New Portobello High School- Where and how?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 08 Mar 2006, 11:32

With regard to the 30,000 a year v 339 a month users of the golf course, presumably the 30,000 figure means "times the golf course was used by an individual" rather than 30,000 different people - presumably people don't each only use it once a year. Figures for use of the swimming pool would take into account how many payments were made or leisure cards swiped for pool use rather than saying each of those uses was for a seperate individual.

In response to the two comments now received, one about attending meetings and having one's voice heard, and the other about "sitting at home bemoaning the fact that you have not been represented!", I would like to state that I have every intention of attending at least one meeting. However, as I am (like many people who might be in favour of the proposal) the parent of two small children, I don't have the liberty of going out any evening I want to, to e.g. attend meetings originally advertised as being for specific interest groups, of which I am not a member. I saw no reason to attend a meeting originally proposed to provide information for the users of the golf course, and later advertised under the banner "Save our golf course!". Nor did I have anyone to look after my children so that i could. I was under the impression that that's the point of having representative bodies.
Paula

Edit: took out three words, added a few more.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 11:39

Portobellosite wrote: Stephen McIntyre wrote:

The most pertinent point you make is the scottish power site is 8 acres, which is less than 1 acre bigger than the present site of st johns and phs.

Why should we move the schools there?

Portobellosite wrote: I dont want to move the schools there Stephen
Why do you not want to move the schools there?

Portobellosite wrote: I was pointing out that the Council already knew about the developement on the SP site and refrained from telling us when asked about the site as a possibility at the meeting. I was wondering why they didn't mention it. They certainly were aware of it.

The council did know about BHL but that doesn't mean Ian Perry and Ewan Aitken knew. Marya has already asked you why mentioning BHL was relevant, what are you getting at?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 11:51

Dadaist wrote:Imagine, for the sake of argument, that it was a Tesco being proposed for the golf course site and the evil developers were using the low usage, car access and junior section figures against PGC in their own corporate propaganda.

There is no comparison between the scenario you imagine and the reality. One section of our community is being asked to move oiver to benefit a much larger group. The group are naturally resistant and have quite understandably tried to justify their position, using; usage, accesibility and a their inclusion of the young people in the service they provide. Unfortunately they have made knee jerk claims have been systematically proved to be grossly inaccurate. The real issue is the fact that they made the claims in the first place. They have been hoisted by their own petards.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 Mar 2006, 12:01

I think there's a difference between responding to any inaccurate claims made by the golfers - which is quite right and proper, and criticism of the day-to-day business of the club, which wouldn't be under question were it not for this development.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 12:26

Alison Connelly wrote: How can you possibly say that the councillors were invited along under false pretences?

False pretences is a bit strong, not fully briefed is a better way of describing it.

I spoke with Ian Perry yesterday about The Evening News article. Ewan Aitken and Ian were invited to a meeting by Portobello Golf Club, to answer questions on the relocation. They had prepared a presentation. Once the date of the meeting was established there was no further contact from PGC.

Subsequently Gary Gowans leafleted residents of the area and others encouraging them to attend the meeting and detailed a number of items that would be discussed and intimated that answers would be available. I don't know if Gary acted unilaterally or as party of the golf club? I didn't see the full leaflet to see how he signed himself.

Perhaps Gary would care to enlighten us as to whether he made contact with the councillors that were to attend the meeting to inform them the agenda had been broadened?

The result was a great deal of frustration for the audience and humiliation for the presenters. The audience were duped, the councilors were duped and the golfers lost out on a presentation. Maybe this was the plan?

I know that there those among you that will not believe a word of the above, as it doesn't suit your purpose or agenda. Perhaps you have a different scenario to offer?

Alison Connelly wrote: The meeting was well advertised, including on this site. Surely councillors Aitken and Perry are aware of this forum and are following the debate. If not, I'd be interested to know why not..

I don't know whether the councillors follow this forum or not? Why not call them and ask? Lawrence is on public record as stating the discussions that go on here as no more than gossip and tittle-tattle.

Alison, it is not a question of advertising. It is a question of common courtesy. If one invites representatives to attend a meeting to inform on one particular subject and then changes that subject without consultation it is ignorant. The result is a lot of frustration and dashed expectations. Was that what happened?

Edit: took out an opinion added a question.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 Mar 2006, 12:28

This topic now has 20,000 views - and is increasing at a rate of 100 views per hour!!!

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 13:36

Dadaist wrote:I think there's a difference between responding to any inaccurate claims made by the golfers - which is quite right and proper, and criticism of the day-to-day business of the club, which wouldn't be under question were it not for this development.

I fully agree. And this comes back to my point about opportunity cost.

