New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Dadaist]

There certainly isn't a unit of which I have heard which measures internet forum discussion advancement, either over time or over total number of posts per thread.

And I am unaware of a unit that measures the enjoyment derived from golf courses.

That doesn't mean people don't enjoy them.

people enjoy golf?

[Jackson Priest]

As to a skateboard park in Brighton Park I’m amenable to the idea, although I think to use the whole area would be a bit excessive. I’m not sure we have 36,000 skateboarders in the immediate vicinity.

Build it and they will come.

[Pal of Porty]

Build it and they will come.

Is that you off on another Kevin Costner trip?

[Jackson Priest]

Build it and they will come.

Is that you off on another Kevin Costner trip?

er... yes. Sorry - I couldn't help it.

[seanie]

seanie...

from a reliable council source

A new and larger golf course would be created on land in the Brunstane area, along with some housing.

does this mean that that land is able to be developed after all?

Well I'm not sure of the exact area proposed but my understanding, as I think I originally said, is that most of the site is greenbelt. If so then most of the site can't be developed with housing.

Here's the South East Local Plan. It's not the easiest map to read but it certainly appears that the general area we're talking about is indeed greenbelt. Without knowing the boundaries proposed it's impossible to say where the housing is intended.

[kathlake]

What is the official difference between GREEN SPACE and GREENBELT, that we can build on one but not the other.

[seanie]

Greenbelt policies date back to the post-war period. Greenbelt seeks to establish a ring around developed areas to prevent incremental expansion from joining up everything into a homogeneous low-rise developed continueum. A green belt around non-green areas.

Green space has measures to protect it too but greenbelt, whilst it can be re-designated, is a different kettle of fish. It's a far more difficult proposition in terms of development.

[seanie]

I’m all for seeking a mutually satisfactory solution. But if you’re looking for one that satisfies everyone, in every respect, you may as well not start looking in the first place. Inspired ideas to locate schools, pupils or housing somewhere that’s not been thought of before are unlikely to suddenly make everyone happy. They’ll just displace the unhappiness to somewhere new that’s not been thought of before. By all means consider them but, at the end of the day, we’ll still be faced with a difficult choice trying to weigh up benefits against costs.

Unless of course someone has a magic lamp handy.

Now I’m still very unsure about exactly what’s proposed but, given what’s already been discussed, I think it sounds reasonable. In terms of developing on the park and gof-course I’d say the following, echoing other comments;

If the total site is 20Ha/49 acres let’s say the housing takes up 35% of that - 7Ha / 17 acres.

Give the schools 25%, 5Ha/12 acres, and you could probably squeeze them in with a reasonable bit of garden/green area all their own.

That’d still leave 40%, 8 Ha/20 acres, of recreational space to be divvied up in some way, be it for school, shared or community sports or for natural parkland. That’s not an insignificant area.

Say you split it 50/50 with half for sports in some form, you’d still end up with 4Ha, or 8 football pitches, of land that could be given over to natural habitat. You could do quite a lot with that. You could develop something of considerable bio-diversity and ecological value. You could have a local nature reserve. Something more interesting than grass with the occasional hole in it.

Now a lot would depend on the detail and quality of the proposals. But a proposition along those lines would strike me as not a bad deal; new schools, improved sports facilities shared with the community, a smaller but more ecological diverse bit of parkland, along with a replacement golf-course round the corner, on newly accessible green space twice the size of the existing.

Admittedly that comes at the price of housing development, but if that is unacceptable the prospect of new schools any time soon appear slim, regardless of where the schools are redeveloped. And if housing development is acceptable somewhere, how is one area prioritised over another?

As an ideal proposal it might be terribly dissapointing. But as a realistic proposal it strikes me as pretty good.

[seanie]

people enjoy golf?

Perhaps destroying the golf-course would be a mercy killing.

[Pal of Porty]

.....Now a lot would depend on the detail and quality of the proposals. But a proposition along those lines would strike me as not a bad deal; new schools, improved sports facilities shared with the community, a smaller but more ecological diverse bit of parkland, along with a replacement golf-course round the corner, on newly accessible green space twice the size of the existing.

Just about sums up where I am on this issue, assuming proper standards are met in all aspects of the developments and new golf course.

