Towerbank Primary School - refurbishment and extension

[Bob Jefferson]

It's great news for PHS but we must not forget about the situation at Towerbank. As seanie is currently the chair of Towerbank Parent Council, perhaps he could explain what stage we are at with the long-awaited extension and what problems the school currently faces?

[seanie]

Leaflets were being handed out this morning with the following;

Towerbank Extension

Last June we became aware that the Council were progressing with the long awaited extension to the school but that the scale of the project had been reduced. Of particular concern were the following;

• No refurbishment of the existing toilets.
• No landscaping works to the remaining external areas.
• No realignment or closing of the road in front of the school.

We have now been told that the Children & Families department are bidding for additional funds to bring these elements back into the project. Whilst this is encouraging, such a bid will be competing with other projects in the budget process. The higher the priority of a project, the greater the chance of success in securing funds.

We again ask for your help in welcoming this decision by the Education Department but emphasising just how important these works are for the quality and safety of our school. Please make your views known to Gillian Tee, Director of Children and Families;

Gillian.Tee@edinburgh.gov.uk

Our local Councillors can also be contacted via the e-mail addresses overleaf or at The City of Edinburgh Council, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1YJ.

[seanie]

There was also information about likely cuts in school budgets. There's considerable pressure on the revenue budget but the same is true of the capital programme.

The money for the extension is already committed but getting the other works reinstated is far from certain. There are lots of other schools requiring investment.

[Bob Jefferson]

So what can ordinary parents like myself do? Write to our local councillors presumably? Anything else?

[seanie]

I'd certainly copy the local councillors in on anything but it's probably more a departmental decision. Children & Families will have to take a view on how projects rank as a priority, and only those near the top are likely to get funding given the financial pressures.

In all honesty, and not knowing what's required at other schools, I couldn't say whether it deserves to be the top priority.

But reinstating the works excluded from Towerbank would be a huge improvement. All we can really do is make the case for Towerbank and hope that's recognised.

[seanie]

Primaries 'bursting at seams' get extensions

I'm not entirely sure, but as far as I can tell this is just a re-announcment of previous committments. Capital funds were allocated for the Towerbank extension in February 2006 and although a bid for additional works has been submitted as part of the current budget proposals, I'm not aware that a decision on that has been taken.

[Bob Jefferson]

I think there may be a few recycled stories in the EN today. It can't be easy finding enough material for a 'good news only' edition.

So, can you give us an update on the situation at Towerbank? Is there still a shortfall in the money required to complete the work? If so, can you remind us of the compromises that have had to be made?

[seanie]

Capital funding for the extension itself was already committed; around £2.1M from memory. But that excluded a lot of works from the original scheme decveloped ie. toilet refurbishment, realigning the road, external works to the playground etc.

An additional bid was put into the budget process to reinstate these works. I wasn't advised of a figure for this but it could well add up to an additional £2M. My understanding was we'd only find out if that was succesful sometime after the budget was decided next week. That's why I assume this story relates to the funding already committed some time ago.

Whatever happens the extension should go ahead but we've been given little information regards programme. The bid for additional works may've incurred some delay but I'm not sure.

[Bob Jefferson]

Towerbank are to have 3 1/2 P1s in August

This is a hot topic among the playground parent set so let's take it over to a Towerbank thread to discuss.

This one will do. So what is the solution? The school is already bursting at the seams. Composite classes are unpopular. I have heard rumours of the annexe being brought back into use. Perhaps seanie can enlighten us?

[seanie]

Give me the weekend and I'll post something up.

We had our annual Parent Forum meeting where our current situation was discussd but most parents weren't able to attend. I'll try to get a flyer out to parents before the end of term as well.

[seanie]

Towerbank School Council – Update on the Proposed Extension

At this time last year the School Council reported that;

• The extension was proceeding to a reduced budget, and that it was expected to be ready for August 2010, with works starting this summer.

However a number of elements had been omitted;

• No refurbishment of the existing toilets.

• No landscaping works to the remaining playgrounds and ash pitch.

• No realignment or closing of the road in front of the school.

Late last year the Children & Families department reconsidered this and decided to make a bid for additional funds to re-incorporate these parts of the project. This was approved in the Council’s budget set in March and there now appears to be a commitment to fund the whole package of work, including alterations to the road layout.

However, whilst this is to be welcomed, the project timescale appears to have slipped considerably. From the information available, the bulk of the money has been allocated in the 2011-12 financial year and cannot be spent before then. If the main works cannot commence until Spring 2011, it seems to the School Council that the extension is unlikely to be ready before August 2012.

Edinburgh Council has not yet confirmed their revised programme but we are very concerned that one year on, completion of the project appears to be two years further away. We are also very worried about the implications for the operation of the School over this period. Whilst the School will be able to cope with the limitations in space over the next year, come August 2010 we will be facing severe problems. There could also be serious implications for the After School Club.

