New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[tufty]

Well said sceptic. I agree we all have the right to fight for what we believe in but there comes a time when most good citizens realise their desires have to be put aside for the greater good.

I hope people from all of Edinburgh are aware of what PPAG are costing us, not just in money but in lost opportunity and community spirit.

[Maria]

It is not that PCC have no power, it is that they can pass on to The city of Edinburgh Council it's version of the Opinions of the People of Portobello, only they don't ask the people of Portobello, if you look at the representation, they cover only some parts of Portobello, they do not cover the Durhams, Southfield, Northfield, Mountcastle Wakefield etc. perhaps they do not look on them as being parts of "Portobello". The problem is that PHS draws children from those areas..

Sceptic, many of these areas aren't in the Portobello Community Council area. They form parts of the Northfield/Willowbrae or Craigentiiny/Meadowbank or Craigmillar Community Council areas and are represented, therefore, on those Community Councils. See here for the boundary maps.

[Mark Cameron]

There may be a few, but I think you'd be hard pushed to find anyone left within PPAG .

There i've fixed the above for you rmolehusband.

When Diana Cairns brought out her email and claimed the SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY of the PPAG support were too intimidated to attend a community council meeting I thought that was their last thread of hope slipping away right their. They have a nerve talking about intimidation.

If their claim that the significant majority of our community support their actions I fully agree those individuals have every right to voice their opinions in a safe environment (whch I believe last night was by the way for avoidance of doubt). However why don't they (a) petition the community council to hold a meeting for PPAG supporters or (b) set up an online petition and present this to the community council and CEC.

Someone asked earlier whether the CC really have any power - in the big picture probably not but enough to kybosh a few people's plans in the community. So a vote of no confidence in the whole PCC is probably not required. The big question for me however is are we happy as a community to have serving community councillors who are either willing to back blatant misrepresentations and continue to do so even when the overwhelming majority vote for this to stop. Are we satisfied with a Chairman who is rude, dismissive and unwilling to ask the pertinent questions of those members spreading these misrepresentations?

[wangi]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/ ... -1-2260182

Appeal blow in school fight

PORTOBELLO Community Council has refused to ask a protest group to drop its appeal which is delaying the building of a new high school that has overwhelming support from residents.

More than 200 people packed into an emergency meeting of the community council last night, the vast majority of whom were in favour of the new school being built on Portobello Park.
...
Community council chair, John Stewart, said it would not ask PPAG to drop its appeal during last night’s meeting at Portobello Community Centre, much to the anger of frustrated parents.

He said: “I, as chair, decided we could not ask PPAG to withdraw its appeal. There will therefore be no voting by the community council on this point.

“The community council cannot support the legitimate views of one group over another, they have to take a balanced view of the concerns of the whole community.”

Local resident Ewan Kenny hit back, saying: “You’re neutering the community council. You are disempowering a community body – is that a wise move? Is that a democracy?”
...

[lg1726]

Are we satisfied with a Chairman who is rude, dismissive and unwilling to ask the pertinent questions of those members spreading these misrepresentations?

Over the years I have attended meeting at every possible level, European Parliament and Commission, every UK parliament, house of lords, local councils, local community meetings and never once I have seen such a style as the one demonstrated by the "chair" last evening and no they do not reflect the views of the wider community. However, it was clear that the chair did not see that as his role, rather that it was for him to educate us on how he though he should run the PCC, (supported of course by the "learning assistants" in the wings!). Are they a competent CC, most definitely not, but is moving to change the PCC now in anyway going to address the issue of PPAG and their ongoing legal challenge, which as I have said previously, may not be their end point?!

For me the question now is, what steps can be taken by the community to ensure that we see an end to the ongoing delays by PPAG? It looked to me like they are not inclined to listen to the significant majority of the community requesting them, pleading with them to drop the appeal and the PCC seem utterly impotent in presenting and representing the valid views of that majority. I fear we need to be ready for the next legal challenge in the wake of this one being defeated. I do very, very much hope that I am wrong here!

