New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Bob Jefferson]

Can you clarify? The Council say that they have appraised all the options and that the Golf Course proposal is the only viable option.

Do you

• a) believe that the Council is lying about this?
  
  b) believe that viable options exist that have not been appraised? If so, which?

[Dave Connelly]

Found this on the Portobello High School site, for anyone who didn't receive a copy

http://www.portobello.edin.sch.uk/PHSbulletin1final.pdf

[Pal of Porty]

My, what an eventful meeting that was at Towerbank tonight.

[Bob Jefferson]

My, what an eventful meeting that was at Towerbank tonight.

I'm still not happy about some parents being excluded though. To add insult to injury, I believe that 2 further meetings are planned for tomorrow and Friday, but it's 'invitation only' again.

As for the meeting at PHS tomorrow night, I believe that riot police are on standby though reports of ticket touts selling invitations at £20 a time are probably fictitious.

On the plus side, Emily is doing well apparently.

[Dadaist]

I had hoped to be able to rely on seanie for analysis of his own side as well as the arguments of the opposition - but even though he said that (for example) consultation under PPP can be sham, he failed to respond to me when I asked if CEC consultation could also be sham.

I think the communities reaction to these proposals will have a very real impact on their implementation.

Why proceed with the proposal in the face of local opposition? The outrage of their constituents. The people who vote for them.

If, as we’ve been informed, this community is dead against these proposals then these proposals are dead in the water (at least for now). Only a kamikaze politician would try to force them through. And most politicians have a sense of self-preservation. Almost everything they do is unpopular with someone. But they avoid doing things unpopular with everyone.

The sham consultation of PPP? Well, if you really want, I can give detailed reasons why it frequently turned out that way. Why the structure of the process and the contractual relationship engendered it, given the interests of the parties involved. I can explain it.

Someone else will have to explain why these proposals will be forced through regardless. Who would do it and why?

Is there some mysterious svengali with a pathological hatred of the golf-course?

A vendetta against Portobello?

Most politicians, whatever other qualities they posess, aren't particularly brave. Those who stand up and defy their constituents tend not to survive as politicians. Politicians tend to trim their sails to the prevailing wind.

Even if they hope the wind might change.

I think it far more likely that, even if this really is the only option, they'll put it on hold if a few people kick up a fuss, a few show enthusiasm, and most sit on the fence.

It'll be easier for them to sit and wait for the wind to change. Which given the deteriorating condition of the schools may well come about sooner or later.

The consultation process is probably limited in one very important way. If people really object to these proposals they can certainly put them on ice. But they'll only be able to kill them if a genuine viable alternative is found. Without that these proposals will sit on a shelf gathering dust till the situation deteriorates to such a point that there's enough community support to become politically viable again.

Now a delay might result in a better option coming up. Or it might end in an even worse deal than the one on offer. That's unknowable.

No, not the "conversation" currently underway - I meant a comparison of client wishes versus what was delivered once the project was given the green light - the differences between a PPP project and a council project. At the time I asked, I was assuming that it was going to go ahead (which could well be mistaken) and wondered what the difference was between such a works project done with real money (as opposed to the cost-cutting exercise you highlighted) in terms of translating feedback into reality if the "client" this time was us, and some of the worst of the venture capitalists had been cut out of the food chain.

Obviously now, though, that's something of an academic exercise if a probable scenario is the build not even happening - so I take your point that it's a very real outcome of such a process that one of the options at the start is not to build at all!

On that point I feel we must agree to disagree - although I would like to see the decision made on a democratic basis, as opposed to by a noisy minority, I stand by the community which makes such a mistake if they were to make it together.

[Mate of Marya]

Good drawings!

[Mate of Marya]

[quote="bbbrown"]thinking about cavalry park.......

Calvary Park is not exactly in the centre of the PHS catchment area is it?
How would children from Craigentinny/Portobello Road get to Duddingston Road West?
If the general public thought this to be a viable proposal, we could just forget about building a new PHS and use Castelbrae High School which is practically empty.

[Mrs Mangle]

BB Brown,

I'm certainly not dismissive as you suggest, the Evening Rag printed lies as they very often do, why not tel it like it is?

Also, it seems in my opinion that the re building of BOTH school is never going to please everyone.

