New Portobello High School - on going issues

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 15 Jun 2010, 08:11

wangi wrote:Some observations, I wouldn't want to go as far to say they are points...

The trend to allocate less parking places than are actually needed should be looked into. It clearly doesn't translate into a reduction in car use, only the parking of cars outwith the campus and on neighbouring streets. For an illustration just look at Holy Rood. There either needs to be more parking allocation or more carrots.

The new school car park isn't actually open yet, as they are still landscaping the grounds around the new school. Hopefully it will be completed next term and the parking situation eased a bit. I agree, however, that the new Queen Margaret University building caused a major headache as regards parking for residents in Musselburgh when it opened.

wangi wrote:Will the location of the new school impact businesses on Portobello High St? For kids at lunch time it wouldn't be a surprise to see a shift toward the shops on the Milton Rd W / Duddingston Pk corner...

L/

There were a lot of folk muttering about "The Milton Fry' at the meeting, though it was interesting to hear during the presentation that the trend in new school builds is for a far greater uptake in school dinners, so perhaps more pupils will stay on the campus at lunchtimes.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 15 Jun 2010, 09:58

allaboardtheskylark wrote:ps only joking about the 3 rounds of 6, don't want quoted on planet PPAG

Given recent difficulties with basic arithmetic, you may have to explain what 3 sixes are.

Just to avoid confusion.

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 15 Jun 2010, 10:30

Marya wrote: I agree, however, that the new Queen Margaret University building caused a major headache as regards parking for residents in Musselburgh when it opened.

Planning permission was granted for a much larger car park at QMU, but the authorities decided that they would have a "green campus" and built a small car-park with restricted parking. A direct result of this was complete chaos in the surrounding area and (eventually) a very expensive solution - traffic ardens and special residents parking permits - even visitors have to display a special badge. It's unpopular and ridiculous. What QMU did was to effectively pass off their carbon footprint to the surrounding area and piss the locals off.

There is more than enough room for more parking at QMU - but the authorities refuse to provide it in order to flaunt their "green" credentials. They don't care that the local community suffers.

Let's hope lessons are learned from the expensive fiasco of QMU .

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 15 Jun 2010, 15:56

I think the proposed PHS car park was 110? (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong). There were 142 cars in the school car park today.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 15 Jun 2010, 16:10

I was at the Towerbank consultation yesterday and the suggested figure was 140, although the official wasn't sure.

However he did say said that the car parking would really be determined by the Planning Department; they'd set the maximum.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 15 Jun 2010, 16:37

I thought it was 110 with 10 or 12 disabled spaces, 100 bicycle spaces and an inordinate amount of motorcycle space.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 15 Jun 2010, 16:53

Epykat wrote:I think the proposed PHS car park was 110? (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong). There were 142 cars in the school car park today.

Based on today's figures 110 doesn't seem like it is going to be enough, does it?

At night I often see lots of cars parked outside the existing school. Presumably this is due to people attending night school, swimming, school concerts etc. Do people park there because the school car park is full?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 16 Jun 2010, 09:31

Porty wrote:At night I often see lots of cars parked outside the existing school. Presumably this is due to people attending night school, swimming, school concerts etc. Do people park there because the school car park is full?

Yes - in my experience the car parks get full quite quickly for things like parent's night etc.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Jun 2010, 23:11

I'm not sure that we can draw too many comparisons with the new QMU. By their nature, universities draw students from a much wider geographical area. I'm guessing that many people who currently park their cars at PHS for parents meetings and after-school activities could probably easily walk there. So should we be providing extra spaces for the odd occasion when parking is at a premium?

The site is only just big enough for the new school and playing fields and I would be loathe to give up any more space than absolutely necessary for parking spaces.

On a different note, I was at the PAS AGM this evening. The new school got a mention and it would seem that traffic issues will feature among the objections to the application. I would have thought that the location of the school is likely to result in traffic calming measures in the immediate area, which can only be good news for local residents?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 17 Jun 2010, 11:43

Bob Jefferson wrote: On a different note, I was at the PAS AGM this evening. The new school got a mention and it would seem that traffic issues will feature among the objections to the application. I would have thought that the location of the school is likely to result in traffic calming measures in the immediate area, which can only be good news for local residents?

