PCATS funds - the poll

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 22 Apr 2006, 11:06

My purpose was prompted by a chance meeting with Gemini last night in the Dalriada. I was there with PoP and Gemini was there to have a meeting with BL developments. Who will be developing the ground where the superstore wonâ€™t sit.

I am impressed that these developers are walking their talk and consulting with their future neighbours.

This led me to thinking about the approximate Â£3000 PCATS funds that remain and Stephen Hawkins request for feedback on potential use of the money.

Personally speaking, I gave a considerable amount of money and time to the campaign and so did our business. The campaign was successful and I would like to see the money used as a form of reward for the community as a thank you. I donâ€™t feel particularly at one with the appointment of a consultant now that victory has been achieved. It is not why I gave time and money.

How about doing something more fitting with the money? Perhaps a donation for trees or plants on the high street or the garden at the paddling pool? Maybe even a commemorative bench to record the victory for history? Toddlers Hut? New Year celebrations? A thank you party?

Doubtless many of you will feel differently about this, what do you think?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 22 Apr 2006, 22:29

Did someone mention a party?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 23 Apr 2006, 11:19

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Perhaps a donation for trees or plants on the high street or the garden at the paddling pool? Maybe even a commemorative bench to record the victory for history? Toddlers Hut? New Year celebrations? A thank you party?

Some good ideas there.

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 23 Apr 2006, 11:48

Pal of Porty wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:Perhaps a donation for trees or plants on the high street or the garden at the paddling pool? Maybe even a commemorative bench to record the victory for history? Toddlers Hut? New Year celebrations? A thank you party?
Some good ideas there.

...and how about a donation to boost the coffers of Portobello Online the community website which hosted the debate and promoted the PCATS cause

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 23 Apr 2006, 15:40

I wrote to Stephen and posted a copy on the Superstore thread.

Cynthia · Post by **Cynthia** » 23 Apr 2006, 18:03

I don't know why this is a separate thread, rather than on the Campaign Against The Superstore thread, but as it is I am posting the same post I put on that one, here so those only reading this thread get a different view also. I wrote on that thread:
No problem getting views - that was the intention of the leaflet and email to pcats email tree. We are getting quite a few through the pcats email - I have no idea if this was on the original leaflet or not but for those that want to email pcats directly the email address is as it was before - info@pcats.org.uk and I am the one who checks the email and acknowlege emails, so I know it is checked every day. Please do email us your views and I will pass them on to the Secretary.

My personal opinion is that we won the first round, but there is no guarantee that the plan for a superstore will not return, and as the community was so against it, as I was, the funds should be used to ensure that any future discussion about the areas of Portobello ie the West of Portobello which are to be developed, do not include a superstore or anything like it. That is why the involvement of pcats in the Plan for West Portobello is so important.

Whilst the suggestions of donations to a good cause, or improvements, might be a good idea if the battle was over, it is not over until a superstore proposal is impossible to bring back. The large pieces of land still to be built on, or that could be turned into other uses, eg from office to housing, retail, or whatever, in West Portobello are still there and could still be used to put forward a superstore plan. The decision of the Public Inquiry, as far as I am aware, was not forever, just at the present time.

Carla

kittywink · Post by **kittywink** » 24 Apr 2006, 18:18

I agree with Carla - DHP are apparently still in the frame and there are fairly large tracts of land near Laidlaws and at the top of Fishwives Causeway. I think it is important to stay on top of any future developments in that vicinity so I say use the community's donations for their original intention.....By the way, I tried to vote in your poll but it doesn't seem to be accessible.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 10:28

kittywink wrote:By the way, I tried to vote in your poll but it doesn't seem to be accessible.

Maybe certain people are being excluded from voting?

I voted as Stephen McIntyre and naturally I can no longer get access to vote. When I log on as Porty, who has not voted, I get access, although I have not used it. This suggests its working fine.

