New Schools proposal - document archive

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 08:21

This read-only thread is intended to make it easier to locate key documents and information relating to the debate. If you are aware of anything that you would like to be added please let me know.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 09:20

Press release from PHS School Board, 6 January 2006:

[quote]PRESS RELEASE
PORTOBELLO HIGH SCHOOL NEEDS A NEW BUILDING

2006 must be the start of a new future for Portobello's children. Portobello High Schoolâ€™s building is in a very poor state and should be the centrepiece of a revival in the town. The High School is currently having new windows fitted for a fraction of its classrooms. The School Board has expressed its concern about the poor state of the school buildings and believes the money would be better spent on plans to replace the entire building.

Dr Andrew Fraser, Chair of the School Board said: "What is more important than the education of our children in Portobello and the surrounding area? What would the people of Portobello want more from the Council than good schools? The High School building has come to the end of its life. The roof and windows leak, the drains donâ€™t work properly, the water and power systems have each shut the school for a day. The school is not designed for modern education. Nothing short of replacement will meet the needs of Portobello's children.

â€œMany parents were Portobello High School pupils themselves and the school is an important reason for people wanting to stay, or move into the area. Portobello must look to the future. Its children are the townâ€™s future, and they deserve a better school system than they have now.

â€œAfter years of lobbying by the Board, the High School has no plans, no prospects for replacement - just patch and mend repairs. That must change and the parents, pupils and community of Portobello should consider any viable proposals that guarantee a bright future for the education of local children.â€

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 09:22

From the EN, 10 January 2006:

Parents spell out need for action over crumbling school

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 09:25

Letter from PHS School Board, 30 January 2006:

Portobello High School
Duddingston Road
Edinburgh
EH15

31 January 2006

City Councillors in the East Edinburgh Area
MSPs, MP for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, Edinburgh and Lothians
City of Edinburgh Council Education Officials

Dear Sir / Madam
PORTOBELLO HIGH SCHOOL
This week, The City of Edinburgh Council sets out for discussion its major development plans for Portobello and surrounding area, featuring a new Portobello High School. You may have seen or heard recent press coverage of concern expressed by Portobello High School Board about the state of the school's current building, the urgent need for plans to maintain the building fit for current children to see through their schooling safely and in a decent environment, and for future children to benefit from a school facility that is excellent as opposed to inadequate.

The Councilâ€™s outline plan is ambitious and wide-ranging, and will attract strong views from several standpoints. It offers Portobello and the east of the city the prospect of a first class school in its own grounds. The Board has considered the plan in outline, and recognises the outstanding educational merits as well as potential community, environmental and housing implications of such a development. It will listen carefully to a range of views on the plan, and seek to represent those of parents and the school community.

Portobello High School's claim is urgent, important and on a substantial scale. There is no shortage of evidence to back the School's case for replacement and, also, evidence that inaction will see further basic systems of the building's fabric fail. The School Board calls on you to accept the strong educational case for action, for urgent replacement of the school. Otherwise, inevitable deterioration of the current facility will force a hasty and unsatisfactory set of decisions on the Council, school, staff, pupils and parents. We ask that all local public representatives unite in supporting the school.

Yours faithfully,

ANDREW FRASER
Chair, Portobello High School Board

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 09:27

From the EN, 1 February 2006:

Golfers tee up for school fight

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 09:52

From the EN, 8 February 2006:

New schools sorely needed in Portobello

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:05

Plans and artists impressions of PP2 Schools:

PPP2 Schools

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:08

Radio Scotland programme, originally broadcast on 8 February 2006:

Radio Scotland

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:16

Original draft of 'Questions and Answers' document, 20/2/6:

Questions and Answers

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:30

BBC guide to PPP/PFI:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1518523.stm

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:35

Another view on PPP/PFI from Andy Wynne of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants:

http://www.accaglobal.com/doc/publicsec ... oc_011.pdf

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:38

From the EN, 1 March 2006:

The classroom riddle driving a town apart

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:40

Link to Gary Gowans' Action Network Group:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G1549

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:42

Results of Community Council questionnaire:

http://www.porty.org.uk/pdf/porty_future.pdf

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:45

Edinburgh School Catchment Review:

http://www.schoolcatchments.edin.org

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:55

Correspondence between Andrew Fraser (chair PHS School Board), Nick Stroud (sec PCC) and Maureen Child:

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.

