New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 06 Feb 2006, 17:48

Bellybabe wrote:......the one thing that is absolutely irrefutable is that these two schools need to be replaced.

And we have not even mentioned Towerbank yet!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 06 Feb 2006, 17:51

Well I've tried the Council Planning Portal, Historic Scotland and the RCAHMS and none of them seem to think St John's is listed. And they also appear unaware that No 1 Portobello High Street is listed.

Perhaps someone should give 'em a ring and tell them.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 06 Feb 2006, 17:51

From the Letters page in today's EN:

Teed off at plans to build schools on golf course

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 06 Feb 2006, 17:53

And, again from the EN, I guess this has relevance:

Spy in the sky is launched to save the Capital's green spaces

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 06 Feb 2006, 19:10

Having heard more about whatâ€™s proposed and heard more peopleâ€™s opinions Iâ€™d like to comment further. My current understanding, though I stand to be corrected, is that in some form or other a â€œnewâ€

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 06 Feb 2006, 19:24

Pal of Porty wrote: And we have not even mentioned Towerbank yet!

Well, I did, PoP, I just didn't name it - that was the "work [needed] doing on a fourth". I've not forgotten Towerbank!

Jotbox · Post by **Jotbox** » 06 Feb 2006, 19:43

Wouldnâ€™t it be great if any new schools and housing exhibited the best standards of sustainable design? Sustainable design is a broad term of course, relating to the socio-economic and environmental impacts of a buildingâ€™s / siteâ€™s design. Issues that need to be considered vary in magnitude and detail right from the initial decision to build and the choice of site (and its relationship with public transport and the communities served) to the efficient design of lighting layouts and controls, and the environmental / ethical / health credentials of materials used.

As such, sustainability needs to be a core consideration from the outset, right through planning, design and construction, and then on through the commissioning and subsequent management of the building.

There is a great opportunity here, as the proposal (such as it is) has a fair bit going for it, and one of its potential weaknesses (loss of green space) might be turned round by effectively improving access to the green space that is not developed, and by improving its quality: landscaping and planting to enhance both biodiversity and amenity value where possible. I would argue that this could have greater ecological and social value than retaining a large area of monoculture (grass).

Even many environmentalists would accept that sustainable design necessarily costs more than â€œbog standardâ€

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 06 Feb 2006, 20:14

P.S. Thanks for your patience if youâ€™ve got this far. Iâ€™ll try to deliver in bite-sizes in future.

Interesting, coherent and informative, though!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 06 Feb 2006, 20:17

Jotbox - welcome to the forum and thanks for this excellent contribution to the debate.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 06 Feb 2006, 22:51

Jotbox- your inpu is so informative and positive. Seanie I feel you are on a mission. It seems that we have a long-term process ahead of us.

Jotbox, a request, can you explain biodiversity to me and for anyone else that is not sure?

Jotbox · Post by **Jotbox** » 06 Feb 2006, 23:22

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Jotbox, a request, can you explain biodiversity to me and for anyone else that is not sure?

Not sure if I can come up with a succinct definition, but essentially the word is used in connection with protecting/promoting life in all its diverse forms and variations (animals, plants, genetic variants, etc.). I think the word became popular(ish) around the time of the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 06 Feb 2006, 23:32

Bellybabe wrote: I've not forgotten Towerbank!

Neither have I BB, but I am worried that the powers-that-be might be hoping that we have...

But I've got another 11yrs involvement at Towerbank ahead so I will be keeping it at the front of my mind. And no, I don't really want to get involved with another 'community' school experiment up at the golf course (but that's just because Towerbank current location suits us fine!)

On the bright side, I am happy that there is life in the possibility that the eldest magnoliette may yet benefit from a new PHS. I absolutely share Seanie's thoughts re PFI/PPP but then on the other (unsustainable) hand, 30 yrs would be long enough for my family... (And therein lies the only type of reason that allows anyone to agree to PFI/PPP)

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 06 Feb 2006, 23:48

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Jotbox, a request, can you explain biodiversity to me and for anyone else that is not sure?

