New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:17

PortyMan wrote: The point about the football team was a 'throwaway' comment regarding the 'must have' nature of the argument for extensive pitches.

PortyMan-The [b]Throw Away Comment[/b] wrote: Feb19th

Rumour says the new school(s) will have playing fields (albeit briefly). For me thatâ€™s a â€˜nice to haveâ€™, but given that the school has coped pretty well for forty years without, Iâ€™d suggest itâ€™s not really a â€˜must haveâ€™. And not necessarily a â€˜best use of resourceâ€™â€¦

Besides, the school senior football team are currently top of their very competitive league, and despite taking a Higher in Physical Education my son travels to the Jack Kane centre only once a week (and has never regarded this as an issue). So why not re-use the current site? If the playing fields â€˜thingâ€™ is the only argument, then it falls there.

PortyMan 0n the march 6th meeting wrote:
Don't get the hoodwink/mendacity thing? I believed the 'golfer's meeting' was a 'public one'. My trusting nature meant that it never crossed my mind that the councill would be isolating the golfers for special attention before presenting any information to the parents or residents. You're right I should have checked with someone, but at that time I wasn't quite sure who or how.

PortyMan BBC Action Network March 7th wrote:

BBC ACTION NETWORK MARCH 7th

The 'Public Meeting' at Portobello High School was most interesting! Especially as it seems it was originally intended as a 'private meeting' between the council and Portobello Golf club... I think they planned to elucidate on the plans for the new golf course to be built in Brunstane/Newcraighall (as a replacement). Maybe they hoped that the Golf Club would be 'persuaded' to their cause by this means?

In any case, news having got out about the meeting ensured that well over 200 people - residents, golfers and other 'interested parties' turned up. A brief attempt to hold two meetings (Golf Club in one, others in an open session) failed.

People will take their own view on your integrity, I have mine.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:20

Regarding PHS.

To date I have asked several people, (including the council), questions which appeared to me to be obvious and very relevant. I believe that the answers should be made available to everyone.

Given that PHS was built in the 60's to last for thirty years and is now in a state where rather than repair it, we should be replacing it and given that we have apparently spent rather a lot of money maikng major repairs over the last 10 years or so on the building, which would make the ppp bid extremely important,

Who was responsible for placing the bid for ppp?
Why was the bid unsuccessful?
Why did other newer schools benefit where PHS didn't?

Giving the answer, PHS didnâ€™t get enough points is not good enough. I believe that we have the right to know the whole story.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:24

Alison Connelly wrote:, but I suppose St John's must be about 3 or 3 1/2 acres (complete guess!)

I've heard a figure of under two acres being quoted for the St John's site Alison.

Other than the size of the site, do you think it would be a worse location for other reasons?

I know that this question is directed at Stephen, but I'm not sure how many people would agree with Lawrence that " A High School on the High Street" is a good idea. I don't think a school sandwiched between two busy roads filled with traffic fumes (lots of queuing traffic!) is appealing. Add in the prospect of roof playing areas and extra traffic congestion at peak times as kids are dropped off by parents ( the school would no longer be that central to the catchment area ) and it becomes even less appealing. Picture a new school on "the High Street" then picture the other Portobello Secondary school, the new Holy Rood High. Which do you think offers the more appealing an environment?

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:25

Just for clarification, in an effort to foil

those who thought I was hiding behind the anonymity of Portobellosite.

Here I am

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:26

One of the reasons given at last week's meeting for missing out on PPP2 was the fact that the bid did not include playing fields, if i remember correctly.

Paula

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:26

Hello Dave.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:32

For the record, I am delighted that we will not be getting a PPP school and I'm sure that many share that view. I expect our new, mostly self-financed schools to be of much better design and build quality and significantly better value to the tax-payer.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:33

Dadaist wrote:Hello Dave.

And hello to you too

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:41

PortyMan wrote:And my view on the schools is still open. But, I'd certainly like to avoid the destruction of the park. I certainly don't want it to become a housing scheme.

I like the view of Brighton Park I get from my house too PortyMan, so I can certainly understand why you would want to preserve your Park view. However, I am curious to know if the main objection you have to this proposal is the housing on the golf course element? Not many have voted in Stephen's poll on this issue, but from private conversations I have had with a variety of people, it seems to me that this is the main grievance many have. What's your feeling?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:51

Bob Jefferson wrote:For the record, I am delighted that we will not be getting a PPP school and I'm sure that many share that view. I expect our new, mostly self-financed schools to be of much better design and build quality and significantly better value to the tax-payer.

It's one of my main reasons for supporting the plan.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Mar 2006, 10:56

As I was unable to attend last night's CC meeting, could someone offer a brief resumÃ© of any discussion on the new schools issue?

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:04

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
PortyMan wrote: The point about the football team was a 'throwaway' comment regarding the 'must have' nature of the argument for extensive pitches.