[seanie]

By the way, your calculation of a minimum of 4.79ha for the two new schools equates to 12 acres. The acreage of the the two schools at the moment is only 8.

Stephen, are you sure about 8 acres? I've never walked the site but I honestly thought it'd be smaller. I'd guessed 6-7 acres tops.

[wangi]

Stephen, are you sure about 8 acres? I've never walked the site but I honestly thought it'd be smaller. I'd guessed 6-7 acres tops.

That's my rough estimate - based on drawing a path around a low-resolution sat image of the site in Google Earth and working out the area using a third party plugin.

It's a rough estimate.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Wangi, you beat me to it, thanks. I spoke to a reliable source from EDI on Thursday who confirmed that overall acreage of Portobello Park is 52 acres. However, she was unsure if that includes the woodland where the clubhut is.

[Stephen McIntyre]

What is the official difference between GREEN SPACE and GREENBELT, that we can build on one but not the other.

Greenbelt policies date back to the post-war period. Greenbelt seeks to establish a ring around developed areas to prevent incremental expansion from joining up everything into a homogeneous low-rise developed continueum. A green belt around non-green areas.

Green space has measures to protect it too but greenbelt, whilst it can be re-designated, is a different kettle of fish. It's a far more difficult proposition in terms of development.

It is a good question and a good answer.

Three further questions occur to me, perhaps you can assist Seanie?

1) If COEC do build a new golf course on Greenbelt land, does this have the effect of altering the designation of that land to something other than greenbelt, with more relaxed planning requirements for potential future development?

2) Is Portobello Park officially designated as a green space with a degree of planning protection or is it just simply a space that happens to be green?

3) Are there different designations/rules for separate areas of Portobello Park, for example: is the Golf Course more protected than the public park or is it all the same?

[Bob Jefferson]

Dear Mr Fraser,

At Bob Jefferson's request I have circulated Portobello Community Council with your letter of 31st January asking for support for the urgent action needed to save Portobello High School.

It isn't precisely clear from your letter what action it is that you want supported. The Community Council has always been very supportive of the High School, and remains so. A year or two ago we gave the School a donation which was more than double our previous highest award, and we have tried for years -- sadly usually in vain -- to get High School representatives to our meetings. We are certainly united in wanting the best possible education for our community's young people.

You do not explicitly state that you want the Golf Course for the new school, but if that is indeed the action for which you want support, then difficulties arise! The picture that's being painted at the moment is that the City Council built a shoddy school in the 60s, then failed to invest in its maintenance to the point where the building is now apparently unmaintainable. Finally the Council's solution seems to be to penalise the community it is supposed to be serving, by destroying Portobello's largest and most precious green space, and removing a local sporting facility at the same time as other people are rightly saying we all need to get more exercise.

And if the need for a new school is truly urgent, then the Council will seem to have left the matter to so late a last-minute that we are over a barrel and have to do what it dictates, without due consideration of the joined-up educational needs of the whole area. This reckless irresponsibility by the Council should not be rewarded by us meekly giving away an irreplaceable asset! Once lost, forever gone.

A new High School should not be rushed up in knee-jerk fashion, but should be considered carefully in the context of our community. I hope a new building would last for at least forty years before our descendants have to try and find a way to finance its replacement (and if we aren't going to let them sell the Golf Course to do so, then we should not take that easy and selfish way out ourselves!). What is built now will have to be right for those forty years, and it is far from clear that a single megalithic school on one site would be the correct solution. Because it has for so long been the biggest school in Edinburgh, and presumably because of the Council's lack of investment in it, the per-capita investment in Portobello pupils has been the lowest in the city. Our young people deserve a bit better for a change! In the course of the next few years -- let alone the next forty -- there could be a major increase in the population between Portobello and Leith, which would make a high school on the PowerLeague or Scottish Power sites very viable. That in turn would make plenty of space available at the present High School site for a more modest and fitting High School for that area -- without even looking at the bizarre 19th century idea of having a high school based on religious discrimination just a little further up the road.

