New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 15:05

I gave some sort of answer and you re-worded your question thus :

Perhaps I should re-phrase the question. Councils have limited resources to provide, schools, community centres, sports and leisure facilities and so on.

Question 1: When reviewing provision of facilities or amenities do you agree that demand or usage of existing resources should be factored in to the decision making process?

To give an extreme example (made up figures). In 1977 Portobello Open Air attracted 10,000 bathers during the season. By 1980 this had dropped to 2000. It was built in 1935. The council have a decision to make regarding allocation of resources.

Question 2: If the Pool had been built in 1895 should they keep it open based on that criteria alone?

I then explained why I thought it should be its own topic. I'm still of that opinion.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 15:17

Dadaist wrote:I gave some sort of answer and you re-worded your question thus :

Perhaps I should re-phrase the question. Councils have limited resources to provide, schools, community centres, sports and leisure facilities and so on.

Question 1: When reviewing provision of facilities or amenities do you agree that demand or usage of existing resources should be factored in to the decision making process?

To give an extreme example (made up figures). In 1977 Portobello Open Air attracted 10,000 bathers during the season. By 1980 this had dropped to 2000. It was built in 1935. The council have a decision to make regarding allocation of resources.

Question 2: If the Pool had been built in 1895 should they keep it open based on that criteria alone?
I then explained why I thought it should be its own topic. I'm still of that opinion.

Fair enough, I will let you off.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 15:20

And, in a similar manner, I will let *you* off starting a topic where these and other important questions can be answered by council lickspittles, council haters and the factually impartial - as opposed to being adjunct to and footnotes of, a different topic as the tools of a specific line of argument - cheapening them and not letting them breathe.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 15:23

You are by far and away the most creative answer avoider we have here on POL. You dont often duck but when you do its a merry dance.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 02 Nov 2006, 15:24

Several posts have been removed from this topic as they amount to a battle of personal attacks. I would remind you both to stay on topic and stop slinging mud at each other; this is a thread about new schools; if you need to scrap, take it off board and do it privately.

BB on behalf of the moderators

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 15:29

Porty wrote:You are by far and away the most creative answer avoider we have here on POL. You dont often duck but when you do its a merry dance.

Place them in their proper setting and I'll answer them. That's not avoiding them - that's maintaining thread integrity.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 15:38

Bellybabe wrote:Several posts have been removed from this topic as they amount to a battle of personal attacks. I would remind you both to stay on topic and stop slinging mud at each other; this is a thread about new schools; if you need to scrap, take it off board and do it privately.

BB on behalf of the moderators

We do need to scrap and its mostly within site rules. I reckon we have only been suspended 5 times between us and moderated on less than 1000 instances.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 15:52

You'd never think we were pals - but he is actually my dad.

Father - I started a topic in "Matters" but they moved it to G&TT.

I did my best to answer your questions - feel free to use my answers as whips to whip me with back on here. I just hope someone knowledgable like seanie tells us how the council go about funding these things - even if the truth is harsh and involves words like "expediency".

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Nov 2006, 18:11

Thereâ€™s a variety of views within PFANS, as there was amongst those who contributed to the response. Youâ€™ll notice we havenâ€™t come out in support of a single option. There was unanimity in thinking Option A crappy: the worst outcome, the greatest disruption, the greatest cost.

As to the question of whether the golf course should be replaced, itâ€™s not one that particularly interests me because, from a practical point of view, I think itâ€™s a foregone conclusion. Without the re-provision of the golf course the prospect of securing planning would be bordering non-existent. The Planners wouldnâ€™t accept it.

But I have no qualms about the question being raised. Itâ€™s hardly central to the response and doesnâ€™t represent a â€œcrusadeâ€

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 18:30

Well, those two paragraphs jumped out at me. I think they did more than raise the question - they went as far as providing an answer too!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Nov 2006, 18:41

seanie wrote:I lean towards C but I think there are serious questions about it in terms of facilities that havenâ€™t been addressed.

