New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[Pal of Porty]

I see it is not just the Portobello Bar that is rife with rumours of an imminent decision on the the school - Maureen's latest report indicates that we can expect a decision quite soon. See you in Strasbourg!

[gillian]

Once had the best french onion soup ever in Strasbourg, but I'm prepared to forgo repeating the experience for a positive school outcome.

[seashell]

Definitely.

Who's up for a trip to Strasbourg then?

Or do we reckon it might be London first?

[wangi]

admin: Guys, all that nonsense has been split off to Ever wanted to know the keyboard shortcut for ...

[gillian]

Don't think I will make it but go to the Hotel de Ville turn right then left then right again and just down a wee snicket and you will get to the restaurant. Mind you it's 30 years since I was there it may have changed.

[seanie]

Latest at Porty Greenkeepers;

A Huge Than You to all those who generously donated at the Village Show. We raised lots of money for a very worthy cause.

Whatever a huge than is, it looks like PPAG have been up to more secret fundraising. Aren't there rules about that kind of thing? Surely you have to tell people what their donations are going towards?

[Snow White]

Diana Cairns was overheard informing people it was her 'own private stall'. I guess the clues were there in her helpers! Thank goodness I didn't purchase.

[seanie]

PPAG banner? Leaflets? Posters?

[Bob Jefferson]

I didn't get too close but I was under the impression that they were there representing PEDAL. I thought it was established last year that POD would not allow PPAG to have a stall?

[Makaveli]

I hope they haven't been gathering funds under false pretences.

[Pal of Porty]

I hope they haven't been gathering funds under false pretences.

Several statements on the PPAG web pages mean that they have been raising funds through lies and mis-representations for some time now. Hopefully the announcement that the building of the new PHS can go ahead will be given this week by the Inner House.

[seashell]

Seconded.
Of course, the indications are that PPAG are going to draw this out until the crack of doom.

[seanie]

...and then it was gone...

[seashell]

Now you see it: now you don't.
How amazing. What sleight of hand.
A bit like their facebook page, with valid posts that get deleted all the time and the posters banned.

[Scoop]

Amazing. But not exclusive to PPAG.

[Bob Jefferson]

I think we have had to bar 2, maybe 3 people from the pro-school page. Compared with...

[Betty Windsor]

I hear Lashylass Lass has been barred from this site. Pot , kettle, black.

[Bob Jefferson]

I'm quite sure she deserved it.

[wangi]

Well that was explicitly stated earlier on in this thread (or another), so it's not some great secret. And for the record this was the request I sent Lashylass:

Ok, I've tolerated this account for a while now but you are clearly out to just provoke trouble. Our number 1 guideline is to "be nice", something you are clearly not doing. I will be reviewing your individual posts and editing / removing where appropriate.

Unless I get a personal email address which can be associated with the account (in place of the current single purpose one) then the account will also be blocked. This email address will of course be private and not disclosed publicly.

A request which was ignored, hence the account was locked.

It's all transparent... That's a big difference.

[Betty Windsor]

Transparency on an anonymous site, are you serious? Does this mean you plan to block all similar accounts where you cannot identify the poster, or are you confining it to the people you happen to disagree with?

[wangi]

Single purpose accounts (i.e. the email addresses associated with them) have always had extra scrutiny. Just because the user is anonymous on this forum it doesn't mean they are unknown. The site admin (me) knows their email, IP etc... If Lashylass had posted anything of substance the approach would have been different. But it was just all mud slinging.

Anyway, end of discussion - it's off topic.

[seashell]

To get back on topic - any word on when the decision on the appeal will be handed down?

[Betty Windsor]

Our esteemed councillor Child is the woman in the know, and if she is to be believed (she is isn't she?) it was out last week. Don't know how I missed it.

[wangi]

Our esteemed councillor Child is the woman in the know, and if she is to be believed (she is isn't she?) it was out last week. Don't know how I missed it.

