New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 May 2006, 22:21

Dave Connelly wrote:
The sewage tank thing is just my opinion, I dont think anyone would want to build on top of or next to the sewage tanks, however, If they do, then they do.>

Doesn't read like an opinion.

Dave Connelly wrote: Well Maybe but which 33%. Will that include the surrounding trees, which cover a fair bit of the park, the part where the sewage tanks are, which cannot be built on a.

Wrong words again?

They discovered a massive sewage drain under the old St Tams. The victorians had bult on it. What are these sewage tanks, apart from the obvious, are they still in use?

Coffee and a bun is fine by me.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 07 May 2006, 22:33

are they still in use

I would imagine so as they were only built about six years ago. Somewhere at the beginning of this thread is an aerial photo of the park taken for the Millennium that shows them being built.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 May 2006, 22:36

Really? I missed that.

I guess this means another nail in the coffin of the land only being solely for recreation purposes, behooved for the people of edinburgh.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 May 2006, 22:38

These sewage tanks, just how big are they?

The total park is around 19 Ha or 47 acres. That's a big area.

Surely the sewage tanks represent only a tiny fraction of that?

How much crap can Edinburgh East generate?

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 07 May 2006, 22:41

SM and Seanie - see pages 11 (for photo) and 12 (my post) of this thread. I understood they were for water rather than sewage, but there you go!!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 May 2006, 22:47

http://porty.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php ... &start=200

Looks about an acre to me, maybe a bit more.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 07 May 2006, 22:52

How much crap can Edinburgh East generate?

Well, you've read POL!!!!

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 07 May 2006, 22:57

I guess this means another nail in the coffin of the land only being solely for recreation purposes, behooved for the people of edinburgh.

Liverpool Victoria certainly granted several Minutes of Waiver of that condition (pre 28/11/04, of course) for things like a gas governor and bit for BR. But that's how they made their dosh and why they bought the superiority in the first place. However, this was all done to death in the thread devoted to this aspect!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 May 2006, 23:00

Poppy wrote:
How much crap can Edinburgh East generate?
Well, you've read POL!!!!

I'm shocked.

Are you suggesting that some contributions to this website may be less than entirely sensible?

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 07 May 2006, 23:02

seanie wrote:I'm shocked.

Are you suggesting that some contributions to this website may be less than entirely sensible?

So much gossip & tittletattle. It's a disgrace!

(but I think I'm going off-topic now. Sorry!

)

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 May 2006, 08:52

How much crap can Edinburgh East generate?

Man, u're funny!

I prefer to think of it as fertilizer. Just call me John Innes.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 May 2006, 11:05

Dave Connelly wrote:
Green space is green space Bob, If Porty Park was the only piece of green space around would this then make it more valuable than the schools? Didn't you say, (and please tell me if I am wrong) that the children were more important than the park. What difference would it make if it was the last park?.

Anyone, Stephen Hawkins, as part of his presentation on behalf of PPAG, informed the full Edinburgh Council (and this is an approximation) that Portobello Park was the only large piece of open land/green space in western portobello. Do you believe that statement has integrity?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 May 2006, 11:18

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dave Connelly wrote:
Green space is green space Bob, If Porty Park was the only piece of green space around would this then make it more valuable than the schools? Didn't you say, (and please tell me if I am wrong) that the children were more important than the park. What difference would it make if it was the last park?.
Anyone, Stephen Hawkins, as part of his presentation on behalf of PPAG, informed the full Edinburgh Council (and this is an approximation) that Portobello Park was the only large piece of open land/green space in western portobello. Do you believe that statement has integrity?

1. We need to define exactly what "western portobello" is.
2. We need a more specific definition of "large"
3. I'm not sure what you mean in this case by "integrity" - surely once we've got the specifics on 1. and 2. it will be a simple Yay or Nay by looking at one of the maps floating about.

Anyways, it would be nice to get a map to look at online and help Stephen clear this up. Map, anyone?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 May 2006, 11:23

Dadaist wrote: I'm just interested in your technique I guess. So, would you say that you only question the integrity of your opponents, and of statements made which you disagree with?

Never really thought about it but it does seem to make sense. However, in this case, if the statement was "Portobello park is the only large open space in western portobello" or something similar to that, then I do not feel that the statement has integrity and its not because Portobelo Park is not in Portobello.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 May 2006, 11:26

[/quote]

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 May 2006, 11:28

I know it's part of a contentious debate, and I know there's a great deal at stake etc etc, but I love that photo - it's a pleasure just to look at!

