New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 25 Aug 2006, 10:09

seanie wrote: Because even if "very rough and ready people might get the wrong end of the stick and get carried away with speculation".

Oh dear Seanie, that's a bit mean. I am sure that they are lovely people

"Genius lasts longer than Beauty. That accounts for the fact that we all take such pains to over-educate ourselves.â€

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Aug 2006, 23:03

A wee while ago I worked briefly on a feasibilty study for a site for a new primary school. It was to be located in the midst of a housing development and two plots had been suggested as possible sites.

I took the plan of an existing school and overlaid it on the areas suggested. One was a non-starter because the site sloped too much. There was no way of locating the school without extortionate relandscaping so that option was dismissed pretty quiclky.

The other site was more promising. It still took a bit of work. The plan I was working with was flipped, rotated, bits taken off and added elsewhere, squeezed and shifted. The plans I produced were rough and ready, but we came down to basically two site options.

The first sloping site was out of the window. We had a workable if compromised solution on the other site. And we had a promising alternative if the plot boundaries were shifted a bit. So I produced two draft/outline plans, of the two latter options, and passed them up the chain for discussions I wasn't party to.

And that process took me a morning.

If you have enough information at your disposal it's very easy to make a quick comparative judgement of that kind and an outline plan may be part of that process. But I wouldn't read too much into the existence of "a plan" showing the possible arrangement of the schools.

The process of establishing a site could still take months. Establishing a brief the same. And real development of a design could only take place after that.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 28 Aug 2006, 12:54

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 28 Aug 2006, 15:11

Perhaps, dear lady, there are no other options!

[quote]"The absence of alternatives clears the mind marvelously.â€

Marguerite-the-Poet · Post by **Marguerite-the-Poet** » 28 Aug 2006, 17:40

I hope your new Portobello High School won't be built on low or high raised beach.

http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/arthurseat/geol ... llmap.html

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 28 Aug 2006, 18:18

Alison Connelly wrote:When is a plan not a plan?

The degree of detail in the plan is irrelevant. We all know that a design which is detailed enough to satisfy all the planning/building regulations takes a considerable time to complete, and that there will be consultation with all sorts of people in the process to agree the detail. However the process starts somewhere, and in EDI's case it has started at Portobello Park, despite the fact that the decision to locate the schools there has not yet been made. Why have they drawn up a layout for Portobello Park, and invited PHS board chairman to see it, when they know that there are also other options to consider

I think the detail in the plan is relevant if it's being suggested that "the plans had already been drawn up for the new school."

That phrase suggests to me a considerable degree of design development, and that the proposals are already significantly advanced. And from my experience of the process that strikes me as extremely unlikely. However a draft/outline plan, for indicative purposes or to explore issues on the site seems to me entirely reasonble and unexceptionable. As Dave said "if that is whats happened, fair enough..."

If you think you've come up with a viable site, then that'd be one of the things you'd do at a fairly early stage to test the idea. And you'd expect that to go through many variations before the design was firmed up.

They may well be going through the same process for other sites as part of the report we're awaiting, although perhaps only for the less silly options.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Sep 2006, 10:46

The report requesting permission to consult on proposals for Portobello High School and St Johnâ€™s Primary School is due to go to the Executive meeting on 12 September, with the formal consultation period starting on 14 September.

A briefing takes place tomorrow at the City Chambers on the content of the report and an outline of the consultation process.

I will post an update tomorrow evening.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Sep 2006, 18:52

Or not. It seems there is an embargo until tomorrow. That gives me a few hours to digest the several kilos of documents I have struggled home with before posting my midnight report.

Seriously, I will post a copy of the Council's report tomorrow. I am advised that the feasibility studies are so large that it has proven impossible to condense them into pdf format. However, hard copies will be available at the library and I will endeavour to extract the most important drawings and post these individually.

Essentially, and as widely expected, the report rules out what Seanie has referred to as 'the silly options' and seeks consultation on a few realistic alternatives. Site selection and funding are seen as two very separate issues.

And I've probably said enough for today.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 05 Sep 2006, 20:18

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Sep 2006, 20:37

Alison, I'm sure you would prefer to read the report for yourself rather than my spin on it. I won't have an electronic copy of it until tomorrow, the official press release day, but I will be more than happy to publish anything that comes my way.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Sep 2006, 14:15

Alison Connelly wrote: When is a plan not a plan?

I don't know but when is a mock-up of multiplel potential layouts a plan?

Alison, the only people referring to what was demonstrated to Andrew Fraser as "a plan" or even as an "outline" are yourself, Dave and whoever it was that Dave spoke to during the summer holidays?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Sep 2006, 14:21

Dave Connelly wrote: I wouldn't trust this council, (as a whole) at all as far as this issue is concerned. You clearly do and thats is of course your choice.

So are you sending your kids private now?

