Portobello Community Council

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Sep 2010, 21:37

People Power for Portobello? Do I win a prize?

Makaveli · Post by **Makaveli** » 21 Sep 2010, 11:36

admin: 4 posts moved from Question for members (please please make your views known) thread and merged here, tagged with *

*So a week has gone by since this question was asked and we find that one person has been asked their opinion and that only seems to be because they personally know members of the PCC.

Not very good is it?

tom nimmo · Post by **tom nimmo** » 21 Sep 2010, 12:56

In the unlikely event that I will be asked my opinion I will say that I have no problem with a food retailer replacing Big W. The only impact it will have, in my opinion, is that it will give some competition to the retailing behemoth that is Asda. Also, as I do not expect to be asked by my 'representatives' I have no problem with the plans for the Scot Power site as anything will be an improvement on what is already there. Do I care if there is not enough light in the courtyards? No, coz I won't buy a flat there. If the planners make a mess of the site they will render parts of it difficult to sell. Is this actually a concern for people currently living in Portobello? It is in the interests of the planners and builders to create something that is attractive and will sell.
Lets be honest here (and I speak from my own experience of being a past PCC rep for BRRA) any votes held at PCC meetings or opinions expressed are the opinions of the individuals expressing them. I never once thought that I was really speaking for the members of BRRA when I said something at meetings as, to me, it would have smacked of pompous self-importance (not really my style). That was my personal feeling at the time and if current PCC members do believe they speak for others then who am I to say they are possibly misguided. Having said all that I may attend the PCC next Monday if there is no football on the telly.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Sep 2010, 12:59

*Well hang on.

The PCC does not need to know the opinion of every single person within the community in order to represent the community. Nor are Community Council's required to. Their duty is to represent the broad range of opinions that exist within the communities they serve.

There are limitations of time and resources, and there are genuine difficulties that exist in meaningful consultation even with adequate resources. So whatever the Community Council does it's bound to be less than perfect.

However, if there were more and varied means of getting feedback from with the community, as well as a higher profile for the PCC in terms of what issues came before it and its response to them, then I think it'd help.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Sep 2010, 13:04

Tom

The whole point of being on the PCC is that you're supposed to speak for others and that your own point of view is of secondary importance.

tom nimmo · Post by **tom nimmo** » 21 Sep 2010, 13:11

Seanie.

Of course it is. But how many people actually remember this when voting or talking? You presumably speak at the PCC in favour of a new school because you personally believe that there should be one. I expect that just about every parent and schoolchild in Portobello agrees with you so you are most likely representing the majority view in this case. Do you think that a PCC member will push a view that they don't personally agree with? I don't.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 21 Sep 2010, 13:13

The 'Big W' site was discussed at more then one meeting if memory serves me correctly. I seem to recall at one there was representation from residents near to the 'Big W' site who were concerned about noise disturbance from 24 hr delivery and operation and who asked the CC to oppose the application. Perhaps Seanie can add more?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Sep 2010, 13:31

Expressing personal opinions is fine, since most peoples' opinion on the PCC are likely to reflect views in the wider community. And since the PCC exists to represent the broad range of views within the community all such voices should be fairly represented.

It's when you start coming to firm decisions on things that problems arise. Because then you start taking the balance of opinion amongst two dozen people as a proxy for a community of 12,000 people. Sure, the PCC may wish to take a vote to come to a position, and that in itself is legitimate. But you have to approach that in a very cautious manner, acknowledging the limitations of such a vote, and being scrupulously fair in representing all views whatever the outcome.

At the end of the day Community Councils exist to reflect what their community thinks, not decide it.

On the subject of the school I've never known, in all honesty, where the balance of opinion lay. I was sure there was a significant body of opinion in favour, who's views needed to be represented. I'm was also sure there was a significant body of opinion against and they were certainly well represented on the PCC. My guess is that the bulk of the community were somewhere in between, and it's those voices in the middle ground that tend to get lost.