Can you expand on this?

seanie wrote:And Iâ€™m not sure the golfers would want to be next to a school even if they could be accomodated alongside.

I can imagine a few wayward shots resulting in broken windows. I can also imagine kids from the Joppa end using the Golf Course as a short-cut to a new school in Portobello Park. Do you envisage other problems?

It may be outwith the remit of PFANS, but supposing the Council opts for Option C, would you personally still prefer the Golf Course to be relocated to allow better use to be made of this green space? Given that the Council has already purchased the land for a replacement course, do you think that in these circumstances they would pursue this idea or would they shy away from another contentious issue?

I am also interested by Porty's statement with regard to this:

Here's a prediction; if option c is chosen all of a sudden the golfers will be a lot more amenable to moving to a new course and they will be encouraged to do so by PPAG.

Can you elaborate?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Nov 2006, 19:53

Bob Jefferson wrote:Can you expand on this?

The original basis for looking at sites was an optimum site size of 4.5 Ha. That could comfortably accommodate the school and an all-weather pitch on site. Other playing facilities would have to be accommodated off-site.

Nowhere, anywhere, have I seen it quantified the extent of additional pitch provision the Council deems adequate. I know the statutory requirement is for 3.6 Ha. That's 6 or 7 pitches. Option C has the equivalent of 4 pitches (all-weather count double). That's 2 or 3 pitches short even before you consider shared community use. Grass can only take so much wear.

Again for planning reasons, and contrary to Lawrence's speculation, community pitches would absolutely have to remain. So any shortfall in provision would be borne by the school.

Pupils could still end up being bussed off-site for sports. Far less than now but it's hardly satisfactory.

I can imagine a few wayward shots resulting in broken windows. I can also imagine kids from the Joppa end using the Golf Course as a short-cut to a new school in Portobello Park. Do you envisage other problems?

It's an argument I've heard made by PPAG supporters themselves against option C. The school would have a negative impact on the golf course, pupils would cause all sorts of problems, the membership and usage would dwindle and the council might use it as an excuse to pull the plug.

If that is a valid argument against the school on the park, it's also a valid argument for relocating the golf course if that's where the school ends up.

It may be outwith the remit of PFANS, but supposing the Council opts for Option C, would you personally still prefer the Golf Course to be relocated to allow better use to be made of this green space? Given that the Council has already purchased the land for a replacement course, do you think that in these circumstances they would pursue this idea or would they shy away from another contentious issue?

I think the best outcome all round would be to relocate the golf-course.

That way you could look at the whole site and the best balance of use and amenity: you could have a school with all the required facilities; increased educational and sporting opportunities for the community as a whole; the remaining green space could be reconfigured inline with community wishes; its bio-diversity, utility and leisure value could be enhanced; a redeveloped golf-course, a short distance from the current location, could keep the golfers happy.

I think it'd be the optimum outcome.

However I think the Council would probably prefer option C as it stands. It may not be best, either for the school or the wider community, but it's cheaper and easier.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Nov 2006, 21:27

seanie wrote:Again for planning reasons, and contrary to Lawrence's speculation, community pitches would absolutely have to remain. So any shortfall in provision would be borne by the school.

Just to explain.

Options B & C undoubtedly present a planning hurdle. Theyâ€™d be controversial and ultimately decided, not by the council, but by the Executive or even a Public Enquiry. To be succesful the application would have to keep as many people on board as possible, in particular statutory consultees. And one statutory consultee with increasing influence is sportscotland. Theyâ€™re not just interested in the number of pitches. One of their biggest concerns is accessibility. Who getâ€™s to use them and how easy is it.

To take the pitches currently in community use and just give them to the school would not just be unpopular with the planners. Itâ€™d drive sportscotland ballistic. Theyâ€™d object. Strenuously.

