St John's School

[Bob Jefferson]

Haven't seen it either, but my son tells me it runs across the way, ie the goals are to right and left of the photo. He thinks that at least 3 of these pitches would fit onto the old tennis courts.

[Bob Jefferson]

I think a site visit might be in order if anyone is interested?

[seanie]

Sounds like one 5-a-side pitch.

[Porty]

From the business case submitted to the Scottish Government for the Wave 3 schools.

St John’s Primary School - Existing site

3.2.4 Currently located immediately next to Portobello High School, St John’s Primary School also featured in the consultation exercise to replace the schools. St John’s faces acute fitness for purpose issues, having among the smallest classroom sizes in the city; significantly undersized support space; a lack of outdoor education spaces; and accommodation supplemented by temporary accommodation.

It is well worth reading the business case, you will find it here:
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/internet/At ... s-Case.doc

The costs given for each option are:

4.6.9 The feasibility study identified a number of locations for a new build St Johns on the current site. Option 2 saw the development of a building adjacent to the Portobello building, which could be developed while the high school continued to operate. A third option could see the provision of a new build primary school on the site of the old Portobello High School with potential co-location alongside the recently built existing high school sports facilities. This third option however has implications for the timescale of delivering a solution for St Johns. In all cases the primary school would be sited to allow an increased area of play space and the provision of an all-weather pitch.


Costs and Programme
4.6.10 The total project costs, based on completion dates of March 2013 (option 1), August 2012 (option 2), or January 2015 (option 3) identified within the report are:
• Extension and refurbishment £11.96 million
• New-build, (not phased) £10.76 million
• New-build (phased) £12.22 million

4.6.11 The likely programme for implementation of this project is four years for the single phased new-build option. An additional seven months would be required for the phased alternative. (Not sure if decant costs are included?)

The only risks identified in the report:

4.6.12 The key risks specific to this project which have been identified at this stage are:
• Refurbishment: issues relating to works progressing next to an operational school- this suggests decant costs are not included

4.8 Option Appraisal Process

4.8.1 An external consultant was commissioned to facilitate an Option Appraisal Workshop, which was attended by representatives from the Council’s Children and Families, Finance, Legal and City Development Departments.
4.8.2 Below is a summary of the options considered for each school within the feasibility studies:-
• Portobello High School
- New build at southern end of Portobello Park

• St John RC Primary School
- Extension and refurbishment of existing school
- Phased new build on existing site
- New build on the adjacent area of land to the immediate west of the existing site
- New build on the land of the existing Portobello High School



4.8.3 The workshop followed the format of the guidance set in the Option Appraisal guidance issued by the Scottish Government in 2004. Each option was considered against the following criteria, and in each case, a ‘do minimum’ option was also considered for each school (which represents the status quo for the Council in terms of maintenance).
A Building Condition/Asset Management/Cost-in-Use
B Sufficiency/appropriate site
C Accessibility (needs)
D Education amenity/enhancement
E Sustainability (how well the building would meet BREEAM indicators)
F Future flexibility
G Community access/integrated services
H Design
I Deliverability – capital cost
J Deliverability – time
K Deliverability – land
L Avoidance of educational disruption

4.8.4 Each objective was given an importance weighting from a range of 1 to 5 (1 – low, 5 – high). Each of the options for the schools was scored on how well they would achieve the objective from a range of 1 – 10 (1 – low 10 – high).

The highest total score then determined the preferred option for each school, as noted below:

• Portobello – New build on alternative site
• St John’s RC Primary School – Phased new build on existing site
• St Crispin’s Special School – New build on alternative site
• James Gillespies High School – Phased new build on existing site
• Boroughmuir High School – New build on alternative site

[Bob Jefferson]

The following 'additional information' was added to the Wave 3 pages today in respect of site options for St John's:

Site Size

In all options it is proposed that the ultimate site size for St John's Primary school is the same – ie incorporating the existing school site along with the area known as the Portobello High School tennis courts, the timing of the transfer of which would require further discussion. The final proposal for St John's would result in:

EITHER

• The existing building being retained for the school, or a new build in this location, with an all-weather pitch and extended playground located on the old tennis courts

OR

• A mirror image of this with new build on the old tennis courts and pitch and playground on the site of the old St Johns building.

