New Portobello High School- Where and how?
For what they are worth, here are the thoughts of a newbie on the nitty gritty of the PHS debate.
We owe it to the future of porty ( citizens, SJPS and pHS kids alike) to challenge every assumption and explore every possible option - even those not put forward by the council report. The community needs to live with the long term result long after any current council has departed.
The issues are difficult and while many of the folk on this forum are very far down the line in their thinking or are very resolved one way or the other, I am not. I'm sure many others are the same. I want to bring up my family here and have them educated here, so I want the best local school. Equally I am worried about losing green space- in particular setting a precedent.
I'll stick my neck out as being-for now- still for Option A on the PHS consultation- why? I still have questions that need to be answered before I would be persuaded that we should give up green space.
(1) One of the main arguments for options B and C is that they avoid a decant. There have been helpful comments about decant from one person at one school, but there was very limited reference to this in the council's report other than to say it would all be a bit of a nightmare ( I paraphrase), but has this been looked at imaginatively enough?
I am sure that lessons will have been learned from others and that the facilities offered and the way these things are dealt with could be improved to minimise impact on education. Portyman's comments about using Holyrood or other sites are interesting. I don't feel I know enough about how decant could be managed to say how badly it needs to affect the education of PHS kids.
(2) I'm not sure why PHS playing fields could not be on Porty park, involving a short walk from the existing PHS site ( walking being exercise, remember.) I do take the point about disruption to class in getting there and coming back but how much time is actually spent out on sports pitches ( as opposed to inside in a gym hall, using swimming pool etc)? The debate has seemed hung up on critical use of outdoor pitches.
PHS is a large school and the council report talks about 'meeting curricular requirements', but as a layperson I just don't know what the needs are for outdoor pitch space/ indoor gym space/ larger or smaller areas. My own recollection of school was that the minimum time was spent outdoors using pitches. The curriculum no doubt has changed since the late 80s but, again, I can't say that I know enough about it. Clearly bussing folk to Jack Kane is not ideal but, as someone said, many schools cope with this sort of arrangement for their main outdoor sports fields. The ideal of course is that everything is on site but the experience of these other schools shows that urban schools expect that they won't have everything in one location; the price they pay for being in an urban setting?
(3) Putting the playing field and decant issues aside, how much better will a PHS school on the park be than one on the existing site? There have been valid points made about the build being constrained by the smaller area but commercial developments are very rarely given a clean open site. The council’s own report takes a lot from the experience of St Thomas of Acquins new school and it makes clear that their new building- seemingly successful- was built within a constrained site. In my experience, wonderful things can be done when the imagination of architects and planners is tested within a constrained site ( and often open sites can be the worst displays of failed imagination). Of course I am generalising..
(4) Porty park and golf course- arguments are made about how much it is used/ its lack of features etc. We need to remember that it should be open to the community to consider better use of it as green space in future-it needn't stay as just this sort of green space. I like Bob's idea of community parkland.
(5) Much is made of the benefit to the area of a new community high school. Does anyone know what these benefits would be?
I am not being facetious, it's just that I simply don't know. Is it more evening classes/ use of swimming pools out of school hours etc? What does it take to guarantee that that would happen? is it a funding thing?
(6) Funding.
I'm still struggling to get my head round the fact that when this debate started, there seemed to be an indication that there would be no funding so we had to look at 'self funding' options. The number of possible sites is narrowed down as a result- and now there seems to be a good chance of SE funding.
Maybe I will understand better after tomorrows meeting. But those pushing for compromising our own green space in the early stages thought that we wouldn't get a decent school built if we didn't. If there was no chance of cash at day one and then suddenly there is a good chance now, surely we are right to question whether suddenly someone might come up with the cash to acquire some of the brownfield sites ( scottish power plus part of baileyfield etc) in the area?
(7) We need to bear in mind that planning will not be straightforward for Options B and C- it is suggested that these would give us a new PHS in thequickest possible time but there are no guarantees on the time planning could take, nor whether it will be granted.
We owe it to the future of porty ( citizens, SJPS and pHS kids alike) to challenge every assumption and explore every possible option - even those not put forward by the council report. The community needs to live with the long term result long after any current council has departed.
The issues are difficult and while many of the folk on this forum are very far down the line in their thinking or are very resolved one way or the other, I am not. I'm sure many others are the same. I want to bring up my family here and have them educated here, so I want the best local school. Equally I am worried about losing green space- in particular setting a precedent.
