New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[PortyMan]

Hi all, glad to see you're all still slapping each other on the back! . Far be it from me to suggest a lack of any grasp on reality, but...

You might wish to observe that in the past week the posters have been:
Porty, Marya, Bob, Soupdragon, Seanie, Bellybabe, Pal of Porty, Gilo, Dadist and Alison!

So much for debate... (That's 8 Council-droids, a solitary 'confused of Porty' and just the one 'Friend of the Earth'!)

Did like Pal's comments about Porty attending to his 'business'

Suffice to say that with Porty-Online reaching 50,000 posts - of which 10%, or 7+ per day originate from Porty (and his aliases)!! That's Porty-Online indeed!!

I have also conducted a survey of PHS pupils and parents and, with a 100% response rate of those polled, received 100% support for Option A. So I win! Statistics eh? Who do you believe!?

I've set my timer to see how long this post lasts...


This post has been moderated Sunday 29 Oct 5.15 pm

[seanie]

Hi all, glad to see you're all still slapping each other on the back! . Far be it from me to suggest a lack of any grasp on reality, but...

Since you have suggested it could you explain what you mean?

[Porty]

You might wish to observe that in the past week the posters have been:
Porty, Marya, Bob, Soupdragon, Seanie, Bellybabe, Pal of Porty, Gilo, Dadist and Alison!

If you are trying to say that the debate on POL is between a small number of indivduals, I agree, the greater majority of the community are either apathetic or think a school on the park is a done deal. Which is a great pity.

I have also conducted a survey of PHS pupils and parents and, with a 100% response rate of those polled, received 100% support for Option A. So I win! Statistics eh? Who do you believe!? :wink

Who do I believe? Well one survey was conducted with all of the pupils, teachers and parents at PHS and was overseen by the school board and the Head who I know are honest and honorable people.

The other survey was carried out on persons and numbers unknown by a proven fantasist whose track record includes leafleting his neighbours with false and misleading information.

Its a no-brainer who to believe.

I've set my timer to see how long this post lasts...

Posts don't get deleted just beacuse they are puerile.

[Bob Jefferson]

Portyman, as you know I am no longer a moderator on this site. If I were, then I would not have disappointed you. Your post was entirely irrelevant and added nothing to the debate.

I would suggest that the reason that so few people bother to post to oppose the 'school in the park' idea is because the PPAG cause was lost a long time ago. No-one has been bullied off the board but their arguments have been examined and found to be wanting. Under scrutiny, PPAG's case has been evaluated, debated and demolished.

[Bob Jefferson]

Here is the official PFANS response to the consultation, courtesy of Richard Butt:

PFANS response

[Pal of Porty]

....I have also conducted a survey of PHS pupils and parents and, with a 100% response rate of those polled, received 100% support for Option A. ....

The result of your survey seems to be at odds with the 'offical' PHS survey of parents, staff and Teachers. Can you give me a bit more detail on your survey so I can compare the two of them?

[Dadaist]

Hi Portyman. Which one of your labels is for me, and can you go into a bit more detail about what it means?

[Dadaist]

Portyman, as you know I am no longer a moderator on this site. If I were, then I would not have disappointed you. Your post was entirely irrelevant and added nothing to the debate.

I would suggest that the reason that so few people bother to post to oppose the 'school in the park' idea is because the PPAG cause was lost a long time ago. No-one has been bullied off the board but their arguments have been examined and found to be wanting. Under scrutiny, PPAG's case has been evaluated, debated and demolished.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it's just that - you can state things but that doesn't make them true.

Some aspects of PPAG's argument can only be argued against emotively and are very different from, say, a measurement of one site being too small. You can say with certainty that site X would cost too much or site Y isn't big enough - fine - but you *can't* say that it's a fact that (say) it's worth it to lose green space to build a school - this may be your strongly held opinion and it may be the judgment call of the planners in the end, but there are arguments either way.

It's unfortunate that the first half of the latest PPAG leaflet is such a dog's breakfast because there are some really important points at the bottom - and I had a hard time getting there without either chucking their leaflet or laughing so hard I couldn't hold it - but they are the only people talking about funding, and what happens if the Man From Del Monte (aka the Scottish Executive) says no.

I don't trust PPAG's rhetoric. I don't trust the council's either, nor do I trust yours.

[Porty]

I don't trust PPAG's rhetoric. I don't trust the council's either, nor do I trust yours.

I hope you take the time to read the PFANS response. I will be interested to hear your views. As you know I am a supporter of PFANS and its difficult for me to be objective. However, it is the best researched, document that I have seen to date in this debate. It is beautifully put. No emotion just hard facts on this educational debate. By the end i felt like I was selling the teachers and kids short by opting for C rather than B.

