Seanie wrote:No takers?
Ok I’ll explain where I’m coming from, leaving the issue of funding aside.
I know very little personally about the condition of either PHS or St Johns, but given their age I’d be surprised if they were fit for purpose by today’s standards. PHS in particular. Virtually all buildings from the 60’s fall vastly short of what’s now expected in terms of function, environmental performance, accessibility etc and most are approaching or have reached their natural life span. That life can be extended, but it’s not a cheap or easy option, and has to be considered against the end result.
In the case of PHS refurbishment sounds a bad idea. It would be disruptive and expensive, incurring the cost of an extended decant, and at the end of the day you’d have a building hugely constrained by its form and site. High rise, as well as being costly, inherently restricts flexibility and adaptability because the demands of structure, services and circulation impose massive constraints. And the site is fundamentally too small, ostrich like attempts to deny it notwithstanding.
Which is why rebuilding on site is pretty much a non-starter. It may have been the initial proposal for PPP2 but I can’t imagine it would’ve survived detailed scrutiny. The site is too small to build a new school without demolishing the old one first, so you’d still incur the cost and disruption of an extended decant. And the limitations of the site would compromise the design of the replacement. It would be difficult to avoid another high-rise solution with the attendant problems already mentioned. There’d be little sense in going to the huge expense and disruption of replacing the school if at the end of the day the new school would be fundamentally compromised by the inadequacy of the site.
So if you’re looking to replace PHS, and at some point you’ll have to, you’re really looking for a new site. But that’s not easy because schools do require a large amount of space. With sustainability in mind the preferred choice might be a brown-field site. But all the brown-field sites suggested so far are either too small, poorly located, not in Council ownership or frequently all three. They’re non-starters.
Only a lunatic would build a school at Seafield Road Bus Depot.
So whenever PHS is replaced, be it now, in 5 or 10 years time, and however it’s funded, you’ll be looking for a greenfield site, large enough to accommodate both schools and playing fields, that’s in the catchment area and in council ownership.
The shortlist of sites meeting those requirements is indeed short. It gets even shorter when you take planning considerations into account.
There is no way in hell you’d get to build it at Calvary Park.
The Planning dept would be against because it would encroach on greenbelt and their aspiration for a green corridor to the heart of the city. The Education dept would be against because two large schools in close proximity would be a management nightmare. The Transport dept would be against it because it would cause traffic chaos. And I can’t imagine the locals up at Duddingston would be ringing the bells in joyous anticipation. In short the number of people in favour of such a proposal will be dwarfed by the number who think it a really, really bad idea. It’s not going to happen.
Similarly building at Brunstane faces problems. As a general rule I think that building schools outwith their catchment area is frowned upon. But leaving that aside the Planners won’t be keen. I’m still unaware of the exact boundaries and designation of the land involved but if, as I understand it, most of the land is greenbelt then most of the land is very difficult to develop. Not impossible mind. If you put forward a very good case, that it was the ideal site and there was no alternative, then the planners might be persuaded. But since it’s clearly a crappy idea and there’s at least one obvious alternative, I can’t imagine they’ll be convinced.
I think, when it really comes down to it, you’ve probably got a choice between two sites for a new PHS. Either PGC or the Jewel. Of those I’d prefer PGC. It’s close to the centre of the catchment and the existing schools, which would make relocating St John’s in particular easier.
Both Portobello Park and the Jewel will have planning protection as Open Space and because of their playing fields. That protection will not prohibit development but it does mean the benefits of any proposals will be judged quite strictly against loss of amenity. I think in those terms developing on Portobello Park is preferable, primarily because the golf-course can be relocated.
For me that’s the key. Moving the golf-course up to greenbelt land at Brunstane doesn’t present a significant planning hurdle. Yes it’s further away which will inconvenience some people. But the vast majority of golfers drive to the course and if you’re not playing golf you’re not really supposed to be wandering about it anyway. I’m in no doubt that many people have a significant attachment to the golf-course where it is. But in terms of actual usage I don’t think relocating represents a significant loss of amenity. And it frees up a huge amount of land. Enough land that amenity could actually be enhanced.
