New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 30 Sep 2006, 23:48

Dave Connelly wrote:I could easily make up an anonymous fliers with a picture of the old couple who live in Stanley Street, who lived and fought through both wars, brought up their children, worked hard all of their lives, scrimping and saving to make the best possible life for their children and who believed that having eventually paid off their mortgage, that they could live happily in the knowledge that what they had achieved could be enjoyed by them, their children and their childrenâ€™s children. Their daily routine of helping each other the few yards to their beloved park to have what little fresh air they can manage these days, being one of the few pleasures they can enjoy together, etc etc etc.

Just as well the old couple do not live at the end of Hamilton Drive next to that flat, featureless bit of Figgate Park then - the Chairperson of PPAG would build a school next to them.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 01 Oct 2006, 00:00

Dave Connelly wrote:
Pal of Porty wrote:BB here is where I have difficulty. The extracts below set out the context in which the PPAG petition has been 'sold':

* Firstly the banner heading the petition is "Loss of Green Space in Portobello".

* Secondly, the website states "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"
1) Do you agree that building on the park will be a loss of green space in Portobello

2) Do you agree that 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

Simple yes or no to each will do

PPAG are the group that campaign for no loss of green space in Portobello while building on Figagte Park. You should ask them how they balance the green books.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 01 Oct 2006, 20:37

Can anyone enlighten me on the pink flyer?

What's it say?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Oct 2006, 06:59

Pal of Porty wrote: PPAG are the group that campaign for no loss of green space in Portobello while building on Figagte Park.

Correct. Also, COEC are the group that have rules regarding building on green space in their local plans for other bits of Edinburgh whilst proposing to build on Portobello Park!

To be fair though, when you read one of the plans it does say something along the lines of "unless there is a pressing reason to do so" - but they are obviously mindful of the potential problem as they've listed it as one of the demerits on the consultation doc.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Oct 2006, 08:18

Although I didn't attend the Scrutiny Panel meeting, I understand that there was a committment from the Council that any green space lost in re-building schools in Portobello would be replaced nearby. I think that it is inevitable that pieces of ground around the city will be traded in this manner to make the best use of available resources.

Green space is a real prioirty

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Oct 2006, 10:51

Ricky makes some good points, but I can understand why confidence was shaken - when this all started we were being asked to consider an enormous housing scheme being built on a golf course!

There have been a lot, recently, of excuses when it comes to laying concrete on parks - I just don't buy into this "oh it's ok - we're building you a new park thither" line when it comes from someone who previously said "don't build on yon park hither".

Does this not also set a dangerous precedent in terms of planning? Does this mean that we're going to see justifications in terms of net gain of green space used for building on Bruntsfield Links and the Meadows?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Oct 2006, 12:06

We don't know what the future holds, but it certainly seems inconceivable that we would allow areas like the Meadows, Bruntsfield Links, Arthurs Seat etc to be built upon. Look how much resistance there has been just to get a skateboard facility, firstly in the Meadows and now in Inverleith Park.

If one or more schools are built on Portobello Park and/or the Golf Course, it will be because local parents and residents recognise that this is the right thing to do under the circumstances. The Council may well have preferences but at the end of the day it is our decision. Anyone who believes that this is a 'done deal' underestimates the power of the people.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Oct 2006, 12:11

From the PHS School Board:

PHS School Board backs Option C

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Oct 2006, 13:03

From today's EN Letters Page:

Sometimes it suits to misunderstand

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 02 Oct 2006, 13:14

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Oct 2006, 13:43

If Alison is correct then the full 6.2 hectares cannot be achieved by option C, only option B. If the school board are wrong, as volunteers we should not be too hard on them. Alison got totally mixed up with sizes earlier on inthe thread.

If this is indeed an error it doesn't alter my support for Option C. I'd settle for a bit smaller than the minimum guidelines, given that we have about 2/3rd of the miminum floorspace and no outdoor sports facilities at the moment and would have to settle for not much more with option A. i'd take Option B over Option A, every time.

Edit: altered approach.

theoutsider · Post by **theoutsider** » 02 Oct 2006, 13:50

First of all I say a hello to everyone. I'm an outsider looking in on the goings on with PHS and it's battles with moving onto the Green space of the park.
Here are my views (as an outsider who has been at school not so long ago which had a similar problem!)
1. People living around the park complain that it will destroy their views, maybe even threaten their house price. Rubbish! A High School is a centre of a community, in an aging population we want to create somewhere that prospective parents would want to send their children rather than put it off because the school in place isn't too great. (To put it nicely!) A new school can look beautiful and would either increase house prices or maintain them a steady level.
2. Many complain that they will loose their blessed football pitches. Well wouldn't brand new ones which would be open to use out of school hours be much better, as I understand that it is only really the weekends that they are used. And besides if you vote for decant then you're pretty much going to loose the park for 3-4 years which will destroy the land totally.
3. New housing on the origianal site would be much better as they could also provide a small green with a playpark meaning a hell of a nicer view than the one standing at the moment!
4. Think of the future students of PHS, school makes life, simple as that. The more you put into school the more you get out of it. With facilities as they are at the moment, students don't get the full potential of learning (nothing to do with the teaching staff!!!!!) Simply put a nicer school with nice grounds and nice facilities leads to an open, nicer teaching area, leading to ?healthier?, happier students, leading to a much more enriched community overall.

