New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Bob Jefferson]

Just back from the post-meeting analysis in the Forresters. I thought Tom Ballantine spoke very well and there were some good contributions from the floor.

I had the opportunity afterwards to speak to both of our local councillors. I think we can expect Maureen to state a position once the report has been submitted to the Council. Lawrence is still keen to ensure that all other possible options have been fully explored, including the freightliner terminal site but if this is ruled out then I would expect both he and Maureen to support the golf course proposal.

[Dadaist]

Now that Bob has started a new precedent for increased font size when posting links - and seanie has started a precedent whereby if someone does something crass (like scaremongering or ever bigger fonts) it's ok to do it yourself - here's one for the anti crowd (and of interest to everyone) :

http://www.hool.org.uk

"hool" stands for "hands off our links" but there the similarity to the Porty situation ends - this is a current fight in Musselburgh so my apologies in advance for daring to mention something which isn't set here and of exact relevance.

As far as I know, the race course in Musselburgh wanted to expand and also increase the number of meets per year by a factor of 3.

I'm posting this link here because it is the website of a fight to save a golf course. Yes, I know it's in Musselburgh.

[Stephen McIntyre]

That should not be in this thread. It should not be in this forum.

[Bob Jefferson]

You are certainly welcome to post a link to this site in any size font or colour you wish, but my personal view is that it would be more appropriate to have its own thread on the general forum.

I think that this matter would have direct relevance to this thread if it was being proposed to close the links course, as it would mean the loss of another local golfing facility, regardless of the fact that it is outwith the City of Edinburgh. However, from what I have read of the proposal we are merely talking about the 'realignment' of some greens. Since the proposal also seems to include the establishment of a new 6 hole junior golf course, a practice area and a putting green it would seem that the golfers are getting a pretty good deal.

Obviously, there is much more at stake here - the extended horse-racing facilities, floodlighting etc and if people wish to discuss this then it really deserves its own thread.

[Dadaist]

Thanks for that feedback, Bob and Stephen.

I have stated my reasoning for posting it right here and right now.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Thursday, 23 March 2006

Mr R Jobson
City of Edinburgh Council
Wellington Court
10 Waterloo Place
Edinburgh EH1 3EG

Dear Mr Jobson,

New Schools for Portobello

I write to encourage your support to ensure the COEC proposal is put forward for formal consultation.

I have lived in Portobello my entire life; attending Brunstane and Duddingston primary schools and Portobello High School where I was Head Boy in 1977, my wife was in the same Year. My children attend Portobello High and attended St John’s Primary. I have served on both St John’s and Towerbank School Boards and my wife is the PE specialist at St John’s.

The Council proposal offers an unassailable opportunity for the young people of our community.

· It will allow the largest secondary school in Edinburgh some badly needed breathing space, providing a state of the art school and a great learning environment.

· It will allow the schools to remain at the heart of their community; indeed, if the project is inclusive then it will foster even greater links.

· The project will allow us to have new schools in the relatively near future. I believe there is total agreement, amongst the community, that new schools are urgently needed.

· The proposal will stop the dangerous bussing of thousand of students annually, to participate in outdoor PE, which is only one of the significant benefits of having on-site sports facilities.

I will ever remain indebted to Portobello High School both personally and for my family. The management and staff do an outstanding job. The students, who are from diverse neighbourhoods, work together to provide an enriching social, academic and fun experience. At the moment we have a potential premiership team housed in a third division set up. We have an opportunity and ought to grab it with both hands.

Finally, may I say a word on Portobello Golf Club. There is a tremendous amount of goodwill among this community for the golfers. I don’t believe many would support any proposal that meant they no longer existed. The community is making a request that they move over a little and accommodate the thousands of young people among us. It is not too much to ask.

Yours sincerely

Stephen McIntyre
9 Brighton Crescent West
Edinburgh
EH15 1LU

[Dadaist]

Well written.

I never thought I'd see the day that you and Bob had a near-identical signature!

It's much more positive than the one you tried a day or so ago.

[Rex_Mundi]

Oh such a wonderfully fervid feeling, we had as Mrs. M, (The old coot), and I sat warming our little piggies at a grand open fire, with our toasted butter scones and large mugs of cocoa.

