Portobello Community Council

[Mark Cameron]

Here you go - http://www.portobellocc.org/agenda%20&%20minutes.html

[lg1726]

Thanks for that - nothing about the Sainsburys stuff I see, so I may need to stay here and finish up the client stuff I have for a tomorrow deadline!

LG

[Sceptic]

What I was saying about a small number of self interest groups. Is there nothing more pressing to put on the agenda?
Sainsburys? Amalgamation of Portobello Churches? What is "How can enough people visit Portobello?" all about? How do you quantify "enough people"?

[lg1726]

and is enough of the right people!!??

[Sceptic]

But what happens if they have leanings to the left? Are there people we do not want to come to Portobello?

[lg1726]

We dont want people who want to progress the area - you know support investments like Sainsburys, see Porty have an innovative hovercraft berth, stuff like that. That just would not do!!

[geofflynn]

The enclosed file is a summary of public responses to the city council's consultation on the Scheme for Community Councils. (for your info)

COLLATED RESPONSES TO REVIEW OF COMMUNITY COUNCIL SCHEME QUESTIONNAIRE.pdf

(72.48 KiB) Downloaded 622 times

Community council members may wish to draw on this data in formulating their response(s) to the questionnaire.


Responses deadline is 1 October (and they should be sent to Eileen.Hewitt@edinburgh.gov.uk)

[seashell]

That makes sobering reading. thanks, Geoff.

It will be interesting to see what reaction it gets from the Council.

[Makaveli]

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Gover ... rkingGroup

[Bob Jefferson]

Some of the recommendations:

That the need for an enforceable Model Code of Conduct for Community Councillors, with an independent and simple enforcement and appeals mechanism is further explored.

That a national level induction pack is available to all Community Councillors, including model training modules relevant to Community Council activity and required training standards for delivery at local level, including a way to instil amongst Community Councils a sense of responsibility to undertake training.

That Community Councils are encouraged and supported to engage, communicate and network in a wide range of different ways, including digitally and via various social networking mediums to enable them to embrace a wider community audience.

That there is continued drive aimed at the community and Community Councils for contested Community Council elections.

[Puerto bella]

COLLATED RESPONSES TO REVIEW OF COMMUNITY COUNCIL SCHEME QUESTIONNAIRE.pdf

Just catching up - sobering indeed but not at all surprising.

admin: posts re Sainsburys split to the Woodwares closing / Sainsburys coming to Portobello thread.

[seanie]

admin: split from Woodwares closing / Sainsburys coming to Portobello.

The planning process for the application took a long time and many people submitted more than one response. Multiple responses from an individual or organisation are treated as a single response for the purpose of planning, and the 60 objections actually relate to 113 separate representations, but it may be of interest that 9 members of the Community Council managed to submit 25 different letters, constituting objections on behalf of Portobello Community Council, Portobello Amenity Society, Portobello Masterplan Action Group, Portobello Campaign Against the Superstore, Brightons and Rosefield Residents’ Association, and 5 personal objections.

[lg1726]

My goodness, they are busy little lot are they not? Do they not have a life to be getting on with? No doubt the same 9 will pop up again in this new list as well. Someone told my that folk like that are BANANAs - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone!!

[seanie]

Actually, just four people managed 16 letters between them.

[lg1726]

short odds on guessing which four!

[gillian]

I know this is all history, but what sort of objections were being raised?

[seanie]

Too high, too dense, not in keeping with the neighbouring Conservation Area, traffic and parking issues, blocking vistas, the use of brick...

The objections are still up on the planning portal if you search for 09/01029/FUL.

[Porty]

Actually, just four people managed 16 letters between them.

And PCC. were represented at planning by two people , There's no record of them being asked to so, no record of what they said and they never updated PCC as to what was said.

[seashell]

Ah - local democracy in action. Or not.
Just shows how a handful of people can have an undue and disproportionate effect and manage to to misrepresent the situation, manipulating things to their own benefit.
One might even think that some people in Portobello are publicity crazy, hell-bent on any opportunity to get their name in the media. And you'd have to ask why they feel compelled to do so.

[Makaveli]

Actually, just four people managed 16 letters between them.

And PCC. were represented at planning by two people , There's no record of them being asked to so, no record of what they said and they never updated PCC as to what was said.

