New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Izzie · Post by **Izzie** » 21 Dec 2006, 16:59

I am not for or against a new school in the park,only stating a fact that another park has been lost in edinburgh

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Dec 2006, 17:47

From today's EN:

Controversial school plan gets go-ahead

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Dec 2006, 17:53

From the EN Letters Page:

Listen to the public over Porty High

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Dec 2006, 18:18

Clearly, St Johns School Board has a lot of explaining to do. Many people were suprised when they opted for a re-build on Portobello Park since it was widely believed that the majority of parents favoured a re-build on the current PHS site. Did this view accurately reflect the results of the questionnaire sent to parents? We may never know, because the school board refuses to make the results public on the flimsy excuse that the information is confidential. However, an FOI request may yet resolve this situation.

If that raised a few eyebrows, then nothing can have prepared parents for their next move.

There were audible gasps of astonishment when Alison Connelly said that they now preferred a refurbishment. Was that a decision taken in the best interests of the school? As Bellybabe and Marya ask, what mandate do they have for this action? As a parent, I would be absolutely furious and I would be demanding the immediate resignation of the entire school board.

A refurbishment? Alison was eloquent in her description of just how bad the situation is at St Johns. How on earth could a school that is already too small be 'refurbished' to provide the accomodation they require? They have the opportunity to have a brand new, state of the art school just a few feet away from the present location and they are turning it down!

Not only are they looking this gift horse in the mouth, they are prepared to give it back and say 'no thanks'. All I can say is, I'm glad it's not me that has to explain this to St J parents, because I'm not sure I would even know where to start.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Dec 2006, 19:38

Pictured a few moments after the momentous decision, from l to r:

Jackie Brock, Pal of Porty, Porty, Emma Wood, Richard Butt, Seanie

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Dec 2006, 19:46

Gee I'm scruffy.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Dec 2006, 19:49

I had a friendly chat with some PPAG supporters before the meeting. Well-known local musician, Joe Madden is pictured on the left. The other guy is Bruce Kidd, best known for organising local triathlon events.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Dec 2006, 20:32

I missed the deputation by the PHS pupils but I'm told they spoke very well. From l to r, Rowan Bell (Head Girl), Craig Macdonald (Head Boy), Colum Fraser (S6) and in front, Jim Wyke (S2). Colum is the son of Andrew Fraser, chair of PHS School Board and Jim's mum is Sally Wyke, a member of the School Board.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Dec 2006, 20:52

A statement from Lawrence Marshall:

I know that the issue of finding a way to get a new Portobello High School with playing fields and a new St. John's with a playing pitch restored - since the current High School was built on St. John's playing fields - has been one on which views have differed markedly within the Portobello community.

I know too that all sides have acknowledged the need for new schools.

People also rightly value the green space that gives Portobello part of its identity and people-friendly character.

Trying to square that circle has not been easy and I won't pretend that today's decision to build a new High School on Portobello Park and a new St. John's on the current High School site succeeds fully in that all but impossible task.

But what it does do is to identify sites for these new schools so that we can now, with more confidence, approach the Scottish Executive with costed estimates in order to persuade them to fund this ambitious overall project for Portobello.

It also saves the golf course - the object of my almost frantic attempts earlier this year to identify brownfield sites on which to place, in particular, a new High School with playing fields.

Back in the 1960s a decision was taken which was far from ideal - to build the current High School on a frankly very, very tight site. That led to a building design far from ideal even back then and no on-site playing fields whatsoever. It also, as I mentioned above, deprived St. John's of its playing fields - and left them with a nice building which today, however, offers classroom sizes, etc. far smaller than required by statute.

Today's decision helps to build two new schools where those shortcomings - and more - have been honestly addressed. It also future-proofs Portobello from having again to agonise in this way when and if the new High School itself needs replaced - for it would be easy ad infinitum to swap school and pitches round at that time which re-building on the current cramped site would never have made possible.

I'm grateful to all those many people who have contributed to this debate - and also to Council officials for the way in which they in particular went into the community to outline the various options and their consequences.

That today's vote was unanimous - with all-party approval - I think clearly indicates that councillors, faced with this tough decision, saw that the recommendations in the report from our officials were, although not perfect, the right ones to go with.

