New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Dadaist]

Mr Macintyre

Very well written, thank you very much for taking the time to pen this - excellent reading and very well balanced and argued.

Non-developer council-developed homes for "profit" (ie monies go straight back to the school build) with, I assume, complicated financing in between such that we don't have to actually wait for the last home to be sold before we can buy the bricks for the schools .... fascinating!!

Has this been done before, does anyone know?

Will there be community input into the type of homes built, I wonder? And will there be a conflict between maximising profit (seeing as it's for a good cause) and requests, like there were for the Seafield site, for "low income" housing which I assume (perhaps wrongly) carries less of a profit for the builder?

I guess I'm like everyone else and want to see more detail. I don't trust the council but I don't see this as defining my approach to everything they do. I'm also wholeheartedly and unashamedly gunning for my daughter, who will be PHS-age in 10 years, when I get excited by this proposal.

I really hope we don't end up being disappointed, as community members and as parents.

[Pal of Porty]

....still can't figure out how you do a circumflex....

¿Qué?

[Bob Jefferson]

Stephen McIntyre said: "Firstly, land will be sold for the benefit of the community and all of the profits will be ring-fenced and go towards the creation of the new park including the schools."

You know this for a fact do you? Strange, because I could get no such guarantee from my elected representative.

The following is an extract from a private email I received from Ian Perry, Councillor and chair of EDI recently:

All the money realised from the sale of the land and any profit realised by the developer will be used to build the school and enhance the sporting facilities in the area.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Stephen McIntyre said: "Firstly, land will be sold for the benefit of the community and all of the profits will be ring-fenced and go towards the creation of the new park including the schools."

You know this for a fact do you? Strange, because I could get no such guarantee from my elected representative.

I have thought long and hard about this whole proposal and I deduced that apart from two possibly negative features it had everything:

New School s for 1800 children and 200 staff. In the centre of the catchment area and in a park environment.

Minimal interference in the education of the many children who will attend the schools during the new build.

The retention and improvement of a substantial public park.

The provison of playing fields.

The avoidance of PPP by being self-funding.

The creation of a much larger golf course for the enjoyment of the community.

Even given the scale of the project it would have minimal impact on the neighbours of the new schools.

That is a lot of plus points and there is NO other scheme that could provide all of the above.

The only downsides were;

The need to build new homes to fund the project.

The possibility that land would be sold to a third party developer and that the community would lose out on the profit element.

If I was COEC and I was trying to gain the support of the community, many of whom would be sceptical. I would do my utmost to make it happen. I would start by keeping the number of new houses to a minimum.

People do not like the thought of private developers sloping off with profits from acquired council land. Plus, it hands those against the proposal a weapon to use. So what better way then, than to retain the profit and use it to bring the project to fruition?

Self -development and retained profit was the mechanism that made the most political and commercial sense to me. I did not have to ask my elected representative. As it happens Bob has now provided the written evidence, so yes DC, it is a fact.

Surely the fact that no developer shall be profiting makes you feel more comfortable with the proposal?

[Bob Jefferson]

Who is it from, and in what capacity, and who was it for?

Fear not Dada - if you're on Maureen Child's email list you'll have just received the "official" version.

aaah!

Lawrence, sitting firmly on the fence, accompanied his copy of the document with the following message to constituents:

Dear All

I thought that this briefing from the Council on the issues surrounding the proposal to provide a new Portobello High School and St. John's Primary School might well be of interest to you.

I've always believed that this is a decision which is one ultimately for the community as a whole to take - with myself and other local councillors having to weigh up public opinion when reaching our own decision on this matter.

I hope very much, therefore, that this briefing will help inform the no doubt vigorous debate in which I hope many people will be involved in the coming months.

As further information becomes available - for instance, the report to the Executive of the Council which will kick-start the proposal formally in terms of due process - I will, of course, also copy this to you for your information.

Lawrence

[Lawrence Marshall]