I agree that the PPAG leaflet did make some valid points towards the end.

[Dadaist]

I don't see "no emotion" as as much of a plus point as you!

PFANS have a lot of facts on their side. They also have the council on their side. Only God (aka Maureen Childs *) can decide if they have right on their side.

I'll give that document a read and tell you what I think.




* - this is a joke. I don't seek to upset either the others on the planning committee, or the religious - nor do I literally mean that MC is a deity, rather that she weilds a lot of power over this.

[Porty]

- but they are the only people talking about funding, and what happens if the Man From Del Monte (aka the Scottish Executive) says no.

Nonsense, PPAG are the only people talking about no-funding. Their argument goes like this: Funding= Houses on Portobello Park = go for Option A, which is the most expensive + lets buy some brownfield sites for St John's. Its economic and commercail nonsense.

The council have talked about funding: first port of call SE, then sale of capital assets or a combination of both, no housing on Portobello park or Golf Course. If we are to have new schools then risks have to be taken, planning is a risk, funding is a risk. The council are proceeding in the way that they are because they feel the risks are favourable and deliverable. PPAG have not come up with a single. viable, credible idea for funding. nada. All they can suggest is following the SE route, which means they agree with the council, so what's the problem?

PFANS have also tallked about funding, here's what they say:

2.6 Financial Considerations/Risk Factors
In all of this the question of funding remains of crucial importance and we
endorse the commitment to seek full funding from the Scottish Executive.

We also recognise that financial constraints exist at both national and local levelwhich reinforce the vital importance of achieving a solution which optimises value for money. On the basis of the consultation information, it is clear that, on financial grounds, Option A compares less favourably with the other Options.

Option A is the most expensive on current estimates. It also carries additional risk factors (demolition, decant, and relocation of St John’s Primary School) for delays in the re-provisioning timetable with associated increases in costs (which could be particularly significant if the recent trend of high construction price
inflation continues).

In addition, it would seem unlikely that the Executive will look
favourably on a case for funding support, based upon an option that is not
capable of delivering the Executive’s vision for the integrated community school for the 21 Century when superior and better value for money alternatives are available.

[Porty]

I'll give that document a read and tell you what I think.

.

Thanks, I respect your analytical prowess and your fairness. I've read it a couple of times and I believe its bulletproof. You will likely prove me wrong.

[Dadaist]

I've only just glanced at it and have noticed that they have misrepresented George Monbiot.

PPAG have addressed the council's outbursts on funding and housing, which have swayed in the local political breeze.

They think that the wind could blow back towards housing because COEC have put that forward as an option before.

I'd love to believe COEC on the "No housing" bit as much as you - but if it's possible to raise the monies through "sale of capital assets" with no housing then why did they bring up housing in the first place?

[Porty]

I'd love to believe COEC on the "No housing" bit as much as you - but if it's possible to raise the monies through "sale of capital assets" with no housing then why did they bring up housing in the first place?

Don't know about the Monbiot quote. Is it mis-representation?

I believe the capital assets they refer to are the existing school site or part of it. As to why they brought up housing in the first place?

Councils are strapped for cash and limited in the ways they can raise revenue, its a fact of life. They purchased and own the land at the Golf Course and are quite within their rights to pursue revenue raising from that land, if they can make a sound argument for doing so. They wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't at least try.

They floated the idea, in the hope thatthe community thought new schools was a fair trade for some housing. The feedback from the people seemed to say "no way". You could say that they tried it on and I wouldn't argue. You also have to acknowledge that they have been unequivocal in their climb down and in the clarity with which thet have made the no-housing statements.

You could also make an argument that there was never any intention to build housing on the park and they were high-balling. I tend to favour that particular theory.

[Dadaist]

If the capital assets are land then the reason developers will pay money is to build on them. Do you think the council will hamstring them and say that they can't build houses? Will this raise enough money to pay for the school(s)?

I'm happy to assert that Monbiot has been misrepresented, and if I'm wrong I'll withdraw it and apologise.

The Monbiot I know would most likely have been talking about private golf courses, not replacement municipal ones. To take this quote in this manner and imply that he (Monbiot) meant that all golf courses are the same because they are golf courses is as much of a misrepresentation as saying that all houses are houses, whether they are of the council or luxury penthouse variety.

edit -> you can read the original Monbiot article here :

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1990/01 ... he-planet/

[Porty]

On Monbiot, i will let someone else take up the cudgel, I don't know. The statement appears to be generic on all golf courses. Would Dode be ok with municipal nuclear weapons?

If the capital assets are land then the reason developers will pay money is to build on them. Do you think the council will hamstring them and say that they can't build houses?