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 06 Sep 2006, 14:37

Evening News "exclsive"

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinb ... 1316142006

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Sep 2006, 14:45

What park do they mean?

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 06 Sep 2006, 15:21

Porty wrote:What park do they mean?

Dunno. Unless they mean that the Golf Course is "saved" but the properly public part is used (ie. the bit at the Milton Road end)?

But if the EN's interpretation of this report is as bad as their reading of our office's submissions to the Executive.............................!!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 06 Sep 2006, 18:19

I don't see option A being very promising.

It's significantly more expensive, involves the disruption of a decant, with a resolution more likely to be compromised by the site constraints, and delays the redevelopment of PHS to the prior relocation of St Johns.

Given that the condition of PHS appears to have been the primary driver in this that's a little unsatisfactory.

And you have to admire how nimbly the issue of funding's been sidestepped.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 06 Sep 2006, 21:44

The report and its various appendices are now all available to read online in pdf format on the New Schools document archive thread. I have made them available as separate documents which makes them much easier to read than the Council's own online version.

If all this isn't enough for you to digest, the Council have also commissioned three separate feasibility studies. The first report evaluates all the potential sites considered for PHS. A second report does likewise with St Johns and the third report concerns itself with a decant strategy for PHS, should the decision be made to rebuild onsite.

Copies of these are available in the library. I will attempt to summarise these reports and obtain pdf versions of the most relevant drawings.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Sep 2006, 09:42

As part of the consultation process, three separate meetings will be held. The first is for parents of children currently at PHS and those who have children that are expected to attend within the next two years. This takes place at PHS on 3 October. A similar meeting will take place at St Johns for parents on 4 October.

A third meeting has been arranged for members of the public at Portobello Town Hall on 11 October, commencing at 7pm.

You can also email your views on the options detailed in the report to portobello.schools@edinburgh.gov.uk

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Sep 2006, 16:23

http://www.porty.org.uk/pdf/phs_golf_course_layout.pdf

I hope the Headie keeps her office blinds closed, if not she may catch a glimpse of Portyman coming out the shower.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Sep 2006, 17:44

Thanks for your efforts in making this material much easier to access, Bob.

There is certainly quite a lot of material to digest and as someone who would like to see a new St John's as well as a new PHS, I am happy to see that a new St John's is still being considered....so long as there are 'resources', of course.

One thing that unites all, is the acknowledged need for a new PHS and I am pleased that the Council have accepted that the children of Portobello deserve better facilities.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Sep 2006, 09:43

Alison Connelly wrote: So which are the "silly options":?: Presumably it is not a secret to divulge which options are in and which are out?

I have read and re-read the report, as I am sure many of us have. The report doesn't actually identify any sites as "silly options" but its possible to sift the options to ascertain which ones may come into that category. I guess we can form our own fact-based opinions.

Site 3a : too small
Site 3b : too small
Sites 3a plus 3b : poorly located, difficutl access and "represent the almost entire removeal of this area open space to the local community"

Site 4: too small.

Site 5: "insurmountable planning issues" "poorly located"

Site 6a : too small
Site 6b : too small
Site 6a +6b : acquisiton costs and the need t relocate businesses " deemed not feasible or deliverable and the sites have therefore been discounted"

Site 8 : too small

Site 9 : A two year search has come up with no suitable site for the relocation of the Bus Garage and its not big enough anyway.

Site 10a : outwith the catchment area (getting sillier?)

Site 10b : too small and outwith catchment area

Site 11: unlikely to secure planning permission

And those relating to St Johns:

Site 12: too small

Site:13 : insurmountable planning issues

Site 14: too small

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 Sep 2006, 17:27

So, what do the two pressure groups in this issue make of the report? Looking at their respective websites, PFANS have yet to update but it will be very interesting to see what position they adopt on the various site options for the two schools. I think we can assume that they will oppose a re-build of PHS onsite due to a) the fact that the site is too small, even for a secondary school in an urban context, and b) it would involve a decant of at least 2 years with all the disruption to education this would entail.

Meanwhile, over on the PPAG site this is what they have to say:

We believe the council should reconsider the following options, not having given adequate reasons in the report for the their rejection:

A rebuild on site for Portobello High School and a refurbishment on site for St John's. The previous feasibility studies indicated that this was possible so why has this option been ignored? No adequate reason has been given for this omission. A rebuild and refurbish for both schools on their existing sites should be consulted upon.

The Powerleague site has been dismissed as too small for Portobello High School but why is it not being considered for St John's? This option should be in the consultation options for St John's.

The Figgate Park is dismissed as an option for a rebuild of St John's because of risk of flooding. This site is only one metre below the level of the current St John's and a good ten metres above the level of the burn; the risk of flooding is negligible and could be totally eliminated. This site should be consulted upon for St John's.

