New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Maria]

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?

Parents haven't been given the break down of the questionnaire responses. The submission states :

The board has now reviewed the responses, and the main findings are as follows:

There is universal acknowledgement that our current building fails to satisfy fitness for purpose, and that upgraded facilities are urgently required.

The clear majority of the St John's Community are not in favour of co-location with the High School, for reasons of pupil safety and welfare.

There is a widespread desire to minimise the loss of green space

[Pal of Porty]

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.

Why have St John's stated what they think should happen to PHS. If they had chosen the existing PHS site as their preferred option then I could understand this as it would have an impact on the timing of their own move. However they have chosen the Park and therefore should not be inventing 'fantasy - no decant pretend solutions' for the 1,400 pupils of PHS in their response to the Council. What agenda is being worked here?.

[Porty]

I wouldn't get to worked up about this. Its an overall positive thing that St Johns have gone for a school in the park, the principle has been established. And as my friend PoP says the two bodies withthe most influence and clout in this process have now opted for a school in the park.

It is possible to put both schools on the park by pinching a bit of the golf course for playing fields. However, it is most likely to come down to what offers the greatest educational benefit not what takes up the least space.

There is a an anomally in the St Johns response, the board claim that there is " widespread desire to minimise the loss of green space" and yet the board support putting their school on green space, when they had an option to rebuild on site. If both schools end up on the park then the board will have failed the "widespread desire".

[Bob Jefferson]

Without having seen the results of the questionnaire, how can parents be sure that the St Johns School Board's response reflects their views? Don't you feel that this information should be made available?

I believe that there is a School Board meeting next Thursday. Perhaps they will have answers then?

[Bob Jefferson]

Here is the full text of Maureen Child's statement on the reprovision of PHS and St Johns from her most recent newsletter:

Portobello New Schools

As I write, the period for comments on the proposals and options for building new schools for St John’s Primary and Portobello High is nearly ended. I know many hundreds of people have put in their thoughts already. I attended all the formal meetings on the issue – at the two schools and at the Town Hall.

This is not an easy or a comfortable question for anybody. And I take fully into account the understandably very strong feelings of those who live nearby the golf course and those who currently use that green space, or have a clear view of it. But I feel the balance of argument is swinging towards the Portobello Park option for the community’s new secondary school. I sense that it is dawning on the vast majority of people that the best location for Portobello High School really is on Portobello Park, however painful that might be, even to contemplate.

If it does happen, there is no way that houses will be built either on the golf course or the park. You have an unequivocal commitment, given at all the meetings by Councillors Andrew Burns and Ian Perry, and you have that from me too. Besides that commitment, planning legislation, policy and guidance would preclude building on that green space, as I have said many times before.

Personally, I currently prefer the option of building St John’s on the vacated Portobello High School site, with the rest of the site restored to green space and maybe the St John’s building converted to housing. This option allows the golf course to continue functioning and retains St John’s in the centre of its catchment area.

I am fully aware how difficult it will be for all of us if the Portobello Park option does emerge as the best option for the Council at its meeting in December. But there are a lot more hoops to go though before the schools are actually built, not least a two year planning process, including a public inquiry.

[Porty]

Without having seen the results of the questionnaire, how can parents be sure that the St Johns School Board's response reflects their views? Don't you feel that this information should be made available?

I believe that there is a School Board meeting next Thursday. Perhaps they will have answers then?

Its a strange response, no site is favoured, no site is commented on, no results are published, the park is selected in order to miminise the loss of green space and there is a real possibility that siting St johns on the park will maximise the loss of green space. The response second guesses PHS.

St Johns go to great lengths to pick a site for PHS. I have a copy of what the PHS response said on St Johns. I will post it on monday.

Look at the choice of langauge. There is a "clear majority of the St john's community not in favour of colocation". To make such a statement a huge percentage of people ( amajority) would have had to respond in a countable format.

if you are able to say that there is a clear majority for one aspect of the consultation why not be more specific on other aspects? For example how was each site rated?

There is "widespread desire". How on earth do you quantify that? It could mean that one person in craigentinny desire is to minimise loss of green space and one person in Joppa. That is widesperad. How did the prioriitse the desire, how do you count it?

The no-decant solution is nothing short of amazing.