(edit: was looking for a waving smiley to say hello)

biÂ·oÂ·diÂ·verÂ·siÂ·ty Audio pronunciation of "biodiversity" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-d-vÃ»rs-t)
n.

1. The number and variety of organisms found within a specified geographic region.
2. The variability among living organisms on the earth, including the variability within and between species and within and between ecosystems

In round numbers, biodiversity is what makes the (natural) world go round - as humans we are (very slowly) reaching an understanding that we are ourselves both a part of, and dependant upon it. You can take a macro-view and argue that a single piece of development can be anything it likes as it makes very little difference to the bigger picture (that's a Chamber of Commerce type view, along with the suggestion that education is about supplying suitable labour for business use). Or you can take a micro-view and argue (as some Agencies do) that every bit of development must present a wholesome 'round' of proven integration with and support for the Local Biodiversity, because every little bit goes to make up the whole.

Schools are absolutely where demonstrable attempts to understand and integrate with the local biodiversity stuff must begin - tomorrows inheritors of yesterdays and todays mistakes will after all be guided into life's passage there.

Golf courses are by their nature a bit of a two-fingered gesture towards biodiversity as they are, normally, groomed and managed to within an inch of their life. But on the other hand there are many instances where golf courses provide vital breathing areas for urban sprawl and associated (wild)life.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 07 Feb 2006, 10:21

Thanks Mr M, I have a better understanding now and thanks to you also Jotbox.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Feb 2006, 10:31

Marya wrote: Personally, I feel torn on this proposal. Like the majority, I'm sure, I don't want to lose our green spaces, but I'm a teacher and a parent and want the best for our young people. If this is the only way that we can get our new schools then I'm willing to listen.

I'm convinced now that there is no realistic alternative site/solution and that we ought to be supporting the council in their proposal to re-build PHS and St John's on the Golf Course. The loss of green space is not on as drastic a scale as I first imagined, while the gain of schools surrounded by green parkland and play area is enormous. We have a duty to provide the education facilities our children, young folk and wider community deserve and must not let this opportunity slip through our fingers. This remains a proposal, not a fait accompli, so we need to let the council know that we want these new schools.

If the community get involved at these very early stages then it is exciting to think of what could be achieved in terms of aesthetic, social, educational and ecological grounds a mere 3 years down the line.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 07 Feb 2006, 10:44

Talking of biodiversity - we'll need to keep an eye on that bit of community woodland that runs down Park Avenue. It's about the only bit where one can walk without getting bopped by a golf ball but still watch wee birdies as one saunters along.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Feb 2006, 10:51

Marya, I think it is taking people a while to come to terms with this. We each, quite rightly, need to be personally convinced that the sacrifice of the existing golf course is worthwhile. Users of this forum are probably the best informed people in Portobello. Many others knew nothing of this developing situation until they got a letter home from school the other day, which in some cases told them very little.

The contributors to this thread are providing quality debate and discussion that should allow the wider community to make sense of what is proposed and to decide where their priorities lie.

And contrary to what some may think, the Council is being as upfront with the community about this as they possibly can. The detail that some are demanding simply isn't there yet and we can expect, as a community, to have major input at the appropriate time.

We have seen little opposition to the proposal thus far, and certainly no coherent argument against it or any suggestion of a viable alternative. The potential benefits for the whole community are very exciting and, if we all pull together, then this is a proposal that promises a good deal for everyone.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 07 Feb 2006, 11:52

Bob Jefferson wrote:Marya, I think it is taking people a while to come to terms with this. We each, quite rightly, need to be personally convinced that the sacrifice of the existing golf course is worthwhile. Users of this forum are probably the best informed people in Portobello. Many others knew nothing of this developing situation until they got a letter home from school the other day, which in some cases told them very little.

