New Portobello High School - PPAG/"Save Porty Park"

[seanie]

The park's not without it's good qualities. But the overall quality and amenity value of the park were relevant factors for consideration in the Planning process, hence the inclusion of a quality assessment and usage survey in the application. That concluded there was very little casual use of the park outside dog walking, and very little use by younger children. In any event the mature woodland is being retained, and additional planting to compensate for the loss of millenium planting going in, so it's not as if that amenity is disappearing. Also the all-weather pitches are to be open access, so kids will have a better surface to play sports on.

Why would supervision be required?

[Franck]

The park's not without it's good qualities. But the overall quality and amenity value of the park were relevant factors for consideration in the Planning process, hence the inclusion of a quality assessment and usage survey in the application. That concluded there was very little casual use of the park outside dog walking, and very little use by younger children. In any event the mature woodland is being retained, and additional planting to compensate for the loss of millenium planting going in, so it's not as if that amenity is disappearing. Also the all-weather pitches are to be open access, so kids will have a better surface to play sports on.

Why would supervision be required?

Lets be realistic about the pitches.The school will book the pitches to clubs, it won't be a free for all, much like the new pitches at Leith Academy and Holyrood.They may be free, but you'll have to book them...it won't be a case of just turning up, will it?

And as for supervision, not everyone is fortunate enough to live close enough to allow their kids to go to the park on their own.I'm lucky that my 7 year old can walk in 60 seconds to rosefield, if that park was taken away he wouldn't be able to...that's what's happening to the residents of the christians and magdalene.

[seanie]

That's not the intention. The intention is to have them freely accessible. The school will have first call on them, and they'll be bookable as well, but outside of that you can just wander on and play.

And if you can go unsupervised to a grass pitch, you can go unsupervised to a synthetic pitch in the same location.

[Franck]

And with all that said, I'm of the opinion that the school is being put in the right place, I just don't like the way either side is conducting themselves and the smugness when either side wins will be nauseating.

[seanie]

The problem of access to pitches at other schools has frequently been down to PFI arrangements. That doesn't apply in this instance and this type of access is used successfully elsewhere.

[Epykat]

Will the pitches be free? Can't see the Council missing out on that potential revenue for long. I know for a fact that schools have to give a percentage of their 'takings' from renting out halls, pools etc back to the Council. That percentage was increased substantially this year and therefore the cost of the bookings has to go up too. If they do start off free, it won't last.

[Franck]

That's not the intention. The intention is to have them freely accessible. The school will have first call on them, and they'll be bookable as well, but outside of that you can just wander on and play.

And if you can go unsupervised to a grass pitch, you can go unsupervised to a synthetic pitch in the same location.

As an experiment, try and book a pitch at either of the schools I've mentioned, you'll find it very difficult.That's the issue and local kids will be left out, it's a racing cert.

[seanie]

Well unless something's changed recently Primary schools go no money at all from lets; it was all centrally collected.

However the intention, reflected in the design, is open access.

[Porty]

I guess I may have be one of the people Franck is talking about derogating the park.

I had some good times in the park over the first 20 or so years of my life, that's true. However, PPAG continually misrepresent the usage, beauty, value and legacy of the Park ,one does get a bit fed up with it and retaliates.

As for smugness; I won't feel smug or triumphal. I see a fit for purpose PHS in the park as a basic right for our community. When we do win; justice will be my major emotion.

[Makaveli]

Franck I think you are missing my point.

What I am trying to say is that some people that are trying to save the park have offered up the Figgy as an alternative place to build the new school - anyone who tries to comapre the two parks needs a reality check.

[Bob Jefferson]

And as for supervision, not everyone is fortunate enough to live close enough to allow their kids to go to the park on their own.I'm lucky that my 7 year old can walk in 60 seconds to rosefield, if that park was taken away he wouldn't be able to...that's what's happening to the residents of the christians and magdalene.

Franck, it may be on their doorstep but it's clear that local children are not particularly interested in it. The usage survey demonstrated that along with numerous observations from people who walk, run or drive past the park on a regular basis. Kids just don't play there and the people of Portobello, with a number of other parks to choose from, vote with their feet and go elsewhere. The people who do use the park, primarily the local dog-walkers and the odd jogger, will still be catered for and £350,000 is being spent to upgrade the path network. As for those who wish to play football, the new pitches will be of much greater value to the community.

[Franck]

Franck I think you are missing my point.

What I am trying to say is that some people that are trying to save the park have offered up the Figgy as an alternative place to build the new school - anyone who tries to comapre the two parks needs a reality check.

