New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Oct 2005, 11:51

Thought I would start another thread a) due to the importance of the subject b) the current debate is buried in the Power league thread.

The project has no funding and rudderless at the moment. Most people agree that a new facility is required and that the need is sooner than funding is likely to become available. This means that we have plenty of time to debate the matter.

We need a set of key criteria in order to evaluate options. So where do we start? So far I have garnered the following: I stress that they are not my criteria, please feel free to challenge. If you do challenge please justify the challenge. If you have any further criteria please suggest, we may have to remove criteria if no alternative is available.

Key Criteria

1) Sited within the catchment area.

2) On-site playing fields

3) No higher than 3 floors (or is it two)

4) Accessible by public transport

5) Larger footprint than the current school site

6) Capital receipt required.

7) Accomodate at least the existing school role.

I had to remove 8 as the council apparently would sacrifice a green space.
Any more?

Ed · Post by Ed » 21 Oct 2005, 11:53

I cant speak for the Rugby Club but my opinion is that, given we are an FP club with links to the High School, I would be hoping that whatever the outcome we could get involved, new facilities, indoor, outdoor, all weather etc.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 21 Oct 2005, 17:05

Amalgamate with Holyrood. It's being rebuilt anyway, make it bigger, loads of playing fields round about (or, they could just build the extra onto the rugby pitches, it's a rich game anyway

), loads of Portobello and surrounding kids go there anyway - so if it's not directly in the catchment area I'm sure the Council could tweak it slightly, on a bus route. Problem solved, golf course saved.

Sorry, forgot about no.6 - sell the old school site to build more flats on and that even keeps Lawrence happy.

General Tactifer · Post by **General Tactifer** » 21 Oct 2005, 19:40

Epykat wrote:Amalgamate with Holyrood...(snip)...it's not directly in the catchment area

Holyrood must be very close to the catchment area. Anyone know exactly where the border runs?

Sorry, forgot about no.6 - sell the old school site to build more flats on and that even keeps Lawrence happy.

I've a better idea, why don't we sell Lawrence and then everyone will be happy

General Tactifer · Post by **General Tactifer** » 21 Oct 2005, 19:57

How about building the school where the Powerleague is supposed to be being relocated? This is in the catchment area. The council will not, of course, be able to sell off the existing Powerleague site for development - but then, making a killing on the deal isn't the council's main motivation here - is it?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 21 Oct 2005, 20:00

That one's already been thought of GT. It was felt that a) the site was too small and b) it's too much 'in' Portobello and not central to the catchment area, although it would have been a nice walk to school for me along the beach

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 21 Oct 2005, 22:22

Epykat wrote:Amalgamate with Holyrood.......

Great idea ..... And then when that is sorted, Hearts and Hibs could decide to ground share and then invite Edinburgh Rugby to share in the same facility with then with all the harmony and green space created we could........

General Tactifer · Post by **General Tactifer** » 22 Oct 2005, 01:58

Epykat wrote:That one's already been thought of GT. It was felt that a) the site was too small and b) it's too much 'in' Portobello and not central to the catchment area, although it would have been a nice walk to school for me along the beach

Sorry Epykat, I may not have made myself clear. I was referring to the suggested new Pitz site (only a few yards from the golf course).

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 22 Oct 2005, 23:39

Oh sorry. However, hopefully the Pitz won't be going there either

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 22 Oct 2005, 23:40

Pal of Porty wrote:
Epykat wrote:Amalgamate with Holyrood.......
Great idea ..... And then when that is sorted, Hearts and Hibs could decide to ground share and then invite Edinburgh Rugby to share in the same facility with then with all the harmony and green space created we could........

Don't see why not - I thought this Government was well into integration

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Oct 2005, 12:08

Suggestions so far:

Golf Course (entire)

Golf Course near new Power League site. (not sure where GT means?)

Existing Pitz site

Amalgamate with Holyrood

Anywhere else?

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 23 Oct 2005, 12:20

Re-build where it is but flatten St. Johns and amalgamate that space into the existing PHS site.

Send the kids from St. Johns to Duddy, Towerbank, Parsy, RHs etc.

The need for separate catholic schools is a matter of debate in itself.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Oct 2005, 12:44

ecm wrote:Re-build where it is but flatten St. Johns and amalgamate that space into the existing PHS site.

Send the kids from St. Johns to Duddy, Towerbank, Parsy, RHs etc.

The need for separate catholic schools is a matter of debate in itself.

Controversial!!! BTW St Johns is a muti-faith school.

St Johns is a very big school (420) and the other local schools are bursting at the seams. TB is deemed unfit for purpose or almost. What about moving St John's along Hamilton Drive and siting it in the bit of the Figgate Park that backs onto baileyfield road? Don't know if thats big enough?

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 23 Oct 2005, 12:49

Porty wrote: Controversial!!! BTW St Johns is a muti-faith school.

So, why is it called St Johns RC Primary School then?

There may well be kids of various faiths there but surely the school's ethos is catholic?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Oct 2005, 12:52

Yes it is. I wasn't disagreeing with you just pointing it out.

Don't think the other schools could take the kids tho'.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Oct 2005, 13:09

Trying to source some data on catchment areas and discovered that PHS is one of the 40% of COEC secondary schools that are operating avove 100% capacity.

Some of the schools are over occupied through the number of placing request they receive. Others, more crucially are over occupied because their catchment numbers exceed their notional capacity. This has been a problem seen in recent years at Boroughmuir, Trinity, Leith, Portobello, Craigmount and Holy Rood. As a result, intake limits have had to have been increased, temporary units installed, or annexes considered. The Authority has also had to rely increasingly on prioritising placing requests out of certain catchment areas, because if they were unsuccessful there would be no room to accommodate them at their catchment school. For example every year around 50 placing requests are prioritised out of Boroughmuir, predominately into James Gillespie's, which normally just creates sufficient numbers to house in Boroughmuir.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 23 Oct 2005, 13:51

Porty wrote:...siting it in the bit of the Figgate Park that backs onto baileyfield road? Don't know if thats big enough?