PGC would have carried on ad-infinitum had our community not had a need to provide the best new schools that they can for our children and analternative option.

There is a tremendous amount of goodwill towards the golfers at Portobello Golf Course. I don't believe any council proposal that depended on closing the facility down would succeed.

The usage of the space at Porobello Park has now become an issue and golfers are benefitting disproportionately. In an attempt to talk up their position they are making statements that invite scrutiny. In doing so they endanger their goodwill.

OPINION WARNING:

Councillors are human and their views and position on groups or subjects will be formed by their experience. They will probably be too professional to allow monday nights experience to influence them greatly in regards to the attitude towards Portobello's golfers.. However in my opinion they must be at least wary about any future meetings that they are invited to attend with Portobello Gol f Club. I can't see how the experience can have improved the goodwill position of the club.

Edit: added last paragraph

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 Mar 2006, 14:10

Steven MacIntyre wrote:golfers are benefitting disproportionately

This is the kind of opinion that I would be very guarded about publishing, as this is an emotionally charged debate and, even if it is inadvertent, it paints people who have done nothing wrong in a negative light.

If this opinion appeared on a council leaflet it would risk creating shockwaves, as people would (rightly) start wondering which other communal resources the council was putting under this form of scrutiny.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 14:21

Dadaist wrote:
Steven MacIntyre wrote:golfers are benefitting disproportionately
This is the kind of opinion that I would be very guarded about publishing, as this is an emotionally charged debate and, even if it is inadvertent, it paints people who have done nothing wrong in a negative light.

Allow me to clarify. The golfers have done nothing wrong, 80 of them benefit from the space on a daily basis. The children, teachers and other support staff at the two schools have done nothing wrong , 2000 of them wil benefit from the space on 190 days of the year. Its nothing to do with a negative light or an opinion. It is disproportionate benefit.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 08 Mar 2006, 14:21

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 14:36

Alison, Its the way that the quoting thing works. If there is no mention of Mate of Marya it doesn't know. You posted the words so you came up as the quote. I did not intervene.

I had something to say on the accusation of false pretences, I felt that it was too strong. This is not personal so it doesn't really matter who made/makes the statement.

Do you have anything to add on my comments on what you did say or on the sequence of events leading up to the meeting?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 08 Mar 2006, 14:39

Dadaist wrote:Imagine, for the sake of argument, that it was a Tesco being proposed for the golf course site and the evil developers were using the low usage, car access and junior section figures against PGC in their own corporate propaganda. They would be facing a chorus of rebuttals from everyone who opposed them about how this was a precious communal resource, open to all, and should be defended where it stands and not moved.

That is an excellent statement and one which I am sure would prove correct were it to be the case, but the fact remains we are not talking about Tescos.
I am one of those who have made comments about the golfing membership/usage etc and I feel these are valid points to make in the context of the overall discussions, particularly in response to comments made by the golfers themselves. I represent no-one other than myself.

There are many 'ifs' that the Council will have to meet if they would like me to 'vote' yes to schools being built on the golf course and a new course in close proximity is most definitely one of them. I do however reserve my right to question the golfers and their statements. Fore!

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 08 Mar 2006, 14:47

Mate of Marya is going to say "The councillors were invited along under false pretences."
This meeting was originally advertised by the members of Portobello Golf Club to discuss what the proposal would mean for them - the golfers! Maybe , the public were keen to air their views but the councillors had to abandon their presentation to deal with a question and answer session they were not prepared for. Is this fair?
The poor golfers still don't know about the proposed new golf course as their meeting was hijacked!
Everyone is entitled to their say but that time was for the golfers.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 08 Mar 2006, 15:15

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 Mar 2006, 15:18

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Steven MacIntyre wrote:golfers are benefitting disproportionately
This is the kind of opinion that I would be very guarded about publishing, as this is an emotionally charged debate and, even if it is inadvertent, it paints people who have done nothing wrong in a negative light.
Allow me to clarify. The golfers have done nothing wrong, 80 of them benefit from the space on a daily basis. The children, teachers and other support staff at the two schools have done nothing wrong , 2000 of them wil benefit from the space on 190 days of the year. Its nothing to do with a negative light or an opinion. It is disproportionate benefit.

Something which is disproportionate is something which is skewed, wrong and out of balance - and the implication is that it needs fixing. That's fine. If your comments regarded the land only or were aimed at the council, I would have no problem as land is indeed a resource or asset to be measured in such a way. However, if you start from scratch (pun intended) and say that it is golfers who are benefitting disproportionately you not only personalise something which was previously only about acres and hectares, but you also make the focus the users of the facility and not its providers. You make it look like it is the act of turning up to golf which is the cause of the disproportionality (is that even a word?) whereas the real problems start and end with decisions made by the council - who I'm sure are quite happy for you to make these emotive comparisons between a golfer and a schoolkid because it suits their agenda.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 15:24

Well maybe that's how it look to you but its not my intention.