Are you logged in when trying to access the poll?

BTW the reason this thread is not part of the superstore thread is its a POLL and you cant start a Poll mid-thread. I posted my letter to Stephen on the superstore thread and when I get a response I will ensure that goes there too.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Apr 2006, 10:32

Who said your remaining funds need to be spent at all - can't you just keep them under a mattress, invested in gilts, something like that?

Can new choices be added to the poll?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 11:02

Dadaist wrote:
Can new choices be added to the poll?

I don' know?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Apr 2006, 11:34

I thank the honourable member for his answer to my second question and I refer him to my first question.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:13

Sorry Dada. I was rushing out.

I suggested to Stephen that he opened it up to other suggestions, what are yours?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:25

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Sorry Dada. I was rushing out.

I suggested to Stephen that he opened it up to other suggestions, what are yours?

I never really thought about offering any - all I bought was the calendar and if I'd known it had a picture of local pharmacists taking the mick out of people on the methadone program by dressing up as Jekyll & Hyde and waving green liquid at them I wouldn't even have bought that.

I thought that the terms of your poll failed to include not spending the money and wondered who had said that it had to be spent at all?

Mr Hawkins latest post has made it clear for me though in terms of things being ongoing so I don't think I'm going to respond to your poll.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:33

Dadaist wrote:
Mr Hawkins latest post has made it clear for me though in terms of things being ongoing so I don't think I'm going to respond to your poll.

No problem.

Graham Kitchener · Post by **Graham Kitchener** » 07 May 2006, 00:33

I had the privelege of being on PCATS for the superstore campaign and represented the traders stance at the public inquiry.

Portobello did a marvelous job and were bonded together as a strong community, which in the end is what won the day.

Stephen, many people "gave" of their time, as did many businesses, and many gave money. Traders membership fee for joning the Traders Association is the money I think you are referring to that your business gave. Â£75 was it?

As for time spent in actually working on the campiagn on the front line, well, it is not measurable, and is not necesary. The time spent by those actively involved is what it took, and what was demanded. Many did not, or were not able to, donate much time to it because of other reasons, which is perfectly honourable, but everyone's effort; monetary, time, emotional support, etc etc, was very commendable and equal to all others, as was measured by the end result.

As for remaining funds; PCATS was given the remit at a large public meeting to strive ahead with the campaign on everyone's behalf, one of the few community campaigns that has held an "open to all" public meeting. Now that the result is in, and favourable, we must remember that the original Scottish Power site is only one of a few possible sites in that area for a large superstore, and I have heard that the original applicants, Duddingston House Properties, are involved again with other plots. It would be foolish to spend any funds remaining, that were raised primarily to employ specialists to fight the big guns, on anything other than defending the community again if needed should the spectre of the superstore rise from the ashes, or any other controversial development idea.

I also think it wholly inapropriate that any one individual, or group, from any worthy community campaign, should be ridiculed because of their views on a subject. I am still loosely involved with PCATS and commend their efforts to work on our behalf keeping an eye on any further developments, as I commend everyone's efforts in our community for the positive work they do for any issue that affects us all.

First and foremost we are one community, and a strong willed one, and one which I am proud to belong to, but everyone is entitled to their views and should not be ridiculed if their opinion does not match ours, no matter who it is. This is true democracy.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 May 2006, 12:10

Graham Kitchener wrote:for a large superstore, and I have heard that the original applicants, Duddingston House Properties, are involved again with other plots. It would be foolish to spend any funds remaining, that were raised primarily to employ specialists to fight the big guns, on anything other than defending the community again if needed should the spectre of the superstore rise from the ashes, or any other controversial development idea.

The bit in bold is where we differ significantly.