Theyâ€™re not even keen on school facilities that can be booked by the public. Theyâ€™ve been caught out too many times on PPP schemes where community access to an all-weather pitch, to compensate for the loss of open public pitches, was promised but never quite materialised. They increasingly take the view that any loss has to be compensated by like for like replacement. Even arguments based around low levels of use donâ€™t hold much sway. They want increased sporting activity so theyâ€™re concerned about how big demand might be in the future not now.

So the two grass pitches shown in option C would have to be public pitches, with the possibility of school use, rather than the other way round. And thatâ€™s whatâ€™s indicated in the consultants report;

As can be seen from the proposals it is possible to retain this and allow not only for one sports pitch associated with the school, but two others that could be associated with the Football Pavillion.

One all-weather pitch assigned to the school, two grass pitches assigned to the community.

If the combined pitches couldn't sustain the shared use, it'd be the school that got bumped.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 21:44

Seanie, would an alteration to the use of a sports area from one sport to another require planning permission? For example; the golf course remains in situ but part of it is remodelled to accomodate extra pitches?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Nov 2006, 21:55

And one statutory consultee with increasing influence is sportscotland.

Too much influence perhaps? Surely they must appreciate that there is a large overlap between the 'community' they seek to serve and the PHS students who would suffer as a result?

Option C may not be ideal in terms of sports field provision, but it is without doubt a massive improvement on the current situation. Is it an acceptable compromise, or have we sold ourselves short by not campaigning for Option B? I'm beginning to doubt my own judgement.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Nov 2006, 22:02

Possibly not.

Taking a public pitch and making it part of a school would constitute a change of use and require planning permission. But reconfiguring the golf-course to try and squeeze in a couple of pitches might not require permission.

I think the proposals for Musselburgh racecourse involved changing the layout of the holes and whilst the overall proposals are going to a public enquiry I don't think that part of it required consent. The layout of the golf course could be changed tommorrow if they really wanted to.

It might depend on the extent of the impact. Shuffling holes about wouldn't necessarily mean loss of amenity. Losing a few holes would.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Nov 2006, 22:07

Bob Jefferson wrote:Option C may not be ideal in terms of sports field provision, but it is without doubt a massive improvement on the current situation. Is it an acceptable compromise, or have we sold ourselves short by not campaigning for Option B? I'm beginning to doubt my own judgement.

The possible saving grace is the very low level of use of the pitches at present. As long as sportscotland don't get their way, and we remain a nation of lazy, beer swilling, chain smoking, heart-attacks-waiting-to-happen, then the four pitches might just be adequate.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 22:09

seanie wrote:Personally Iâ€™d like another stage of investigation and consultation before a particular option was taken forward. Iâ€™d like A to be discarded and the issues surrounding B & C looked at in greater depth,.
If funding could be explored further simultaneously I think that would be helpful too.

Firstly, we have not yet secured either option b or c but here's hoping.

Those are two eminently sensible suggestions and I would like to see it happen. I don't know if there is a less formal/legal form of consultation that could be held that doesn't have the same constraints as the current consultation? I can't see the council volunteering to go back to a full consultation. It would reopen closed doors.

Thanks for the response on pitch permission Seanie.

My understanding is that the result of the consultation is binding, if Option C is chosen the school goes in the park and nowhere else. (planning dependent). The reason for my question to seanie relates to the possible expansion of school/community sports facilities, as opposed to any school building, into the area occcupied by the golf course. The golf course stays where it is, shrinks a bit but retains its dearth of character and lack of features.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Nov 2006, 22:10

seanie wrote:As long as sportscotland don't get their way, and we remain a nation of lazy, beer swilling, chain smoking, heart-attacks-waiting-to-happen, then the four pitches might just be adequate.

Well I'm certainly doing my bit.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 22:33

Porty wrote:Here's a prediction; if option c is chosen all of a sudden the golfers will be a lot more amenable to moving to a new course and they will be encouraged to do so by PPAG.

Bob Jefferson wrote:Can you elaborate?

Yes, with the caveat that it is speculation.

Why would the golfers be more amenable?

