New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[wangi]

Results so far on a mini-poll on Talk Porty's Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/questions/323610731035842/

• "Do you support a new Portobello High School on Portobello Park? The planning permission has been granted; PPAG's judicial review was refused on delay & merit. But PPAG are appealing that decision - risking many years of delay plus funding to other schools in Edinburgh"
  
  175 votes
  
  Get the school built on Portobello Park now; PPAG should drop the appeal: 161
  Let PPAG have their appeal: 14

L/

[Bob Jefferson]

Kids getting restless over the Easter holidays? This one is for them, though big kids can join in! Colour in and post somewhere where it will be seen in Portobello.

drop_kids.pdf

(18.65 KiB) Downloaded 257 times

[Pal of Porty]

You're neither.......

Epy - Although you do remind me of Sybil!

[seashell]

Oh my word! Why am I not surprised?

Because they have a reputation for misrepresenting the truth? All that guff about speaking for the significant majority, yet when that majority actually speaks, Porty Park Watch doesn't want to hear the truth - which is pretty much the reverse of what they claim.
I'm sure seanie took the screen shot because he is used to the lies and underhand methods used by this unscrupulous group who simply like to pretend there is no real opposition to their PofV.

[Porty]

It really does go to show and prove what a sneaky campaign PPAG are having. They will not let the other side of the argument be heard on their FB page. Anything they don't like is removed.

Says alot about them as people to me.

Yep, you have the likes of Betty and the various other PPAG contributors banging on about democracy. Meanwhile, they cleanse any negativity from their public facebook page.

And then they get all uppity about hypocrisy. Its like when they go to sleep they get total memory wipe and think everyone else does too.

[joeshmoe]

If I see one more comment that claims that the other schools were not represented last Friday!! Betty W - I don't know who you are, but I don't appreciate your comments.
We were there, from Parsons Green, St Johns, Duddingston, and Brunstane, and probably Royal High too although I didn't speak to anyone from that school. This was a demonstration organised at the last minute, and the turn out was wonderful. Our children came willingly, and we didn't stoop low in bringing them.
And the idea that 1400 children could be housed in "a few 'portacabins" while the school was built on the same site is ridiculous. They'd be bussed out to schools all over the city, at a huge cost and a massive disruption to Portobello kids and those in the other schools.
Please post sensible and truthful comments, and don't represent those of us who don't want you to!!

What an excellent post, reflects the majority view i suspect

I've said all along that i respected PPAG's opposition to the site of the school, however it went through the proper process, planning appeals, objections etc.They even then had their day in court. However to still be fighting against it now on the premise of 'green space' we all know just isn't their honestly held belief. The proposed site is not used by anyone bar a handful of dog walkers

Its now just obviously become a bunch of stubborn NIMBY's whilst all the children are made to suffer a poorer education

And everyone, including the council, is rightly furious about it

[Lashylass]

There is a lot of misinformation and various figures being given for what is to be lost should the Park be built on. Let us get one thing straight from the start - the Council has always differentiated between the Park and the golf course, which is also common good land and if you don't believe it then look back at the educational consultation documents from 2006. So let us concern ourselves with... the Park, besides, as has been said, have you tried playing football on the golf course?

Here are the correct figures as presented in Court and during the planning process:
100% of the Park is to be appropriated for the school - see the Council's plan accompanying the appropriation notice;
the Park represents 25% of parkland in Portobello - the Council's own open space audit;
Only 8% of the land taken will possibly be freely accessible - plan relied on by the Council in evidence;
Over 100 car parking spaces will be provided on a tarmac area - planning application;
This means that 92% of the Park will be developed, so the assertion that only "part" of the Park will be built on is just a myth.

Whether you support the retention of the Park or wish it to be developed, thereby also risking the loss of the golf course, the Council's own figures should be accepted.

[seanie]

Comments at the Evening News have taken a bizarre turn.

[seanie]

100% of the park is not being appropriated. The whole park, golf course and pitches, is held on a single title. The golf course and the remaining space are sometimes classified separately for administrative purposes, but legally it's a single bit of land. The school will only take up a small portion of that land.