Options 2 and 3 would both see the demolition of the existing St John's building.

Given that Portobello High School has recently developed an astro turf pitch on the old tennis courts to reduce their requirements to bus pupils off-site for outdoor PE, careful consideration would have to be given to the impact of any of these options on the operation of Portobello High School.

The timing of the transfer of the tennis courts will require detailed discussion with Portobello High School, with for example the new or refurbished building for St John's being provided in an initial phase with the full outdoor facilities being provided in a later phase.

Option Costs

All the options – either refurbishment and extension, or new build, have similar costs associated with them. Accordingly, there are no cost advantages to be gained by pursuing one option over another.

[seanie]

So the Council reckons all three options cost about the same, but the Parent Council recommends refurbishment on the grounds, partly, that it'd be considerably cheaper and hence more deliverable. I assume that's based on their own scheme previously mentioned.

Is there any more information on what the Parent Council are proposing?

[Bob Jefferson]

That's a tricky one. I have asked several St John's parents and none of them know anything about it. The plans have been presented to Maureen Child, as we know, but beyond that I can't say.

I have received the following replies to my question regarding who else is aware of the plans:

The St John’s parents have seen the plans.

I think I was told there was a meeting where the option was presented to an open meeting of all St John’s parents – but I could have misunderstood that, obviously.

Is there a St John's parent out there who knows anything about this?

[Bob Jefferson]

Sorry, you will have to imagine the sound effect.

[Porty]

From Maureen Child's latest newsletter:

Local ‘Wave Three’ Schools – Portobello and St John’s


I have also had a presentation on the real possibility of a new school being rebuilt within the shell of the current building (which was ingeniously designed in the 1920s with no internal supporting walls) and an extension. The plans are professional, detailed and costed. The parent council representatives calculate it will cost very much less to do what they propose than to build a new school for St John’s. But a letter went out to St John’s parents, just before the October break, seeming to push what appears to be the department’s preferred option - to build a new St John’s on top of the Portobello High School’s new all weather playing pitch!

.

What letter from the council? Does Maureen mean, the parental survey which went out just before the break - or is there another letter?

Having read the survey again, along with the business case. I surmise that the council want to go for a new build on the existing site - the preference in the option appraisal conducted for the business case. What's not clear is the decant solution. SJPC have said they cannot support an on-site decant (seems fair enough) but the council are not in a position to accede to this request, in fact they pour quite a bit of cold water over the prospect of an off-site decant, it is a huge variable.

There's only one option that does not have to entail a decant, (off-site, on-site or phased on-site) and that is option 2 -new school building on the tennis courts and the existing site becomes playground with sports pitch.
The impact of SJPC asking for the removal of this "really poor" option and then rubbishing it , effectively meant they were enforcing some form of decant on future families. There must be a fairly good chance that their own kids would have moved on elsewhere prior to the decant taking place

It is a possibility, but not guaranteed, that St John's may have to wait a tad longer for Option 2 but parents may well prefer it, rather than full or partial decant. -The point is, its their kids and they deserve a say. Even if a decant is the eventual result.

Ironically the St John's situation is almost identical to the prospect of PHS being rebuilt/refurbished on the same footprint: YES it is possible but NO it is neither educationally desireable nor best value for money. It is almost identical but one PC is resisting the prospect whilst the other is promoting it.

Reflecting on this whole St John's fiasco, it is wholly improper that the conflict of interest at the core of SJPC has been tolerated. No way an indivdual so immersed in the PPAG campaign group should be condoned as part of a three person decison making team. The risk of conflict of interest is just too high and too real. I fear that St John's has all along been used as a pawn by a group whose mission statement has sod all to do with education or decent schools.

[Bob Jefferson]

UNBELIEVABLE! I have just learned that David Manson, the chair of St John's Parent Council, has TURNED DOWN an offer from his counterpart, Ken Aitken from PHS Parent Council, for the two groups to meet to explore ways the schools could work together to produce a deliverable solution.

I'm sharing this information because I think that it is important that St John's parents are aware of what the Parent Council is doing on their behalf. I'm sure that many will be very disappointed.