Charles · Post by **Charles** » 08 Mar 2006, 15:28

Regarding the option mentioned in the newsletter March 2006 of building on the existing site but which which was discounted because the pupils would have to be decanted and "there is no temporary accommodation on this side of the city suitable for such a large number of pupils over a period of possibly two years."
Solution?
Holy Rood High is having a new building which is scheduled for completion in 2008. At that time the pupils from PHS could move in to the existing Holy Rood which is large enough and has all the necessary accommodation already in place for a secondary school of that size.The question of possible congestion in that area could be overcome by having different starting and finishing times for the two schools as well as different lunch breaks. It might also prove very useful for the two schools to get to know each other, share the same playing fields and links could be formed which would benefit the community in general.
PHS could then be rebuilt and ready for occupation in 2010 as is currently proposed. Perhaps the playing fields at the golf course could be upgraded for PHS and perhaps a couple of football pitches could be created in the Figgate Park for use by PHS and ST. Joh's Primary. A little imagination could solve a lot of the current difficulties
Meantime the period between now and 2008 could be used to plan and prepare for the new building so that no time is wasted.
I feel that the options for the new school other than that of developing the golf cours site are not favoured because the only way of generating finance is to sacrifice the golf course amenity. Let us not forget that the children are also members of the wider community and it is their heritage that we are sacrificing and their future assets which are being sold.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 15:30

Alison Connelly wrote:Sorry to be pedantic, but MoM said in her post on Tuesday 7th at 9.24pm :

Mate of Marya wrote: "Yes" but not in my backyard.
We would know what the majority of the community wants if people organising public meetings stuck with the advertised Agenda. Golf is a minority interest thus the poor attendance from the general Portobello Community. I feel the councillors were invited along last night under false pretences and were publically humiliated.
I don't think it will balance out in the end. 1800 pupils and their families could benefit from a new PHS, compared to the 120 Golf Club members and the neighbouring residents.
I, likewise have used the "quote" button, have not "interfered" with it, and it comes up attributed to MoM. Foolproof!!

Yes, that exactly what I did with your post. I don't know what route you are pursuing here? I am quite happy to accept that you did not make the claim about false pretences. I was quoting your postwhich is not the same as identifying you as the origin of the statement.

So do you have anything to add to my comments on what you did say and the events leading up to the meeting?

Edit: clarification.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 15:48

Charles wrote:Regarding the option mentioned in the newsletter March 2006 of building on the existing site but which which was discounted because the pupils would have to be decanted and "there is no temporary accommodation on this side of the city suitable for such a large number of pupils over a period of possibly two years."
Solution?
Holy Rood High is having a new building which is scheduled for completion in 2008. At that time the pupils from PHS could move in to the existing Holy Rood which is large enough and has all the necessary accommodation already in place for a secondary school of that size.

Charles, this has already been covered earlier in the thread. Holyrood is being demolished in stages, the idea that the school will be lying empty is a myth. And in any case, you can't call anything a "solution" until you can pay for it. Work begins at Holyrood in a few months time, where are we going to get Â£30m, design a new school and build a new school in a couple of years?

Noone is saying that the school cannot be rebuilt on the existing site. However, it has been pointed out here by people with expertise who quote an independent source, that there are mimimum recommended space standards for secondary and primary pupils. The existing site is only 66% of the minimum and that is without playing fields.. I know you to be a fair and reasonable person, will you take the time to answer the following?

Why should we cram the children, teachers and staff into a facility that is just 66% of the miminum standard when we have the opportunity, finance and space to build the best educational facilities for the schools in the community?

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 08 Mar 2006, 16:10

What a great thread, good to see such an important topic getting the airing it requires on a public forum (although sometimes it appears emotions are getting the better of some)

My home overlooks Portobello Golf Course, I've played there since I was a nipper and still do.May thru to October on average I play there twice a week, in the winter months less, and I enjoy an Xmas day outing there with my brother-in-law whilst our wifes and children attend church.Anyway, its great community resource, basic, but enjoyable (excluding my arch-nemesis the 9th).Someone has claimed that golfers have been disproportionately benefiting from the current PGC...well thats the nature of golf-you need a bit green area with not many people on it-getting hit off a golf ball due to over-crowding is not to be recommended

I also have two young children, one currently at St. Johns, the other to follow.And being a graduate of PHS some 13 years ago, I can recall the state of the building then.