What Maureen actually said last week was:

Portobello High School Judgement Due
The Court judgement has not yet been issued, as I write, but it is expected any day now. Rumour has it that we will all know, over the course of the next week, whether or not the Council has won the legal case for building the new school on Portobello Park and the original judgement was sound.

"next week" being this week, yeah? Of course the court is on holidays till September 24, so who knows... Decisions still being published during recess, see: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinionsAp ... pe=supreme

[wangi]

... Meanwhile the Policy and Strategy Committee is convening at the City Chambers. The full agenda for that meeting includes an update on the proposed new Portobello High School where a decision by the Court of Session which may or may not give the council the go-ahead to start building is expected any day.

The report about this project reads as follows:-”A Petition for Judicial Review was served on the Council in August 2011 aiming to prevent the intended construction of the new Portobello High School on Portobello Park. The petition was subsequently heard in the Outer House of the Court of Session and the judgment was published on 7 March. Whilst the published judgment of Lady Dorrian fully supported the Council position from December 2008 that no authority was required from the Court in order to appropriate the land; an appeal was subsequently lodged against that judgment to the Inner House of the Court of Session.

A report was taken to Council on 26 April 2012 providing an update on the project, advising the status of the legal challenge and subsequent appeal and seeking approval for the proposed next steps; the key recommendations approved were as follows:

(i) Council noted the outcome of, and approved the responses to, the consultation exercise required by the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1959.

(ii) Council approved the appropriation of the land at Portobello Park for use as the site of the new Portobello High School and associated community facilities under the powers available within both the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and the powers available within s20 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003.

(ii) Council approved the acceptance of the tender from Balfour Beatty Construction Scottish & Southern Limited of £26,114,107 and that a contract be entered into with them as the principal construction contractor to deliver the new Portobello High School on the condition that the existing appeal be first either successfully concluded in favour of the Council or withdrawn in each case to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive in consultation with the Director of Children and Families and Director of Corporate Governance.

The appeal hearing in the Inner House of the Court of Session was heard on 23 and 24 May. The judgement is currently still awaited and is expected imminently. The construction project remains ready to be progressed once the appeal is either concluded in favour of the Council or withdrawn.”
...

from http://www.theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2 ... today-378/ (yesterday)

[Pal of Porty]

Seems there are an awful lot of people thinking that a decision is imminent!

[wangi]

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/rolls/supr ... 06_015.htm

Wednesday 12th September

Advising
(No appearance of Counsel necessary)

1 Reclaiming Motion in petition by Portobello Park Action Group for Judicial Review against a decision of the City of Edinburgh Council

Drummond Miller

Brodies

[Porty]

Good spot Wangi!!

"(No appearance of Counsel necessary)"- means that nothing physical will happen at the court. the judgment will be uploaded to the SC website some time between now and midnight on Wednesday. The combatants counsel may get the nod (or shake) a little bit in advance.

[wangi]

I had it on a watch, but Neil Cox beat me to it!

[Pal of Porty]

At last!

[Sceptic]

Next stop, Strasbourg?

[Kit]

On the Save Porty Park Facebook site Gillian Dunn says;

The reason for the small % is that PFANs have included every green space in the school catchment area and not just Portobello. As many people don't even know where the park is this claim makes some people think the school is going on a very small space, which of course it isn't. It's all part of their campaign to misinform.

No, not every green space, just the public parks, pitches and Common Good land. If all green space was included the % would be much smaller. The poster clearly indicates what spaces are considered, so it's at least open and up front about the calculation in marked contrast to PPAG's repeated claims.

And if many people don't even know where the park is, that surely must be a reflection on how little used it is by the community?

This is only CLAIM that Seanie is making - because the posters don't actually represent the Portobello area we will never know if what he is saying is true. How can people trust what you are telling them when the poster mis-represnts the facts. If Portobello is actually 'Portobello catchment area' then it should state that. you are misrepresenting the facts to everyone. We would not be so confused if it was made clearer. I would appreciate it if you made this clear but I doubt you will change it because its more convincing to state its only 3% of green space being used in portobello rather than the catchment area. Where is the transparency here. There is none!

