Poor soul, she really doesn't understand what is being put forward, does she?PPAG spokeswoman Alison Connelly said: “The act has already been considered by the three judges in the Court of Session ruling, and they confirm that the act does not give the council the power to appropriate inalienable common good land.”
And Plan D?portygeoff wrote:Cut to the chase Kesia. Private members bill, 6 -9 mths if big Kenny shows his metal and gets the G'ment on board. 2 years to build, new school in under 3 years. Can't see anything quicker. Closest would be be a rebuild on site, plans needed, new place for St John needed, minimum 6 - 8 years if you are lucky.
Plan A on the park via Parliamentary Bill,
Plan B common good disputed in court,
Plan C sell part of park to trust.
That may well be the case, but I believe that there are many parents who accept the court's decision and want officials to put their energies into finding solutions that work for everyone in the community. Of course nobody is too keen to say this out loud as it is viewed as "weak" by some of the more hardline elements of PFANS.seanie wrote:There's no obvious good one.
Don't need a plan D because of plan C.Betty Windsor wrote:And Plan D?
Just in case?
You are clearly not in a hurry.portygeoff wrote:Don't need a plan D because of plan C.
I think I have suggested the 3 quickest ways to a build; of course Betty you may know something different, but I doubt it.Betty Windsor wrote:You are clearly not in a hurry.portygeoff wrote:Don't need a plan D because of plan C.
It is the obvious one for me.Porty wrote:Plan A will suffice.
Betty Windsor wrote: I have attended the last two parent council meetings and at no time was there any mention of their involvement in this propaganda exercise.................. Indeed when someone did ask about them at the last meeting nobody seemed to know, either what was going in them or who they were aimed at.
I know, disgraceful isn't it?Porty wrote:
What are the lies.Betty Windsor wrote:I wouldn't mind so much if it weren't so full of lies and inaccuracies.
Just look for the truths, the answers are all there.portygeoff wrote:What are the lies.Betty Windsor wrote:I wouldn't mind so much if it weren't so full of lies and inaccuracies.
Well, if you were at the meeting then you will have been aware that there was a very strong view that there should not be a decant. There was also a discussion about the way forward and that this was followed by a vote which in the vast majority supported the Parents Council pursuing the original proposal to build on the park. (Out of about 30 only 3 were against). Where you out getting a wee cuppa when this happened Betty?Betty Windsor wrote:I have just read the small print on the recent PFANS leaflet and was very surprised to read that these were issued on behalf of the PHS parent council. I have attended the last two parent council meetings and at no time was there any mention of their involvement in this propaganda exercise. Indeed when someone did ask about them at the last meeting nobody seemed to know, either what was going in them or who they were aimed at.
Is this another example of democracy a la PFANS?
As Seanie would say "not in my name!"
No Geoff you are mistaken, I was not having a cuppa when this happened. What was being voted on was a "twin track" approach whereby a legal solution and looking at alternatives was to be the view of the parent council. I disagreed with this along with one other person. There was no mention at this time of the leaflet. The vote was actually 18 to 2 for the "twin track" approach. I would like to point out that that is only a very tiny percentage of the total number of high school parents (possibly as little as 2%). There has been no consultation with the high school parents on this issue (something I know you are very keen on) so it could be argued that this view may not be representative at all.portygeoff wrote: Well, if you were at the meeting then you will have been aware that there was a very strong view that there should not be a decant. There was also a discussion about the way forward and that this was followed by a vote which in the vast majority supported the Parents Council pursuing the original proposal to build on the park. (Out of about 30 only 3 were against). Where you out getting a wee cuppa when this happened Betty?
Seems to me that the leaflet is a follow on from that decision.
‘We’ll Build a New Park and Two New Schools’ – Councillor Paul Godzik, City Education Leader reaffirms commitment to delivering essential schools
A report due to be discussed at Full Council next week confirms that the City of Edinburgh Council remains totally committed to replacing the existing Portobello High School as soon as possible and that the preferred option remains to build it on part of Portobello Park.