The contributors to this thread are providing quality debate and discussion that should allow the wider community to make sense of what is proposed and to decide where their priorities lie
.

And contrary to what some may think, the Council is being as upfront with the community about this as they possibly can. The detail that some are demanding simply isn't there yet and we can expect, as a community, to have major input at the appropriate time.

We have seen little opposition to the proposal thus far, and certainly no coherent argument against it or any suggestion of a viable alternative. The potential benefits for the whole community are very exciting and, if we all pull together, then this is a proposal that promises a good deal for everyone.[/quote

And contrary to what some may think, the Council is being as upfront with the community about this as they possibly can. The detail that some are demanding simply isn't there yet and we can expect, as a community, to have major input at the appropriate time.
So far, I personally, have not heard a 'peep' from the Council, regarding
their proposals. The only information that is available (or so it seems)
is what is being posted on POL online community - hardly representative of Portobello and surrounding area's, which this will affect.

I am astounded that you continue to make these type of comments.
In your unelected role as representative of the Portobello Community, it is not your place nor position to dis. arguments, coherent or otherwise.
Where are the elected representatives? Have you been instructed by
COEC, PCC or our 'elected representatives' to push this proposal?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Feb 2006, 12:28

Bob, now that we are pals again I'm sure that you will take this criticism in the correct way. It is made from a position of respect. (no Galloway jokes please)

Bob Jefferson wrote:Marya, I think it is taking people a while to come to terms with this.

Perhaps true, but to the casual reader this statement comes off as being a bit patronizing. When someone holds a different view it may be the case that no amount of persuading will change it.

We each, quite rightly, need to be personally convinced that the sacrifice of the existing golf course is worthwhile.

This is nearly messianic. Sometimes, when somebody holds a view which doesn't match yours, judging it to be ill-informed is too simplistic a way of reconciling the fact that they still disagree with you. Of course you're right in terms of the substance here - that is, an issue like this has positive and negative factors which you would like to argue from one side of - but reading this statement directly after the first gives one the lasting impression of the pulpit.

Users of this forum are probably the best informed people in Portobello.

Preaching to the converted, and also patronizing. I have to say though it's a nae bad grapevine for those who like a wee bit gossip. I sure love it here.

The contributors to this thread are providing quality debate and discussion that should allow the wider community to make sense of what is proposed

Absolutely with you on this.

and to decide where their priorities lie.

This can be read two ways. When it follows a partisan statement (which in this instance it does) it comes across as rhetoric. People on the opposing side of you in a debate see you in the same light. To accuse them of simply not having the right priorities is a bit of a blunt instrument.

And contrary to what some may think, the Council is being as upfront with the community about this as they possibly can.

Of course, it would be difficult to disprove otherwise wouldn't it? And whilst making a statement like this is harmless, were one to suggest the opposite one would be told to put up or shut up. You need *proof*.

The detail that some are demanding simply isn't there yet and we can expect, as a community, to have major input at the appropriate time.

I sincerely hope so, nor do I doubt your intent.

We have seen little opposition to the proposal thus far, and certainly no coherent argument against it or any suggestion of a viable alternative.

No, no, no. Not good enough. It does not follow that a lack of argument or opposition equates with approval.

The potential benefits for the whole community are very exciting and, if we all pull together, then this is a proposal that promises a good deal for everyone.

This is a bit wooly and needs more substance. Again I don't doubt your intent, but to simply state that something "promises a good deal for everyone" when you're in the world of PFI/PPP, land deals and the Council, you must be having a laugh.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 07 Feb 2006, 13:39

Gemini wrote: I am astounded that you continue to make these type of comments.
In your unelected role as representative of the Portobello Community, it is not your place nor position to dis. arguments, coherent or otherwise.
Where are the elected representatives? Have you been instructed by
COEC, PCC or our 'elected representatives' to push this proposal?

And

Gemini wrote:You are not the spokesperson for the Portobello Community.