Its the difference between nasty tasting cough medicine and soor plooms: Option C does not require the golfers to move, any decision to move becomes a choice, they dont have to take the medicine. Not only that but the choice is a window of opportunity that once gone will be gone forever, so there is time pressure. The golfers can walk away through choice and not feel they have been pressured. And they can choose a much better facility, otherwise they choose not to go.

Anyone who has lived around here for as long as WW and I have will tell you that the golfers do not like children on or near their course (with the possible exception of the 3% juniors that play, thats 900 a year or less than 3 a day for Portyman's benefit, he hates percentages). They will not relish the prospect of hundreds of yoofs tramping across the course, slating their colourful jerseys, shouting to put them off and so on. PGC are no different from any other golf club in that regard. The golfers will also be concerned that part of their course will be shanghied for other sports facilities. I can genuinely envisage a posse of golfers arriving at the chambers with placards that say" move us please."

Why would PPAg encourage the golfers to move?

The smokescreen will have blown away and PPAG will think that the larger the potential area for the school to be located the greater the chance that it will be located some distance from their houses. This is totally consistent with what lies beneath.

There will be at least two factions of PPAG the Milton Road seperatists and the Park Avenue liberation front. Golfers won't get the time of day.

Tess@Porty · Post by **Tess@Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 22:41

This information is probably past its 'relevance date' but life tends to intervene.
One of the most recent policy developments which has a bearing on the use of green space is the "Public Parks and Gardens Strategy for the City of Edinburgh Council: A Blueprint for the Future of the City's Parks". This strategy "was stimulated by the desire for parks to contribute more to Edinburgh's status as a world-class cityand to halt the decline in standards of provision in parks which, in line with other UK cities, has fallen over a period of more than 30 years."
The strategy has 5 goals supported by a number of objectives which cover such things as promotion of parks and gardens; role of parks as positive environmental influence; equitable distribution; diverse range of open space etc.
The strategy was approved in March 2006, including the Â£5.4m capital programme for upgrading parks. It also commits the Council to the development of a Greenspace Partnership to oversee the implementation of the strategy.
This is available at CEC website.
The document is available at CEC website.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Nov 2006, 22:58

Tess, let's cut to the chase. Which option do you prefer and why? I promise we will be nice to you however you reply.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 22:58

Thanks Tess. I believe we disussed this policy statement earlier in this thread or it may even of had one of its own? I still say you need to look the entire policy and not fragments. The very nature of planning defies black and white policy decisions. As dadaist said the pressing need is the overriding factor. This is not the councils' fault its just a matter of commonsense and fact.

You are right to highlight planning as a hurdle, it is a possible deal breaker. As seanie said earlier the council cannot grant itself planning permission. Having said that, they are confident that permission will be secured. I believe a key factor is the creation of equal or more green space, which they have promised to deliver.

PPAG are peuce that the new green space is not visible from their lounge windows but unfortunately for them that is irrelevant to the planners and more importntly to planning law. Their attempts to introduce a "same street" planning condition was possibly one of their most damaging decisons to date.

Tess@Porty · Post by **Tess@Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 23:05

Porty wrote: You are right to highlight planning as a hurdle, it is a possible deal breaker. As seanie said earlier the council cannot grant itself planning permission. Having said that, they are confident that permission will be secured.

Why are they so confident?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 23:06

Tess@Porty wrote:
Porty wrote: You are right to highlight planning as a hurdle, it is a possible deal breaker. As seanie said earlier the council cannot grant itself planning permission. Having said that, they are confident that permission will be secured.
Why are they so confident?

I believe a key factor is the creation of equal or more green space, which they have promised to deliver.

Jet asked Andrew Burns why the council were pressing ahead when the proposal contravened every planning law she had read at college? He said that they were going into this with their eyes wide open and fully aware of the risks. Of course they could be seriously mistaken but they are confident enough to have gone this far. Agreed?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 03 Nov 2006, 12:55

Another Leak in The Hall by Park Droid

They don't need no education
They hardly need any facilities at all
No performance stage or sports pavilion
Children leave our park alone
Hey, Children, Leave our park alone
All in all lets just decant them all
All in all a decant will do them no harm at all.

