New Portobello High School - planning application

[Porty]

Have you seen the EN today? The chair of PCC is making it pretty clear what he thinks "The fact that Portobello Park is also common good land makes this decision even more regrettable."

I wondered the same as you. If his speech echoes the PCC written submission I expect him to shout out the negatives and whisper the positives.

[Bob Jefferson]

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinb ... 6720394.jp

New school passes key test
By GEMMA FRASER, Education Reporter
THE first images of the proposed new Portobello High School were released today, as it emerged the controversial plans have been recommended for the go-ahead.
The project has created a divide amongst Portobello residents for years, with campaigns to stop the new school being built on Portobello Park running alongside those to replace the crumbling 1960s building in Duddingston Road.

The council's planning department has received a total of 685 representations from people with an interest in the development, with support for the application narrowly overtaking the number of objections at 381 submissions.

While the supporters welcome the improved facilities, the objections include the loss of open space, traffic congestion, the issue of the park being common good land and the "poor design" of the new school.

The £41.5 million high school is due to open in January 2014, if the planning application goes through as recommended by officials.

It is set to become Edinburgh's first "golf academy" and will feature two all-weather pitches and a 25-metre swimming pool for use by pupils and the local community.

In his report recommending councillors approve the plans, John Bury, head of planning, said the benefits of a new school outweighed the loss of open space in the park.

...

[wangi]

Have you seen the EN today? The chair of PCC is making it pretty clear what he thinks "The fact that Portobello Park is also common good land makes this decision even more regrettable."

Erm, to be fair that's with him "wearing the hat" as Chair of Portobello Amenity Society; not in any capacity as Chair of PCC.

It's perfectly reasonable for two bodies to have the same Chair and come to different stances, reflecting the views of the relevant members / community.

They just need to remember which hat is which!

[Maria]

All of the support, object and general comments are now up on the planning portal

Not that I read them all, but I happened to notice that a comment from one Susan McVie is listed as an objection when it reads to me like a supporting comment.

(http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... =526559487 - long email somewhere in the middle [admin: on page 19])

How accurate is the 381 to 300 figure supposed to be, and doesn't 382 to 299 sound better?

Anyway, a good result, and great work on the petition Seanie.

See the Council portal has now been updated to show Professor McVie's letter as a comment of support. Well spotted, rmolehusband.

[Porty]

Have you seen the EN today? The chair of PCC is making it pretty clear what he thinks "The fact that Portobello Park is also common good land makes this decision even more regrettable."

Erm, to be fair that's with him "wearing the hat" as Chair of Portobello Amenity Society; not in any capacity as Chair of PCC.

It's perfectly reasonable for two bodies to have the same Chair and come to different stances, reflecting the views of the relevant members / community.

They just need to remember which hat is which!

I totally agree butthe Chairperson himself told us what his position is. You may recall that the Porty Reporter recently asked him to pen a piece on the role and activities of the Portobello Amenity Society. And he informed us:

“PAS is represented on Portobello Community Council and monitors new planning applications and responds on its behalf”

PHS is a new planning application and he claims PAS have a mandate for PCC to respond to such applications on its behalf. He clearly believes, is prepared to publically state that there is in fact just one head and one hat. In the EN he is quoted on behalf of PAS he, and he alone, also tells ut that PAS respond on behalf of PCC. I therefore think its reasonable to surmise that he believes he is speaking for both groups. Why else would he inform the Portobello community that PAS were tasked to represent them in response to new planning applications?

[Porty]

Reading through the objections it seems to me (and I am no expert) that people misunderstand the premise on which the transfer of ownership of Portobello Park to Edinburgh City Council was made. I continually see reference along the lines "the land was gifted to the people of edinburgh to be used in perpetuity as a Public Park". I' have read the sales contract several times and i interepret what happened as;

The land was sold to the council for the sum of £25,000, there was no gift. The land was owned by Miller's who were property developers who owned other substantial tracts of land in the area, which they no doubt wished to develop. It is common for developers to trade off assets to councils in order to facilitate their commercial ambitions or even just to show goodwill. The modern day equivalent could be the requirement for developers, hoteliers and retailers to make contributions to the Trams as a condition of obtaing planning permission.

In this case Milers either offered or were approached to purvey the land to the council. Had the council wanted the land for development (for housing or whatever) then the price would likely have been much higher or Millers would not have sold. The land was transferred on the understanding that it would not be developed. So a contractual burden was put in place to protect Miller's interest NOT that of "the people of Edinburgh". There is no chance the council or indeed anyone would voluntarily burden land that they were about to purchase.