Graham Kitchener · Post by **Graham Kitchener** » 09 May 2006, 11:35

Controversial developments is a sweeping statement. I have nothing in mind, only to emphasise that any developer at any point could propose an idea that the majority of the community would be against. In this matter it is important that there are core groups of people prepared to stand up and defend the community at large's opinion, especially as it is only developers that have third party right of appeal.
If you read the line again Stephen in context you will see that what I have just written explains that comment in more detail. First and foremeost my original post is a defence against any rumour that any funds are being misappropriated, or those responsible for those funds would ever stoop to such an act. I strongly believe that PCATS has always had the communities views as it's centre point, and those involved have even given more time to give advice in how to fight similar supermarket developments occuring in other communities.
My main gripe is the take-over by the big names in supermarkets into all aspects. I mean, Asda can now sell houses! And mortgages, which affects your business Stephen, so you know where I'm coming from. The difference is the small business will always win on personal one-to-one service.
So, controversial developments? I hope I have clarified that point.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 May 2006, 12:31

Graham Kitchener wrote: Controversial developments is a sweeping statement.

My point exactly. PCATS existed and raised funds for a very specific development.

Graham Kitchener wrote: First and foremeost my original post is a defence against any rumour that any funds are being misappropriated, or those responsible for those funds would ever stoop to such an act.

Graham why have you decided to put up a "defence" against rumours that funds are being misappropriated? Your post mentioned and was directed at me, are you suggesting that I am leveling such an accusation? I can understand why you are so supportive of those who are now responsible for those funds, would you mind divulging who they are?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 09 May 2006, 16:20

Kitchener wrote:First and foremeost my original post is a defence against any rumour that any funds are being misappropriated, or those responsible for those funds would ever stoop to such an act.

To say misappropriate is inappropriate.

Stephen and Stephen are talking about what to spend the money on for the community - to apply the language of crime to this debate is a crime against language.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 May 2006, 23:20

Dada, I think you underestimate the complexity of the situation. We are now in the realm of accusations about accusations about misappropriation of funds. It involves PFANS, PPAG, PCATS and second-hand accounts of a meeting I and several other forum members attended. It's all Chinese whispers of course but some people seem to enjoy it.

Wasn't it that French bloke who used to play for Chelsea that started all this business?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 May 2006, 07:24

Bob Jefferson wrote:Dada, I think you underestimate the complexity of the situation. We are now in the realm of accusations about accusations about misappropriation of funds. It involves PFANS, PPAG, PCATS and second-hand accounts of a meeting I and several other forum members attended. It's all Chinese whispers of course but some people seem to enjoy it.

Wasn't it that French bloke who used to play for Chelsea that started all this business?

Hey - are you accusing me of misunderestimating a misappropriation accusation accusation?

I've spoken to my lawyer, PPP Chuckemup of Sue, Grabbit and Rabbit and he says "Rumours" is a Fleetwood Mac album but that he is happy to be paid for all these threatening letters I want him to write.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 May 2006, 15:13

Bob Jefferson wrote:Dada, I think you underestimate the complexity of the situation. We are now in the realm of accusations about accusations about misappropriation of funds. It involves PFANS, PPAG, PCATS and second-hand accounts of a meeting I and several other forum members attended. It's all Chinese whispers of course but some people seem to enjoy it.

You would think after the "some parents are being excluded from school meetings by Towerbank management" rumours and the red faces that caused, "people" would have learned about how unreliable rumours can be.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 10 May 2006, 17:55

Porty wrote:
Graham Kitchener wrote: Controversial developments is a sweeping statement.
My point exactly. PCATS existed and raised funds for a very specific development.

Graham Kitchener wrote: First and foremeost my original post is a defence against any rumour that any funds are being misappropriated, or those responsible for those funds would ever stoop to such an act.

Graham why have you decided to put up a "defence" against rumours that funds are being misappropriated? Your post mentioned and was directed at me, are you suggesting that I am leveling such an accusation? I can understand why you are so supportive of those who are now responsible for those funds, would you mind divulging who they are?