Before anyone suggests i'm not anti Sport, but it is also my opinion, other than spoiling the view of some residents, each meeting i have attended is all about the poor Golfers and Portobello Thistle, yes sports and hobbies are important, BUT what a lot of people here seem to be forgetting are the children, surely this is most important,Education has to come first, in the case of Portobello Health and Safety plays a big part, some posters here don't understand the real state of this building, as for St. John's, think of it this way, a new building would no doubt be bigger, and the problem of Capping would be resolved, would it not.

I attended the High School, left in '79, it was falling apart then.

Holyrood land is greenbelt, also it would not be safe to build a second school along side it.
So while we all debate, everyoe forgets the real reasons behind this i think, and in my opinion education comes first every time.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Ms M I think your post is spot on.

BTW what did you do to the school? It was fine when I left in 1977!

[Stephen McIntyre]

That is exactly why so many people are asking for option appraisal, to satisfy themselves that this seemingly drastic option is thye only way to go.

BTW take a look back at your posts and point out where YOU ask for an option appraisal. Think you must be getting your identities mixed up.

I don't understand what you mean

Why should what I mean be different?

[Stephen McIntyre]

Can you clarify? The Council say that they have appraised all the options and that the Golf Course proposal is the only viable option.

Do you

• a) believe that the Council is lying about this?
  
  b) believe that viable options exist that have not been appraised? If so, which?

Bob, who are these questions addressed to?

[Bob Jefferson]

It referred to Keir Hardie's post which immediately preceded it:

That is exactly why so many people are asking for option appraisal, to satisfy themselves that this seemingly drastic option is thye only way to go.

[Stephen McIntyre]

It referred to Keir Hardie's post which immediately preceded it:

That is exactly why so many people are asking for option appraisal, to satisfy themselves that this seemingly drastic option is thye only way to go.

I see, hopefully Keir Hardie will provide answers to your questions. It certainly asks a lot of questions but it doesn't really seem to be pre-disposed to answer.

[Pal of Porty]

This a fantastic thread - those who want to put the well being and education of our children at the heart of the community and those who fantasise about where else we could possibly stuff a school - wordsmiths please note that the word fantasise was not inserted randomly.

[Dadaist]

Looking outside the window just now at the driving sleet brings to mind a question about Brian McCrow's idea that PHS kids should have to jog to remote PE activities!

Obviously, outside stuff would be cancelled anyway in bad weather - but it seems to be common sense (and a strong point for the pro-school argument) to have these facilities on-site. Or at least, not force the poor things to run to their exercise!

Mrs Mangled makes a good point with regards to emphasis though - we've done them to death for some reason - these are schools and not sports academies - with no disrespect to PHS fine reputation in the field of basketball ....

[Stephen McIntyre]

Mrs Mangled makes a good point with regards to emphasis though - we've done them to death for some reason - these are schools and not sports academies - with no disrespect to PHS fine reputation in the field of basketball ....

Sports facilities are about more than sport. They promote and enable better health. There is strong evidence that increased physical activity also increase concentration and learning ability. Your point about Basketball illustrates how good it can be for the elite but it is also good for many other PHS less able players. The music department boomed and is booming after it was extended and modernised.

However apart from that.

We have an opportunity to give the children of this community, every advantage and facility that a modern school could have. Some people say lets grab that with both hands other people say na,na ,na na na, did you know Craiglockharts football pitches are not available on a saturday afternoon.

Edit; missed out a na.

[Pal of Porty]

Mrs Mangled makes a good point with regards to emphasis though - we've done them to death for some reason - these are schools and not sports academies - with no disrespect to PHS fine reputation in the field of basketball ....

Sport, in its vast array of formats, should be a vital and integral part of any school curriculum. Exercise and health are fundamental issues in life and schools need to play their part in promoting this. There are many areas of significant concern regarding the health of our nation and children are leading the way in this decline.

While I agree in many ways with the sentiment expressed by Mrs M, I also cannot help believing that it is this type of thinking in the past that contributed to current state of health of our children.

We have within our grasp a chance to make a real difference -let's not waste it.

[Dadaist]

Agreed, with you both, on all counts. It's always good and healthy (in a non-physical way) to be exposed to all sorts of views and opinions - provided that one has an open mind, of course.

There has been a healthy discussion of sports here over the last 50 pages!