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 May 2006, 11:31

Figgate Park is west of Portobello Park and it is as long as the Meadows. It is a great photo.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 May 2006, 11:32

So - looking at the map - what's your point about the point made?

Why do you feel it lacks integrity?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 May 2006, 11:34

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Figgate Park is west of Portobello Park and it is as long as the Meadows.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 May 2006, 11:37

OK. Could you not have avoided a bit of smoke and mirrors by just saying "you forgot about Figgate Park" rather than going through all this business of asking Dave if he thought Stephen's statement had integrity?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 May 2006, 11:46

Dadaist wrote:OK. Could you not have avoided a bit of smoke and mirrors by just saying "you forgot about Figgate Park" rather than going through all this business of asking Dave if he thought Stephen's statement had integrity?

I could have done, yes. However, we are having difficulty pin-pointing who is responsible for PPAG statements? Dave Connelly is very sensitive about some statements and claims that are circulating among the community that appear to be from PPAG, in fact he is keen to distance himself/PPAG from those statements, as evidenced by the above debate.

Here we have an example, it was not a casual conversation where one could have simply forgotten about Figgate Park, it was a key point in a PPAG deputation to the full Edinburgh Council, I think its fair enougfh to ask Dave or indeed anyone else from the PPAG posse, if they believe the statement has integrity? (How many asking opportunities do I have left before you start pickimg on me?)

edit bit in brackets

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 May 2006, 11:53

An article from today's 'Evening News'

Why this needed knocked down a decade ago...

Tom Ballantine · Post by **Tom Ballantine** » 08 May 2006, 12:34

I am beginning to feel the Connelly family are in conspiracy with Mavis Beacon to force me to improve my typing by making assertions I have to answer with my abysmal typing skills.First it was quotes from a text I wrote by Alison Connelly omitting the words "we are told" and the like to make other peoples views appear as Pfans views .(No apology for that yet received).

Now it is a reference to a letter which was handed to me at the door as I left the Ppag meeting of 20th March at the same time as donations were being asked for by ppag reps for Ppag at the same place.The letter was addressed to Johan Lamont MSP with space left for all those taking the Pro Forma letter to sign it.Is the suggestion the letter was not produced by ppag?In which case why let it be handed out?

In my address to the council I described it as a pro forma letter.I indicated it claimed "I speak for the majority of citizens of Portobello"I indicated that in the absence of the wider consultation and full debate involving a platform for both sides I did not think that was a supportable proposition.End of reference to the letter.
(a )You confirm you have not seen the letter.
(b)How then can you know that it was a"personal submission"?
(c)How do my words suggest this represent the views of the ppag group as a whole?
(d)If the phrase "pro forma letter" is inaccurate is "personal submission" more accurate?Do you have a phrase that better describes it than "pro forma letter"?

Tom Ballantine · Post by **Tom Ballantine** » 08 May 2006, 13:57

I couldnt work out how to continue my last reply in the box provided so here is the last bit re Dave Connelly's reference to pfans appearing to be "on the attack" in what I said at the council meeting.

Ppag had, in my understanding, suggested to supporters just before the council meeting that they could write to councillors asking that Portbello Park be dropped from the list of options for consultation.I found out about this the night before the meeting and had to decide ,as I was speaking first,whether to leave out any reference to the possible omission of the golf course,and risk the option being left out,(however small that risk), or address that issue in what I said .

I pointed out that the Ppag petition asked people to subscribe to the proposition

"this land belongs to the people of Portobello and should not be sold or built on until a full debate is had and all the options,including keeping the land for public recreation ,have been fully consulted upon with people who use the facility, live or work in Portobello and Joppa"

and asked how it was consistent to ask that the Park be ruled out before consultation with the people while saying there should be consultation before it was ruled in.

No other site ,as far as I am aware, was suggested for omission .In the circumstances I felt I had little option but to put forward reasons for the inclusion of the site in my address.

I will leave others to judge which course of conduct represented a group being on the attack over the motion for consultation.

My three typing fingers are worn out .No further comment to be made!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 May 2006, 14:12

From today's EN Letters Page:

Ideal plan for solving thorny schools problem

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 May 2006, 14:17

Well done from Diane Finlayson. I think that's an excellent new idea, we could have 3 new schools and no housing on Portobello Park. Don't know what the roles of Brunstane and Lismore are but it shoudn't be too onerous for such a big space.