Until now, most members of the PHS Parent Council were prepared to allow St John's to use the tennis courts area before PHS was re-built.

In the light of this rebuff, that is clearly something that will have to be reconsidered.

(copied over from PHS thread)

[bones]

The Parent Council at St John's appear to be attempting, at last, to keep parents up-to-date on events/issues for St John's and have today sent home to parents a "Newsletter Winter 2008". There is mention of the Wave 3 Schools Progress stating "CEC plans for replacement or upgrade of St Johns are progressing with workshops and meetings involving parent council members. Opinions of parents were recently canvassed via a poorly worded CEC questionnaire. Late November will see the Council deciding whether St Johns redevelopment will involve an extension and thorough refurbishment of the existing school, or a new building on the "tennis courts" site adjacent. The parent council are very keen that the council back the former option ......." As you can see St John's so-called "Property Committee" of David Manson, Donald Canavan and Alison Connelly are still intent on deceiving and manipulating parents. There is no sign of an apology for the way they have misled parents in to believing that option 2 would provide a new build on the narrow tennis court site when in fact Talk Porty has highlighted the fact that the proposed site is much larger. I have such little trust in the Parent Council that I did not return my questionnaire through the school but direct to CEC as I wanted to be confident it actually got there!

This trio of Parent Council members have very great opinions of themselves and are not aware that they are an embarassment to most parents at St Johns. I think that PHS and St John's parent councils should be joining together for the sake of the Portobello Community and children of both primary and high school level but I'm afraid we have some very inward-thinking, arrogant parents running our Parent Council at the moment.

The Parent Council members who organise fundraising events for St John's do a fantastic job. They work very hard, raise lots of funds for the school through school fairs, parties etc. and receive a pat on the back now and again from David Manson. I think the Property Committee trio should just call it a day and do something useful with their spare time - maybe join the fundraising committee and do something positive for St John's.

[Bob Jefferson]

Welcome to the forum bones and thanks for your input. Is the Parent Council newsletter available online anywhere? I noticed the following in the latest school newsletter:

Parent Questionnaires

In respect of the Wave 3 proposals, the questionnaires have to be returned by today, Friday 7th November. We have had a very low return to school, which is disappointing. I hope that parents have responded directly to Billy McIntyre at City of Edinburgh Council, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh EH8 8BG, or on-line. It is very important that you respond and your views are heard.

[bones]

This "winter" newsletter doesn't appear to be on the school website even although the fortnightly school newsletters are. Maybe other parents felt like me and preferred to return their questionnaire direct to CEC rather than via the school to ensure it reached it's destination.

[Bob Jefferson]

Out of interest, which option do you prefer? And how do you feel about an off-site decant, which seems to be what the redevelopment committee is insisting upon?

[Porty]

This "winter" newsletter doesn't appear to be on the school website even although the fortnightly school newsletters are. Maybe other parents felt like me and preferred to return their questionnaire direct to CEC rather than via the school to ensure it reached it's destination.

Welcome Bones

Maybe so, I thought that people may have completed the online survey, it looked very straightforward. It is likely that the survey response was affected by the low profile of the issue of a new/refurbished school for St Johns. For example, the timing of the survey, the day school breaks up is not idyllic, the same mistake was made with the last parental survey, the outcome of which never came to light in any detail. Also there is scant reference in the regular newsletters and as you say the property committee have already decided what solution the school should take.

They've been flogging a refurb to local politicians and have done there best to manipulate the flow of information to achieve the desired result. Hell two of them have even featured in the Evening News bragging about it.

Bones, your initial post has confirmed that I have been remiss in my observation of the behaviour of the entire St John's Parent Council. I don't know how many people serve on that body, I do know that many give their time to fundraise etc, I used to do that myself. I apologise if any of those good people took offence. The issue is, as you say; the 3 person "property committee" whom I though were called the "sub development group".

I do agree that the CEC survey was a poorly put together document. Plain English and clearer graphics would have made it a lot easier to understand. However, all of the information was there, if one looked carefully enough. The letter from David Manson on behalf of the parent council, set out to persuade people "We believe that St John's has a very strong case for being refurbished quickly - it is vital that we make the right choice."