Our young Henry of course, by this time was wrapped up in his eco-friendly continental quilt and well off to the land of nod, having earlier suffered from his usual state of hebetude whilst watching democracy in action.

Nanny told us that as she put him down for the night, and his little eye closed, he muttered, “The pictures were so prettyâ€

[Dadaist]

[Stephen McIntyre]

At last night's meeting a lifelong resident of Portobello mentioned the land the golf course sits on had been donated to the City many moons ago with the caveat that it was to be preserved solely for recreational use. Therefore the council's proposal was the equivalent of walking on a dead man's grave.

Now, it sounds like the sort of a condition or burden a benefactor may introduce but is it true? How does one establish information such as this?

There has also been some mention of a change in the feuing system back in 2004 that created a loophole for the council to exploit, is this true?

[seanie]

The Land Reform Act abolished the feudal land system in Scotland. All feu imposed duties lapsed or were paid off.

I suppose there could be other impositions but I think anything tied to feu duties would've ceased to exist.

[Poppy]

The Land Reform Act abolished the feudal land system in Scotland. All feu imposed duties lapsed or were paid off.

I suppose there could be other impositions but I think anything tied to feu duties would've ceased to exist.

Yeah, but this is a very difficult area - the Land Reform Act in the 70s only allowed feuduty to be redeemed (i.e. paid off - under certain circumstances). The fact that feuduty was no longer being paid had no effect on the conditions as to use etc imposed by the superior in the feu grant. These continued to be enforcable by the superior - or, on the other hand, waived by the superior or indeed the Lands Tribunal.

The Feudal Abolition Act 2004 came into force on 28 Nov 2004, but these conditions do not automatically 'fly off' just because the feudal relationship has gone. This is causing Mr Poppy and his colleagues in the "Burdens Cleansing" section of Registers of Scotland no end of problems!! I'm not even going to try and explain this any further as it is so new that the legal profession and RoS are still trying to get to grips with it totally.

anyone still awake??!!

[seanie]

Explanatory Notes to Abolition of Feudal Tenure

Some feudal real burdens, however, will be preserved as ordinary real burdens and so will then be subject to the existing law on real burdens generally.

Gee. I'm glad they've explained it.

[Poppy]

Oops - wrong year for the FA Act. Must've been thinking of the Civil Patrnership Act 2004!!

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

Two-school option for Porty High

[seanie]

Well at least the Evening News got today's date right.

[Bob Jefferson]

Seanie, I would be interested to hear your (and anyone else's) opinion on:

• a) the 'two schools' option
  
  b) Lawrence's idea that maybe we could build housing elsewhere in the city to pay for Portobello's schools, a new PHS on the freightliner site and a new St John's alongside Holyrood.

[Bob Jefferson]

I'm hoping, no I'm expecting, no actually I'm demanding that the Council allocates a generous budget to allow the community to create a green space that will be of much greater value than we have at present, and a park that will be enjoyed by everyone.

I think you'll be a disappointed chap then

And I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Let's imagine that it is 2010. The new PHS is well under way and is earmarked to be officially opened by Dame Gail Porter in 2015. The Council is now seeking design input from people like you and me as to how it should develop the remaining 17 acres of parkland, with a view to maximising benefit for all sections of the community.

What's on your wish list?

[Epykat]

At the meeting I gatecrashed/hijacked a couple of weeks ago a woman stood up and said that as far as she was aware the feu rights on the land did not expire until August 2006 and that an application could be made to extend this - to which Ian Perry replied that they had expired in November 2004. He also mentioned something about the Liverpool something something and something (sorry!) having had the rights to the land. Can any other gatecrashers remember what exactly was said?

[Epykat]

.. Let's imagine that it is 2010. The new PHS is well under way and is earmarked to be officially opened by Dame Gail Porter in 2015. The Council is now seeking design input from people like you and me as to how it should develop the remaining 17 acres of parkland, with a view to maximising benefit for all sections of the community.

It's 2010, the new PHS is well under way as is the "first phase" of 400 cheaply built 'affordable' flats. Unfortunately, the Council have run out of money again, costs have spiralled and so the "second phase" of another 400 matchbox like flats has had to go on what was left of the golf course. The Council are of course very apologetic about this loss of another 17 acres of community green space, but hey, the kids need the money. Gail Porter wants nothing to do with any of it - she liked the park the way it was.