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

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

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:59

'Schools for the Future' document:

http://www.archive2.official-documents. ... etin95.pdf (warning - large file)

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 11:00

Hampshire County Council's views on school sizes:

http://www.hants.gov.uk/TC/edplancomm/sizesesc.html

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 11:19

From Keith Jackson, Chief Executive at Edinburgh Leisure:

Research Findings from Portobello Golf Course

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 11:23

From the EN, 7 March 2006:

Community backlash puts high school plans in doubt

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 13:10

Council Newsletter:

http://www.porty.org.uk/pdf/phs_news_1.pdf

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 13:13

In this extract from a newsletter to parents, Peigi Macarthur, HT at PHS, makes her postion clear on the Council's proposal:

You will be very much aware from the local press and from local meetings that there is a proposal to build a new school for Portobello. Iâ€™m sure that I donâ€™t have to convince any parent who is a regular visitor to our school that a new school is long overdue. From a personal perspective, having made the move here from a refurbished school I was shocked initially by the state of the school building. Itâ€™s actually a huge tribute to the staff that they have been able to deliver a quality education to the pupils given the conditions that they work in.

This is not the place to go into great detail but the parent body need to be aware of difficulties we face with inadequate and outdated heating, ventilation and drainage systems, accommodation pressures, outdated science labs, lifts which continually break down â€“ I could go on.

I need to pin my colours to the mast and say that I am excited by the proposal on offer. I appreciate that there are groups within the community who would have to make sacrifices if the current proposal were to progress but the current and future pupils of Portobello High School deserve and need a new school.

The site, which has been proposed, would see the school in the heart of its catchment area, with safe access and with the luxury of playing fields on site. From my perspective too as Head Teacher, it would be a tremendous relief to be able to progress the work of the school in the current building, whilst a new school is being built off site.

I would hope that parents who welcome the City of Edinburghâ€™s proposals will support the schoolâ€™s position. Iâ€™d like to take this opportunity too say a huge thank you to the School Board, who have taken a strong lead to secure the best possible future for the pupils of Portobello. The School Board has arranged a meeting here at school on 16th March at 7.00 p.m. to gather parental views on the proposed development. I hope you will be able to attend.

To conclude, I am delighted to have joined the school community as Head Teacher. Iâ€™m impressed by the warmth and commitment of the extended school community and by the professionalism of staff here. I very much look forward to leading the school to continued growth and continued success.

Yours faithfully

P M Macarthur
Head Teacher

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 13:16

First-hand account of a decant situation from David Simpson, Depute Head at Firrhill High School:

Decants and Decisionsâ€¦

I am lucky enough to work in Firrhill High School - a very good school which has been refurbished and rebuilt over the last 4 years. As a Depute Head I have first hand experience of what this means to school life and the impact on the learning and teaching. I share this now as we all look at the options open to us in securing the future of Portobello High School.

Firrhill High School occupies a roomy site in Oxgangs and had a partially empty extension teaching block, due for demolition. 1200 students attend the school.

We knew that things were going to change - but those teaching in the crumbling extension block really needed stamina (and buckets whenever it rained).

New plans went through after much discussion and local concerns. The next phase of building was major - with specialist accommodation (Science, PE, and a Special Education school) being built. A Primary and a Special School were also going to be built on the site and a total overhaul of the High School building was also undertaken. This meant that 15 subject departments were moved out of their existing accommodation into the extension block (â€˜DECANTEDâ€™ was the term used) while windows were replaced, classrooms painted etc. I remember one old classroom being used by 4 different departments and a Primary school over the course of a term.

Meanwhile there was plenty to keep the staff on their toesâ€¦fire alarms were going off due to electronic problems, the power supply burnt out ( and blacked out part of Southern Edinburgh) because it couldnâ€™t support the load, boilers failed, and several thousand pounds worth of central heating oil vanished. The school had to be closed on a number of days.

And yet life went on successfully - pupils and staff really pulled together, the building contractors were outstanding and a major project was completed in less than a year with early access to the new buildings. The building and grounds are now excellent.

A big success and not a single injury or accidentâ€¦â€¦.but, like Waterloo, it was a close run thing, and there were casualties of a different kind.

The Councilâ€™s internal inspection team visited the school during the rebuild. They found that exam results (previously notable) had taken a dip (theyâ€™re now getting back to where they were) and that a number of aspects of the school required attentionâ€¦â€¦.Hardly surprising.

