Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Discussion and debate on the issues affecting Portobello
seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by seanie » 15 Jul 2011, 22:55

Anyhoo...to go off at a wee bit of a tangent.

I warn you now to stop reading this. It'll be long, pretty obscure, and by the end you'll wonder why you bothered reading it. But I warned you not to so hell mend you.

It's just that there was a loose thread that had been niggling me for quite some time and today I found resolution. We need to aways back to September last year.

I happened to find reference to the Portobello High School issue on the website of an organisation I was unfamiliar with; Planning Democracy, "a community run organization that campaigns for a more people friendly and accountable planning system in Scotland."

I posted about it on TalkPorty here:
PPAG have been at it again.

"Members of the community in Portobello, Edinburgh are fighting to save publicly owned land. One third of the community are against the council using Portobello Park to build a new school on. They want the school built on the current site, which the council has earmarked for housing development. The park is supposed to be protected as Common Good land, which means that it is community property held in trust by the Council and should never be built on. The community are preparing for a legal battle against the Council and are having to find £20-30,000 to prove that the land belongs to the them. It seems that, in the past, authorities recognised that people need open space and green places, and acted as guardians of these assets. But now the Council are hoping that they win a legal case, which will mean they can use the land to build on. If they do win, it will give a green light to build on or change use of Common Good land throughout the country."

I count seven falsehoods.

Any advance?

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: Planning Democracy

Post by seanie » 15 Jul 2011, 23:05

The link from my original post still seems to work, but when I tried to find it as a case study via the Planning Democracy today it didn't work. I got this instead;
www.planningdemocracy.org.uk-case-studies.png
Compared to this;
Portobello Common Good Land « Planning Democracy Website.png
Maybe maintenance or something but nevermind.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: Planning Democracy

Post by seanie » 15 Jul 2011, 23:10

Anyway...in repsonse I posted the following on TalkPorty;
1. "One third of the community are against...."

I don't know where the one third figure comes from (although it does raise a question about the other two thirds) but in any event there's a problem. The PPAG web-site says they represent a SIGNIFCANT MAJORITY. Those are not compatible claims. So at best they're spreading falsehoods on one web-site, at worst two.

2. "The park is supposed to be protected as Common Good land, which means that it is community property held in trust by the Council...

Common Good land is not 'held in trust'. It is legally owned by the Council. That fact is established by the 1973 Local Government Scotland Act and is beyond question.

3. "...and should never be built on"

Whilst there are restrictions on the use and disposal of Common Good land, that does not mean Common Good land should never be built. Indeed, the Courts have gone so far as to say that their permission is NOT REQUIRED for schools to be built on Common Good land.

4. "The community are preparing for a legal battle against the Council and are having to find £20-30,000 to prove that the land belongs to the them."

This sentence may not actually be a falsehood so I include it only provisionally. Instead it may just be a sincere statement of utter nonsense. I'll take it in two parts;

"having to find £20-30,000"

To raise an action in the Inner house of the Court of Session? That may be enough for a couple of consultants at a Planning Inquiry but QCs and court cases? Dream on. There's also the additional risk to consider. Take a case to court and lose and the Council might pursue it's own legal costs. You need to raise enough money, not just to cover your own costs, but the other sides should you lose. Otherwise those who mount the action could face very serious financial difficulties, because such an action can only be mounted by an entity that can be held liable; an individual, a group of individuals, a company etc. I'd suggest £100,000 as an absolute minimum.

5. "to prove that the land belongs to the them."

If the land isn't Common Good, it belongs to the Council. If the land is Common Good, it belongs to the Council. Under no conceivable circumstances does it belong to a self-declared 'one third' of the community who don't like the High School proposals.

6. "But now the Council are hoping that they win a legal case..."

No they're not; there is no legal case, they're not expecting one, and so they don't have any hopes regarding said non-existent legal case.

7. "If they do win, it will give a green light to build on or change use of Common Good land throughout the country."

If they win the non-existent legal case, it will not change the situation one iota and will not give the green light to anything. The Council received legal opinion from two QCs that permission from the courts was not necessary for the school to be built on Common Good land.

That opinion was in line with recent legal precedent;

An actual court case;

"the petitioners wish to use the land for the construction of two schools on a shared site with shared facilities. Both areas of ground form part of the petitioners' common good."

North Lanarkshire wanted to build two schools on parks forming part of the Common Good and went to court to seek permission. And the Court said?

