New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[Porty]

The Lady hasn't sung.

She has now.

[seanie]

Campaigners fighting Portobello High plans receive fresh blow

In a written decision released today (Wednesday), Judge Lady Dorrian refused the petition, stating that, regardless of whether the group had delayed unnecessarily or not, she “would nevertheless have refused the petition on the merits”, concluding that a local authority does have the power to appropriate inalienable common good land.

Responding to the decision Ros Sutherland, chair of PPAG, said: “We’re disappointed at the outcome. We obviously need to take advice and give consideration to that in relation to whether this is something we pursue or not.

“We will consult with our legal team and make a decision on the basis of that as to whether we take any further action or appeal. We need to be clear of what our options are now.

[Porty]

I believe PPAG options are:

A) Appeal within 21 days.
B) Put your house on the market.

I'm assuming the "legal team" are conveyancing solicitors?

[Porty]

I may have overlooked one other option for ppag.

Why not write to the Council to ask if they will fund a joint appeal!

[Pal of Porty]

Obviously PPAG have the right to appeal but having read through the judges full report it would appear to me (as a total layman) that their grounds for an appeal are pretty weak to say the least. Mind you that has not really put them off before!

Time to call it a day and get on and build the much needed new school.

[Pal of Porty]

.......If she [Lady Dorien] decides in favour of PPAG are any of you prepared to make a public apology to them and maybe start blaming the people who deserve the blame for this fiasco, ie the council.

No

[Maria]

Great news!

Now, let's get that new school built.

[Dadaist]

*applause*

hope this is really it!

[Bob Jefferson]

There have been too many false dawns to celebrate just yet, but surely that must be the last nail in the PPAG coffin. Good old Auntie Dorrian!

[seanie]

I was told there were 21 days to appeal so we'll just have to wait and see, but the judgement is fairly dismissive of PPAG's core argument and pretty emphatic on the issue of delay. And the time and cost of an appeal to the Inner House doesn't really bear thinking about.

[Porty]

What about the costs up until now?

Ive not studied the timelines in the judgment. Did PPAG seek further counsel after the critical date when a petition could have been made in acceptable time?

[rmolehusband]

From the Porty Greenkeepers blog...

in the meantime would like to thank everyone for their sterling support over the last six years.

At least someone over there has a sense of humour.
Wonder how much sterling support they actually spent in the end?

admin: full quote from http://news.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/#post20

COURT CASE RESULT
Posted by Park Lover Wed, March 07, 2012 22:32:40
We have learned the outcome of the legal challenge over the common good issue relating to Portobello park. Unfortunately it has not gone as we would have wished and we have lost both on mora (delay) and the main argument about whether the council can appropriate this inalienable common good land. This is disappointing news for everyone who has fought so hard to keep this park as a freely accessible open space for the whole community.

We are considering our position and in the meantime would like to thank everyone for their sterling support over the last six years.

[Porty]

Make no mistake- the blame for PPAG's petition failure on Mora rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of their decision makers. Alison Connelly, Ros Sutherland abd Diana Cairns - those who threatened legal action as far back as 2006 but did nothing about it. They raised money from people for 6 years continuing to do so after March 2010 which according to the judgment :

that was the time for the petitioners to translate their words into action

and

They did not do so.

So by the inaction of those named above and perhaps some others, all of the money donated to PPAG was totally, utterly squandered.

The statement on the PPAG website is an attempt to muddy the waters, claiming they lost on both mora and merit. It is yet another misrepresentation of the truth.

Had PPAG raised the petition in good time, the Judge is clear; she would have refused on merit. That's not the same as failing by incompetence. Those who donated money in good faith must have had a reasonable expectation that PPAG would do their best with it. In reality they spent money on a QC and legal team who, by PPAG's own inaction, were doomed to fail.

People would have to be stark raving bonkers to donate more money to fund an appeal.

[Paxetamor]

If that's the end of that, why don't go the whole hog and try and get them to make the pool 50m instead of 25m? I think that if we are to lose the park there should be something extraordinary to compensate. Given that Portobello has a long and proud history of swimmers, not to mention the problems they're having with the Commie(b%st@?ds) maybe now is the time to have something to be really proud of.

[seanie]

The design is complete and has been tendered. The opportunity to suggest changes like that passed some time ago.

[wangi]

http://portobellohighschool.org.uk/cour ... new-school

The Court of Session today, Tuesday 7 March, upheld the Council’s appropriation of part of Portobello Park for the construction of a new Portobello High School.

