This is one of the questions that the newly established Edinburgh Old Town Development Trust , will be asking at its first public meeting this Thursday 26th November at Augustine United Church, George IV Bridge from 7.30pm – 9.30pm.

Catriona Grant a local resident and director of the trust, said today “Last week in Venice the last remaining long term residents held a mock funeral to dramatise the flight of residents from their city’s heart. We may be holding one here soon, if we do not take action now. Like the Venetians we need affordable and also non HMO sized family housing, which encourages people, especially families, to stay or move into the area. Like Venice, prices are steep in the historic centre, and many landlords demand much more money, by advertising over the Internet to short stay visitors than with long-term rentals to residents.”

She added “We however as residents then have to live with the consequence of these which are often large hen and stag parties. We have become unpaid concierges and are disturbed at all hours, it is only because of a loophole in the law that they are turning the Old Town into one big unregulated hotel. There are health and safety issues that no one has addressed yet, as well as the obvious almost daily loss of long term inhabitants, with the knock on effect of losing local shops and perhaps even the last remaining school, along with other vital community facilities which ensure a living neighbourhood.”

Sean Bradley, a director of the trust and Chair of the Grassmarket Residents’ Association said today

“A community’s greatest asset is its residents. The Edinburgh Old Town Development Trust is an historic opportunity for the people of the Old Town to shape its future for the benefit of all – that means improving opportunities and the quality of life for everyone”

Last year’s community research, The Canongate Project , showed that more support and facilities are needed for the residential population if a ‘living city’ is to be maintained in the Old Town. The research also highlighted the need for affordable housing, family sized homes, a better mix of local shops, community facilities, play space, public toilets, safe and usable green public space, along with residents having a say in future developments in the Old Town.

The meeting is to include discussion on the trusts possible projects and Ian Cooke, Director of The Development Trusts Association Scotland will give an introduction to the fast growing network of development trusts across Scotland, and highlight the real differences they are making to the communities in which they are based.

Catriona ends “So we are urging those who live in the area and outwith to come along and become a member of the trust. Help shape the future projects and the role the trust can play in an area, which is becoming increasingly dominated by tourism and the night-time economy often at the expense of those who call it home”

***Notes for Editors***

Contact Catriona Grant 07717204426

Meeting Details -

The Public Meeting of The newly formed Edinburgh Old Town Development Trust which also covers the Dumbiedykes area is on
Thursday 26th November `09 at Augustine United Church at 41 George IV Bridge EH1 1EL 7.30pm-9.30pm

Venice http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/europe/15venice.html

Google News on Venice http://news.google.co.uk/news/more?um=1&cf=all&ned=uk&cf=all&ncl=dvB8OLyLeAxuTdMI2JQjdxfFtC54M

The Development Trust Association Scotland http://www.dtascot.org.uk/

Party Flats Edinburgh http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Neighbours-beg–MSPs-for.5120629.jp

The Canongate Project http://eh8.org.uk/sites/eh8.org.uk/files/canongate-final-report-web_0.pdf

In other news – council claims protesters cause flood, pestilence & global financial crisis

COUNCIL COMMON GOOD POLICY MUST CHANGE

We’re kidding about the flood and pestilence…

…but this is just as nonsensical as the ‘senior council source’ who is quoted by The Herald:

“The stance taken by the campaigners has been overly simplistic and this issue is just another example of how managing successful services is more complex than they want to admit.”

This blatant attempt to shoot the messenger is not only crude but inaccurate. We welcome the following assurance from Cllr Stephen Curran, Executive Member for Service Reform:

“I share your concern at these unfortunate and unattributable comments, which are simply inaccurate with regard to “Save Pollok Park” for whom the phrase “overly simplistic” is wholly inappropriate. Clearly there is a risk to maintaining the current high level of expenditure in Pollok Park and the Common Good Fund if those are not addressed, but they did not preclude its consideration and inclusion as a Common Good Asset and are in no way insurmountable.” “ In my previous role as City Treasurer I introduced a new investment policy on the Common Good that had been developed on a non-partisan and cross-party basis, focussing on appropriate measures to protect the level of the Common Good Fund in future.”