It would perhaps have been easy to "duck" this issue - but, in the end, as with most councillors, I stood for elected office to try to improve the area in which I live for the benefit of the greatest number. It's no mean task - but I hope that principle guided the way I voted today.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Dec 2006, 22:42

And one final picture from today - happy smiling faces. A new school will come too late for them but they can take comfort in the knowledge that their efforts have helped to secure a brand new school in the park for generations of children to come. Well done to you all!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Dec 2006, 23:13

This was my first experience of a full Council meeting and it was both interesting and instructive to see how they do their business.

A motion from the Labour Group, as amended by the Lib Dems, was carried. It acknowledges 'the high level of considered and measured debate that this consultation has generated, with nearly 800 people attending 3 public meetings, in addition to the individual and group submissions' and thanks everyone for their contributions, while pledging to maintain a dialogue with the community as the proposals develop over the coming years.

It approves the selection of Option C (Portobello Park), as the preferred location for PHS, subject to:

a) confirmation, through the courts if necessary, to the land being useable for this purpose
b) an audit of usage of the current park being undertaken to inform the re-provisioning of adequate facilities to meet that need
c) the identification of local available land for open space provision in compensation for the loss of part of Portobello Park
d) this land (which may include the current St John's Primary School site) to be identified and secured prior to the commencement of construction of any new PHS.

In view of St John's School Board's position, a Lib Dem addendum calling for 'a further report on new build versus refurbishment' was agreed, along with further assurances that no housing would be built on the remaining green space of Portobello Park/Golf Course.

The Conservative group wished to increase the roll of the new PHS to 1400 from 1200. This was not accepted but it was agreed (I think) to review the projections. I didn't quite catch this bit so I stand to be corrected if I've got it wrong.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Dec 2006, 23:35

I thought the kids from PHS all gave excellent presentations.

The St John's presentation was troubling. This debate's been going for some time now, long predating the statutory consultation, and I was suprised by today's submission. Personally I feel some regret. PFANS' aim was for new schools plural. But in our consultation response we said nothing about St John's. That wasn't because there weren't St John's parents involved in PFANS or opinions expressed on the matter but we felt unable to say much because we had no idea what St John's, collectively, wanted; be it parents, children, staff etc.

In that absence we didn't feel comfortable making a case for a particular option.

And as it turns out I still have no idea what St John's, on balance, wants. We've had demands to look at brownfield sites that aren't viable, ignoral of the options presented for consultation, comment on where PHS should go, questionnaires that are confidential and then, on the very morning of a decision, that refurbishment is preferable. Something that's not been mentioned before.

The St John's deputation complained today that St John's hadn't been listened to in the consulatation. But even if listening carefully it'd be difficult to discern a coherent position.

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 21 Dec 2006, 23:35

Porty wrote:Equally, the head teacher must be fully aware, as Alison Connelly read out a statement which was compiled by the entire board.

It's my understanding that the head teacher has no vote on the board and therefore no influence on the board's decisions and output.

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 21 Dec 2006, 23:39

Bob Jefferson wrote:In view of St John's School Board's position, a Lib Dem addendum calling for 'a further report on new build versus refurbishment' was agreed,

Ouch...any idea what this will look like? The rebuild of St John's isn't seriously at risk is it??

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Dec 2006, 23:49

gilo wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:In view of St John's School Board's position, a Lib Dem addendum calling for 'a further report on new build versus refurbishment' was agreed,
Ouch...any idea what this will look like? The rebuild of St John's isn't seriously at risk is it??

I don't think anyone, least of all the parents, will allow St John's School Board to scupper their chance of getting a new school. This report is entirely unneccessary and will simply confirm what we already know - that the idea of refurbishing the school, when there is an option to re-build, is plain bonkers.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 22 Dec 2006, 00:08

There's the previous study done about upgrading St John's but it's significant stuff. Not a lick of paint.

The classes in the the main block are 45m2 wheras the current standard is around 60m2. The feasibility study planned to split 3 classrooms into 2. That's disruptive in itself and at the same time you'd have do major work to the services, probably complete replacement. That's major work. You can't do that over the summer. I'd expect 6 months at least possibly more.