Well I have only really just started, but I shall stop for now. I will however leave this thought........Is it that PPAG et al are against Option C because they have nothing better to do with their retirement time, or that they don't care because their chilldren don't 'do' state school and have the funds to send them privately? All I know is that I had a better learning time in school because people united in the view that children are the future, YOUR future!

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 02 Oct 2006, 16:03

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Oct 2006, 16:17

Alison Connelly wrote: Porty
I saw you earlier reply, which you've now edited, which indicated that you believed that the requirements of the new high school were 6.2 acres. Have you changed your mind? Is it in fact 6.2 hectares? I am a bit confused by the hectares/acres, but all the figures quoted most recently have been in hectares.

I haven't changed my mind exactly but I did want to double check the minimum required size for the school buildings. Where's Seanie when you need him? I think the PHS school board confused matters further using 6.2 rather than 6.8 ha. However, I am prepared to accept you are correct.

Alison Connelly wrote:"] I definitely volunteer not to be too hard on them. I wish you'd extend me the same sympathy

Normally I am benevolent with mistakes, I only get irked when I believe its a deliberate mis-representation.or mis-quote

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Oct 2006, 16:19

I also think that PHS School Board have got this wrong. Perhaps we can get Andrew Fraser to comment?

This is from the Council's report:

The School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967 require a site of 6.8ha to be provided for a school the siize of Portobello if its full complement of pitches are to be provided on-site.

The report goes on to say that, in the Council's view, 4.5 hectares is sufficient if sports pitches are provided off-site.

Looking at the drawings, I'm a little confused. The potential sites drawing gives the size of Portobello Park as 5.7 hectares, while the drawing showing PHS on the park gives a 'site area' of 5.1 hectares, which seems to include the pitches.

I think we could use some input from Seanie to clear this up.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 02 Oct 2006, 16:35

Alison Connelly wrote:
One of the big issues which remains if PHS head off to the park, is what will happen to St John's?

We now have confirmation that the PHS Board favour a rebuild in the Park. It is a great pity that the two School Boards did not take the opportunity to work together on this issue. I am also disappointed that so few parents at St John's have shown interest in this issue.

I know you favour a St John's in the Park Alison, but the weight of support for rebuilding in the Park will come from PHS parents. Let's hope that there's plenty of money coming from the Scottish Executive or the best St John's may be offered is a vacant School building when another local Primary such as Lismore is forced to close. The cheapest option for a rebuild of St John's would surely be to relocate to the Golf Course? I know that this means extra cash to relocate the golfers, but the option to have shared boiler house facilities etc. would surely appeal to a money strapped council?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Oct 2006, 16:39

Alison Connelly wrote:One of the big issues which remains if PHS head off to the park, is what will happen to St John's?

I agree and the St John's community needs to speak up before it ends up with nothing or with an interminable delay before getting a new school.

At last weeks scrutiny panel PHS Board represented by Andrew Fraser stated quite clearly they preferred Option C.

Alison, do you realise that in your own representation on behalf oif St John's School Board you failed to even mention 3 of the 4 options for St John's. Some time was spent debating Bingham, which St Johns Board do not want. The majority of the time was spent discussing three sites which are undeliverable namely; Powerleague, Scottish Power and the Figgate PArk. St John's wasted an opportunity to ask for what they want. Lets hope we get some clarity this week.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 02 Oct 2006, 17:52

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 02 Oct 2006, 17:56

seanie wrote:Why would the relocation of PHS to the park require bussing to the Jack Kane Centre for sports?

That is what the council said. You had better ask them.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Oct 2006, 18:13

The 4.5Ha figure was given as the optimum size for the school including one all-weather pitch, with other facilities required off-site. A regulation pitch is 0.5-0.6 Ha. Portobello Park is 5.7Ha. So 4.5Ha could be taken by the school and an all-weather pitch available for community use, with two remaining community pitches available for use by the school.

I'm not sure that'd be enough to support the needs of a school that size but it'd go a fair way.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 02 Oct 2006, 18:15

Porty

you haven't answered the questions, have you

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 02 Oct 2006, 18:22

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 02 Oct 2006, 18:30

Alison Connelly wrote:
Marya wrote: We now have confirmation that the PHS Board favour a rebuild in the Park. It is a great pity that the two School Boards did not take the opportunity to work together on this issue.
In what way do you think things would be better if the schools had worked more closely, and what could they have done to be closer?