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 08 May 2006, 16:21

seanie wrote:How much crap can Edinburgh East generate?

How very very tempting, but no I will refrain

No additional quote, just for the newbies.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 May 2006, 16:52

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Well done from Diane Finlayson. I think that's an excellent new idea, we could have 3 new schools and no housing on Portobello Park. Don't know what the roles of Brunstane and Lismore are but it shoudn't be too onerous for such a big space.

I doubt the finances would work as described, but it might open up the possibility of spreading the housing around and reducing the amount on Portobello Park. I don't see it negating it entirely.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 May 2006, 16:59

One thing that appears to have been overlooked by those that are advocating a re-build on the existing site; the land will effectively have to be purchased and a decant paid for, which could leave a Â£13m to Â£15m funding hole.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 08 May 2006, 17:03

Tom,

Tom Ballantine wrote: I am beginning to feel the Connelly family are in conspiracy with Mavis Beacon

What dis Movas Bikon hab to do with ut

Our New website <a href="http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/">Letsgetat tom.com</a>

(only kidding)

Tom Ballantine wrote: Now it is a reference to a letter which was handed to me at the door as I left the Ppag meeting of 20th March at the same time as donations were being asked for by ppag reps for Ppag at the same place.The letter was addressed to Johan Lamont MSP with space left for all those taking the Pro Forma letter to sign it.Is the suggestion the letter was not produced by ppag?In which case why let it be handed out?

Can you send me a copy of the letter please, I really donâ€™t have one, who handed it to you?

Could you also please send me a copy of your submission to the council and then there will be no room for any errors on anybodyâ€™s part, any quotes will be accurate.

I am certainly not distancing myself from anything. Itâ€™s not my place to distance Ppag from anything. I speak for myself, Could you contact Ppag through the official website and invite others to do so, There is a worthwhile petition highlighted there.
<a href="http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk">www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk</a>

Tom Ballantine wrote: I couldnt work out how to continue my last reply in the box provided so here is the last bit re Dave Connelly's reference to pfans appearing to be "on the attack" in what I said at the council meeting.

I thought that your comments put Ppag down, which I thought was unworthy of you. We have had a bit of a wee debate over listening and interpretation on this thread, If I didnâ€™t listen properly or have misquoted you, then please send me the wording of your submission to the council and I will most humbly apologize.

Tom Ballantine wrote: what I said .

I pointed out that the Ppag petition asked people to subscribe to the proposition

"this land belongs to the people of Portobello and should not be sold or built on until a full debate is had and all the options,including keeping the land for public recreation ,have been fully consulted upon with people who use the facility, live or work in Portobello and Joppa"

The wording of the petition is exactly this

We call upon the City of Edinburgh Council to consider and evaluate a full range of options and alternatives, cost comparisons and funding options for the re-provisioning of Portobello High School and St Johnâ€™s Primary School. We oppose the use of Portobello Golf Course and Park for re-siting the schools and building houses on. This land belongs to the people of Edinburgh and should not be sold or built on until a full debate is had and all the options, including keeping the land for public recreation, have been fully consulted upon with people who use the facility, live or work in Portobello and Joppa.

and can be signed on the website.

I dont think anyone is getting at you personally, but like me, if you put pen to paper, fingers to keyboard or mouth to microphone, then someone on the forum will agree or disagree. Lots of common ground between Ppag and Pfans, how about working on that

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 May 2006, 17:07

FYI Tom's submission has been posted in the schools archive thread. I had a look on PPAG do you intend to post Stephen and Gary's submissions?

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 08 May 2006, 19:38

Porty wrote:FYI Tom's submission has been posted in the schools archive thread. I had a look on PPAG do you intend to post Stephen and Gary's submissions?

Yes as soon as I get them

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 08 May 2006, 19:58

Marya wrote:An article from today's 'Evening News'

Why this needed knocked down a decade ago...

Strange

. A high profile, Councillor type person of this Parish and I spent a fair bit of time on the sealed off floor today

. Had to hang on tight though in case we blew off.....

<edited for bad grammar

. We weren't on the English floor obviously

>

<edited again for bad spelling

. It's been a long day up in the clouds!>

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 08 May 2006, 23:01

Epykat wrote:
Marya wrote:An article from today's 'Evening News'

Why this needed knocked down a decade ago...

Strange . A high profile, Councillor type person of this Parish and I spent a fair bit of time on the sealed off floor today . Had to hang on tight though in case we blew off.....
Male or Female

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 09 May 2006, 13:43