 Good morning and I welcome everyone to this, the sixth meeting of the committee at consideration stage. I remind everyone to switch off all mobile phones and electronic devices. The first item on the agenda is to decide whether to take item 5 in private, are members agreed? Thank you. As group 1's oral evidence session was not completed on 23 April, the witnesses for that group and the promoter have been invited back to conclude proceedings. The evidence from this session will obviously be considered by the committee in its consideration of objections later at this meeting. I welcome witnesses back from group 1 and from the promoter. We will recommence proceedings at the point that the session ended on the 23rd of April. It is anticipated that this part of proceedings will conclude around 10am. As witnesses will now be familiar with the process for these evidence sessions, I will now take up valuable time restating the format that we will follow. However, following on from the last meeting that may be of assistance, if I clarify that the committee has not yet reached the stage in proceedings for formal consideration of amendments to the bill, once consideration of objections has been completed, there will be an opportunity for any party to comment on any draft amendments which are considered to be admissible before formal proceedings on amendments begin. From group 1 objectors, I welcome back Stephen Hawkins, Diana Cairns and Alison Conley. From the promoter, I welcome back from the City of Edinburgh council, Billy McIntyre, Charles Limstone, Associates of Broadies and Ian Alexander, design director of GM Architects. I invite objectors to continue to question the promoter and it is covered in category 5. Do group 1 witnesses have questions for the promoter? Thank you for inviting us back to continue this evidence session. I would like to make a few final comments on category 5. You have indicated that you are only interested in matter subsequent to the court of session ruling, and because of that and the time constraints, we have curtailed the evidence that we had intended to cover and the questions that we had for the promoter. In the aftermath of the court of session ruling, City of Edinburgh council feigned shock and disappointment, and in the words of the director of children and families, the ruling was entirely unexpected. We have proved that this is not true. City of Edinburgh council have portrayed themselves as the innocent victims of an unforeseen judgement and have produced further propaganda to persuade the public that the only prospect of delivering a new school is by supporting this private bill. Even in the letter written last week on behalf of the council by Broadies to PPAG, the truth is withheld. The letter states that the earlier opinion was superseded and so was not relevant to the decision subsequently taken by council, but the hidden opinion of August 2008 was not withdrawn. The two opinions from 2008 are based on different questions and, presumably, they reflect the instructions given to the QCs. The August opinion had not turned out to be incorrect, far from it, as it aligns closely with the view accepted by the court of session and the judgment delivered by the inner house. The council have consistently refused to provide information about their decisions to appropriate Portobello Park, and at no time did the even acknowledge of existence of the August 2008 opinion. In fact, its release in April 2014 may have been an accident, as it was released among other information which was marked as redacted, but for which the redaction had not been properly applied. It remains a real concern that City of Edinburgh council continue to refuse to disclose accurate information, and that the information that they provide is strewn within accuracies and errors. We do not wish to dwell in the past, but there are many instances of misleading information and the promoter's case is riddled with discrepancies. One example is the information about free pitch bookings provided during the consultation and how this contradicts information in the Children and Families Department report in December 2013 on community access to schools. We will come to this in category 1, but staying in the meantime with category 5, we would like to raise some red flags about the evidence provided by Billy McIntyre at the previous oral sessions. The first one regarding the consultation is at column 212 of the official report where Mr McIntyre said, as I said in the council report of March 2013, the raw data has been independently assessed. It was independently validated by PricewaterhouseCoopers. However, in their executive summary, PricewaterhouseCoopers states that, because the above procedures do not constitute either an audit or a review made in accordance with international standards on auditing or international standards on review engagements, we do not express any assurance on the portable consultation responses summary. Another inaccuracy about the assessment of alternative options is when Mr McIntyre answered a question from Mr Flockart about using Holyrood High School as a decant accommodation for rebuilding on site. He told Mr Flockart on 23 April at column 286 of the official report that using Holyrood High for decant was not an option because its rebuild predated his joining the council in 2008 and that it was not considered as decant accommodation because funding was not identified for portable high until early 2009. In fact, the old Holyrood High School was not vacated until summer 2009 and it was demolished the following year, so it had not been demolished by the time funding was identified for portable high school. We dispute the council's claims about the perceived disadvantages of the alternative options. According to City of Edinburgh Council, a major drawback of rebuilding on site is a delay and expense involved because of the need to relocate St John's first. Yet, despite asking many times why the option of rebuild without relocating St John's was discarded in 2006, Mr McIntyre has been either unable or unwilling to provide any answers. It is our view that the council are also deliberately misrepresenting the position regarding the tender from Balfour Beattie. The Scottish Government procurement guidance states that, in open and restricted procedures, all negotiations with candidates or tenderers on fundamental aspects of contracts, variations in which are likely to distort competition and in particular on prices shall be ruled out. Yet, as we have heard from council officials, the Balfour Beattie tender has indeed been renegotiated on price and thereby falls open to challenge. Is this another example where City of Edinburgh Council simply considers itself to be exempt from the rules? Or should we assume that the council will retender but does not wish to make that public, given the further delay that this will create to building a new school? The Brody's letter to PPAG of 30 April repeats her desire for objectors to engage in discussions about mitigation, but this is a pointless and insincere invitation, as it is absolutely clear throughout the private bill that we do not agree that legislation should be passed to allow the appropriation of this inalienable common good land, and the only possible mitigation is the withdrawal of the bill. That concludes our comments on category 5. Mr Macintosh, if you can make your comment very brief because it was final comments, so have you got any comments to make on what was said there, if you are indicating a bit very brief? Thank you, convener. I know that it is not normally appropriate to have final comments, but I would like to utterly reject any assertion that I, in particular, or any of my colleagues, have misleied down to the committee or elected members or the public in any way, just picking up some of the points and I will be brief. Malcolm Thomson provided the original council opinion in August 2008 and was one of the co-authors of the subsequent opinion in I believe it was in November 2008. This is not based on different questions, but on a change of opinion. I would remind PPAG that, although the judgment of the inner house of the court of session was not in favour of the council, the original judgment of the outer house of the court of session was. The council was entirely justified to proceed on the basis of which it did, which was the joint council opinion that was received and that was reported by the then council solicitor to council in the meeting of December 2013. I will not dwell on the issue of validation by PWC. The report is in the public domain. Yes, it was not an audit that was undertaken in accordance with international standards, but it is a recognised firm of auditors that were asked to do a degree of validation independently by the council through myself. The scope of that review and the report is in the public domain. Ms Cornley refers to what I said in column 286, but I do not recognise what she said. I said in column 286 that, having been asked about Holyrood that I would have thought that it would have been down to the absence of funding, I made no reference as far as I can see to issues of decant or otherwise. Again, the official record shows exactly what I did and did not say. On the issue of procurement, the committee has already indicated that procurement is not a matter for this committee, but, as I said in previous meetings, the council is well aware of its procurement obligations and will comply fully with those. Notice was given to the unsuccessful contractors through ODU after the council took its most recent decision in 6 February, and we have had no expressions of any concern or objections from any of the previously unsuccessful contractors. Thank you. We now move back to the sequential order of categories and on to category one. I invite a spokesperson for group one to speak in the first set of issues in category one, which is loss of amenity, use of park, including associated issues of health and mental well-being. I am not going to make an opening statement. We stand by the evidence that we submitted prior to the committee meeting, just to also say that I think the health benefits and the negative impact of the loss has been amply demonstrated by previous groups that have given evidence, but I have got a few questions, please. I am not at the questions yet, so I will come back to you for that. I invite a spokesperson for group one to speak in the second set of issues, which is replacement of open spaces. Is that yourself? That is me. So you do not have any statement to make on that? Well, just that, as we have said in our previous submissions, that we remain highly skeptical that the replacement of open space will ever be provided, because the council has changed its position on it at least twice, and it is not going to be part of the bill, so there is an obligation on the council to provide it. Because of what has gone on in the past, we do not actually have any faith that it will be provided, and that is a big concern to us. And I think it has also been acknowledged by the council that it would not adequately compensate for the loss of Portobello Park. It would be partial recompense, but it would not be full recompense. By the same token, we are skeptical about the fields in trust protection, because this bill is seeking to overturn an alienable common good status, which is the strongest form of protection. If that succeeds, then I am sure it is much easier to