New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 22:47

Bob Jefferson wrote:Will you tell us what your solution is?

OK, I know it's a tricky one. Let me make it easier for you. If the 40 whatever million quid fell out of the sky tomorrow, where would you build a new PHS and St Johns?

(Maybe some of you at home would like to try this one as well?)

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 22 Sep 2006, 08:22

Porty wrote:
Dave Connelly wrote:. Bob would have everyone believe that some of the supporters of the petition are campaigning to have the schools built on the Figgate Park, thats not true,
Bob has no part to play in this. Its the head honcho of PPAg that's calling the shots.

Ros Sutherland Chairperson of PPAG wrote:.
What we have suggested is that a flat, featureless area of Figgate Park at the end of Hamilton Terrace could be considered for the rebuild St John's.
Ros goes on to say:

Ros Sutherland Chairperson of PPAG wrote:.The green space used would be completely reinstated on the vacated St John's site as open playing fields or a park area.

The key point here is that no green space would be lost either in the local neighbourhood or to the community in general.
Dave talk us through "complete reinstatement".

Cue tumbleweed.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 22 Sep 2006, 10:29

The PPAG petition has always said that it opposes the building of schools and houses on the park/golfie and called on the Council to look at other options. This is an admirable objective and one that in different circumstances I could easily have aligned myself behind. The position to keep the park free however is becoming more difficult to defend given that the Independent Consultants have ruled almost all other site alternatives as being viable. To support nothing being built on the park/golfie then it follows:

* The findings of the Consultantâ€™s have to be viewed as incorrect in the hope that an alternative site can magically appear.

* PHS has to be crammed into itsâ€™ existing site with all the implications for size, decant etc

* A â€˜like for likeâ€™ green space swap for St Johnâ€™s has to be created. This is unlikely given that the current footprint for St Johnâ€™s is too small in the first place.

We would all love a fantasy solution to appear but clearly this does not exist. The consequences of not building on the park/golfie are becoming clearer so I would expect that Giloâ€™s tumbleweed will be blowing around for some time.

P.S. Do you think we should change the 2 petitions?

SAVE THE PARK/GOLFIE AND CRAM OUR KIDS INTO THE EXISTING PHS SPACE FOR THE NEXT 40 YEARS

AND

BUILD ON THE PARK/GOLFIE AND GIVE OUR KIDS THE EDUCATION AND FACILITIES THEY NEED

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Sep 2006, 11:00

I think that's a fair assessment. Let's concentrate on PHS for a moment. There are only 2 possible sites - it either goes on the combined PHS/St Johns site or it goes somewhere on Portobello Park/Golf Course. (I don't know anyone who thinks that siting it on the Golf Course is preferable to siting it on Portobello Park.)

On closer inspection, there is only one viable site because the other one is too small. It is too small by Scottish Executive standards, it is too small even by the Council's own compromised 'urban context' standard. It should not be in the consultation because it does not fulfill the criteria.

Opposing the school on Portobello Park is opposing the re-build of PHS, it's as simple as that. The funding is a red herring in that even if we had the money we are still left with the problem of finding a suitable site.

There is only one site. There has only ever been one site.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 22 Sep 2006, 12:03

here's a thought.

there is much talk from PFANS and its lobbyists about the lack of sporting facilities available to the children at PHS and St Johns. This has always puzzled me.

The Current Portobello Park is around the corner from the schools. It has the football pitches and grass areas required to provide excellent sporting facilities. Rather than spending sums of money bussing children around the area, why not invest in the park to create really top notch sporting facilities. Improve the pitches...provide good Changing facilities for the schools to use.......lay a running track.......The schools could utilise an intelligent time tabling strategy, so that games and PE are fitted into the day imaginatively, alowing kids the time to get to the Park and change. The sports facilities could be used by the community outwith school hours (dare i mention five a side pitches.....)

The schools, when rebuilt on the current site, would not require the football pitch that is shown on the drawings, as these facilities exist but five minutes stroll away. Instead, an area of pleasant green space could be incorporated for the kids to enjoy at break time. A lot of PHS kids walk down to the Portobello shops at lunch time, is it too much to expect that they spend a few minutes walking to the Park for PE and games?

This would put an end to bussing kids here there and every where, with all the implications that has with regards to time wasting, congestion, pollution etc...etc

Private schools, Heriots for instance, have playing fields at much further distance from the actual school itself and seem to manage fine.....

