New Portobello High School - on going issues

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Feb 2009, 14:40

And they could eat their lunch outside, ideal.

Seriously tho' many office buildings are designed to easily convert to hotels or other forms of residential accomodation. Maybe the council should plan that in the design for 30 or 40 Years time.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 10 Feb 2009, 14:46

Porty wrote:And they could eat their lunch outside, ideal.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 753513.ece

2 birds, 1 stone.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Feb 2009, 14:55

So much for The Proclaimers!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Feb 2009, 15:02

I'm not as up to speed as I was but I'd expect the construction cost of a secondary school to be in the of region £1750/m2, possibly more. That would exclude furniture/fittings etc.

Classrooms would probably be up to 75m2 so you might be looking at around £130,000 per class on an area basis.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 10 Feb 2009, 15:09

There should also be construction firms banging on the door to get the contract at the moment.

It's probably one of the most secure contracts you can get in construction at this time.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 28 Feb 2009, 15:17

Seen the latest Portobello Reporter?

'Right to build on park - dispute continues'

Portobello Park Action Group, however, say that as far as they are aware, in all other cases where development on Common Good land has been allowed, it has been necessary to obtain permission through the courts.

It's unbelievable.

Even if there are other issues relating to the Common Good, to suggest that in all other cases permission from the courts has been necessary for development is a flagrant disregard of the facts.

I have personally, on multiple occassions, directed PPAG members towards THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT, from an ACTUAL COURT HEARING, in which the court ruled that permission was NOT NECESSARY.

And that ACTUAL RULING, from an ACTUAL COURT, that permission was NOT NECESSARY, was based on an earlier case in which ANTOHER COURT ruled that permission was NOT NECESSARY.

PPAG are entitled to their own opinions.

But they're not entitled to their own facts.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Feb 2009, 16:28

I'm afraid that after many years of independent reporting the editor of the Portobello reporter is now in cahoots with ppag, as far as I am aware.

The frequent publishing of misleading and or untruthfu information has become commonplace and it is very sad. Like seanie says they don't have to look very far for hard evidence, it is well documented here.

There's no name attributed to ppags statement and the articles assertion that the matter has to go to court, is pointless. The matter will be settled by a court I listened whilst Diana cairns informed the entire council ppag would be taking them to court.

The council are not refusing to go to court, they are advised that is is not neccessary. The door is open for PPAG to walk their talk and commence court action. I've not read the PR article in full have PPAG repeated their intent?
School in the park is a sensitine issue and the Portobello Reporter has been complicit in feeding local people false information. And its deliberate, as far as I'm aware.

Edit : (tidied it up)

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 28 Feb 2009, 17:53

You would've thought that PHS being prioritised for funding would've maybe merited the headline; the fact that the school buildings are in such a poor state that it's in the most need of replacement.

But no. That's just mentioned in passing.

It's obviously more important that PPAG object and that they be allowed to spread falsehoods.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Feb 2009, 21:13

Guys, ask yourselves why this has happened. I don't doubt the integrity of the editorial board of the Portobello Reporter for a moment, regardless of their personal views on any given matter.

The Reporter is published just 4 times a year, so there is plenty of time between issues for pressure groups to put their case to ensure favorable coverage and to create the impression that they speak for the majority. Did anyone from PFANS submit anything to the Reporter for publication? Did anyone approach the editorial board with a view to getting their message across? Anyone heard of 'lobbying'? At this local level it's all about personal relationships and that's what PFANS doesn't get.

The fact that the Reporter is distributed to 12500 local households means that it is potentially a fantastic vehicle to address the community and get people on board but it seems to fall below the radar of the PFANS executive, who underestimate its importance and in doing so miss a huge opportunity.

Instead of criticising the editorial board, PFANS should be courting the persons concerned, recognising their importance within the community, issuing regular press releases, inviting them to presentations and generally taking them seriously. Arguably, more Portobello families read the Reporter than the Evening News. PPAG understand this and that is why their views, however wrong, are represented and those of PFANS are not.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Mar 2009, 02:35

seanie wrote:You would've thought that PHS being prioritised for funding would've maybe merited the headline; the fact that the school buildings are in such a poor state that it's in the most need of replacement.

But no. That's just mentioned in passing.

It's obviously more important that PPAG object and that they be allowed to spread falsehoods.

And poor Bob, who has been castigated remorselessly by some of those he has just posted in support of thinks it is down to lobbying or the lack of.