[seanie]

The no-decant solution is nothing short of amazing.

That's what I really struggle to get my head round.

I know PPAG were floating "Portobello High School can be rebuilt on site (option A) alongside the existing building, without a decant, like Holy Rood High" but that just doesn't make sense.

Holyrood is a big school but here the similarities end. It's pretty much all two storey. It'll have it's own constraints but that at least allows the possibility of a phased replacement; build a new bit of school, occupy it, and knock down the bit vacated.

I don't know exactly how they're doing it but it would be way of ensuring a phased transition and take the pressure off limited space.

Most of PHS's accommodation is in a tower block.

You can't knock a bit of it down and carry on using the rest.

And much of the building that isn't in the towerblock is attached to it.

Most of PHS will have to be demolished in one go. The prospect of a phased redevelopment is negligible. So you'd pretty much have to build a complete, new, self-contained building, that could function effectively on its own whilst the existing school was knocked down.

As I pointed out before the existing school is squeezed onto an inadequate site of 2.4Ha. With St John's relocated the potential site area would be 3.5Ha.

The existing PHS buildings occupy about 1.9Ha of that area.

So to build a new school alongside, without requiring a decant, would mean shoehorning a new high school onto the even smaller 1.6Ha remaining.

You'll end up with a design even more inadequate and compromised than the current school buildings.

It doesn't make sense.

[Bob Jefferson]

It would seem that PPAG supporters are now pinning their hopes on scuppering the building of a school on the park with the aid of a QC.

From the EN Comments section, can anyone guess the author?:

Junk, Legal Opinion / 3:50pm 3 Nov 2006

It is quite plain to see that the Council have completely ignored that fact that there is a written LEGAL OPINION by Roy Martin QC to the effect that Portobello Park and Golf course are indeed "COMMON GOOD LANDS".

This means that anyone with any sense what soever will oppose any building on that land as the cost of the land will have to be paid by the council into the common good fund, makiing the cost of the school/s astronomical.

I think the council already know that, but must have forgotten to let us know.

I beleive that the "Legal Opinion" which Councillor Perry spoke of at the public meetings must be that one, as so far, the council have refused to let anyone see theirs. Quoting sec 36 FOI Act.

I believe that the legals costs over the next few years will also be very high and probably borne by us, the punetrs who pay out taxes.

[Bob Jefferson]

The Council has been aware of the 'common good' issue for some time and will have taken legal advice before proceeding. Legal opinion is of course just that, opinion, until tested in court.

Andy Wightman has been taking local authorities to task over their stewardship of Common Good land and clearly has an interest in the situation at Portobello Park:

Report on the Common Good of the City of Edinburgh April 2006

Response to Resource Management and Audit Scrutiny Panel 12 October 2006

Portobello
A burgh such as Portobello would have amassed a significant property portfolio over the many years of its existence. Significant amounts of this will be common good following Magistrates of Banff and others v Ruthin Castle Ltd. In one small Burgh in Scotland we have identified over 100 properties acquired by the Town Council between 1908 and 1975, most of which are Common Good Assets following Magistrates of Banff and others v Ruthin Castle Ltd. However, the Local Authority records no assets and total funds of £100. In a Burgh such as Portobello there will undoubtedly be many unrecorded Common Good assets.

Having had sight of the Portobello Park title for example (the subject of controversial proposals to build a new school), it is clear to me that this is a Common Good asset. The Town Hall and many other open spaces and buildings will probably also be found to be Common Good.

[Dadaist]

I know nothing about the ins and outs of "common good" land in terms of building on it.

I understand that if they sell land, the proceeds would have to go into the common good fund, which would scupper funding if the SE said "no" and it turned out the land they wanted to sell was common good.

But if all they want to do is build on it and retain ownership - like options B & C - what does common good have to do with it?

Are neither PPAG nor the council letting us read their respective legal opinions?

If PPAG went to court over this, how would they pay their legal bills? We'd have to pay the council's I assume, unless part of the SE funding they are applying for includes legal fees!

Imagine if the SE said no and PPAG took the council to court to stop them selling common good land to pay for houses to pay for a school. If they won, the council might have to sell common good land to pay their legal bills!