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 22 Sep 2006, 12:16

Thank God it is only a thought!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Sep 2006, 13:05

From today's EN:

Parents promised new Porty schools will be built on time

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Sep 2006, 13:06

From today's EN Letters Page:

Time to end Porty delaying tactics

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 22 Sep 2006, 13:33

i want the schools to be rebuilt on the current site....sports facilities provided on the portobello park.
Re the options when the council actually come to develop Portobello Park and golf course, i for one would prefer the schools on the golf course. Having them crammed in next to Milton Road, one of the busiest , noisiest, most congested, fume ridden roads in Edinburgh, is a stupid idea to my mind. It would be much better to have the schools sited down the other end on the golf course where it is quieter.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 22 Sep 2006, 13:38

bbbrown wrote:i want the schools to be rebuilt on the current site....sports facilities provided on the portobello park.

Are you suggesting another tower block Secondary with accompanying tower block Nursery/Primary School bb?

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 22 Sep 2006, 13:58

i would suggest a three, maybe four at most, storey building.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 22 Sep 2006, 14:22

Bob Jefferson wrote:I think that's a fair assessment. Let's concentrate on PHS for a moment

....

Opposing the school on Portobello Park is opposing the re-build of PHS, it's as simple as that. The funding is a red herring

It's not as simple as that.

You've followed up saying that a statement you agree with is "fair" (without really saying why) with an unfair assessment of your own.

Next, you narrow the agenda to being PHS. This is interesting, because whereas before you may well have been saying that people who *didn't* come up with a funding solution were therefore enemies of education, now it suddenly doesn't matter!

Why is it interesting? Because it simply doesn't follow that someone who opposes building on Portobello Park is suddenly an enemy of education.

George Bush and his cronies are fond of making statements like "if you aren't with us, you're with the terrorists" - meaning that either the Bushies are talking rubbish, or the world is populated by billions of terrorists.

Similarly, people who oppose building on Portobello Park should be allowed to simply oppose building on Portobello Park without being forced to come up with locations, funding packages - (or whatever this week's hoop PFANS have decided to create for anyone who dares oppose whatever their plan is this week) to jump through.

You've made similar demands of your opponents before, when you said that they should (insert hoop to be jumped through) or "accept the label of nimbyism".

Once this matter is complete - and it may be a long while - there will be a proportion of the community who are unhappy with whatever the final outcome was.

At that time, your erstwhile opponents may well have memories which serve to remind them of the plethora of labels you heaped upon them - and they'll know that they were never nimbys nor education haters - just people who didn't want their park built on.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Sep 2006, 15:09

What I am saying is that if building PHS on the park/golf course is the only real option, then those who oppose this must realise that in doing so then the logical consequence would be that no replacement PHS could be built. This may sound like tautology but it is nevertheless true.

But I forgot, there is another option. There is the option of re-building PHS on a site that is officially too small. So in fact, the logical consequence is that we would have to re-build PHS on a site that is too small and decant the kids for 2 to 3 years into a portokabin ghetto. Of course, that rules out re-building St Johns onsite and the PPAGers don't want it on their park so let's hope the good people of Bingham don't mind. Unfortunately, now we don't have the current site to sell so we can't make any kind of financial contribution and we have to ask the Exec to stump up the whole lot. They say on yer bike and we end up with housing on the Golf Course to fund schools that no-one is happy with.

You can't separate decisions and outcomes in this.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 22 Sep 2006, 15:23

Dadaist wrote:â€¦.Why is it interesting? Because it simply doesn't follow that someone who opposes building on Portobello Park is suddenly an enemy of educationâ€¦..

I agree. Given the 3 options put forward by the Council for further consideration, I believe that there would be a significant impact on education if the existing site is chosen for development but I accept that does not necessarily mean a â€˜park preserverâ€™ is anti education.

Dadaist wrote: â€¦.Similarly, people who oppose building on Portobello Park should be allowed to simply oppose building on Portobello Park without being forced to come up with locations, fundingâ€¦..

I agree with this too, although I do have to admit a frustration with individuals (in life in general and especially in large organisations) who â€˜hideâ€™ behind the easy option of â€˜Noâ€™ and make no other contribution to finding a solution.

Dadaist wrote:â€¦.You've made similar demands of your opponents before, when you said that they should (insert hoop to be jumped through) or "accept the label of nimbyism".

I believe that some of the park savers are â€˜NIMBYâ€™sâ€™ but I cannot see what is wrong with that. Is this a less valid/more valid reason than others?