Referring to Common Good assets in general, Cllr Curran says:
“(At the Executive Committee meeting) I also asked and received confirmation that it was “not difficult” to manage Pollok Park effectively as a Common Good asset.” “I added that we support Pollok Park’s inclusion as a Common Good asset and that accounting for this will be an ongoing issue in future, particularly as additional properties may be included on the Common Good Asset Register.”
___________________________________

Council policy on Common Good must change

The Council would not be in such disarray if they were simply to update the Common Good asset register as required by the Scottish Government. This should have been completed by 31 March 2009.

According to the Chief Executive’s department this would cost £1.3 million to implement. Perhaps a ‘senior council source’ would tell us how this figure has been calculated? It sounds like a lot of money but perhaps it should be put in the context of the £2 million bill for the salaries and expenses of the Chief Officers’ for 2008-9. Details here.

The absence of an up to date register was partly responsible for the wrong advice to councillors about Pollok Park’s status and the eventual downfall of the Go Ape proposal. It will be interesting to see how much that fiasco cost the Council when our FOI request for details of all the expenditure is finally answered. Having failed to provide the data at the first request the Council now has until 9 November to provide this information on appeal.

____________________

…and finally – more news about Go Ape

The website for Friends of Itchen Valley Park reports on Go Ape’s attempts to build a course in a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the local council’s attempts to block the protesters.

Bill Fraser

Save Pollok Park

Tel: 0141-424 0447

Mob: 07775 832 461

Fax: 0141-626 4235

In an embarrassing gaffe [sic] by members of Glasgow City Council, revealed over the weekend, it was shown that the principal reason put forward for the closure of nearly two dozen schools in the city earlier this year could not now be supported by official statistics. In April this year leading Labour politicians within the country’s largest local authority revealed that they intended to close a significant number of city schools because of “falling school rolls”.

However, it has since been found that school rolls in Glasgow are actually on the increase, although city council planners and politicians claim that the rising number of children attending schools in the city has taken them by surprise.

Councillor Stephen Curran, the politician responsible for overseeing service reform within the council, confirmed the rise in pupil numbers when he said that there were “more children in Glasgow than we had been expecting”. In an added development the councillor intimated that the rise in school rolls would now mean that politicians would have to make an extra £2million in cuts to the city’s education budget to accommodate for the increased number of pupils in city classrooms.

Although pupil numbers are on the rise, the council has appeared to rule out any possibility of a reversal of the controversial, and deeply unpopular, closure of 20 city schools earlier this year. In a number of cases – as with Barmulloch Primary School in Glasgow North East (shown below) – the school has already been demolished, despite the fact that the term has only recently started…

http://discuss.glasgowguide.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=17364

——————————————-
Variant
1/2 189b Maryhill Road
Glasgow G20 7XJ

t. +44 (0)141 333 9522
e. variantmag@btinternet.com

http://www.variant.org.uk

receive events info & online Variant:
variantforum-subscribe@topica.com

SAVE POLLOK PARK LAUNCHES MALADMINISTRATION COMPLAINT AGAINST GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL

Save Pollok Park today launched a formal complaint of maladministration against Glasgow City Council over its handling of the Go Ape project.
Full complaint PDF

Common Good report Fife CouncilPDF

FIFE COUNCIL’S external auditors have told the local authority it needs to improve the way it looks after the Common Good funds.

Scott Moncrieff state that it is not clear where specific responsibilities for administering the funds lie, there is poor information about moveable Common Good assets such as paintings and books, and there is a risk the funds do not receive rental income which is rightfully theirs.

“There appears to be significant variances in the level of rental income received from both council services and external organisations and inconsistencies as to whether the Common Good asset is on the Common Good asset register or the council asset register.

“We understand that many of the rental agreements have been inherited and not reviewed since local government reorganisation,” they say in a report to the council’s standards and audit committee.

The auditors have drawn up an action plan.

Neil Crooks, chairman of the standards and audit committee, said, “This is a very thorough piece of work that has been done by Scott Moncrieff. It has given us a very clear picture on the way forward for the council in its management of Common Good assets.

“I’m pleased to say that a number of the recommendations in the report are already in hand. The review of the council’s scheme of administration will clarify where responsibilities for Common Good lie and also widen them out.

“Our committee consider the area committees to be a key component in the process and there are obvious gaps in the Common Good register which will be addressed. Councillors will also be offered training on the definition of Common Good and stewardship of those funds.

“The council has already made great progress over the last few years by taking a proactive approach to creating a Common Good asset register and the development of a Fife Council policy on the security of moveable assets will now include Common Good artefacts.