Gemini,

Whilst you are free to disagree with Bob's views on this matter or with his posts, as Dadaist has, this is the second time in a few days that you've made what seems to me a direct personal attack on Bob. I don't think Bob has claimed to be a spokeperson for the community; as far as I'm aware there is no spokesperson for the community, is there?

Regardless, rather than polarise this debate into a black and white, for or against scrap, I think it would be better to realise that pretty much everyone involved in this debate has the best interests of the community at heart, even if we may differ on what will best serve those interests. This a chance to unite our community further and for us all to work together for the best possible solution to a difficult problem; it really shouldn't be turned into a them-and-us situation.

I think it's fair enough to be angry or passionate about the issues; I just don't think it gets us anywhere to attack each other when we disagree. And that goes for all of us.

Paula

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 07 Feb 2006, 13:44

Poppy wrote:Talking of biodiversity - we'll need to keep an eye on that bit of community woodland that runs down Park Avenue. It's about the only bit where one can walk without getting bopped by a golf ball but still watch wee birdies as one saunters along.

Poppy,
As far as the proposals go, the council is saying it will keep all the trees, as well as creating a public park area. The people that like walking there and the dog walkers are to keep their woodland.

Paula

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 07 Feb 2006, 14:14

People do not really have enough information to make up their minds one way or another, however some of us have nailed our colours to the mast already, myself included.I have piled in for and Gemini and dc have been photographed at the golf course in a show of disapproval.

I have piled in because I believe our children deserve a modern school in an environemet that maximises their potential for learning, enjoyment, lesiure and health. I have piled in because the golf course scheme has a reasonable chance of fruition, the key factor is funding and this option has funding, which is what makes it viable.

No other alternative has funding or even prospect of funding, that is what makes these options unviable. It is not an opinion it is a fact.

Having said that, my support for the golf course scheme is not unconditional, if the proposal involved building houses on say 50% of the course, losing the tree line and no general community amenity, then I would have to re-evaluate. I and I suspect most of us crave more information. I have every reason to believe that this information will be forthcoming.

From this debate I am learning a lot about how much more could be made of the GC area. I have lived here for 46 years, I lived in the council scheme on one side of the park and I lived next door to the old school, whilst it was still being used, on the opposite side of the park. I know that the area is underused, IMHO anyone that claims otherwise is poorly informed. The thought that almost 2000 people a day for much of the Year could benefit from the space is a powerful persuader.

Something that could alter many people's views is the proposal of an achieveable alternative. If those that are instinctively against the GC proposal do have an alternative that is fundable and meets the other desired criteria then the quicker it is publicised the better. Right now, there is no other discussion happening, the GC appears to be the only game in town.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Feb 2006, 14:59

Stephen McIntyre wrote: Having said that, my support for the golf course scheme is not unconditional, if the proposal involved building houses on say 50% of the course, losing the tree line and no general community amenity, then I would have to re-evaluate. I and I suspect most of us crave more information. I have every reason to believe that this information will be forthcoming.

I totally agree with you Stephen and like you, I'm making a leap of faith.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Feb 2006, 15:29

I just received this and it's very short notice. If anyone is available please get in touch.

Dear all,

The BBC have been in touch, wanting to film a piece from the golf
course tomorrow lunchtime about the Council's proposal to build a new
high school there, and they're looking for people to join in the debate.

Can you help? It's hard to find people who can represent the community
at that time of day! People who like the scheme will be happy that *I*
cannot be there, for example: I am totally in favour of getting a new
High School, and totally opposed to it being on the golf course!

Please let me know as soon as possible if you would like to contribute
to the debate and would be available.

Thank you!

Nick.

Jotbox · Post by **Jotbox** » 07 Feb 2006, 15:33

Dadaist wrote:
The potential benefits for the whole community are very exciting and, if we all pull together, then this is a proposal that promises a good deal for everyone.
This is a bit wooly and needs more substance. Again I don't doubt your intent, but to simply state that something "promises a good deal for everyone" when you're in the world of PFI/PPP, land deals and the Council, you must be having a laugh.

