New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Jbrock · Post by **Jbrock** » 09 Feb 2006, 01:27

Preserving what we have to a high standard is more eco-friendly than destroying to rebuild because of neglect.

Tom Nimmo made this statement earlier and I wish I could agree with the sentiment but if his suggestion is that we retain the current PHS and St John's buildings as school,s then he is woefully out of touch with the current state of the buildings. Both schools are doing a wonderful job educating the children despite the buildings and environment.
But has Tom or those opposed to the proposal visited the schools recently?

We can't seriously expect these buildings to meet the aspirations of 99.9% of the population, that children should be educated in a building and on a site that is environmentally sustainable and that schools are developed to become the hub of a community with facilities available for all.
We have the opportunity to demand such a building and environment and to be fully involved in its design. We need to challenge the Council to work with us to meet these expectations for our new schools.

Post by **wangi** » 09 Feb 2006, 01:29

Using http://www.geoshare.org.uk/, http://www.schoolcatchments.edin.org/map.html and http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ I've built up a new map showing the PHS catchment area and the proposed site. I've also added in where I assume the new golf course to be (which is still in COE council area Gemini).

(click for larger size)

EDIT: to reduce filesize...

Stephen Hawkins · Post by **Stephen Hawkins** » 09 Feb 2006, 10:09

I've been forced into posting on this subject as the Chair of PCATS because some people supporting the development of the golf course for housing and schools have been putting out mis-information.

I would like to make it perfectly clear to everyone, and especially those who made this accusation, that the 'S' in PCATS stands for superstore and not school. PCATS have no intention to campaign one way or another on this issue. However, individual members of the group, as with anyone else in the community, are free to express their opinions for and against it.

When I choose to make a further contribution to this conversation then it will be my personal opinion that I am expressing.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 09 Feb 2006, 10:47

Stephen Hawkins wrote:I've been forced into posting on this subject as the Chair of PCATS because some people supporting the development of the golf course for housing and schools have been putting out mis-information.

That's not something I'd heard before, and I think we ought to be careful of saying that certain groups with certain opinions are "putting out misinformation". There is a great deal of misinformation around on this matter because at this stage of the process there can be no hard and fast information; we have not even reached a consultation stage. But your post, Stephen, sounds like an accusation. Rumours abound in situations like this; it's a natural thing. I for one know that PCATS is not taking a stand against the new development - it has no mandate to do so, since it was supported by the community for a specific purpose. However, it's a natural conclusion for people to reach when Diana was so closely associated with PCATS and now speaks publicly against the new school development proposal - they associate Diana with PCATS because of all her hard work, and so may assume she is speaking from that position. It's simply the result of the visibility and success of the pCATS campaign, and I haven't heard anyone in favour of the new development state that PCATS as a group is against it.

Paula

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 09 Feb 2006, 11:59

Epykat wrote: it doesn't mean I also take my washing to the Figgate Burn and beat it on a stone

Back of the net!

edit - fixed quotes

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 09 Feb 2006, 12:21

BB said 'That's not something I'd heard before, and I think we ought to be careful of saying that certain groups with certain opinions are "putting out misinformation".'

I know this for a fact, I'm afraid. There are people trying to turn this into a divisive issue and saying PCATS has started a massive campaign against the new schools. Surely I can express a personal opinion without it being attributed to PCATS. I am a person in my own right, not just a representative of PCATS. It's like me saying Bob Jefferson is representing his employer when he gives his views on this subject - but I doubt he is. And nowhere in the article on the golf course issue was the word PCATS mentioned.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Feb 2006, 12:28

I don't think L&B Police care either way really . For the record, everyone I have spoken to who supports the proposal also supported PCATS, so it would be absurd for anyone to suggest that PCATS is against the proposal and I don't believe that anyone has. I agree that we should be working together to obtain the best outcome for the whole community.

ann · Post by **ann** » 09 Feb 2006, 14:11

on the topic of building flats on the present golf course site has it been suggested that they could be built on the new golf site.Many of the residents around the area will accept the school proposals but not property development.