No point and its not within their powers. Housing would be a planning matter. Land woud likely be sold "subject to planning".

The proceeds of the sale of the entire PHS site would not be enough to build new schools. It would likely be enough for the council's "stake" in addition to the SE money.

[Porty]

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1990/01 ... he-planet/

This really is a minor point in the argument and I don't want to detract from the main debate but Dode does not differentiate between municipal course and those that are privately owned. Your claim of mis-representation is at best thin. Here's the conclusion:

Golf is a pox upon the planet, a plague of naffness devised by the British to torment the rest of the world. Those of us who are yet to be infected must do everything we can to stamp it out. We don’t have to go far to make a start. Next time you see a golf course, take a walk across it. It might just spoil a good game

[Dadaist]

It was the first thing that jumped out at me when you asked me to cast a critical eye over the PFANS utterance. I was not aware of caveats regarding thickness of claims, minority of points and detraction from debates.

I would like to recommend to PPAG that, taking Monbiot as the Muhammed of golf course theology, they make their own "Sunni" interpretation of his doctrine to oppose PFANS radical "Shia" interpretation and settle for nothing less than "we are sure that Monbiot would advocate expropriation of Duddingston Gold Course for a new PHS".

[Dadaist]

On Monbiot, i will let someone else take up the cudgel, I don't know. The statement appears to be generic on all golf courses. Would Dode be ok with municipal nuclear weapons?

If the capital assets are land then the reason developers will pay money is to build on them. Do you think the council will hamstring them and say that they can't build houses?

No point and its not within their powers. Housing would be a planning matter. Land woud likely be sold "subject to planning".

The proceeds of the sale of the entire PHS site would not be enough to build new schools. It would likely be enough for the council's "stake" in addition to the SE money.

Do you see selling land to developers "subject to planning" as being consistent with a policy of "no housing" if the end result was, um, housing?

[Dadaist]

No-one has been bullied off the board

If the French Foreign Legion ran a training course which caused the odd participant to die of heat exhaustion and dehydration, it would be possible to argue in a couple of directions.

On the one hand, you could say that the individuals who died were at fault for choosing to participate in such a challenge.

On the other, you could say that the Legion had a responsibility to ensure that the environment which existed was not so harsh as to produce such casualties.

That the angle of argument likely picked would depend on one's allegience to, or hatred of, the Legion respectively doesn't bother me - that the death can be interpreted one of two ways does, though.

[Porty]

Do you see selling land to developers "subject to planning" as being consistent with a policy of "no housing" if the end result was, um, housing?

No, how could I?

We are talking about the same thing here? I may be confused. The council have committed to no-housing on Portobello park. To me this includes any prospect of selling the Park subject to planning permission. I don't know whether they could what you call "hamstring" the land by placing some form of restriction on it. Not sure that can be done in these non-feudal times. Poppy?

[Dadaist]

I'm talking about what PPAG are (I think) saying - which is housing on the Golfie if the SE says no.

Have the council committed to "no housing" on the capital asset currently serving us as a golf course?

[Porty]

I'm talking about what PPAG are (I think) saying - which is housing on the Golfie if the SE says no.

Have the council committed to "no housing" on the Golf Course?

I met with Andrew Burns personally and he made that commitment. Although I accept PPAG may not know that. I left that meeting and went straight to the scrutiny panel where he repeated it. A few weeks later I attended the meeting at PHS where he commited again. The very next week i attended the town hall meeting, where I sat next to you and he repeated it again several times. Ian Perry stood up and said that any politician thatthried to put housing on the park would be mad.. Here's an EN letter from Ian Perry in repsonse to DC Cairns.

IN response to Diana Cairns' letter on October 16 (Can Andrew Burns' pledge be trusted?), I'd like to clarify a few points.

At the public meeting on the consultation for two new schools for Portobello, both Andrew Burns and I stated that it was now the council policy not to build houses on Portobello Park.

It is true that our original proposal included the suggestion to build on the site. However during the initial consultation this proposal was not well received, so we removed it because it wasn't what the people of Portobello wanted.

The question that was then asked was, could we guarantee that this would be the case following next year's election? Clearly there can be no absolute guarantee on this as Labour may not be in power.

However I can guarantee that this policy will be contained in the local Labour manifesto on which we will fight the council and Scottish Parliament election.

Ian Perry, deputy leader, Edinburgh City Council

If the SE plan fails. There is no prospect that the council could build houses on the park on the basis of the current consultation.

[Dadaist]

So, if the SE said no and the golf course was sold as a capital asset, how would this "no housing" thing work then?