There is no doubt that the school made exceptional efforts to maintain standards over a short period of time. This could not have been sustained for much longer - 9 months was enough, and the cracks were beginning to show.

â€˜It was the decant that done itâ€™- moving each department out of and back to its rooms did impact on teaching and departmental organisation, and had an effect across the whole school. The modern curriculum is heavily assessment driven and requires quite remarkable record keeping, especially in generation/ retention of evidence: not so easy when youâ€™re living out of boxes and on the move. In the commercial world companies tend to shut down, relocate, and then return to trading. Schools donâ€™t - they somehow keep going as the children keep coming.

At Firrhill we had a number of factors working for us - our site was big and we simply moved from one area to another. The authority went to great lengths to maintain teaching and learning and invested in additional staff and built a temporary gym and hockey pitch. When the builders had to slice 3 labs off the science block and started driving piles into the underlying rock then teaching became more difficult but we had the space to create the necessary temporary labs.

Without space for additional accommodation and the means to move between these areas none of this would have been possible. The main phase of major construction took 9 months, and involved approximately half of the school on half of the site. Schools are complex buildings with reassuringly high levels of specialist accommodation. Consequently construction times are greater than domestic or conventional industrial buildings.

An important feature of the current proposals for Portobello High is the fact that builders will be free to build, teachers able to continue to teach and pupils to learn. This saves time, money and, most important of all, allows young people to receive the education they are entitled to. They only get the one shot at it!

It hasnâ€™t been proposed, but we may be asked to examine whether it is possible for Portobello High School to be rebuilt on the same site at the same time as attempting to deliver teaching and learning. Having managed the above arrangements on a daily basis, I know that even the superb team at Portobello High school could not (and should not) be asked to do this. The size of the site and the structure of the tower block make this impossible.

As a community, we should recognise what Portobello High School has achieved in a poor building which has now as good as expired. One of the most difficult features of Firrhillâ€™s experience was the temporary PE arrangements, which Portobello would recognise as the routine they have been compelled to follow year in year out.

All of which highlights the need to speedily investigate all possible solutions to the accommodation crisis which faces education in this community.

Please donâ€™t anyone delude themselves that a â€˜decantâ€™ during a rebuild on the present site is an option.

It isnâ€™t

David Simpson

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 13:22

A second opinion on decant:

My personal experience of decants is not good. In fact, as a primary school teacher with over ten years of experience I would say that it had very damaging effects upon pupils, staff and parents. There were gains, such as support from HQ and lots of resources were provided for us, but nonetheless it was a traumatic expereince.

Pupils lost a minimum 50 mins a day contact time moving from school site to decant site (often it was 60 mins, excluding tidy up time). Conservatively that's over four hours a week...over an average term of 9 weeks - 38.5 hours.

However, the quantity of teaching time was less of an issue than the quality of what was provided. We were all killing ourselves to provide what we should but knew at the same time that it wasn't what we would want to provide in normal circumstances.

The new resources were great but there was no time to become familar with them...from staffroom chat I would say that we (the staff) were all struggling to manage the situation and had grave concerns about the emotional experience of the pupils. Most managed, but frankly "managing" is not what I'd want for a pupil in a school. Some appeared to thrive..enjoying the excitment and making the most of the gaps. Some, perhaps the ones who remain in my mind, were totally lost. Those who were able to communicate their concerns were heard, and some were even moved from the school by concerned parents. The others i can't comment on.

Without a doubt it was one of the worst experiences of my career and I remember thinking at the time "maybe this is what it was like during the war", dramatic as that may sound. Now, I look back on it as a learning experience, but one I experienced as difficult even as an adult with some measure of control, and one I would definitely not want for my own children.

Blue Banana

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 13:45

From the EN, 15 March 2006

Residents back plan to build new school on sports fields

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 14:01

SSP pamphlet:

Our community, our choice

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 14:09

PFANS website

PPAG website

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 14:11

From the EN, 23 March 2006:

Two-school option for Porty High

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 14:14

Letter from Lawrence Marshall to Roy Jobson, 23 March 2006:

Dear All

Please find enclosed a copy of a letter which I have just sent off to Andrew Holmes, Director of City Development; Roy Jobson, Director of Chilren and Families; Ewan Aitken, Executive Member for Children and Families, and Ian Perry, Deputy Leader of the Council regarding site and funding options for a new Portobello High School and new St. John's.