I'll stick my neck out as being-for now- still for Option A on the PHS consultation- why? I still have questions that need to be answered before I would be persuaded that we should give up green space.
(1) One of the main arguments for options B and C is that they avoid a decant. There have been helpful comments about decant from one person at one school, but there was very limited reference to this in the council's report other than to say it would all be a bit of a nightmare ( I paraphrase), but has this been looked at imaginatively enough?
I am sure that lessons will have been learned from others and that the facilities offered and the way these things are dealt with could be improved to minimise impact on education. Portyman's comments about using Holyrood or other sites are interesting. I don't feel I know enough about how decant could be managed to say how badly it needs to affect the education of PHS kids.
(2) I'm not sure why PHS playing fields could not be on Porty park, involving a short walk from the existing PHS site ( walking being exercise, remember.) I do take the point about disruption to class in getting there and coming back but how much time is actually spent out on sports pitches ( as opposed to inside in a gym hall, using swimming pool etc)? The debate has seemed hung up on critical use of outdoor pitches.
PHS is a large school and the council report talks about 'meeting curricular requirements', but as a layperson I just don't know what the needs are for outdoor pitch space/ indoor gym space/ larger or smaller areas. My own recollection of school was that the minimum time was spent outdoors using pitches. The curriculum no doubt has changed since the late 80s but, again, I can't say that I know enough about it. Clearly bussing folk to Jack Kane is not ideal but, as someone said, many schools cope with this sort of arrangement for their main outdoor sports fields. The ideal of course is that everything is on site but the experience of these other schools shows that urban schools expect that they won't have everything in one location; the price they pay for being in an urban setting?
(3) Putting the playing field and decant issues aside, how much better will a PHS school on the park be than one on the existing site? There have been valid points made about the build being constrained by the smaller area but commercial developments are very rarely given a clean open site. The council’s own report takes a lot from the experience of St Thomas of Acquins new school and it makes clear that their new building- seemingly successful- was built within a constrained site. In my experience, wonderful things can be done when the imagination of architects and planners is tested within a constrained site ( and often open sites can be the worst displays of failed imagination). Of course I am generalising..
(4) Porty park and golf course- arguments are made about how much it is used/ its lack of features etc. We need to remember that it should be open to the community to consider better use of it as green space in future-it needn't stay as just this sort of green space. I like Bob's idea of community parkland.
(5) Much is made of the benefit to the area of a new community high school. Does anyone know what these benefits would be?
I am not being facetious, it's just that I simply don't know. Is it more evening classes/ use of swimming pools out of school hours etc? What does it take to guarantee that that would happen? is it a funding thing?
(6) Funding.
I'm still struggling to get my head round the fact that when this debate started, there seemed to be an indication that there would be no funding so we had to look at 'self funding' options. The number of possible sites is narrowed down as a result- and now there seems to be a good chance of SE funding.
Maybe I will understand better after tomorrows meeting. But those pushing for compromising our own green space in the early stages thought that we wouldn't get a decent school built if we didn't. If there was no chance of cash at day one and then suddenly there is a good chance now, surely we are right to question whether suddenly someone might come up with the cash to acquire some of the brownfield sites ( scottish power plus part of baileyfield etc) in the area?
(7) We need to bear in mind that planning will not be straightforward for Options B and C- it is suggested that these would give us a new PHS in thequickest possible time but there are no guarantees on the time planning could take, nor whether it will be granted.
Welcome Elkie and that is a long first post. I'm afraid I skipped quite a lot when i got to this bit:
I lost more interest when you suggest "leaving aside the decant and the outdoor pitches".
The meeting is on wednesday not tomorrow.
The moon is a possible option.elkie wrote: We owe it to the future of porty ( citizens, SJPS and pHS kids alike) to challenge every assumption and explore every possible option .
I lost more interest when you suggest "leaving aside the decant and the outdoor pitches".
The meeting is on wednesday not tomorrow.
Welcome to the discussion Elkie. It is always good to get a different aspect on things. Some of us are rather battle weary by now, but I sense there are a lot of folk out there just like you who haven't decided yet what the best way forward is.
I would, however, like to know if you rebuild PHS on site (option A) where would you put St John's? Remember it can only be a choice of Portobello Park or the golf course ( the feeling of the St John's Community is clearly to reject building on Bingham park).
Were you at any of the parents meeting last week? If so, you would have heard Roy Jobson's views on the prospect of decant and his experience of this when he was Head of Manchester Schools. If you haven't been to any of the meetings so far, then please ask about this issue on Wednesday night.
