New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 03 Apr 2007, 21:58

Effect on skyline - getting rid of that 60s block that is the current building would be a good thing, would it not?! Although I seem to recall that at the start of all this it was called a "landmark" (an ex-PHS colleague - not a poster on here - was heard to remark "so is Cumbernauld town centre").

It should perhaps be noted that the Park Avenue "lanes" (very broad for lanes IMO) appear to be "private" roads that the proprietors have not brought up to adoptable standard.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 03 Apr 2007, 23:31

Its only 30 days until we have a new Executive and hopefully the request for funding, which is already underway, will start to gather momentum and we shall get some answers soon.

Personally, I can't wait for the Common Good challenge if indeed it ever manifests itself.

I suspect the Council are looking forwrad to it too. If they lose? No big deal the school gets built anyway (planning permission required). If they win? The get to build the school and a great big chunk of land is legally identified as non-common good land. We have this councils word that there will be no housing. However, councils of the future are not bound by those constraints and the prospect of an unencumbered chunk of land may prove too tempting.

(Bob, I think its Gary Gowans not Cowans)

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 05 Apr 2007, 18:23

Porty wrote:However, councils of the future are not bound by those constraints and the prospect of an unencumbered chunk of land may prove too tempting.

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha - but you keep telling us that houses WILL NOT BE GOING ON THAT LAND

. And I can't wait to see Bob being first to lie in front of the bulldozers when the Council (any Council, including this one) are tempted. You did promise Bob

. In fact I think your very words were "If houses go on that site I will be the first to lie down in front of the bulldozers".

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Apr 2007, 19:53

Porty wrote:(Bob, I think its Gary Gowans not Cowans)

You're quite right. I do apologise.

Epykat wrote:And I can't wait to see Bob being first to lie in front of the bulldozers when the Council (any Council, including this one) are tempted. You did promise Bob . In fact I think your very words were "If houses go on that site I will be the first to lie down in front of the bulldozers".

If that's what I said then I stand by it.

memo to self: stop making rash promises

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 05 Apr 2007, 20:14

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Epykat wrote:And I can't wait to see Bob being first to lie in front of the bulldozers when the Council (any Council, including this one) are tempted. You did promise Bob . In fact I think your very words were "If houses go on that site I will be the first to lie down in front of the bulldozers".
If that's what I said then I stand by it.

memo to self: stop making rash promises

You did and you will and I'm almost looking forward to it.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Apr 2007, 20:44

It will never happen sister, but if it does I will be comforted in my moment of martyrdom in the knowledge that you will be right there shoulder to shoulder with me.

You will be there won't you?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 05 Apr 2007, 20:46

Bob Jefferson wrote:It will never happen sister, but if it does I will be comforted in my moment of martyrdom in the knowledge that you will be right there shoulder to shoulder with me. You will be there won't you?

Oh it will definitely happen and even if I have to push you up there in your bathchair and physically lay you on the grass - it will be done

. I'll definitely be there, if only to identify the body.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Apr 2007, 12:10

From today's EN:

City facing trouble on horizon in Porty fight

Mrs Mangle · Post by **Mrs Mangle** » 09 Apr 2007, 18:08

Read this, don't the anti high school people know that the council can and will change the goal posts as and when it suits them.

Sky line, that's a new one, wonder if the Bingham people might use that when it comes to knocking their school down and building "Jobson Heights" and "Aitken Way" on the school site, it doesn't really matter where about in East Edinburgh you stand almost everywhere has a view to Arthur Seat or the Pentland Hills, so in theory that would make almost everything being built over a certain height unobtainable, surely

Mrs M.

kings roader · Post by **kings roader** » 10 Apr 2007, 18:50

Surely the only people that can see Arthur Seat from the golf course perimeter are those who live in Hope Lane or the Christians ?

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 11 Apr 2007, 10:08

When the old Portobello High School is knocked down, how many more people will see Arthur's Seat?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Apr 2007, 11:40

All aboard the Skylark.

So PPAG are going to use one of the coiuncils own policies against them in an upcoming fight?

Nevermind that the poilcy has yet to be formed or defined, they are just going to use it anyway.

Reminds me of two things: 1) Portyman's first post where it "seemed pretty clear to him" that the proposal to put the school on the Park contravened the Central Edinburgh Local Plan.

He simply overlooked the East Edinburgh Local Plan and doesn't understand why different areas have different plans, presumably its just not fair.

