Hansard

I am sorry; I do not have time to take interventions.

The committee had before it 59 objections to the bill. Consideration of those objections was not an easy task. We considered a diverse range of subject matters during the course of this phase: the promoter’s pre-introduction consultation process; the possibility of the bill setting a precedent for other local authorities to use as a mechanism to bypass the protection of common good land which, it was argued, would occur if the bill proceeded; and issues that are also subject to the planning process.

In determining the approach to assessing objections, the committee was also keenly conscious, as it had been from the start of the scrutiny process, that its role was not to carry out a planning inquiry. Planning matters had already been addressed during two planning application processes. The committee’s consideration of objections under the standing orders was in the context of determining the extent to which an adverse effect of the bill, which might also be a planning matter, would impact on an individual’s private interests and the extent to which that would be balanced by the overall benefit to the community from the bill.

In relation to the practicalities of our approach to the consideration of objections, the objections were provisionally divided into a number of groups on a geographical basis. For example, objectors who live adjacent to the park were identified as one group and those who live in the surrounding area to the north of the park were identified as another group. We put the main group opposed to the school being built on the park—Portobello park action group—and known associated objectors in a group on their own, as we did the golfers, who we considered to be a special interest group.

We consulted all objectors in each of the six groups regarding the selection of lead objectors who, when that was agreed, were invited to co-ordinate oral evidence on behalf of their respective groups. All 59 objectors were also given the opportunity to provide supplementary written evidence in support of their original objection. In the event, only six objectors took up that invitation.

All groups of objectors were represented at oral evidence sessions at the committee. The promoter also attended those sessions. That was intended to allow each party the opportunity to present its case on specific issues and cross-examine the other side.

Before commenting on our views on other issues related to objections, I want to refer briefly to matters that the committee had also considered at preliminary stage. Those included the Parliament legislating after a Court of Session decision; the possibility of the bill setting a precedent; and alternative sites for the school. We set out our views on those issues at the preliminary stage and the committee was not convinced that there was any substantive reason to change those views as a result of the further evidence produced at consideration stage.

At preliminary stage, the committee had encouraged the promoter to reflect on the lessons learned from each aspect of the process in relation to the consultation. We were reassured to learn that the promoter intended to take into account a number of actions for future consultation exercises, such as ensuring that for any public meetings that involve non-council representatives, all participants should be able to comment on the proposed format of the meeting.

Although we did not consider that any shortcomings identified in the consultation process were sufficient to sustain any objections regarding the consultation’s adequacy, the committee noted that the continued reference by objectors to their concerns in this area illustrated a lack of trust between objectors and the promoter.

We continued to be concerned about adequate protection for the site to ensure that it could not be used for any purpose other than the proposed educational function. At consideration stage, therefore, an amendment was lodged by Alison McInnes whose intention was to ensure that, if the park is appropriated under the terms of the bill and then ceases to be used for educational purposes, it will revert to its legal status and be subject to the title restriction on its use at the time of cessation of use. The amendment has also allowed for circumstances where the appropriation occurs but, for whatever reason, the park is not used for educational purposes. In such a case, if the park were not used for that purpose within a period of 10 years—if, for example, school premises were not provided—the legal and title restrictions would once again apply to the park when that period expired. The bill has now been amended to include the terms of that amendment.

In relation to the replacement of open space promised by the council, which would be formed from part of the existing combined site of Portobello high school and St John’s primary school, objectors voiced concerns about the site being outwith the local vicinity, being smaller than the space that would be lost and being beside an existing park.

The council’s commitment to the provision of open space was also questioned, as was the protection that would be provided by Fields in Trust status, which the council intends to seek for the replacement site. The committee had previously urged the council to consider whether there are any other additional measures that could be taken to allay concerns about the security of the replacement open space’s future. In response, the promoter provided details of the other possible measures that it had considered and concluded that none of those measures would provide additional protection at this stage. The preferred solution remained the designation of the land as having Fields in Trust status. The council stated at the committee meeting on 7 May:

“in the circumstances, Fields in Trust protection is the best proposal for allaying any concerns that objectors might have.”—[Official Report, City of Edinburgh Council (Portobello Park) Bill Committee, 7 May 2014; c 361.]

We are content that that designation should provide a satisfactory additional safeguard for the future of the site.

The committee took account of each objection on its own merits and circumstances, but a number of clear themes featured consistently. The main issues that arose included the loss of amenity and green space; road safety, traffic and congestion issues; the visual impact of the proposed development, including the loss of views, the height of the building and lighting; and a number of environmental issues, such as noise pollution, operational disturbances and the loss of wildlife and biodiversity.

In relation to the mitigation measures that might be sought to alleviate concerns in connection with those issues, I highlight that the promoter asked objectors, including in evidence sessions, what proposals they had that might mitigate their concerns in the context of the bill being passed and the school being constructed on the park. Objectors argued that the only mitigation measure would be the school being built on another site.

In conclusion, the committee has spent over 12 months considering the issues pertaining to this divisive bill and is disappointed that there has not been a greater degree of constructive resolution and engagement between the parties. We acknowledge the objectors’ concerns on various fronts. For example, there will inevitably be adverse impacts due to noise and operational disturbance; there will be a visual impact from the construction of the building and some loss of views to Arthur’s Seat; and there are indeed health benefits to be derived from open space, which the park provides. However, the committee also recognises that compensatory and mitigation measures will be implemented as required by the planning process; that there are other green and open spaces in the vicinity; and that there will be other benefits to the community from the new sporting facilities.

Overall, we are satisfied that an appropriate balance has been struck between the private interests of those who would be adversely affected by the proposal and its benefits to the wider community.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the City of Edinburgh Council (Portobello Park) Bill be passed.