Let's devote the next 50 to libraries.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Let's devote the next 50 to libraries.

Don't tell me you think there are people out there that believe PHS should not even have library?

[Dadaist]

Let's devote the next 50 to libraries.

Don't tell me you think there are people out there that believe PHS should not even have library?

I certainly hope not!

[seanie]

No, not the "conversation" currently underway - I meant a comparison of client wishes versus what was delivered once the project was given the green light - the differences between a PPP project and a council project.

To build a building consultation takes place at numerous stages, in different forms, with different groups. The sham "consultation" in PPP tended to occur at the final stage prior to construction.

Under traditional procurement all the design should be pre-tender. You engage professionals, be it in the public or private sector, to work up a design. That involves a long process of investigation, establishing a brief, developing options, whittling them down, consultation, revision etc. And at different stages different people will be involved because their input is important in different ways. If you consulted with everybody all the way through it’d take forever. To get to the Scheme Design stage, establishing the basic size, shape and layout of the building, you’ll have consulted with all sorts of people but the end-users are unlikely to have been significantly involved.

After that there’s another stage of refinement, detailed design, when you really want to consult heavily with end-users. You want to establish the kind of details that make a difference in how they use the building. Do you want a door here or here? Will your equipment fit in this store or does it need to be larger? How many power points do you need? How high should the toilet seat be? How many sinks do you want?

There are all sorts of relatively minor things that make a huge difference to the satisfaction of people using a building. And for the most part these things don’t have big cost implications themselves. An extra sink won’t break the bank. But the trouble is that resolving those issues is time consuming. That process of consultation isn’t easy. Architects have a terrible habit of sending drawings to people assuming they’ll be able to understand what the hell they mean. Often they can’t. They’re not used to looking at architects’ drawings. So, done properly, it usually takes a lot of back and forth before what’s actually required is established.

Under traditional procurement, after detailed design has been approved, the design team churn out the tender drawings, send them out, select a contractor , who builds to the design that, hopefully, reflects what the client actually wants.

With PPP large problems have occurred with detailed design. Initially the various consortia will have worked up, at considerable expense, rival designs based on a brief from the client. They’ll have done so with little consultation because that would interfere with the bid process. So they’ll have worked in the dark. The brief can’t set out everything.

At some point, depending on the exact process chosen, a preferred bidder may be selected to work up the scheme further with the client. But the contract is usually confirmed at a point equivalent to the scheme design stage.

At which point, to really make sure you produce a good building, you still need to go through the process of detailed design. The back and forth, back and forth, that refines things. That process takes time and effort. Time and effort costs money. Money that would come out of the consortium’s pocket.

Many, admittedly not all, consortia were simply uninterested.

They didn’t bother.

They went through a sham consultation, as quickly as they could, and built what they’d first thought of. They had little incentive to do anything else. They’d already won the tender and any delay, re-design or refinement would inconvenience them.

Under traditional procurement there can also be a lack of consultation, be it a public or private project. That final stage of refinement can be skimped upon, usually due to time pressures, but that’s something the Client still has a great deal of control over. They’re the ones who ultimately control the process. If they work to realistic programmes and commit to high quality they can ensure that what’s built really is what they and the end-users want.

Under PPP even a client who is committed to high quality faces real problems achieving it. Because the Client loses control of the process too early.

At the initial stages of the PPP process consortia are interested in what the Client wants because they want the job. At the preferred bidder stage the Client’s interests still matter but they’re tempered by the Consortium’s eye on profit. Once the contract’s awarded the Consortia are in the driving seat and their interests and the clients’ interests are not one and the same. Too often the Client’s interests have gone out the window.

Too often Consortia built unfinished designs to poor standards of workmanship, particularly in the early days. From experience Clients began to be ever stricter about the design and quality criteria that had to be met. And in response to that Consortia put the prices up to maintain profit margins. Which in turn has begun to put the wind up central government that's driven the whole process.

The way PPP is structured, leaving aside the question of value for money, militates against high quality end products. It's not impossible but it's diffficult given the inherent structure of the process.

[seanie]

As far this process is concerned the greatest influence the community will have is right now. For reasons I’ve already gone into. The report that goes forward to committee on April 25th is unlikely to be much more than a feasibility study. It’ll probably go into more detail on the problems with the schools and their site, the options that have been considered and why they’ve been rejected, the reasons for proposing the golf-course, problems associated with that, and a bit more on the proposals for consideration.