The Community Council will be considering this issue this evening, and doubtless over many weeks and months to come. I can't speak for it, but I can certainly say for myself that I fully support you in your quest to get a new school, but not at the expense of other community assets. If you want the Golf Course, I cannot support you that far. The best I can do is say that I would stop opposing this if you managed to secure the resignations of all the people who brought us to this pretty pass -- the politicians for the most part -- but since I can almost hear Gordon Brown saying "it would be prudent to sell off the Golf Course" then I think there will be difficulties there.

I just speak for myself, though. Do please keep the Community Council in touch with developments (and if you do so via me, I promise to pass them faithfully on!). I'm sure if you and/or the Head Teacher would like to come to one of our future meetings, you would be very welcome.

With all best wishes,

Yours,

Nick Stroud.

[Bob Jefferson]

Dear Mr Stroud,

Thank you for writing to me about the school in the light of the proposals now before us in outline. They seek to replace the school, the neighbouring primary school, move the golf course, reform the park, and build housing on portions of the three main sites involved. As a School Board, we value your support for the school.

I am not quite sure, though, whether you are writing to me as an exercise in literary criticism, as an elementary school history lesson or with polemic on the subject of bumbling bureaucrats. As a temporary bumbling bureaucrat myself, someone who has taken an interest in history only if it suits, and who has capped their independent school education with a 'B' in English, I am not in strong position.

As a Board, and also as community members and council tax payers ourselves, we have been carefully considering a new High School in the context of our community for years now. We are where we are with the school. I can confirm the need for a new school is truly urgent. Almost everyone appears to agree that 'young people deserve a bit better' where the school is concerned. The question we have been posing to the Council is "How ?".

We now have an outline plan before us, which will be followed by a more detailed plan. We are in discussion with many interested people, as is the Community Council, over the facts as they stand at the moment. If people don't like the plan, then they will wish to propose something different, and better, that meets the needs and aspirations of many interests in the vicinity. It is the Community Council's job, I think, to help that discussion, and the School Board's job to inform it but our job does not end there. We act as a representative group for the school community - pupils, parents, staff and future pupils and parents. We also want the future school to be a real asset, integrated with the community as a whole - and to try to take as many people as possible along with us in the process of creating that resource.

As a community, we have an opportunity here and, potentially, an unprecendented amount of influence over the future physical shape of the district. The real threat is that, if we do not understand and agree the urgency and importance of finding a replacement High School building for the children of this area there may, one morning, be no school for them to go to. You will then be looking around for people to blame.

Children in the area have a right to an education, the community have a responsibiltiy to put that at the top of the list of things we should secure to sustain the community, the City of Edinburgh Council has a statutory responsibility to provide schooling in the city, and the Scottish Parliament has deemed that the quality of that state education should be excellent. How do we achieve that ?

In my four years on the School Board, and two years as its chair, my first contact with the Community Council has been through Bob Jefferson last autumn. In future, I hope that we can keep in close touch on the matter of the plan as it develops.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Fraser
On behalf of the School Board

[Bob Jefferson]

Nick

Thanks for copying me in to this.

The City Council has NOT neglected Portobello High School and neither did its predecessors Lothian Region Council. The issue is now of its requiring even more major investment in the building's basic services - electricty, drainage, central heating to name but three. All buildings come to the stage when major systems need replaced and Portobello High is no different.

The question now being raised is whether or not this 1960s building is fit for modern educational purposes and how do we raise the money to do that needs to be done to make all our local schools fit for purpose.

I am sure the people who made this decision - now dead or well into retirement - thought they were doing their very best at the time. As did those who covered the arable land of Duddingston with low density housing, private gardens and big wide roads.

These are not easy matters for anybody to contemplate.

The Portobello High School roll is not projected to drop, unless there is even more leakage to the private sector than there is already. And St John's Primary is full to the gunnels.

You also exaggerate the potential land take on the golf course - for both housing and schools.

As we talk through these issues, more possiblities may emerge - who knows? It makes sense for us to keep talking and focussing on what we DO want.

Maureen

[seanie]

1) If COEC do build a new golf course on Greenbelt land, does this have the effect of altering the designation of that land to something other than greenbelt, with more relaxed planning requirements for potential future development?

2) Is Portobello Park officially designated as a green space with a degree of planning protection or is it just simply a space that happens to be green?