This is not about lobbying its a straightforward misrepresentaion of fact. More than one PPAG spokes people are proven liars. These people will say anything, truth is regularly abandoned.

The Portobello Reporter is a voluntary, worthy and up until recently,truthful publication. Bob if you, as it appears, are suggesting that all one needs to do to get lies published is lobby the PR editorial team then i wont be supporting PFANS should they decide to do so.

What the "editorial team" have done, is predicated that anyone can say anything about anyone or anything and as long as its prefaced by "as far as I'm aware" then it is acceptable.

More often than not founders or long-term managers of a business/organisations end up being arsonists of the thing they helped create. The day that a campaign group can get a widely known falsehood published in the PR on the basis that it is "as far as they are aware" is the end. COEC are going to invest £40M in the future of Portobello's families and The Portobello Reporter has hardly said a positive word about it. It is shamefull and it is likely time for a change in the editorial team.

I don't like to disgree with you Bob but lobbying has no place in a community newspaper. Facts are what count and the editorial team at the Portobello Reporter seem keen to obscure those facts, the evidence is clear.

Edit:( I removed a personal reference, I will take that private)

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Mar 2009, 10:53

Well, I agree that it could have been written better. In particular, when faced with a contentious issue I think it is important that it is made crystal clear who is saying what. Rather than paraphrasing what a PPAG spokesperson has said, I would have preferred to see a direct and attributed quote. In that way, there is a clear distinction between opinions of different parties and editorial comment. I also feel that it would have been appropriate to balance the article with a quote from PFANS.

Yes, it is a huge investment, probably the biggest ever in the area, and should have been the lead story. What did PPAG do to influence the way it was written? Probably quite a lot. What did PFANS do to ensure favorable copy? Clearly not enough and most likely nothing.

OK, 'lobbying' has the wrong connotations but it does call for a more pro-active approach on the public relations front. I find this very frustrating. This should be a push-over for PFANS and they have just conceded an own goal. Let's not compound the error by blaming the editorial board of the Reporter for our own complacency.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 01 Mar 2009, 12:07

Bob Jefferson wrote: I also feel that it would have been appropriate to balance the article with a quote from PFANS.

There is mention of the reaction of the Portobello High School Parent Council, although it is rather brief . We are told they 'welcomed' the news, which must be a bit of an understatement!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Mar 2009, 14:48

Maybe we are giving too much credit to the Portobello Reporter's power to influence. It has been firmly in PPAG's corner all along yet what difference has it made to their campaign? If the struggle to locate the school on the park was a boxing match, PPAG would still be looking to land their first punch let alone win a round.

I still don't agree with the lobbying argument Bob. I know that Brenda Molony has received a few letters complaining about the imbalanced reporting of the school issue- the efficacy of these letters can bew witnessed in the latest issue - it possibly made things worse.

I genuinely fear for the quality and integrity of the Paper. If you run the Portobello Reporter, have bundles of facts and a great, possibly the greatest story to tell about Portobello. Do you do what the Evening News and Reporting Scotland did: take the facts and go with a positive storyline? No, instead you build your story around a vacous falsehood from an unnamed ignorant zealot. It is totally inexcuseable.

What next? "Better School could be rebuilt on site"- A PPAG spokesperson has revealed that as far as she is aware PHS could be rebuilt on site with 6 outdoor pitches and a decant thet would result is several pupils winning Nobel prizes. And as far as she is aware it would only cost £10m.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Mar 2009, 15:47

Why not? If a PPAG spokesperson insists that the moon is made of cheese then that is their view and they are entitled to it. It is up to the readership to judge for themselves whether this is true or not.

You're right - complaining of bias is likely to be counter-productive and will only serve to antagonise the very people we should be trying to influence. What matters is making sure that you get your viewpoint across and that is what we failed to do. Three months to prepare a statement, create a photo opportunity, stage an event, anything to ensure that we got the headline story we wanted in the local community newspaper. Now if PFANS had done this and the Reporter had just ignored it all then you could quite legitimately accuse them of bias.

Does it matter either way? No, in that the school will be built on the park regardless. But I would far rather have the people of Portobello knowing the facts and understanding the arguments and welcoming the opportunities before us, rather than believing the nonsense that the PPAG propaganda machine has planted in the local press.

If PFANS was to produce 12500 leaflets setting the record straight, then I would be more than happy to help distribute them.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Mar 2009, 18:07

No amount of coercion would have stopped ppag purveying the falsehood. Furthermore anyone that has followed this debate should not take anything ppag say at face value - its not that they always seek to misrepresent, sometimes they are just wrong, would have taken 2 mins for the reporter to check the facts. Would you publish the article here, as I'm interested to learn if ppag are still promising court action?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Mar 2009, 20:14

Porty wrote:Would you publish the article here, as I'm interested to learn if ppag are still promising court action?