<edit - typo>

[Alison Connelly]

..

[Bob Jefferson]

Epykat, I've made a note of that post to quote back to you in 4 year's time and I think you might owe me a large drink. In the meantime, here's a message from someone else whose views I always respect. He may not always say what I want to hear, but I would never doubt his sincerity:

Dear All

Please find enclosed a copy of a letter which I have just sent off to Andrew Holmes, Director of City Development; Roy Jobson, Director of Chilren and Families; Ewan Aitken, Executive Member for Children and Families, and Ian Perry, Deputy Leader of the Council regarding site and funding options for a new Portobello High School and new St. John's.

The Council has come up with a £43m package which, while not wholly self-funding, does appear to me to be realisable. But it comes at a price - and one largely borne by Portobello alone in a way which has not been asked to such an extent of other communities throughout the city as they rightly seek new and refurbished schools for their areas.

My letter below seeks to tease out the pros and cons of other suggested options so that we can all then come to an informed view on this very important matter at the end of the forthcoming formal consultation process.

Lawrence

Dear Andrew, Roy, Ewan and Ian

Following last night's meeting organised by PFANS at Towerbank Primary School, I thought that I should write to you to try to make some comments, clarify some points and put forward some suggestions.

Of suggested alternative sites to the golf course option, I have to say that I don't think Holyrood is really a runner. It's not Portobello, would be on Green Belt land, would contain huge numbers of pupils and is frankly remote in terms of access.

I'd be interested in looking at The Jewel - but then I was told during the Brunstane/Lismore debate that you couldn't build a new primary school there because of Millennium Forest planting.

Although on the edge of the catchment area, the site of the current Lothian Buses Marine garage might be able to accommodate a new school with a playing field or two. The bus garage could move to the current lorry and coach park off the Sir Harry Lauder Road. It wouldn't be inappropriate for Portobello High School to be beside the seaside! Plenty of buses pass nearby at the King's Road junction.

A two-school solution might see that site come into play as well. Maybe that would also allow a revisit of the Power League site and the adjacent car park - though a playing field would still be difficult here, I guess, except on the roof. The Power League land is, however, now established to have housing value in terms of any price to be paid. Where a second High School would go is, of course, another question - at The Jewel?

Finally, I do think that the land comprising the Freightliner site, the lorry and coach park and adjacent brickyard is big enough for a new High School with playing fields. I wouldn't, however, advocate moving St. John's to this site. I also think that you'd need to break through and re-open the old Portobello station access from the Christian Path at the top of Brighton Place to be able adequately to access this site from Portobello. The land here has only industrial value -it's largely derelict and could never be granted planning permission for housing.

All these options would still allow the sale of at least the current Portobello High School site for housing and avoid the disruption of re-building on site. With the latter option in particular, you'd probably have to re-develop St. John's on part of the site of the existing two schools, converting the existing St. John's building for housing, for instance, and re-locating St. John's to beside the new games hall at the High School which you'd be able to keep, perhaps along with a refurbished swimming pool. A small all-weather pitch/playing field could also be provided here. There would still be room for some housing - and no construction disruption to St. John's in the process.

Funding the whole £43m package outlined last night is the real issue - the only option is house building on Council land. I don't believe that the Scottish Executive will see Portobello as a special case given that many other schools across Scotland must also have lost out on PPP funding.

I do query, though, why the house-building needs to take place on the golf course. The receipt to the Council agreed for the Power League site is not able to be ring-fenced for use in Portobello. It goes into the general city-wide pot - with only an element remaining in Portobello as a contribution to a new community facility. By the same token, then, that general pot is also available to fund schemes in Portobello and I can't see why, although some housing might be in the Portobello High School/St. John's catchment areas, housing sites elsewhere in the city can't contribute to the financing of new schools in Portobello if they are high up the priority list for capital expenditure.

I recognise that these won't be easy to find - but the principle is surely one which is consistent with the prevailing rules which folk in Portobello have hitherto had to accept.

One advantage of the Freightliner/lorry and coach park/brickyard option, it seems to me, is that the overall additional expenditure is that of industrial land acquisition and site access, coupled with a reduced receipt from a reduced land sale at the current school sites. This would amount to probably less than a quarter or a fifth of the overall total. It's the housing elsewhere that really bridges the funding gap. Could that be at The Jewel, for instance?