In contrast Millers would not have wished to dispose of land at a knockdown price only to create the opportunity for a competitor to enter the market. Without "burdening" the land there would be nothing to prevent the council from becoming housing developers or indeed selling onto a commercial third party. So Miller's restricted potential uses of the land by introducing a burden or feu as part of the sale contract. A burden that dictated the land should be used for recreation purposes. The council bought the land with the good and honest intention of using it for recreational purposes and Miller's made sure with the contract. A purely commercial decision.

The feu or burden on the land was then sold to the Liverpool Victoria Insurance company.Insurance companies regularaly invested in feu's in the hope that at some point the new owners would seek permssion to develop and that permssion would come at a cost. it proved to be a poor investment for LV as no approach was made in more than 100 years.

In 2004 the feudal reform act came into force and the burdens on Portobello Park lapsed. The council now owned unburdened land, which they sought to use to provide a critical and valauble public asset. So the idea that the park changed hands in some philantropic gesture of perpectual sanctitude is total bunkum. Millers wanted to ensure the council didn't pull a fast one on them, that's all

[seanie]

So the Council were playing the long game and have been planning this since 1898?

Devious swines.

[Bob Jefferson]

I think a PCATS-type situation could occur with the funds that PPAG has raised and it presents an interesting dilemma. Either they use the money to finance a legal case they have no hope of winning, or what? Will the account be made public? PPAG complain that they are branded as child haters. Perhaps they should donate the money to a local children's charity? Or if they want to prove their green credentials, they could give it to Friends of the Earth. Any other suggestions?

[wangi]

“PAS is represented on Portobello Community Council and monitors new planning applications and responds on its behalf”

PHS is a new planning application and he claims PAS have a mandate for PCC to respond to such applications on its behalf. He clearly believes, is prepared to publically state that there is in fact just one head and one hat. In the EN he is quoted on behalf of PAS he, and he alone, also tells ut that PAS respond on behalf of PCC. I therefore think its reasonable to surmise that he believes he is speaking for both groups. Why else would he inform the Portobello community that PAS were tasked to represent them in response to new planning applications?

However the simple fact is that PAS have not responded on behalf of PCC for this application. PAS have made their own representation; and PCC is a statutory consultee and as such submitted their own (Frankenstein) response.

Of course this PAS / PCC arrangement isn't perfect and in the general scheme of things if PCC (as a body) cannot form an opinion on an application then it would fairer to make no representation rather than "delegate" to PAS. But that is neither here nor there on this application - PCC made their own response.

Of course it'll be tricky keeping the right hat on during the meeting...

L/

[wangi]

How accurate is the 381 to 300 figure supposed to be, and doesn't 382 to 299 sound better?

Anyway, a good result, and great work on the petition Seanie.

I've been churning over the representations so I can produce a map... Anyway while the petition is great it appears to count as a single representation. So that 381 figure does not include the 162 who signed the petition (no doubt some of them also submitted in their own right). On the objection side a single letter signed with 6 names/addresses has the same treatment.

Worth noting that a submission identified with various family members counts as one; but if they send off individual letters then it's 1 representation for each.

Will share the complete stats & map later on...

(intriguing that the support comments tend to be via the portal form; objections as written letters!)

[Maria]

I've been churning over the representations so I can produce a map... Anyway while the petition is great it appears to count as a single representation. So that 381 figure does not include the 162 who signed the petition (no doubt some of them also submitted in their own right).
(intriguing that the support comments tend to be via the portal form; objections as written letters!)

Astonishing that the petition only counts as a single representation of support, but it seems as though you are correct Wangi. What a great shame that so many voices of support have gone unrecorded.

I'll be interested to see the distribution map, particularly of the objections. I'd place money on the result showing that over 50% of objections came from the streets immediately around the park.

[Bob Jefferson]

Seanie is currently working on a very similar project. Maybe you guys should get together to save duplicating work?

[wangi]

Seanie is currently working on a very similar project. Maybe you guys should get together to save duplicating work?

Too late now I've just got to associate around 100 objections and i'll be ready to map it off

[seanie]

Still needs some tweaking but I've got a supporters map here;

http://www.batchgeo.com/map/5788c5a179b ... 3e69cb4b3e

[seanie]

Combined map, although there's still a few bugs;

http://www.batchgeo.com/map/6a4f87c934d ... 25ce2c3adc

[Bob Jefferson]

It's a picture worth a thousand words. No further analysis required. What we have is a graphic representation of pure nimbyism. Outwith Park Avenue and one or two surrounding streets there is overwhelming support for the application among the Portobello community. Point proven. Game over.