overturn fields in trust status. I believe information was submitted by Mrs Connolly previously to say that actually fields in trust have clearly stated in the information that if a council can make a good case for using apart from other purpose and they promise to improve facilities elsewhere, then they will be persuaded that that piece of land can be dispensed with, so we do not find that a strong or reassuring form of protection. Thank you. I invite the promoters to speak inside the positions on all issues covered in category 1. I will keep my introductory remarks for each category this morning as concise as possible, while still endeavouring to provide the council's response to the issues that the group 1 objectives have raised. They have largely repeated concerns that have already been raised by other groups about the issues in this category. The committee has previously heard evidence from me mainly in 26 March about the already at very high level of provision of accessible green space, which is and will remain in the local area. I do not propose to repeat that evidence today. However, I will address the other issues that have been raised by the group 1 objectives both today and in their original objections and in their written evidence. At the last session, Mr Hawkins indicated that one of the topics that would be of significant interest to the objectives in group 1 was the council's compliance with its open space strategy, which we assume means the land use policy OS1 of the council's local development plan. That matter was considered in detail during the planning process. The planning report 4 December 2013 noted that, because the proposal involves the local loss of open space, it by definition did not comply with the provisions of that policy. However, the policy does not preclude the development of open space in all circumstances, and the development management sub-committees view was that the clear benefits to the local community from the displacement school and the proposed compensatory open space outweid the loss of open space at the park. The proposal was therefore considered a justifiable departure from the development plan. It is also worth reiterating that we cannot envisage any regular activity currently undertaken at the park that would not still be possible either on the replacement facilities on the park or in either the area of new compensatory open space or the many other areas of open space in the locality. There should therefore be no discernible loss of immunity for any particular recreational or leisure activity. It has been suggested in the original objections with Ms Kearns and Pee Pie that the loss of park would result in a 25% reduction of Portobello's parkland. It would be helpful if a group 1 witnesses could explain the basis for this figure and the definitions of Portobello and parkland that they have used in that calculation. As it is not a figure that the council recognises, the objectors may find it helpful to refer to the map that we have produced before showing the many other areas of accessible open space that are and will remain in the area. The net loss of open space to the area of 0.4 hectares and, although it is not a complete 100% replacement of space, the provision of the enhanced and significantly improved facilities will more than compensate for that. It represents just 7.5% of the area of Portobello park in isolation, excluding the many other areas of open space in the area. The committee will be aware of the council's position that the park is not well used, which is based on the usage audit carried out in 2009. The objectors in group 1 have suggested that usage has fallen in recent years as a result of the failure by the council to adequately maintain the park. I explained at the last session with the witnesses from group 3 and 6 how part of the park was, for a period, affected by archaeological works in connection with the proposal to build a new school, but that the usage audit predated those works by a considerable period of time. I will not repeat any of that evidence here, but I would only observe that I assume the photographs that were provided by group 1 objectors within their written evidence, although they are undated and unaccompanied by any descriptions relating to the archaeological works, which, whereas the committee will have seen last year when it visited the park, fully remediated a considerable time ago. The group 1 objectors have largely raised the same issues as earlier groups about the council's proposals for replacement open space on parts of the existing combined site of Portobello High School and St John's RC primary school. We have addressed this issue in particular in the field and trust issue in our written submissions in respect of this group of objectors, as well as groups 2 and 4 and 3 and 6 and in previous sessions before the committee, so I will not repeat that evidence now. I would, however, refer the committee to the minutes of the public meeting that took place on Medabank on 17 January 2013, during the private bill consultation process. Those minutes were included in the group 6 objectors materials for the meeting of 26 March. Page 47 of those minutes record me asking whether fields and trust status would be supported by PPAC. The answer from the PPAC representative was, yes, that would be welcomed. It is not clear why PPAC and I seem to have departed from that view. The objectors appear to suggest that it was inappropriate to mention the council's proposals for replacement open space in the consultation materials because it is not mentioned in the bill. They also suggest that there is a conflict between the terms of the consultation documents and the council's view that an amendment mentioning the replacement space would be inadmissible, which we explained in our letter of 31st of January and reiterated in our written submission in respect of group 1. There is no such conflict. It was entirely appropriate for the council to include that replacement space in the consultation. The compensatory open space is an integral part of the council's project. However, although the project cannot proceed without the bill, not every element of the project is relevant to or needs to appear in the bill. It is worth pointing out that the bill also does not mention our proposals for the school layout, design facilities, etc., yet there would be rightly complaints of the consultation documents had not included any information on those matters, as they are similarly integral to the project. The council's position therefore remains that an amendment to the bill relating to the replacement park would be practically unworkable and inadmissible. However, we are conscious that, just for members of the committee, at the consideration stage, to propose amendments are for the convener to decide on their admissibility and we will, of course, be happy to comment on any amendments that are proposed. I believe that the council has been as clear as it possibly could about its commitment to providing the replacement open space. However, attaching by the comments this morning and those made previously, the objectives seem determined to assume bad faith on behalf of the council despite reassurances on many occasions, including by the council leader at the most recent council meeting that this matter was discussed on 6 February 2014. Given that, I feel that there is probably nothing that the council could do or say that would reassure or satisfy them, unfortunately. As a final point, I would simply note that in relation to this and other categories that have been considered today, the council would ordinarily have asked whether objectives and any suggestions is how their concerns about your proposals might be mitigated. However, in the interests of time, it is clear from previous comments that they have no suggestions to make other than that we should abandon the entire project, so we will refrain from asking that question in each category. However, we would, of course, be happy to hear any proposals that we missed to make. We now move to cross-examination of the issues in category 1. I invite Objectors Diana Kerrams to question the promoter. I would like to look at the I&Side far-ar report that was included with the council report that went to the council in March 2010. Everybody has got a copy of this because this document was submitted a while ago. I would like to look at page 5 and just ask Mr McIntyre if he would tell me what it says about the management of the park. Page 5 of the I&Side far-ar report that was attached to the council report of March 2010. Perhaps you would be good enough to read out what you think I should be reading out myself. Okay. Well, I'm supposed to be asking you questions, but I'll help you out by telling you it says it's got a very poor score for maintenance about management of the park. Similarly, under weaknesses, it says it's a poorly maintained park. The council's deliberately run down and neglected the park, hasn't it, to bolster its case for development? No, it hasn't. Well, I think there's a clear case of neglect of the park. This report in 2010 said there were three benches. That's before PPAG got funding to put one in. There's now only one function bench. That's the one that PPAG put in. There's been a run down of facilities. What does it say about the construction of the pictures on page 16? The construction of the pictures? Yes. I assume, Ms Cairns, that you're referring to the penultimate sentence. This relatively limited use is due to the low maintenance specification of the pictures, the lack of drainage and poor picture construction. Yes. So, poor maintenance specification and poor construction. In other words, if they've been properly maintained or properly constructed, they'd have been even better, and yet they've been decried as being poor quality and not used. But maybe that's because of the poor maintenance of them. I'd like to go on to the park usage survey. Can you tell me when this was carried out? In the middle of 2009? Yes. Can you tell me how many hours people were actually at work or school when it was made? I don't have that information to add. Well, I can tell you that, actually, there were only a small number of children identified. There were only six hours within the sample when children would not have been at school, and of these three of them were recorded as rainy. So, that was, again, one of the criticisms that were found by this survey was that it wasn't used very often by children, but there were only three hours within 10. I, 30% of the time that children would have possibly been out playing on it, and we would say it was a small, a too small sample to be representative. How many other parks were carried at work? I had a similar survey carried out at that time to provide a control. There was no necessity for a control. This was looking at the usage of this park. Well, with respect, I think when you're collecting data, you have to have some kind of control, and some comparison, and some baseline. How can you say whether something's well-used or not unless you can compare it to something similar? I think the numbers speak for themselves in this case. Well, I would beg to differ with you. On page 16, it says that the pictures were only used for a seven-week period, and the season would begin on 15 August and finish at the end of September. That's untrue, isn't it? That was incorrect, and that's been subsequently clarified, but the bookings