The Council has come up with a Â£43m package which, while not wholly self-funding, does appear to me to be realisable. But it comes at a price - and one largely borne by Portobello alone in a way which has not been asked to such an extent of other communities throughout the city as they rightly seek new and refurbished schools for their areas.

My letter below seeks to tease out the pros and cons of other suggested options so that we can all then come to an informed view on this very important matter at the end of the forthcoming formal consultation process.

Lawrence

Dear Andrew, Roy, Ewan and Ian

Following last night's meeting organised by PFANS at Towerbank Primary School, I thought that I should write to you to try to make some comments, clarify some points and put forward some suggestions.

Of suggested alternative sites to the golf course option, I have to say that I don't think Holyrood is really a runner. It's not Portobello, would be on Green Belt land, would contain huge numbers of pupils and is frankly remote in terms of access.

I'd be interested in looking at The Jewel - but then I was told during the Brunstane/Lismore debate that you couldn't build a new primary school there because of Millennium Forest planting.

Although on the edge of the catchment area, the site of the current Lothian Buses Marine garage might be able to accommodate a new school with a playing field or two. The bus garage could move to the current lorry and coach park off the Sir Harry Lauder Road. It wouldn't be inappropriate for Portobello High School to be beside the seaside! Plenty of buses pass nearby at the King's Road junction.

A two-school solution might see that site come into play as well. Maybe that would also allow a revisit of the Power League site and the adjacent car park - though a playing field would still be difficult here, I guess, except on the roof. The Power League land is, however, now established to have housing value in terms of any price to be paid. Where a second High School would go is, of course, another question - at The Jewel?

Finally, I do think that the land comprising the Freightliner site, the lorry and coach park and adjacent brickyard is big enough for a new High School with playing fields. I wouldn't, however, advocate moving St. John's to this site. I also think that you'd need to break through and re-open the old Portobello station access from the Christian Path at the top of Brighton Place to be able adequately to access this site from Portobello. The land here has only industrial value -it's largely derelict and could never be granted planning permission for housing.

All these options would still allow the sale of at least the current Portobello High School site for housing and avoid the disruption of re-building on site. With the latter option in particular, you'd probably have to re-develop St. John's on part of the site of the existing two schools, converting the existing St. John's building for housing, for instance, and re-locating St. John's to beside the new games hall at the High School which you'd be able to keep, perhaps along with a refurbished swimming pool. A small all-weather pitch/playing field could also be provided here. There would still be room for some housing - and no construction disruption to St. John's in the process.

Funding the whole Â£43m package outlined last night is the real issue - the only option is house building on Council land. I don't believe that the Scottish Executive will see Portobello as a special case given that many other schools across Scotland must also have lost out on PPP funding.

I do query, though, why the house-building needs to take place on the golf course. The receipt to the Council agreed for the Power League site is not able to be ring-fenced for use in Portobello. It goes into the general city-wide pot - with only an element remaining in Portobello as a contribution to a new community facility. By the same token, then, that general pot is also available to fund schemes in Portobello and I can't see why, although some housing might be in the Portobello High School/St. John's catchment areas, housing sites elsewhere in the city can't contribute to the financing of new schools in Portobello if they are high up the priority list for capital expenditure.

I recognise that these won't be easy to find - but the principle is surely one which is consistent with the prevailing rules which folk in Portobello have hitherto had to accept.

One advantage of the Freightliner/lorry and coach park/brickyard option, it seems to me, is that the overall additional expenditure is that of industrial land acquisition and site access, coupled with a reduced receipt from a reduced land sale at the current school sites. This would amount to probably less than a quarter or a fifth of the overall total. It's the housing elsewhere that really bridges the funding gap. Could that be at The Jewel, for instance?

From all this, you'll no doubt gather that I am seeking to bottom out various alternative options to that of using the golf course for both the new schools and the necessary housing to fund all this. I do so not in absolute opposition to the current proposal but in the belief that we shouldn't give up the open space of the golf course unless all options have been explored - and I've been getting many permutations suggested to me in recent weeks, not all of which I've outlined above.