And if you're converting 3 classrooms into 2 you'll have 2/3's the classrooms you had before. The school's already bursting at the seams so you need to build new classrooms, or put the kids in even more Portakabins, on what is already a tiny site that falls well below the statutory minimum.

I've no doubt refurbishment is achievable. But I can't imagine it'd represent the most desirable educational outcome. And if a few million were spent on refurbishing the existing school to get by, I'm pretty sure St John's would drop back to the very bottom of the queue for future investment.

However if that's what St John's wants then fair enough.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Dec 2006, 10:58

gilo wrote:
Porty wrote:Equally, the head teacher must be fully aware, as Alison Connelly read out a statement which was compiled by the entire board.
It's my understanding that the head teacher has no vote on the board and therefore no influence on the board's decisions and output.

Your understanding is correct but hardly relevant, unless there was a vote. The school board, of which the head is an active member, prepared a statement endorsed by the entire group. They prefer a refurbishment. The head could choose to endorse or otherwise. Alison informed us that the statement had the support of the entire board.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Dec 2006, 13:29

From today's EN:

Gridlock fears over decision to build new high school in park

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 22 Dec 2006, 14:02

2 statutory consultations, 1 public consultation, a scrutinty panel. numberous deputations and then the meeting yesterday. The outcome? Total cross party support for building PHS on Portobello Park.

Ros Sutherland is then quoted as saying "We are quite clear that this move is not the final decision on this issue and will continue to fight to preserve Portobello's green space"

Nice to see the chair of PPAG co-operating with the decision making process that we have all been a part of! And this from the person who has gone in print wanting to build on Figgate Park. It beggars belief.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Dec 2006, 14:39

Ros Sutherland Edinburgh Evening News Friday December 22nd 2006:

"We are quite clear that this move is not the final decision on this issue and will continue to fight to preserve Portobello's green space. "

Ros Sutherland Edinburgh Evening News Friday 29th September 2006

"This included pointing out that, if St Johns had to move, the study had not considered the possibility of exchanging land between the flat area of Figgate Park at the end of Hamilton Terrace and the existing St Johns site"

One can see why PPAG failed to persuade even one councillor to back their position.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Dec 2006, 14:51

Bob Jefferson wrote:Clearly, St Johns School Board has a lot of explaining to do. Many people were suprised when they opted for a re-build on Portobello Park since it was widely believed that the majority of parents favoured a re-build on the current PHS site. Did this view accurately reflect the results of the questionnaire sent to parents? We may never know, because the school board refuses to make the results public on the flimsy excuse that the information is confidential. However, an FOI request may yet resolve this situation.

I made an FOI request a few days ago we will wait and see.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Dec 2006, 14:57

seanie wrote:Gee I'm scruffy.

You nailed it again

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Dec 2006, 17:50

From Maureen Child:

Dear All

You will know by now that all Councillors, from across the Party Political spectrum, agreed to go ahead with planning for the rebuild of Portobello High School, with playing fields and facilities accessible to the community, on Portobello Park. There was no debate about it at full Council yesterday.

All Councillors decided that St John's Primary School be built on the site vacated by Portobello, and that there should be appropriate provision for alternative green space in the local area, which would be a condition of any possible planning consent in any case.

The Council is fairly well convinced there is no legal barrier to the use of this land for a school, but that will have to be tested in the courts and we are in the process of getting our own senior QC opinion on it. There are other hurdles to go through, but the Council can now go to the Scottish Executive for funding of these two very important new schools projects in the next round of national funding for school buildings.

This was not an easy process and not an easy Council decision, despite the unanimity. But I believe it is the right decision, or 'least worst', taking all the factors into account. I am not jumping with joy about it, knowing that some people are so unhappy, particularly close neighbours. But, on balance, I am content that it is the right thing to do for the common good of generations of our children and for our whole community.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 22 Dec 2006, 21:43

This has clearly been a difficult issue for many. Any loss of green space is an emotive issue, as is childrensâ€™ education, and opinion has been divided. But thereâ€™s no serious dispute that a new PHS is needed and with the decision on Thursday that came a step closer. I know some will be dissatisfied but Iâ€™d hope most people would view locating the school on the park as the sensible solution: a modern school with facilities that do justice to the children of our community, whilst preserving the golf course where it is. That seems a reasonable balance given the limited options available.