that were made were referenced elsewhere within the report as confirmed with the relation. Yes, but that is an untrue statement. So I would say it's untrue. It's inaccurate. No, it's not true. I'd like to move on to the photos. We've obviously submitted many photos to the committee that shows the uses to which the park has been put parties, fundraising events, races, football matches, etc. And as you know, following the archaeological dig, the park was left in a perilous state and unusable, and it took the council until 2014, after many emails and phone calls, to rectify it. That's correct, isn't it, Mr McIntosh? No, that's not correct, Ms Kearns. You will, you'll have, I think you were there at the visit that committee had in 2013, when the park was fully remediated, just said 2014. Okay, sorry. That is my mistake. I meant 2013, but it was after numerous phone calls, and those photographs actually don't just show the receding that took place after almost three years of neglect, but also the big tracks that were left after logs were felled and tractors were driven across the park, and that was part of the remediation work that was done. And do you know how that was paid for, Mr McIntosh? Can I just correct you that it was not three years of neglect, it was a shorter period than that, and the remediation works were paid for by the project? Well, it was 11, 12, 13, that's three years in my book. It was a long period of neglect, things weren't rectified when they should have been. I have previously reported the committee the reasons why, at the last meeting, the mitigation measures were not done immediately, pending the outcome of the court of session judgment. And the smaller photos show fly tipping at the changing rooms at the east end of the park. This debris was left lying for seven months and took at least six phone calls before it was shifted. Why was that? I can't answer that question, Ms Keynes. Has it been subsequently corrected? After six phone calls, yeah, it was cleared, but I think that just contributes to the growing picture of deliberate neglect by the council. It has not been deliberate neglect, and as I reported to the committee at the last meeting, the standard maintenance that is applied to Portable Park was reinstated to its previous level in early 2013, following the remediation of the archaeological works. Do you know of where the remediation was paid for? Why it was paid for? No, sorry, from which fund it was paid? The project to deliver in your Portable High School? No, it was paid for from the common good fund, £13,000 a worth. No, it wasn't. I'm afraid that's incorrect, Mr Mackintype. It was paid for from the common good fund and it was £13,000, and this is part of the project, as you quite rightly say, and yet the money was, you're trying to drop the common good fund by developing this park, and you've also taken money out of the common good fund to pay for a mediation that is associated with the project to rebuild on Portable Park. Convenor, can I clarify that? If you just give me two seconds. Where are we trying to go with the money because obviously we don't have the facts in front of us. I'm sorry, I can submit. If you give me a second, what I'm trying to get to is, and use the word robbed, I really don't think that was appropriate, but secondly, it might be your opinion, but I don't think it's appropriate, but you're saying the money came from the common good fund. The councillor's saying, if you give me a minute, Mr Mackintype, the councillor's saying no it didn't, you're saying it did and he said he didn't, so we'll be continuing this. No, I will provide written evidence after the meeting to that effect. I clarify that briefly. It is my understanding, because that was my instruction that the remediation work should be paid for by the project budget. If, for whatever reason, and it doesn't need to be checked clearly, that those monies were taken from the common good fund, that would have been incorrect and not in accordance with my instructions, and I'll ensure that that's corrected. If you can get that information, that would be good. I'd like to have a look at the Development Management Subcommittee meeting report from December 2013, please. Can we look at page 11? It says the proposal would result in an increase in number of households in the locality, which do not have access to the expected quantity and quality of publicly accessible open space, doesn't it? On page 11. I said on page 11 of the Development Management Subcommittee report on 4 December 2013, it says the proposal would result in an increase in the number of households in the locality, which do not have access to the expected quantity and quality of publicly open space. It's the first one. Is that correct? Is that what the report says? Yes. That's what the report says. So, why did you say at the meeting on 26 March at column 167 because Potterwell Park does not count towards compliance with the standards that are set out on the council's open space strategy at the moment, citing the school on Potterwell Park would not alter the position of any dwelling in relation to the present standards? That's not correct, is it? It is correct. Well, it says in the report from planning that it would result in an increase in the number of households in the locality, which do not have access to expected quantity and quality of public accessible open space. So, it's correct. It's my assertion that the information that I provided to the committee is correct and I provided the illustrative map showing the evidence of the Sport Act. So, you're saying that planning is incorrect, in what it says? I'm saying that there appears to be an inconsistency between what I said and what's in the planning report. Right. Well, I would suggest that planning are the people who work with these standards day in and day out and I would have expected that. I will consult with the planning department and we'll clarify the matter. Okay. Thank you. Lower down in that paragraph, it says there'll be the retention of approximately 0.6 hectare on site for enhanced amenity space and that it doesn't compensate for the loss. So, that report saying that there'll only be 0.6 hectare of parkland left on the park, doesn't it? Does? Yes. I've just like to distribute this map. We haven't had this before, but just to please off somebody could take these from the... 0.6 hectares on site for enhanced amenity space. Yes. Yes. So, I've just like to have a look at this plan that's been previously submitted. I can pass copies up to the council as well. That's the map of Portobello Park. While panning goes out of the suspend for two minutes, a member has to leave urgently for two minutes and we'll recommence in a minute. Sorry, Miss Kerms. Okay. Everybody's got this map in front of them and you can see the red hatched area, which is the area that will be left as open space or parkland following the development of the park. So, the park's roughly six hectares, take away 0.6 of a hectare, that leaves 5.4 hectares of that park being lost, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. Well, it looks as though it's not parkland any more to me. You say that the new park at the current site will be 2.6 hectares, subtract this from 5.4 and you get 3.24 hectares. So, the loss of open space will be 5.4 hectares without the new park. If you believe that there will be a new park at the current school site, it will be a loss of 3.2 hectares and yet you say the loss will only be 0.48 hectares. That's not correct, is it? It is correct, Miss Kerms. I've previously referred to this in evidence to the committee. The park, the size of the park, is 6.43 hectares. Of that, 1.57 hectares would be assigned for two or whether pitches are replacing the park's existing grass pitches. 1.62 hectares, which is a quarter of the parkland, would remain or have improved public walkways, woodland or new cycle paths. I note that your hatched area includes, including wooded area, but there are significant other areas of wooded area that form part of the park. 1.6 hectares, which is the area referred to as an enhanced amenity space, is correctly referred to as that in the planning report, would be converted to a landscape open space in the south-east of the park. That leaves 2.64 hectares, of which the compensatory open space on part of the combined existing site of 2.16 hectares would be significant compensation towards that, leaving a residual area of 0.48 hectares, which I refer to in my introductory statement. That's a statement that you've repeated umpteen times during these evidence sessions. The bottom line is, look at the map, that tells you what's going to be left. Plastic pictures aren't open space. We're talking about parkland, which is freely accessible, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and that's what's going to be left of it, 0.6 of a hectare. And if you believe there's going to be a new part, there's still going to be over three hectares left in an area that, despite what you say, is not well-served by open space. This was acknowledged in a previous local plan, north-easted in my local plan, I'd identified a deficit of open space in the local area. There's going to be at least 3.24 hectares loss, if not 5.4 hectares loss. You can't dress it up as anything else. That's the amount of parkland that'll be left. I'm not dressing up as anything, Miss Cairns, that what I've said is a statement of fact, and we've repeated that evidence to the committee in many previous occasions. I would refer you to the map showing the many areas of open space, both large and small, that exist in the local area, and I think that speaks for itself. Together with the extent to which the households in the area have access to those spaces already. Yes, but as it's been reported in the council's planning report, it's going to leave a number of households worse off, and it's also said that it'll be further for some people to walk to. It's close to an existing park, this is the replacement park, so it may be deemed superfluous, and it's not as large as Potable Park. That's correct, isn't it? What's not as large as Potable Park? The proposed replacement space. No, it's not. No, and it's next to an existing park. Okay, I think it's clear for all to see that that's the poultry amount of space that'll be left on the park. Let's not beat about the bush. There's going to be at least three, if not five plus hectares, loss if this park is developed. More questions? Yes, well, I think I'm going to hand over to Mrs Connolly. I'd like to ask a couple of questions about the use of the park. Can Mr Macintosh tell us that is there a system in place for booking pitches and how will eligibility to free access be determined? I'm sorry, I'll repeat it. We're talking a jump ahead to the artificial pitches that the council proposed to provide on Potable Park. Is there a system in place for booking pitches and how will eligibility to free access be determined? At present, there's no system being identified because the necessity for that system is some years hence, assuming that the bill would proceed. Eligibility is determined by those within the local area as previously reported to committee. The council have been preparing over quite a few years a policy and a strategy for community access to school facilities. You'll be aware of that. You're suggesting that there will be special arrangements for Portable High School that will be justified and accommodated