Bob one is likely to reach a different conclusion from PAS if one uses facts and common sense to help one determine ones view.

As an aside; who exactly are PAS and the existing or newly elected members?

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 17 Jun 2010, 18:51

PAS are quite simply those who want to be on PAS. It is a unelected body and as such should hold no more power than any other unelected body or any other group of individuals.

This is much the same for the Portobello Community Council. It held no election so effectively represent's those people who are on it. It has statutory rights for consultations but how do you represent a community that never voted for you.

Then if there are a few dominant people in positions of power on either of these groups the representation of the community becomes very small indeed.

Worse still, if it is the same people, running both groups, where does that leave us?

Perhaps we need a list of people on all the groups and see if the same names pop up again and again and again and again.....

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Jun 2010, 19:25

allaboardtheskylark wrote:Perhaps we need a list of people on all the groups and see if the same names pop up again and again and again and again.....

I think that would be a useful exercise but it needs its own thread.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 18 Jun 2010, 10:56

allaboardtheskylark wrote:PAS are quite simply those who want to be on PAS. It is a unelected body and as such should hold no more power than any other unelected body or any other group of individuals.

This is much the same for the Portobello Community Council. It held no election so effectively represent's those people who are on it. It has statutory rights for consultations but how do you represent a community that never voted for you.

PAS are quite open about their relationship with PCC and believe that they have a mandate to speak for the entire community on new planning applications. My source is last autumns Porty Reporter where John Stewart (Chair of PAS? and PCC) wrote an article and I quote:

"PAS is represented on Portobello Community Council and monitors and responds to new planning applications on its behalf."

That seems quite clear to me. The school will be a new planning application and John Stewart quite clearly believes that PAS will be responding to the application on behalf of Portobello Community Council. It is a true perversion. Portobello Community Council are an integral body in the democratic process a statutory consultees in major planning applications. PAS are what exactly?

How has this been alllowed to happen?

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 18 Jun 2010, 20:52

I have no problem with PAS being represented on the PCC, just like any other constituted group, but PAS representing the PCC is another matter and any comments made by PAS should be for and on behalf of PAS only.

How this situation has been allowed to develop I do not know. If they object on behalf of the PCC without the PCC discussing the matter before the objection, is the PCC objection valid?

Should the objection be torn up. Will they put in an objection to such an important application claiming support of the PCC or expect credibility from their special arrangement.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 18 Jun 2010, 21:21

This may be of relevance here:

According to the minutes of the PCC meeting dated Feb 2010, under the heading

276.4 Matters arising from January meeting

276.4h Community Council to clarify its relationship with Portobello Amenity Society (275.5). John Stewart explained that PAS looked at all planning applications affecting Portobello and notified the
Community Council of any which cause particular concern. It is completely separate from the Community
Council, though with several members in common, and the two act independently.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 19 Jun 2010, 11:57

Thanks, should be as efficient as you at reading the minutes.

Suppose the problem is often when planning issues are advised advertised and when the PCC meets.

Perhaps the PCC should meet every week.

Cough, choke, splutter.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Jun 2010, 22:05

Bob Jefferson wrote:An open letter to Portygreenkeepers:

To whom it may concern

It has been noticed that some of the information on the portygreenkeepers.org.uk website is out of date. The phrase:

PPAG website wrote:and who are concerned about the council's proposal to build housing and school(s) on the Park.

Bob Jefferson wrote: is misleading and possibly libelous. The Council, as you are aware, has no intention of building housing on Portobello Park and intends to build no more than one school on the park.

I'm sure you will agree that during the pre-planning consultation it is important that we present the facts accurately to avoid confusion. I am in no doubt that this is an oversight on your part but I would appreciate it if this phrase could be removed.