Folk have been asking where the Q & A Members' Briefing 71 came from. It was produced by the Council's Corporate Communications section headed up by Isabell Reid - though I've no doubt that both the Department of Children & Families and the Department of City Development provided most of the input.
I've asked the Directors of both these Departments to answer some pertinent questions raised by those who query whether the golf course is the only viable option to allow a new Portobello High School and St. John's Primary School to be built with integral playing fields.
It does seem to me to be the only obvious option but I am conscious that the Freightliner/brickyard/coach and lorry park site between the East Coast Main Rail Line and the Sir Harry Lauder Road was not mentioned in the briefing.
It's a rather isolated site but is certainly big enough. It isn't owned by the Council but its purchase price (no doubt long in the negotiation - presumably via a Compulsory Purchase Order at the end of the day) would I'm sure be based on industrial rather than residential use. This would be an additional expense vis a vis the golf course option and, of course, although it would still allow housing to be built on the existing school site(s), would presumably not include any house building on the golf course.
I say site(s) above since I'm not convinced that it would be feasible to relocate St. John's to this site. My guess is that only the High School could possibly move here - and only if access and security concerns could be overcome.
So, I've asked for information regarding this option. Whether, though, it's realistic, I'm not sure. What I do know is that it wouldn't realise the £30m-odd necessary to achieve the schools we all want for the children of Portobello and around. I've asked if it's possible to provide a ballpark figure for the funding that would be available from this option vis a vis the golf course option so that folk can make the financial comparison. Then there would be timescales to compare and the other pros and cons before we could come to a considered view on all of this.
As Bob Jefferson has hinted above, I believe that ultimately this is a decision for the Portobello community to make. I'm not a dictator but a representative. The question has long been posed as to how we provide a new Portobello High School - and folk have been asking about St. John's for ages too.
Our Council officers have not been unaware of these demands and have worked hard to bring forward a viable option. Is there a realistic alternative? I've asked the question. If not, are the downsides of the golf course option matched and more by the upsides? Probably - but I'll be interested to see the response to my question re. the Freightliner, etc. site first before I finally make up my mind.

Lawrence

[Bob Jefferson]

Lawrence, thanks for this very useful contribution. I'm not sure that the briefing adds much to what we already knew, though I appreciate that some of it will be news to those members of the community on your distribution list who are not following this thread. It's not as comprehensive as I would have liked, and not particularly well written in parts either, but I'm sure that it could be expanded to address the other questions that people are asking about the proposal.

I appreciate that as a local councillor your role is to represent all members of the community, including of course those who are against the proposal, though at some stage we would expect you, Maureen, Gavin and Susan to declare your position on what you see as being in the best interests of the whole community.

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

Information will be made available in time

[bbbrown]

The Freightliner/brickyard/coach and lorry park site would be a great place to build a new PHS. The site is currently a real eyesore, in the heart of portobello, and in desperate need of rejuvenation. With a bit of thought and planning it could be transformed into an inclusive and positive part of Portobello. Developed properly, it would be a fantastic step forward for the community. looks like there is room enough for the school and some houses too.....
I dont think st johns needs to move and it could be rebuilt on its present site. the old PHS site could be turned over entirely to housing.....it is good that the council wants to give us a new golf course, so that could still go ahead. the current golf course could be returned to natural parkland, with more trees planted and more space for folks to enjoy without fear of getting smacked about the head by golf balls...
Also....how about the Jack Kane land.....is it within boundaries etc or too far away......

[Dadaist]

The Freightliner/brickyard/coach and lorry park site would be a great place to build a new PHS. The site is currently a real eyesore, in the heart of portobello, and in desperate need of rejuvenation. With a bit of thought and planning it could be transformed into an inclusive and positive part of Portobello. Developed properly, it would be a fantastic step forward for the community. looks like there is room enough for the school and some houses too.....
I dont think st johns needs to move and it could be rebuilt on its present site. the old PHS site could be turned over entirely to housing.....it is good that the council wants to give us a new golf course, so that could still go ahead. the current golf course could be returned to natural parkland, with more trees planted and more space for folks to enjoy without fear of getting smacked about the head by golf balls...
Also....how about the Jack Kane land.....is it within boundaries etc or too far away......

I'll agree with you inasmuch as the Freightliner is in need of rejuvenation - it's like Portobello suddenly stops, for the while that you walk over you're in an industrial wasteland and then the city starts again - like someone was playing Sim City and put in a bit of blue (industrial zone) for a laugh.

I guess there are problems with the area involving it being bounded by railway and road.

I'm not sure if the new golf course is a separate package, bb (hello, and welcome btw) - I think the council would frown and mutter something about wanting your pocket money without having done your chores first.

[bellybabe]

Whilst I like the current location of St Johns, I'm in no doubt that the school is desperately in need of rebuilding, but to rebuild it in situ would not be possible because a) there'd be no money to do it without the sale of the land, and b) selling of the PHS site and rebuilding St John's in situ would leave no more space than it currently has, which is simply not enough. It's already lost valuable outdoor space to extend the hall and build another TU. A big enough school requires a bigger footprint leaving practically no outdoor space in the current location.

Paula

[bbbrown]

is the current st johns site not big enough for a new primary school?
if they demoloshed the nursery, the school and the janitors residence and started from scratch?
its a pretty big area.
while this is going on the kids could be in the old PHS.....(the new one already having been built on the freight yard site)
funding is key i guess, what is happening with the money from selling off/developing the five a side pitches??

[seanie]

The Freightliner/brickyard/coach and lorry park site would be a great place to build a new PHS.

Well since the Council doesn’t own the site(s) it’s off to an extremely poor start as an alternative.
Acquiring the site(s) will involve significant expense that will have to funded somehow. Realistically that means additional development somewhere.