within that policy, but in a report that Julian T made to the Education, Children and Families Committee on 10 December 2013, she says, it is proposed that a revised scheme of charges would be applied systematically across the city and also that an online booking and payment system for lets of school facilities will be tested from April to June 2014. A full roll-out is scheduled for September 2014. There's no mention of exceptions or special arrangements, and it's clear from this document that the proposals for Portable High School, as described in your consultation, are unworkable. Can you shed any light on that? I'm not sure how you're coming to the conclusion that those proposals are unworkable. The fact that the previous report from Julian T does not make reference to the exception does not in any way suggest that there will not be an exception. That exception has been previously approved by council, which is the overriding authority in terms of decision making for the council. The arrangements will be put in place at the appropriate time to make sure that this is workable. There is an exception that's been applied in Portable High School in terms of the use of those pictures and access to those pictures, because of the very unique situation that that school would find itself in if the bill goes ahead and if the school can be built there. To suggest that we would not either implement that or manage that effectively is totally wrong. It seems very strange that on such an important issue there's no mention of it in a document that clearly states that a revised scheme of charges would be applied systematically across the city. It's coming from the same department, it's from the children and families department. So I would recommend that we don't have time for me to labour the point just now, but it might be interesting for the committee to refer to this review of community access to schools and perhaps I could leave copies with you. Thank you. Can I respond to that final point? If you want to finish up shortly. Sorry, I apologize. Sorry. It sets out the council's strategy for community access to schools, as the title says. I respond to that. There would be occasions where Portobello High School would charge for the use of these facilities, which is why it's entirely appropriate for that document to refer to charges across the city. Access to the pictures would not be in all circumstances free and in some circumstances would be chargeable. There are other circumstances in all schools across the city where lower rates are charged in certain circumstances or for certain groups. So what Ms T said in her report is entirely consistent with what I'd remind you, council has approved, will be the policy that will be applied to the use of these pictures in future. Sounds like we're moving into a very grey area with a lot of different circumstances. But can I just ask, is there anything to stop a future council with drawing any special arrangements that have been suggested for Portobello High School? Sorry, Ms Connolly, because you have a question. Yes, is there anything to stop a future council with drawing any special arrangements that you have suggested for Portobello High School? Why would a future council withdraw? I'm not asking why, I'm just asking if we could. The council has decided that that is the practice that will apply at Portobello Park. And the council decided in 2010 that they didn't need a replacement park and the council then decided later that they would support a replacement local park. So what I'm asking is there anything to stop the council changing their mind? I can't speak for what future councils would do. So they could possibly change their mind? The council has given a commitment across two administrations now, two separate and different administrations, to build the new school and Portobello park, provide these open space compensation measures. But if they felt in... I see no reason why that any future council would renege on that. Unless they felt in future that the circumstances made it appropriate for them to do so. And I wouldn't certainly advocate that there would be any circumstances that would suggest that that would be appropriate. Can I just check, is there anything that, as it stands in this private bill, that does commit City of Edinburgh Council to provide free access to the pitches? No. Okay, thank you. I'd like to just move very briefly on now to the secured by design guidelines. Secured by design is a police initiative owned by the Association of Police Officers, and secured by design schools is one of several guidance documents that aims to reduce crime in our built environment. In the most recent planning application, City of Edinburgh Council referred to a secured by design statement. We're unable to find a copy of it on the council's planning portal, but the reference to it suggests that the council are adhering to these guidelines. The guidance states that multi-use games areas and artificial playing surfaces, usually with lighting for night-time use, are expensive facilities that are often targets for intrusion, vandalism and misuse. They need to be carefully planned, managed and protected, using all appropriate secured by design guidelines and specifications. The guidance also goes on to advise that illumination of facilities will inevitably draw local attention to them at night. Lighting needs to be co-ordinated with actual occupation and use of the particular facility, such as evening community use, to avoid wasting energy and unwanted attention at times when there are no users or capable guardians present. We believe that implementing these principles will affect the unsupervised access especially for children. Do the council have any comments to make about their plans for the informal access that they refer to? The informal access is, as we previously said, set out and is entirely consistent with the council administration's desire to improve access to all school facilities in the area. There are public utilities and should be as open and accessible as possible. It is in accordance with the wish to make the facilities available, but is it in accordance with the secured by design guidelines, which presumably have to integrate with that desire, and security has to be an aspect that is taken into account in the arrangements that are made? It is secured by design. There is a document that has been produced that has been issued by the loading and borders police, which covers a number of the items that you are talking about. I think there is quite an emphasis in the secured by design on passive surveillance that spaces are open and clearly visible. There is another emphasis as well on lighting as well, and we have adequate lighting within the site because we have a sustrans cycle route, we have the paths in there. We want the place to be adequate with the lit at night. There is no awkward or unlit areas. I think the lighting is about 10 meters centre, which is standard on the building, 2. meters high. The lighting poles are about 6 meters high generally on the site. We believe that it is adequately lit. We have had a report produced that endorses that in the spirit of the report. The guidance also suggests that the lighting can attract unwanted attention at times when the facilities are not booked and that there should be arrangements made to control that. Moving on, you mentioned paths. The document refers to the importance of site boundary and states that a clearly defined boundary using a fence, wall or other effective barrier against intrusion is a prerequisite for a secure site and to define ownership. A secure boundary will help staff manage the school site by limiting trespass and by channeling visitors to the site through appropriate entrances. A secure boundary will also frustrate the intruder intent on breaking into the school out of ours and or limit the quantity or type of goods that can be stolen. The document above advises that public footpaths immediately outside boundary ffencing can affect security, yet a key feature of the scheme that you are proposing is the provision of public footpaths around the site with the express intention of encouraging public access. Does that not contradict the principles of secured by design? Can we ask if the council has consulted with the police regarding the potential security of their proposal? Again, we consulted with Lothian Boris Police on the design of the scheme. We had anodd at the proposals by them, and we're satisfied that it meets the secure by design requirements. There's been a report released, which is in public domain, by the community safety department regarding the security of the building. If we can get a hold of the little map, we can maybe explain a little bit more about the nature of the proposals and the nature of the... We've all been at meetings where we've had this description provided, are you? Given that there's been a lot of information this morning that we've all had, I think, it's entirely correct that the council get it. I would point out, however, as we go through this, it is 22 minutes past nine. I will give to 10 past 10 because you lost some time, but just to make you aware of the meeting we'll close at 10 past 10, so just to make you aware of that, but we'll go to the map. Here's the map here. I mean, the principle of the security of the school is really that the school has a 2.4-metre-high fence right along the back, right round here, and right round to this point here on Park Avenue. The front end is protected by a 1.2-metre-high fence, which is low. This area here is lit by six-metre-high poles along the Sustran cycle route, and within the courtyard and on the building there's lights at 2.8-metres-high, roughly at 10-metre-centres. There is statements within security design guidance that, you know, we have to have no dark corners, that type of thing that people can look and do on toward things, so we believe that we have managed that and we've designed it as such. The front door of the school's got a double-door entry. It will be open during the times of access and egress from the school at the beginning of the end of the day and at lunchtime. It will not be controlled during the day, and there's somebody permanently situated at the front door, which will control access to the school. The school kind of manner is to be open at the front with the public plaza. I think that's an important thing, it's an important aspect of the school. Being a community-based high school, the idea of it being open and looking open is important, but also to be secure is really important as well, so that's how that has been designed. Just if I can add to that, it's something that the authority has sought to do whatever possible, and it is a balance to strike between security and accessibility. The new bottom year on the Ffintybridge site is similarly configured. It's adjacent to a new area of open space, about 0.3 hectares of a small public park, but the frontage, the school will look out onto the canal, and the frontage has been designed with very, very minimal fencing and barriers to make sure that there's a high level of permeability for both the public and the school, because these are public buildings, they are public amenities, and we need to make sure that they blend into their surroundings rather than surrounding them with 2.4 metre high fences. A 1.2 metre fence at the front of the building presumably will allow anybody who wishes to get