Wouldn't take much to guess which two either - or what they said - or why they won't tell anyone what they said!!!!

[Porty]

It's not true to say they were not asked to make representations. The chair asked them privately to speak on PCC behalf. Without informing anyone else. The chair, the two Amigo and one other were the authors of 16 objections between them and they were given the opportunity to speak on behalf of the entire community. Doesn't seem right does it?

[gillian]

No it doesn't. Very wrong. How do you find out these things Porty?

Are we now in a position to not let it happen again, I wonder.

[lg1726]

It's not true to say they were not asked to make representations. The chair asked them privately to speak on PCC behalf. Without informing anyone else. The chair, the two Amigo and one other were the authors of 16 objections between them and they were given the opportunity to speak on behalf of the entire community. Doesn't seem right does it?

Good lord, what a scenario. As I said in an earlier post, we have, thankfully, moved on from then and I guess if nothing else has come from that situation and the current debacle regarding the school, its that more of us in the community can put our views out there and more of can take the steps, as I did and PFANS have, to speak up and offer the alternative community perspective. Does not mean that the decision will necessary go "our way", but it does mean that those taking those decisions can do so with a more balanced perspective on the matter, and that has to count for something!

[seashell]

But have things really moved on? Is there any guarantee that the inner-caball of PCC will not continue to act in this fashion, deliberately misrepresenting their personal hobbyhorses as being representative of the community in general? especially given the lack of progress in the PCC adopting any mentod of consulting the people they are supposed to be representing, and the way DC courts publicity. the thing is - she knows the system, she nows how to use it and she appears to have the time to do this, while others might have other obligations that prevent them appearing at meetings etc. If the PCC took a balanced approach, instead of being unduely influenced by personal preferences, then things might be different.

[Makaveli]

Do the main perpetrators realise the damage they are doing or are they blindly thinking they are actually helping Portobello?

I am interested to know if they really think they are doing a good job or whether they are it doing out of some sort of misguided sense of community?

I am really struggling to see the motives behind alot of what they do and what they get out of it? Is it, as has been suggested, some sort of ego trip where they like to see their name in the paper? I don't know these people personally but the picture I have of them is not a good one - and the one time I did try and communicate with them I was told by one of them in no uncertain terms that I was not to engage with her!!! Well why the flock are on the PCC if you are not to be contacted?

[Mark Cameron]

Do we really need a Community Council?

Ok they have some role to play in planning input - but could we as a community not define a way to make sure we're involved in this and consult on it where time permits?

The only way PCC will change is if at the next actual election the community vote in enough people they think will represent. Can that be achieved? I'm not so sure.

So bringss me back to - should the community be asked their views on whether the Community Council serves a useful purpose in it's current set up and with current membership?

[Makaveli]

Surely in this new technical era you can have online polls and voting which means that a larger section of the community can have an input.

Alot of the people that live in Portobello have young kids and full time jobs which mean that any spare time is precious. I know that my family and others we know in Portobello would like a say but cannot attend the monthly meeting for one reason or another - so why oh why can't there be a mailing list set up or an online portal where opinions can be given and collected? It's not hard to do and with an online mailing list once it is set up it is very easy to reach a large amount of the community very quickly and easily.

And I know that some people will say 'not everyone has access to the internet' well that can be overcome by having a dookit in the library where those are not online can also express their views.

But it still boils down to the fact that a handful of people have managed to get themselves in at the top and they are not going to let go of that easily. I think most of the community knows full well the main reason for this not having happened already is that these select few don't want to engage with the community for their own reasons.

[seashell]

My impression is that there are some people on PCC who genuinely do want to consult, so that the views they then put forward are those of the community, not just those of PCC members. Unfortunately, little or no progress has been made towards achieving any sort of meaningful dialog with the community, despite the valiant efforts of Sean and others to make the PCC genuinely representative and not just a mouthpiece for the views of a vocal minority.
Of course there are a myriad of ways in which the PCC could see to establish the views of the people they purport to represent - cheap, easy and effective ways.

[Porty]

It's not true to say they were not asked to make representations. The chair asked them privately to speak on PCC behalf. Without informing anyone else. The chair, the two Amigo and one other were the authors of 16 objections between them and they were given the opportunity to speak on behalf of the entire community. Doesn't seem right does it?

Good lord, what a scenario. As I said in an earlier post, we have, thankfully, moved on from then and I!