[joeshmoe]

Can i suggest we ALL contact the Edinburgh councillors again and demand they pursue PPAG for court costs

The reason being is this is all just costing our taxpayer money

[Mark Cameron]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/ ... -1-2260182

Local resident Ewan Kenny hit back, saying: “You’re neutering the community council. You are disempowering a community body – is that a wise move? Is that a democracy?”
...

I thought Ewan did a great job last night and summed up the feelings of a lot of the audience in his well reasoned remarks A future PCC councillor?

[Porty]

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?

[Sceptic]

Porty, you've noticed it too! As I said earlier, bully of the washouse!
As to previous posters pointing out that other areas may be onther community councils, but as I said, PHS is in PCC's area. What gives PCC the monopoly on this issue?
Will the PCC resign over the issue? Certainly not, they have their litttle bit of power and, far from being intimidated, use intimidation against others.How could you pass a motion of no confidence when the Chairman and his minions would never, on last night's performance, put it to the vote.
Could another Special meeting of the PCC be called with the motion that "This House has no confidence in the Portobello Community Council Members now sitting"? Possibly, but they would hold it in such a way, as last night's, that the vote would never be put.

[Maria]

As to previous posters pointing out that other areas may be onther community councils, but as I said, PHS is in PCC's area. What gives PCC the monopoly on this issue?

Am I the 'other posters' Sceptic? I merely pointed out those areas (Northfield, Mouncastle etc) had Community Councils of their own, because you seemed to be accusing Portobello CC for some sort of social snobbery in not representing them, whilst, in fact, PCC has no right to speak for those areas and their residents.
Additionally, strange as it may seem, the current Portobello High School isn't in the Portobello Community Council's area. (I've already given you the link to the boundary.)

The site for the new school does lie, however, within the Portobello Community Council boundary, therefore the PCC is a statutory consultee re. planning for the new school, hence the involvement.

[seanie]

Also PPAG are represented on Portobello Community Council but no others. So the the issue has drawn the PCC in to an extent that other relevant Community Councils haven't been.

[Makaveli]

The amount of representation on PCC of PPAG members is staggering to say the least!!!

I still can't believe that EC let this be allowed.

[Porty]

I think its time EC stepped in to help us. The liason office that oversees the city's community councils must have a very difficult job and they likely bat as much ofthe workload back to the Chairs. After all, they are the people closest to the issues and generally speaking will be fair and reasonable. In our case, up until now, EC have been complicit accessories to aid our CC in manufacturing community opinion about their "pet" planning applications etc.

The situation on Thursday was truly unbelievable. The Chair claims EC granted him the power to thwart the various requests the community had for PPAG. It flies in the face of the councillors' and the Chair's code of conduct. So either the chair is lying, or perhaps misinterpreted, the advice he got. Alternatively, EC set up a community council's as a channel for community views and then legal services told the chair it was up to him and only him, whether the community's request could be fulfilled. Which seems odd at best and perverse at worst.

Come on EC help us out here. Get someone to investigate a few of the planning responses from PCC since the current incumbent took the chair.(We can point you in the right direction) It is scandolous what's going on down here.

[Sceptic]

Perhaps I am not ex[laining myself correctly.
Yes, the school, at present is outwith the PCC Area, and, indeed, the new one will be.
But, PCC, in it's seeming defence of PPAG denies people who have no say in the matter because they live outwith PCC's area, the opportunity to state the case on behalf of their children.
The PCC should not be backing PPAG because of this. Before anyone says they are not, this is based on visual evidence of Thursday when the main shakers and movers of PPAG dictated how the meeting was run.
The proposition which was the reason for the Special meeting in the first place was ignored. All, so it seemed, was a resolute defence of PPAG. It could never in a thousand years be described as even handed, it was biased.

May one direct residents to the vote of "no confidence" in PCC on this site.

[Mark Cameron]

I don't intend to let this matter lie and hope the 200+ residents are of the same mind.

The decision John Stewart took on Thursday was a cop out. I have no beef with John himself as he and the amenity society have done a great deal of good for our community. However Thursday demonstrated to me that John is not fit for purpose as chair of our community council. I think there is an unhealthy influence from elsewhere in the group being brought to bear on him.