in, or most people, at least to access if they wish to do so to the site. Yes, but I would suggest that, given where the school is going to be located, and its locality, it would be better to have that than a 2.4 metre fence along the front, unless those in the local area would prefer that, perhaps not. I don't have any more questions on the secured by design, I think that Stephen has a good question. Move on to the replacement to open space. You've stated that the design of the replacement park has already started. Can you please tell us why those who are losing the current potabella park have not been involved in that? I've never stated that the design of the current park has started, Mr... You didn't, okay. So, I don't believe that I have. Right. Okay, you've been consulted. What's the consultation that you're doing? The consultation hasn't actually begun in earnest yet. That would be rather premature, because that open space will be only created if the project to deliver a new potabella park as high school in Port of El Quart can proceed. So, the consultation that... Mr McIntyre was speaking there. Okay. My approach is just that, as you say, time is pressing, Adam. Yes, when you're speaking, you don't speak over someone. That's a basic rule of manners. So, Mr McIntyre. Thank you, convener. The committee, sorry, the council, as you'll no doubt undoubtedly recollect, agreed to delegate this matter to the local neighbourhood partnership. The local neighbourhood partnership is committed to consult with all of those in the local area on the potential future use of that area of space, which will be informed by the considerable responses that were received during the consultation on the private bill itself regarding what potential uses there might be of that space in the future. Okay. In previous discussions and consultations, there's been a joint approach between the two of the neighbourhood partnership subsections, Craig and Tinney Duningston and Port of El Quart, Craig Miller. Why was that not considered this time? They're all part of the overall local area, and I'm sure there will be close working between the two in considering this matter. So, why have you designated to Craig and Tinney Duningston? Because it's within that area that the areas are close to a joint one. Okay, I hear you. Well, I thought you heard me the first time when you acknowledged that Mr McIntyre. That was the proposal, and I can't recollect that the suggestion of a joint approach, ever having been suggested either by any local, I'd like to remember, as an amendment, or by you or any of your colleagues in terms of your deputations of that meeting. That's certainly something that could have been considered if it had been identified, but it wasn't identified until you've just suggested it. Why can't the council commit to providing an area of land with designated boundaries as part of this bill? That was explained in our letter of 31 January, the council's reasoning in relation to that, that it would be both difficult to define because the exact footprint of the replacement or expanded St John's RC primary school has not yet been identified, and in any event, we don't believe that it would be admissible in relation to the bill. If objectors feel otherwise, then they're free to propose to members an amendment that you would like at phase two of this stage, and then it would be for the convener to decide on admissibility. Mr McIntyre, you said that you put much store by the fact that the council leader has committed to providing this open space. How did the council leader approach this situation in 2010? Mr Hawkins, you'd have to ask the council leader that. I can tell you from public record that the council leader voted not to support converting this area into open space. Mr McIntyre, to speak on behalf of the council leader? It isn't, no. It's not. The council leader has changed his opinion, as you've already told us. Different administrations have come in at that time, so I'm not quite sure the point that's... Well, the council leader was part of the council at that time. But different administrations? Okay, you said that two administrations have now supported this. I thought that the previous administration had ruled out providing this open space, and as recent as 2012, just before the previous administration fell, it refused to accept the mitigation of providing open space on the existing site. Is that not correct? I may have confused my timing, and if I have, I will apologise. Right. Are you confused about whether it's been two administrations or one administration? I would need to clarify that, which I will. I can spend time doing it just now, Mr Hawkins, or I can do it. No, I mean to... A simple yes or no. Sorry for speaking over you. Can I come over something? I mean, Mr Hawkins, I think, has a risk of going around in circles. But we come back to the point, and I won't go over the detailing unless the convener or the committee would wish me to, but we believe that the most appropriate protection here to hopefully put at rest concerns that the council might do something else with this replacement open space if it is delivered should the project go ahead, is a fuels and trust protection. And as we have heard, that's something that you personally and your colleagues have previously also supported. If something was to happen, which we do not believe would, given the commitments that have previously been given by the council, which are still relevant, still active, then, if yourself or others wished at that time, you could go and speak to the fuels and trust about it. It is them that would have to agree to any changes. To clarify, convener, I was incorrect when I said I've confused the timing of when the administration changed, but what I would remind Mr Hawkins that the approval to go ahead with the revised open space proposals was made unanimously by the council. Thank you. Tell me, Mr McIntyre, how quickly can the council reverse a decision? I think it's changed, so I think it will be six months under the standing orders. And I think that is one of the difficulties, as you say. Commitments now made, and you've said to yourself, Mr McIntyre, that the council has the overriding authority. So commitments and expressions of promises made here, I don't know. Okay. You brought up the fuels and trust, and yes, I think you would find that, well, I think you've found very few people who would not say that fuels and trust is an extra layer of protection, but it isn't as good as the protection provided, say, by common good, or by an active parliament. Would you agree with that? Ian, do you want to cover that? I agree. In the council's position, it is the best protection that's available. The council, as we have previously said, you talk about common good protection. The council is not meant to do anything with the park, but if it wanted to sell it, the legislation allows the council to sell it, subject to the consent of the court. The court, when we talk about disposal of common good, inalible common good assets, is very clear they will weigh up the benefits to the community in connection with such a proposal, as case law to do with that, and a court would be bound by those previous case law decisions. If fuels and trust is not so bound, fuels and trust would have to weigh up any such proposals as a see fit, and that is why, in the circumstance, we believe the fuel and trust protection is the best proposal here to allay any concerns that objectives might have. Can I remind Mr Hawkins that it was he who proposed a motion to our council committee to confer fuels and trust status on an area of land that was already part of the common good? So you must have considered it as some considerable merit. I've stated that there are very few people who would not regard fuels and trust as an extra layer of protection. You've raised the issue of the protection of the golf course. The council deliberately dropped the golf course out of its list of 20-odd parks to be dedicated to fuels and trust. Do you present an emotion to council committee which was approved, which conferred fuels and trust status, or an area of land that is already part of the common good? You suggested that common good protection is higher than fuels and trust, but nevertheless you felt that it is sufficiently important to press the council to confer fuels and trust status on that land. We're suggesting a similar level of protection to both the area and the existing park on the new open space. I take it that you've accepted my point that the council can change its opinion and its mind and what it does over charging, over protection of open space, as it wishes, and that fuels and trust is, yes, an extra level of protection, but it is only that. Mr McIntyre's point, I said it was made. There's any further questions? Yes, I've got questions about the replacement of open space. The council has changed its mind twice now on the replacement of open space said it was going to replace it in 2006, then it relayed in 2010. It said that the current site was in the wrong place and that it needed a capital receipt. If it was in the wrong place in 2010, it's still in the wrong place, isn't it, Mr McIntyre? No, it's—correct you—that the council has changed its mind once, not twice. The decision to not pursue compensatory open space in 2010 was the first time that the council took that decision. There was no previous decision to the contrary. However, it is entirely in the right place, as was evidenced by the significant level of responses to that effect that came through from the local community as part of the private bill consultation process. They were significant and many and invariably positive about the prospect of that new era of open space in the area. Right. Do you accept that in the March 2010 report it said that it was possible to get a capital receipt of £3.9 million for that site? That's correct, isn't it? In the March 2010 report it identified as having a capital receipt of £3.9 million and you've said that you're going to commit a further £1 million to the park. So the total cost of this new park, replacing the existing park, including the lost capital receipt, is £4.9 million. Can you tell me if this has been factored into the cost of the new school on the park? The cost of the new school on the park? Yes. No, because it's not technically a cost. It is a site that's already in council ownership and would only be a cost if further expenditure was required by the council. So the cost, as you know, because I've furnished you with the detailed analysis of the elemental costs for the new school on the park, includes £1 million. That excludes the demolition of the existing buildings, but it doesn't include any lost capital receipt, because that's not actually a cost. We're using an area of land that the council already owns for a different purpose. But you're forgoing a capital receipt of £3.9 million and you're committing a further £1 million? In the same way as rebuilding on the current site, it doesn't include the intrinsic value of that site. Neither option includes the intrinsic value. First, it is not a cost. Well, I beg to differ with you on that. It seems that back in 2010, the council said that forgoing a capital receipt for the site of £3.9 million was that it was not considered an efficient use of council assets, particularly given the unprecedented financial difficulties and pressures on capital budgets. Given that it was reporting