Yes, it's surely true that not everyone can be a winner. The best than can be hoped for is that the benefits of a scheme such as this are much greater than the downsides, and I am sure that this is achievable.

Regarding PFI/PPP - my understanding is that this proposal doesn't strictly fall into that category, although the involvement of the Council's arms length development company EDI suggests to me that the proposal might fall somewhere around the fuzzy boundary between PPP and not PPP. Is there anybody out there who can outline the practical implications of EDI's involvement? Will the Council own/develop the schools, with EDI taking care of the housing, or will EDI be involved in developing the schools too?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Feb 2006, 15:45

Where was it (in East Lothian?) that a PPP/PFI school build ran into problems?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Feb 2006, 15:54

Wow - just read the EIS survey of teachers w.r.t PFI/PPP schools.

This is going to be interesting.

Neo-Dadaist is set to start secondary in 10 years time.

*cracks knuckles*

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Feb 2006, 16:29

Thought some of our newer users might find this useful to see. I've cropped it from the large arial photo of Portobello that CatzVP sourced for us a while back. It gives an idea of the scale of the Golf course compared to say Figgate Park

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 07 Feb 2006, 16:55

Dadaist wrote:Where was it (in East Lothian?) that a PPP/PFI school build ran into problems?

Ross High was a PPP/PFI school; had problems during building but not sure about recently: Ross

Paula

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Feb 2006, 19:52

Bellybabe wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Where was it (in East Lothian?) that a PPP/PFI school build ran into problems?
Ross High was a PPP/PFI school; had problems during building but not sure about recently: Ross

Paula

That's the one - thanks. I remember the firm Ballast going into liquidation - it must have been in the news at the time.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Feb 2006, 19:57

Dadaist wrote:Where was it (in East Lothian?) that a PPP/PFI school build ran into problems?

Where haven't PPP/PFI school builds run into problems?

There are exceptions but by and large PPP has been an unhappy experience across Scotland. Whatever bad things you may have heard the reality is almost certainly worse. What filters through into the public domain is the tip of an iceberg.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Feb 2006, 20:16

So we should be grateful that's not what we are getting then? And perhaps it was a blessing in disguise that we didn't make the second round of PPP. So, those of us who believe that we need new schools are left with the option of a self-financing package, which is what is being proposed, or a Fairy Godmother.

Except that a few people believe there are alternatives. I spoke to two of my colleagues on the Community Council today. I don't think it would be fair to name them. The first blames the Council, successive governments and Tony Blair in particular for under-funding of our schools and isn't prepared to give up the Golf Course, preferring that the school is rebuilt in situ even though this would mean a school several stories high without playing fields, with considerable disruption to children and teachers through decant into portakabins, and no means of funding.

The second, a keen golfer, believes that the Council, and presumably our local councillors, are lying or being economical with the truth about the unsuitability of alternative sites.

I mention this because I think that it is important to understand the views of people who are against the proposal.

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 07 Feb 2006, 20:24

You would think a "keen golfer" would welcome the councils proposal of a new and improved golf course, not fight for one which is below par (excuse the pun).

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 07 Feb 2006, 21:13

alternative sites

Which are.......?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 07 Feb 2006, 21:20

Bob Jefferson wrote:The first blames the Council, successive governments and Tony Blair in particular for under-funding of our schools

Successive since...?

As a child whose milk was stolen by Thatcher, and whose education was, shall we say, not the very best one might hope for (I know, I know, I overcame all odds...), you could probably blame successive governments going back to when schools began for the under-funding of our schools. Whatever the reason, right now what we need is an answer, rather than a discussion on whose fault the problem is. Whoever's fault it is, the problem is ours and the future generations of Portobello's. And that sentence proves that my own schooling was less than ideal...