[Pal of Porty]

I got deleted off the Porty Greenkeepers Facebook page for asking clarification of Ms Coventry as to why she made such a play of many family members attending Towerbank but made absolutely no mention of any high school. People can send their kids to any school they wish and it is neither any of my business nor of any interest to me. I did however want to challenge her inference that even as a potential PHS parent she is against the school in the park when the reality is that none of her childern to date have attended PHS.

Rather ironic but in no way surprising that on one site PPAG are talking about Aristotle and tolerance of conflicting opinions and on another they are practicing censorship.

[Pal of Porty]

...Whether you support the retention of the Park or wish it to be developed, thereby also risking the loss of the golf course.........

What is the logic behind the golf course being at risk?

[Chas]

All I'm saying is that in my experience the opinion outside of the parent population is that they would rather keep the park and have the school built somewhere else.

So, you are representing the views of a group of people who have no need of a school, new or old? And they are the 'significant majority' we keep hearing about are they? I think that the last Census figures would suggest differently.

[Porty]

the Park represents 25% of parkland in Portobello - the Council's own open space audit;
.

You got a link to that or cut and paste the relevant section?

[tufty]

See CEC Portobello High School Report page 4
Total site is 19 hectares, 13.3 golf, 5.7 park.
The school will be 9,550 square metres footprint, granted there will be parking and pavements, but there is also pitches and landscaped areas. the actual brick build will only be 0.95 hectares, 5% of the total green space, or16.6% of the park area. This will look very small in the green space.

I would need to see proof of this 25% claim I keep reading. If the total park was built on it would still only be 30% of the park and golf course green space. (5.7 divided by 19 times 100 in case you can't do percentages).

What about Abercorn Park, Rosefield Park,Bingham Park, Figgate Park, Brighton Park, the park at Morton street, were these included or do you change the bounderies to suit?

Any way the fact that this is the best solution in this case is constantly ignored by PPAG, I fear they will continue blindly, ignoring the rights of the many, while shouting about their own personal goals. Life is about give and take, compromise and understanding.

[tufty]

from report- Just noticed that 8.8 % of park is to be left as public amenity or parkland. It clearly says that there will be no building on the golf course, apart from a new boundary path, this is on page 5 of the report on web. There is also a paragraph about new planting of hedges and trees.

[Porty]

Delaying tactic

Published on Wednesday 4 April 2012 00:00

Matthew Egan (Letters, 3 April) fails to understand the abuse of the court system by the small band of anti-school campaigners, disguised as environmentalists, in Portobello.

Everyone supported their right to have their day in court. The council agreed not to pursue them for the costs to the taxpayer.

Despite losing the case and the judge giving a damning verdict on their arguments, they have decided to appeal, not because they have any chance of winning.

It’s simply to cause a delay which means that the tender for the new Portobello High School expires.

The council will then have to wait several years before it can re-tender and there is every chance that there will be no money to pay for a new school.

This gang is threatening the rights of thousands of young people to have an education in a building that is fit for purpose. Why should the taxpayer fund these Nimbys?

Jackie Brock

on behalf of Edinburgh City Council tax payers: Dr Richard Butt, Gillian Russell, Maggie Tierney, Andrew Fleming, Andy Johnstone, Dr Louise Kelly, Andy Pitts, Sean Watters, Sue Davidson, Giselle Dye, Giles Greenslade, Sybil Bacica, Tim Warren, Christine Hoy, Sally Thompson, Maria Devoy, Sarah Morton, Geoff Earle, Paul Smart, Robin Baillie and several others

From http://www.scotsman.com/news/delaying-tactic-1-2213402

[seanie]

from report- Just noticed that 8.8 % of park is to be left as public amenity or parkland. It clearly says that there will be no building on the golf course, apart from a new boundary path, this is on page 5 of the report on web. There is also a paragraph about new planting of hedges and trees.

Also bear in mind that the all-weather pitches are to be freely accessible. They could be considered an upgrade to the existing pitches and classed as public open space.

[seanie]

Opinion : New Portobello High School may take years

In less than a week over a thousand people have signed a petition urging the legal appeal to be dropped. The Portobello Park Action Group continues to claim they represent the significant majority of the community, despite a clear majority supporting the planning application for the school. They claim that housing will be built on the golf course when no such proposals exist or would even be possible given the Common Good nature of the land. They also claim that the recent court ruling will lead to Common Good land being sold off, even though the case has nothing at all to do with selling Common Good land; such misrepresentations only inflame local opinion further.