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 09 Feb 2006, 16:50

Bob Jefferson wrote:I don't think L&B Police care either way really . For the record, everyone I have spoken to who supports the proposal also supported PCATS, so it would be absurd for anyone to suggest that PCATS is against the proposal and I don't believe that anyone has. I agree that we should be working together to obtain the best outcome for the whole community.

Excuse my ignorance, but does PCATS still exist and if so why?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Feb 2006, 20:00

Gemini wrote:In EAST LOTHIAN - but that's alrighty - is it?

The site for the proposed golf course isn't in East Lothian.

Any more than No 1 Portobello High Street is listed.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Feb 2006, 22:19

ann wrote:on the topic of building flats on the present golf course site has it been suggested that they could be built on the new golf site.Many of the residents around the area will accept the school proposals but not property development.

I'm not sure as to the extent but my understanding is that a significant proportion of the newly acquired site is designated green belt. Which would make sense given its location.

Edinburgh has a very long standing commitment to try and maintain a greenbelt right around the city. And the site is nestling quite close to the city limits. The scope for development may be limited.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 09 Feb 2006, 23:09

seanie wrote:
Edinburgh has a very long standing commitment to try and maintain a greenbelt right around the city. And the site is nestling quite close to the city limits. The scope for development may be limited.

even if it is just a wee bit, like out at Danderhall...

But I think you're right, and given that the Shawfair/SE Wedge development and the new QMC will effectively wrap around that side (Our side) of Edinburgh, it actually makes some sense for the council to aquire and preserve land in that area.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Feb 2006, 00:25

I think we'll have to wait and see more detail on the proposals and reasons for them. How the finances stack up. From my background the prospect of developing the existing site in-situ looks an absolute non-starter. We'd have to decant the pupils from the site, for a couple of years at least. That immediately escalates the cost of the project. Costs that have to be funded somehow. And we'd still end up with schools on a site too small for their capacity.

Realistically we need to find a new site. And only one seems obvious. And whilst people may accept the school proposals but not property development, that may not be a choice open to us. The funding for a new school almost certainly requires development. Where?

That's unpalatable. Would that we live in an ideal world. But we don't. Reality is filled with difficult choices and painful compromises. And whether these proposals stand or fall we, as a community, may face serious consequences either way.

I hope we would ultimately make a decision on an informed basis, once more is known and the detail can be properly evaluated. Anything less would be a disservice to the seriousness of the issue.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Feb 2006, 12:05

From yesterday's EN:

Plan for community, not developers

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Feb 2006, 14:46

From today's EN:

Make positive use of Porty golf course land

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Feb 2006, 17:43

From today's EN:

Favoured option for school site is not ideal

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 13 Feb 2006, 20:56

seanie wrote:
Gemini wrote:In EAST LOTHIAN - but that's alrighty - is it?
The site for the proposed golf course isn't in East Lothian.

Any more than No 1 Portobello High Street is listed.

Newcraighall has now been mooted?

Incidentally, there are quite a few omissions on the Listed Buildings page!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 13 Feb 2006, 21:45

I've no doubt there's lots of mooting going on. But perhaps we should avoid getting carried away with speculation. Let's get some more details and then we can then make an informed judgement on the merits, or otherwise, of the proposals.

As for the Listed Building thing, I'm sure Edinburgh Council, Historic Scotland and the RCAHMS have all just accidently omitted No1 Portobello High Street.

What other explanantion could there be?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 13 Feb 2006, 22:45

seanie wrote:I've no doubt there's lots of mooting going on. But perhaps we should avoid getting carried away with speculation. Let's get some more details and then we can then make an informed judgement on the merits, or otherwise, of the proposals.

As for the Listed Building thing, I'm sure Edinburgh Council, Historic Scotland and the RCAHMS have all just accidently omitted No1 Portobello High Street.

What other explanantion could there be?

Yes probably much to much mooting for one topic!

I am sure J Stewart could clarify the position regarding No.1 Porty High Street.
Regarding details, well I am with you on this one! there is an apparent
lack of any detail on anything, only what is posted on POL.
Again, as it appears to me, only a selected few know whats happening.