The Freightliner site is dismissed because to build on it would be against the local plan but so would building on the golf course or park. It is said that it is needed for industrial use but there is already a surplus of industrial land in the area, for example, at Baileyfield. The site is also criticised for being between a busy road and a railway line but so is the golf course/park. The Freightliner site should be consulted upon as an option for Portobello High School and/or St John's.

The consultation ignores the fundamental question of funding. How can parents (or anyone else for that matter) make a decision about the location of a new school knowing that how it is funded could completely alter their opinion? For example, some people have said that while a school on the park or golf course may be acceptable, building hundreds of houses there to pay for it would not be. People may give their support to a school in the park believing that it will be in parkland only to find at a later date that it will actually be surrounded by housing. From day one, it has been said that housing on Portobello Park or Golf Course would be part of the deal to pay for the schools in the park. No-one has come out to refute this so it is reasonable to conclude that the housing is still part of the deal. The council should be upfront about this and if later on it is decided that housing on the park is to be built to pay for the schools, consultation should be started again from scratch, so people are making a decision in full possession of the facts.

The consultation to be carried out considers the council's issues, i.e. where to site the new school(s) but not the community's issues about a major change in land use, i.e. the loss of a central, accessible amenity (the golf course); the loss of open green space; potential traffic problems created by the new schools and potentially hundreds of new houses; unsustainable development. The consultation should address the wider issues and implications about the replacement of the schools and cannot be carried out in a vacuum.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 Sep 2006, 17:37

Anyone else spot the irony in these quotes from the Porty Greenkeepers site?

Our aim is to preserve this piece of central, accessible green space for future generations to enjoy because, once built upon, it will be lost forever. Green space is fast being used up all over the country and is particularly important in urban areas close to where people live, performing the function of lungs for the city.

The Figgate Park is dismissed as an option for a rebuild of St John's because of risk of flooding. This site is only one metre below the level of the current St John's and a good ten metres above the level of the burn; the risk of flooding is negligible and could be totally eliminated. This site should be consulted upon for St John's.

So it's OK to build a school on Figgate Park, one of the most attractive green spaces in Edinburgh and a haven for nature and wildlife, but not on Portobello Park, a flat and featureless playing field?

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 08 Sep 2006, 17:45

Bob Jefferson wrote: even for a secondary school in an urban context

Bob I think the "Urban context" is a red herring. The Scottish Exec regulations talk about minimum size for a school of 1200 being 6.2.Hectares. The consultation asked for feasability on 4.5 Hectares. The justification being that PHS will be built in an "urban context".

Now I'd like to see where the Scottish Exec qualifies this with "ignore our regulations if you are building in a city". In Scotland most population is urban, most schools are urban therefore the 6.2 hectares is as relevant to urban schools as it is to rural ones.

Though your right about the current site being too small, 3.5 hectares and without St Johns 2.9 Hectares.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 Sep 2006, 18:37

The regulations have some flexibiliy. You can deviate from the minimum standards but you basically need approval from the Executive. And there are practical limits.

Even the expanded site falls below the minimum regulations and guidance. The evidence of the recent wave of school building across the UK is that successful school buildings require more floor area than in the past. In part that's due to considerations of flexibiliy and "future-proofing".

By shoehorning the school onto the existing site, however well designed and constructed, there is the danger of recreating a problem in the future similar to the one we have now. A school no longer adequately fit for purpose on a site unable to accommodate change.

Add to that the huge expense and disruption of a decant. The report gives a cost for a two-year off site decant as Â£5.8m, and it'd almost certainly have to be off-site. Â£5.8m is pretty much the construction cost for a new 2-stream primary school.

That's an astonishing wase of money if there's a viable alternative.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 Sep 2006, 21:38

The Freightliner site is dismissed because to build on it would be against the local plan but so would building on the golf course or park. It is said that it is needed for industrial use but there is already a surplus of industrial land in the area, for example, at Baileyfield. The site is also criticised for being between a busy road and a railway line but so is the golf course/park. The Freightliner site should be consulted upon as an option for Portobello High School and/or St John's.

There's no point consulting on an option that's not realistically viable.

To summarise;

1. The site's too small for PHS. 2.9Ha. It's barely bigger than the existing site which itself falls well short of what's required. St Johns could fit but given the other problems it'd be peverse to relocate there.

2. It's sandwiched between a mainline railway and a road bypass bounded by 5' high concrete walls. The vehicle and pedestrian access, in the context of a school, is appalling.

3. It's not in Council Ownership. The Council would have to purchase it at market rates. The cost would be huge.

4. Should the owners not wish to sell then Compulsory Purchase would have to be pursued which, as well as taking considerable time, would probably fail given the site's designation as a Strategic Rail Site and the Council's own Local Plan that has to tie in with the structure plan approved by the Scottish Executive.