PortyMan-The [b]Throw Away Comment[/b] wrote: Feb19th

Rumour says the new school(s) will have playing fields (albeit briefly). For me thatâ€™s a â€˜nice to haveâ€™, but given that the school has coped pretty well for forty years without, Iâ€™d suggest itâ€™s not really a â€˜must haveâ€™. And not necessarily a â€˜best use of resourceâ€™â€¦

Besides, the school senior football team are currently top of their very competitive league, and despite taking a Higher in Physical Education my son travels to the Jack Kane centre only once a week (and has never regarded this as an issue). So why not re-use the current site? If the playing fields â€˜thingâ€™ is the only argument, then it falls there.

PortyMan 0n the march 6th meeting wrote:
Don't get the hoodwink/mendacity thing? I believed the 'golfer's meeting' was a 'public one'. My trusting nature meant that it never crossed my mind that the councill would be isolating the golfers for special attention before presenting any information to the parents or residents. You're right I should have checked with someone, but at that time I wasn't quite sure who or how.

PortyMan BBC Action Network March 7th wrote:

BBC ACTION NETWORK MARCH 7th

The 'Public Meeting' at Portobello High School was most interesting! Especially as it seems it was originally intended as a 'private meeting' between the council and Portobello Golf club... I think they planned to elucidate on the plans for the new golf course to be built in Brunstane/Newcraighall (as a replacement). Maybe they hoped that the Golf Club would be 'persuaded' to their cause by this means?

In any case, news having got out about the meeting ensured that well over 200 people - residents, golfers and other 'interested parties' turned up. A brief attempt to hold two meetings (Golf Club in one, others in an open session) failed.
People will take their own view on your integrity, I have mine.

I still don't get your problem, Stephen?
The point about the football team was a throwaway comment. The point about the pitches is (and was) a valid one. If the only reason for destroying Portobello Park is to provide football pitches then there's no reason to destroy the park. Football pitches would be great but they're not a necessity. Other football pitches are available nearby (including on Portobello Park). Why relocate the whole school just to bring the football pitches closer?

The Action Quotes seem fair to me... what's the issue there? I'm happy to be corrected if I say something wrong (though there are nicer ways). I don't profess to be an expert on local politics, campaign protocols, back-room shennigans, etc. But I don't see anything obviously 'wrong' there?

Anyway all of this seems seriously 'off-topic'. Maybe you should start another 'how many things did Portyman get wrong?' thread? (I wouldn't read it, of course, but it would let you vent).

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:05

Alison Connelly wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:The Jewel would produce revenue but we would lose a large chunk of the prudential borrowing and the profit from the brunstane houses.
I don't really understand what you mean here. Can you clarify? Thanks.

I will try.

My understanding is the ability to "prudentially borrow" is closely related to the savings that can be made in the running costs of the new schools versus the old schools. A joint campus is more economical, the council will be able to borrow more "prudentially". This is already factored in to the existing proposal. As for the houses at Brunstane? Even If the houses still get built and if EDI agreed to ringfence the money (there's 2 if's) for PHS then a substantial amount of the profit would go to the purchase of the BL site.

Stephen McIntyre wrote:And we would have a school in a worse location of similar size. Get real.

As I've already said, I'm not getting into an analysis of the site, financially its a non-starter. Any proposal that requires the purchase of another site is a non-starter. I worked this out from there being no money available to re-build the school on the existing site.

You are pretty good at financial analysis

. Lets try and analogise what you seem to believe, with a more domestic example:

You want to buy a new house, you need somewhere to live, you need a Â£50k deposit and a lender to give you a mortgage of Â£150K. And there is a nice new house available in a local park. You are excited and you go a lender and say; listen I don't have Â£50k and they say, well we don't have Â£150k to give you.

You think about the situation for 10 minutes or so and then reapproach the lender and say "I tell you what, instead of just buying the new house, I will also buy a bit of land and the Â£200k house"

"So, Mrs Lender, you said you will not fund my Â£200k purchase. How about we do a deal where you finance a Â£400k purchase?"

Its a non-starter Alison, don't you agree?

Edited at length.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:07

Dave Connelly wrote:Just for clarification, in an effort to foil those who thought I was hiding behind the anonymity of Portobellosite.

Here I am

You donut!!

Is there a rule about double avatar ID?

ceejam · Post by **ceejam** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:08

One thing that intrigues me -

Why don't the High school use the pitches at Portobello Park at the moment, rather than bussing pupils to Jack Kane or Cavalry Park?

These pitches will be staying (or will be relocated on the park) so there's no change (other than they would get better changing facilitites as part of the school campus) for community users.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:08

Bob Jefferson wrote:As I was unable to attend last night's CC meeting, could someone offer a brief resumÃ© of any discussion on the new schools issue?

New schools kind of took a supporting role. There was a pitched battle about prospective ownership rights over Long John Silver.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:13

Bob Jefferson wrote:As I was unable to attend last night's CC meeting, could someone offer a brief resumÃ© of any discussion on the new schools issue?