the news that the council had written off £5.5 million of debt following the repair scandal, I find it amazing that you're preparing to really forgo this money that you could raise for the site. Could I just remind committee that the differential cost of delivering the alternative, which is a phased rebuild on the current site, would be £13.4 million more than rebuilding the new Portobello High School on Portobello Park? The finances proposed option is, by far and away, the most effective use of public funds. You refer continually to this £13 million, which includes—I can't remember the figure off the top of my head—a figure in the region of excess of £10 million, which is an inflationary adjustment. I think that it's a little bit misleading, the £13 million that you just quoted. No, it's not misleading because I'm a chartered accountant by profession. So I'm familiar—well, you'll be familiar with the way that cost protection should work and cost protection should take into consideration the expected cost at the time of delivery. So construction and freight inflation is increasing. The provisions for future inflation within the costings that I've shared with you are based on the latest construction industry and protected indices. So it's entirely appropriate because if we were to build the alternative solution and I was to go to council and ask for funding to do so, that's the amount of money I would be asking them for. I think, again, there are a lot of factors that are built in as assumptions in that model that we would disagree with, but I don't think that we have time just now to go into the detail of that. Thank you. I'd like to go back to the placement of open space. As recently as April 2012, the council rejected an amendment by the Greens to create a place of open space on that site, didn't it? Did they so? Yes, it did. So then fast forward six months, what changed? The pressure, the change in the circumstances around the outcome of the court of session case and the obvious pressure from the local community to put in place some form of alternative open space provision, which we've now done. So we're being criticised before for not providing it, and now we're being criticised now for providing it. We can't win. Okay, well all I can say is that the council was very slow to respond to the concerns about loss of open space because that was fully six years after the plans to build on the park were announced, so you were very slow to respond to that. Why suddenly introduced the promise of a new park just before the private bill consultation? It was provided to provide an inducement to people to support the bill, wasn't it? No, it was an appropriate response to the concerns that have been articulated, including by PPAG, about the necessity for further open space compensation. So we were responding to what the local community was telling us they needed and they wanted. I think that's entirely appropriate. Can we have a look at the report's full council of 25th of October 2012? A paragraph. I'll let you get it open. 3.123. It says once the existing Portobello High School's demolished, the remainder of the site would be converted to open space. Is that correct? Yep, it is. Can we turn to pendix 6.6.2 please? Pendix 6.6.2. Could you perhaps share with the page number that would be easier for me to I don't know if there is a page number. The bottom, bottom of the page. Yes, it's page 62. Yep. Yes. And it says this leave 1.2 hectares, oh, leaving 2.254 hectares available for sale, including the existing primary school buildings, hectares for sale. And then in the next paragraph it says this option would also enable a land sale, this is at the current site, to be progressed pending the school move, including the potential for housing to commence. So in one part of the report you're saying you're going to create a park on that space, elsewhere in the report you're saying it's going to be sold for housing. Are you surprised that people are sceptical about the replacement of open space on this site? You really? Yes, I am surprised. This was the outcome of a feasibility study that predated the decision of council. It was in that report. Should it be not amended? Sorry? Mist. In the same report of October 2012 it says in one part of the report that the council is going to create a park on the existing school site, and elsewhere in the report it says that the land is going to be sold. But you said something at the end of what you're saying. It should have been amended. That's what I'm saying then. It should have been amended. The feasibility study predated the production of this report by some time and I was reporting back the results of that feasibility study. Perhaps with hindsight that should have been made clear in the report, but the final decision that council took is unambiguous and clear and has been since it took it. I'd just like to go on to the Bill and do a tease letter of the 31st of January, since it doesn't authorise the construction of a school and it says the provision of a new parks outside the scope of the Bill. Yet, the private Bill consultation says Potobello school private Bill, not Potobello Park private Bill, but the Bill has allegedly got nothing to do with the school. The majority of the form was taken up with bullet points about a new park, isn't it? The consultation form has a lot of bullet points about the wonderful new park that's going to be built on the current site. What document are you referring to? It's got information about a new area of open space. It had a whole question about a park, a replacement park. My point is, if the Bill has got nothing to do with providing a new park, why did the new park feature so prominently in the council's consultation literature? The question we asked was, do you support the council's proposal to change the use of Potobello Park from a public park to be in the location for a new Potobello High School? Yes, but it's got a lot of information about the replacement park. It's got a whole question and it featured prominently in the consultation literature. That was misleading. If it's not part of the Bill, it shouldn't have been in the consultation literature, should it? I get back to what I said in my introductory statement. It was relevant to the Bill because it was an interesting part of the project, as was information about designs and alternative site options. I'm sure you would have criticised us if there would not be any reference to that. I think it's disingenuous to pretend that the Bill's got nothing to do with the construction of a school and then call it Potobello School Private Bill and to feature a park as an inducement to people to support it when the park is not going to be part of the Bill. Bottom line is there's no obligation on the council to provide this new park and it will never be provided. Ms Gairns, if you disagree with the council's view on the admissibility of an amendment to include the replacement open space in the Bill, you're free to submit an amendment to one of the committee members to propose and the convener will take a view on its admissibility. It's not a decision for the council, it's ultimately a decision for the convener. The council has expressed its view but if you disagree you can take matters into your own hands. Can I take a point of clarification on how you refer to Portobello School? Is that the council or the Bill? The council's consultation. I just want to clarify because obviously this committee is not called Portobello School. I know but precisely but this is Potobello Park Private Bill so why does the consultation form for the Bill say Potobello School? To me that's an anomaly. Okay. Potobello Park Private Bill. Anyway that's all our evidence on this category. Do the promoter have any questions? No. Okay are there any final comments in category one? Next just quickly. I think the council has claimed the park is not well used in order to bolster its case for development and argue the park surplus to requirements. If usage of the park has fallen that's due to the council's removal of facilities under investment and it's neglected the park and research shows that once a park becomes neglected it's a self-defeating cycle. People stop going there. The development of the school in Portobello Park will lead to a loss of 90% of the parkland there and there's only going to be 0.6 hectare of parkland remaining and there's going to be a deficit of at least three if not five hectares to the local area of open space. The council's changed its mind on the provision of open space and it may well change its mind again and that's why we don't believe there will be a new park in park compensation for the loss of Portobello Park. We're not reassured about the protection of the golf course and the new park, the new park by Fields in Trust. By its own admission we'll not oppose development if the council can make out a good enough case for it and that's all I've got to say. Thank you. We now move to category two. As I said I will be closing the meeting at 10 past 10. I invite a spokesperson for group 1 to speak on traffic and road safety issues. I think that with your permission I think that there isn't really time to go into in-depth questioning so I'd like to read out just the closing remarks to stage for category two and maybe we'll do the same for three and four. I have to offer the promoter the opportunity. Oh I understand that and we would obviously have time for a closing statement. This is why we're trying to manage the time correctly and Adam. If you're using your closing statement just I have to wait to close on statements so I have to go to the promoter. It's a closing statement for each section you know you do a summary. But what I'm saying to you is because of the format I now have to open it to the promoter then I'll come back to you for a closing statement. No so you have confused you. Just read out the closing statement for each section rather than do questions through it. But the promoters have to go through so if you want to use your closing statement as your opening statement that's the only way it's going to go that's the only way it's going to work. Local residents have raised many concerns with the promoter over the many years this project has been developed and yet few mitigation proposals have been accepted. A special meeting was held four years ago where specific issues especially safety issues were raised and the promise was made that these would be looked at. However there has been no acceptance of the local residents concerns relying on a modelling exercise but no safety audit. The residents experience the traffic congestion and recognise the safety implications as they live with it on a daily basis. As has become the practice of the promoter repeating a statement that everything meets safety requirements or provided misleading information is substituted for careful analysis of what actually takes place. It is repeated that a nursery on the same stretch of road is a hazard whilst the school for 1400 pupils is not. It is presented that Transport Scotland is happy with the proposal when in fact they were presented with an environmental analysis and expressed no opinion for or against the proposal as a nearest trunk road is 3.2 kilometers away. We are told that no greater number of children will cross Milton Road than do at present but the promoter willfully ignores the dinner time exodus and those who will travel by bus from the west. When