"...the use of land held for the purposes of the public park to construct a school and playing fields does not involve any "disposal" for the purposes of the subsection. In view of that decision, which is obviously binding on me, I consider that there is no "disposal" in the present cases. It follows that section 75(2) has no application. In these circumstances I refused the prayers of the petitions as unnecessary."

The Court held the petition was uneccessary.

Since the land would still be owned by the Council, and used to the benefit of the community, the Court decided that the Council didn't even need to seek permission. The proposal was perfectly legal as far as the court was concerned.

To be generous for a moment, there is always a legal case that can be made for or against something. That's true no matter how inauspicious the circumstances and that's why lawyers can command such eye-watering fees. So I've no doubt at all that some sort of legal challenge against the Council's position could be brought to Court.

But the Council's position is based on recent decisions from both the Inner and Outer Houses of the Court of Session. So any legal challenge would have to overturn those previous rulings.

Going to the Court of Session and arguing the Council is wrong is one thing.

Going to the Court of Session and arguing the Court of Session is wrong is another.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: Planning Democracy

Post by seanie » 15 Jul 2011, 23:11

There have been a couple of changes in circumstances since than which I'll clarify shortly...

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: Planning Democracy

Post by seanie » 15 Jul 2011, 23:42

Firstly, since that post, Scottish courts have started to issue restricted cost orders that can limit the liabilities of both sides to the other. You may still need to raise a significant sum to secure against losing but at least you can now have an upper limit.

Secondly, after years of apparent inaction, PPAG have in the last few weeks started to raise funds for a legal action in earnest. Whilst there is still no legal action as such, I'd imagine the Council might be more aware of it as a possibility than they were back then.

But apart from that I wouldn't alter much.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: Planning Democracy

Post by seanie » 15 Jul 2011, 23:54

I also submitted a comment via the contact point on the Planning Democracy website, complaining about their description of the issue on their website. I didn't receive a response, which is probably fair enough given they didn't know me from Adam but, it still niggled.

So I looked again at the website and noticed that, whilst a key concern of this charity was openess and transparency, there wasn't actually much information about their organisation. Nothing wrong with that in itself, you need to prioritise the information on any website afterall. But I was also curious as to whether there might be a Portobello connection with the charity.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: Planning Democracy

Post by seanie » 16 Jul 2011, 00:10

I was aware that registered charities have certain duties regarding accountability I checked and discovered that yes, I should be able to find out more about the organisation.

So on the 19th of September last year I e-mailed Planning Democracy the following;
I've already sent this message via the contact point on your web-site, but since the last time I contacted you that way I didn't receive an acknowledgement let alone a response, I thought I'd send an e-mail too.

Could you please forward me;

• a copy of the charity's latest statement of account
• a copy of the charity's constitution.
• details of the charity's trustees if not included in the above.

Many thanks.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: Planning Democracy

Post by seanie » 16 Jul 2011, 00:12

I heard nothing back.

I waited.

And on the 24th of November 2010 I e-mailed;
It's been over two months now. Is any of the information requested available?

Regards

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: Planning Democracy

Post by seanie » 16 Jul 2011, 00:18

Again nothing.

So in exasperation I e-mailed the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator on the 14th of February this year;
As can be seen from the e-mails below I've been trying to obtain basic information from the charity PlanningDemocracy (charity no. SC041051) for some time now but have received no reply or acknowledgement. My understanding was that there was a duty to provide such information to the public. Are there any other avenues to obtain such information?

Many thanks
They took this inquiry as a complaint and responded that they would investigate.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: Planning Democracy

Post by seanie » 16 Jul 2011, 00:20

On the 1st of June this year I received the folowing;
Complaint about failure of charity to provide information

We write in response to your email of 14 February 2011 about Planning Democracy, SC041051.
We have now assessed your complaint and note that the charity has failed to provide you with a copy of its constitution and latest statement of account to which you are entitled under section 23 of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 (the 2005 Act).
Please find attached a copy of the letter that we sent to the charity today asking it to comply with your request. We have set a deadline for compliance for 28 days from now on 29 June 2011.

Please note that we have asked the charity to confirm to us that they have sent you the information you requested. Please contact me if you fail to receive the documents by this date.