So, I'm a golfer who uses PGC on a regular basis(but not a member), with a home overlooking the course and children who attend one of the potentially affected schools. Looking through the thread ( draining stuff!), I cant recall seeing anyone else that fits this description so I thought I would add my pennys-worth.

I have to admit, I'm really excited about the possibilty of the new schools on the park.I'd take it one step further and put a new 5-a-side 'pitz' style facilty in there too...owned and run by the school...surely a way of creating finance for school activities?This is a chance to create a focal centre for the town, schools,sporting facilities,community centres/youth clubs and a newly designed park area with possibly some kind of eco-garden.Giving the children a new school with mental/physical stimulation on site and possibly a chance to educate them on environmental issues and healthy lifestyles within the campus.

I'm sure any new golf course provided by the council will be a more testing design, and a few sweeteners will be offered to satisfy the current members of the club ( improved bus links,better facilities like showers and maybe even a wee bar, and reduced or even free membership for the non-exsistant but going to be established youth policy)

The only other altenative I can see is the figgate park, but would this would bring issues like the homes currently lying between the two schools and the park into question...as well as the obvious lie of the land and drainage problems.
Anyway, it will be impossible to keep everyone happy, whether they be golfers,parents,residents of Park Ave., its just a matter of balance and give and take.

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 08 Mar 2006, 16:19

Good post Franck.

Now I may be wrong, but I think you are one of the first golfers to post!!!

Mrs Mangle · Post by **Mrs Mangle** » 08 Mar 2006, 16:24

I don't believe that the council need to offer sweetners, i think being offered a new course people should be happy.

In 2004 when Lismore Primary was to amalamate the people of Bingham were offered a up-grade to the community centre, the community reply was it still wouldn't be big enough to educate all the children.

If it hadn't been for 3 councillors breaking the Whip, Lismore would not be there now. My point is, the council can do and say whatever they want, it's IF they follow through, is what people should be wondering.

I believe the people of Portobello and surrouding area are on being put through the motions, as this deal has already been done, come the 25th April, it will be rubber stamped.

Remember you read it HERE first.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 Mar 2006, 16:37

Mrs Mangle wrote: I believe the people of Portobello and surrouding area are on being put through the motions, as this deal has already been done

I've been meaning to ask seanie about this - he mentioned that consultation as part of the PPP process was sham - what exactly is the statory consultation the council are going to do, does it have the potential to be sham, and how will we know how their decision is finally arrived at, if it is a "judgement call" as Ewan Aitken described it as - how does this relate to the findings of the consultation?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 16:38

Mrs Mangle wrote:I believe the people of Portobello and surrouding area are on being put through the motions, as this deal has already been done, come the 25th April, it will be rubber stamped.

Out of interest; have you read the council's information booklet issued on March 6th? On what basis do you reach the conclusion that COEC will be able to override, strict legal requirements, statuatory consultations, planning applicatoions and so on?

Mrs Mangle wrote:Remember you read it HERE first.

Not strictly true look here.

http://porty.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39127#39127

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 08 Mar 2006, 16:39

Mrs Mangle wrote:I don't believe that the council need to offer sweetners, i think being offered a new course people should be happy.

Your quite right, the council do not need to offer any sweetners to the Golf Club, and I'm sure most people would be happy with a new course. But it's all about getting people onside, give the golfers a wee incentive, re-assure the people who live on Park Ave. the tree line will not be removed so their view will pretty much stay the same, improve the pitches at the top...level it out, upgrade the changing rooms. All these things will help in bringing people round to the idea.Obviously not everyone will be happy, but education, sporting facilities & improved community areas outweigh an eventual minority.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 Mar 2006, 16:45

Interesting posts Franck! You've got a unique perspective given how much this will affect you - I hope you don't end up with consultation fatigue given how many people will be interested in your slant on things!

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 08 Mar 2006, 16:45

Franck wrote:
Mrs Mangle wrote:I don't believe that the council need to offer sweetners, i think being offered a new course people should be happy.

Your quite right, the council do not need to offer any sweetners to the Golf Club, and I'm sure most people would be happy with a new course. But it's all about getting people onside, give the golfers a wee incentive, re-assure the people who live on Park Ave. the tree line will not be removed so their view will pretty much stay the same, improve the pitches at the top...level it out, upgrade the changing rooms. All these things will help in bringing people round to the idea.Obviously not everyone will be happy, but education, sporting facilities & improved community areas outweigh an eventual minority.

I agree.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 16:50

Dadaist wrote:Interesting posts Franck! You've got a unique perspective given how much this will affect you - I hope you don't end up with consultation fatigue given how many people will be interested in your slant on things!