I am anxious that this is already a 'done deal' and mindful that Maureen
Child and Lawrence Marshall have been very reluctant to inform the community on the proposals - notwithstanding the promised Public Meeting.

I still would like to know where the Pitz is being located too?
Perhaps Maureen and/or Lawrence could clarify what's happening?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Feb 2006, 15:09

From today's EN:

No choice but to build schools on golf course

Lawrence Marshall · Post by **Lawrence Marshall** » 14 Feb 2006, 16:04

Gemini,
re. my not giving out much information, it was me what told folk about this in the first place! Because I was warned that the Council was in delicate negotiations with Lord Palmer re. a new golf couse site, I had to do so privately rather than publicly - but how else would the Park Avenue residents have been able to raise this as an issue at the Town Hall meeting on 12th October last year? Because I had mentioned it to a few of them some months before! I have in fact been quietly telling folk in the community about this possibility for a new Portobello High School since I first heard of it from our officials back in around November 2004.
I understand that the Council is preparing a Questions and Answers sheet for publication in the next few days which will hopefully be helpful in fleshing out why what's being proposed is being proposed and will allow folk better to come to a considered judgement on the costs and benefits of all this.

Lawrence

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 14 Feb 2006, 16:33

Lawrence Marshall wrote:Gemini,
re. my not giving out much information, it was me what told folk about this in the first place! Because I was warned that the Council was in delicate negotiations with Lord Palmer re. a new golf couse site, I had to do so privately rather than publicly - but how else would the Park Avenue residents have been able to raise this as an issue at the Town Hall meeting on 12th October last year? Because I had mentioned it to a few of them some months before! I have in fact been quietly telling folk in the community about this possibility for a new Portobello High School since I first heard of it from our officials back in around November 2004.
I understand that the Council is preparing a Questions and Answers sheet for publication in the next few days which will hopefully be helpful in fleshing out why what's being proposed is being proposed and will allow folk better to come to a considered judgement on the costs and benefitsof all this.

That's very benevolent of you Lawrence. It was news to many on 12 Oct.
last year, when most first heard it mentioned!

I am assuming that the Council, will have also prepared a detailed brief with accompanying handouts, on the proposals? enabling us to fully understand what is being put Proposed?

The Question of Where the Power League Site is being relocated too..
Is still outstanding. I think its about time that this was known.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 14 Feb 2006, 18:07

Gemini wrote:The Question of Where the Power League Site is being relocated too..
Is still outstanding. I think its about time that this was known.

I bet you Moi knows.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 14 Feb 2006, 18:41

tom nimmo wrote:In answer to Stephen. The community resource that would be destroyed is the golf course, the football pitches and the spaces in between.

Tom, sorry its taken me a few days to respond. There are almost no specific details available, so no absolutes but from what I understand: The golf course wll be displaced not destroyed. The power station was destroyed. The golf course will also be increased in size and improved. The redeveloped site will include football and perhaps rugby pitches for use of the school and the community in general. If the current football pitches are repositioned on the same site it can only be an improvement.

The spaces "inbetween" will remain and perhaps be enlarged. At present dog walkers or casual strollers are not supposed to use either the football pitches or golf course. Which effectively disqualifies the largest part of the site as being "open community green space" Most people appear to have forgotten, and some have conveniently overlooked, this point. I still recall the stick and aggresion the golfers displayed, when as a kid, I strayed onto "their" territory.

tom nimmo wrote:The idea of a low-level school plus housing to part fund it would not leave much space for Porty people to enjoy.

"Not leave much space for Porty people to enjoy". I'm sorry Tom but this statement is nonsense. Both yourself and I live within 500m of 4 public parks including one of the largest: Figgate. That number will increase. These parks are not exactly teeming and on top of that we have the Queens Park and the seaside in our postcode, as well as a number of other parks The children are people of Porty and will be enjoying their new school environment.