[Bob Jefferson]

Here's Andy's magnus opus on the question of Common Good land, all 72 pages of it. Would anyone like to attempt a 100 word précis to save the rest of us the bother of having to read it?

Common Good Land in Scotland: A Review and Critique - Andy Wightman & James Perman.

[Porty]

It is quite plain to see that the Council have completely ignored that fact that there is a written LEGAL OPINION

Ok, if its so plain to see lets see it.

by Roy Martin QC to the effect that Portobello Park and Golf course are indeed "COMMON GOOD LANDS".

This is misinformation and in any case it is an opinion but lets assume for a minute that its true. Who paid for the opinion? If it was the council then all one need do is request for disclosure under FOI and publish it. If a private individual or FOPA paid for it then lets see it. Failing either of those two just show the evidence to Jane Bradley or Gareth Rose and they will be alll over it. Its a bluff. The consultation is over, periods of calm are not good for camoaigners so they throw in an anonymous wobbler. There is nothing in it for them to hide the evidence and everything for them declaring it.

This means that anyone with any sense whatsoever will oppose any building on that land, as the cost of the land will have to be paid by the council into the common good fund, makiing the cost of the school/s astronomical.

As per, this is wild exaggeration and complete nonsense.

If PP were common good land there is no guarantee that COEC would have to pay anything into the common good fund, schools are for the common good and a barter would likely be acceptable. Failing that the council would have to pay for the land used to build the school.

Common good land can be build on or sold as long as the fund is replenished accordingly.

In this case the magnitude of any payment is not a deal breaker, far from it. the land cost 25k in 1898 and depending what index is used it is worth between £2m and £12m. (just use any PV calculator on the net) If the land had permission to build housing or commercial then it would likely be worth more, it doesn't, as we know..

If the council build on a 1/6th of it they pay between £350k and £2m. It is still a hell of a lot cheaper than a decant and a hell of a lot les thanthey will get for the existing school site. Its a commercial no-brainer.

I think the council already know that, but must have forgotten to let us know. I beleive that the "Legal Opinion" which Councillor Perry spoke of at the public meetings must be that one, as so far, the council have refused to let anyone see theirs. Quoting sec 36 FOI Act.

Two sentences, two "I believes", one "I think" and an assumptive conclusion.

Lets take a step back from this for a second. If FOPA or a private individual had evidence they would be shouting from the rooftops. Even although it would be unlikely to make any difference. All we have is an anonymous comment in the evening news. Thats all it is.


Post Moderated Sun 5 Nov 6.45 p.m.

[PortyMan]

Without having seen the results of the questionnaire, how can parents be sure that the St Johns School Board's response reflects their views? Don't you feel that this information should be made available?

I believe that there is a School Board meeting next Thursday. Perhaps they will have answers then?

Without having seen the results of the questionnaire, how can parents be sure that the Portobello High School Board's response reflects their views? Don't you feel that this information should be made available?

Are the numbers really that bad?

I believe Porty has all the answers, perhaps he may care to share?

On the 'who has support' question... how about a 'for instance'?

PFANS : 207 Total Signatures

Portygreenkeepers :703 Total Signatures

Also consider the very poor turnouts at 'restricted' meetings (School Board meeting, individual school consultations) and the fairly obvious support for the Park at any public meetings. (Even with the attempts at orchestration at the last council one).

I don't intend to monitor this site chat-line style so I'll leave you to ponder for a bit.

PS Dadaist - you were the 'confused of Porty' . No offence meant but you argue very well) against building on the park but appear (to me) to favour precisely that option? Could be a confusion on my part, but... Anyway, you are very entertaining all the same.

[Bob Jefferson]

Without having seen the results of the questionnaire, how can parents be sure that the Portobello High School Board's response reflects their views? Don't you feel that this information should be made available?

Perhaps you should monitor our 'chat' more carefully. I think you will find that the results have indeed been made available. Are you suggesting that the school board has lied about the percentages?

Why haven't the results of the St Johns questionnaire been made available? When will they be made available? Will parents have to go down the FOI route to get the answers?