Under the current proposals buying land is an essential part of the package. Without a replacement golf-course opposition would be overwhelming. But the advantage of relocating the golf-course, despite the additional 2 minute driving time, is that it can be located on greenbelt land.

And greenbelt land is relatively cheap.

It has very limited development potential and so has a lower potential yield. An industrial brown-field site may look crappy but it’ll be more commercially valuable and have a higher land value, unless there are complications such as pollution/clean-up costs. But those costs are transferred to whoever purchases the land.

From a purely financial point of view the current proposals seem sensible. Buy a large area of relatively low cost, un-developable, greenbelt land to replace the golf-course. Then use the relatively high value, developable, golf-course land to fund the building of the new schools. The amount of development required may stick in the craw but you’d need even more if you were to start buying expensive developable sites.

And whilst crappy industrial sites may appear of limited community value they’re still necessary. They’re part of life. They have to go somewhere. An isolated site between a by-pass and a mainline railway seems not too bad a location.

[PortyMan]

Just a quickie...

Greenbelt is 'undevelopable'?
But, you can put a golf course on greenbelt?
And you can build houses on a golf course?
So, how is greenbelt not developable, again?

Where does it all stop?

[Gemini]

[

It has very limited development potential and so has a lower potential yield. An industrial brown-field site may look crappy but it’ll be more commercially valuable and have a higher land value, unless there are complications such as pollution/clean-up costs. But those costs are transferred to whoever purchases the land.

What about the Polluer Pays principle?

[Bob Jefferson]

Different rules apply. The Golf Course isn't greenbelt. It is green, but there the similarities end.

[Dadaist]

Just a quickie...

Greenbelt is 'undevelopable'?
But, you can put a golf course on greenbelt?
And you can build houses on a golf course?
So, how is greenbelt not developable, again?

Where does it all stop?

At a guess : if your original land is in the green belt, you can't develop on it but you can put a golf course on it.

If your original land is whatever this land is, you can develop it OR put a golf course on it.

So, green belt is called that because it's in the green belt, and it's not the golf course you're building the houses on, but the zoning of the land the golf course is on.

[seanie]

What about the Polluter Pays principle?

It's reflected in the price.

If you buy polluted land you get it at a reduced price to cover the cost of the clean up. Which you then have to carry out yourself at your own expense.

Otherwise the polluter cleans up the land then sells it to you at the higher, non-polluted, price.

Either way you end up paying.

[seanie]

Just a quickie...

Greenbelt is 'undevelopable'?

Well I originally said "it has very limited development potential". I used undevelopable for brevity. And it's a close approximation.

But, you can put a golf course on greenbelt?

Why yes. It' the sort of "limited development" that isn't a huge planning issue.

And you can build houses on a golf course?

If it's not in the greenbelt then yes. Again there are planning issues but they're not huge if the loss of amenity is compensated in someway. Such as a new larger golf-course round the corner.

So, how is greenbelt not developable, again?

It's not developable in the "let's build schools and houses on it" sense.

At least not without huge difficulty.

[Epykat]

Just a quickie...

Greenbelt is 'undevelopable'?
But, you can put a golf course on greenbelt?
And you can build houses on a golf course?
So, how is greenbelt not developable, again?

Where does it all stop?

At a guess : if your original land is in the green belt, you can't develop on it but you can put a golf course on it.

The added advantage of which is that in another 30 odd years when you need a couple of new schools you then concrete over the 'new' golf course and hey presto the goal posts (pardon the pun) have conveniently moved again . It's so simple. It'll be much the same as that piece of recreational space which was never to be used for housing which is now being used for housing.

[PortyMan]

Thanks Epykat, I'm glad someone got my point! It would seem it's all about timing...

[Dadaist]

Just a quickie...

Greenbelt is 'undevelopable'?
But, you can put a golf course on greenbelt?
And you can build houses on a golf course?
So, how is greenbelt not developable, again?

Where does it all stop?

At a guess : if your original land is in the green belt, you can't develop on it but you can put a golf course on it.

The added advantage of which is that in another 30 odd years when you need a couple of new schools you then concrete over the 'new' golf course and hey presto the goal posts (pardon the pun) have conveniently moved again . It's so simple. It'll be much the same as that piece of recreational space which was never to be used for housing which is now being used for housing.

That's why I said "at a guess" - I'm not an expert like seanie (who we are very lucky to have on board the site!) - in fact I know bu&&er all about planning. But I know what I like.

[bbbrown]

may be a naive question, but none the less a genuine one.
is there really no money from govt for building schools? if not..why not?

[Dave Connelly]

"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad fra monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion."

[Dadaist]

"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad fra monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion."