I think he has pretty much covered it all with his posts!! Excellent work. Having said that

Franck, is there just a little bit of you that is worried about a drop in the value of your property? Do you believe that will happen?

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 08 Mar 2006, 17:00

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 08 Mar 2006, 17:09

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Interesting posts Franck! You've got a unique perspective given how much this will affect you - I hope you don't end up with consultation fatigue given how many people will be interested in your slant on things!
I think he has pretty much covered it all with his posts!! Excellent work. Having said that

Franck, is there just a little bit of you that is worried about a drop in the value of your property? Do you believe that will happen?

I think short-term yes, there will be minor drop in the value of homes affected, but give it a few years after completion and it will probably recover...it might even become a selling point...being so close to the most up to date school with facilties to match, an improved community green space and the like. And realistically, the value of property in the area will never be too badly hit-remember this is a very desirable area, building a cracking new school shouldnt be too detrimental.

Tangent time, but its pretty much like pubs right now.You can pick them up for bargain prices due to the smoking ban, but give it 3 years, the price of pubs will recover.

Charles · Post by **Charles** » 08 Mar 2006, 17:23

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Charles wrote:Regarding the option mentioned in the newsletter March 2006 of building on the existing site but which which was discounted because the pupils would have to be decanted and "there is no temporary accommodation on this side of the city suitable for such a large number of pupils over a period of possibly two years."
Solution?
Holy Rood High is having a new building which is scheduled for completion in 2008. At that time the pupils from PHS could move in to the existing Holy Rood which is large enough and has all the necessary accommodation already in place for a secondary school of that size.

Charles, this has already been covered earlier in the thread. Holyrood is being demolished in stages, the idea that the school will be lying empty is a myth. And in any case, you can't call anything a "solution" until you can pay for it. Work begins at Holyrood in a few months time, where are we going to get Â£30m, design a new school and build a new school in a couple of years?

Noone is saying that the school cannot be rebuilt on the existing site. However, it has been pointed out here by people with expertise who quote an independent source, that there are mimimum recommended space standards for secondary and primary pupils. The existing site is only 66% of the minimum and that is without playing fields.. I know you to be a fair and reasonable person, will you take the time to answer the following?

Why should we cram the children, teachers and staff into a facility that is just 66% of the miminum standard when we have the opportunity, finance and space to build the best educational facilities for the schools in the community?

The new plans for Holy Rood were recently made available for viewing, and discussions with representatives of the school confirmed that the new school will be built completely before any of the old building will be removed. I am only saying what I have been told by what I consider to be a reliable source - is your source definite about the staged demolision?
In terms of whether the existing PHS site is suitable for rebuild, I wasn't really commenting on that - only the fact that the reason given in the council newsletter for it not being suitable is that there would be problems decanting. Is there reliable measurement of the existing site available or is your figure of 66% an estimation?
I was also interested in the points made at the meeting on Monday that Portobello High is bigger than the optimum, and if we are committed to providing the best possible education perhaps we should also address this issue. It may be that if PHS was the "optimum" size, a good, fit for purpose building could be provided on the current site, if the council were able to negotiate the funding (perhaps through the Scottish Executive or through traditional borrowing?)

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 08 Mar 2006, 17:34

Charles,
Part of HRH school will be decanted into temporary teaching accommodation as there is part of the new school being built on part of the existing site.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 08 Mar 2006, 17:37

Franck wrote:Giving the children a new school with mental/physical stimulation on site and possibly a chance to educate them on environmental issues and healthy lifestyles within the campus.

And I'm sure that if that's what the Council was proposing there would be little or no argument. However, add to that a mini housing scheme and then people's backs go up.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 Mar 2006, 17:41

Epykat wrote:
Franck wrote:Giving the children a new school with mental/physical stimulation on site and possibly a chance to educate them on environmental issues and healthy lifestyles within the campus.
And I'm sure that if that's what the Council was proposing there would be little or no argument. However, add to that a mini housing scheme and then people's backs go up.

Would you accept the two schools being built on the golf course Epykat if there was no housing (other than that being built on the old schools' sites)?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 17:52

Charles wrote: Is there reliable measurement of the existing site available or is your figure of 66% an estimation?

Its not my figure, it is based on Seanie's knowledge of the guidelines, which he quoted and Wangi's measurement of the site. It is a reliable estimate. However, rather than be concerned about the reliability lets concentrate on the principle. May I ask you again:

Why should we cram the children, teachers and staff into a facility that is just 66% of the miminum standard when we have the opportunity, finance and space to build the best educational facilities for the schools in the community?