2) My own Navajo burial ground invention. I thought that was far-fetched but the skyline malarky beats it hands down.

I'm tempted to post the lyrics of Desperado again.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Apr 2007, 18:42

From today's EN:

School shouldn't cost green spaces

See also on the same page, "Primary school has to be remembered"

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Apr 2007, 22:56

It should be obvious by now that inaccurate ranting ain't going to persuade anyone who holds a position of influence that a School in The Park is not the most desirable solution for a new PHS.

Councillors, who are particularly sensitive when it comes to votes from their community, supported the proposal 59 to zero; that's unanimoulsy, full cross-party support. The pro-argument is too strong to deny and what's best for the children of our community is the overiding factor.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Apr 2007, 17:58

More on the skyline effect in today's EN:

Keep an eye on the skyline of city please

I particularly enjoyed this response in the Comments section:

Stevie Mac, Enough Woolnough / 12:56pm 12 Apr 2007

You make some valid points but its a pity you chose the proposed new PHS building to illustrate.

"If a new building in a public park in Portobello ruins spectacular views of Arthur's Seat, it won't be the first time the council has made poor qualitative decisions regarding high-rise buildings."

Don't worry KW. No-one's view's of Arthur Seat will be affected by a building in Portobello Park that may rise to 4 storeys in parts. There are only 30 or so dwellings that have a view of Arthurs seat from the edge of the park and the building will be so short and distant that it will affect neither the skyline nor the residents.

You go on to say " it won't be the first time the council has made poor qualitative decisions regarding high-rise buildings."

Bravo, and we have a hideous example right here in Portobello Its the current Portobello High School building which is 9 storeys and hideous. It will be demolished when the new school is built. You are obviously unfamiliar with the terrain down here.

Others who do know the area are trying to argue that the replacement of a 9 storey building with a 4 storey building will somehow have a more detrimental effect on the skyline. It doesn’t make sense, they don’t make sense, its nonsensical.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 19 Apr 2007, 17:29

PPAG have two candidates in the Council election. Archie Burns contests Portobello/Craigmillar while Jet Cameron of 19 Park Avenue is standing in Craigentinny/Duddingston.

More info at http://portobello-park.info

You may recall that Archie was the ONLY member of the school board who favoured a re-build onsite.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 19 Apr 2007, 21:21

As the Portygreenkeepers website puts it,

Vote for Candidates who care about our Environment, our Green Space and about our Childrens Education

Though sadly an education lacking in apostrophes.

tom nimmo · Post by **tom nimmo** » 19 Apr 2007, 21:26

Anyone actually called Jet Cameron deserves a vote just for having to go through life called Jet Cameron. Sadly I do not live in Craigentinny/Duddingston but if I did, I would vote for you Jet regardless of your policies, unless you're a Tory like the other Cameron.

tom nimmo · Post by **tom nimmo** » 19 Apr 2007, 21:32

Bob Jefferson wrote:

Vote for Candidates who care about our Environment, our Green Space and about our Childrens Education
Though sadly an education lacking in apostrophes.

Here's an idea for yet another Portobello action group. PPAP-PG Portobello Pedants Against Piss-Poor Grammar Are you in Bob?

tom nimmo · Post by **tom nimmo** » 19 Apr 2007, 21:34

That's not fair moderators. You've just ruined my gag by not allowing the first 'P' word. Have you seen Bouncy Kiwi's contribution to the Scotmid saga?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2007, 20:22

Portobello High School Board recently issued advance copies of a questionnaire regarding a new PHS in the park, and the central role it might play in the community, to candidates in the forthcoming Council election.

Porty in the Park - Aiming high

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 24 Apr 2007, 16:54

From today's EN:

Porty candidates quizzed on high school relocation

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Apr 2007, 21:20

PPAGwatch has spotted that the group dedicated to stopping the building of a new high school for our children, despite the fact that the site has all-party support, has now formed an alliance with a number of other campaign groups under the umbrella of 'Edinburgh at Risk'.

The spokesperson for EAR is Kevin Ferguson, a candidate in the Scottish Parliament elections and a member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

More info: http://www.edinburghatrisk.org

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Apr 2007, 09:11

From yesterday's EN Letters Page:

We're big PFANS of council's school plan

SUPPORTERS of Portobello for New Schools (PFANS) believe a new high school is urgently required and welcome Edinburgh City Council's unanimous decision to relocate the school to Portobello Park by 2011 at the latest.