You could argue that open space allocation in the Local Plan with respect to the golf course is actually more important to city dwellers than Green Belt designation of land they are only barely familiar with. I'm not making an argument on recreational grounds for the retention of the golf course. Numbers using it are probably surpassed by those using the much smaller Rosefield Park, for instance. Nor is it bio-diverse. But it provides the largest open space in the Portobello area with an open vista down to Portobello and the sea and beyond to Fife. Even a large park of 17 acres that would be left after the building of the new schools and completion of enabling housing development would not substitute for that. That dimunition of the landscape of the area can only be justified if there really is no other alternative - and of that, I'm not yet convinced.

I really would be grateful, therefore, if the various alternative site and funding options I have outlined above could be given consideration. Maybe some of these would see a less rapid delivery of the new schools we'd all like. I believe, however, that the schools are strong enough to sustain a delay of even a few years if they know that at the end of this they will get new premises fit for decades to come through a package which is overall less diminishing of the landscape inheritance we hand over to those future generations who will be educated all the better at these schools.

Lawrence

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 14:24

Further letter from Lawrence, 26 March 2006:

Dear Andrew, Roy, Ewan and Ian,

Further to my e-mail to you of 23 March 2006, I thought that I'd fling another option onto the table for your consideration.

As you're probably well aware, apart from the overall Freightliner area, most of the brownfield sites which might well be re-developed in the coming years in Portobello lie to the west of the Figgate Burn. No-one's going to knock down any bits of Joppa and there's very limited potential for change in the town centre. The development pressure is already obvious and isn't going to go away.

Will this all be private development or can we secure some of it for the public good?

The site which has been most controversially debated and fought over in the last couple of years is that of the former Scottish Power H.Q. at the very entrance to Portobello. Big enough to attract interest from superstore operators and with room for large amounts of associated car parking, this proposal was successfully and rightly resisted by the local community - right through to Appeal.

Following refusal of planning permission by the Scottish Executive last year this site was sold by Duddingston House Properties to B L Developments who I understand are looking at a largely residential development on the site.

My suggestion is to ask B L Developments whether they would consider a deal with the Council whereby they got most of the site of the current Portobello High School and St. John's for housing instead with the High School being built on Portobello High Street as the gateway to the town. St. John's could either be re-located as I previously suggested to incoporate the relatively recent High School games hall or re-built elsewhere - the grounds of Duddingston Primary School have been mentioned to me a few times.

I know that the old argument of the High School being then on the edge of its catchment area will no doubt be flung back at me. I don't really buy that orthodoxy in this instance. Portobello High Street is well served by bus routes from east, west and south (obviously not north!). Fishwives Causeway will be a good walking route for many as well.

Is the site big enough? Well, it obviously isn't 17 acres but it's also obvious to me that the more land you allow for any development, the worse the architectural solution - just look at the mess that is the new combined school campus outside Dalkeith. A tight site produces a more creative solution, better attuned to the urban grain of a school on a community's High Street. The Council constantly trumps the triumph of the new St. Thomas of Aquin's in Chalmers Street - I agree. Enough said!
St Thomas of Aquin's obviously has The Meadows next door and I'm not sure about space for outdoor sports facilities on the superstore site but I understand that Duddingston House Properties believe that Standard Life are interested in relinquishing their ownership of at least that section of the Baileyfield Industrial Estate immediately bordering the old Scottish Power site - and currently leased by the Council's own Culture and Leisure Department as a warehouse. If the Scottish Power site itself couldn't accommodate an outdoor pitch - and why not on the roof if that were the case? - then this adjacent land should be considered.

Moreover, I'm pushing very strongly that the proposed East Edinburgh Sports Centre coming to the area when Meadowbank Stadium closes should be located beside the Portobello Indoor Bowls and Leisure Centre just across the High Street from the former Scottish Power site. There may well be a synergy here with any new school development.
Someone has also raised with me the possibility of Standard Life and the car dealer which used to be Laidlaw's pulling out completely. I've been told this on a number of occasions recently and it might well be worth at least asking them!

I realise that there still remains the question of how to pay for all this. The overwhelming element of financing the package currently proposed by the Council was always going to be the building of houses on the golf course. As I mentioned before, why can't other sites throughout the city be looked at? I recognise the political sensitivity of this but it accords fully with the rules of local government finance: no ring-fencing, the receipts from almost everything sold added to the common city-wide kitty from which are financed new developments according to priority need. Again I make the suggestion of looking at housing at The Jewel.