I think more could be done to get feedback from the community about what they think, although there are difficulties in that. But most importantly I think the PCC should approach any contentious issues in a neutral, even disinterested way; summarise all views in favour and all views against, in a balanced way, then if there is some genuine indication of where the balance of opinion lies report what it is and the evidence to support it. I'd view votes as the option of last resort.

tom nimmo · Post by **tom nimmo** » 21 Sep 2010, 13:43

Seanie.

Excellent explanation of what the PCC should be. Thanks.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Sep 2010, 13:44

Marya wrote:The 'Big W' site was discussed at more then one meeting if memory serves me correctly. I seem to recall at one there was representation from residents near to the 'Big W' site who were concerned about noise disturbance from 24 hr delivery and operation and who asked the CC to oppose the application. Perhaps Seanie can add more?

I think it was raised. And those are legitimate concerns that should be articulated by the PCC. But if other people 'aren't fussed' then that's also an opinion that should be articulated. Otherwise everything get's rendered down into black & white and any nuance or balance goes out the window.

It's not only strong opinions that should be listened to.

People who aren't sure, are equivocal, or could go either way depending on the detail, should also be heard.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 21 Sep 2010, 13:53

*I also think that it is the duty of the individual resident to inform themselves and make their views known to the PCC in whatever shape or form that may be - verbal, electronic or going along to a meeting now and again. Given that the PCC are all volunteers then it makes sense to have a mixed approach.

I find it very sad though that there seems to be a lack of allegance to the PCC as a cohesive group by some of its elected members or more specifically the co-opted groups reps.

I also see an imbalance where what seems to be 'courting' developer's interests more than canvasing resident's views is happening - that seriously worries me. I thought you were all working on communicating better among yourselves and learning to worth things through to resolution?

I also find it really bad taste and bully boy for want of a better phrase that the couple of folk who regard themselves as the PCC fringe seem to be having a witch hunt.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Sep 2010, 13:56

*What were you saying the other day?

At times this forum represents a free for all coded slanging match and it sucks to be honest. Keep it clean and stop the sh*t stirring and it'd be a happier place and there would be more posters and less lurkers.

mmmmm......

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Sep 2010, 15:16

Marya wrote:The 'Big W' site was discussed at more then one meeting if memory serves me correctly. I seem to recall at one there was representation from residents near to the 'Big W' site who were concerned about noise disturbance from 24 hr delivery and operation and who asked the CC to oppose the application. Perhaps Seanie can add more?

Whatever representations were made it is not the Community Councils' role to get amongst the Community and "encourage as many people as possible to object to this proposal". That's the modus operandi of a campaign group, which is clearly no coincidence.

There's a small core of members who quite clearly use Portobello Community Council as their "Objection Bitch". How else can the Bellfied Lane travesty be explained away?

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 21 Sep 2010, 20:32

seanie wrote:What were you saying the other day?

You just don't seem to be getting it.....wish you would actually read what I'd written before you fire back your wisdoms.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Sep 2010, 20:40

I did read it.

It looked like coded sh*t stirring to me.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 21 Sep 2010, 21:00

seanie wrote:I did read it.

It looked like coded sh*t stirring to me.

What's coded about it?

If you want it as plain as plain could be - I think some of your postings are really worrying considering you are obviously on the CC. Why don't you sort it out in the CC forum with each other before washing the laundry in public. I would not be at all impressed if I were one of your colleagues. Is there no sense of allegance to the CC as a group?

It seems to be alright for some of your chums to come on here and name CC names as to who is doing this and who is doing that - but lets face it all of your motives are up for questioning right now.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Sep 2010, 21:19

Well it's not so coded now.

Well done.

Post by **wangi** » 21 Sep 2010, 21:33

A timely reminder - the next meeting of Portobello Community Council is next Monday, 27 September at 19:30 in the Portobello
Baptist Church Hall, 185 Portobello High Street.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2010, 22:28

Puerto bella wrote:Why don't you sort it out in the CC forum with each other before washing the laundry in public.