Most of the council candidates from the key political parties support this decision. A few want to delay even further the prospect of giving the children and community the school they deserve.

An independent inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education published last week highlighted the adverse effect on pupils' skills development of time spent travelling to and from sports facilities, and the effect of the poor physical environment on pupil performance.

I urge every council candidate for the Portobello, Milton and Craigmillar ward to prioritise the needs of its children and, if elected, do everything they can to ensure there is a new school in Portobello by 2011.

Sean Watters, chair, PFANS, Brighton Place, Portobello

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Apr 2007, 09:40

Extracts from the HMI report:

Accommodation restrictions and time spent travelling to offsite provision meant pupils were not receiving an appropriate physical education experience.

Time spent travelling to the designated off site physical education facilities had an adverse effect upon pupils’ skills development.

Pupils with mobility problems had limited access to some areas of the school and their changing facilities were unsatisfactory.

Heating and ventilation in classrooms was difficult to control and this affected pupil performance.

Section 4 'How good is the environment for learning?'

Pastoral care - very good
Accommodation and facilities - weak
Climate and relationships - very good
Expectations and promoting achievement - good
Equality and fairness - good
Partnership with parents, the School Board and the community - very good

Full Report

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 29 Apr 2007, 20:48

Bob Jefferson wrote:...the group dedicated to stopping the building of a new high school for our children

I think you mean YOUR children?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Apr 2007, 20:59

My children, your children, our children. Well, perhaps not our children.

Your grandchildren of course.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 29 Apr 2007, 21:21

Bob Jefferson wrote:Well, perhaps not our children.

No, perhaps not. That's how rumours start you know

tom nimmo · Post by **tom nimmo** » 30 Apr 2007, 10:40

This thread has had 3247 replies since it started, 3248 if you include this one. Is there any way to tell how many individuals have actually contributed and what the for and against split regarding building the school in the park is? I suspect that only around 20 to 30 individuals have posted opinions on this thread but it would not surprise me to discover that it was fewer than this. I also suspect that the split would lean towards those in favour of saving the park. I have met few people who want the school to go on the park but I did witness the excellent turnout at the recent PPAG Pop Quiz. In my opinion, it would be interesting to find out the facts behind 3248 replies for no other reason than to satisfy my own curiosity.

Post by **wangi** » 30 Apr 2007, 10:51

On you go then, only way to work it out is to trawl the thread... You might be surprised that some folk do not have polarised views, and cannot be nicely placed into one of your boxes.

Although I'm confused that you seem to think there's a preference against building the school on the park.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 30 Apr 2007, 11:14

tom nimmo wrote:I have met few people who want the school to go on the park .

Conversely Tom, most of the folk I know are in favour of schools in a parkland setting.( Let's not forget St John's in this. Archie Burns certainly would, as when asked about it showed that he has no interest in what happens to St John's only that PHS is rebuilt on site.)

But then, Tom, I'm that bit younger than you

and know many local families with young children , which may account for the difference of opinion in our immediate circle of acquaintance.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 30 Apr 2007, 13:23

tom nimmo wrote:This thread has had 3247 replies since it started, 3248 if you include this one. Is there any way to tell how many individuals have actually contributed and what the for and against split regarding building the school in the park is? I suspect that only around 20 to 30 individuals have posted opinions on this thread but it would not surprise me to discover that it was fewer than this. I also suspect that the split would lean towards those in favour of saving the park.

Wangi wrote:On you go then, only way to work it out is to trawl the thread... You might be surprised that some folk do not have polarised views, and cannot be nicely placed into one of your boxes.

Although I'm confused that you seem to think there's a preference against building the school on the park.

I give up. I thought I'd make Tom's day and do the trawling for him, but I reached p50, just under a third of the way through and have had enough.

For those of you who are interested the figures at that stage stood at :

14* against building in the park
9 on the fence
24 for building in the park

* I've included Alison Connelly in this figure even though she has deleted all her posts.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 Apr 2007, 17:05

It is interesting to know this but the only numbers that matter are:

1. The 100% of elected representatives from all political parties who, after months of exhaustive consultation, voted to support the decision to re-build PHS in Portobello Park and St Johns on the vacated site.

2. The many thousands of local children who will benefit from these decisions for decades to come.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 May 2007, 17:07

From today's EN:

Porty pupils' sports hit by need to travel off-campus

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 May 2007, 18:29

PPAG have two letters in today's EN:

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/lette ... =683982007