You mentioned Hawkins and Cairns spoke at the licensing hearing. Out of interest who did they claim to represent?

[Porty]

Rosa- the apperance by SH on behalf of but without permission from Portobello Community Council has been well documented on TP. Here's a snippet of dialogue with the Phil Myerscough who is the injured party.

I had to ask John Stewart for the statement read out by the Councillor Hawkins, four times before he provided the document dated 8th May 2010. You are saying the document he has provided is not the statement that was read out. What date was the DSC meeting?

The DSC meeting was on 12th May. The statement read out by Councillor Hawkins took maybe 30 mins of his 40 mins speel. My recollection is that he had a sheaf of paper which was supplemented by billets doux from the gallery. What he read out cannot have been a 4 or 5 page letter.

Ask again.

The document dated 8th May is, I am convinced, a letter which John Stewart wrote to every member of the planning committee in advance of the DSC on 12th May. Ask him. It is not a letter to Councillor Hawkins. If I were a betting man I would put my money on the statement by Councillor Hawkins having been written by him, by Diana Cairns and/or by Caroline Hoskins. They are all treating Portobello like their own little fiefdom with no regard to the serfs.

Diana provided the billet doux, as in the recent Lg experience.

[Makaveli]

I think that last sentence by Philip sums up my feelings on this whole subject.

[fresian]

McDryburn,

Do you mean like a vote of no confidence. Not sure how this could be taken forward, possibly a petition???

[lg1726]

You mentioned Hawkins and Cairns spoke at the licensing hearing. Out of interest who did they claim to represent?

SH did not make any reference to any representation of any sort, not even to say that he was not representing anyone! DC on the other hand stated in her comments that she was not making representation other than on her own behalf. However, she did state that she had mandated authority to speak for two other residents, whom she went on to name. She did, in the course of her presentation, manage to reference her place on the PCC, and to make reference to the PPAG court case!

I was quite clear that I was there in my individual capacity, that I was not representing anyone and that as far as I was aware, no one even knew of my intent. I did, however, manage to get in the bit about the survey findings and that whilst not making any claims to represent the community, I was aware of the views of the community as a result of the surveys, and felt that my opinion supported that of the findings on the surveys!

I have to say, both of them "worked the room", making strong eye contact with those whom they clearly knew, SH engaging with the clerk etc. It seemed to me that they wanted to make it look like they were comfortable in this setting. DC had masses of notes and material which she handed out. I on the other hand had no notes, no hand outs and may have looked amateurish in comparison, but I am anything but. I do this sort of thing for a living, I'm a lobbyist and not intimidated easily!! I truly don't think they expected anyone else to turn up, far less to make a compelling case which they took as opposing them and this I think surprised them. DC was way less polished than would have expected!

[seashell]

The sort of tactics they employ can often back-fire, as I'm sure you know, lg.
After all, their reputations preceed them. They may even be regarded in some circles as a two-person protest against any sort of progress, in which case all the matey glances or sheafs of paper aren't going to make a whit of difference, as the case they are putting could be automatically discredited in some eyes by the mere fact of their opposition to it.
Also, while they may indeed "know" some of the people in the room, that does not mean those people hold them in any sort of esteem, high or not. Great that you have the necessary experience not to be intimidated by their antics!

[Porty]

Thanks Lg- totally consistent and spot on.

My impression is that there are some people on PCC who genuinely do want to consult, so that the views they then put forward are those of the community, not just those of PCC members.

In the case of BL developments, the representations made, were the views of just 4 or 5 members of the community council. Made possible by the private arrangement between the Chair and those who made the deputation. Many of you may not be aware that DSC (and probably licensing) meetings are not minuted verbatim. It is perfectly possible for the likes of Stephen Hawkins to pitch up and claim he is speaking on behalf of PCC. Other than the people in the room, most of whom aint bothered, no one else would know. PCC themselves didn't know H&C were attending on their behalf let alone what they said.

Phil Myerscough got really unlucky at that particular DSc meeting as Maureen was absent. leaving the porty floor to the man himself. Stephen could say what he wanted without fear of contradiction. Months later when I tried to extract the audit trail of when Hawkins was asked and what he was asked to say. it was met with avoidance, delay and eventually toys out the pram, from the chair. Anything but be transparent.