It is noted that you also asked the charity for a list of its trustees. Schedule 2(4) of The Charities Accounts (Scotland) Regulations 2006 states that a charity’s annual report must contain:

“... the name of any person that is a charity trustee on the date the annual report was approved by the charity trustees unless –
(a) there are more than 50 charity trustees, in which case the names of 50 charity trustees is sufficient, or
(b) the charity is entitled to exclude the names of the charity trustees from its entry in the Register in terms of section 3(4) of the 2005 Act.”

I hope that this information was useful to you

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: Planning Democracy

Post by seanie » 16 Jul 2011, 00:26

And, to their credit they did respond well before the deadline, on the 22nd on June. However, whikst they provided accounts and a constitution there was still no information on trustees, which was something I'd asked for on the 19th of Septemebr 2010.

So I asked again;
Many thanks. I was also looking for the names of the trustees. Do you have an approved Annual report that would contain that information?

Regards

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: Planning Democracy

Post by seanie » 16 Jul 2011, 00:29

And today I received an e-mail that finally satisfied that little niggle that had been in my head since September last year; who are Planning Democracy and is there a Portobello connection?

User avatar
Porty
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: Planning Democracy

Post by Porty » 16 Jul 2011, 01:34

And there's no Portobello connectiom?

I clicked on "case studies" and could go no further without a password.
Last edited by Porty on 16 Jul 2011, 02:04, edited 1 time in total.
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: Planning Democracy

Post by seanie » 16 Jul 2011, 02:01

Sorry...I drfited off.

I was sent the following;
Dear Sean,

We are not required to have an approved annual report until next year as a new charity.

Our trustees are

Clare Symonds Chair
Stuart Duncan Treasurer
Ann Coleman Secretary
Jean Charsley
Diana Cairns
Iain Thom

User avatar
Porty
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by Porty » 16 Jul 2011, 13:29

Lack of transparency, totally resistant to transparency, don't want people to know who they are, no accounts- now i can see the portobello connection. Presumably "Planning Democracy" is a charitable conduit for transferring funds between one cause and another.

Seven falsehoods and quite a few are out and out lies. Still, PPAG only been lying to a charity and not handing them out at schools, so I guess PPAG are squeaky on this one. NOT!!!

Sean, have you written to the trustees to put them straight?
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by Bob Jefferson » 16 Jul 2011, 14:23

So you didn't get a statement of account? I wonder what kind of funds they have at their disposal and whether they could make a significant contribution to PPAG's war-chest? Then again, would they want to blow it on a hopeless cause? As an idea, 'planning democracy' certainly sounds very worthy but if this group is prepared to back PPAG then their credibility is called into question.

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by Bob Jefferson » 16 Jul 2011, 14:29

The Portobello Park 'case study' has been archived but can still be viewed at:

http://www.planningdemocracy.org.uk/archives/37

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by seanie » 16 Jul 2011, 20:46

They've provided all the information requested including a statement of account. There's no annual report because of the time they've been up and running. So they've done nothing wrong apart from possibly being a bit tardy.

User avatar
Porty
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by Porty » 17 Jul 2011, 14:41

Agreed, they are complying with requirements for charity registration. Could be quite a neat trick; PCATS might claim they have not given their residual funds (£3k +) to PPAG They could give the money to Planning Democracy who then pass it to PPAG. All could be achieved during the AD break in Corrie. "stick the kettle on, and I'll have the money ready when you get back"

So parents who donated and supported PCATS could find their cash being used to fight a court case against the school. Given what they get up to in public. Who knows what they doing behind the scenes?
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly

User avatar
Porty
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by Porty » 19 Jul 2011, 13:22

A retraction; I am coming under a bit of pressure to rectify something I said above, which may have been interpreted as a besmirch. Apparently the parties concerned do not watch Coronation Street.
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly

User avatar
wangi
[admin]
Posts: 3442
Joined: 27 May 2004, 10:37
Contact:

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by wangi » 21 Nov 2012, 13:41

Clare Symonds, Chair of Planning Democracy is making a presentation to Portobello Community Council at their next meeting, this Monday 26 November.
About Us

Planning Democracy is campaigning for a fair and inclusive planning system in Scotland.

We advocate for transparent accountable decision making based on a level playing field between the public and other stakeholders.
We do this because planning decisions have a long lasting effect on people’s lives and they have a right to influence what does and does not get built.

Who we are

We are a group of volunteers who include representatives of three community councils with years of experience in planning issues. Some of us have worked in the non-governmental sector, others have experience in the business world.

