New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[mr magnolia]

i, for one, will be interested to hear the views of supporters for building on the golf course...

This discussion is not about supporting or not supporting building on the golf course.

It's about where and how to provide a new school.

[Mrs Mangle]

Hello to everyone.

I was also at last night's meeting in the High School. Now without upsetting anyone i'd like to give my own thoughts on this subject.

I think that Education should alway come first, and lets be honest, it's not as if they are closing the Club down. There will be a New course, also all weather Pitch and no doubt there will be other attractions.

On arriving last night i heard a gentleman say " Our Junior Section opens this year " so am i to believe this 100+ year Golf Course has never had a section for youngsters? If this is the case i'm very shocked.

Also the residents, or better known as child phobic people ! The attitude of some adults last night left a lot to be desired.

[Dadaist]

i, for one, will be interested to hear the views of supporters for building on the golf course...

This discussion is not about supporting or not supporting building on the golf course.

It's about where and how to provide a new school.

Sure Mr M, but the people whose head the school might land on have every right to come along and dissent.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Hello Mrs Mangle and welcome.

[PortyMan]

Paula/Bellybabe said:

That tone would be enough to deter many people in favour of the proposal from attending - hence my comment that last night's meeting might not be a representative section of the whole community. If a year or so ago someone had put out an advert for a public meeting saying "We want Tesco! Stop the anti-capitalists ruining Portobello's future by blocking this important development!", I don't think I'd have felt encouraged to attend.

I would have thought such an advert (your example) would be exactly what was required to get dissenters (from that view) to attend. Do people only go to meetings they support? I'd have thought they went to meetings where they feel strongly about the issue.

There were one or two who spoke in favour of building in the park, and they were listened to. The school board chap wasn't 'for' building on the park per se, but is obviously very keen to get a new school. There will be other meetings with various slants... get along and - as the leaflet said 'Give your views'!!

Dadaist said:

I'm sure I read that it was a public meeting organised by someone who is anti-school, for people to put their views across.

How helpful to the supposed 'debate' do you think it is to describe those who oppose building on Portobello Park & Golf Course as anti-school?

My impression from the meeting was that the majority, if not all, of the persons attending were in support of a new school. Or at least, not 'against it'. They're just opposed to it being built on the park.

I know, I know, 'what's the alternative'? We've heard that one. The councillors attending last night seemed prepared to 'go back to the drawing-board' and reconsider the alternatives, including one or two 'new' ideas. Maybe they'll apply a little more effort this time?

Anyway, if you were there you'll know this. If you weren't, get along to the next one, or the next one. Councillor Aitken promised many 'discussions' to follow. I'm sure there will be a 'flavour' for every opinion and none.

In the meantime, why polarise the debate and create barriers that don't really exist? If you insist on making it 'either/or' you may not get quite the result you hope for?

[Brian McCrow]

bbbrown

You raise a very good point. I made a similar point in an earlier post. I would welcome comment on this by the Council as I believe that the school kids would benefit from jogging up to Portobello Park for their sport.

I have heard from a normally reliable Council source that PPP is now out of fashion for Edinburgh schools however the Council should be able to borrow the funds to finance the PHS building. However, they prefer to sell off assets to fund it.

There is an item at the next East Local Development Committee on PHS and St Johns - an update by the Director of City Development (with a rep. from the Department of Children and Families present). The meeting starts at 7pm on Tuesday 14th March at the Hay Community Business Centre, 4 Hay Avenue, Craigmillar, the item on the schools should begin about 7.45pm. Most of the local Councillors will be there.

I intend being there to listen and to question.

[Bob Jefferson]

I was also at last night's meeting. The audience appeared to be made up largely of golfers and residents of Park Avenue and nearby streets. They made it clear that they believed that the schools need to be replaced, but not in their backyard.

So they had their chance to let off steam and Aitken, Perry etc gamely stood up to be knocked down.

It's all part of the process. The meetings with parents of kids at PHS and the feeder primaries will be quite different in tone and their priority is more likely to be the educational needs of our children.