From all this, you'll no doubt gather that I am seeking to bottom out various alternative options to that of using the golf course for both the new schools and the necessary housing to fund all this. I do so not in absolute opposition to the current proposal but in the belief that we shouldn't give up the open space of the golf course unless all options have been explored - and I've been getting many permutations suggested to me in recent weeks, not all of which I've outlined above.

You could argue that open space allocation in the Local Plan with respect to the golf course is actually more important to city dwellers than Green Belt designation of land they are only barely familiar with. I'm not making an argument on recreational grounds for the retention of the golf course. Numbers using it are probably surpassed by those using the much smaller Rosefield Park, for instance. Nor is it bio-diverse. But it provides the largest open space in the Portobello area with an open vista down to Portobello and the sea and beyond to Fife. Even a large park of 17 acres that would be left after the building of the new schools and completion of enabling housing development would not substitute for that. That dimunition of the landscape of the area can only be justified if there really is no other alternative - and of that, I'm not yet convinced.

I really would be grateful, therefore, if the various alternative site and funding options I have outlined above could be given consideration. Maybe some of these would see a less rapid delivery of the new schools we'd all like. I believe, however, that the schools are strong enough to sustain a delay of even a few years if they know that at the end of this they will get new premises fit for decades to come through a package which is overall less diminishing of the landscape inheritance we hand over to those future generations who will be educated all the better at these schools.

Lawrence

[Epykat]

No sign of Matthew but I did meet Alison Connelly, she is nowhere near as scary in real life.

Thanks Stephen........I don't really know whether to be pleased or disappointed

If I were you Alison I'd just be afraid.........

[Alison Connelly]

..

[Epykat]

Epykat, I've made a note of that post to quote back to you in 4 year's time and I think you might owe me a large drink.

We'll see.....

.......You could argue that open space allocation in the Local Plan with respect to the golf course is actually more important to city dwellers than Green Belt designation of land they are only barely familiar with. I'm not making an argument on recreational grounds for the retention of the golf course. Numbers using it are probably surpassed by those using the much smaller Rosefield Park, for instance. Nor is it bio-diverse. But it provides the largest open space in the Portobello area with an open vista down to Portobello and the sea and beyond to Fife. Even a large park of 17 acres that would be left after the building of the new schools and completion of enabling housing development would not substitute for that. That dimunition of the landscape of the area can only be justified if there really is no other alternative - and of that, I'm not yet convinced.
...... Maybe some of these would see a less rapid delivery of the new schools we'd all like. I believe, however, that the schools are strong enough to sustain a delay of even a few years if they know that at the end of this they will get new premises fit for decades to come through a package which is overall less diminishing of the landscape inheritance we hand over to those future generations who will be educated all the better at these schools.

Lawrence

Fantastic points by Lawrence. Glad somebody's seeing the bigger picture.

[Bob Jefferson]

Indulge me. I know it's not easy, but let's try leaving the pessimism and cynicism behind just for a few moments.

You have 17 acres of prime parkland in the heart of Portobello and a budget to play with. Let's try to accomodate the needs and aspirations of the whole community. Design your own park.

[Epykat]

I'll try.....but it's really painful for me........okay......well......I'd like some trees, and grass and a sort of rough area.....and maybe some sandy bits.....and, oh, I know.......some holes here and there (9 would do) and a path sort of round the edges for the dogs and joggers......no concrete is a definite.......

How am I doing?

[Bob Jefferson]

I would say that you are suffering from a complete lack of imagination. Have a drink or two and come back to me.

[Epykat]

I would say that you are suffering from a complete lack of imagination. Have a drink or two and come back to me.

That sounds like a proposition if ever I heard one......

[seanie]

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justi ... /Abolition

The feudal system of land tenure was brought to an end on 28 November 2004 when The Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 was brought into force. On that date, the Act replaced the feudal system with a system of outright ownership of land. All superiority interests in land were extinguished. The right of feudal superiors to enforce conditions ended, subject to certain saving provisions of a restricted nature. Feu duty was also abolished although compensation may be payable.

[seanie]

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scot ... 5--d.htm#7

7 Extinction on appointed day

Without prejudice to section 13 of this Act, any feuduty which has not been extinguished before the appointed day is extinguished on that day; and accordingly no payment shall be exigible, in respect of feuduty, for that day or for any period after that day

Though section 13 has something about action founded on a debitum fundi or superior's hypothec.