5. It's also an awkward shape but the implications of that probably haven't been explored fully given the other obvious problems with the site.

The prospect of either school being built on that site, in the forseeable future, is negligible. It's not going to happen. For reasons that keep being pointed out.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 Sep 2006, 22:20

I think we have to acknowledge that the refusal to accept the findings of the feasibility studies into possible sites for the schools is just another delaying tactic.

The Council identified Portobello Park from the outset as the location for a replacement PHS and nothing that has happened in the intervening months has changed the fact that this remains the obvious and only sensible solution. The feasibility studies into alternative sites demanded by PPAG, at great public expense, simply confirmed what we already knew.

So will the Scottish Exec foot the bill next May and avoid the prospect of housing on the Golf Course? I have no idea. I certainly hope so, but regardless of this Portobello Park is and has always been, in my view, an ideal location for a replacement PHS. It includes an all-weather pitch and 2 full size grass pitches, available for community use outside school hours. I spoke to John Ferrier from Portobello Thistle after the briefing and he seemed very happy with this prospect.

At worst we will have housing on the Golf Course and the Golf Club re-locates to a brand new, purpose-built 18-hole course within a few minutes drive. Is that a sacrifice worth making?

Compare this with the alternative of a 2 to 3 year decant for 1400 kids in temporary accomodation. A village of Portocabins stacked 2 high in Portobello Park. How many parents do you think will vote for this? And as Seanie says, what a waste of five million quid! And what do we get at the end? Another multi-storey school on a site that is HALF of the recommended size.

If ever there was a no-brainer, then this is surely it.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 Sep 2006, 22:44

Bob Jefferson wrote:The consultation ignores the fundamental question of funding. How can parents (or anyone else for that matter) make a decision about the location of a new school knowing that how it is funded could completely alter their opinion?

The question of funding is indeed fundamental to the provision of new schools.

But it's not so fundamental to the location of new schools. A least once you've discarded the silly options of buying large brownfield sites at commercial rates.

Look at the outline figures quoted.

The re-build on site comes in at Â£47.9m.

The Golf-course option at between Â£35.3m & Â£43.8m.

The Park option at between Â£32.7m & Â£41.2m.

Insisting that some other (unviable) site be considered isn't going to reduce those sums meaningfully. Quite the reverse. Most of the other "options" still being touted will only add to the costs.

So since the cost implications will be similarly huge whatever option is preferred there's some legitimacy in separating the issues. Look first at what's preferred in terms of education, amenity, loss of green space etc. and the effects directly associated with the options for replacement schools. And then consider the options for funding which will have their own implications.

There is no fanasy site, or magic wand, whereby replacement schools (the need for which appears to have at least some consensus) will appear at little cost. To my mind the issue of cost is the elephant in the room. But since the choice of sites makes little difference to Nelly's presence then she can be put to one side. At least for now.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 Sep 2006, 22:59

Absolutely. If the Scottish Exec don't come up with the money then you could re-build onsite and still end up with housing on the Golf Course.

It's a very good point and well made. I particulary like the introduction of the elephant. The funding is the constant in this equation and the variable is the site and that is what we should be concentrating on.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Sep 2006, 15:07

From today's EN Letters Page:

High time pupils had playing fields

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 09 Sep 2006, 18:27

St Johns study showed that it would be three million on site, seven million on the park. Money to be saved there?

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 09 Sep 2006, 18:49

I too have read the studies and had to laugh.

There are lots of easy ways to pick holes in the studies so I wont, but I did think that the

"At the south west corner of the site there is what appears to be a tall gym building"

in PHS was particularly funny, as was the

"newer single/two storey"

building in St Johns?? I know It's difficult to see whats actually there from areal photos but someone could have asked

The

Microclimates

at the powerleague site, well my goodness, the poor wee souls having to come up with a "Special build" to cope with wind, rain and sea salt. Maybe we should move Porty inland

I almost fell off my seat laughing.

Have the developers along the Leith waterfront been informed

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 09 Sep 2006, 19:34

Dave Connelly wrote:St Johns study showed that it would be three million on site, seven million on the park. Money to be saved there?

Dave, are you advocating a 3 million refurbishment of St John's in preference to a rebuild on a larger site complete with small playing field?

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 09 Sep 2006, 19:39

Yes I am, I really dont want the council to build on any of the parks at all.

I really think that they could have done better with the report. It looks as though they haven't even visited the sites. I was a bit dissapointed, but not surprised.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Sep 2006, 19:44

Dave Connelly wrote:Yes I am, I really dont want the council to build on any of the parks at all.

I really think that they could have done better with the report. It looks as though they haven't even visited the sites. I was a bit dissapointed, but not surprised.

So that would rule out building on Figgate Park presumably? If you are going to refurbish St Johns, where would you put PHS? I must be missing something.