This is a direct lift of the first paragraph of the PCC website:

The Community Council is here to represent the residents & traders of Portobello. We try to take the majority view about local issues.

If you attended on Thursday youll know John did everything possible to say the PCC was responsible for representing all views. Which is it John? The statement above seems clear enough to me?

I think John should consider his position as chair which i believe is now untenable as a direct result of 'his choice' on how to handle the PFANS petition at the PCC meeting.

I will be emailing John to suggest this via the PCC website - http://www.portobellocc.org/contactus.html

You might wish to do the same?

[lg1726]

I don't intend to let this matter lie and hope the 200+ residents are of the same mind.

I will be emailing John to suggest this via the PCC website - http://www.portobellocc.org/contactus.html

You might wish to do the same?

I too will be emailing him. I did so previous to the meeting and posed some questions and got a reply all about neutrality etc. Willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I did not respond to him then, deciding to wait to see what happened on the night. However, I have been left in no doubt that the PCC do not represent us in this matter, that they appear biased on this and that it is a constitutional conundrum to be both neutral and representative! This was the basis of my initial email to him and Thursday merely served to prove that point.

I also intend to copy my email to the CEC official with responsibility for CCs and perhaps if all 200+ of us there that night also did so, notice might be taken!

[Bob Jefferson]

[SheilaGilmore]

Edinburgh Labour has supported the building of a new Portobello High School for many years. We are satisfied that, after extensive investigation of potential sites, the proposal for building the new school at Portobello Park was the best option. This has been through extensive design and planning consultation. We respect the fact that there are people who have exercised their democratic right to oppose the plans, but we regret the delays that have been caused by the fact that a legal challenge (talked about from the outset) was made so late in the process. The three candidates below and the MP attended the demonstration at Portobello Park in April and Ewan Aitken sent his apologies and message of support. We are also committed to the retention of the golf course and have supported the return of the site of the old school to green space (subject to any use which could be made of part of the land for the benefit of St John's

Sheila Gilmore MP
Cllr Maureen Child (and Scottish Labour canidate for Portobello Craigmillar)
Cllr Ewan Aitken
Joan Griffiths - Scottish Labour candidate for Craigentinny Duddingston
Alexander Lunn - Scottish Labour candidate for Craigentinny Duddingston

admin: some council election related posts moved to http://forum.talkporty.org/viewtopic.php?p=92784#p92784

[Porty]

I believe there's a court hearing about cost allocation coming up in the next week or so. Know the date, who will be the judge and where, anyone?

[lg1726]

I hope people from all of Edinburgh are aware of what PPAG are costing us, not just in money but in lost opportunity and community spirit.

That's the thing, I don't think that the people from all of Edinburgh do get that it is costing us all, not just those of us directly affected by the actions of PPAG. Every time this goes to court there is both a direct and indirect cost associated and unless CEC successfully sue PPAG for costs (retrospectively so far), then all CEC council tax payers are footing that bill. If Tufty I took you to court and I lost, you would expect to get your fees met by me, that's how the system generally works. So every time PPAG invoke a legal challenge and are not pursued for CEC costs, we are all paying that cost. This is not just a Portobello issue, it is a pan-Edinburgh one!

PPAG state that they are doing this as it has Scotland-wide implications; fine, but the cost of this has Edinburgh-wide implications. I'm not sure that we can get all Edinburgh to appreciate the cost to us in terms of lost opportunities and to the community spirit, but in these straiten times with hard pressed council budgets stretched beyond reason, is this really a good use of all Edinburgh resources!? I for one will be imploring my local councillors (after Friday), to seek to recoup legal costs from PPAG at every stage of this and potential future legal challenges in the interests of CEC budget/fiscal management. However, if those from other wards were also pushing then we may make it difficult, if not impossible for PPAG to go beyond the current legal position!

[Porty]

On a more basic level. Ros Sutherland told us the Golf Course was under threat, due to budget constraints. This is a real concern to PPAG. They are so concerned they're burning the City's cash with a futile legal case.