Most of this only came to light last week and some aspects have still to be confirmed. Hopefully we should be able to provide firmer information by the time school resumes after the summer break.

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

Parents' fury as extension work on cramped Portobello school delayed by a year

[Franck]

470 pupils?Thats an awful lot is it not?My kids go to St.Johns and I'd guestimate they have 350-ish?

As for delaying the building work, who's really surprised?Our council is skint and are in dire need of money for the trams.Everything else can wait.

[seanie]

The delay's not ideal but it's not the main issue; some delay was going to be inevitable once the bid for additional funds was successful.

The immediate issue is how the school's going to cope till then and what measures can be taken to manage the situation. There doesn't appear to be a proper appreciation within the Children & Families department of the difficulties the school faces.

[seanie]

Another update.

The Council traditionally leave any bombshell news about delays or changes till the week before the summer break. And this year is no exception.

More information can be found at the School Council website, but the gist is that the nursery stays in the annexe for the forseeable, and the extension now consists of additional classrooms to accomodate an increased capacity; up to 20 classes instead of 18.

[Pal of Porty]

Excellent response Seanie. It beggars belief that the fundamental objectives of the entire project can suddenly be changed with a minutes notice. Talking about missing the point!

Expenditure of this nature only comes around every 10 or 20 years and there is now a real danger that Towerbank will have 'built in' organisational and physical inadequacies for many, many years to come. At least you have a whole day to think about it while they hold a gun to head.

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

Overcrowded primary set to add even more pupils

[seanie]

Well a report went to Committee and the project's proceeding on the basis of the 3 storey, 8 class extension. It runs a risk of delivering the poorest educational outcome, but unfortunately the reasons for going down this route are compelling.

At least they've committed to try to get the nursery on-site, and they are going forward with it as an additional tender option.

Whether the finances will support it though is very uncertain.

More background information can be found at the School Council website.

[seanie]

Well, you could knock me down with a feather but....

The latest news, as of today, is that the project has been rescoped somehow to address all the school's concerns.

So it looks like an 8 class extension, with integrated nursery on-site, all in one phase of works.

Well done City of Edinburgh Council.

(fingers crossed)

[Pal of Porty]

Great result if that happens - it is so obviously the option with the best educational outcome for all.

[seanie]

Official confirmation.

[seanie]

The Planning Application for the extension has been lodged.

[seanie]

In the news.

[rmolehusband]

Ms Asrih continued: “The street we live on is 4.5 metres wide and we all use one side to+ park our cars. It’s an issue for road safety and for emergency vehicles. If someone were to have a fire there’s no way for an engine to get through if all the parents are dropping their children off.

It's a street, a public highway, and not a car park. It exists to allow access (on foot, cycle, motor vehicle, horse, pram, scooter, etc.). If it's not possible for someone, in an emergency vehicle perhaps, to gain access via the street as a result of an obstruction then the obstruction is the problem.

[seanie]

I've checked and the nursery appears to comply with the relevant daylight & sunlight standards. There may be scope to adjust the roof design to reduce the visual impact, but there may be conflicting considerations. As to traffic, there might be additional measures that could improve the surrounding road network but I can't see the nursery generating significant additional vehicle movements.

[Mark Cameron]

Seanie why does it have to be sited on that side of the playground? Is there no scope to have it on the newly created playground up near teh new road? Seems to provide a solution that would suit both parties - although I admit to not knowing the full considerations and there may be a perfectly valid reason.

[seanie]

It's in the position that works best for the operation of the school. It connects into the existing circulation of the school with minimal disruption, maintains all the existing entrances/exists to the school, and has it's own separate entrance. It could be located remotely but that doesn't work as well, and could entail additional costs depending where you put it.

As things stand the design appears to comply with the relevant planning requirements so should be approved as is. However, it may be possible to tweak the roof design to reduce the visual prominence to local residents. At least that would be relatively straightforward; relocating the nursery somewhere else entirely would be a massive step backwards and an unnecessary one.

[Mark Cameron]

To play devil's advocate one could say "......an unnecessary one." In your opinion. I'm not suggesting it be moved but can understand the residents concerns. They had a view into a garden but will end up with a view of a building. I know which I'd prefer. All I was trying to understand was the basis for the planned site and whether consultation in advance tool place with residents. I guess I believe that where possible community projects should not negatively affect residents. I absolutely behind the extension and if the benefits of the planned site to the school outweigh those negatives of the residents then i'd back the plan fully. However if the benefits of the situation of the nursery to the children are minimal then I'd favour doing what can be done to remove the residents concerns.