I don't think we should be surprised. The Portobello Matters forum exists to discuss and debate the very issues that the Community Council deal with, as our representatives. It is healthy that we should have these discussions. We all want a community council that fairly represents us and acts in our best interests, that consults us on important matters, that is transparent in its dealings and communicates effectively.

If all is not well, then we should know about it. If there is evidence to illustrate these problems, then it should be out in the open.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 21 Sep 2010, 22:49

Agree Bob, that it should be open and people should feel like they can participate in the CC but why does one get the impression that internal wranglings and problems are not discussed among CC members first?

What we get is one or two peoples versions on here then others thinking - lets all jump in and take sides.

The whole email address carry on is one example that they could easily sort out among themselves without everybody and their aunt getting involved.

It seems to me as though people on the CC who are the subject of criticism are given no opportunity to discuss and debate in that forum first before accusations fly around on here.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Sep 2010, 04:40

What does the code of conduct for community councillors have to say about group representatives? Are they simply expected to act in the interests of the group they represent or are they also expected to reflect the views of the wider community? What if these conflict? For example, it's difficult to see how the PCATS representative can take a balanced view on the BL development.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 22 Sep 2010, 10:37

Puerto bella wrote:*I also think that it is the duty of the individual resident to inform themselves and make their views known to the PCC in whatever shape or form that may be

Here goes.

Big W - not bothered, it has been retail for years and will be so again, the number one objector was ASDA who put a non food retail condition on the site before they moved. Only reservation is noise pollution for local residents.
Waitrose AND new housing - undecided yet, want to know more, concerned about the few quality shops we have left.

I would wager many people in Portobello would be fairly close to these views but I do not claim to represent a majority.

So what is the PCC basing it's response on exactly. There was a proposal, who asked the question. All of this nonsense was avoidable if responses were asked for.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 22 Sep 2010, 10:50

Any objection to the Big W regaining it's retail food permission is a joke imo.It was a supermarket before Gilberstoun was there and I'd imagine the traffic on that road is about as busy as it gets anyway, so the only group concerned would be WalMart, and who cares about them?

I'm more concerned about certain aspects of Portobello representation trying to keep the town as a closed shop for findlays/kitcheners.There is nothing wrong with competition.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Sep 2010, 10:57

Bob Jefferson wrote:What does the code of conduct for community councillors have to say about group representatives?

Are they simply expected to act in the interests of the group they represent or are they also expected to reflect the views of the wider community? What if these conflict? For example, it's difficult to see how the PCATS representative can take a balanced view on the BL development.

I think the protocol is called "Declaration of Interest". The group rep should declare an interest and other members decide whether or not they can then participate in a discussion and if required a vote. If he/she or they are deemed to be too close and therefore non-objective, they are asked to sit it out.

This seems at odds with what happened with the BL proposal in September last year. I posted the Minutes from the September 09 meeting above and I don't see how anyone could fairly conclude that our CC was "vehemently opposed" to the scheme. Yet both Phil Myerscough and Seanie have described Coulcillor Hawkins 40 minute speech being exactly so.

The Minutes indicate PCC formed a sub-group to assess the proposal. Five people in total, at least 4 PCATS die hards (Hosking, Ward, Cairns and Stewart- I don't know about Butterworth). Between the September PCC meeting and the next DSC meeting where PCC would make deputation, the presentee identified in the Minutes, somehow changed from Diana Cairns to Stephen Hawkins. So that makes at least 5 PCATS die hards involved in the presentation on all of our behalves. (Councillor Hawkins has PCATs listed in his Interests with the Council).