[lg1726]

And what else is likely to be under threat across all of Edinburgh and they are hell bent on frittering the over stretched budget on this legal challenge. Every single penny needed by CEC to go to court over this is money taken from core services - let's not forget that! For all of Edinburgh's tax payers!!!

[Bob Jefferson]

So, in effect, the only real threat to the Golf Course is from PPAG. How seven iron(ic) is that?

[seanie]

Council delay has split community

ON Thursday night I witnessed a well-orchestrated demonstration of support for a project which divides the community.

Portobello Community Council’s standing orders were used to provide a platform for the group who support a school in the park to question those who support replacing the school and keeping the park.

Portobello Park Action Group (PPAG) are resolving through the courts a legal issue which the council has avoided for four years. The appeal is not a part of the consultation process and is not influenced by public demonstrations – it is for the courts to rule on.

The council’s reluctance to find out if they could secure the site has split the community. If PPAG are forced to drop their appeal we may well get a new school but we won’t get justice.

Archie Burns, Pittville Street, Edinburgh

[Chas]

If PPAG are forced to drop their appeal we may well get a new school but we won’t get justice.

Archie Burns, Pittville Street, Edinburgh

Where, Mr Burns, is the 'justice' in this democratic society in opposing the clear will of THE MAJORITY of the population?

[Pal of Porty]

Council delay has split community

......it is for the courts to rule on......

Archie Burns, Pittville Street, Edinburgh

Excuse me Mr Burns - that is exactly what has happened.

Just to jog your memory, Judge Lady Dorrien found against PPAG on the issue of delay and also added that she would have found against PPAG on merit. That seems pretty much like a court ruling on the matter to me.

[Porty]

The amount of representation on PCC of PPAG members is staggering to say the least!!!

I still can't believe that EC let this be allowed.

It's not up to EC and they may not be aware.

PPAG did their best to load the PCC with their supporters and or friendly faces, this was back in 2010 in the run up to the planning application. Firstly came the Brighton Residents Association. BRA has been in existence for at least 30 years and never participated at PCC, they are a tiny, tiny group. The AGM never has as many as 10 attendees, all of a sudden they have a rep on PCC and a PPAG friendly rep at that. Cairns and/or Hawkins are office bearers. Then we have the following from the Minutes in April 2010:

278.3o Community Council to consider how to fill its vacancies for group representatives (277.5v). Andrew
Patterson is now a member of the Community Council, representing the Portobello Council of Churches.
Registrations for Portobello Older People’s Project and Joppa Tennis Courts are in the pipeline. Diana
Cairns agreed to ask Portobello Open Door (POD) and Portobello Energy Descent and Land Reform
(PEDAL) if they would like to register a representative, and to contact Holyrood and St John’s schools;
.
* Action: Diana Cairns to ask POD, PEDAL, Holyrood and St Johns if they would like to join
the Community Council.

How convenient, St john's had been a PPAG hotbed and the major dude was Alison connelly who had moved to Holyrood parent council. Diana's known for a few things but school connections is not one of them. And unless I'm mistaken both school are outwith the PCC domain- how very strange Holyrood and St Johns should be approached, after all those years.

Then we have PEDAL and POD, were Hawkins/Cairns office bearers with those groups? I think so. They must have felt they could hold sway and persuade the groups to come down on the PPAG side. Ultimately they failed with PEDAL and I'm not sure about POD.

Whatever, there was an attempt to load PCC with an additional 5 PPAG friendly reps and all this was going on with a completely oblivious and neutral Chair. Who is proud to say that he hasn't been to a PPAG meeting!!

[Pal of Porty]

....And as for the word justice! The basis for the PPAG campaign is nothing more than NIMBYism disguised under a mask of environmentalism. Even now after the court ruling a malicious time delaying appeal has bean launched despite PPAG being in the significant minority in the community.

[Makaveli]

That is the worst part for me the NIMBYism. How on earth can they dress this up as an environmental campaign when THEY HAVE SUGGESTED OTHER PARKS to build the school on????!!!! It is so hypocritical and deluded that it makes you wonder about the state of mind of these people.

But as has been said before they have told so many lies I don't think they can keep up with them anymore!!!