Our board is six-strong, chaired by Clare Symonds, and supported by a strong network of members and advisers. We have no staff but are actively planning to grow in the future. We all share a belief that a robust, democratic planning system is crucial for shaping fairer and more sustainable places.
What we do

Our mission is to undertake practical and academic research on the state of community participation in the Scottish planning system; campaign for a just and open decision making; and promote practical changes for a more equitable, inclusive and transparent planning system.

As part of or research we are collecting peoples’ experiences of the planning system so we can build a campaign to make sure Scotland’s planning system is democratic, open and honest. If you have an experience of the planning system please get in touch.
Planning Democracy logo sihouettes of peopleGovernance

We are a registered Scottish charity number SC041051. Click to view our 2010-11 OSCR report and accounts.
http://www.planningdemocracy.org.uk/about/

fresian
Posts: 81
Joined: 02 May 2012, 13:45

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by fresian » 21 Nov 2012, 14:07

This actually stinks worse than Seafield. I wonder when this was set up? and for what purpose? i.e will it disappear once the high school issue has been finalised.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by seanie » 24 Nov 2012, 12:23

Remember it's party time at the next Community Council meeting. So come along and meet your Community Councillors, and enjoy a festive nibble.

seashell
Posts: 491
Joined: 01 Feb 2005, 20:41

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by seashell » 24 Nov 2012, 13:39

WHy are they making this presentation?
Is it because PCC has such a terrible record as regards their biased interfering on planning applications?

User avatar
Porty
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by Porty » 28 Nov 2012, 17:14

How did the presentation go?
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly

User avatar
wangi
[admin]
Posts: 3442
Joined: 27 May 2004, 10:37
Contact:

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by wangi » 28 Nov 2012, 17:33

It didn't. Clare Symonds sent her apologies - ill.

User avatar
Porty
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by Porty » 29 Nov 2012, 20:50

wangi wrote:It didn't. Clare Symonds sent her apologies - ill.
It can't be easy.
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by seanie » 18 Dec 2012, 21:44

Just came across a bizarre coincidence.

There's a letter in the Evening News today, standard PPAG/BIOB stuff, from a Clare Kyndt. Now I'm familiar with a fair number the names of people who've involved themselves in the issue, but that one was new to me. It's also a surname I'd never heard before so, out of idle curiosity I Googled the name.

Sure enough it's not common. It only came up with one person with that name, living down in Devon rather than Edinburgh. But here's the odd thing. Purely by chance, 7th in the Google ranking came a hit for Clare Symonds, Chair of Planning Democracy.

There's no apparent connection. It would seem to be an entirely random result thrown up by Google.

User avatar
Porty
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by Porty » 19 Dec 2012, 12:51

That is a coincidence. The same thing happened on my PC, which suggests it is not exclusive to yours.

One may have expected more famous Clare's to appear higher in the search. Clare Balding for example. Although, not sure why Clare Balding would be writing to the EN about PHS?
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly

User avatar
Porty
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by Porty » 19 Dec 2012, 13:27

I googled "symonds kyndt" and got:

http://www.venturescotland.org.uk/garde ... uary11.htm

A Clare Symonds and a Jerome Kyndt attended the same gardening training course at Venture Scotland back in 2011. I wouldn't read too mulch into it tho.
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly

User avatar
Pal of Porty
Posts: 2136
Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 13:41
Location: Old Folks Home
Contact:

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by Pal of Porty » 19 Dec 2012, 13:36

I don't belive in coincidences! 8)
Justice delayed is justice denied.

Makaveli
Posts: 386
Joined: 20 Jun 2009, 09:01
Location: Brunstane

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by Makaveli » 19 Dec 2012, 13:42

Well prepare to believe POP....

Both Jerome and Clare wrote on a couple of web pages within hours of each other too on the same subject with the same view point - like you say it is probably one of those incredible coincidences that life throws up now and again.

fresian
Posts: 81
Joined: 02 May 2012, 13:45

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by fresian » 19 Dec 2012, 15:01

So not the Claire Simmons,(Different spelling but strangely similar) who lives with Mike Bridgeman

User avatar
Porty
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by Porty » 19 Dec 2012, 15:15

Is she a keen gardener?
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly

Franck
Posts: 332
Joined: 25 Apr 2005, 10:49
Location: The 7th tee

Re: Planning Democracy (Scottish Charity SC041051)

Post by Franck » 19 Dec 2012, 17:51

Porty wrote:Is she a keen gardener?
Is that a euphemism?

Post Reply