Enough is enough; the Portobello Park Action Group had their day in court and they lost. To drag this out further, only to cause more distress, disruption and cost, serves nobody. We can only hope that the Portobello Park Action Group stop to consider the damage they are doing and stop their legal action.

[Franck]

from report- Just noticed that 8.8 % of park is to be left as public amenity or parkland. It clearly says that there will be no building on the golf course, apart from a new boundary path, this is on page 5 of the report on web. There is also a paragraph about new planting of hedges and trees.

Also bear in mind that the all-weather pitches are to be freely accessible. They could be considered an upgrade to the existing pitches and classed as public open space.

Is it not the case that the pitches will be freely accessible when not being used by lets?I think that is the case.If so, it's best to be clear about it and leave the half-truths and lies to the other lot.

[Porty]

The arrangement with the new pitches will be exactly as it is at the moment; freely accessible when unlet. Logic dictates there will be more lets, one would think there will be less freely accessible time. In any case, when pitches are let, they are being used by the community.

[Lashylass]

Yes, this is from the CEC Parks and Gardens strategy:


Portobello Park - 6.072 ha
Abercorn Park - 0.809 ha
Brighton Park - 0.864 ha
Figgate Park - 12.614 ha
Joppa Quarry Park - 2.337 ha
Rosefield Park - 1.353 ha


Total - 24.049 ha.
Portobello Park = 25.25% of the total.

[seanie]

We've been through this before.

PPAG want a suitably shocking figure for the loss of local parkland, but not too shocking.

Tell people it's 25% and the reaction might be; "Oh, that's awful".

Tell people it's 50% and the reaction might be; "Oh, that doesn't sound right".

Now if you look at local parks within reasonable proximity to the site then yes, you're looking at something over 50Ha, with the school taking up less than 10% of that. So how to get that percentage up?

They’re obviously going to discount the Jewel and Bingham. Even though they’re relatively close to the site, and so clearly relevant in terms of the impact on amenity, they’re in the Craigmillar ward. So the Portobello Park Action Group couldn’t give two stuffs about them. That’s why they suggested them as suitable alternative sites for the school back in 2006.

They probably would’ve liked to have excluded Figgate Park on the basis that it’s not in Portobello either; it’s in the Duddingston ward. However, most people would regard Figgate as a local park, a pretty outstanding one at that, and if the percentage they come up with is too high people might start querying what’s been excluded. Also PPAG did get a lot of strife for suggesting it as a suitable location for St John’s; on “the flat, featureless bit of ground” that now contains the wildflower meadow. So reluctantly they’ve included it to avoid awkward questions.

But they’ve then excluded the 14.4Ha of Portobello Park that has the golf course on it; it’s not ‘precious parkland’ to the Portobello Park Action Group because of the pesky golfers.

That leaves;

Rosefield Park - 1.34Ha
Brighton Park - 0.86Ha
Abercorn Park - 0.79Ha
Portobello Community Garden - 0.13Ha
Straiton Park - 0.35Ha
Joppa Quarry Park - 2.42Ha
Figgate Park - 10.97Ha
Portobello pitches – 5.60Ha

That’s 22.46Ha, of which the 5.6Ha of the Portobello Park pitches are 24.9%.

[Franck]

The arrangement with the new pitches will be exactly as it is at the moment; freely accessible when unlet. Logic dictates there will be more lets, one would think there will be less freely accessible time. In any case, when pitches are let, they are being used by the community.

It's a wee bit misleading to say 'freely accessible' and leave it at that,though.I think PFANS have been terrific from the outset, let's not give any of the oppo any ammunition by leaving out minor (but relevant) details.

And using either Leith Academy or Holyrood as examples, those pitches will be booked solid by social footballers,boys clubs and amateur teams.There will be very little times when they are freely accessible, a point PFANS should acknowledge.

[seanie]

The point is that the pitches are open to the public and can be used without charge when not let, which is no different from the grass pitches at present. How does that not qualify as freely accessible?

[tufty]

Lashylass, I like what you've done there.