[Poppy]

Andy Wightman does not seem to realise that Portobello is not the same sort of Burgh as the likes of Banff. Banff is a Royal Burgh and has been for centuries (since 1203-6 in fact) whereas Portobello is/was a Parliamentary or Police Burgh and has only existed as a place for around 200 years and only became a Parliamentary Burgh in 1833. I mean, yer man only built his Hut in 1742!! Before that, some monks appear to have grazed their cattle here...

This sort of distortion makes me view anything he's written with reservations - a man with an agenda does not necessarily make a reliable or unbiased author. IMHO.

Burghs

Edited a couple of times to add in some dates!

[seanie]

[Common good land can be built on or sold as long as the fund is replenished accordingly.

Would a large area of land at Brunstrane be of use?

[Dadaist]

a man with an agenda does not necessarily make a reliable or unbiased author. IMHO.

Yes.

[Poppy]

As an aside: I have not read the whole context of Andy Wightman's paper, but it seems to me that that it could be inferred from what is quoted that the Park was feued to Portobello Council when the feu was granted after the amalgamation of Portobello into Edinburgh in 1896 or whenever. It is unlikely that this makes any real difference but it does rather colour the argument if the facts are not made clear.

[Porty]

I believe Porty has all the answers, perhaps he may care to share?.

Its not up to me and its not "answers" as such. Its just the contents of the school board response without emphasis or spin. The resonse runs to 13 pages or so and is very detailed, covering each aspect thoroughly. Numbers of response are detailed, split by category; Parents, Teachers and Pupils. Not only the numbers are detailed but PHS have made the effort to type of hundreds of comments that were made by respondents, although only a sample are actually contained in the response.

The response has been lodged in its entirety as part of the consultation and it will therefor be available for every one to read.

Here's what the PHS report had to say on St Johns


St John's Primary School

Portobello High School Board recognises and supports the interests of St John's Primary School. The Boards together have produced a consensus document prior to the consultation that articulates these views, and this document is attached as Annex C. St John's Primary School has more shortlisted options to site the school in the future, and there is continuing debate about options not shortlisted that may still be viable. The High School Board will not express a preference for the future siting of the Primary School, but the general principle of contentment with welcoming co-location of the two schools, whilst maintaining their distinct identities, still stands.

The Board recognises that there are potential difficulties for one school in relation to another. Option A has the potential to create a solution sooner for St John's Primary School, and later for Portobello High School.

Options B and C may result in construction of Portobello High School sooner than St John's Primary School if the current site for Portobello High School is the preferred future site for St John's.

This consultation response now turns to matters secondary to considerations of location.

[Porty]

And here's the joint statement as mentioned above:

STATEMENT FOLLOWING A JOINT MEETING WITH THE BOARDS OF PORTOBELLO HIGH SCHOOL AND ST JOHN'S PRIMARY SCHOOL

A meeting took place jointly between the Schools Boards of Portobello High and St John's Primary on 19 June and subsequently by correspondence in order to consider the Council's proposals for the two adjacent schools.

This Consensus Statement reflects views expressed in the meeting and is issued on behalf of both Boards:

1. Both Boards welcome the proposal to replace the Schools on the following terms:

(a) Boards accept the need for action urgently;

(b) Boards have no objection to co-location of schools as long as arrangements ensure their distinct and separate identity; and

(c) Boards challenge the City of Edinburgh Council to make rapid progress on an acceptable, affordable and high quality solution.

2. The educational case for replacement of both schools is strong. Both Boards believe that a much improved learning environment will allow the delivery of modern learning and teaching, release the potential of staff and students to attain to higher levels of achievement, promote health and wellbeing, and offer facilities and an environment for the educational benefit, outdoor and indoor, of children and all generations in the community.

3(a). There is a strong community case for replacement of both schools. Wherever the new schools will be sited, there will be a larger land requirement than before, a net loss of land for other use and displacement of other activities. However, there should be a clear balance in favour of the development when looking at the broader community benefit, taking all matters together.

3(b). No matter where the schools will be sited, there must be better use of open parkland.

4. The case for children is very clear - the current school buildings have effectively come to the end of their lives and are capping educational achievement. Green spaces around schools are very important and achievable in a suburban area. The health, wellbeing and fullest potential of children are not best served by current arrangements, nor is delay in moving to new buildings.