But it won’t have a huge amount of detail on the proposals. They may some possible site layouts to give an impression of what might happen but those will be indicative only. Because firm proposals can only come about through a lengthy process of further consultation and evaluation.

Now if the politicians aren’t too nervous about the community’s reaction, then come April 25th they’ll proceed to that next stage. And in working up the proposals statutory consultation will be required with all sorts of groups. There will be internal consultation between Planning, Transportation, Education etc. There’ll be consultation with external bodies such as SEPA, Sport Scotland etc. And there will be further consultation with the community and interested groups.

And that consultation will be meaningful. I’ll tell you why.

Councils have a lot of powers but they’re not autonomous. They exist within a wider framework that guides, determines and constrains their actions. They work to policies, guidelines, targets and statutory duties they must fulfil, and they are subject to outside scrutiny.

These are fairly major proposals. It is extremely unlikely that the Council would be allowed to sit in judgement on itself. These proposals would be called in for scrutiny by the Scottish Executive. And the Council would have to furnish them with a detailed and convincing case as to why they should be allowed to proceed. And in order to bolster that case the Council would want to keep as many people as possible as happy as possible.

The next stage of consultation is where people can extract their pound of flesh.

To get the school built the Council would need to keep people sweet. There‘d be limits obviously. If the community presented a huge wish-list then the finances could spiral out of control. But, within reason, the Council would likely be in a far more obliging frame of mind than you’d usually find them. They’d have good reason to be.

And so if the community demanded a school to excellent sustainable standards, specific community or sports facilities, an expanded golf-course or for the remaining park to be designed by themselves, with or without skateboard rinks, then the community would have considerable influence to get those things included in the core brief for the project. And since that would be the core brief presented by the Council to the Executive they’d be under considerable pressure, from below and above, to stick to it.

Thereafter there would be still more stages of refinment, consultation and review but the wider community’s influence would diminish. Developing the detailed briefs for many elements of the project would necessarily be a more restricted consultative process. It would involve particular bodies relevant to the elements in question.

But the strategic brief setting out the aims, elements & parameters of the project could be significantly influenced by the community via the consultation process, if engaged with actively.

[Bob Jefferson]

After almost 1000 posts on this topic, I have just discovered that we have all been wasting our time. Apparently, according to a leaflet that I was handed on the way to the meeting at PHS this evening "we can have both a new school and keep our parks and golf course."

So now I can forget all this nonsense and concentrate on Sunday's big game because all that is required is for the Council to "look into other options, cost them out and come up with funding packages."

I can't imagine why they didn't think of this themselves but I'm glad it's all over and we can all get back to posting pictures of our cats.

[seanie]

"...we can have both a new school and keep our parks and golf course."

Can I have a pony too?

[Bob Jefferson]

Of course. In Gary's Magical Kingdom we all have ponies.

[Rex_Mundi]

"courgage is fire and bullying is smoke"
B.D
roll on the 26th March

[Dave Connelly]

Of course. In Gary's Magical Kingdom we all have ponies.

I think losing one member is enough, dont you? Leave Gary alone

[Bob Jefferson]

I'm sure that Gary will welcome the opportunity to detail the 'other options' and 'funding packages' that have been overlooked by the Council.

Keir Hardie is welcome to make a formal complaint to the moderators if he feels that posting guidelines have been breached.

[Dadaist]

In Gary's Magical Kingdom we all have ponies.

I should be saying something about objectivity and Bob's position or something but this is one of the best retorts ever on the whole of the internets.

Seanie - thanks very much indeed for your posts, I will be savouring them over my morning coffee.

[seanie]

I fear it’s premature but I’ll tell you the pound of flesh I’d try to extract.

And it’s not something dependent on the details. It’s about the funding.

The funding problem is a real one. £40 million plus is a mighty big sum to just drop out of the sky. To secure that kind of capital, in the current climate, will realistically require housing development.

Now people have sought assurances that all the proceeds from development will be re-invested in the proposals and won’t be siphoned off. That strikes me as a pretty low hurdle to ask the Council to jump. I’d think that would be an absolute minimum requirement.

I’d want assurances that the proposals will receive all the procceds from the housing development and more.