The recent appeal outcome has shown that there is a significant gap in existing legislation which is preventing the Council from building on the park (see notes to editors). The Council has already written to Scottish Government Ministers in order to seek their support for a change in the legislation.
In order to gain as much support from the community as possible, changes are also being recommended to address what is believed to be the main concerns of some of the local community relating to the loss of open space in the area.
Councillor Paul Godzik, Education, Children and Families Convener said, “We are committed to delivering these schools and we still believe that the park is the right place to build the new High School. We have weighed up the different options for achieving this and consider that a Private Act has the best prospect of success. We will now pursue this and consult widely with the local community on our proposals.
”Further to this, I am pleased to announce that we plan to build a new park to help address concerns by some of the local community around the loss of green space. I’m sure this news will be welcomed by all Portobello residents.”
The local community would have a say on what the new park would look like and be given free access to the all weather pitches which are planned to be built beside the new high school on part of Portobello Park when they weren’t in school use.
Further to this, officers are recommending a twin-track approach which would also include a back-up plan should the preferred option of building the new high school on part of Portobello Park ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.
A full review of potential sites in, and around, the area has confirmed yet again that there are very few alternative sites available. Only three potential options have been identified and all are seen as a significant compromise in comparison to what the Portobello Park site would offer.
Sites being considered include the former Scottish Power site at Baileyfield, which is currently for sale, and a site on the Brunstane Estate. The other option would involve using the current high school site but extending it into the site currently occupied by St John’s RC Primary School (see notes to editors – 2).
As there is a limited time within which to decide on whether the Baileyfield site should be purchased, a feasibility study is underway to see if it is possible to build either of the schools there. In addition, views will be sought from the school communities to establish the level of support for this alternative option. This will inform a further report to Councillors on 22 November regarding whether, or not, consideration should be given to purchasing the Baileyfield site as a fall-back option.
ENDS
Notes to Editors;
- 1. The gap in the law refers to the fact that local authorities do not have power to appropriate inalienable common good land in terms of the Local Government (Scotland) 1973, the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 or indeed any legislation, no matter what the intended purpose is. However, they are entitled to dispose of any such land provided it is sanctioned by the Sheriff Court or the Court of Session.
2. This would require St John’s to move to another location and is expected would involve a partial or full decant for the high school. We fully understand that this option is unlikely to be favoured by either school community however it is a feasible option and therefore has to be considered as part of the process, particularly in light of the limited avenues which are available.
3. Details on each of these approaches and how recommendations were reached are outlined in the report which will be available at http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/cpol from 1pm on Friday 19 October 2012.
4. Consultation is required as part of the process before any Private Act could be introduced to Parliament.
5. Should the new High School be built on part of Portobello Park; after making provision for a larger area for a new St John’s RC Primary School, the rest of the existing Portobello High School site would then become a public park.
6. If the Council does decide to purchase the Baileyfield site, a full statutory consultation process under the Education (Scotland) Act 2010 would be carried out with the relevant school and local community before any final decision was taken to build a new school there.
Surely those that were against losing green space will now be happy that green space is being created elsewhere in return for the school on the park. Can we now expect them to support the school on the park......hmmmmmmm.‘We’ll Build a New Park and Two New Schools’ – Councillor Paul Godzik, City Education Leader reaffirms commitment to delivering essential schools
In order to gain as much support from the community as possible, changes are also being recommended to address what is believed to be the main concerns of some of the local community relating to the loss of open space in the area.
”Further to this, I am pleased to announce that we plan to build a new park to help address concerns by some of the local community around the loss of green space. I’m sure this news will be welcomed by all Portobello residents.”
Because they can....... NIMBY !seashell wrote:What possible reason could they have for objecting?
Spot on ! I lookforward to hearing their objections as they will undoutedly be somePal of Porty wrote:The new park is not on their doorstep for one but the school will be! When has this ever been about green space for PPAG?