This neatly brings me to my final point: a growing sense of resentment as to why Portobello itself is being asked to self-fund such vital pieces of community infrastructure as a High School and primary school. At least when in 1896 Portobello merged with Edinburgh the local community got a Town Hall, a swimming pool, a good bit of the Promenade and a golf course! To those who still today ask whether this merger was a good thing I always reply that it allows Portobello to benefit from the collective resources of the capital city! I grant you that we got a beautifully refurbished Swim Centre and we're seeing welcome streetscape improvements along the High Street - but we've still not got a new library or community centre and now we're being told that we have to self-fund new schools as well!

I do hope that you will consider at least the former Scottish Power site as another option as a site for Portobello's new High School - a High School on the High Street.

Lawrence

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 14:26

From the EN, 22/3/6:

Sports clubs set out opposition to school park plan

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 14:34

PPP2 Prioritisation Methodology

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 14:35

Prioritisation Scoring (Excel version)

Prioritisation Scoring (html version)

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 14:37

From Maureen Child's March newsletter:

Portobello High School - Possible Way Forward?

There has been a lot of debate and discussion, conversations and meetings about the possible way ahead for schools in Portobello and district and understandably so. I have spent more time and effort on this issue in the last month than anything else put together and it has been a pre-occupation for years before that. Contrary to popular myth, this new proposal is not a done deal by any means. It needs everyone's input to make it happen, to stop it happening or to make the very best of what might happen.

I very much hope we can continue to discuss the issues without personal attacks, although people on all sides of this question have told me they feel pretty bruised. Some are being caught in the middle, torn in more than one direction. It seems to be dividing families and friends and we should all take great care to ensure that pressure is eased. Making tough decisions is a bruising process, by its very nature, without any of us making it more so. Let's make this a positive community process.

As I think I have said throughout, there is no way I would be supportive of taking forward this radical idea if I could see another practical way forward than using the golf course option, that would afford the kind of schools and community facilities which the whole of Portobello and district needs. There is no question that this wide community's children and families very much need this facility for themselves and for future generations.

There are a number of apparent alternative solutions being put forward, but I do not yet see a viable one among them. A simple look at the map of Portobello will tell you that there is only one site at the centre of the catchment area and that it is enormous. I have asked myself the key question - what should be at the heart of a community? Excellent community schools in woods and parkland, with playing fields for all? Or a golf course? If that is the choice, there's no real contest in my view: the community school has it hands down.

So far, most of what I see and hear and read is that people are desperately seeking other ideas and alternatives, as I have myself for about three years. But none have emerged yet; none that are really achievable or even desirable, in my view. I remain to be convinced that any of the other suggestions are good enough for the Portobello High School or good enough for our community, but I recognise that some people will take a lot of time and trouble to be even half convinced of that. And some will never, ever be convinced. Some feel they have a great deal to lose in their neighbourhood and we must work to make that less bad for them, a lot less bad than many of them fear right now.

I believe there is a winnable battle to be had to find other sources of funding to minimise, or even eliminate, the need for housing on the site to pay for the new schools. We must also explore the possibilities of associating the primary and secondary school shared campuses. But the suggestion of amalgamating Holyrood and Portobello High Schools at a shared Duddingston campus does not get my support for educational, transport and landscape value reasons.

The fact is that that the Portobello High School building - as it stands - is structurally sound. It is not falling down around the ears of pupils and staff. It is as safe as we can make it. But, as it stands, the ill-conceived building needs investment and replacement of its major systems - electricity, drainage, heating pipes and lifts. It is really not possible to deliver the full modern curriculum in this building. In physical education, this is particularly acute and impossible. Despite all this, the staff and pupils do a really excellent job with what they do have. The school's innovative system of school management, with house heads, senior pupil mentors and excellent guidance staff, means that the school does not seem huge to pupils. There is a real community spirit in the school, where different communities and age groups get on very well. It is "a true comprehensive school and a place I want to teach in", as one staff member put it. They could do even better for all of us in a building, which works for them and not against them.

Local Councillors have started the discussion as soon as we could, rather than spring a report on people with a week's notice. A decision will be taken in a month whether or not to do more detailed work on the option of using the Portobello golf course site. A report is to go to the Council's Education Executive on 25 April and the community's divided voice will be heard there loud and clear. That event should set a timetable for the extensive, in depth, formal consultation process. It will answer some of the questions, which we all need to ask, and then ask some more.

This is not my first or last word on this matter.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 14:42

SSP Pamphlet, 2nd Edition