Good point Alison.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 02 Oct 2006, 18:37

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 02 Oct 2006, 18:56

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Oct 2006, 19:37

Alison Connelly wrote:This point about 4.5ha being adequate if sufficient sports pitches are provided off-site is probably why I have heard people saying that a move to Portobello Park will still involve pupils being bussed elsewhere for PE. I'm not sure if this is the case, but it would be helpful to have clarification.

Why would pupils have to be bussed elsewhere if they had access to a gym hall, a swimming pool, an all-weather pitch and 2 full-sized pitches immediately adjacent? Which people are saying this?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Oct 2006, 19:40

Dave Connelly wrote:Porty

you haven't answered the questions, have you

Dave, you almost never answer questions. Which particular questions are you referrng too?

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 02 Oct 2006, 19:56

Sorry porty it should have been the clockwork chap.

1) Do you agree that building on the park will be a loss of green space in Portobello

2) Do you agree that 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

Simple yes or no to each will do

You can answer them too if you like. No pressure

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Oct 2006, 19:57

Alison Connelly wrote:
PHS clear commitment to their preferred option is admirable,.

Whereas, St John's school board, at least in public have spent their time discussing options that will not happen. At last weeks meeting a councillor raised his voice and asked you to get real, not his exact words.

A school board's job is to lead the school . The consultation has about four weeks to go. IMHO if St John's are as non-cmmital as they are at the moment the decsion will be out of their hands.

This post has been moderated - mods

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 02 Oct 2006, 20:29

Porty wrote:A school board's job is to lead the school . The consultation has about four weeks to go. IMHO if St John's are as non-cmmital as they are at the moment the decsion will be out of their hands.

you are clearly board again and trying to get a rise by being on the attack. Very weak indeed.

St Johns in being dumped on by all and sundry, especially by the council, Wake up and smell the coffee Porty, These tactics are old hat.

quote edited as from a moderated post - mods

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 02 Oct 2006, 20:52

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 02 Oct 2006, 20:54

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 02 Oct 2006, 21:40

Alison Connelly wrote:
Marya wrote: We now have confirmation that the PHS Board favour a rebuild in the Park. It is a great pity that the two School Boards did not take the opportunity to work together on this issue.
In what way do you think things would be better if the schools had worked more closely, and what could they have done to be closer?

The consultation document on St John's carries this caveat :

7.5 Given the constraints surrounding the funding options, it cannot be guaranteed at this stage that the council can proceed with the replacement of St John's Primary School. Much depends on the decision about where to locate Portobello High School, which if developed on its existing site, will necessitate the relocation of St John's. In all scenarios, however, there remains a Council aspiration to upgrade the building for St John's, whether it be through new build or adaption and extension of the existing building

If I were part of the School Board at St John's I'd have been keen to hold as many discussions as possible with the PHS Board as St John's fate is so clearly tied to that of PHS. As you have said Alison, for a great many years St John's have been asking for building improvements to little avail, so I was disappointed that when the construction of an entire new school was suggested as a extra benefit of PHS being rebuilt, the School Board at St John's were 'unable to declare a position', with no explanation being given to parents.

As a parent at St John's I have heard nothing from the School Board at St John's about 'scutiny' meetings or what has been said on behalf of parents at St John's. I have not been invited in, as a parent, by the School Board to hear about the issues surrounding the proposal. I have filled in a questionnaire on a Parent' night but have not been told of the results of this survey. I still don't know what the School Board's postion is . Perhaps my son is to blame (highly possible!

) and information hasn't been passed home, but I would have thought something would have managed to find its way into his bag. Meanwhile, there have been regular statements in the press and at Public Meetings regarding PHS School Board's position. I would have liked the same level of communication from St John's School Board. Perhaps there have been lots of contact between the two boards behind the scenes, but unless this is conveyed to parents we remain ignorant of this.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Oct 2006, 21:57

Dave Connelly wrote:
St Johns in being dumped on by all and sundry, especially by the council, Wake up and smell the coffee Porty, These tactics are old hat.

Dave, St Johns are being offered the option to have a brand new school with much more space than they have currently, with sports facilities. And they are being offered this on 3 sites central to the catchment. I wonder how many teachers, pupils or reasonable people would consider this as being dumped on by the council?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Oct 2006, 22:20

Alison Connelly wrote:I was chatting to parents of children at Duddingston who had received the pink PFANS leaflet and they were saying that they were confused, because they understood that children would still be bussed off site if the school had a 4.5ha site at Portobello Park. You quoted it yourself

But it'd be a 4.5Ha school site adjacent to 1.2Ha with two additional pitches. I don't think buses will be necessary to take them from the west end of Portobello Park to the east end.