The deil came fiddlin in tae toun
an danced awa wi th'exciseman
and ilka wife cried "auld couhoun -
i wish you luck o the prize man!"

[Stephen McIntyre]

may be a naive question, but none the less a genuine one.
is there really no money from govt for building schools? if not..why not?

BBbrown, welcome.

I asked Maureen Child the very same question pre-xmas and the answer was depressing. Here is a copy of what Maureen extracted from the Finance Department.

4. The Scottish Executive maintain that the funding and prioritisation of capital projects are a matter for Local Authorities. It is highly unlikely they would provide additional resources for the redevelopment/replacement of Portobello outwith the Local Government finance settlement.

Education is a devolved matter and the UK government will take the view that responsibility for the Portobello rests with the Scottish Executive who in turn devolve this responsibility to Scottish Local Authorities.

The Council’s Capital Programme is already heavily reliant on capital receipts, 9% of the capital programme (excluding Housing) over the next three years is funded from the disposal of surplus assets. It should be noted that the potential for disposing of further assets is diminishing over time and the potential for a significant council windfall from the sale of assets is very small.

The Council is facing huge budgetary problems in the light of equal pay claims from employees following the single status agreement and court settlements in England. It is likely the reserves will form part of the funding strategy for this issue and as such it is highly unlikely any of the Council’s reserves will be available for capital investment in Portobello or other assets.

I also enquired (not with Maureen) about one-off appeals for funding to the Scottish Executive for capital projects like the rebuilding of PHS. I asked someone who has access to this type of information to compile a list of previously successful requests. Here is a list of the successful requests as at the time of asking:



I realise that a nameless source is virtually worthless but I would be happy to be proved wrong if anyone can give some examples that contradict the information I was given.

[bbbrown]

not only depressing but completely crap.....

doesn't seem at all right that the executive can just off load responsibility like that....education, education, education...indeed..

[seanie]

may be a naive question, but none the less a genuine one.
is there really no money from govt for building schools? if not..why not?

The last big building wave for schools was in the 60's and most of them were built on the cheap to pretty poor standards. We've reached the point where most of them need replaced. But the sums involved are huge.

A decent 2 stream primary school & nursery can cost upwards of £6 million. A large secondary school over £30 million. And that's just construction costs. Total project costs will be even higher.

Now multiply that against all the ageing schools we have.

The government could've funded that through taxation or borrowing, but both would've had immediate political and economic consequences.

Which is why they went for PPP. Politically it's very attractive. Because it gives the illusion of something for nothing. An accountancy scam. Nice new shiny hospitals and schools get built left right and centre, which the electorate like, with no corresponding increase in taxation, which the electorate also like.

The costs are deferred over the 30 years or so the contracts last for.

One downside is that the costs, although spread out, are hugely inflated. You end up paying well over the odds in the long-term. But then again at least you get things built.

The biggest single problem with PPP is the quality of what gets built. There are exceptions, when the requirements and contract particulars have been really nailed down, but by and large what's been built under PPP is absolute crap. Even if they look shiny now they'll be falling apart in 15 years time, let alone 30.

Now that wasn't meant to happen in theory but it's sure as hell what happened in practice, though you be hard-pressed to find many people willing to publically admit it. Which is why, across the country, people are now trying to avoid PPP if they can. Experience suggests its very poor value for money. Even the PPP consortia are having second thoughts and picking their projects more selectively.

And if central government isn't willing to fund things, and PPP money is drying up, LA's are in a really difficult position. They don't have anywhere near the sort of revenue streams to generate sufficient capital. They have to realise assets.

[Maria]

Due to an element of personal attack in their content, several posts (and therefore others which made reference to them) have been deleted from this thread. While it is appreciated that this is a topic where emotions may run deep, the moderators wish to remind posters that they must at all times respect other members, remain on topic and conduct the debate in a fair manner.

[bellybabe]

...and that attempting to circumvent the profanity filter is not permitted.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Using the skills of my trusty assistant and by a process of deduction from the various bit of information and dis-information that are floating around. We have produced a completely UNOFFICIAL mock up of what Portobello Park may look like.

Housing will run along the southern perimeter. The road that currently exists moves north to accommodate.

What do you think?

[Dadaist]

Impressive.

Thanks for that and belated thanks to wangi for his maps too.

[Epykat]

You've missed out St. John's and Powerleague

[Stephen McIntyre]

St Johns is included in the PHS area and I believe its already been made clear here and elsweher that Powerleague are not part of any plan. They will not feature.

I'm fairly sure, based on instinct, that housing is going along by the railway track and that the "redundant" woodland surrounding the clubhut is being developed as part of the 30% housing.

[bbbrown]

its quite a nice picture, well done...
by the way, is nobody else bothered, about how heavily this topic has been edited. i recall some quite good points that were here last night that have been deleted, apparently to make the thread more read able.
free speach and all that...