The newsletter that the Council has produced, alluded to earlier, is available here to view:

Newsletter no 1

[Bob Jefferson]

One of the key figures in this whole debate is the Head Teacher at PHS, Peigi Macarthur.

In this extract from a recent newsletter to parents, Peigi makes her postion on the Council's proposal quite clear:

You will be very much aware from the local press and from local meetings that there is a proposal to build a new school for Portobello. I’m sure that I don’t have to convince any parent who is a regular visitor to our school that a new school is long overdue. From a personal perspective, having made the move here from a refurbished school I was shocked initially by the state of the school building. It’s actually a huge tribute to the staff that they have been able to deliver a quality education to the pupils given the conditions that they work in.

This is not the place to go into great detail but the parent body need to be aware of difficulties we face with inadequate and outdated heating, ventilation and drainage systems, accommodation pressures, outdated science labs, lifts which continually break down – I could go on.

I need to pin my colours to the mast and say that I am excited by the proposal on offer. I appreciate that there are groups within the community who would have to make sacrifices if the current proposal were to progress but the current and future pupils of Portobello High School deserve and need a new school.

The site, which has been proposed, would see the school in the heart of its catchment area, with safe access and with the luxury of playing fields on site. From my perspective too as Head Teacher, it would be a tremendous relief to be able to progress the work of the school in the current building, whilst a new school is being built off site.

I would hope that parents who welcome the City of Edinburgh’s proposals will support the school’s position. I’d like to take this opportunity too say a huge thank you to the School Board, who have taken a strong lead to secure the best possible future for the pupils of Portobello. The School Board has arranged a meeting here at school on 16th March at 7.00 p.m. to gather parental views on the proposed development. I hope you will be able to attend.

To conclude, I am delighted to have joined the school community as Head Teacher. I’m impressed by the warmth and commitment of the extended school community and by the professionalism of staff here. I very much look forward to leading the school to continued growth and continued success.

Yours faithfully

P M Macarthur
Head Teacher

[seanie]

Around three-quarters of PPP projects are completed on time and on budget. However that tells you absolutely nothing about the quality of what was built or whether it represents value for money. PPP has tended to produce inferior buildings at inflated cost, whether or not they came in on time and on budget. However that’s not something you’re going to hear shouted from the rooftops. Certainly not from the rooftops of the Scottish Executive’s press office.

And the true picture of what’s been built is unlikely to emerge for a while yet. Corners have been cut in terms of design, specification and construction quality, some of which are already apparent, but significant defects will only emerge over time. Even the cheapest roof can keep the rain out for a while.

Now because of the transparent shortcomings of the initial wave of PPP, clients have become more and more prescriptive on what’s required in an effort to prevent the consortia compromising on quality. That’s had some success. But that’s also increased the cost of PPP projects. The cutting of corners represented profit margins, at least in the short term. With that avenue blocked PPP bids have escalated to compensate. And greater detail and scrutiny during the tender process has escalated the tender costs to the Consortia. Costs that losing bidders won’t recover, unless carried over to another project. Even with manipulation of the Public Sector Comparator it’s become more difficult to justify the escalating costs of PPP. Central Government, that pushed LA's down the PPP route and helped bankroll it, is a bit more wary of the liabilities that have mounted up on the public purse.

But it’s not just the public sector that’s having second thoughts about PPP, the private sector is getting cold feet too. There’ve been projects floated that haven’t received sufficient interest from prospective consortia to go ahead. There have been projects that have driven members of consortia to bankruptcy or near. There have been firms who, having dipped their toes in the water, have retreated to safer ground.

The whole PPP project is shrinking. It’ll still continue as a delivery method, but consortia are picking their projects with a lot more care, and to get them interested you may have to pay even more over the odds. The public sector is increasingly seeking, where it can or where it has to, more straightforward procurement routes be it traditional, design and build, partnering etc. and trying to find finance from other sources.

So if you’re hoping that PPP will float your boat, leaving aside issues of quality and cost, you face practical problems. The tide is currently going out. In a few years time it may come back in but till then you may be twiddling your thumbs.