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 22 Sep 2006, 15:45

i love the language .......

"Portokabin ghetto..."

....compulary cold showers and floggings every morning too no doubt....

"You can't separate decisions and outcomes in this"

this is precisely what the council is doing....separating where to site the school's from how to fund them.....or does it not work both ways?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Sep 2006, 16:31

bbbrown wrote:i love the language .......

"Portokabin ghetto..."

Thanks. I quite liked that one myself.

bbbrown wrote:"You can't separate decisions and outcomes in this"

this is precisely what the council is doing....separating where to site the school's from how to fund them.....or does it not work both ways?

No, it's still a red herring for reasons already given.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 22 Sep 2006, 18:27

bbbrown wrote:here's a thought.

there is much talk from PFANS and its lobbyists about the lack of sporting facilities available to the children at PHS and St Johns. This has always puzzled me.

The Current Portobello Park is around the corner from the schools. It has the football pitches and grass areas required to provide excellent sporting facilities. Rather than spending sums of money bussing children around the area, why not invest in the park to create really top notch sporting facilities. Improve the pitches...provide good Changing facilities for the schools to use.......lay a running track.......The schools could utilise an intelligent time tabling strategy, so that games and PE are fitted into the day imaginatively, alowing kids the time to get to the Park and change. The sports facilities could be used by the community outwith school hours (dare i mention five a side pitches.....)

The schools, when rebuilt on the current site, would not require the football pitch that is shown on the drawings, as these facilities exist but five minutes stroll away. Instead, an area of pleasant green space could be incorporated for the kids to enjoy at break time. A lot of PHS kids walk down to the Portobello shops at lunch time, is it too much to expect that they spend a few minutes walking to the Park for PE and games?

This would put an end to bussing kids here there and every where, with all the implications that has with regards to time wasting, congestion, pollution etc...etc

Private schools, Heriots for instance, have playing fields at much further distance from the actual school itself and seem to manage fine.....

BB It's a decent thought, I am unsure why PHS hadn't thought of that before. I think the lack of cash from houses may put the scuppers on it though.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 22 Sep 2006, 18:33

Bob Jefferson wrote: Of course, that rules out re-building St Johns onsite and the PPAGers don't want it on their park so let's hope the good people of Bingham don't mind.

So you advocate building St Johns on Bingham park

Isn't that outside of Portobello Bob.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 22 Sep 2006, 18:43

Does the council think that by delaying any decisions until after the elections next year they are fooling anyone?

I think that the mention of what happened in Ayr regarding the very similar issue with schools being built on puiblic land at the deputation meeting, really did rattle them.

They were voted out after they caved in big time to the public demand.

Any councillors reading this please let us know what your opinion is.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Sep 2006, 19:01

Dave Connelly wrote:So you advocate building St Johns on Bingham park
Isn't that outside of Portobello Bob.

No, I think St Johns should go on the Golf Course, but that is a decision for the parents involved.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Sep 2006, 19:06

Although, if PPAG win and PHS is re-built onsite, where does that leave St Johns? In Bingham Park, that's where. Would someone from PPAG like to explain this to the parents?

Marguerite-the-Poet · Post by **Marguerite-the-Poet** » 22 Sep 2006, 21:38

Hello Bob et al -

I hope the following information may provide insight into a situation my community experienced in the past, which is somewhat similar to Portobello's current issue about the proposed new school and concern about the existing golf course.

I received in the mail today from 'my' city council a Notice of Public Hearing regarding a Zoning Text Amendment to create a new zoning designation called Golf Course (GC) and Rezone to change the zoning designation of the golf course properties.... An addendum to a previously certified negative Declaration was prepared for this project which states there are no new environmental impacts associated with the General Plan Amendment, Zoning Text Amendment and Rezoning.

In the past, the major issue we had was environmental impacts such as noise pollution and air quality. We were assured there wouldn't be a problem. Years later, there has been at certain times of the day a problem with noise from traffic. Our school was built next to a large civic park with a nearby golf course, business park, and residential homes. An extremely vibrant community within a desirable area with a fire station, police station, hospital, large grocery stores, art center, etc within a few miles of reach each other. When building the school, the residents insisted upon a school that would withstand natural disasters and become a hub for relief efforts if necessary. A small community tightly woven together often produces a volume of richly talented adults with inspirational children. God bless the children!