Also Seanie - are you having a laugh- the posters state which area they are using - seriously you think passers by will be able to see that tiny map - you are living in cloud cucko land if that's what you think! I walk past these posters everyday and even I could not tell that there was a map on it! nice try Seanie but pull the other one. No one is fooled! this is as bad as false advertising!!!

[Kit]

On the Save Porty Park Facebook site Kirstyn Logan says;

Possibly because PFANS seem to have misrepresented many facts such as the statement that there is nowhere other than the park that the school can be built or that it is porty green keepers who are holding up the build or that there are only a very small minority of people who are opposed to the build- none of those statements are true and yet I seem to be hearing them time and time again!

PFANS have not argued that the chosen site is the only possible site for the school to be built on, only that it is the best of extremely limited options.

As to holding up the build, if PPAG hadn't launched a legal action then work would've started on site last November, and if they hadn't lodged an appeal having failed on that legal challenge, then work would've started last May. The legal actions that PPAG have chosen to take, have delayed the opening of a new school by at least a year.

As to the balance of opinion it's not easy to come to a definitive conclusion. The largest indication of opinion would be the planning application itself, where 299 people lodged objections and 381 commented in favour of the new school. However, given that the catchment area of PGS covers a population in excess of 20,000, the most likely conclusion is that those firmly in favour, and those firmly against the proposals, both constitute a minority. But given that a petition calling on PPAG to drop their appeal gathered over 2000 signatures in less than a month, my guess would be that the minority against the school is somewhat smaller than the minority in favour.

Hi again Seanie,

I think that you will find that there are many people who are for the school build who have been interfering in the PPAG website and they state exactly that ' there is nowhere else that the school can be built' I suggest that you inform them better before they come on to the PPAG page and make false accusations. This is completely lazy or they are intentionally spreading untruths around the webiste. I would assume its a bit of both

PPAG more than entitled to the action to court - it is within their rights and if legal counsel have advised them then they must have a case. They are entitled to represent the views of the people in the area who also support them. I noticed that people were trying to put them off the idea and acting in an intimidating fashion. I even recall some of the main supporters names and maybe even addresses going in to the newspaper at one point. Intimidating? I think its pretty disgusting actually. If the council had rebuilt the school in the current location there also would not have been a delay. How about you blame them. PPAG are fighting for what they believe in. they are ENTITLED TO DO THIS.

The reason there is so many signatures are because parents are desperate to get a new school regardless of the fact that green space will be lost. How about you reprint the posters so to state that its the 'Portobello catchment area' that this 3% represents; make it clear that the council spent a whole lot of money previously on a report that stated that the school COULD be built where it is and that the council plan to make a whole load of money out of this and then once the facts are a little more accurate let people make their minds up. People seem surprised when I inform them that the Atkins report stated that the school could be rebuilt where it is. Is that not strange?? this does not seem to be something you are telling people? hmmmm I wonder why that could be??? might not be in your favour to tell people this eh? I understand its easier to gloss over the facts.

Take care

[wangi]

Hi Kit, I produced the map / poster, not Seanie. Nowhere on the poster does it mention Portobello, so I'm not sure where you got the idea idea it's misrepresenting facts. What it does have is a graphical representation of all parks within the Portobello High School catchment area, along with their sizes:



Portobello is just the name of the school - the catchment area is much larger and those areas (and their children) are as important in this decision as Portobello. Please don't just dismiss them because they do not live in Portobello.

The following was released at pretty much the same time as the poster:


(click for PDF version)

I'd say that's pretty transparent. Certainly much more transparent than any similar claim made by PPAG.

[regent]

When I saw the above I thought to myself, what reason reason could anyone who has watched or taken part, on either side of the high school issue possibly want to hash over all that again? Then it hit me. With only a few more posts there will be 2000 posts for this thread. Surely that is it! Because everything else has been said with regards to the reasons for/against!