“I think once the external auditor’s action plan is implemented, there will be a more robust management of these historical Common Good assets and it will ensure they are given a status equal to those of council assets.

“Local communities are very interested in these funds and would be concerned if they read the report.

“Members felt that a higher priority should be given to Common Good issues and hopefully this report will encourage buy-in from services who have perhaps not seen this as a priority before.

“We accept that it is a very complex issue, but there is a determination to iron out anomalies and record information in an open and transparent way.”

Michael Enston, the council’s executive director of performance and organisational support, said there was a risk to the council’s reputation if it failed to implement the proposed action plan, but warned that doing so would require further targeting of existing resources.

“Whilst the report recognises the ongoing work to regularise the council’s treatment of Common Good assets and the efforts made to produce a complete register, it identifies a number of areas for continuing improvement. These will be taken forward as resources allow. However, it is likely that further resources from various services will be required to be devoted to this area to complete the work timeously.”

Fife Courier

On 12th June Glasgow Council finally gave in and abandoned the idea of of Go Ape in Pollok Park

Thanks to all our supporters – we knew we spoke for the majority and could prove it – they thought we would gradually go away – but were wrong

In their press statement the Council and Go Ape tried to save face – that is to be expected – but they and we know that they simply could not overcome the legal and financial mess they go into – and which we have been pointing out for 18 months

We established that Pollok Park (and Knowehead Lodge ) are part of the Common Good and they would have had to go to court to remove them
Bridge report

Save Pollok Park

In June or July each year the Local Authority should put a public notice in the local
newspaper. This will be headed up:
Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 – Draft Accounts year to 31 March 200X
This will give the place and dates when the draft accounts of the Council can be inspected.
Anyone can take copies of extracts of these, and all books, deeds, contracts, vouchers and
receipts will also be made available. Enquiries concerning this will be directed to a
designated officer of the council who will be named on the public notice.
The second part of the notice gives information about who is the auditor (which may be
Audit Scotland or a firm of accountants) and the date when any objection about the draft
accounts needs to be filed.
The first thing to do is to write off to the named officer of the council (usually the Director of
Finance) and tell him when you propose to attend and what you want to see.
If you are specific about what you want, then there can be no excuses about not producing
the documents! A list may include things like:
1. All vouchers and receipts relating to the income and expenditure of the Oldburgh
Common Good Fund;
2. A list of the assets of the Oldburgh Common Good Fund, and all of the title deeds relating
thereto;
3. All vouchers and receipts relating to the income and expenditure of the Oldburgh Public
Hall, if not included in the above;
4. The title deeds of the Oldburgh Public Hall, Oldburgh Park and Oldburgh Common, if not
included in the above.
The purpose of points 3 and 4 is to get the income and expense and the deeds of property
which may be Common Good, but is not accounted for as Common Good by the council.
Based on this information, you should now know what the income is, what it was spent on
and what assets (the Council thinks) are Common Good. By looking at the other title deeds
of the public buildings and open space within the burgh, and applying the definition of
Common Good provided by the Scottish Parliament, you can now find out if there is any
property which is Common Good and not accounted for as such.
In the event that you think there is anything wrong, then the first thing is to give the council a
chance to confirm or deny your suspicions by writing to the Director of Finance.
The next thing is to send an objection and a statement of the grounds of objection to the
auditor, named in the notice, and copies to the Controller of Audit of the Accounts
Commission, whose address is also on the notice.
Copies must also be sent to the Council and any officer concerned. I normally send copies
to the Chief Executive, Chief Legal Officer and Chief Financial Officer as well as each of the
local councillors to satisfy this.
The objection could be something like:
Scottish Local Authority – Draft Accounts for the year to 31 March 200X
In accordance with s101(2) (a) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 I hereby lodge
objection to the above accounts on the following grounds:
Heritable property gifted to the former Oldburgh has not been included within the assets of
the Oldburgh Common Good Fund. Consequently the assets of the Oldburgh Common
Good Fund are understated and the assets of the council are overstated.
Income derived from the assets of the Oldburgh Common Good Fund has not been
accounted for within the Common Good Fund, and consequently the income is understated
and the income of the council is overstated.
Expenditure of the Oldburgh Common Good Fund has been incurred other than with regard
to the interests of the inhabitants of Oldburgh and such expenditure is contrary to the
provisions of statute.
You should provide sufficient detail to enable the auditor to understand what the point you
are making is. You may also wish to request an opportunity to have a meeting with the
auditor to explain your points more fully. If so, put that request in your letter.
You will probably then be invited to a meeting with the auditor at about the end of August or
the beginning of September. Remember that the council’s accounts need to be signed-off by
30 September, so the Auditor won’t adjust the accounts or anything unless the effect of the
objection is material to the accounts of the council.
Sometimes the auditor will inform you that, although the effect of your objection was not
material, he will ask the council to make the adjustments in the following year’s accounts to
rectify any errors and mistakes. If so check that they do this the next year!
Sometimes, of course, the auditor decides that you are just being a nuisance by bringing up
objections about a few thousand pounds, when the council has income and assets of
several millions, and (politely) tells you so and doesn’t do anything about your objection.
Keep at it, you can bring up the same issues year after year and the quantification of the
mistake will multiply over these years, if it is not fixed.
Let me know how you get on!
James Perman
james@perman.co.uk
21 June 2008