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 22 Sep 2006, 21:46

Bob Jefferson wrote:Although, if PPAG win and PHS is re-built onsite, where does that leave St Johns? In Bingham Park, that's where. Would someone from PPAG like to explain this to the parents?

I believe that explaining anything to parents, should really be the council's job. Not anyone from any of the groups.

Perhaps one of the Councillors could comment

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Sep 2006, 21:54

Dada, there are at least 2 cards missing from your POL arguments deck. I would like to suggest:

1. Ducking the issue

2. Passing the buck

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 22 Sep 2006, 22:33

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 22 Sep 2006, 22:47

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 23 Sep 2006, 00:45

What's possible, feasible and desirable can be quite separate things.

For example it would certainly be possible to build PHS on the Freightliner Terminal, the crappy site conditions notwithstanding.

Would it be feasible? Not really. It's a crap site, too small, awkwardly shaped, bounded by a bypass and a mainline railway, that the council don't own and that would cost a significant sum to buy.

Desirable? Only if you don't give a toss about the quality of the educational environment, as well as the additional shortcomings.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Sep 2006, 01:03

Bob Jefferson wrote:Dada, there are at least 2 cards missing from your POL arguments deck. I would like to suggest:

1. Ducking the issue

2. Passing the buck

The initial deck was conceived for a different kind of conflict than the internecine/low-intensity/civil war conditions that the struggle has moved into.

I'll have a think for a theme which covers current events. I'm thinking Star Wars with the park as Alderaan, you as Grand Moff Tarkin (Pete Cushing) and Porty as Darth Vader.

PPAG get to be the rebel alliance.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Sep 2006, 03:40

Dada - I'm flattered. I think.

Alison, it seems to me self-evident that a site that does not meet the minimum size requirements should not form part of the consultation. However, I accept the findings of the feasibility report, which is why I conclude that PPAG can have only one solution to site selection and I think that it is important that parents realise this.

There are only 3 possible sites for PHS. PPAG oppose two of them as they involve building on the park/golf course. That only leaves re-building on the combined existing PHS/St Johns site. This then rules out one of the 4 possible sites for St Johns (re-building on site). PPAG of course oppose 2 of the other sites (building on the park/golf course again) and that leaves Bingham.

So, a vote for PPAG means PHS re-built on a site that is officially too small, along with a 3 year decant, and St Johns on Bingham Park.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Sep 2006, 03:52

Alison Connelly wrote:Why do you think it is better to put PHS on the Park, but St John's on the Golf Course?

Good question. I hadn't considered this. Do you think it would be better the other way round?

Once you decide that both schools are going somewhere on the park/golf course I'm sure there are many different ways it could be configured. As you know, my wish is that the remaining land should become a community park/woodland.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 23 Sep 2006, 08:04

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Sep 2006, 08:28

I want people to make informed choices. I want decisions to be based on facts. What I was attempting to demonstrate was that if you accept the findings of the independent consultants (and fair enough, you clearly don't) then the outcome of the PPAG campaign, were it to be successful, would be:

a) PHS re-built on site
b) St Johns on Bingham Park

Do you agree that this is the case?

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 23 Sep 2006, 09:44

(Camera shot) A child stumbles through an urban ghetto, weaving through a concrete jungle. She stops for a rest and sits down on some rubble. She wipes a tear off her dirty face. She looks down at her ripped clothes and broken sandals. Then she starts to sing softly to comfort herself

Give a little green because the children are the future
give a little green to make the world a better place
give a little green for all of our tomorrows
give a little green to put a smile on this child's face.

She stands up smiling and repeats the chorus other children join her and soon they're singing in harmony.

(Voice over) "Give a little green, support buliding PHS in the park"

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Sep 2006, 10:29

Gilo, I'm almost in tears. Great script, we start shooting tomorrow.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Sep 2006, 10:59

Alison Connelly wrote:
Porty wrote: the council and the independent consultants have provided 3 volumes of incredibly detailed feasibility studies to help you make up your miind
But these incredibly detailed feasibility studies suggest that it would still be feasible to rebuild PHS on the existing site, but then as
Porty wrote:You take that information and when it suits you you just dismiss it as being untrue
Make your minds up, chaps. Do you believe in the feasibility reports or not?

Alison, when have I ever denied that the school could be re-built on the existing site? Your track record of mis-quotes (deliiberate or otherwise) mis-read, mis-understood, mis-representations just keep on growing. You must be getting coaching.