Eh? I thought you had read it? I don't have the pdf for the online version yet.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Mar 2009, 00:46

No will have to wait til tomorrow.I'm less irked than I was earlier. Its quite a cute con trick from ppag: they have the editors ear and they know the reporter is not going to do dilligence on what they claim- so they make whatever claims they wish, it gets published and then ppag can publish it on their own website as the official position of the independent local newspaper. The staff at the reporter take the flak meanwhile they remain anonymous so they get off Scot free.- Ali would call it "rope-a-dope".

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 02 Mar 2009, 11:08

The Porty Reporter has been manipulated on several occasions recently to print entirely inaccurate information obtained from PPAG spokespersons. I know that several members of PFANS have politely written to point out where they have misrepresented the facts and to inform them of the correct information. I was therefore really surprised to learn that the latest edition has again been used for reporting akin to a Lord Haw Haw bulletin. AS FAR AS I AM AWARE this is because the editorial staff all palzy walzy with key PPAG activists.

I do however take comfort from the fact that the Reporter can print what they want and it is not going to make a difference to the outcome. All the legal evidence, precedents and QC advice indicate that PHS can be built on Common Good Ground - but hey you would have had to do 5 minutes research to find that out!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Mar 2009, 16:12

Back in Spring 2007 the Portobello Reporter was a bit more balanced. It confirmed there was wide consultation, 800 people attended 3 public meetings and that there was cross party agreement to put the school on the park; all subsequently denied by PPAG. Although PPAG did once again state that they would take the council to court. Will they or won't they?

SITES ANNOUNCED FOR NEW SCHOOLS
AFTER wide public consultation on the contentious issue of site options for a new Portobello High School and St John’s Primary School, cross-party agreement was reached at a Council meeting on 21st December 2006 that a new High School should be built in the south-west corner of Portobello Park, at the junction of Park Avenue and Milton Road. St John’s could then be rebuilt on the current High School site, subject to a further report on new-build versus refurbishment
of the primary school.

The agreement was subject to the condition that local land would be identified for the provision of open space to compensate for the loss of part of the Park.

An assurance was again given that no housing would be built on the remaining area of Portobello Park or the Golf Course to offset the cost of building; a case for funding will instead, be made to the Scottish Executive.

The agreement will also be subject to confirmation that the Park can be built on. Portobello Park Action Group (PPAG) has received legal opinion that it is common good land and that there would be limitations on what the Council is entitled to do there. The Council is to seek its own legal opinion on the matter and PPAG are prepared to challenge it in court, if necessary.

During the consultation period nearly 800 local people attended three public meetings and voiced strongly held and conflicting views on suitable sites, and hundreds of written submissions were made to Councillors and the Council Executive.

Skeely · Post by **Skeely** » 02 Mar 2009, 21:25

Porty wrote:... and it is likely time for a change in the editorial team.

Are you volunteering? You may disagree with them on this issue, but I do feel the urge to stick up for them here. We're lucky to have them. Have you seen many other local community newspapers? The Porty Reporter is head and shoulders above anything similar I've seen. Actually, don't volunteer.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 03 Mar 2009, 11:32

In terms of service and flexibility in placing advertisements in the Porty Reporter I have found them absolutely 1st class.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 03 Mar 2009, 12:43

Skeely - I agree and I withdraw my statement, in terms of the bigger picture it is unfair - I apologise to Brenda and the others. I no longer hold the view that the Portobello reporter colluded with ppag. It is a case of the editors trusting people that they shouldn't. .

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 03 Mar 2009, 20:11

Porty wrote:No will have to wait til tomorrow.I'm less irked than I was earlier. Its quite a cute con trick from ppag: they have the editors ear and they know the reporter is not going to do dilligence on what they claim- so they make whatever claims they wish, it gets published and then ppag can publish it on their own website as the official position of the independent local newspaper. The staff at the reporter take the flak meanwhile they remain anonymous so they get off Scot free.- Ali would call it "rope-a-dope".

To illustrate what I mean I have copied the text below from the PPAG website, today.