[seanie]

You could say "in your opinion" to pretty much any statement expressed by anyone. So it's essentially a banal comment to make. It may be unfortunate but in reality the measure by which planning applications should be judged, are the planning requirements themselves. And since the current proposal appears to comply, any changes are unnecessary in planning terms. They may still be worthwhile for the sake of keeping people happy, but they aren't 'neccessary' in planning terms.

In my opinion.

[Mark Cameron]

Honestly not looking for a fight Seanie - I actually agree with the vast majority of your opinions on here - in fact can't recall anything I've disagreed with - yet

You're close to this project and I take my hat off to you for being involved - I really am not having a go as the extension is going to be a massive step forward for TB.

I was simply considering the flip side. I agree that ultimately the planning requirements are what will be used and that's why they are there. But surely these shouldn't be the sole consideration when looking at a build? Would you be happy if you were living in one of these houses? I know I wouldn't be if I thought there was an alternative that would cost the same and not disadvantage the nursery - but I don't know if that is the case as I've not been involved and haven't heard anything to explain the reason for the siting.

What I was trying to understand was whether it is actually cheaper to clear the garden site and build the nursery on it than build the same building at the far end of the playground? If not are the benefits of it being on the proposed site to the children worth the extra outlay and disruption to neighbours? If they are then that's where it should be sited.

[seanie]

Well the people on Wilson's Place currently look out onto the nature garden, which is a more pleasant view than the one they'll get if the nursery goes ahead. So it's perfectly understandable that they might not be keen. But there's no objective way of determining the balance between the interests of the various parties affected. A remote nursery somewhere else on the site could well be slightly cheaper than what's proposed, but the school very much wanted it to be integrated with the school. In the proposed location it's right next to the early years classrooms which is ideal. But I can't think of any metric you'd use to measure the benefit of that in comparison to an alternative.

At the end of the day the closest thing to an objective standard, that can be applied reasonably consistently to mediate between differing interests, are the planning regulations themselves. If something complies with those standards it is entitled to approval, regardless of how many people object and how strongly. I'm all in favour of tweaking the design if there's a way of keeping more people happy, but not to the extent of compromising important aspects from the school's perspective, especially when the design complies with the relevant planning requirements.

[Mark Cameron]

Totally agree about the difficulty measuring this and that if the school see it's planned site as a fundamental requirement for the benefit of them and the kids then that's what should be delivered. What would be disappointing is if the actual benefits of the siting to the nursery were not significant but I'm sure this will have been explored during the process. maybe that's the message that needs to be communicated.

[seanie]

Maybe there's an argument for better communication or more consultation but I'm sceptical. People's attitude to consultation is more determined by the outcome than the process. And when it comes to development there are frequently conflicting interests that simply can't be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. I can't imagine there's a single opponent of the High School in the park who thinks "well I'm not happy with the outcome but at least there was extensive consultation".

[Mark Cameron]

Agree it's nigh impossible to satisfy everyone's requirements and think this is where communication of the pros and cons would at least let everyone see the reasoning behind the planning/development decision.

I thought, after reading the STV piece quoting the objector's point of view plus the response attributed to you, that I had more sympathy with the objectors from what I'd read as there was nothing said in the article about the logic behind the placement of the nursery (that's not to say you didn't tell the reporter that info.)

I generally agree with the views you post here so I thought the quote came across as fairly negative and almost anti-community spirited which I'm sure was not the intention at all but it does demonstrate that it's easy for others to have their perceptions set from a small soundbite.

I know how difficult it is to get comms. right - it's what I do at work and I still screw up frequently :C) Maybe something selling the benefits of the location to the school/nursery plus the olive branch of looking at the height of the roof will not be enough to make the residents of the street happy but it might let the wider community understand the reasoning and get more people right behind the project.

Again just want to say this is not meant to be a dig at you or anyone involved in the project as I know there has been a huge amount of effort put in to get to this stage and I'm really grateful there are people willing to get stuck in and make things happen.

[seanie]

I'd be careful about drawing conclusions on the basis of news articles. For example, on reading that piece you'd think the nursery was just 4.5m from the houses. That's what it says afterall. But that's not true. The road at Wilson's Park may be 4.5m wide, but there are pavements on either side of that so the boundary of the school is not just 4.5m away from the houses. Also the nursery is not built up to the fence; most of it is about 4.5m from the boundary (about 10.7m from the houses), with a short section about 1m away from the boundary (about 7.2m away from the houses).

Those figures might not mean much to people in either case but it illustrates a problem inherent in journalism. Most stories have to be told so concisely that context is missing and facts often get a little muddied. Whenever I've read an article on a topic I'm actually knowledgeable about I'm almost always struck by the way things are, not wholly wrong, but never quite right. As in this case, you can usually work out how that's happened, but only when you already know the details.