I would, however, like to know if you rebuild PHS on site (option A) where would you put St John's? Remember it can only be a choice of Portobello Park or the golf course ( the feeling of the St John's Community is clearly to reject building on Bingham park).
Were you at any of the parents meeting last week? If so, you would have heard Roy Jobson's views on the prospect of decant and his experience of this when he was Head of Manchester Schools. If you haven't been to any of the meetings so far, then please ask about this issue on Wednesday night.
Hi Elkie, apologies for Porty, He can be a grump. he does have a point though that decant and outdoor pitches are pretty central to the debate. However leaving these aside! The problems with A that I can see are it's 3.5 hectares not 4.5 as proposed for the park (this is sizes before adding in Pitches). The missing Hectare seems to be open space/circulation space.
It's a constrained site. The feasibility study says something about it's lack of flexibilty. New schools like to be "future-proofed" which isn't possible with A.
It's longest to deliver and dependent on the successful relocation of St Johns before being started.
It's the most expensive.
Add in decant, which does look a miserable prospect (Feaibility study proposes portakabins in park for up to 3 years) and the prospect of outdoor facitilties on sight, and I think you'll agree a strong case is emerging.
Working within the current feasible options, either PHS or St John's is going to the park/golf course. I think it sould be PHS.
It's a constrained site. The feasibility study says something about it's lack of flexibilty. New schools like to be "future-proofed" which isn't possible with A.
It's longest to deliver and dependent on the successful relocation of St Johns before being started.
It's the most expensive.
Add in decant, which does look a miserable prospect (Feaibility study proposes portakabins in park for up to 3 years) and the prospect of outdoor facitilties on sight, and I think you'll agree a strong case is emerging.
Working within the current feasible options, either PHS or St John's is going to the park/golf course. I think it sould be PHS.
Unless the PPAG agenda exactly matched the best attainable educational amenity for the St John's teachers, pupils and community at large, then the SJSB would not be doing the best that they could for the school.Dadaist wrote:Say, for example, Alison said that the reason that the SJSB backed this or that option was precisely because it backed PPAG's agenda.Porty wrote:Its tumbleweed time again.
What would your response be?
Erm no, I began asking the question a couple of days ago or may even have been last week.Dadaist wrote:Cue tumbleweed! (If anyone has missed the acceptable duration between a question and a tumbleweed, please see the top of this page, where Porty set it at a punishing 26 minutes - 12:58 to 1:24)
Cue optician meant that I was off tothe optician.
Apologies bellybabe I thoughtthatthis was the wider issue thread. Feel free to move my posts.
[quote="Dave Connelly"]
what I can do though as a last post, which no doubt will be edited is to put those who doubted St Johns School Board's intention of letting folk know whats going on in the picture. As a parent I received this, and if you are a parent at the school, so did you
[quote]St Johns School Board letter to Parents
22 September 06
Dear Parents
As you know, Edinburgh City Council have recently announced a public consultation to gather views regarding the proposals to rebuild St John’s (and also neighbouring Portobello High School). The proposal document, on which the consultation is based, is quite lengthy, but if you would like to read it in full, you can either view a copy outside the school office or you can download it from http://egfl.net/parents/ . The Council have also commissioned a feasibility study by a firm of architects. Unfortunately this is not available online, but can be viewed outside the school office, or in Portobello Library
In summary, the document suggests 3 options for a new PHS and 4 options for a new St John’s building . The options suggested by the Council for PHS are : rebuilt on current site (assuming St John’s moves elsewhere);rebuild on Portobello Golf Course ; rebuild on Portobello Park (the football pitches at the top of Portobello Golf Course)
For St John’s, the Council proposal document states:
St John’s Primary School Replacement
While the main generator for this project is the reprovision of Portobello High School, it would also be desirable to seek the replacement of St John’s Primary School given its fitness for purpose. The school building falls well short of the generic brief for primary schools, particularly with significantly undersized rooms and insufficient accommodation in the main building necessitating the use of Temporary Units. Nor does the school have outdoor sports facilities on-site.
One of the three options for the High School necessitates the relocation of St John’s as part of the proposal. The opportunity also exists for St John’s to be relocated alongside the High School with the other site options should sufficient funding exist.
The options for the redevelopment of St John’s are:
The site of the existing Portobello High School – should the high school relocate, then the surplus site could become available for the redevelopment of St John’s. This would represent the least long term implications for St John’s, with the school remaining central to its catchment.