Portygreenkeepers wrote:COMMON GOOD STATUS FOR PARK Source - The Portobello Reporter. The Independant Local Newspaper"

A REPORT to the City of Edinburgh Council has confirmed the legal opinion obtained by the Portobello Park Action Group that, because of the history of its acquisition, Portobello Park and Golf Course are Common Good land. This means that it must remain in Council ownership, with none sold for housing, and administered in the interests of the city's residents. The land was purchased in 1898, by the City of Edinburgh Corporation, for £25,000, to fulfil their obligation under the 1896 Edinburgh Extension Act to "acquire, dedicate and thereafter maintain for public use a public park or recreation ground".

The Council is not entitled to use Common Good assets for the provision of statutory services (such as education), so if it goes ahead with the plan to build a school on the park, it will have to go to court to obtain permission, and will also have to pay into the Common Good fund an amount equal to the market value of the land. The question of where the money for a new school will come from remains unanswered.".

Falsehoods are in Bold.

The Portobello Reporter is identified as the source. The statements made are represented as if they are the voice of "The Independant (sp) Local Newspaper" Almost every assertion is a falsehood and these claims have been evidenced as false time and time again on TP/POL. If the Portobello Reporter is happy to be fed lies, publish them and then be named as the source then there is something very wrong.

It is not my opinion that these statements are false, it is well documented and FACTUAL.

a) It is true that sometimes in the past Councils have been to court to seek permission to build schools on common good land - Borders Council in Peebles is the one we usually link to- the schools are built . This is hard evidence, a court judgement that PROVES Common Good land can used to build schools on.

b) the council don't HAVE to go to court- they've taken QC's advice. The QC will have studied previous judgements. Which have also been published here several times. They didn't have to take their QC's advice but they did. PPAG are complaining because someone WON'T take them to court. What did they say to the Reporter to get them to publish. "Its a feckng scandal they are refusing to take us to court"- what a scoop that is! Either party can raise court action, PPAG have been boasting about their Advocates Dean of Faculty opinion for years. What more do they need to start court action? It is a non-story but good enough for a headline on the front page!!

c) The PPAG legal opinion, as originallty quoted, was not consistent with the council's decsion to place the land in the common good account. Roy Martin said there was "a reasonable chance" However, the decision to place the land in the CG account was consistent with PPAG's claim that the land was common good. IMHO any reasonable person would acknowledge that this does not actually positively identify the land as being common good, it is simply the council sidestepping any argument that may delay matters. The supposed CG status makes no difference to their intent to build the school

d) The council will not have to pay compensation to anyone , as there will be no disposal of land. At no stage was this ever an option for the bit of park the school will sit on.

e) the burdens relating to use as a public park, were feudal and imposed by the former owners of the land. Those burdens lapsed or fell off in 2004 and were never any sort of promise to the people of Portobello or Edinburgh.

f) councils are perfectly entitled to sell common good assets, as long as they properly account for the proceeds.

Personally I have doubts that the "Edinburgh Extension Act" ever applied to Portobello, I can only find mention of Leith and that was in 1920 but I admit haven't looked that hard.

I do have sympathy with the Editors,as they are stuck in middle of a contentous debate. If they make a big splash about the school they will have Cairns et al on the phone moaning. And when they misrepresent things they have McIntyre et al on their case. And I also appreciate that there are friendships between the editorial team and PPAG. And the team at the Reporter have witnessed the wrath that was poured on POL when voices were raised against the will of our local activists. Eventually this resulted in Talkporty having to break away from the Community Council.

It is a sensitive issue, the Reporter would best serve its community by publishing facts, without opinion. Why on earth is the identity of a PPAG spokesperson hidden? I say it is because that spokesperson knows they are lying and dont want to be credited with those lies much better to be anonymous; let the Reporter take responsibilty and be the source. They are surely having a hearty laugh at Brenda and her team up Park Avenue way?

Meanwhile, those that read the Portobello Reporter have been plied with lies and falsehhoods and are pretty much in the dark about the status of our new high school.

As I said previously; the Reporter has not colluded, they have just been duped. Unfortunately the net efffect is the same.

Link to the PPAG website with the above article- http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 03 Mar 2009, 20:27

admin: deleted

Surely the longest single post on this forum, mind you this is turning into the longest thread on the forum.

admin: Then perhaps use a bit of common sense when replying? Why the need to quote "the longest single post on this forum" in entirety? Quoted text deleted.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 03 Mar 2009, 20:42

BeachBum wrote:Surely the longest single post on this forum...

If it was the longest post then I have just beat your record!

Post by **wangi** » 04 Mar 2009, 00:28

admin: subsequent posts replying with quoted text in entirety have been removed... Plus a lone sane reply to them...