considering Balefield the promoter marked it down for cemented to the main road despite the barrier of a quiet cul-de-sac but the main A1 feeder route into and from the city is not a problem. There are a drop of points crossing a bus lanes and infamous 1.2 meter wide pavement at the top of Park Avenue along with many other unaddressed concerns but nothing is a problem for the promoter. Local residents are rightly concerned for the safety of those using the school and for the safety of their own families. The objections on road safety grounds remain. Thank you, Van. Thank you. Now to the promoter again. I would specify the time issue that we do have so if you've got. I'll keep it very brief if you can. I don't believe group 1 objectors have raised anything substantive that's not already been fully addressed. In previous written or oral evidence to the committee, I must stress as I've done before that safety is of paramount importance. The council proposal has fully complied with all aspects of applicable legislation and planning requirements for road transport and pedestrian safety. The proposals have been considered by a range of people who have expertise in traffic and transport matters, including ACOM, a fresh and consultant appoints to the project of the council's transportation department and developed management sub-committee, which have now fully considered the proposal twice through the planning process. None of them have identified significant risks in relation to traffic road safety implications in the new school and appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed and will be put in place for those risks that do exist. The suggestion of misleading information I reject utterly. The suggestion that we said that Transport Scotland supported those proposals I reject utterly, we did receive, convener, some additional information that had been presented from group 2 just early, I think, midday yesterday, but there was a significant level of inaccuracy in what they've conveyed to you, so we provided with a written submission to you last night, which will hopefully be of assistance. Beyond that, in the interests of time, I think I'll stop there. Thank you. Do you have any questions? I know what you said at the start, but do you have any questions? What I'll have any questions? No. Any final comments you wish to make? I said it. Okay. Move to category 3 then and invite the spokesperson on group 1 to speak on issues related to the visual impact, including loss of views and the height of the building. We stand by the evidence that we sent in. I've just got a couple of questions. Mr Mackie. In the interests of time, convener, we've covered everything, either in early written submissions or in all evidence, and this has been considered twice during the planning process, so nothing to add. Okay. Thank you, Mr Kemp's questions. Okay. You said at the meeting on 20th April at column 261, the protected views across the part of Arthur Seat will remain unobstructed. How do you know that? We've modelled the building in three dimensions and we have made a CGI view, computer generated image view of the situation. Why hasn't that been shared with the public? I think it has been, yeah. No, it hasn't. And I've got a map here which I'll distribute that shows the viewpoints that were assessed. The protected view of Arthur Seat is from here. None of these assessed that view. That view was not assessed. That's the view that we presented at the consultation, the view from the far end of the park, looking towards Arthur Seat. That view was not assessed. It quite clearly shows on the map that the view along Brand Drive, which is this one, and the view along Wilton Node were assessed, but the actual protected view across Arthur Seat from Home Plane was not assessed. Have you noticed it's been covered through the planning process? No. This is misinformation because you don't know how it's going to look. That's the bottom line, apart from the fact that it's going to have five-metre-high mesh fencing in the foreground. This view has not been assessed. It's commonplace to provide photo montages for the planning application, isn't it, to show the effect of buildings? It is a photo montage. There's a photograph there as a three-dimensional model being produced, which has been located on the site, and then a view taken. Is that the photo there that you're referring to that was on the... The photo bill was part of the private bill information leaflet. I mean that's not accurate, is it? That representation there, in that the depth of field is distorted, it's longer, and also the width of the development is extended by about 10 per cent in comparison to the height. So you're giving a kind of a long distance to you. You're not actually representing how it will appear. I mean I think when you make perspective views, the foreground does come up. If you go to the National Gallery and look at paintings, foreground in terms of perspective and depth of field can look like that. I think that's perfectly... I mean it's been size, it's been dimension, so I mean there's nothing else we can do about that apart from present what is technically what we're being told. I disagree. That is distorted by widening it, making it look further away, reducing the impact. Shall we move on? I'd just like to say, I think it's clear that the materials that have been provided in relation to views and the impact of the building in its surroundings have been sad that they're lacking if not misleading. Can I just ask a question? Have the council done anything to assess the impact on people who enjoy the visual access from Milton Road at the moment? The visual access to the fourth, first of fourth across the park, so if you're travelling along Milton Road on a busser in a car and you can currently look at the views, has anything been done to assess the impact of that? Which is not a protected view? I didn't ask if it was a protected view, I just asked if anything had been done to assess it. It was a protected view in the park and garden strategy of 2010, I think it was, or a document that we looked at earlier. We presented views of the park, we presented views from the east and from the west. I think we were very interested in the views along Milton Road, so you didn't consider any north, south or north to south. Mr McIntyre says that that was not a protected view, so we didn't produce an image of that direction. The design of the school has been done to minimise its impact into the local surroundings and maximise those views that can be preserved and architecture design Scotland have, when they considered this design in 2010, identified it as being a potentially exemplary design. Can I go back to the site visit, Mr McIntyre? When we were in the park in October with the committee members, we spoke or you spoke, I didn't say anything about the height of the school building and you described it as coming up to the height of houses that were in our line of sight as we looked towards Park Avenue. In fact, I think that this has been put on record, but I just wanted to draw it to the attention of the committee. That was incorrect and you were looking at the houses on Park Avenue, whereas the building is as high as the houses on Milton Road and there's a full story of a difference. In fact, the impression of the height of the school would be at least one story higher than the verbal information that was given to the committee. Not one story higher, but this was clarified in information that we provided to the committee back in November 2013. I think that it's close enough to a story higher, but we can clarify that. We don't have time just now, but I'll put in a submission. Do you have a question? Okay, I don't have a question because we don't have time. I do have lots of questions, but unfortunately we don't have time. Does anyone have questions? Well, I'd like to ask whether the protected view was pointed out to the committee on the site visit last October. Right, okay, but it just hasn't been assessed, that's all. Okay, so that's not a question, that's a statement. Does the promoter have any questions? Okay, are there any final comments in category 3? No, I just thought to say that it's clear that there's been misinformation or a lack of information about the visual impact that the building will have on its surroundings and the landscaping. I think people will get a nasty shock if it's built. Okay, we've moved to category 4. I invite a spokesperson from group 1 to speak in the issues covered in category 4, environmental issues which include light pollution, noise pollution, operational disturbances, loss of wildlife and biodiversity. I think again, simply read out the opening closing statement when I find it. Conflicting information has been given with reference to optimum lighting levels. For example, the EIA states that it should be as low as possible not to deter bats and the SBDs, secured by design, report says that they should be as high as possible for security. We've heard what the lighting level is going to be like, so it will conflict with the environmental impact assessment. Higher levels of spoke pitch flood lighting, 16,000 watt, 10 meter high lighting poles will cause light spillage into people's homes and could lead to sleep disruption of children and elderly people. There will be general light pollution associated with the site and this will be up to 10 o'clock where other areas of cities control turn 9, 13.5 meter high lighting columns, luminaire lighting. There will be significant loss of immunity to local residents in terms of noise pollution from additional traffic, the sports pitchers and plant. The introduction of a large number of people and vehicles circulating every day in the area and the introduction of HGVs to Park Avenue will have a significant impact on residential immunity. An unknown number of mature trees were lost, as will around 50 per cent of the millennium planting, and this reduction of habitat will lead to a loss of wildlife and biodiversity and increased disturbance to neighbours. Does the promoter have any brief comments? In the interests of time, convener, nothing new has been raised here. We've previously covered this in previous written and oral evidence, so no further statement to me. Do you have any questions for the promoter? No, do you have any questions? Any final comments other than, obviously, the final comments you just gave? Okay. That concludes the detailed evidence from the ejectors and promoters in the five categories of objection. I move on to questioning by committee members. On the loss of amenity in open space, I have a question for the promoters. Obviously, the replacement open space is very significant, and you've tried to protect that by fields of trust in relation to the new replacement space. In terms of the commitment to free access to the existing football pitches, what kind of guarantee can you give in perpetuity? What can you do to reassure the objectors on free access to local residents in perpetuity? The council has already taken the decision to provide that free access in perpetuity. What I would need to consider if there's anything else that we could ask the council to do to further reinforce the decision that's already taken. It's certainly something that will take away. I'm not sure whether there is anything that we could do, because the council has already taken a very clear decision in this matter, but I will take that away and see