5. Both Boards will, in partnership with School's management and the City of Edinburgh Council, consult with staff, pupils and parents in developing, examining and promoting plans for school replacement.

6. Both Boards are committed to work with the local community to arrive at a decision that carries the broadest support. Boards believe that new schools should have the community's support with the right proposal.

7. There should be no cap to the ambition of Portobello and the surrounding area. Core to the Boards' consensus is that the East of Edinburgh is a place where children will want to stay when they grow up.


THOSE PRESENT


St John's Primary School

Alison Connolly, School Board Parent Member
Erin Hislop, School Board Staff Member
Barbara Service, Head Teacher

(Susan Scotland, School Board Chair was unable to attend at short notice and has corresponded on subsequent drafts)

Portobello High School

Ken Aitken, Parent Member
Archie Burns, Parent Member
John Burnside, Staff Representative
Marjorie Cook, Senior Depute Head Teacher
Andrew Fraser, School Board Chair
Duncan Lauder, Parent Member
Peigi Macarthur, Head Teacher
Steve MacIntyre, Co-opted Community Representative
Sally Wyke, Board Deputy Chair
Paul Saddler, Staff Representative

[Porty]

Another section of the PHS response that one may find interesting is the one that deals with the only member of the board who opted for A. He gets his own section as their is a commitment to a fair and representative response.

Dissenting School Board Parent Member

The School Board is almost unanimous in its firm and strong view of options available to the school, with one parent member dissenting. He does so on the following points:

(a) disturbance of cherished green space should not be allowed on any account;

(b) that there may still be some way, not so far detailed, that designers could find to build a school on the existing site, while avoiding a decant of children (some or all) during re-construction, by designing the new building on vacant parts of the current site; and

(c) children could still travel to an off-site venue for supervised physical education (PE), perhaps using Portobello Park instead of the Jack Kane Centre - children could walk there.

Eleven per cent of parents who responded to the questionnaire survey agreed with this view. All other members of the Board strongly disagree with the practicality and balance of values of these matters.

Comments from supporters of Option A

Option A - (If any) - I feel that brown field sites options were dismissed too readily, and also the crucial issue of taking the opportunity to downsize the school, to 2 smaller human-scale schools has also dismissed. Golf course or park options save the Council money, but means loss of what originally has "common land". What if there was a proposal to build Boroughmuir on the Meadows? There would be an outcry!!

Option A - Don't want the school to be relocated

Option A - Great location - Option B and Option C stay untouched

Option A - Green spaces in towns and cities are lungs to the community and are now given special protection under the new planning rules recently announced by the Scottish Executive. This park is used by young and old and is situated in the heart of a community

Option A - has less impact on the environment and is cheaper.

Option A - Portobello Park and Golf Course are a valuable resource to the community at large and are used by many, young and old in the area. For children around the Milton Road area, it is their only open play area. It provides a large sofa area to play. It supports a wide range of wildlife.

Option A - The fact that the school would stay in familiar surroundings and the open space wouldn’t be affected
Option A - The ground at the park was gifted to the people of Portobello. It is used by Walkers and golfers alike. "MORALLY" it is wrong for the Council to re-claim it!!!

[Poppy]

The ground at the park was gifted to the people of Portobello

A gift the Magistrates &c of Edinburgh actually paid the market rate for?

Not a gift as I understand it. Repeating this error is not going to make the truth of the matter go away.

[Porty]

The ground at the park was gifted to the people of Portobello

A gift the Magistrates &c of Edinburgh actually paid the market rate for?

Not a gift as I understand it. Repeating this error is not going to make the truth of the matter go away.

And here is where you can calculate the present value of the £25,000 paid in 1896

http://www.mswth.com/ppoweruk/result.ph ... esult=2005

"In 2005, £25000 0s 0d from 1896 is worth

£1,927,647.06 using the retail price index. "

Of course one could argue that the RPI has little relevance to land prices. So here's some other measures:

£1,927,647.06 using the retail price index
£2,473,349.06 using the GDP deflator
£10,590,273.65 using average earnings
£12,825,384.62 using per capita GDP
£19,499,496.24 using the GDP

So here's how it may go if common good land becomes a court matter:

Judge "Well Mr Martin QC, I agree that you have proved that Portobello Park is common good land and I also agree that the council should repay the common good fund for any land that they use. And they propose to use 1/6th of the available land. Which index would you like to use?"