3) Are there different designations/rules for separate areas of Portobello Park, for example: is the Golf Course more protected than the public park or is it all the same?

1) The intricacies of planning regulations isn't a strong point of mine. But I'm pretty sure a golf-course wouldn't present much of a problem on greenbelt land. And the land would still be greenbelt. It wouldn't suddenly become easier to develop with housing later on. But you can't guarantee the future anyway. Given climate change, in 60 years, PGC might be a links course. And peoples' priorities on what should and shouldn't be greebelt may have changed.

2) I'm not sure if the park will have a specific protection per se. I'd suspect it's a space that happens to be green and as such comes under blanket protections for green space in general. I'd think that's one reason why a replacement golf-course would be necessary, as well as politic. Without a replacement the planners would take a dim view of such loss of amenity and greenspace. But if a new and larger golf-course/greespace was to made accessible as part of the deal then, at least in planning terms, there'd probably be little objection.

3) At the moment Id' think it'd be all the same. However any proposals to develop the land would themselves alter the planning designation so the whole site would have to be re-evaluated in the light of a proposed change of use. The planners themselves might be proscriptive about what could and couldn't go where. That's likely to be a slow process too.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Thank you, Seanie.

[Brian McCrow]

Bob

Thanks for putting these letters up on the Forum.

I believe that the Portobello Community Council plus the School Board and the local Councillors should set up and drive an open debate about this important topic. It should cover more than the PHS as it would need to consider the regeneration of Craigmillar, developments in Leith and the future Waterfront developments vis-a-vis Portobello and their impact on future school rolls.

It should also ensure that we don't build another mega-school as this isn't practical in today's educational thinking.

Let's get this debate started with the formation of an Action Group.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Bob

Thanks for putting these letters up on the Forum.

I believe that the Portobello Community Council plus the School Board and the local Councillors should set up and drive an open debate about this important topic. It should cover more than the PHS as it would need to consider the regeneration of Craigmillar, developments in Leith and the future Waterfront developments vis-a-vis Portobello and their impact on future school rolls.

There is already quite detailed analysis of future school roles on the COEC education website.

It should also ensure that we don't build another mega-school as this isn't practical in today's educational thinking.

Do you have a source that led you to make this unequivocal statement?

[Stephen McIntyre]

I'm getting a bit concerned at the way this thread is going . People are entitled to their opinions and should be allowed to air them without being put down on a public forum in such a derogatory way.

Epykat, I take it you are referring to Portyman? A lot of Portyman/Gary's statements are factually incorrect and neither he nor anyone who makes wayward statements can expect to go unchallenged. For example, he claimed that the Golf Course was considerably busier than 150% of its actual daily usage.

He has put himself up as a figure in the Save our Golf Course campaign and many of the statements of "fact" he has made have been proven to be wrong. So he is either careless or deliberately misleading. When it comes to opinions, then his is entitled to have them. However,I'm not so sure he or anyone else is immune to derogation for having those opinions, as long as the derogatin is within the rules of the forum

They are entitled to set up Public Meetings to air those opinions (don't see the Council rushing to organise anything). !

I am not sure if I am factually correct, however, I understand that there is a very strict legal protocol which dictates that the Council cannot hold or organise public meetings until after the official consultation process begins. Maybe someone can confirm this or otherwise?

[seanie]

I'm not aware of any recommendations as to what constitutes the ideal size for a secondary school. I understand there's been research that indicates that medium sized schools attain better results than very small or very large schools, although not by a large margin. And as schools get larger they're generally able to offer wider curricula choices.

There are also economies of scale. Smaller schools are disproportionately costly, both in construction and use. I've read 800-900 suggested as the minimum desirable size but a lot would really depend on local context.

And whilst PHS may have the largest school role in Edinburgh, nationally speaking it's nothing exceptional. Certainly the recent wave of school building has produced numerous new secondary schools as large or larger than that.

[seanie]

Here you can find Building Bulletin 95- "Schools for the Future", that outlines many of the key drivers of current school design. It may be of interest.

[seanie]

Had a quick google and found this from Hampshire County Council, who for decades have produced some of the best, most innovative schools in the country.