No doubt The Figgie is a nicer park, some of the things they have introduced over the last few years have been terrific.I do recall however, that the figgie was a bit of a dump before that too, it's amazing what spending money on something does for it.Putting a school there is a dumb idea,though.

[Franck]

And as for supervision, not everyone is fortunate enough to live close enough to allow their kids to go to the park on their own.I'm lucky that my 7 year old can walk in 60 seconds to rosefield, if that park was taken away he wouldn't be able to...that's what's happening to the residents of the christians and magdalene.

Franck, it may be on their doorstep but it's clear that local children are not particularly interested in it. The usage survey demonstrated that along with numerous observations from people who walk, run or drive past the park on a regular basis. Kids just don't play there and the people of Portobello, with a number of other parks to choose from, vote with their feet and go elsewhere. The people who do use the park, primarily the local dog-walkers and the odd jogger, will still be catered for and £350,000 is being spent to upgrade the path network. As for those who wish to play football, the new pitches will be of much greater value to the community.

I'm pretty sure I covered this a wee bit further up, but I'll say it again.The new pitches will have greater value to the the community as a whole, but not to the local kids who do play football there (they do exist, I've been one and I've seen kids play there recently) There does seem to be a campaign going to suggest that only dog walkers use the park.That's simply not the case, and while Rosefield and Brighton might be nicer and more utilised, kids do play football,fly kites,loaf about the park.I think the pro school lobby would get more backing if this was admitted but seen as an acceptable trade off.

And as an aside, why was the quarry park not more heavily pushed?It's probably about the same size on the same road, the facilities of The Leith Nautical College could have been used too?Because lets face it, thats a crappy football pitch where people let their dog jobbie.

[wangi]

And as an aside, why was the quarry park not more heavily pushed?

It's far smaller, less than half the size.

[seanie]

Interesting use of the word 'probably'.

[Franck]

And as an aside, why was the quarry park not more heavily pushed?

It's far smaller, less than half the size.

No chance.My bag of a fag packet calculations (based on google earth) shows the entire porty park at 25,000m2 and the quarry park being 21,000m2.

Anyway, I'm being a pedant.

[Franck]

Interesting use of the word 'probably'.

I was only basing it on my experience of playing in both parks.Since then I've had a wee look and it is smaller, but nothing like less than half the size.Agree?

[seanie]

No.

[Franck]

No.

So what sizes do you think they are?

[seanie]

Joppa Quarry's about 2.5 Ha and the site at Portobello Park around 5.6 Ha.

[Franck]

Joppa Quarry's about 2.5 Ha and the site at Portobello Park around 5.6 Ha.

Sorry, but that just doesn't add up for me.Take a look at googlemaps, even to the eye without trying to calculate it (because I don't know how!) that sounds off.And I'm basing my opinion on the grass area of both parks, not the surrounding areas, as this would be the space used to build a school

[seanie]

The Council's conducted an Open Space Audit of all open spaces across the city, categorised by type and size. Joppa Quarry is listed as 2.42 Ha for the main park and 0.5 Ha for the play area. There will be a margin of error but about 2.5 Ha seems reasonable. The site of the school has always been described, in various documents, as either 5.6 or 5.7 Ha, depending on where you drew the boundary with the golf course.

[Franck]

The Council's conducted an Open Space Audit of all open spaces across the city, categorised by type and size. Joppa Quarry is listed as 2.42 Ha for the main park and 0.5 Ha for the play area. There will be a margin of error but about 2.5 Ha seems reasonable. The site of the school has always been described, in various documents, as either 5.6 or 5.7 Ha, depending on where you drew the boundary with the golf course.

Well I'm not a cooncil basher, but my eye in the sky courtesy of google tells me that they are wrong, and leads to me to wonder why.There is no way that the quarry is less than half the size of porty park.

Praise the lord for Holyrood and an onsite build

[seanie]

Well if you want to come back with actual evidence then fine. But please spare me your "that doesn't seem right to me" bluster.

[Franck]

Well if you want to come back with actual evidence then fine. But please spare me your "that doesn't seem right to me" bluster.

Nice attitude, one that seems to be pervasive within your camp.I wish I could, but the capacity to measure both parks is beyond my abilities.Anyone can see by simply looking at google maps that the figures you are providing are inaccurate.

You'll get your new school where you want it and most people including me will be happy with that.

[wangi]

Franck, what you want to use to convince yourself of the relative sizes is the Google Planimeter.