They don't need no physical education
They donâ€™t need no green space
Just shoehorn them into tiny classrooms
Children leave our park alone
Hey, Children, Leave our park alone
All in all lets just decant them all
All in all a decant will do them no harm at all

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 03 Nov 2006, 13:18

Porty wrote:My understanding is that the result of the consultation is binding, if Option C is chosen the school goes in the park and nowhere else. (planning dependent). The reason for my question to seanie relates to the possible expansion of school/community sports facilities, as opposed to any school building, into the area occcupied by the golf course. The golf course stays where it is, shrinks a bit but retains its dearth of character and lack of features.

Iâ€™m not sure in what sense the consultation is binding. Itâ€™s a statutory requirement under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and the council must give regard to representations, but then they make their own decision. Or not if they so choose. If a completely new location was chosen then theyâ€™d presumably have to go through a repeat consultation on that, but the process itself isnâ€™t hugely time consuming.

In any event the statutory consultation is about the location of the school. Not the golf course. If option C as it currently stands were chosen, it wouldnâ€™t preclude the relocation of the golf course. Thereâ€™s no requirement under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to consult on golf courses. Relocation would require consultation through the planning process, which could well be lengthy given how contentious it might be. But a lengthy planning process is a near certainty anyway.

And you might be right. If option C is chosen some golfers might reconsider the merits of a new golf course up at Brunstane, away from the beastly children.

Unfortunately the council may prefer to muddle through and avoid the Â£3.25M re-provision cost.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 03 Nov 2006, 13:37

Thanks Seanie.I should explain what meant by binding. If Optin C is chosen for the school building they cant then go and build it on option B or as you say anywhere else, without consultation.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 03 Nov 2006, 14:10

Parents at St John's were today given a copy of their School Board response.

St John's Board have opted to have the Primary built on the Park and PHS on the vacated St John's site along with the tennis court area. They argue that this would be 'certainly large enough' for a new High School and the decant of PHS pupils should be unnecessary.

Spector · Post by **Spector** » 03 Nov 2006, 14:21

I've had a quick look through the 149 pages so I'm sure I've missed alot of the debate.

I'd be concerned about losing green space but if we have to then losing a bit of the Figgate Park for St Johns rather the who of Portobello park would be better.

On the subject of selling the current PHS & SJPS site for house. Surely they can only build as high as whats around so flats are out?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 03 Nov 2006, 14:26

The two most important bodies in the consultation process (the School Boards) are are now expressing their preferred option as building in the Park. If only one school is going to be in the park/golfie then I guess it makes sense to put the one that needs the greatest amount of space there.

The reference of building PHS on the existing St John's site (plus tennis courts) with out a decant is a source of amazement to me.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 03 Nov 2006, 14:27

Spector wrote:I've had a quick look through the 149 pages so I'm sure I've missed alot of the debate.

I'd be concerned about losing green space but if we have to then losing a bit of the Figgate Park for St Johns rather the who of Portobello park would be better.

On the subject of selling the current PHS & SJPS site for house. Surely they can only build as high as whats around so flats are out?

The Figgate doesn't come into this Spector. It was not an option for consultation, only something suggested by PPAG.

St John's Board have opted for Portobello Park, as, of course, have the High School.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 03 Nov 2006, 14:35

Pal of Porty wrote:The reference of building PHS on the existing St John's site (plus tennis courts) with out a decant is a source of amazement to me.

The response refers to 'appendix B' PoP which presumably shows how it can be done. Unfortunately, as the parents haven't been issued with 'appendix B' we can but wonder how indeed such a feat can be carried out. It certainly stumps me!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Nov 2006, 15:02

Marya, I assume that the response takes into account the wishes of parents as expressed via the poll that was carried out recently? Can you give us the results of this please, either in real number terms or percentages?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Nov 2006, 15:24

From today's EN:

Park the 'best location' for new Portobello High