It is true to say that some people, perhaps 100, will have to travel a bit further to enjoy green space but they will have more to enjoy when they get there. They will presumably have less bother from dog walkers etc

tom nimmo wrote:Also, the notion of building a 'green' school that has to accomodate parking for 100 teachers' cars is laughable. There were the same number of teachers back in the 70s who must have struggled by on public transport so, as there are far better bus routes now, maybe todays teachers need to get out of their cars.

I wouldn't mind a wager that the new school will be miles more enviro-friendly even if the teachers have parking. However, I agree with your point about parking, most employers do not provide parking for their employees, it should not be a pre-requisite. I would rather the kids had more green or leisure space or parking was underground.

tom nimmo wrote:The state of the changing rooms at Cavalry Park is, like the condition of the high school itself, due to council under-funding in the past so, at the risk of repeating myself, our elected representatives should be a bit more prudent with our money rather than wasting it.

I agree with the sentiment but what you call "wasted" money is already gone, how will that fund two new schools? Many of us have reservations about the performance of our council and its elected representatives but this project allows us to have a say and keeps us out of PPP and PFI. In my view we should set aside the past and our political/personal grievances and move forward together.

tom nimmo wrote: Preserving what we have to a high standard is more eco-friendly than destroying to rebuild because of neglect.

Not neccesariily so. Look at the demolition of the houses at pennywell. These houses were well maintained but had such poor insulation it was more cost effective to replace. Also, part of the funding for the new schools will be prudential, which is in turn facilitated by cost savings. Much of those cost saving must come from more eco-efficient buildings.

Edited by SM, mostly grammar.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 14 Feb 2006, 19:16

tom nimmo wrote:Preserving what we have to a high standard is more eco-friendly than destroying to rebuild because of neglect.

All buildings have an impact on the environment. Those already built as well as those we choose to build. That is unavoidable. And, depending on circumstances, it is often preferable to start afresh than continue to suffer the continued use of an inadequate and under-performing building. A modern building, if designed with sustainability as a core principle, can deliver a better environmental outcome, more cost-effectively, and for generations to come.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 14 Feb 2006, 19:59

Almost all buildings of the 50â€™s and 60â€™s, even those of high standard in their time, are poor by todayâ€™s standards when it comes to environmental concerns. Georgian and Victorian buildings have good claim to be more environmentally sound than most built in the post-war generation. It wasnâ€™t until the 70â€™s that ecological concerns even began to influence the design of buildings, and even then it started slowly. Weâ€™ve come a long way since then, though not far enough.

So if you preserve buildings from that era, unchanged, what you are actually preserving are buildings with extremely poor environmental profiles. Buildings that require huge inputs of energy just to function, that consume disproportionate resources just to maintain, and frequently provide inadequate and unpleasant environments for those that use them.

Now thatâ€™s not an argument for wholesale demolition. Such buildings can be brought up to an acceptable, even good, standard environmentally. But itâ€™s rarely an easy option. Weâ€™re not talking a lick of paint here. Weâ€™re talking major refurbishment. Radical surgery. Stripping back to the bare-bones and starting again.

That is not cheap. It requires a significant input of resources. And at the end of the day you may still have a building fundamentally compromised by itâ€™s basic design. And so, even if only judged on environmental terms, the benefit of utilising existing buildings always has to be judged against the alternative of new-build.

tom nimmo · Post by **tom nimmo** » 14 Feb 2006, 22:01

Stephen and Seanie have obviously been paying attention to my input and I'm not sure if I should be flattered or wish that I hadn't bothered commenting on the school plans. My kids have all grown up and left school so I will personally not be affected by the plans. I can't stand golf but I like the golf course where it is and I like Porty because it has so many green spaces. You will see from the number of posts that I have made that I don't exactly sit in front of my computer all night but I can't help noticing that it is the same few people who comment on all Porty issues. Gemini mentioned a 'rumour' that Jessfield bowling club is next on the council's list of 'green space = cash' sites and I would love to know where this rumour came from. Gemini has me at a disadvantage as she/he knows that I cycle to work yet I have no idea who Gemini really is. Anyway, for me, Jessfield bowling club is my nearest green space and I long ago decided that if it were to be built upon it would be my cue to sell up and leave Porty for good. Obviously I hope this never happens and I wish all of you who have a vested interest that you get the school your kids deserve.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Feb 2006, 22:10

Tom, I think that this is about what is best for the community as a whole, rather than what is best for parents with school age children. And as for Jessfield, i'm with you on this one. Jessfield Bowling Club has a 100 year lease and I'll defend that green space with my life.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 14 Feb 2006, 22:38

tom nimmo wrote:Obviously I hope this never happens and I wish all of you who have a vested interest that you get the school your kids deserve.