His letter and his representation in the Eveining News, included a total misrepresentation of Option 2, the only option that could avoid a decant. You say there has been no apology for this misrepresentation, which means many parents, who don't follow Talk Porty or the Evening News, will still be in the dark. Perhaps mistakenly believeing they have to accept a decant. I sincerely hope they get another chance to have their say. And I mean after they have had some workshops and presentations of exactly whats on offer.

Bones, was the winter newsletter issued by the School or CEC?

[seanie]

There is no sign of an apology for the way they have misled parents in to believing that option 2 would provide a new build on the narrow tennis court site when in fact Talk Porty has highlighted the fact that the proposed site is much larger.

No acknowledgement at all that their previous letter was inaccurate and misleading?

I've little doubt their misundertanding of Option 2 was genuine. But to not acccept responsibilty for misleading parents about it, albeit unintentionally, is nothing short of disgraceful.

[Porty]

There is no sign of an apology for the way they have misled parents in to believing that option 2 would provide a new build on the narrow tennis court site when in fact Talk Porty has highlighted the fact that the proposed site is much larger.

No acknowledgement at all that their previous letter was inaccurate and misleading?

I've little doubt their misundertanding of Option 2 was genuine. But to not acccept responsibilty for misleading parents about it, albeit unintentionally, is nothing short of disgraceful.

I also tended towards the property committee misunderstanding, however Bones tells us:

"The Parent Council at St John's appear to be attempting, at last, to keep parents up-to-date on events/issues for St John's and have today sent home to parents a "Newsletter Winter 2008". There is mention of the Wave 3 Schools Progress stating "CEC plans for replacement or upgrade of St Johns are progressing with workshops and meetings involving parent council members. "

Misunderstanding the CEC report is one thing. attending workshops and meetings, where the options were discussed is something else altogether. I agree tho' ; the lack of an apology and a correction of the misleading information is disgraceful. In what way is that consistent with "keeping parents up-to date?" its been almost two weeks since the realisation that the information given to St John's parents by David Manson was false. Why not sort it and treat parents fairly?

[Porty]

I have been reliably informed that there has been a "significant number" of responses to both the St John's and Boroghmuir surveys.

[bones]

I'm glad to hear that there's been a good response to the St John's and Boroughmuir surveys. I feel that the tactics which have been deployed by the St John's Property Committee are to keep everyone in the dark as much as possible - and then to manipulate any information that becomes available. As you say, there have been plenty meetings, not to mention tours taking local councillors round the school, but these are kept very low-key, for the select few.

I agree with the fact that if you don't read the Evening News or follow Talk Porty, even though your children attend the school, you really don't know these issues exist.

The winter newsletter was issued by the school.

I chose option 2. It just seems a waste of public money to keep refurbishing and extending a building that belongs to a bygone era. I'm also not happy that the Property Committee hope to be decanted to Lismore. The vultures are circling.

[seanie]

There is mention of the Wave 3 Schools Progress stating "CEC plans for replacement or upgrade of St Johns are progressing with workshops and meetings involving parent council members. Opinions of parents were recently canvassed via a poorly worded CEC questionnaire. Late November will see the Council deciding whether St Johns redevelopment will involve an extension and thorough refurbishment of the existing school, or a new building on the "tennis courts" site adjacent. The parent council are very keen that the council back the former option ......."

That only mentions two of the three options presented for consultation.

[seanie]

There were three options put forward by the Council;

1. Refurbish and extend the existing building.
2. New-build on the 'tennis courts'.
3. New-build on the existing site.

All three need the same site in total, with land taken from PHS to accommodate the three basic elements; school, playground, all-weather pitch.

All three, as far as the council are concerned, cost pretty much the same.

The Parent Council (in whole or in part) appear to have ignored option 3, misunderstood option 2, and promoted option 1 on the basis, primarily, that it's 'considerably cheaper' and therefore more readily deliverable.

Even though, as far as the council is concerned, refurbishment is not considerably cheaper and may even be more expensive than a new build option.

Is this making any sense?

[seanie]

Put it another way...