In a press statement today, Jerome Mayhew of Go Ape said:

“Having taken into account National Trust for Scotland’s request that we try
to avoid constructing additional buildings in the park, we have carefully
explored the possibility of using a part of the existing Knowehead Lodge as
our customer reception and equipment store. However, we have concluded that
the amount of work required to adapt the building to incorporate our
reception area would be too extensive and impractical. We have therefore
decided, after much thought, not to go ahead with building a course in
Pollok Park.

“We are obviously disappointed that this will prevent us from providing a
healthy and exciting new recreational activity for Pollok Park and for
Glasgow and would like to take this opportunity to thank Glasgow City
Council and the many people in the local area who have openly supported us.”

Robert Booth added:

“Obviously we regret Go Ape’s decision not to proceed with their facility
at Pollok Park. Our main objective was to secure an additional attraction
for park users at no cost or financial risk to the Council. The loss of
such an exciting venue for health and recreational activity within the park
and of course the 2000 annual free places which would have been available to
Glasgow groups young and old is therefore a major disappointment.

“Notwithstanding this we are delighted that the Company’s future plans
continue to include Scotland with their 2nd site scheduled to open early
next year and wish them well with their ongoing discussions with the
National Trust for Scotland on the potential opening of their 3rd site in
one of the Trust’s own locations.

“The public can be assured that the Council will continue with its
commitment to improve its parks and open spaces by providing quality
facilities everyone can enjoy and make use of. “

Save Pollok Park tonight issued the following statement:

“We’re delighted with this outcome and we want to thank all our supporters
for sticking with us over the last eighteen months. Our campaign was backed
by thousands of Glasgow residents who wanted to keep Pollok Park’s North
Wood as the haven of peace the Maxwell family envisaged when they gifted it
to the citizens of Glasgow. It’s just a pity it’s taken so long to reach
the obvious conclusion.”

“Throughout this saga the Council failed to consult its taxpayers properly
or listen to protests. They did not address the legal and operational issues
which we believe made the proposal a non-starter anyway. A great deal of
public money and time has been wasted in futile posturing.”

“Go Ape was never part of a health agenda as the Council claimed but simply
a crass attempt to cash in on a dear green place. The council has now lost
two major park schemes to popular protest and they need to rethink the
commercialisation of such open spaces or risk further defeats.”

“In March 2008 we characterised the council’s handling of the planning
application as ’slapdash and incompetent’ as they failed to consider key
evidence on a number of planning issues. For instance they did not consult
NTS which has the lead conservation role. “

“In the last 12 months we have pointed out to council officers many other
problems with the plan including the fact that this is Common Good land and
cannot be leased without Court consent; precedent showed this approval was
unlikely. The Chief Executive’s department failed to respond and we now call
upon the appropriate council committee to investigate these failings which
have cost the taxpayer and Go Ape dear.”

“We are also critical of the NTS. As conservator of the Park they failed in
their duty to oppose the scheme vigorously when legal opinion obtained by
Save Pollok Park clearly showed they had an obligation to do so. Had they
made their position clear from the start the scheme would have been dead in
the water.”

Bill Fraser

Save Pollok Park

Tel: 0141-424 0447

Mob: 07775 832 461

Fax: 0141-626 4235