Sounds painful.

[seanie]

Seanie, I would be interested to hear your (and anyone else's) opinion on:

• a) the 'two schools' option
  
  b) Lawrence's idea that maybe we could build housing elsewhere in the city to pay for Portobello's schools, a new PHS on the freightliner site and a new St John's alongside Holyrood.

Two-schools?

Non-starter I'd think.

I know there's concern that the additional housing will swell the school roll. Well it will. But you have to set that against the projected decline in general. Any increase will just buck that trend temporarily.

And any increase won't be huge. The scale of housing on the golf-course may seem large but look at it in the context of the catchment area. The catchment area currently supports a school role of around 1450. In that context the proposed housing is marginal. A couple of % maybe. Even if you add in all the other sites that are or could realistically become housing you're not talking unmanageable numbers. Numbers that demographics suggest will be in decline anyway.

Split into two seperate schools and you'd increase the project costs as you'd lose economies of scale. Additional costs that would realistically mean more development somewhere to pay for it. You'd still need to find at least one, more likely two sites, that could be developed. And you'd also have to split the catchment area. Splitting the catchment area would be one of the most painful, divisive and distressing exercises you could choose to undertake.

And why be so keen to rip in two a school that does so well despite the difficult circumstances?

Split the school into two campuses and you'd still increase the project costs as you'd lose economies of scale but to a lesser degree. You'd also need the campuses close together. That severely limits options and again exacerbates the funding problem.

You'd still need to build a substantial number of houses somewhere.

And as to the idea that the housing could be built elsewhere in Edinburgh I find it difficult to pass comment in a manner consistent with forum rules.

[Gemini]

Seanie, I would be interested to hear your (and anyone else's) opinion on:

• a) the 'two schools' option
  
  b) Lawrence's idea that maybe we could build housing elsewhere in the city to pay for Portobello's schools, a new PHS on the freightliner site and a new St John's alongside Holyrood.

Two-schools?

Non-starter I'd think.

I know there's concern that the additional housing will swell the school roll. Well it will. But you have to set that against the projected decline in general. Any increase will just buck that trend temporarily.

And any increase won't be huge. The scale of housing on the golf-course may seem large but look at it in the context of the catchment area. The catchment area currently supports a school role of around 1450. In that context the proposed housing is marginal. A couple of % maybe. Even if you add in all the other sites that are or could realistically become housing you're not talking unmanageable numbers. Numbers that demographics suggest will be in decline anyway.

Split into two seperate schools and you'd increase the project costs as you'd lose economies of scale. Additional costs that would realistically mean more development somewhere to pay for it. You'd still need to find at least one, more likely two sites, that could be developed. And you'd also have to split the catchment area. Splitting the catchment area would be one of the most painful, divisive and distressing exercises you could choose to undertake.

And why be so keen to rip in two a school that does so well despite the difficult circumstances?

Split the school into two campuses and you'd still increase the project costs as you'd lose economies of scale but to a lesser degree. You'd also need the campuses close together. That severely limits options and again exacerbates the funding problem.

You'd still need to build a substantial number of houses somewhere.

And as to the idea that the housing could be built elsewhere in Edinburgh I find it difficult to pass comment in a manner consistent with forum rules.

How many houses could be built on the 'newly purchased' Brunstane site?
I believe quite a substantial piece of land, think 70 acres? was mentioned.

[seanie]

Greenbelt.

We've been through this.

[Libby]

I was reading a post from Mrs Mangle and she put some good points across, this person was honest and said she was not doing it because she had a child at the School, she actually was honest and informed us that she did not have a child at this School.
Well did Mate of Marya come in with her tuppence worth and say in a round about way, if you don't have Child/Children at this School then there was no need for any one to attend the Meeting
I would like to know who made you Chief in Charge ?
Does it Not say a lot about Mrs Mangle, she does not have any Child/Children at this School but for the Sake of the Children's Education and Safety she is willing to give her support to the Cause.
What will Mate of Marya be saying next ?
If you don't live in the Porty Boundaries then stay of the Board.
Let her have her Glory, bye making a Stupid Remark like that shows us what she is all about.

Libby