Education Convener, Councillor Marilyne MacLaren, said: “I am absolutely delighted and relieved with today’s judgment from Lady Dorrian. Not only does it support our position that any legal challenge should have been brought a long time ago and dismisses the petition from Portobello Park Action Group (PPAG) on that basis but it also confirms our position from December 2008 that no authority was required from the Court in order to appropriate the land.

“PPAG has continuously said that they wanted the matter to be considered in Court. They have now had their day in Court. There can be no doubt from Lady Dorrian’s judgment regarding the conclusions and we hope that PPAG accepts the Judge’s very clear decision on both of these matters.

“This decision means that we can now go ahead with our plans to build the much needed new school on Portobello Park and officers will bring a report to Council in April seeking permission to approve the contract to deliver the project. The report will also seek permission to formally appropriate the land for the new school under the 1959 Act procedures.

“The start date of our new school has already been delayed so there is an added impetus to get cracking on what will be a beautiful new Portobello High School, of which everyone can feel proud”.

The full Court Papers on today’s judgement are now available online.

[Franck]

If that's the end of that, why don't go the whole hog and try and get them to make the pool 50m instead of 25m? I think that if we are to lose the park there should be something extraordinary to compensate. Given that Portobello has a long and proud history of swimmers, not to mention the problems they're having with the Commie(b%st@?ds) maybe now is the time to have something to be really proud of.

The commie opens in a fortnight.

[seanie]

Future clear for new Portobello High School

Councillor Stephen Hawkins said:- “I must express my disappointment that we had to go so far in this process before getting a decision. The Council only advertised the appropriation in October 2011. The council is in my view guilty of some delay. They said they would get clarity on the matter in 2008, but did not do so.

Someone has certainly been guilty of delay...

[Porty]

Someone has certainly been guilty of delay...

And it wasn't the council

They went down to the courthouse and the Judge put it all to rest

[seanie]

[39] It is not enough for the petitioners to rely on a "climate of opposition". They had repeatedly threatened action. When the council finally resolved the issue of compensatory provision in they way they did in March 2010, that was the time for the petitioners to translate their words into action. They did not do so, and in my opinion the gap between March 2010 and July 2011 is indicative of taciturnity and acquiescence. A reasonable person knowing all that the petitioners knew, and observing their conduct, would have been entitled to conclude that they had, albeit reluctantly, acquiesced. Accordingly I find the plea of mora to have been established. I will uphold the first plea-in-law for the respondents and dismiss the petition.

[Pal of Porty]

PPAG still managing to operate in a bubble devoid of reality - did they bother reading what Lady Dorrian said?

Diana Cairns represents PPAG, the group which petitioned for the Judicial Review, and she said to The Reporter:-
”The many people who have fought to save this public park, which is a common good asset and represents 25% of Portobello’s parkland, will be disappointed by this decision, especially when there are suitable alternative brownfield sites where the school could be built. We are unaware of any other area of Edinburgh that has had to give up a well used and loved park in order to get a new school. Portobello Park Action Group is considering its position and will be seeking advice.”

Cloud Cuckoo land until the end!

[Porty]

Its worse than that.

Diana Cairns comments relate to potential sites for the school, which was nothing to do with the "decision".

The woman is just plain ignorant.

[Bob Jefferson]

From PPAG's point of view, this is the nightmare scenario. They are finished. Through lies and distortions they persuaded people to give them money, lots of it, and they completely wasted it. They might as well have piled it all up on Portobello Park and set fire to it. It's damage limitation time for them now. They defied the democratic will of the people, they challenged the law of the land and, in doing so, they caused a great deal of disharmony in the community, for which they are entirely responsible. And still they don't have the good grace to accept defeat.

[seanie]

It's important that, whether they're in a minority or not, people are able to challenge decisions. In this instance the challenge came unreasonably late, but the actual effect hasn't been that significant. The completion date's moved back a term which, whilst annoying, isn't the end of the world.

I'm also not convinced there has been much disharmony. I don't think the issue has been anywhere near as contentious or divisive as it's sometimes made out to be. It may've generated strong feelings amongst the small number of people actively engaged on either side but that's no more than a couple of dozen people.