[seanie]

i have yet to hear a good reason as to why it is not possible to rebuild on site...apart from vague opinions that it is too small etc, etc...

Vague?

Well I do apologise for being vague. However in my defence I think I've gone a little further in explanation than any armchair architects who've concluded the existing site is plenty big enough on the basis of a quick glance at a map.

However if anyone wants to knock together a quick schedule of accomodation and maybe a site plan or two I'd be happy to evaluate them against current practice.

[Bob Jefferson]

Re-building on site requires a decant. Here is someone who has first-hand experience of this:

Decants and Decisions…

I am lucky enough to work in Firrhill High School - a very good school which has been refurbished and rebuilt over the last 4 years. As a Depute Head I have first hand experience of what this means to school life and the impact on the learning and teaching. I share this now as we all look at the options open to us in securing the future of Portobello High School.

Firrhill High School occupies a roomy site in Oxgangs and had a partially empty extension teaching block, due for demolition. 1200 students attend the school.

We knew that things were going to change - but those teaching in the crumbling extension block really needed stamina (and buckets whenever it rained).

New plans went through after much discussion and local concerns. The next phase of building was major - with specialist accommodation (Science, PE, and a Special Education school) being built. A Primary and a Special School were also going to be built on the site and a total overhaul of the High School building was also undertaken. This meant that 15 subject departments were moved out of their existing accommodation into the extension block (‘DECANTED’ was the term used) while windows were replaced, classrooms painted etc. I remember one old classroom being used by 4 different departments and a Primary school over the course of a term.

Meanwhile there was plenty to keep the staff on their toes…fire alarms were going off due to electronic problems, the power supply burnt out ( and blacked out part of Southern Edinburgh) because it couldn’t support the load, boilers failed, and several thousand pounds worth of central heating oil vanished. The school had to be closed on a number of days.

And yet life went on successfully - pupils and staff really pulled together, the building contractors were outstanding and a major project was completed in less than a year with early access to the new buildings. The building and grounds are now excellent.

A big success and not a single injury or accident…….but, like Waterloo, it was a close run thing, and there were casualties of a different kind.

The Council’s internal inspection team visited the school during the rebuild. They found that exam results (previously notable) had taken a dip (they’re now getting back to where they were) and that a number of aspects of the school required attention…….Hardly surprising.

There is no doubt that the school made exceptional efforts to maintain standards over a short period of time. This could not have been sustained for much longer - 9 months was enough, and the cracks were beginning to show.

‘It was the decant that done it’- moving each department out of and back to its rooms did impact on teaching and departmental organisation, and had an effect across the whole school. The modern curriculum is heavily assessment driven and requires quite remarkable record keeping, especially in generation/ retention of evidence: not so easy when you’re living out of boxes and on the move. In the commercial world companies tend to shut down, relocate, and then return to trading. Schools don’t - they somehow keep going as the children keep coming.

At Firrhill we had a number of factors working for us - our site was big and we simply moved from one area to another. The authority went to great lengths to maintain teaching and learning and invested in additional staff and built a temporary gym and hockey pitch. When the builders had to slice 3 labs off the science block and started driving piles into the underlying rock then teaching became more difficult but we had the space to create the necessary temporary labs.


Without space for additional accommodation and the means to move between these areas none of this would have been possible. The main phase of major construction took 9 months, and involved approximately half of the school on half of the site. Schools are complex buildings with reassuringly high levels of specialist accommodation. Consequently construction times are greater than domestic or conventional industrial buildings.


An important feature of the current proposals for Portobello High is the fact that builders will be free to build, teachers able to continue to teach and pupils to learn. This saves time, money and, most important of all, allows young people to receive the education they are entitled to. They only get the one shot at it!

It hasn’t been proposed, but we may be asked to examine whether it is possible for Portobello High School to be rebuilt on the same site at the same time as attempting to deliver teaching and learning. Having managed the above arrangements on a daily basis, I know that even the superb team at Portobello High school could not (and should not) be asked to do this. The size of the site and the structure of the tower block make this impossible.