They say;

...the optimum size of comprehensive school lies in the range accommodating between 900 and 1200 pupils (between 6 forms and 8 forms of entry). The County Council is also clear in its judgement that some of the very best secondary schools in Hampshire are either smaller or larger than schools in this optimum range.

It also has a table indicating pros and cons of large and small schools.

It strikes me any diffinitive assesment of ideal size will be hard to come by. PHS might be a bit larger than the ideal range but not so much so as to present particular disadvantages. As I said, nationally speaking, 1450 pupils or more is far from unusual.

[Stephen McIntyre]

There has not been much discussion of the partnership and shared facilities between St John's and PHS. Brenda Moloney mentioned at the CC meeting that the St J school board was split or at least undecided whether they were pro or anti. Are there issues?

According to the PHS school board bulletin issued on friday the majority of them are for the proposal with the exception of one member who feels that we should not allow development on green space. All are agreed that the school is on its last legs and needs replaced.

[seanie]

The only facilities that could likely be shared would be more mundane functional items ie. access, car parks, service yard, perhaps shared services (heating etc.) that could be combined economically. As far as pupils are concerned they'd have to be kept entirely seperate. There all all kinds of security and educational issues with primary and nursery schools that would really demand it.

Playing fields could certainly be shared, with PHS and the community, as long as such security issues could be accomodated.

[bellybabe]

It concerns me that so many "representative" bodies seem to be taking stances that appear to be more personal than representative. Does the community council represent the community? If so, how can they justify coming out against a proposal without asking that very community what it wants? And if St John's school board is half in favour and half against, again, who are they representing? None of these representatives have asked me, my partner, my children, my friends who are parents at the schools, my neighbours etc what we think. So where are my representatives? Who is speaking on behalf of my family?


Paula

[Epykat]

If you go to the public meeting tomorrow night you could speak on behalf of your own family.

[Dadaist]

It concerns me that so many "representative" bodies seem to be taking stances that appear to be more personal than representative. Does the community council represent the community? If so, how can they justify coming out against a proposal without asking that very community what it wants? And if St John's school board is half in favour and half against, again, who are they representing? None of these representatives have asked me, my partner, my children, my friends who are parents at the schools, my neighbours etc what we think. So where are my representatives? Who is speaking on behalf of my family?


Paula

I just had a horrible mental image of a pooch who has been piddling up the same tree in Portobello Park for decades, who turns up with owner, car and full bladder one day - only to find that it's all a building site. The air is rent with an anguished howl......

[Alison Connelly]

..

[Stephen McIntyre]

Our slightly defensive stance could be dated back to the point at which the councillors who called a meeting for all the "affected" primary school boards forgot to invite a representative from St Johns.

I heard about that gaff, not a great start. Did the meeting happen without St John's representation?

I recall when I served on the school board at St John's, Ted pulled a team together to lobby for the new temporary classrooms. There were about 20 of us, teachers, parents, board members. We compiled a report emphasising the how well the school had done, with restricted resources and had operated without making continual demands of the council. However, the situation was now one of desperate need. The strategy worked well and we got the classrooms. There was great sense of achievement. and it was pleasure to be involved. It seems like just yesterday, however Lisa was in the first class to use the rooms (if my memory serves me correctly) and she is 16 today.

[Brenda]

Stephen Mcintyre wrote:

Brenda Moloney mentioned at the CC meeting that the St J school board was split or at least undecided whether they were pro or anti. Are there issues?

Just for the record: What I actually said, and what I have reported in the current issue of the Portobello Reporter (delivery starting today) was that St John's School Board felt that they needed more info. before taking a position. I did not say they were split.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Apologies Brenda split was my term and I guess that word could have negative connotations. I did temper it "or at least undecided whether they were pro or anti" but you did not say split.

[Dave Connelly]

At the community council meeting I was sure that Maureen Child said that the land for the new golf course had already been acquired. When asked about the cost of the new land, she was unsure.

When I telephoned Julia Hope at the council today she stated that the land had not been bought at all, that there was a meeting tomorrow and that everything was in the early stages etc etc etc:?:

Does anyone have the correct information. Maureen if I misheard please let me know



____________________________________________________

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it