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 04 Mar 2009, 16:23

An interesting and informative letter relating to a new school. Built on common good land in Peebles. Gives an insight into what sort of money would be involved to rent a 10 acre site from a common good fund.

http://www.scotborders.gov.uk/pdf/19226.pdf

At the exec meeting on Dec 18th 2008 Edinburgh Council voted against an amendment to compensate its common good fund for the use of part of Portobello Park to build our new school. Had they not done so we could have been talking a mighty £6,000 per annum accounting adjustment.

It kind of puts PPAG's supposed challenge to the councils QC's opinion in perspective. There is no basis for a challenge but if by some miracle they did manage to secure a judgment that meant the council would have to pay compensation then £6k a year is what's at stake. No wonder COEC don't feel its neccessary to go to court for permission.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 04 Mar 2009, 16:36

Even at £6,000 would it not just be an accounting balancing act anyway?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 04 Mar 2009, 17:29

Yes of course although I don't know why Peebles and Borders Regional Council are seperate. And its only fair to point out the £6.000 does not include VAT.

I know PPAG don't do evidence but it is worth looking back at what Dave Connelly fantasised would happen if COEC use Portobello Park for our new school.

Dave Connelly wrote:If the council build on the present site, they will be forced to effectively buy the land at present market value, (Multi Millions), from the people of Edinburgh, paying those millions into the common good fund.

Their arguement that they own the land therefor it is the cheaper option is null and void.

Multi- Millions? Dave doesn't say whether or not that includes VAT and there has been a drop in VAT rates but £6000pa is some way short of Muti-Millions. And his idea that the council has to buy the land off the people of Edinburgh is just nonsense.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 04 Mar 2009, 18:05

The seperation will be down to how the Local Government Scotland Act transferred ownership of Common Good assets from the former burghs to Local Authorities in the 70's.

The general provision was that the assets should be administered with regards to the interests of the inhabitants of the former burgh, a smaller entity than the new Local Authority. So for instance there are Mussleburgh Common Good assets that should be administered primarily with regard to the residents of Mussleburgh, rather than East Lothian as a whole. In such circumstances there's some logic in a payment in lieu for the Local Authority using a Common Good asset that used to belong to a particular area.

But in the major cities such as Edinburgh, there's no such stipulation. It doesn't matter who the asset used to belong to and they should be administered with regard to the interests of all the residents of Edinbugh.

In such circumstances even a peppercorn rent becomes pretty pointless. It's the Council paying money to itself and it gets to decide how to spend it.

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 05 Mar 2009, 11:44

seanie wrote:The seperation will be down to how the Local Government Scotland Act transferred ownership of Common Good assets from the former burghs to Local Authorities in the 70's.

The general provision was that the assets should be administered with regards to the interests of the inhabitants of the former burgh, a smaller entity than the new Local Authority. So for instance there are Mussleburgh Common Good assets that should be administered primarily with regard to the residents of Mussleburgh, rather than East Lothian as a whole. In such circumstances there's some logic in a payment in lieu for the Local Authority using a Common Good asset that used to belong to a particular area.

But in the major cities such as Edinburgh, there's no such stipulation. It doesn't matter who the asset used to belong to and they should be administered with regard to the interests of all the residents of Edinbugh.

In such circumstances even a peppercorn rent becomes pretty pointless. It's the Council paying money to itself and it gets to decide how to spend it.

Musselburgh assets should definitely stay with the folk of the Honest Toun!

And we only became part of East Lothian after 1974 with Local Gov Re-organisation. Before that we were part of Midlothian.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Mar 2009, 11:49

Seashell is it true that back in the 50's when the criminal fraternity learned that Musselburgh was the Honest Toon - many of them relocated there figuring pickings would be easy?

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 05 Mar 2009, 11:50

Porty wrote:Seashell is it true that back in the 50's when the criminal fraternity learned that Musselburgh was the Honest Toon - many of them relocated there figuring pickings would be easy?

Sadly, I can't answer that as I'm just a young thing and wasn't alive back then!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 05 Mar 2009, 12:05

The assets are owned by East Lothian Council. They need to be administered "with regard to the interests" of the former burghs inhabitants, but Local Authorites have wide latitude in how they can interpret that.

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 05 Mar 2009, 12:44

On my home last night I noticed that many of the houses on Milton Road appeared to be sporting new "Save Porty Park" posters. Or was that just my imagination? I did wonder if there was a new "push" going on.