As a community, we should recognise what Portobello High School has achieved in a poor building which has now as good as expired. One of the most difficult features of Firrhill’s experience was the temporary PE arrangements, which Portobello would recognise as the routine they have been compelled to follow year in year out.

All of which highlights the need to speedily investigate all possible solutions to the accommodation crisis which faces education in this community.

Please don’t anyone delude themselves that a ‘decant’ during a rebuild on the present site is an option.

It isn’t

David Simpson

[Dave Connelly]

Marya wrote

I thought that they did their best in the circumstances. They had come prepared to give a presentation to a group of golfers and had to completely abandon that and instead hold a very impromptu 'question and answer session'. Wonder when the golfers will be able to hear what the possibilities for the new course are?

Just to make it plain, this is not a personal jibe at anyone in particular, and true they did their best, but the Council was aware that members of the public other than golfers were attending the meeting. I can say this without reservation as I had spoken to Julia Hope (Council), that afternoon.

My point was that for professional people who are used to this type of meeting and knew about the feelings of some of the local people, they didn’t appear to be at all prepared.

Marya wrote

Why do you think this would be a ploy Portobellosite?

The council “forgotâ€

[Mrs Mangle]

Meeting in St. John's Primary School, 22nd March 7pm.

So no the council hven't forgotten about them.

Btw, last night's meeting was supposed to be for the poor Golfers, but someone leaked it so they quickly turned it into a public meeting, i think the officals done rather well considering.

[Epykat]

Another hole in one of Epykat's arguments.

Stephen, you really can be quite rude at times . This isn't my argument. This was a fact stated by a 'reliable source' last night at the meeting. The new golf course will be 9 holes. Whether those holes will be bigger than the remaining holes was not discussed. And neither am I interested. You (and several others) appear to think that this whole debate centres on the Golfers. It does not. I don't play golf, I'm not interested in golf and it won't affect me one way or the other whether the Golf Club/Course remains as it is. The issue is more complex than that. It is the whole matter of open, green, undeveloped space being developed to the nth degree which bothers me. I am totally in support of a new school and if the Council come back and tell me that the High School and nothing else, will be going on the golf course/park then they will have my full support. (Cue Seanie ). I won't however be holding my breath.

[Mate of Marya]

I was also at the meeting last night at PHS. I am shocked and quite disgusted at the underhand way this meeting came to be. Councillors Aitken and Perry were invited to attend this meeting supposedly organised by the 120 golf club members to give a presentation on the proposed changes which could affect Portobello Golf Club. What do we now know about the new golf club proposals? Nothing. The presentation was abandoned, the Agenda changed, and Aitken and Perry were subjected to an impromptu question and answer session from an audience much larger than anticipated. These two men were subjected to nearly two hours of verbal abuse from some petty, no, selfish residents from the surrounding Park Avenue area. These residents dominated the evening. Very few people were interested in the opportunity to build a new school, in fact no-one even asked about the proposed future developments of the golf course, or indeed the present condition of the existing school. Instead questions were asked about future dog-walking routes and the possibility of looking onto a school building.
Residents in Duddingston Road and the Hamiltons have been looking on to this eight storey blot on the landscape for over forty years. It is an eyesore. I am sure residents in this area have concerns regarding the affordable housing which may be built on the existing PHS site. These residents don't have a golf club or even green space to use as an excuse for opposing something which may have an adverse effect on the value of their property, which was after all the hidden agenda to last nights farce!
Very disappointing behaviour was exhibited. Very few concerns were raised as to the health, safety and education of 1800 children. I am sure last evening does not reflect the opinions and attitudes of the majority of the Portobello Community.

[Dave Connelly]

Stephen McIntyre wrote:

The most pertinent point you make is the scottish power site is 8 acres, which is less than 1 acre bigger than the present site of st johns and phs.

Why should we move the schools there?