Mr Martin QC "I would prefer using the GDP at £19.5M which means the payment will have to be £3.25m but I guess that COEC will want to argue for the RPI?"

Judge "In actual fact COEC are happy for you to use any index you wish as they intend allocating any funds paid into the common good fund from Portobello Golf Course to help fund the new schools, which are obvioulsy in the common good. I imagine as an honorable gentleman you must be feeling like a bit of a dick?"


Mr Martin QC "Not really, I'm getting paid a fortume to argue my clients case and I won,"

[Porty]

[Common good land can be built on or sold as long as the fund is replenished accordingly.

Would a large area of land at Brunstrane be of use?

5 posts from Portyman....5p

1 post from Porty ......£5.00

1 post from Poppy £12.50

for everything else, there's Seanie

[Porty]

St John’s School Board
Response to Statutory Consultation


St John’s School Board have considered the opinions of parents and teachers by issuing a letter, issuing a questionnaire (appendix A) and attending the consultation meetings.

The Board has now reviewed the responses and the main findings are as follows:

· There is universal acknowledgement that our current building fails to satisfy fitness for purpose, and that upgraded facilities are urgently required.

· The clear majority of the St John’s Community are not in favour of co-location with the High School, for reasons of pupil safety and welfare

· There is widespread desire to minimise the loss of green space.

· Taking into account these factors , and the difficulty securing a suitable brownfield site for St John’s the School Board have concluded that:

St John’s Primary should be rebuilt on Portobello Park. This would allow the existing school site to become available for the rebuilding of Portobello High School.

With the following benefits:

· Given its poor fitness for purpose St John’s would benefit from a new building in the earliest possible timeframe.

· The loss of green space would be minimised, as the footprint of a Primary School is significantly smaller than that of a High School.

· There would be an opportunity to enhance the playing fields for community use by providing floodlighting and new changing facilities.

· The development is likely to be less controversial in Planning terms than a large scale project.

· The current St John’s site, along with the adjacent tennis courts and playground area is certainly large enough to construct a new High School building. (see appendix B). Therefore the decant of pupils from Portobello High School should be unnecessary.

· Reusing the existing site should make it possible to save additional costs by retaining the swimming pool and the recently constricted gym hall for the new High School.

St John’s School Board
30 October 2006

[Dadaist]

I love the bit about a recently constricted swimming pool. What did they do - rope off several lanes?

[Porty]

Nah, you read it wrong. its the new gym hall thats constricted.

I know its true cos the kids have to use only part of the gym for sports as the other part is too slippy as a result of the roof leaks. (hopefully its the old gym not the new one)

[Dadaist]

My bad.

From what seanie said, the St J's school board plan for PHS would lead to a constricted building built alongside the old one!

[foxy]

I don't understand, why the St Johns School Board feel that they have a mandate to make recomendations about what should happen to PHS

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN Letters Page:

Battle over school site is far from over

[Pal of Porty]

What an excellent letter from Ros Sutherland

[Porty]

I don't understand, why the St Johns School Board feel that they have a mandate to make recomendations about what should happen to PHS

Erm, exactly.

The St John's response devotes 174 words justifying where PHS should be located. The St John's Board's duty and responsibility should clearly be St John's Schhol nothing to do with PHS. Only 93 words are devoted to the location of St John's.

[Porty]

What an excellent letter from Ros Sutherland

It is an excellent letter, factual and accurate. Could have done with naming "the leading councillor" and I wonder why only an extract of the opinion is available? Its only an opinion after all.

[Dadaist]

PPAG are claiming that it's nearly impossible to build on common good land.

Poppy has told us that you can as long as you pay into the fund or provide some land for it.

If it transpires that the legal opinion of PPAG beats the legal opinion of the council and the park/golfie are ruled to be common good - can the council build on it?

[Porty]

If it transpires that the legal opinion of PPAG beats the legal opinion of the council and the park/golfie are ruled to be common good - can the council build on it?

More to the point; Can golfers play golf on it?

I'm not kidding. How could it be argued that Golf is more common good than Schools? Both are non-profit making council facilities. This could be the end for the golfers.