No Bingham Park even though it is only 750 metres away from Portobello Park.

[wangi]

I would just add that for any figures to be truthful they really must consider open space in the complete catchment area. It might be called Portobello High School, but the catchment is extensive:

And then compare that against the 2009 Open Space Audit.

[Pal of Porty]

We've been through this before.

Many times and it has clearly not sunk in. Lady Dorian picked it up quite quickly though.

[Franck]

The point is that the pitches are open to the public and can be used without charge when not let, which is no different from the grass pitches at present. How does that not qualify as freely accessible?

My point is, saying the above and saying 'freely accessible' are two different scenarios, which PFANS should be making clear, if only to remove ammunition from people like Betty Windsor.When nights get shorter and kids want to play football on the current park(I know, but stretch your imagination), it's easy as no-one uses them.Once the astro pitches are there, they'll be let pretty much constantly, removing that facility.

A minor detail, but one that's important to me as I used to be that kid playing football on that park.

[tufty]

Taking Bingham and the 8.8% being left the percentage comes to just under 19% of Park land, not green spaces, open spaces or sea front.
if I could be bothered I'm sure adding other open spaces would bring the percentage right down, but this is just a smoke screen to the real issue, why are the children of Portobello being left without a school fit for purpose. My kids are glad to be home today as the 8th floor would be hell in this weather.

[seanie]

So the present pitches are so crap and underused that there's plenty of opportunity for casual use, even though nobody does, whereas the all-weather pitches will be so popular and well used that there won't be plenty of opportunity for casual use? OK, I can see that, but it would be a pretty peverse argument for PPAG to advance.

Makes you wonder why they haven't.

[Franck]

So the present pitches are so crap and underused that there's plenty of opportunity for casual use, even though nobody does, whereas the all-weather pitches will be so popular and well used that there won't be plenty of opportunity for casual use? OK, I can see that, but it would be a pretty peverse argument for PPAG to advance.

Makes you wonder why they haven't.

My only point is that PFANS are using a half-truth by saying they'll be freely accessible, an accusation levelled at PPAG quite alot.

[Epykat]

Interesting article in the Scotsman the other day:

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sc ... -1-2210277

[seanie]

My only point is that PFANS are using a half-truth by saying they'll be freely accessible, an accusation levelled at PPAG quite alot.

The pitches will be freely accessible to the public outside of lets. That's what's proposed.

[Betty Windsor]

My only point is that PFANS are using a half-truth by saying they'll be freely accessible, an accusation levelled at PPAG quite alot.

The pitches will be freely accessible to the public outside of lets. That's what's proposed.

The attached from PPAG makes for interesting reading. I've highlighted what I think are the most pertinent areas.

2.13.2 At the Portobello Community Council meeting on 31 August, the school design team explained that people would be able to access the sports pitches on a casual basis via a "catflap" system. However, it was made clear that this system could be terminated at any time if it was subject to abuse, so the Park will change from a flexible, casually usable recreation space open 24 hours a day to all to an area which could end up not being accessible at all on a casual basis. Interestingly on a visit to Castlebrae High School on Saturday 13 November, which is supposed to operate a similar system, we found a padlocked gate.
*

Locked gates at Castlebrae

2.13.3 There is concern that because of janitorial costs in opening the facilities outside school hours, and the looming prospect of service cuts, the cost to the public will be prohibitive. Indeed, price rises for the use of school facilities are already having a serious impact on sport clubs and]it may ultimately be decided that the pitches cannot be used free of charge.


2.13.4 The basketball fraternity is dissatisfied with the new proposals, as the new facilities will be inferior to the current ones, which have produced potential future Olympians. The state of the art gym hall on the current site will end up being demolished. It is clear that, apart from one additional all-weather pitch, the new school will end up being worse in terms of sporting facilities than the current one,

[Betty Windsor]

Save Porty Park's finally got round to a savage Stalinist purging of their Facebook site, leaving only one simple fool who's confused about the ratio of supporting/objecting comments to the planning application.

That was just hilarious! And without a hint of irony.
Priceless Seanie, just priceless. Do you think people aren't aware that you barred me from your FB page "by mistake".
It makes you look ridiculous whining about other people doing it.