If you were the City of Edinburgh Council, considering what option to pick, just how seriously would you take the views of the St John's Parent Council?

[Bob Jefferson]

What we need now is transparency. This is an issue that is of importance to St John's parents but it impacts on PHS parents as well, so we deserve to know the facts.

If the re-development committee has a preferred option for refurbishment and a costed plan then they should be sharing it with St J parents, and preferably with the wider community as well.

If the re-development committee has misrepresented the options available then they should admit as much and do what they can to rectify that situation.

If St John's PC has refused a meeting with PHS PC then we deserve an explanation. If there is a difference of opinion regarding what took place, then let's see the correspondence between the relevant parties and we can judge for ourselves.

What do they have to hide?

[Porty]

Put it another way...

If you were the City of Edinburgh Council, considering what option to pick, just how seriously would you take the views of the St John's Parent Council?

that's a good question. I'm fairly sure the views of most parent councils are considered and play their part - but I suspect its a walk on part at most. In this case the officials must be a bit pissed off that their report was so badly miserepresented by the 3 amigos. They saw the accompanying letter - I'm 100% sure of that.

[SoupDragon]

How seriously do the council take any delegation or parent group?

Not much in my view

I mind being up at the Council Chambers when we were part of the delegation petitioning for funds for the huts
There were others trying to save schools
We were asked why we wanted a bigger school when others were closing.
Umm... the rising roll vs the falling?
The increase in housing for families?
The growing population?
Umm... do you not read any of the reports in front of you? The submissions from the parents?

This was the meeting where babes in arms were counted in the total crowd to be allowed into the Chambers


Mind you I'd be very uneasy at joining any delegation put forward by the St Johns School council now

All I can say the school was running out of space when my son started there , that s when they built the huts ( he's now 21) The staff did wonders given the shortage of space, gym facilities, etc.

[Porty]

I remember that campaign well- there were so many parents involved and we succeeded. I recall one meeting in Lee Crescent and there was around 20 of us working on the presentation to the council.

One of the galling things about the property committee desire to refurbish and extend the school on its existing site (no extra space) is their total disregard for what the various independent experts have said about the constraints of a site that is about 33% the size it should be.

Their justification is that, according to their own plans and costings, (not shared with parents) this option will be "considerably cheaper" and the implication is the school will be more quickly delivered. Even if this was true and according to council officials and the business case it is NOT. Why is getting a quicker, cheaper facility say 5 years earlier, more desireable than a costlier but more spacious and flexible facilty, that will serve for for the next 40 or 50 years?

Make no mistake the not particulaly well hidden agenda of the property committee - to minimize the size of the St Johns site- in the vein hope of having PHS in situ, could impact negatively on the school for the next 50 years, maybe forever.

This has been a long debate and St John's have been offered about 5 different options for a new build school, none of which the property committee have thought worthy of serious consideration.

Were she still a SJP Soupdragon intimates her reluctance to participate in any deputation to the council on behalf of the current parent council. You needn't worry. Its been almost 3 years and no SJP outside the parent council/school board has represented the school or attended in support. They have not nurtured parental support.

I'm always banging on about how the property committee are basically PPAG in disguise and I've mistakenly thought that the idea of a refurb came from Alison Connelly at the meeting of the Executive on December 21st 2006. And it is recorded in the minutes, However, looking back, Alison was not the first to ask for a refurb. Here's an extract from the minutes of the May 4th 2006 meeting. It confirms that the remodel now being peddled bu the property committee is in fact a PPAG idea.

The City pf Edinburgh Council Yesr 200612007
Meeting 1 -Thursday 4 May 2006
Edinburgh, 4 May 2006 - At a meeting of The City of Edinburgh Council.

Deputation Portobello Park Action Group

Steven Hawkins and Garry Gowans explained that the Portobello
Park Action Group had been formed to allow the community to keep
Portobello Park and to prevent it becoming a site for the new high
school. They stated that: -

- there was a need to retain this well used park at the heart of
Portobello and the 5-a-side football pitch in it
-
the deeds of the park stated that the land should be solely used
as a park and that it was common good land

--the Council should consider a partial re-design at St John’s
School and further investigate the two schools option and
rebuilding the schools on their existing sites

- the Council should not dismiss potential brownfield sites
He urged the Council to explore all available options more fully, to
extend the consultation period and to take into account the views of
the whole community.