Portobello Park pitches – either alongside a relocated High School, or as a stand alone facility should Portobello remain on its existing site. The main issue with this would be the loss of the existing park to the community – should both schools relocate here it would be difficult to retain any public pitches within the park area. This location is fairly central to the primary school’s catchment area.
Portobello Golf Course - either alongside a relocated High School, or as a stand alone facility should Portobello remain on its existing site. The main issue with this would be the loss of the golf course to the community. This location is central to the primary school’s catchment area.
Bingham Park – also requiring a loss of part of an existing park to the community, this site is poorly located within the catchment area and is more difficult to access given the narrow streets. The primary school will generate the requirement for more escorted trips to and from school for the younger pupils (whether by car, bus or walking) and thus its location is particularly important.
As part of the consultation process, the Council have promised to listen to the views of parents. The Council have confirmed that contributors are welcome to bring other suggestions to the debate. St John’s School Board have already asked that the Council consider 2 brownfield sites for St John’s (the current Powerleague site on Portobello High Street, and the Scottish Power site near the Kings Road roundabout). This would allow the new Portobello High School to be rebuilt on the existing site. An advantage for St John’s of this is that St Johns would be relocated first, which means that St John’s would get its new school more quickly, but also that it would be guaranteed the first “biteâ€
what I can do though as a last post, which no doubt will be edited is to put those who doubted St Johns School Board's intention of letting folk know whats going on in the picture. As a parent I received this, and if you are a parent at the school, so did you
[quote]St Johns School Board letter to Parents
22 September 06
Dear Parents
As you know, Edinburgh City Council have recently announced a public consultation to gather views regarding the proposals to rebuild St John’s (and also neighbouring Portobello High School). The proposal document, on which the consultation is based, is quite lengthy, but if you would like to read it in full, you can either view a copy outside the school office or you can download it from http://egfl.net/parents/ . The Council have also commissioned a feasibility study by a firm of architects. Unfortunately this is not available online, but can be viewed outside the school office, or in Portobello Library
In summary, the document suggests 3 options for a new PHS and 4 options for a new St John’s building . The options suggested by the Council for PHS are : rebuilt on current site (assuming St John’s moves elsewhere);rebuild on Portobello Golf Course ; rebuild on Portobello Park (the football pitches at the top of Portobello Golf Course)
For St John’s, the Council proposal document states:
St John’s Primary School Replacement
While the main generator for this project is the reprovision of Portobello High School, it would also be desirable to seek the replacement of St John’s Primary School given its fitness for purpose. The school building falls well short of the generic brief for primary schools, particularly with significantly undersized rooms and insufficient accommodation in the main building necessitating the use of Temporary Units. Nor does the school have outdoor sports facilities on-site.
One of the three options for the High School necessitates the relocation of St John’s as part of the proposal. The opportunity also exists for St John’s to be relocated alongside the High School with the other site options should sufficient funding exist.
The options for the redevelopment of St John’s are:
The site of the existing Portobello High School – should the high school relocate, then the surplus site could become available for the redevelopment of St John’s. This would represent the least long term implications for St John’s, with the school remaining central to its catchment.
Portobello Park pitches – either alongside a relocated High School, or as a stand alone facility should Portobello remain on its existing site. The main issue with this would be the loss of the existing park to the community – should both schools relocate here it would be difficult to retain any public pitches within the park area. This location is fairly central to the primary school’s catchment area.
Portobello Golf Course - either alongside a relocated High School, or as a stand alone facility should Portobello remain on its existing site. The main issue with this would be the loss of the golf course to the community. This location is central to the primary school’s catchment area.
Bingham Park – also requiring a loss of part of an existing park to the community, this site is poorly located within the catchment area and is more difficult to access given the narrow streets. The primary school will generate the requirement for more escorted trips to and from school for the younger pupils (whether by car, bus or walking) and thus its location is particularly important.
As part of the consultation process, the Council have promised to listen to the views of parents. The Council have confirmed that contributors are welcome to bring other suggestions to the debate. St John’s School Board have already asked that the Council consider 2 brownfield sites for St John’s (the current Powerleague site on Portobello High Street, and the Scottish Power site near the Kings Road roundabout). This would allow the new Portobello High School to be rebuilt on the existing site. An advantage for St John’s of this is that St Johns would be relocated first, which means that St John’s would get its new school more quickly, but also that it would be guaranteed the first “biteâ€
Schools suffer from 'too many ideas and not enough money'
GARETH ROSE - EDUCATION REPORTER
EDINBURGH'S most senior education official today blamed the Scottish Executive for a funding crisis which is threatening to hit city schools.