I dont want to move the schools there Stephen, I was pointing out that the Council already knew about the developement on the SP site and refrained from telling us when asked about the site as a possibility at the meeting. I was wondering why they didn't mention it. They certainly were aware of it.

[Epykat]

Very disappointing behaviour was exhibited. Very few concerns were raised as to the health, safety and education of 1800 children. I am sure last evening does not reflect the opinions and attitudes of the majority of the Portobello Community.

I actually thought that considering the amount of people there, their behaviour was very good. When people were standing up to speak, generally everybody else was quiet and listened to both the questions and the answers. None of us know what the MAJORITY of the Community wants and we probably never will. At least the people who turned up last night took the time to come and voice their opinions. Better that than sitting at home bemoaning the fact that you have not been represented! I'm sure that at the PFANS meeting the majority of people will raise copious amounts of concern for the children - so it should all balance out in the end. Maybe you missed the bit when the audience were asked if they supported the building of a school and there was a resounding 'yes'?

[Maria]

Meeting in St. John's Primary School, 22nd March 7pm.

So no the council hven't forgotten about them.
.

Just for clarification Mrs M. this meeting is being organised by PFANS and not by the council, though they will be sending representatives to the meeting.

[Mate of Marya]

Maybe you missed the bit when the audience were asked if they supported the building of a school and there was a resounding 'yes'?[/quote]

"Yes" but not in my backyard.
We would know what the majority of the community wants if people organising public meetings stuck with the advertised Agenda. Golf is a minority interest thus the poor attendance from the general Portobello Community. I feel the councillors were invited along last night under false pretences and were publically humiliated.
I don't think it will balance out in the end. 1800 pupils and their families could benefit from a new PHS, compared to the 120 Golf Club members and the neighbouring residents.

[Maria]

A gaff by the Council, maybe, a ploy perhaps?

Why do you think this would be a ploy Portobellosite?

The council “forgotâ€

[Mate of Marya]

I was led to believe the chairperson from the schoolboard for PHS and the chairperson from the associated feeder primaries were invited, which would not include St. Johns.

[Dave Connelly]

I'm still puzzled as to why you think leaving the St John's School Board out of discussions is a 'ploy' rather than a hideous gaff ,Portobellosite

It was a reference to the person whose concern was "Divide and conquer" at the meeting, nothing more

[Dadaist]

How helpful to the supposed 'debate' do you think it is to describe those who oppose building on Portobello Park & Golf Course as anti-school?

It's all the rage these days to be pro or anti something. Pro-life, pro-choice, anti-war, etc - and in our case a handy term for the umbrella grouping of residents, golfers, anti-council and diverse others who oppose the project.

For "school" read "the council plan to build a combined PHS/St John's on the PGC/Park site, funded through selling the existing PHS/St John's site and 33% housing on the new site, with a replacement course for PGC at Brunstane". pro-school and anti-school therefore become convenient shorthand.

If you get to dress up a statement as a question (instead of saying "I think it is unhelpful to the debate to describe those who oppose ... as anti-school" you get to say "How helpful ... do you think it is") then by default I should get to clothe satire in the garb of protest language.

Anyway, I think the term "pro-golfer" has been bagsied.

[Alison Connelly]

..

[Gemini]

Epycat wrote

Maybe you missed the bit when the audience were asked if they supported the building of a school and there was a resounding 'yes'?

MOM "Yes" but not in my backyard.

Think most of the people at last night's meeting, were more concerned with the loss of Portobello Park, rather than NIMBY'ism.
On saying that, would you want it in your back yard?

MOM We would know what the majority of the community wants if people organising public meetings stuck with the advertised Agenda.

IMO Monday's meeting showed the overwhelming opposition to
the proposals, h**l or high water would not have kept the Porty
public away. FYI, Info. regarding this meeting, was broadcasted on
Radio Forth on Sunday - it did not specify any Agenda!

MOM Golf is a minority interest thus the poor attendance from the general Portobello Community.

With 30.000 folk using PGG every year, I don't think its a minority interest.