Are peoples' attitudes to this subject really determined by their vested interest?

Do people with children care nothing for the amenity of golf-courses and open space?

Do people without children care nothing for the state of our schools?

Are people really interested in nothing but themselves?

What a depressingly Thatcherite point of view.

I'd rather hope we could recognise the differing and genuine interests and concerns within our community and work to find a compromise that was mutually acceptable.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 14 Feb 2006, 22:43

tom nimmo wrote:Gemini mentioned a 'rumour' that Jessfield bowling club is next on the council's list of 'green space = cash' sites and I would love to know where this rumour came from.

Well it might come from whoever told Gemini that No 1 Portobello High Street was listed and that the proposed golf course was in East Lothian.

So you may not need to man the barricades just yet.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 14 Feb 2006, 23:39

seanie wrote:
tom nimmo wrote:Gemini mentioned a 'rumour' that Jessfield bowling club is next on the council's list of 'green space = cash' sites and I would love to know where this rumour came from.
Well it might come from whoever told Gemini that No 1 Portobello High Street was listed and that the proposed golf course was in East Lothian.

So you may not need to man the barricades just yet.

It was Moi

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 15 Feb 2006, 10:29

tom nimmo wrote: Stephen and Seanie have obviously been paying attention to my input and I'm not sure if I should be flattered or wish that I hadn't bothered commenting on the school plans.

As far as I am concerned, you are a positive contributor to this community (portobellp as well as POL) and as such your views are important to me , I'm sure others think the same.

tom nimmo wrote: My kids have all grown up and left school so I will personally not be affected by the plans.

Same here.

tom nimmo wrote: I can't stand golf but I like the golf course where it is

Same here.

tom nimmo wrote: and I like Porty because it has so many green spaces.

Same here and Im glad you acknowledge the fact. Tom, the amount of public green space we have is not going to alter to a signifigant degree here in central portobello. I'm sure that you consider those people in the Milton Road/Brunstane/Magdalene/Gilbertstoun etc areas as part of our community and they are going to have access to a huge green space that was otherwise denied them. And should we choose to benefit from this space, we can visit too, its hardly a hardship.

Whereas the state and location of the schools......

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 15 Feb 2006, 10:40

Bob Jefferson wrote: And as for Jessfield, i'm with you on this one. Jessfield Bowling Club has a 100 year lease and I'll defend that green space with my life.

Steady, boy.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Feb 2006, 11:53

Well maybe not my life.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 15 Feb 2006, 13:27

tom nimmo wrote: You will see from the number of posts that I have made that I don't exactly sit in front of my computer all night but I can't help noticing that it is the same few people who comment on all Porty issues.

POL is a public resource like any other, where people come and go. Just like a library and a cafe, there will be "regulars" who come every day, occasional users and people who stop by once and never come back.

As such, there is always a dynamic in terms of interaction and the level of interest, but to compare one user to another in terms of frequency of posting is similar to denigrating somebody for always sitting in the same spot in a cafe, or being dismissive of somebody "always" being in the library. As far as I am concerned, I judge you by your views and not by your post count.

Please don't run back to mummy because some other kids got to the nursery first - if anything, that only encourages them to hold on to the good toys. And don't assume they are all one gang because they aren't. Get stuck in.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

WHERE TO BUILD THE FLATS TO GENERATE FUNDS

Re: WHERE TO BUILD THE FLATS TO GENERATE FUNDS

Re: WHERE TO BUILD THE FLATS TO GENERATE FUNDS