if there's anything that we could further do to provide that assurance. It forms part of the very public discussions that we've had in debate around this bill. It also forms part of the compensatory measures that were associated with the planning consent for the new school. Frankly, it would be ludicrous for the council to renaig on those very strong commitments that have already been provided. It's certainly not, from a children and families perspective, anything that we would count on and soar propose, and ordinarily recommendations to council comes from officers. I do understand that, convener, but you've taken that extra step in releasing to the replacement open space by putting in place fields and trusts, or by proposing to put in place fields and trusts, so it would be useful if you were able to consider it. We'll certainly look at that and see if there's anything further we could do. Mr Hawkins has a lead objective to group one to have any final comments to make. We have co-operated, as far as possible, in trying to meet the timetable set for the hearing of objections, which we thought detailed examination would take place as to why the council has arrived at this position. We are disappointed in the ruling to curtail our evidence, and after more than 10 years of the council failing to provide a new school, it seems unnecessary for this democratic process to be cut short for the sake of an hour or two. We are unclear how you can move on to the next stage without having heard all the objections from all of the group's objectors. There have been difficulties of trust and clarity in dealing with the council. Even now, it is withholding information from us that is evidence for this consideration stage. Over the years, it has said one thing, then done another. It says if the park is common good, it won't be built on, then proposes to do so. It says a new golf course is purchased, but it isn't. Replacement open space is promised, and then this mitigation of the loss of partland is removed, as it is in the wrong place. Then the same site is promised again, but inexplicably is now in the right place. The council says access will be freely granted to the artificial pitchers. I don't believe it, as this contradicts the current and future policy on community access to schools. They say access will be in perpetuity as an inducement to support this bill, but it forms no part of it. A problem of trust. Well, the council had said that Portable Park was to be recreational partland in perpetuity. The council's definition of perpetuity and partland is a period of time until they want to build on it. We have not heard a clear reason from the council as to why in 2008 they decided to follow a course of action that its own legal opinion unequivocally stated was extremely risky and eventually proved to be totally flawed. Maybe the term extremely risky is not the correct phrase. Perhaps willfully negligent is more apt. Officers within the council knew that there was no power to build on the park. This was not made public knowledge, not even to councillors when they followed the recommendations put to them. It is a pity for everyone in Portavello that the pressure from some for Portable High School to be prioritised first above the other Wave 3 schools resulted in the burying of the initial advice. A different question being asked and a different opinion being given. The first legal opinion obtained by the council in August 2008 was not superseded. It exists and it is valid. It has not been withdrawn. It was hidden from councillors and the general public alike, including both supporters and objectors to the plan to develop the park. You are aware that the council was found to have no powers to take the park for development and that its decision of 26 April 2012 was ruled ultraviaries and that was considered by three senior judges. A decision that should not have been a surprise to the council as we now know they had a clear legal opinion telling them this as long ago as 2008. For this unusual bill you cannot disentangle the past from the present. We know this is contrary to the statement that what happened before 2012 has no bearing on this matter but we can find no reference or guidance issued which precludes consideration of the historical context of the bill. We maintain that what happened in the time before the court judgment is totally germane to this process. The council had the opportunity to do something different in 2008 but chose to gamble on a risky course of action and to the loss of all in Portobello. The City of Edinburgh council is now looking to parliament to get it out of this disastrous mess it has created for itself by not listening and they are not listening still. You have heard evidence that whilst a particular private bill will confer no powers on others for any act by passing this bill a behavioural precedent will be set which highlights a route others will follow and how can you pass a bill for one body and not another. You have evidence that the private bill process should not be followed as the legal constraints should be addressed through public legislation. You have heard that the council has deliberately run down Portobello park over many years in order to say it is unused. There is ample evidence that some schools in Edinburgh are being provided without taking adjacent urban parkland. Importantly for this process you have heard many concerns about how the consultation for this bill targeted to the school community was manipulated by the council as the developer to get the result it wanted. You have criticised the consultation. At this point it is unclear how the committee will assess the evidence, how it will be validated and checked for accuracy. The amendment clause about the future legal status of Portobello park presented by the promoter is not understood and could not be easily explained by the promoter when clarification was sought. You have actually clarified some of these points for going forward. We the objectors to the private bill support a new Portobello high school, but we can have a new school and retain Portobello park. The council has failed from the start to manage the risk of this project. It has hidden the legal opinions and then publicly feigned surprise at losing the appeal that rendered its decision ultraviries. It has threatened to sue us and has blamed us for the delay in providing a new school when all the delay has been of its own making. There are still too many uncertainties as to whether all of the objections have been addressed and what ramifications may come from the passing of this bill. We and other objectors have provided ample evidence to you about the failure of the promoter to manage the process to provide legal clarity and we have raised many doubts about the trust that can be placed on any promise by the city of Edinburgh council. On the objections presented, both oral and written, there is sufficient evidence to recommend that this bill should not be passed. I had some closing remarks, but I will make them very brief. I thank you again for the opportunity to address you. I have emphasised this point in previous sessions, but it is so important that I hope that the committee will forgive me for re-eartyr writing it one more time. The council and I believe that nobody would be in denial of this that Portobello high school needs to be replaced as soon as possible. We are firmly of the view that Portobello park is by far the most cost-effective, quickest and best location of which we could build the new school. The only feasible option of a phasory build on the combined site of Portobello high school and St John's RC primary school would be far more expensive, take far longer to deliver and would have to significantly compromise in the educational facilities that could be made available and surpassed in what can be delivered by sighting the new school in the park. It would also require St John's RC primary school to be relocated. The decision to look at the school in Portobello park is not one that has been taken lightly. It has been reached after careful consideration and assessment on several occasions of all of the possible alternative options, as well as extensive public consultation. The council is pleased that a significant majority of people in the local community agree that the park offers the best location for the new school. We do appreciate that the proposal has generated some opposition. The objectives today and at the other sessions have expressed their views very strongly on what they regard as downsides, while we respect the views of individual objectives. We cannot simply accept the validity of many of the claims made about the negative consequences that would result from either the passage of the bill or from building the new school. We would also make it absolutely clear again that the council categorically refutes any suggestions of impropriety in its part, any stage of the project and any suggestions of withholding information that are completely untrue. We cannot and do not claim that we have a perfect solution to the problem that we are faced with. However, a perfect solution does not exist. We do believe that the benefits of building the new school on the park, including the improvements that are made, are remaining open space on the site and other spaces in the area. The other compensatory and mitigation measures that will accompany the project, including the creation of a significant and entirely new area of open space, will result in a net gain for the local community. Where legitimate concerns have been raised about the council's proposals, we have taken steps to address and alleviate those as far as possible. We have said repeatedly that we were open to suggestions from objectives as to how we might improve our proposals and further alleviate their concerns. However, they persist in saying that the only solution is that the school should be built elsewhere. That is not something that we can accept or are prepared to do. We remain firmly of the view that none of the issues raised by the objectives, either today or in earlier sessions, constitute valid reasons to abandon our proposals. That would require the council to pursue the far more expensive, far more time consuming and far more disruptive alternative option of a phasory build in the existing site, involving all of the compromises that would result. We do hope that the committee shares our view that none of the issues of detail discussed today or in earlier sessions constitute reasons for recommending the bill should not proceed and that any disadvantages in the proposals would be adequately addressed through the compensatory and mitigation measures that we have proposed. Of course, however, we would be welcome to any suggestions from committee if there are further states that you believe we could take till there are any further concerns that members might have, including proposing or discussing any further amendments to the bill and that you might consider to be appropriate. Likewise, if we can assist the committee further by providing any additional information to assist you in considering the issues raised, we would obviously be more than happy to do so. I thank you again for the opportunity to address you today and in the previous sessions at both the preliminary consideration stage. I thank all participants for their attendance this morning. That concludes the public part of the meeting. I may now move into private.