In terms of sports and recreation I’d absolutely expect amenity to be enhanced by new schools. I’d expect the community to benefit from more, better and more varied facilities. But because moving the golf-course frees up so much land I’d also expect a sizeable public park to remain that could be of considerable value despite the loss to development. Be it an eco-park or a nature reserve I think there’s the potential for a public green space of more interest and use than the barren expanse of close cropped grass that Portobello Park is at the moment.
Even with the development of housing.
I know I said I’d leave aside the issue of funding but it is another reason why I prefer PGC as the site.
Ideally I’d like to see new schools funded directly through progressive redistributive taxation or via public borrowing. However the prospects of that any time soon are slim. I suppose we could put aside our differences and work together to make it a reality. And after we’ve succeeded we can bring a just peace to Israel-Palestine, end world hunger, reverse global warming, and ensure ponies for all.
However if you’re actually looking to replace the schools any time soon funding options are somewhat limited. The council doesn’t have the revenue streams or capital budget to fund such proposals outright, certainly not given all the other schools across the city that also require attention, and their ability to borrow is constrained by central government. I suppose we could put aside our differences and campaign for a huge increase in our council tax. But I’m not sure support will be unanimous.
Failing that you’re looking at PPP or self-financing. I’d put PPP close to the bottom of my preferred sources of funding. I think PPP delivers, more often than not, crap buildings at extortionate expense but you may be able to go down that route if you really want to. However you may be waiting some time. Another round of PPP is not in the gift of local authorities. If and when it does happen it’ll be at the behest of central government. Given the rise in public borrowing, the repeated shortfalls in tax revenues and the hidden liabilities coming on stream of all the PPP projects already embarked upon, another large wave of PPP may be some time off.
So if you’re looking to actually replace the schools in a timeframe you have some control over, then you’re looking for a significant element of self-financing; the realisation of assets. I think that’s probably best achieved by housing development.
I confess that the prospect of housing doesn’t fill me with the same dread as some. Even (shock, horror) affordable housing. There is a shortfall and I don’t think building homes is a bad thing per se (although the output of some of our volume house builders could persuade me otherwise.) However since the prevailing opinion appears to be that housing is indeed a bad thing I’d suggest it be seen as the cost incurred to obtain the benefit of new schools. And to my mind, whilst costs and benefits rarely fall entirely equitably, they should be closely linked.
I’d regard new schools as, potentially, of great benefit not just to the pupils who will attend but to the surrounding community. I’d be more doubtful of that if the project were funded by PPP, but with sufficient funds, time, care and a commitment to quality I think it’d be possible to develop a real asset. And I think the community that reaps those benefits should also bear the costs.
It’s been suggested to me that the housing would be better built somewhere else in Edinburgh entirely. To my mind that’s fundamentally unfair. It’s an attempt to derive benefits whilst offloading the costs onto someone else. Even developing the housing elsewhere within the catchment leaves me uneasy. Put the housing up at the Jewel and you could pay for new schools down here in Portobello. The people who live round the Jewel would lose local amenity. They’d derive some benefit from the new schools but the facilities would hardly be on their doorstep. I think they’d be bearing a cost disproportionate to their likely benefit.
That’s why I quite like the proposals for Portobello Park. It ties up costs and benefits in one package.
Portobello Park is the only viable site in the entire catchment large enough to sustain the development of new schools with playing fields, the housing to help fund them, and still have a sizeable public green space left over.
Now I still think that much depends on the detail of what’s proposed, but add in the fact that the golf-course would be relocated rather than lost and that strikes me as not a bad deal. It’s not entirely fair. Some people will derive greater benefits than costs, others greater costs than benefits. Some will bear no cost and only benefit and vice versa. But that’s inevitable whatever happens.
Overall, the proposal to develop on Portobello Park seems reasonably equitable to me.
For new schools to be built any time soon I think a better deal is unlikely.