[Pal of Porty]

I don't ascribe to the split in the community theory - any 'bad blood' that may have been generated is largely between a very few activists on either side. The ongoing debate has certainly shown a few people up to be a bit of a tosser but hey there are none of us perfect and it all adds to the fabric of living in a genuine community.

In the grand scheme of things a one term delay is not significant and PPAG will eventually be nothing more than a footnote in history. Without the delayed PPAG challenge however, there was a real chance that the new school could have been ready for occupation at the start of the academic year instead of after Xmas and now all the 4th, 5th and 6th year exam students will be disrupted around exam time because of a legal challenge that floundered on every front.

As a footnote, Epykat was telling me they are naming the west wing of the new school the PFANS Wing - is this true?

[seanie]

Maybe we could have a PPAG Creative Writing Department?

[Epykat]

As a footnote, Epykat was telling me they are naming the west wing of the new school the PFANS Wing - is this true?

I heard it was PFANNIES - is that not right?

[seanie]

Charming as ever.

[Porty]

Six years of campaigning, six years of fundraising by PPAG footsoldiers.Six years of wooing simpletons .Six years of conning real green space lovers and to what end? The PPAG leadership pissed it all up the wall by being over a years Late with the petition .

Arsonists of their own cause.

You couldnt make it up.

[rathbone]

The PPAG leadership pissed it all up the wall...... Arsonists of their own cause.

Is that a case of "I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire"?

[Porty]

Not at all, not from me, don't think I've ever encountered anyone who I would categorise in that way.

It is a case of the leadership shitting all over the people who supported the PPAG cause,in good faith.

May we take this opportunity to thank everyone for their magnificent support for the campaign to keep the Park green over the last six years, Without your support, financial or otherwise, we would not have been able to take this case to court.

Leaving aside the platitude towards PPAG supporters, what did they actually get for their "magnificent support"?

Merits
[40] Strictly speaking, it is not necessary for me to deal with this (permission to appropriate inalienable common good land), given the view I have reached as to the preliminary plea.

So for all that effort, faith and cash bestowed on the PPAG leadership they delivered a scenario where the Judge didn't have to consider the root cause the group were fighting for. The support got bugger all in return, not even a chance to lose fairly on merit.

Sure, the PPAG support must have given their time nd money in full knowledge they may lose on the merits of their argument. Would they have leant their support knowing that PPAG leaders, through deliberate inaction, would destroy any hope of success- I very much doubt it.

Had PPAG's argument been meritable enough to win, they still would have lost due to failure of the leadership to deliver a challenge in good time. Sheer stupidity or just ignorance of the law?- doesn't matter much.

Bob suggests PPAG "challenged the law". That's not the case. PPAG fell foul of the law and threw away all the faith their supporters placed in them.

One might say the PPAG are led by a bunch of Morafu**ers

[Pal of Porty]

It is possible that PPAG in the early stage of the process had no intention whatsoever of going to court and were merely trying to raise the possibility as a threat to assist them in achieving their aims. You know the sort of thing.. My dad is bigger than your dad etc.....

How ironic this counted against them in court on the issue of delay (Mora).

[Porty]

How ironic this counted against them in court on the issue of delay (Mora).

Counted them out.

[Pal of Porty]

I heard it was PFANNIES - is that not right?

Touche

[Porty]

Stage one will take place on 5 and 6 January 2012 at the Court of Session, Parliament Square.

On day one the Council will argue that we have come too late with our petition, even though it was lodged well before October, when the Council started the process of appropriating the park. On day two we will argue that the Council has to seek permission before being allowed to build on this open space.

There ye go,in January 12 PPAG were still telling their supporters they had it got right with the timing of the petition.

Magnificent Support ?

I'm not sure there was , but over some six years, they did have; coffee mornings, dozens of meetings, bundles of letters in the Evening News, high street stalls, press interviews, 3000 names on a petition, more than 100 objections to the planning application, hundreds of EN comments,facebook pages, posts on POL, removed posts on POL,party in the park, photo opportunities, St John's parent council manipulation, posters, leaflets, calendars, fun runs, supporters from Brazil to Austrailia, befriending other parks,hooking up with "Planning Demorcracy", seducing the Porty Reporter, rep on the Conmunity Council and there may be more activities that I am unaware of.

Say what you like, it amounts to quite a lot of time, effort and money. Must take my hat off to the PPAG support.

So what happened when they finally got their days in court....................................?

PPAG pitch up; mob handed, with a top QC- 15 months after Kick Off and get disqualified.