There are many issues that still need to be resolved, not least the issue of funding, but if the community engages positively with this proposal weâ€™re more likely to secure an outcome that satisfies the greatest number of people. If so there could be a role for the Community Council in facilitating ongoing consultation and dialogue to ensure that the design that emerges reflects the highest aspirations. Thereâ€™s an opportunity here to create something quite special: a 21st century, sustainable school, with first class facilities, right at the heart of the community. I think thatâ€™s something to be positive about.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 22 Dec 2006, 21:49

Bob Jefferson wrote:From Maureen Child:

......it is the right thing to do for the common good of generations of our children.

Sorry, but I have to laugh..... albeit in a hollow manner.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 22 Dec 2006, 21:52

C'mon....don't be a curmudgeon.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 22 Dec 2006, 21:58

seanie wrote:C'mon....don't be a curmudgeon.

I don't understand the question - my education was stunted by going to a school with no playing fields

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 22 Dec 2006, 22:09

Then think of the generations to come who'll be able to understand that questions end with question marks. All thanks to playing fields.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Dec 2006, 22:22

Seanie, are you syndicating your posts now?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 22 Dec 2006, 22:27

Sustainability Bob.

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Dec 2006, 12:34

Epykat wrote:
seanie wrote:C'mon....don't be a curmudgeon.
I don't understand the question - my education was stunted by going to a school with no playing fields

Its not a question, that will be why you don't understand it.

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 23 Dec 2006, 13:01

Pal Of Porty wrote:2 statutory consultations, 1 public consultation, a scrutinty panel. numberous deputations and then the meeting yesterday. The outcome? Total cross party support for building PHS on Portobello Park.

Ros Sutherland is then quoted as saying "We are quite clear that this move is not the final decision on this issue and will continue to fight to preserve Portobello's green space"

Nice to see the chair of PPAG co-operating with the decision making process that we have all been a part of! And this from the person who has gone in print wanting to build on Figgate Park. It beggars belief.

Porty wrote:Ros Sutherland Edinburgh Evening News Friday December 22nd 2006:

"We are quite clear that this move is not the final decision on this issue and will continue to fight to preserve Portobello's green space. "

Ros Sutherland Edinburgh Evening News Friday 29th September 2006

"This included pointing out that, if St Johns had to move, the study had not considered the possibility of exchanging land between the flat area of Figgate Park at the end of Hamilton Terrace and the existing St Johns site"

One can see why PPAG failed to persuade even one councillor to back their position.

Hmmm...

Porty 'suggested' that "the moon" was a possible site at one point - did that really mean he wanted to build the school on the moon? Or was he trying to make a point by giving an extreme example?

Maybe I should have mounted a campaign ridiculing his anti-lunar policy (because it must be a policy, mustn't it? He said it after all...). D'uh?

In any case, you all seem to have forgotten that PFANS and Co. were quite happy, indeed keen, to accept both schools and a housing scheme on the Park, back in February (whilst defending Jessfield to the death

).

However, as acknowledged by Councillor Perry, the raising of awareness and campaigning by groups and individuals (like PPAG, the Golf Clubs, even PoL) forced the council to take account of public opinion and adjust their expectations/proposals.

Perhaps PPAG haven't (yet) managed to save the park (though they - and others - ensured that the council at least gave lip-service to alternatives and involved the public at an early stage).

But, all that's happened is they've made a decision on the potential site. That's a far cry from building the school.

And I will continue to pester, badger and harass the council to ensure that they remain aware of the public's opinions and should any development take place that it will be of the finest quality and facility possible.

Perhaps some PFANS supporters should consider doing likewise? Otherwise the council might just throw up the cheapest, nastiest, simplest building it can get away with (and spend more on making James Gillespie's all lovely

)?

Anyway, have a fun Xmas and (hopefully) a Happy New Year!!

Maybe there will be a game of football between the trenches...

?