There was a quote from Stephen Hawking the other a day about how other communities got their new schools through PPP but Portobello is having to give up a valued asset to get theirs. That hits the head on a very true, real, and unfair nail.

The people of Portobello, due to PPP, will be contributing over the odds to other schools for the next 30 years. I’d think it entirely reasonable to expect a little quid pro quo. To me replacing the schools is the priority. Because of that need I’d be resigned to the prospect of housing development. But that’s all I’d accept the housing for. The schools.

A new golf-course, a re-developed park, new community facilities? I'd regard them as absolutely essential. But somebody else can pay for them.

Given the sums for building new schools, that may only represent the icing and cherry on top of a large and bitter bun. But Portobello would’ve already swallowed the bitter bun to obtain new schools.

The rest of Edinburgh should at least help sweeten it.

[bbbrown]

any thing interesting from last nights meeting? was there a large attendance in support for the new school in the park? did it feature a group cuddle for the councillors to make them feel loved again?

any body go who can maybe inform the rest of us?

[Stephen McIntyre]

The meeting was excellent and very well run by the school board. I guess there were about 60 parents at the meeting. Which is disappointing in one way.

The councillors did ok in the initial talk. They did provide quite a bit more information, which was not supposed to happen. The info mostly related to the PPP process and quite a bit of dialogue on the horrors of decanting. Some parents had experinced this with their children at Parsons Green. Andrew Fraser stated that he had evidence that decanting impaired academic performance and that he was prepared to defend that. (this statement was made in our discussion group).

3 pupils spoke well including the Head Boy who manged to get a round of applause in saying only one sentence.

The meeting was designed as a consultation, which surprisingly didn't seem to suit some people. We split into groups and councillors floated between groups. We had Ewan Aitken in our group for a while. He was asked some blunt questions relating to St John's, Housing, Power League etc and he gave some categorical on-record answers.
I think PFANS ought to adopt this strategy. It gave everyone a chance to speak. I think only one person in our group did not contribute verbally.

I'm sure each group had shared experiences and differences. I had 6 Park Avenue residents in my group. I will be happy to share what transpired.

[Stephen McIntyre]

I’d want assurances that the proposals will receive all the procceds from the housing development and more.

During our discussion group Ewan Aitken confirmed this, without prompting. He made a categorical statement that all profits from all developments would be fed back in. Even then there will still be a shortfall. Which will be bridged by borrowing.

[bbbrown]

60 parents.....yes, that is a bit dissapointing, in more than just one way i would have thought.
I would have hoped that PHS parents might be a little bit more excited and interested in the prospect of a brand new state of the art High school in the park..
i guess there will be more support from primary school parents, whose children will benefit from the new school, rather than the pupils already there who probably will not benefit as it will not be built in time for a lot of them.

He was asked some blunt questions relating to St John's, Housing, Power League etc and he gave some categorical on-record answers.

care to share, please, some of the on the record stuff re the Pitz, St Johns etc?

seanie...the point re Portobello paying for every one else, and this not being fair, is indeed spot on, and you would hope, worth more than a few brownie points...

[Stephen McIntyre]

He was asked some blunt questions relating to St John's, Housing, Power League etc and he gave some categorical on-record answers.

care to share, please, some of the on the record stuff re the Pitz, St Johns etc?...

Sure.

Asked if Power League would feature on the park? "No way. I do not think people would find that acceptable, it will not happen" (think he actually made a slitting his wrists action at this point)

Asked what would happen if PHS school community wanted the proposal but St John's did not? "St Johns could happily stay where it is. The proposal is not dependent on them moving"

Asked; If St Johns does remain in situ, would that mean more housing would have to be built on the park to compensate for the loss of profit on the St John's land? "no, as we would not have to build a new primary school. This is the only proposal that includes a refurbish or rebuild of St John's there are no other plans"

On Housing; "It would have to be a mix of property, a purely flatted development would be a non-starter and no high tower blocks"

"Any housing on Park Avenue would have to be empathetic to what is there already"

Asked: If you could move the schools to the park without building houses there, would you do it? "Unequivocally"

On Timing " We had hoped for occupation by 2009 but with the requirement for the bedding in of the new golf course (2 years) combined with a seamless transition for the golfers the earliest is likely to be 2010".