Rough plotting around the areas gives me 5.6 Ha for Porty Park; 2.3 Ha for Joppa Quary.

L/

[Franck]

Franck, what you want to use to convince yourself of the relative sizes is the Google Planimeter.

Rough plotting around the areas gives me 5.6 Ha for Porty Park; 2.3 Ha for Joppa Quary.

L/

That's a really good tool, thanks wangi.Using only the grass areas ( which I think are the relevant bits) I get the quarry at 2.13 and porty park at 3.67.So bigger, but not twice the size.

[seanie]

I've followed this issue for a long time, I've read all the reports and documentation, attended meetings, researched various aspects of it and generally spent quite a bit of time on it. Clearly not everyone has the time or inclination to do that, and that's not an issue; we're all pretty ignorant about most subjects.

So when someone comes along and says that Joppa Quarry is "probably about the same size" as the park site it's a little annoying. Because, and this is quirk of mine, I then feel compelled to set the facts straight. But that's no big deal.

But then, having pointed out what the figures are and where they come from, it's even more annoying to have them dismissed out of hand on the basis of "that doesn't look right to me" or that it's some kind of Council conspiracy. The first is annoying because I can look at Google too and so can see for myself that Joppa Quarry is about half the size. The second is annoying because it's very unlikely.

The planning department are unlikely to have manipulated the Open Space Audit simply to show you up on a community forum.

[seanie]

The relevant bit of Portobello Park is the bit they're actually using, which extends into the area if millennium planting.

So try again.

[wangi]

The relevant bit of Portobello Park ... extends into the area if millennium planting

See LOCATION PLAN and LANDSCAPE MASTERPLAN.

[Franck]

I've followed this issue for a long time, I've read all the reports and documentation, attended meetings, researched various aspects of it and generally spent quite a bit of time on it. Clearly not everyone has the time or inclination to do that, and that's not an issue; we're all pretty ignorant about most subjects.

So when someone comes along and says that Joppa Quarry is "probably about the same size" as the park site it's a little annoying. Because, and this is quirk of mine, I then feel compelled to set the facts straight. But that's no big deal.

But then, having pointed out what the figures are and where they come from, it's even more annoying to have them dismissed out of hand on the basis of "that doesn't look right to me" or that it's some kind of Council conspiracy. The first is annoying because I can look at Google too and so can see for myself that Joppa Quarry is about half the size. The second is annoying because it's very unlikely.

The planning department are unlikely to have manipulated the Open Space Audit simply to show you up on a community forum.

See, that's a much better response.I suppose it depends on what you regard as porty park too.The school will go on the area currently occupied by the football pitches, I'm under the impression that the wooded area between the park and the golf course will be kept, both to allow dog walkers & runners to continue to do so, and to protect the school from errant golf shots.It looks like my idea of constitutes the park and the councils idea differ.

[seanie]

You're using 'I'm under the impression' in the same way you used 'probably'.

In the 'I don't know if this is actually true because I haven't checked but I'm going to say it anyway' sense.

[Franck]

The relevant bit of Portobello Park is the bit they're actually using, which extends into the area if millennium planting.

So try again.

Try again to do what?I've said many times I'm happy where the school goes, even though my kids won't be going there and I've spent my entire life living in Portobello and using that park,even to the extent that if the council had decided to build on the golf course as well I'd have gone along with it if it meant replacing the crumbling school I went to.

All I'm doing is pointing out the questionable attitude of some of the more vocal people on both sides of the argument and asking whether the figures provided (regarding sizes of parks) are correct.It looks like my interpretation of what constitutes the park is wrong and I'm happy to accept that.I'm less happy to accept the way you debate your pov, but I'm sure that's something we'll both get over.

[Franck]

You're using 'I'm under the impression' in the same way you used 'probably'.

In the 'I don't know if this is actually true because I haven't checked but I'm going to say it anyway' sense.

I'm only going on what you and yours have beaten the drum about...that the dog walkers and joggers will still be able to walk/run thru the wooded area between the school and the golfie.So any impression I'm under has probably been sown here.

[seanie]

Your ignorance is your own responsibility, nobody elses.

There is no path between the school and the golfie, and whilst there will be a wooded strip it will be reduced. About 50% of the millenium planting goes to accommodate the school. Also it's a pretty weird definition of 'park' that excludes any area with trees on.

To go back to your earlier point, put it this way; Joppa Quarry Park is smaller than the existing school site. The existing school site that's far to small to meet curricula requirements.

Now can you see why Joppa Quarry wasn't pursued as a site?