Until Phil Myerscough posted that Councillor Hawkins made the deputation on PCC's behalf I doubt more than a handful of our PCC even realised this had happened. Their October minutes made no mention and the Minutes stating that Diana Cairns would make deputation were approved in October by Ward and Hosking. They may not have deliberately concealed the fact that Councillor Hawkins had made the deputation but it certainly wasn't made transparent to either the CC or the Community itself.

So what we have is a PCATS die hard reading out a statement on behalf of our community. Not just reading out a statement but ad-libbing in response to notes handed to him by another PCATS die hard. (She was at the meeting why didn't she read the statement?) The Community did not know he was doing this, most of of the Community Council didn't know, maybe still don't know?

Any reasonable person would consider PCATS to be to close to this site and what it stands for to possibly give a balanced view. And we managed to let them speak for us. Which to my mind, explains why the fairly asinine and ambivalent PCC Minutes turned into "vehement opposition" in less than a fortnight.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 22 Sep 2010, 10:58

Puerto bella wrote:I also see an imbalance where what seems to be 'courting' developer's interests more than canvasing resident's views is happening -

I also find it really bad taste and bully boy for want of a better phrase that the couple of folk who regard themselves as the PCC fringe seem to be having a witch hunt.

Had the PCC AND the Council got active in asking for a community response then none of this would be happening.

As for a PCC fringe, I am not sure about this. Don't think it's all PCC is it? What I am sure of is this post is being read by some who wishes TP did not exist and views other than their own were not on the internet. It is all getting bitter and I am glad I do not administer this site.

What is also being read, by developers and the council is the PCC minutes which have shown a request to "court" responses. That cannot be right and could be used in the future by the BIG W and other developers.

It's not good to have an open slanging match but many will wonder what is being decided away from an open forum all can read. No speculation plz about who is doing what, sure everybody has opinions anyway!

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 22 Sep 2010, 11:02

Too late

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 22 Sep 2010, 11:05

Porty wrote:I think the protocol is called "Declaration of Interest". The group rep should declare an interest and other members decide whether or not they can then participate in a discussion and if required a vote. If he/she or they are deemed to be too close and therefore non-objective, they are asked to sit it out.

This seems at odds with what happened with the BL proposal in September last year. I posted the Minutes from the September 09 meeting above and I don't see how anyone could fairly conclude that our CC was "vehemently opposed" to the scheme. Yet both Phil Myerscough and Seanie have described Coulcillor Hawkins 40 minute speech being exactly so.

The Minutes indicate PCC formed a sub-group to assess the proposal. Five people in total, at least 4 PCATS die hards (Hosking, Ward, Cairns and Stewart- I don't know about Butterworth). Between the September PCC meeting and the next DSC meeting where PCC would make deputation, the presentee identified in the Minutes, somehow changed from Diana Cairns to Stephen Hawkins. So that makes at least 5 PCATS die hards involved in the presentation on all of our behalves. (Councillor Hawkins has PCATs listed in his Interests with the Council).

Until Phil Myerscough posted that Councillor Hawkins made the deputation on PCC's behalf I doubt more than a handful of our PCC even realised this had happened. Their October minutes made no mention and those minutes were approved by Ward and Hosking.

So what we have is a PCATS die hard reading out a statement on behalf of our community. Not just reading out a statement but ad-libbing in response to notes handed to him by another PCATS die hard. (She was at the meeting why didn't she read the statement?) The Community did not know he was doing this, most of of the Community Council didn't know, maybe still don't know?

Any reasonable person would consider PCATS to be to close to this site and what it stands for to possibly give a balanced view. And we managed to let them speak for us. Which to my mind, explains why the fairly asinine and ambivalent PCC Minutes turned into "vehement opposition" in less than a fortnight.

If this is accurate, and can be backed up by documented proof, then Edinburgh Council need to remove the relevant documentation and representation from the process and possibly even remove PCC from the entire process of the redeveloping of the site, it really makes a mockery of even having a community council.