[seanie]

I hesitate to say this, but I'm not sure it does demonstrate overwhelming support, although I do think it effectively demolishes any suggestion that PPAG speak for the majority.

The reality is that even quite minor Planning Applications can generate a lot of objections since they can affect people close by. Supporting comments are less common but sometimes, where people feel strongly, you can get a substantial turn out; in this instance more than the opposition.

But I have yet to see anyone write into a Planning Consultation to say;

"Not bothered either way."

I suspect the overwhelming majority neither strongly support, nor strongly oppose the proposal. The overwhelming majority might not be too bothered either way.

[seanie]

(intriguing that the support comments tend to be via the portal form; objections as written letters!)

There are a lot of identical or very similar letters of objection, and lots of bullet points and phrases repeated almost word for word. There are also quite a few representations forwarded 'on behalf of' the named individual. The supporting representations seem to be more varied and genuinely personal. The one that mentions 'The Towering Inferno' is admirably succinct.

[wangi]

Better late than never; another view of something pretty similar:


(view: small; large; source data)

The dots are scaled by the number of representations at that postcode; with a bit movement to avoid overlaid points.

I started off with a list of address of the the representations received, but which didn't have the type of representation (see source PDF) and then worked through the representation on the Planning Portal to fill in the type of representation (see the final spreadsheet [especially the first worksheet]). That gave me 287 objections, 381 support, 4 comments and 3 question marks.

It does show the clumping of the objections...

[seanie]

I think yours is betters overall, although the green could be a little bit stronger.

I hate you by the way.

[Makaveli]

Quality work folks - tells it's own story!!!

[wangi]

I think yours is betters overall, although the green could be a little bit stronger.

You're right, it needs more "punch" from the background map.


(view: small; large; source data)

I hate you by the way.

I feel the pain!

[Makaveli]

Notice a load of 'Save the Portobello Park' posters have gone up round the park - must have gone up at the weekend as I am sure they weren't there when I did the nursery run last week.

[rmolehusband]

Great work, both of you. Really interesting to see the source of the responses like that.

I'm slightly confused by Duddingston Road's relatively high number of objections. You'd have thought they've had been happy to see the school moved away, even if they do end up with flats instead.

[Maria]

Great work, both of you. Really interesting to see the source of the responses like that.
I'm slightly confused by Duddingston Road's relatively high number of objections. You'd have thought they've had been happy to see the school moved away, even if they do end up with flats instead.

I wondered about that too rmolehusband, but imho schools generally make quite good neighbours. Maybe they are keen to keep the school!

[Porty]

I wondered about that too rmolehusband, but imho schools generally make quite good neighbours. Maybe they are keen to keep the school!

I would not be surprised if that is the case. I know several residents who live in very close proximity and consider the school as being good neighbours. I used to immediate neighbours of the annexe (500 1st years) and it was little or no problem. Indeed it was uplifting to hear "the fun" being had at break times.

[seanie]

View of the school from Hope Lane

[Porty]

.
Of course it'll be tricky keeping the right hat on during the meeting...

L/

No kidding, particularly if one witnessed the Chairperson's speech "on behalf of Portobello community Council" at the public meeting in August at the Town Hall. After about a minute I found my self scanning the lips of the leading lights in PPAG for any signs of ventriloquism.

[Porty]

View of the school from Hope Lane

That looks fine and dandy, especially without that 9 floor monstrosity in the background.

Judging by the planning responses, which has got to be the best barometer it seems most people are not to troubled about the change in the park. That just leaves one pitfall and i'm surprised its taken this long to come up. Itt is not the Park but the irretrievable loss of the symbolic gathering place for many low spiriited and disaffected portobello people. From where will they seek inspiration; post-school construction?

[seanie]

Did the link work for you? I'm having difficulties; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

[Makaveli]

Tried the link a few times and it works fine for me.

[seanie]

Cheers. Embedding the actual picture was beyond my technical capabilities.

[wangi]

Did the link work for you? I'm having difficulties; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

¿Just use the forum attachment functionality?

[Maria]

Copy the photo/jpg to your desktop then use 'Upload attachment' from the bottom of the reply box.

[seanie]

And look...you can still see Arthur's Seat...