I feel the councillors were invited along last night under false pretences and were publically humiliated.

Think you will find that they humiliated themselves, and 'If you cant stand the heat' etc!

I don't think it will balance out in the end. 1800 pupils and their families could benefit from a new PHS, compared to the 120 Golf Club members and the neighbouring residents.

[/quote]

Epycat has already said, that the People of Portobello do want a new
school for the children - they just don't want it to be built on
PGG. So its back to the drawing board.

[Mate of Marya]

Maybe you missed the bit when the audience were asked if they supported the building of a school and there was a resounding 'yes'?
"Yes" but not in my backyard.
We would know what the majority of the community wants if people organising public meetings stuck with the advertised Agenda. Golf is a minority interest thus the poor attendance from the general Portobello Community. I feel the councillors were invited along last night under false pretences and were publically humiliated.
I don't think it will balance out in the end. 1800 pupils and their families could benefit from a new PHS, compared to the 120 Golf Club members and the neighbouring residents.

How can you possibly say that the councillors were invited along under false pretences? The meeting was well advertised, including on this site. Surely councillors Aitken and Perry are aware of this forum and are following the debate. If not, I'd be interested to know why not.
Why do you say they were publicly humiliated? Is that because they were unable to provide answers to the questions asked?
The attendance last night was not a pre-organised group who ganged up against them. It was a range of local people, many of whom have been residents in Portobello for many years, and also included some who identified themselves as parents of pupils currently at Portobello. I really wish people would stop quoting this ridiculous figure of "120 golfers", as if there are only 120 people adversely affected by this proposal, and somehow trying to downgrade or belittle their concerns. Surely the whole point of this debate should be to produce an objective analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposals, and identify those who benefit(and to what extent they benefit) and those who suffer (and to what extent they suffer). We need to look ahead, not just to 2010, but to 2020 and 2030. What will the people of Portobello think in 2030 when they look back at the decisions we are making now. I think it is very derogatory to suggest that the views expressed last night were all generated by self interest.

I don't really want to repeat myself but, this meeting was originally advertised as a meeting for golfers from Portobello Golf Course.
The councillors were unable to provide answers because the Agenda and the size of the meeting was changed.
"120 golfers" is always quoted because that is the official number of committed golfers who have paid their subscription to Portobello Golf Club. There are more golfers who "visit".
I personally, am not trying to downgrade or belittle their concerns, quite the opposite. As a golfer myself I was actually interested in the new golf course proposal but unfortunately did not get any information regarding this matter at the meeting on Monday Evening.
However, I do agree with you that an objective analysis is needed. More information is required.
Facts and a general public meeting is needed!

[Mate of Marya]

Greetings Gemini, it's been along time since we last communicated with each other.


Surely you are not describing the golf course concerns as "NIMBYism"
I don't know what I am going to get in my backyard, but it must be better than an eight storey eyesore!

MOM Golf is a minority interest thus the poor attendance from the general Portobello Community.

Sorry, Gemini, Golf is a minority interest, not just in Portobello, but in Edinburgh, the UK and in fact the world.
30, 000 folk don't use Portobello Golf Course in a year. The research findings from Portobello Golf Course was based on 339 customers in the month of June, probably the busiest month of the year on any golf course, as it is at the height of the golf season. One cannot simply multiply this number by 12 to get yearly figures. The golf season only runs April to October and even then, weather permitting!
It's a good job this survey wasn't carried out in January.

Do you want to comment on the 4% of players who walked to the course?

[Bob Jefferson]

MoM, the figure of 30,000 is one that has been given by Culture and Leisure. As has already been pointed out, this equates to around 80 customers a day.

[Mate of Marya]

30,000 seems an incredibly high figure considering 339 customers used the facility in the month of June! Numbers always fall in winter months.

Has anyone questioned this figure?

[Mate of Marya]

Does anyone have more information regarding the numbers using Portobello Golf Club.
The Research findings sheet states: "200 customers (339 in party) were interviewed at Portobello Golf Course in June 2005." Was this research one day in June, one week in June or the month of June?
Perhaps this course is busier than I imagined!