As I am a part of the PCATS Group/Committee whatever you want to call it. Why do you want personal contact details?
I suspect the reason why you started this thread, was/is to malign PCATS,
and you know that this IS THE TRUTH.

Graham Kitchener · Post by **Graham Kitchener** » 10 May 2006, 23:39

That's the problem with emails, texting etc, they can get misinterpreted.

I accept that it is most likely inappropriate for anyone to use the word misappropriation because of it's conotations. I would not accuse anyone of anything without hard evidence, and never on a rumour. This happened to me recently when a rumour was started that I was opposed to a new school, which I think I put right.

There is a well known saying that we are all familiar with; "sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you".
This I believe to be flawed. It was usually given to, in some way, console a person, that those who bullied one with accusations or name calling, were harmless. I think we all know in this day and age that this is not true. Such accusations etc can create great stress and long term harm.

So to go back to accusations I hope this makes it clear that I am not accusing you of anything Stephen. I think you know me well enough to know that I act on hard evidence, however, the forum carries with it many "rumours" that get aired and commented on and none of us are excluded to that scrutiny, wouldn't you agree? A fair analysis of debate?

Finally "my defence" is of the community as a whole. We all belong to the same one, and we all want what's best for the long term. My defence is first to say that rumours should be taken lightly, and secondly, the main aim of any community campaign is to better our community. In that last point I feel it is a shame that the debate over certain issues and topics does seem to deteriorate at times when we should focus those energies on achieving what's best.

Or am I missing the point entirely here?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 May 2006, 09:30

Gemini wrote: As I am a part of the PCATS Group/Committee whatever you want to call it. Why do you want personal contact details?

Were you one of the PCATS Committee that Stephen mentioned in his communication on April 7th? And if so who were the others?

I have already told you why I want personal contact details: so that I can communicate with people directly and as individuals. To be frank I would expect that if any member of the community wanted to know the names and contact details of PCATS commitee members then it shoud be provided without hesitation or question.

Gemini wrote:I suspect the reason why you started this thread, was/is to malign PCATS,
and you know that this IS THE TRUTH.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I started this thread to address what I believe was an inadequate consultation process and a potentially unlawful use of community money. I'm not trying to be destructive, I am trying to be constructive. I have put a proposal to Stephen Hawkins which I believe is a reasonable and good way forward. As a member of the PCATS committee, I hope he has shared that proposal with you. If not, I will be happy to publish it here.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 May 2006, 09:39

Graham Kitchener wrote:Or am I missing the point entirely here?

Graham, I honestly don't know, your post completely lost me. The only thing I take from it is; you seem to be calling me a name caller?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 12 May 2006, 11:42

I want to share with you all the proposal that I put to both Stephen Hawkins who I know does represent PCATS and Robert Gatliff the chairman of Portobello Community Council. I have attempted to engage the latter in a third-party role which I believe is neccessary. To date I have heard from neither party although to be fair on Robert he may or may not have collected the two emails that I sent him? I have shared this proposal with a number of other people and I have a number of supportive emails from those that share my concerns. I will post the proposal on the PCATS Poll thread, which has had a low response.

I would appreciate any feedback, positive or negative, for or against and if someone has a better solution a tweak will also be welcomed

Tuesday, 02 May 2006

Memo to: Stephen Hawkins and PCATS Committee

From: Stephen McIntyre, The Mortgage People

Subject: PCATS funds

Stephen,

Further to our meeting at my office on April 28th 2006 and our exchange of views, I thought it valuable to detail my suggested strategy for the remaining PCATS funds, which were raised on the following basis:

â€œPortobello Campaign Against The Superstore is a group of people who have got together to fight the proposed Superstore on the Scottish Power Site. The Group was set up by residents, following on from a successful petition started by traders. The Group is not aligned to any political party and anyone who is opposed to the Superstore Development on this site is welcome to join. Anyone who is committed to opposing the Planned Superstore can receive information from the Campaign..â€