So there's the evidence a refurb was PPAG's idea all along and the same goes for the brownfield sites Alison asked for in subsequent meetings.

[SoupDragon]

Seen this bit the Evening News ?

[Bob Jefferson]

What struck me about the story was that this is not the first or even the second accident of this nature but the third! Why wasn't action taken on the first occasion? Why did two other kids have to be injured, the Evening News involved and the threat of legal action before someone realised that something had to be done?

[wangi]

Why didn't they just not stick their fingers in the door...

Or is common sense in short supply?

[Bob Jefferson]

I don't know exactly what the issue with the door(s) is but three incidents of a similar nature tells its own story. I assume that these are heavy self-closing fire doors but maybe someone else has more details?

I believe that the first two incidents both involved nursery school children and that both required hospital treatment.

As a parent, I wouldn't be happy.

[seanie]

I don't know the circumstances here but it's not always straightforward to make such doors completely safe. Fire doors have to conform to very strict tolerances and it's not always possible to meet those and still fit fingerguards. Sometimes you can fit hold-open devices but they'd have to be tied into a fire alarm and again that's not always easy.

[Porty]

Maybe the doors can't be "fixed" and its just the design. Whatever? Its still not very nice or acceptable. I vividly recall the day at phs when olive the re teacher lost part of her finger when a pupil closed the clasroom door on it - 3 similar incidents within a year with the same door means questions ought to be asked. - I note that Alcatraz is coming in for quite a bit of flak in the comments section for his "horrendous" quote. .

[SoupDragon]

Our door into the stair used to close sharply.
We loosed the closer and eventually took the closer off, which I know defeats the perpose but it saved fingers, getting locked out or a sore arm trying to keep the door open when somebody rang the bell

I'm surprised that no action was taken when the first child got hurt

[Porty]

"David Manson, chairman of St John's parent council, said the proposal would leave the school looking like "Alcatraz".

He said: "We only want the two options of either refurbishing on-site or rebuilding on-site. We specifically asked that this option wasn't included because it would just be a disaster.""

Edinburgh Evening News


“Your opinions will be taken into account in the decisions being made by Edinburgh Council in December, and therefore we hope you will be able to spare the time to make your voices heard. We believe that St John's has a very strong case for being refurbished quickly - it is vital that we make the right choice."

Kind regards,
David Manson
Chair, St John's Primary School Parent Council


“The parent council at St John's wrote to all parents regarding this option saying: "The option of building a new school for St John's on the adjacent tennis courts causes us very real concern because we are unsure of what Edinburgh Council would do with the existing St John's building. We are very concerned that we may end up with a new school squeezed up against a block of flats (the existing St John's building) and very close to Portobello High School which may not move for several years yet. This narrow plot would restrict the design of a new school and its facilities to fit into the tennis courts and have very poor access."

Additionally, since Portobello High has only very recently started to use part of this area for an Astroturf pitch, it is possible that Edinburgh Council would only want to proceed with this option if/when Portobello High is relocated, and they have acknowledged that this could take up to 14 years, depending on funding constraints, common good battles, and the identification of alternative local green space to replace that lost on the park."

It really is a poor option.
Alison Connelly, Duddingston Park, Edinburgh

“. An advantage for St John’s of this is that St Johns would be relocated first, which means that St John’s would get its new school more quickly, but also that it would be guaranteed the first “bite” at the funding. “

Letter to Parents from St Johns School board in October 2006


St John’s parent council/school board led themselves and the school up the garden path.

It is a great pity that St John’s has to wait for several years for a new school but at least by that time the dark influence of PPAG will be gone and whoever leads the decision will hopefully have open minds, no hidden agenda and encourage fully informed discussion. And of course PHS should no longer complicate the options for their new school.

It is short-term bad news for St John's but in the longer term they are bound to have a better school on a larger, fit for purpose site. In my view they have had a lucky escape. An Escape to Alcatraz?

[Porty]

http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext ... cId=120880

The Wave 3 report.