Post by **wangi** » 22 Sep 2010, 11:26

Having been present at the August PCC meeting I'd just like to point out there did seem to be care put into pulling together a couple of working groups to respond to the two issues (school & SP site). There was obvious awareness of the positions of various community councillors and a desire for a balanced / impartial group to formulate the response.

L/

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Sep 2010, 11:26

Franck wrote:If this is accurate, and can be backed up by documented proof, then Edinburgh Council need to remove the relevant documentation and representation from the process and possibly even remove PCC from the entire process of the redeveloping of the site, it really makes a mockery of even having a community council.

I have asked John Stewart (who took over as Chair that very month) for the following information;

A copy of the statement read out (40 minutes) by Councillor Hawkins on behalf of us all.
(I've not asked for copies of the hand written notes, yet)

An explanation of how the PCC representative changed from Diana Cairns to Councillor Hawkins?

Whether the opportunity to speak on our Community's behalf was also offered to our other local Councillors; messrs Child and Bridgman?

Post by **wangi** » 22 Sep 2010, 11:30

Franck wrote:If this is accurate, and can be backed up by documented proof, then Edinburgh Council need to remove the relevant documentation and representation from the process and possibly even remove PCC from the entire process of the redeveloping of the site, it really makes a mockery of even having a community council.

Franck, Porty's post refers to the last planning application for the former Scottish power site (the all housing one) which was ultimately refused, not the current pre-planning approach by BL Developments. It's past, not current.

L/

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Sep 2010, 11:33

wangi wrote:Having been present at the August PCC meeting I'd just like to point out there did seem to be care put into pulling together a couple of working groups to respond to the two issues (school & SP site). There was obvious awareness of the positions of various community councillors and a desire for a balanced / impartial group to formulate the response.

L/

You are talking August 2010 as opposed to my 2009?

We've seen the output of the two sub-groups and its a mixed result. The School; the PCC letter did appear to make an attempt at expressing the range of views of our Councillors.

BL- one Community Councillor has already publically disassocaited themselves from the PCC position, there may be more. I know several people who have stated "that's not the meeting I was at". So it is much the same as last year.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Sep 2010, 11:43

wangi wrote:Porty's post refers to the last planning application for the former Scottish power site (the all housing one) which was ultimately refused, not the current pre-planning approach by BL Developments. It's past, not current.

L/

Not sure that's what the Planners and other council folk reading these threads think. I suspect there's an interest in observing behavior patterns of certain groups and individuals, past and present.

Franck is almost right when he says "if this can be proved". However, there is more to it than that. There is an onus on our City and Community Councillors to be transparent and be able to demonstrate they conducted business properly. There are one or two indicators suggesting this was perhaps not the case?

Post by **wangi** » 22 Sep 2010, 12:05

Yes, the last meeting.

It's very confusing to be talking about the both. Sure, I can see the interest in past behaviour but It doesn't help me trying to keep this lot easily understandable for those dropping into the discussion!

And can we keep anything about the current BL Developments on that thread please?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 22 Sep 2010, 17:37

The PCC are a Statutory Consultee on planning matters in their area which entitles them to be involved in the process leading up to a decision. However, they are not allowed to speak at the Sub Development Committee Meetings. I was surprised therefore to read above that the minutes clearly state that Diana Cairns was elected to represent their views, when this is not permissible. I guess this is how Stephen Hawkins ended up speaking as he quite rightly has the privilege to speak as a Ward Councillor.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 22 Sep 2010, 18:36

Bob Jefferson wrote:What does the code of conduct for community councillors have to say about group representatives? Are they simply expected to act in the interests of the group they represent or are they also expected to reflect the views of the wider community?

There is no distinction between individual and group representatives as far as their duties are concerned. As a Community Councillor you have a duty to act in the interests of the local community, which you have been elected or nominated to represent, and you have a duty to establish and reflect, through the Community Council, the views of the community as a whole, on any issue, irrespective of personal opinion.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Portobello Community Council

tmp