[Porty]

The council as part of a statuatory legal process have stated there will bo housing. Regardless of what the SE say, the council can't go back on that without going through another statuatory consultation process that incudes a housing on the park option. I imagine they won't relish that prospect

If the SE say no? Then the council have guessed incorrectly and its almost back to the drawing board. However, if the consultation back Options B or C then tey have at least establised school(s) are welcomed on the park.

You and PPAG seem to be at pains to establish that housing on the park will ultimately be the main source of funding for the schools. And yet they favour Option A!!! So the first £6 million profit from house development will go on the decant. Like I say its nonsense they can't have it both ways.

[Dadaist]

Thanks for lumping me in with PPAG there. That wasn't very nice.

I'd like to know what would happen if Option C is the approved one and is voted for, but the SE say no to the money, and funding comes from sale of capital assets, and the capital asset to be sold is the golf course, how the "no housing" bit would work?

[Epykat]

Roy Jobson also said at the same (Town Hall) meeting that it was not the Council's INTENTION to put housing on the golfie. So what happens if they do it accidentally? Like - "Oops, sorry folks, those 400 houses weren't intended - we got carried away........" . Or am I being cynical again?

[Porty]

Thanks for lumping me in with PPAG there. That wasn't very nice.

Sorry, it can't have been very nice.

I'd like to know what would happen if Option C is the approved one and is voted for, but the SE say no to the money, and funding comes from sale of capital assets, and the capital asset to be sold is the golf course, how the "no housing" bit would work?

Given the commitment they have made selling the GC for housing is not an option. The cash would have to come from somewhere else, failing that they have to consult again. Should option C be favoured and subject to getting over the other hurdles, the council will have created a saleable asset in the existing PHS site. This will give them some leverage.

For now ,they have calculated the risk as far as the SE are concerned and they have to go with it.

Allow me to throw this back at you. If option A is favoured, where will the funding come from?

[Porty]

. Or am I being cynical again?

Welcome back



Pedantic is the word your looking for. They couldn't make it any clearer.

[Pal of Porty]

I'd like to know what would happen if Option C is the approved one and is voted for, but the SE say no to the money, and funding comes from sale of capital assets, and the capital asset to be sold is the golf course, how the "no housing" bit would work?

I do not think the no housing scenario would work if the SE said no to funding. The Council would have to come back with a proposal of how the selected option could be paid for and I believe that this would definitely include 'housing' somewhere.

I am comfortable with the Council statement that they have no intention to put houses on Park/Golfie as long as they are in power. I am aware however that this does not precluclude houses going there at some future point.

[Dadaist]

Thanks for lumping me in with PPAG there. That wasn't very nice.

Sorry, it can't have been very nice.

I'd like to know what would happen if Option C is the approved one and is voted for, but the SE say no to the money, and funding comes from sale of capital assets, and the capital asset to be sold is the golf course, how the "no housing" bit would work?

Given the commitment they have made selling the GC for housing is not an option. The cash would have to come from somewhere else, failing that they have to consult again. Should option C be favoured and subject to getting over the other hurdles, the council will have created a saleable asset in the existing PHS site. This will give them some leverage.

For now ,they have calculated the risk as far as the SE are concerned and they have to go with it.

Allow me to throw this back at you. If option A is favoured, where will the funding come from?

I don't know. I guess that cash would have to come from somewhere else - failing that they would have to consult again?

I take your point though - no decant plus sale of existing PHS site is significant leverage.

[Poppy]

Porty dragged me into this

I don't know whether they could what you call "hamstring" the land by placing some form of restriction on it. Not sure that can be done in these non-feudal times. Poppy?

I am sorry but this new legislation is a mystery to me! I'm still messing about with Glasgow housing stock which is pre-abolition! Over to Plug?

[Porty]

Allow me to throw this back at you. If option A is favoured, where will the funding come from?

I don't know. I guess that cash would have to come from somewhere else - failing that they would have to consult again?

May be worth trying the SE, no? PPAG have been ssying all along that they should pay.

I take your point though - no decant plus sale of existing PHS site is significant leverage.

It certainly is. Going to the SE with community support for a school in the park, no £6million spent on a decant , with some cash of your own to offer and asking for £33m not £47m is an altogether better proposition.

[Porty]

Roy Jobson also said at the same (Town Hall) meeting that it was not the Council's INTENTION to put housing on the golfie. So what happens if they do it accidentally? Like - "Oops, sorry folks, those 400 houses weren't intended - we got carried away........" . Or am I being cynical again?

Are you dying to find out what label Portyman gives you? Wonder what he'll give Poopy?

[Dadaist]

Ah sorry - I thought you were wondering where the monies would come from given an option A followed by an SE "no" - which would be the same place as per option C minus the cost of decant and PHS site (which is significant - but I hadn't twigged what you meant by leverage).

I see what you mean now also by balancing risk. Tough one for the council.