Lawrence Marshall · Post by **Lawrence Marshall** » 14 May 2006, 15:27

... I've only briefly skimmed this thread but my own view would be that it's a bit premature to be thinking of dispersing the proceeds left in the PCATS kitty.
BL Developments seem to be behaving excellently in terms of community consultation - though I've been advised not to meet with them just now under the Ethical Standards in Public Life code! - but the area to be "masterplanned" also includes land in the Baileyfield Industrial Estate where it seems that Duddingston House Properties (the previous owners of the superstore site) have some degree of proposed interest. This may be for something other than a superstore but I think that until this is clarified and the development brief - which will guide future planning applications - is finalised, it would be better to keep our options open.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 14 May 2006, 17:24

Lawrence - what if the development brief, when finalised, says that this or that bit of land in the environs could have retail use - does that make planning permission for a DHP-involved outlet more likely to be given the nod?

Do you know any detail about the involvement of DHP other than that they "seem to" have a "degree" of "proposed interest"?

Is there a difference between a development brief and a masterplan?

In addition to advising that they do not disperse funds prematurely and thus keep their options open, how else would you advise PCATS to go about ensuring they keep stopping the supermarket in the context of the masterplan and the continued involvement of DHP?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 14 May 2006, 19:40

Lawrence Marshall wrote:... I've only briefly skimmed this thread but my own view would be that it's a bit premature to be thinking of dispersing the proceeds left in the PCATS kitty.
BL Developments seem to be behaving excellently in terms of community consultation - though I've been advised not to meet with them just now under the Ethical Standards in Public Life code! - but the area to be "masterplanned" also includes land in the Baileyfield Industrial Estate where it seems that Duddingston House Properties (the previous owners of the superstore site) have some degree of proposed interest. This may be for something other than a superstore but I think that until this is clarified and the development brief - which will guide future planning applications - is finalised, it would be better to keep our options open.

Do you agree that the proposal I have put to Stephen and Robert does keep our options open?

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 16 May 2006, 22:40

I think that if Mr McIntyre or Porty want to withdraw their money from a fund to which they contributed then they should be allowed to do so.

I am absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can help humanity forward. The example of great and fine personalities is the only thing that can lead us to fine ideas and noble deeds. Can anyone imagine Moses, Jesus or Gandhi with the money bags of Carnegie?

Albert Einstein

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 May 2006, 13:57

Rex_Mundi wrote:I think that if Mr McIntyre or Porty want to withdraw their money from a fund to which they contributed then they should be allowed to do so.

I am certain that if I asked it would be forthcoming but its not the point.

jimann · Post by **jimann** » 27 Jan 2008, 03:20

Are you lot daft or what - I've just read through this thread and immediately thought "they've lost the plot" debating where no debate should exist - any monies should be held in place and grown to fend of future attacks to our environment in Porty.

PCATS may have won the battle this time, but there's a war coming and we need to stick together instead of arguing/winning points. The baddies are out there and can see that money can be made in Porty if the "sheep" don't fight for their rights.
The poll is self congratulatory in itself - maintain the fund, 'cos it's going to be needed.

Residents of Baileyfield/Fishwives Causeway have already heard that the developers are looking to have that monstrous "fun" fair return to the same site as last year this Easter - personally, I don't want my car & wife's car vandalised again this year!

This is their opening shot this year - it won't be their last - it's deliberate, to put something on the sight that's outrageously bad for Porty residents, so that we'll accept anything in future which is less annoying. Good strategy if you are fed up with the "little" Porty people who won't take their crap.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

PCATS funds - the poll

Where would you like remaining funds to be spent?

PCATS funds - the poll

Re: PCATS FUNDS-THE POLL

Re: PCATS FUNDS-THE POLL

Superstore Poll

Time and money spent

Re: Time and money spent

Developments

Re: Developments

Re: Developments

Text

Re: Developments

Re: Text