[Dadaist]

Imagine, for the sake of argument, that it was a Tesco being proposed for the golf course site and the evil developers were using the low usage, car access and junior section figures against PGC in their own corporate propaganda. They would be facing a chorus of rebuttals from everyone who opposed them about how this was a precious communal resource, open to all, and should be defended where it stands and not moved.

I'm no fan of the council, but nowhere in their propaganda will you see this attack on the golfers themselves - it is an entirely unsportsmanlike affair and one that, given the fact that they are suddenly under threat from the body they thought was their patron, adds insult to injury.

If I were one of the regular users of this course and suddenly had the council threatening to move it - I would be upset but would try hard to understand the reasons. If I started to read attacks from my own community relating to car usage, junior membership, overall membership and usage figures, especially given that some of them were coming from people who said no to the superstore, I would be apoplectic.

[Mate of Marya]

Imagine, for the sake of argument, that it was a Tesco being proposed for the golf course site and the evil developers were using the low usage, car access and junior section figures against PGC in their own corporate propaganda. They would be facing a chorus of rebuttals from everyone who opposed them about how this was a precious communal resource, open to all, and should be defended where it stands and not moved.

I'm no fan of the council, but nowhere in their propaganda will you see this attack on the golfers themselves - it is an entirely unsportsmanlike affair and one that, given the fact that they are suddenly under threat from the body they thought was their patron, adds insult to injury.

If I were one of the regular users of this course and suddenly had the council threatening to move it - I would be upset but would try hard to understand the reasons. If I started to read attacks from my own community relating to car usage, junior membership, overall membership and usage figures, especially given that some of them were coming from people who said no to the superstore, I would be apoplectic.

Dadaist,
I hope I am not included as a member of the community attacking PGC. I am trying to establish the true usage of the facility. Perhaps more golfers are affected than we initially thought.

[Mrs Mangle]

I was only letting members know that there is a meeting planned for St. John's.

As to the behaviour of some of the people at the meeting, if children had spoken like that, the adults at the meeting would have had plenty to say, have a think to yourselves please, we are talking about a School which is crumbling around the childrens ears here. What about their safety?
Yes i also agree that the Golfers need there space, but to the detrement of Education ? I don't agree.
Before it is suggested that i'm A) Anti Golf, no i'm not. B) after a nice new school for my children, no i'm not, my only child attends a different school.

I think the hall had a lot of attitude and confrontation in it, some people were there, not to listen, just to put there point over, and to hell with anyone else's opinion.
Speaking to a councillor prior to the meeting, he suggested seperating the meeting as he believed the meeting was for Golfers, and residents would have there say later on( at another meeting ), his intention was not to try and fool anyone, but members attending treated them like enemies.

[Gemini]

Greeting MOM.

I am afraid you were the one who refrenced NIMBY'ism

MOM "Yes" but not in my backyard.

quote MOM. Do you want to comment on the 4% of players who walked to the course?

I honestly dont believe this to be the truth!

[Brenda]

In reply to Wangi, Stephen McIntyre and bbbrown re my info. on the size of any proposed new golf course, my very reliable council source said in an email:
"The land where the golf course will be built is over 70 acres - double the acreage of the present golf course".

AND
In the list of questions and answers on 'Portobello High School Development', prepared as a briefing paper for council members, and forwarded by our own councillors to everyone on their email lists - the following, on the last page:
Q. Where is the new golf course going?
A. We are looking at moving the Portobello Golf Course to Brunstane area. The old golf course is 34 acres and the new one will be much bigger.

It also stated, in response to the Q. What will happen to the current golf course?
A. It is estimated that the two new schools will account for around one third of the current golf course. The existing park will not be affected.

(The last statement was contradicted by my source, and I reported in the 'Reporter' that one third of the whole site (GC + Park) would be developed for housing, as indicated to me).

Straight-forward and accurate info. from the Council is urgently needed, before any meaningful discussion is possible, as many others have already said.