Thanks

Bob Jefferson

In case you are wondering, I have had no response whatsoever to this. I also emailed a copy of this letter to PPAG, using their contact email address, and posted it on their Facebook page. So, the matter has been brought to their attention and they have chosen to do nothing about it.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Jun 2010, 22:26

I'm not sure but I think you might've had a response of sorts.

As far as I recall the "council's proposal to build housing and school(s) on the Park" bit was in normal type the other week.

Now it's in bold.

rmolehusband · Post by **rmolehusband** » 21 Jun 2010, 22:54

seanie wrote:As far as I recall the "council's proposal to build housing and school(s) on the Park" bit was in normal type the other week.

Now it's in bold.

Petulant, childish, nonsense. Does anyone really take PPAG seriously anymore?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Jun 2010, 23:09

John Stewart -Porty Reporter Winter 2009 wrote:

"PAS is represented on Portobello Community Council and monitors and responds to new planning applications on its behalf."

And 2 months later:

Marya wrote: 276.4h Community Council to clarify its relationship with Portobello Amenity Society (275.5). John Stewart explained that PAS looked at all planning applications affecting Portobello and notified the
Community Council of any which cause particular concern. It is completely separate from the Community
Council, though with several members in common, and the two act independently.

So which is true?

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 21 Jun 2010, 23:39

[/quote]Petulant, childish, nonsense. Does anyone really take PPAG seriously anymore?[/quote]

PPAG look to be in 2 factions, the shouters and screamers and those who know their way around the planning system.

The first are a liabilty, the latter should be taken seriously. They have had plenty of practice of late and have a fairly good record.

See VIRIDOR, BL and and the jet skiers.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Jun 2010, 23:51

allaboardtheskylark wrote: The first are a liabilty, the latter should be taken seriously. They have had plenty of practice of late and have a fairly good record.

See VIRIDOR, BL and and the jet skiers.

Yes I see what you mean but when it comes to the school in the park, in over 4 Years, they ain't landed a single punch, discounting the personal cheap shots.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Jun 2010, 11:59

From a CoEC email circulated to PCC members

New Portobello High School: Pre-planning consultation
More road shows added
We've already met and talked to a lot of people who are interested in finding out more about what is proposed. Some are in favour, some are against. Everyone has comments to offer. We do know some people have not yet been able to make it along to other events so have set up a few more. Do come along if you can. Talk to a member of the team who can give you more information and take your questions or comments.

And remember, if you have already picked up a feedback form at another event you can return it at one of these events, or hand it in at Portobello Library.

Saturday 26 June: Magdalene Community Centre Garden Open Day (1-3pm)
Sunday 27 June: Joppa United Fundraising Day (12-2pm)
Tuesday 29 June: Portobello Library (6-8pm)
Monday 28 June : Portobello Indoor Bowling Centre (9.30am - noon)
Monday 28 June: Portobello Swimming Pool (12 - 2pm)
Monday 28 June: Piershill Library (6-8pm)

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Jun 2010, 12:10

That is good news, hope they get plenty of responses.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Jun 2010, 19:35

seanie wrote:I'm not sure but I think you might've had a response of sorts.

As far as I recall the "council's proposal to build housing and school(s) on the Park" bit was in normal type the other week.

Now it's in bold.

I'm genuinely surprised by this. I was expecting GREEN BLOCK CAPS at the very least.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Aug 2010, 06:20

I am amused to note that PPAG is encouraging its dwindling group of supporters to participate in the Guardian's Piece by Piece project.

In giving details of the threat to the green space in question, I wonder if they will explain how some of their supporters, while not wanting a school, would be happy to build a supermarket. Or indeed, that they would be happy to sacrifice someone else's green space to save their own.

