated that the Powerleague and Scottish Power sites will be ruled out because of the costs of acquisition, so if they insist on building on green space, we have to keep it to an absolute minimum

Park lover or NIMBY? It's plain to see.

Edit: date query removed

[Pal of Porty]

St John's on the park was the official response from the St John's School Board, with PHS on the combined sites.

It was only when their delegation turned up to the full Council meeting in December '06 that they announced they'd changed their minds and wanted a refurbishment instead.(date corrected)

I attended that meeting - when they suggested refurbishment right out the blue the collective gasp from all the Councillors was amazing!

[Pal of Porty]

....Park lover or NIMBY? It's plain to see.

It has never been difficult to work out the PPAG motives at any stage of the campaign.

[Doris]

From today's EN letters

Action should have been taken

I REFER to your article “Park group leader bows out” (News, April 28) where there is comment about an alleged conflict of interest between Ros Sutherland, chair of Portobello Park Action Group, and the city council.

If Marilyne MacLaren has irrefutable evidence there has been a conflict of interest over a period of time then, as convener of children and families, she perhaps should have done something about this earlier.

Councillor Stephen Hawkins

[Betty Windsor]

I thought he did a great job too. So did Malcolm Bett, Richard Brassington, the lady that took her daughter away for homework.......loads of people did. The one I fear for is "Wendy" who asked about the merit in placing the loss of a bit greenspace above children and education.. Diana asked for her name and then used it like the Master from Dr Who, chilling.

In my view DC's a nutjob and nasty with it. A future PCC Councillor?

I don't know about you Porty but when someone I don't know uses my first name, my reaction is to ask them their's. Most people don't find that intimidating in my experience.

So in your view DC is a nutjob an nasty with it, interesting.

All of us who know Diana know she is neither a nutjob or nasty. I suspect you know that too.

[Porty]

should we have a poll to establish what most of us think regarding the nutjob ?

[seashell]

Here's Gillian Dunn's latest on the PPAG facebook site of censorship:
"I think even Sean Watters agrees that the rebuild on the existing site is viable. Just not desirable (in his opinion). Anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot apparently."

I'm going to make a wild guess that Seanie is banned from responding over there.

[seanie]

In the latest shock twist, Save Porty Park has confirmed that PPAG have been lying to people.

You'll know that PPAG have been telling people that it's already been decided to sell off the existing site? Why even in Cllr Hawkins farewell report he accused his fellow Cllrs of voting that through.

Well Save Porty Park had posted up the results of a FOI request.

There are, as yet, no definitive plans for the existing site once the new Portobello High School School is built (on Portobello Park) and the existing site vacated albeit that the Children and Families Capital Investment Programme assumes there would be a disposal of the surplus land released and that, as approved by Council, the associated receipt would be ring-fenced for future reinvestment into the Children and Families estate. The replacement of St John’s RC Primary School would, however, have an impact on the size of site which would remain and its location."

Shall we highlight the bit that Save Porty Parkhas missed?

There are, as yet, no definitive plans for the existing site...

Exactly. The departmental view was and is that it's preferable to realise a capital receipt from at least some of the site for further investment in Wave 3 schools (although St John's also needs an expanded site) Indeed that was put to the full Council in a report in March '10.

But the reason "there are, as yet, no definitive plans for the existing site" is that the Council didn't accept that recommendation. They haven't decided to sell the site yet.

The argument for a capital receipt is actually pretty strong so the Education Department will still be pushing for it.

But no decision has as yet been made.

[Doris]

It begs the question - why did they put in an FOI request for something which was already in the public domain?

[seashell]

to cause extra work and extra expense, as anyone who has ever had to deal with an FOI request knows

[seanie]

Maybe we should FOI what FOI requests PPAG have made?

Is that doable?