City education director Roy Jobson also hit out at the "innovation fatigue" which he said was making it harder for teachers to do their jobs.
Mr Jobson spoke out as he announced plans to step down from his post next year. He described the funding which the council's children and families department receives from the Executive as "inadequate".
The children and families department is responsible for maintaining school buildings and providing support services to schools, as well as child protection work. The department is heading for a £3 million overspend this year and expects to face similar problems in future years. In August, city finance leader Councillor Maureen Child warned the funding crisis would force the council to make "difficult decisions", including considering a tougher stand on proposed school mergers and closures.
Today, Mr Jobson said he did not expect the funding crisis to force the city into extra school closures. But he said he did not know where the axe would fall across the work his department does in schools and social work.
The funding problems have arisen from the Executive failing to put enough money into child protection, said Mr Jobson.
That is now threatening to have a knock-on effect on schools funding since the council merged its education department with its child social work teams last year.
Mr Jobson, who will retire on May 31, a day before his 60th birthday, said he was working on a bid for more cash which the council will take to the Executive in November. "The children and families department needs to be funded in a different way to meet the objectives society and politicians want," he said.
"The council needs to continue to press the Scottish Executive for adequate funding, the current level is inadequate."
Mr Jobson said it was spending on vital child protection work which was throwing the whole department's budget into trouble.
He said: "The education department is not overspending, but we have had difficulties meeting the recommendations in the O'Brien report (into the death of baby Caleb Ness in Edinburgh) and dealing with larger numbers of referrals of vulnerable children.
"The First Minister believes, as I do, that there needs to be more foster placements so we can take children out of vulnerable positions."
Mr Jobson also accused ministers of introducing "too many innovations, too many ideas, that needed to be implemented on occasions too quickly".
Council leader councillor Ewan Aitken echoed Mr Jobson's concerns: "Local governments are asked to do more than they are resourced to do. Providing integrated children's services is the best way forward, but in the early years its more expensive. It's money we don't have and that's the pressure."
Councillor Andrew Burns, the city's education leader, said: "I've always been particularly impressed by Roy's focus on the positive development of young people and I'm certain that this has had a direct impact on the quality of many young people's life chances over the last decade.
"Of course, I look forward to continuing to work with Roy for the remainder of his time at the council but know he'll be a hard act to follow."
Roy Jobson Yesterday.
GARETH ROSE - EDUCATION REPORTER
EDINBURGH'S most senior education official today blamed the Scottish Executive for a funding crisis which is threatening to hit city schools.
City education director Roy Jobson also hit out at the "innovation fatigue" which he said was making it harder for teachers to do their jobs.
Mr Jobson spoke out as he announced plans to step down from his post next year. He described the funding which the council's children and families department receives from the Executive as "inadequate".
The children and families department is responsible for maintaining school buildings and providing support services to schools, as well as child protection work. The department is heading for a £3 million overspend this year and expects to face similar problems in future years. In August, city finance leader Councillor Maureen Child warned the funding crisis would force the council to make "difficult decisions", including considering a tougher stand on proposed school mergers and closures.
Today, Mr Jobson said he did not expect the funding crisis to force the city into extra school closures. But he said he did not know where the axe would fall across the work his department does in schools and social work.
The funding problems have arisen from the Executive failing to put enough money into child protection, said Mr Jobson.
That is now threatening to have a knock-on effect on schools funding since the council merged its education department with its child social work teams last year.
Mr Jobson, who will retire on May 31, a day before his 60th birthday, said he was working on a bid for more cash which the council will take to the Executive in November. "The children and families department needs to be funded in a different way to meet the objectives society and politicians want," he said.
"The council needs to continue to press the Scottish Executive for adequate funding, the current level is inadequate."
Mr Jobson said it was spending on vital child protection work which was throwing the whole department's budget into trouble.
He said: "The education department is not overspending, but we have had difficulties meeting the recommendations in the O'Brien report (into the death of baby Caleb Ness in Edinburgh) and dealing with larger numbers of referrals of vulnerable children.
"The First Minister believes, as I do, that there needs to be more foster placements so we can take children out of vulnerable positions."
Mr Jobson also accused ministers of introducing "too many innovations, too many ideas, that needed to be implemented on occasions too quickly".
Council leader councillor Ewan Aitken echoed Mr Jobson's concerns: "Local governments are asked to do more than they are resourced to do. Providing integrated children's services is the best way forward, but in the early years its more expensive. It's money we don't have and that's the pressure."