PPAG - about as 'green' as astroturf.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Aug 2010, 06:22

From seanie recently:

Some of the final consultation events have been announced;

Public meeting - Portobello Town Hall, Wednesday 25 August

Public Exhibition - Portobello Library, 23 Aug - 11 Sept

Public Exhibition - Town Hall , 24/25 August

In additon to that the proposals will also be presented at the following meetings;

Portobello Community Council, Portobello Baptist Church Hall, Monday 30th August, 7:00 - 9:30pm (two other developments are also scheduled for the meeting)

Portobello/Craigmillar Neighbourghood Partnership, Hays Business Centre, Wednesday September 8th, 6:30 -8:30pm

The proposals should be more fully developed and pretty close to what will finally be submitted as a planning application. But it is still an important opportunity to have your say on the designs, raise any issues you may have about any aspects of the proposals, but also to show support.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 18 Aug 2010, 12:49

I am continually surprised by PPAG's lack of grasp of irony. Look at this quote on the last addition to "piece by piece" on the Guardian website for the building of two golf courses and 116 houses.

"The Black Wood of Rannoch is the most southerly extensive example of Caledonian Forest in Scotland; formed at the end of the last ice age and considered to be one of the last remaining wildernesses in the British Isles. In woodland terms this site is immensely important as it is a natural extension of the Black Wood and this development will remove the protective buffer it provides."

How does this compare to a site where the grass is cut regularly, no doubt hammered with various chemicals and offers little to the sustainabilty of Scottish Wildlife. Meanwhile, PPAG, in all their self righteous glory want to build on the Figgate Park, the Jewel, Bingham Park, even out to the sea.

The Guardian contributor then goes on to talk about the threat to the environment of rare species such as red squirrel, pine martin, otter and crested tits.

Well I have never seen red squirrel, pine martin or otter on Portobello Park.

PPAG did however have a fun day.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Aug 2010, 12:14

Bob Jefferson wrote:
In giving details of the threat to the green space in question, I wonder if they will explain how some of their supporters, while not wanting a school, would be happy to build a supermarket. .

Eh??

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Aug 2010, 21:50

I was referring to Save Portobello Park's support for a supermarket on the Scottish Power site. Though frankly, I suspect that some of the PPAG diehards might accept a supermarket on the park if it stopped the school being built there. Spoiling tactics are all they have left. They lost the argument years ago.

So, anyway, how did tonight's meeting go? I was unable to attend due to work commitments.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Aug 2010, 22:36

Had to leave early but seemed to go OK. I stayed for questions relating to travel and there were a number of concerns raised, which is hardly surprising. As far as I could tell from the consultation, the issues of road safety, traffic, access, safe routes to school etc were the most commonly raised concerns. I think some people will need convincing, but I also think the proposals address those issues pretty well.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Aug 2010, 22:46

And on other news, PPAG have revamped their web-site.

http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/

Though the editing process hasn't quite stretched to removing their lie that the Council's proposing to build housing on the Park.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 25 Aug 2010, 23:03

Has the "significant majority" JUST GOT BIGGER. The bigger the letters the bigger the lie. Looking at the number of PPAGers at the Town Hall they have had a significant attack of apathy or they were all watching Big Brother on the TV tonight.

As for the arguements they seem to just be the same old rubbish. Three times they were reminded to stick to the matter in hand. They were also reminded if they wished to object there was a planning procedure to be undertaken and that would be the place to object to the choice of site.

One seemed to be insisting the Council should take itself to court over the choice of site regardless of the fact that Council advice was it was not exposed as to the choice of site. Another contributor seemed displeased at the Council's desire to spend £41.5M in the Community in which they reside.

I can't understand the rationale.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Aug 2010, 23:16

Well roll on the Planning Application by the end of September.

I understand people may have issues about some aspects of the proposals, but as far as I'm concerned the design of the school looks excellent and most of the issues have been handled very well.

As long as the open space requirements are satisfied I really can't see any significant planning issues. Traffic/transprort's not as big an issue as people seem to think it is

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 26 Aug 2010, 09:33

I agree that the design is excellent and we have benefited greatly from the Council being the direct client rather than having a PPP mechanism involved. It has been a fortunate quirk of fate that PHS missed out on Wave 2 spending and although this has meant a generation of children (probably including mine) have missed out on better facilities - it is a far better outcome for generations to come.