PS I note from the latest PHS newsletter that they have started a Pony Club this year. And all without destroying any parks, how wonderful.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Dec 2006, 19:28

I had hoped that cross-party support would transpire, it did but I would be less than truthful if I claimed that I wasn't pleasantly surprised. I have been mulling it all over since thursday's meeting and I was trying to pinpoint what critical event persuaded every councillor to vote for the officals recommendations?

I believe I have identified the critical event and ironically it was the following instruction from PPAG that finally delivered the desired result

PPAG WebsiteDec19th2006 wrote:Your response has been magnificent so far and we would ask you please to take some time to send a brief e-mail to councillors before the full council meeting on Thursday 21 December.

I have no doubt that our fiends and neighbours in PPAG complied with the request and to a man and woman the councillors decided enough was enough.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Dec 2006, 19:47

UPDATED: We now have the report and the deciison from the council executive. Apologies if I missed anyone off I hope this "at a glance" balance sheet is useful.

SCHOOL ON PORTOBELLO PARK-THE BALANCE SHEET UPDATED DEC 23 2006*

ASSETS

FOR PORTOBELLLO HIGH SCHOOL ON PORTOBELLO PARK

GAVIN STRANG MP
PFANS
PHS STAFF
PHS PUPILS
PHS PARENTS
PHS SMT
PHS SUPPORT STAFF
PHS SCHOOL BOARD
TOWERBANK STAFF
CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL OFFICIALS
TOWERBANK PARENTS
TOWERBANK SCHOOL BOARD
BRUNSTANE PRIMARY
DUDDINGSTON PRIMARY
LISMORE PRIMARY
PARSONS GREEN PRIMARY
Labour:: Ewan Aitken
Conservative: Elaine Aitken
Liberal Democrat: Robert C Aldridge
Labour: Donald Anderson
Labour: Philip J Attridge
Conservative: Jeremy Balfour
Conservative: Ian J Berry
Labour: Andrew D Burns

Scottish National: Stephen Cardownie
Labour: Maureen M Child
Labour: Bill Cunningham
Labour: Trevor Davies
Liberal Democrat: Jennifer A Dawe
Conservative: Michael Dixon
Liberal Democrat: Paul G Edie
Labour: Edward B Fallon
Labour: William Fitzpatrick
Labour: Sheila Gilmore
Liberal Democrat: George D W Grubb
Conservative: The Hon David W G Guest
Labour: Kenneth Harrold
Labour: Ricky Henderson
Labour: Lesley A Hinds
Conservative: George A Hunter
Conservative: Allan G Jackson
Labour: Douglas J Kerr
Labour: Shami Khan
Conservative: Allan Laing
Labour: John A Longstaff
Liberal Democrat: James A D Lowrie
Conservative: Kate MacKenzie
Liberal Democrat: Gordon F Mackenzie*
Liberal Democrat: Fred Mackintosh
Liberal Democrat: Marilyne A MacLaren
Labour: Elizabeth A Maginnis
Labour: Lawrence Marshall
Conservative: Mark McInnes
Labour: Eric Milligan
Labour: Gordon Munro
Labour: Ian Murray
Liberal Democrat: Liz O'Malley
Labour: Jack O'Donnell
Conservative: Alastair S Paisley
Labour: Ian Perry
Liberal Democrat: Thomas V Ponton
Labour: Frank K Russell
Conservative: Jason Rust
Labour: Andrew Scobbie
Labour: Lorna Shiels
Labour: Kingsley E F Thomas
Liberal Democrat: Marjorie Thomas*
Liberal Democrat: Susan B Tritton
Liberal Democrat: David Walker
Liberal Democrat: Phil Wheeler
Conservative: Iain Whyte
Labour: Chris Wigglesworth
Labour: Donald Wilson

FOR St JOHNS PRIMARY ON PORTOBELLO PARK

PORTOBELLO AMENITY SOCIETY

LIABILITIES

PPAG
ST JOHN'S SCHOOL BOARD
PORTOBELLO GOLF CLUB

*There are e a number of groups that would accept both schools colocating on the park

NEUTRAL

Portobello Community Council

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 23 Dec 2006, 21:03

Sad...