OK, I'll try......The Chair circulated copies of a letter he intends to submit to COEC which reflects the mood of the last meeting and that of written submissions to the CC. The letter is pretty extensive so I'm not going to type it up!
It calls for the COEC to explore all possibilities. The letter also makes reference to the 'preserve green spaces' option which came top in the CC's questionnaire issued at the Public Meeting last Oct. Several members of the public questioned the validity of the inclusion of this in the letter as the Public Meeting last Oct. (and the questionnaire) had been to discuss development of the West of Portobello and had not included discussion of a new High School.

The tone of the meeting was, I felt, more positive and less heated (apart from an angry resident who blamed the CC for refusal of planning permission ) than the last and it was agreed that the CC would ask for the COEC to detail how consultation on the matter would be carried out and how the CC could best aid this consultation. It was felt that more information was needed before consultation would be meaningful and that hopefully after the COEC meeting on the 25 April the COEC will be able to provide this detail.

Quite a few of the folk who post on here were present last night and may be able to add their recollections/interpretations of the meeting.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:16

PortyMan wrote:Maybe you should start another 'how many things did Portyman get wrong?' thread? .

I know you are a relative newbie and are probably unaware that this easy to access facility already exists:

Portyman>Profile>Find all posts by Portyman

People will take their own view on your integrity, I have mine.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:28

the CC would ask for the COEC to detail how consultation on the matter would be carried out and how the CC could best aid this consultation.

That sounds good to me.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:47

I wasn't kidding about Long John Silver but the meeting was much more positive. The survey question was pretty much derided and recognised as being largely irrelevant to the school debate. The CC are pursuing consultation and seemed to agree that a public meeting is desirable at some point. Which is a step forward.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:48

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dave Connelly wrote:Just for clarification, in an effort to foil those who thought I was hiding behind the anonymity of Portobellosite.

Here I am
You donut!!

Is there a rule about double avatar ID?

Not entirely sure what your question means, Stephen, but Dave has no longer got his original ID - he requested that it be changed from Portobellosite to Dave and we were happy to oblige. As soon as we found someone who knew how to do that...

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Mar 2006, 11:55

Bellybabe wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dave Connelly wrote:Just for clarification, in an effort to foil those who thought I was hiding behind the anonymity of Portobellosite.

Here I am
You donut!!

Is there a rule about double avatar ID?
Not entirely sure what your question means, Stephen, but Dave has no longer got his original ID -:

It was an attempt to be lighthearted. This could be the first time "two" users have had the same avatar. I know dave had come out but the avatar sort of did it for him.

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 28 Mar 2006, 12:34

There's been mention of St Thomas of Aquins as a great example of a new school. It was actually built under the Smart School initiative, which I think is PPP - http://egfl.net/News/News/newStThomas.html

I've also seen comments about PHS having been designed to only last 30 years - I would expect my garden shed to last longer than that.

One of the current PHS teachers said that the school isn't falling apart.

So where's the truth?

If it isn't falling apart why are we rushing around trying to build a new school at a high cost to the community?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 28 Mar 2006, 12:44

http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1166132003

But this Edinburgh school has triumphed over groundbreaking designs across the land to claim the title of Britainâ€™s best new civic building.

The school was the last one in the city not built under the Capitalâ€™s controversial Public Private Partnership deal.

Three in-house council architects and three architectural assistants worked with two environmental engineers and cost consultants on the scheme.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Mar 2006, 12:46

Nice one Seanie but..........................

One of the teachers at St Thomas Aquinas said she doesnt have enough cupboard space.

So where's the truth?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 28 Mar 2006, 12:51

Teachers never have enough cupboard space.

They can't help accumulating junk.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Mar 2006, 12:51

The truth is finally spoken

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 28 Mar 2006, 12:57

Stephen McIntyre wrote: Portyman>Profile>Find all posts by Portyman

I tried that for you (both of you) and my computer melted

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 13:00

McCrow wrote:30 years - I would expect my garden shed to last longer than that.

I would like to own my garden shed, even if I have to pay for it by moving my rabbit hutches a wee bit and selling off part of my old allotment.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Mar 2006, 14:11

It would do. Listen, you may well post a lot of poop but in the general posting poop stakes, compared to me you are an amateur.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 28 Mar 2006, 14:17

Stephen McIntyre wrote:It would do. Listen, you may well post a lot of poop but in the general posting poop stakes, compared to me you are an amateur.

Hoi! I'm the only "Poopy" round here!! Don't you dare take my name in vain.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Mar 2006, 14:26

Sorry poopy.

Now there's a thought. I could hire you to go and poop in Portyman's Park Avenue emporium.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Mar 2006, 14:42

Lawrence Marshall wrote:There's also a huge and very worthwhile discussion thread going on online etc...

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 Mar 2006, 14:45

Brian McCrow wrote:
One of the current PHS teachers said that the school isn't falling apart.

Who, when, where and to whom?

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Name Change

Re: Name Change

Re: Name Change

Re: Name Change