[Mark Cameron]

Alledgedly Steven Hawkins may be looking to join the PCC. This should not be allowed to happen after the embarrasing and utterly disgraceful attempt to tell the 200 people sat in front of him at Thursday's meeting that the high school is in a good enough state to allow it to be used for a good few years yet.

Also pressure must be brought to bear on the current PCC PPAG supporters to leave the PCC.

I saw a copy of a very interesting letter to CEC today.

It states that under the terms of the Scheme for community councils an individual taking legal action on behalf of a segment of the community can't continue to serve on the CC if they continue to take legal action.

The fact that PPAG is an unincorporated association and as such has no legal identityin Scots Law. As such it can't raise legal action in its own right. Ergo its the members of PPAG who raise the action and consequently them individually who are sueing CEC (and being counter sued).

So seems to me that the bottom line is that these members can either cease the legal action or remove themselves immediately from the community council.

Why not write to the PCC chair and ask for 'his' take on this - I certainly will be.

[lg1726]

mcdryburn - do you have a reference for the bit about a CC member being in breach of the scheme for CCs? I have looked through the online stuff for CCs and can't find it, but would like to write and refer if possible.

[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

[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

I completely agree with you that it may well be that financial pressure is a route to apply pressure to PPAG. We have seen that they will not listen to reason, nor even enter into discussion, the petition has not moved them and the PCC are impotent (or castrated) to address this. If they lose this appeal, as I have said previously, I fear they will up the legal ante in the hope that sustained delay will result in CEC resorting to "plan B", which we will all agree to merely to get the school build. We may well need to hit them in the wallet and I'm happy to lodge a FOI request for this information, but they are only bound to respond to this request within 20 days, no guarantee of a definitive answer, but worth a shot?

[arbie69]

lg1726, I think this is what you are looking for.

Dear XXXX

Having reviewed the relevant legislation, it seems clear to me that from
the date that PPAG decided to raise legal action against City of Edinburgh
Council the picture changed radically. You may be aware that an
unincorporated association like PPAG has no legal identity in Scots Law. As
such, it cannot raise legal action in its own right. It is the members of
PPAG who raise action. Consequently, any member of PPAG is now personally
suing CEC and being personally countersued for costs in respect of the
legal action.

As such, if you follow the terms set out in the Scheme for Community
Councils laid down by Edinburgh City Council, any member of a community
council who is also taking legal action on behalf of a segment of the
community must make a stark choice. Continue with the legal action or
remove themselves from community council membership.

You will be well aware that the Scheme for Community Councils requires that
community council members must:-

. - Establish and reflect, through the community council, the views of the
community as a whole, on any issue, irrespective of personal opinion.

- Take decisions solely in terms of the interest of the community that you
represent. You must not use your position as a community councillor to gain
financial, material, political or other personal benefit for yourself,
family or friends.

- Declare any any private and/or personal interests in a matter for the
community council and . . .withdraw from discussions and the decision
making process with regard to that matter.

- You must not place yourself under any financial or other obligation to
any individual or organisation that might reasonably be thought to
influence you in your representation of your community.

- In carrying out public business, including award of grants or decisions
regarding planning applications you should make decisions on merit and on
the basis of information which is publicly known.

It is therefore clearly the case that any member of Portobello Community
Council who is also a member of PPAG must make the choice to either
continue as a member of the PPAG group or stand down as a public official.

I am aware of three members who fit this description. Ros Sutherland, Diana
Cairns and Archie Burns. There may well be others.

No one would like to see free speech stifled, nor would we advocate
anything which prevents freedom of association, but unfortunately the rules
and regulations as laid down in the Scheme for Community Councils do not
allow for a community council member to take legal action on behalf of just
one segment of the community. Simply put, in taking legal action, they can
no longer be seen to be acting objectively on behalf of the whole
community, nor can they seen to be free from obligation to any individual
organisation that might reasonably be thought to influence their
representation of the community.

It is vital that you act quickly on this matter to maintain the integrity
of Portobello Community Council."

[lg1726]

lg1726, I think this is what you are looking for.

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!!!