Councillor Andrew Burns, the city's education leader, said: "I've always been particularly impressed by Roy's focus on the positive development of young people and I'm certain that this has had a direct impact on the quality of many young people's life chances over the last decade.
"Of course, I look forward to continuing to work with Roy for the remainder of his time at the council but know he'll be a hard act to follow."
Roy Jobson Yesterday.
Portobello High School - The Poll
If the new school is built under PFI this could mean the contractor, not the Council, owns the site -as in the case of the new ERI which the NHS does not own. In which case the contractor would probably flog the site including playing fields for housing and make a tidy profit. Leaving the Council to eye up yet another public open space somewhere else as another short term fix? You wanna bet it won`t happen?
You are right in that of the 3 options offered the first is the one I would choose; but with the current enthusiasm for swiping recreational ground I fail to understand why Bingham Park seems to have been dismissed as a possible site. And why is this poll limited to only three options when the consultants` report which identified them is merely advisory and some of us seek a complete rethink.
You are right in that of the 3 options offered the first is the one I would choose; but with the current enthusiasm for swiping recreational ground I fail to understand why Bingham Park seems to have been dismissed as a possible site. And why is this poll limited to only three options when the consultants` report which identified them is merely advisory and some of us seek a complete rethink.
Re: Portobello High School - The Poll
If, could, in which case and probably. I will take the bet. No way the council will have to sell the land if its PPP. Just take a look at the current PPP schools programmes. There is no credibility in your assertion.alecmac wrote: If the new school is built under PFI this could mean the contractor, not the Council, owns the site -as in the case of the new ERI which the NHS does not own. In which case the contractor would probably flog the site including playing fields for housing and make a tidy profit. Leaving the Council to eye up yet another public open space somewhere else as another short term fix? You wanna bet it won`t happen?
Are you saying that you have read the feasibility study, and what it has to say about Bingham Park and you still fail to understand?alecmac wrote: I fail to understand why Bingham Park seems to have been dismissed as a possible site.
I didn't start the poll but I believe the poll options were based on the findings of the independent consultants report. The IC identified 3 possible options but didn't go as far as a recommendation, which is why it is advisory.alecmac wrote: And why is this poll limited to only three options when the consultants` report which identified them is merely advisory and some of us seek a complete rethink.
Do "us" want a rethink on the grounds that you have some alternative viable options? If so you best spill the beans before its too late. (Who is us by the way?)
alecmac wrote:Given that new public buildings are no longer built to last and may have a life expectancy of about 25 years....
There is a problem with PPP in that most contracts are over 25-30 years. So it's difficult to get PPP consortia to take on board a sustainable agenda and look at broader impacts or lifecycle costing over a longer period.
But whilst there will always be differing considerations for different types of buildings there's growing emphasis on longer design lives, particularly in the public sector. Sustainabilty concerns have lead to increasing emphasis on 60 years as a minimum life span and, if designed with sufficient flexibility to remain fit for purpose, the actual life should be longer. It's when a building doesn't function adequately that material refurbishment no longer makes sense.
New School
I said the contractor COULD own the land and it would be dogmatic of anyone to assert this could never happen. It depends on the PFI contract. For example the Council could sell all/part of the land to reduce annual costs as part of the initial deal. You might wish to check on websites explaining PFI. PFI contracts differ and I think we might all agree that the devil is in the detail. Question is, how sure can anyone be that any eventual contract will not sell the pass?Gilo wrote:And under PFI, the contractor owns the building not the land.
Re alecmac's post, the record of the PHS parents meeting from April this year showed that they had the same concerns at that time:-
"Parents were also pleased that the new school would not be built under PPP so that the school would have control over its standards and its use into the future".
I'm not a PHS parent-can anyone who was there say if there was any discussion on the merits of PPP as possible funding at the PHS parents' consultation ( or any meetings in between)?
The School Board's paper said it would support something like any realistic source of funding for option C ( I don't have the quote to hand), but it's interesting that this objection to PPP from parents was important enough to be recorded at the time.
Just looking to hear if it was debated further now that PPP seems to have emerged as a viable option...
"Parents were also pleased that the new school would not be built under PPP so that the school would have control over its standards and its use into the future".
I'm not a PHS parent-can anyone who was there say if there was any discussion on the merits of PPP as possible funding at the PHS parents' consultation ( or any meetings in between)?
The School Board's paper said it would support something like any realistic source of funding for option C ( I don't have the quote to hand), but it's interesting that this objection to PPP from parents was important enough to be recorded at the time.
Just looking to hear if it was debated further now that PPP seems to have emerged as a viable option...