You really are Eco-friendly aren't you

?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Oct 2005, 16:58

Epykat wrote:
Porty wrote:...siting it in the bit of the Figgate Park that backs onto baileyfield road? Don't know if thats big enough?
You really are Eco-friendly aren't you ?

Practical, i'd say. Take it you are against sacrificing a bit of a massive park?

General Tactifer · Post by **General Tactifer** » 23 Oct 2005, 17:33

Porty wrote:Suggestions so far:
(snip)
Golf Course near new Power League site. (not sure where GT means?)

Oh dear, I seem to be causing some confusion here! The suggestion was to build the school where it's suggested the Powerleague be relocated, instead of the Powerleague, leaving the latter where it is (unless some other site is available - Pitz doesn't have to be in Portobello after all).

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 23 Oct 2005, 17:53

Porty wrote:
Epykat wrote:
Porty wrote:...siting it in the bit of the Figgate Park that backs onto baileyfield road? Don't know if thats big enough?
You really are Eco-friendly aren't you ?
Practical, i'd say. Take it you are against sacrificing a bit of a massive park?

If we keep 'sacrificing' BITS of a not so massive park/golf course there won't be any left. No point in educating children into being eco friendly and then digging up all the greenery in the area to build them another concrete school in which to teach them about sustainability and the ozone layer - that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Let's face it, our grandchildren/greatgrandchildren are going to be severely up a creek without any form of paddle whatsoever if we keep sacrificing bits of parkland - including Dalkeith country park.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Oct 2005, 12:54

General Tactifer wrote:
Porty wrote:Suggestions so far:
(snip)
Golf Course near new Power League site. (not sure where GT means?)
Oh dear, I seem to be causing some confusion here! The suggestion was to build the school where it's suggested the Powerleague be relocated, instead of the Powerleague, leaving the latter where it is.

I'm still baffled. Do you mean on the Milton Road side of the open space that includes the golf course?

General Tactifer · Post by **General Tactifer** » 26 Oct 2005, 22:12

Porty wrote:
I'm still baffled. Do you mean on the Milton Road side of the open space that includes the golf course?

Yes

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Oct 2005, 23:20

Ok, got you.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 28 Oct 2005, 11:25

The eldest magnoliette needs a PHS around 2011 or so (I think...)

so factoring in a year or so to get the new one bedded down, a year to build it and three years to sort the planning issues, you (we) (one) have / has about a year to make up our minds where this is going.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Oct 2005, 12:07

Unfortunately the Porty children will not see a new PHS. Lisa is in fourth year.

I think we have exhausted all the possible sites for a new school but lets leave the ideas open before pulling together the final list.

No-one has mentioned the Freightliner terminal as yet. Can we establish if the council own the ground?

I was thinking, that with a severe winter predicted we should start a High School watch thread to monitor how many days the children of portobello miss or are sent home in comparison to other schools in Edinburgh.

I'm afraid I can't get too excited about "Imagine Portobello" when we have 1450 children being educatedi in a building that past its sell by date about 10 years ago. (Not to forget the primary kids who are in the same boat)

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 30 Oct 2005, 13:31

Brammell Laidlaw have well outgrown their premises on the Causeway!
Standard Life, I believe, would be open for negotiations to sell the
the land that the Council rent from them, this is adjacent to Laidlaw's.

Keep the Pitz site as a leisure facility for PHS, and further utilise this site from the paying public.

Just a suggestion.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Oct 2005, 13:38

Gemini wrote:
Just a suggestion.

That's what the thread is for.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 04 Nov 2005, 18:30

The unmonitored loss of open, green space due to new school building is an issue troubling many communities in Scotland according to this BBC report.

It also quotes a Scottish Executive spokesman as saying, "At least half of the local authorities have either completed or are working on their open space audits and strategies."

Wonder if The City of Edinburgh Council has completed its and what the strategy is?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 04 Nov 2005, 19:10

I think their strategy is much the same as my Easter one - eat it all up as fast as possible, then there's no argument about who's getting any because it's all gone - only difference is mine's chocolate, theirs is grass.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Nov 2005, 13:46

Are there any more school location suggestions out there?

Jbrock · Post by **Jbrock** » 13 Nov 2005, 00:02

Could someone tell me if there are any plans for the High School. At least if we knew what options were being considered by the council, it would allow the local community to comment or come up with alternatives. I worry that all this speculation just leads to inaction and even more years when local children have to go to school in a building and environment that is not good enough for them.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Nov 2005, 04:16

Jbrock. firstly, welcome to POL.

This thread was started by me and I don't represent anyone other than myself. I guess you could call the suggestions speculation it is the raison de tere.

The thread got off to a sticky start as I was a bit over keen on locating PHS at the Golf Course. However, I have now retrracted from that position in the hope of objectively garnering the views of those who have influence over the decision, councillors etc.

Once all ths ideas are in I intend writing to the "powers at be" to get their input on how practical/affordable/desirable each suggested location is. I intend publishing the responses here.

As far as I know there is no plan at the moment other than the demolition of the current school building. There is no timescale or funding. If you have a suggestion please donate it.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 14 Nov 2005, 18:42

ecm wrote:Re-build where it is but flatten St. Johns and amalgamate that space into the existing PHS site.

Send the kids from St. Johns to Duddy, Towerbank, Parsy, RHs etc.

The need for separate catholic schools is a matter of debate in itself.

As is your knowledge of St. Johns, it would appear

I'd be all for the Golf course/Train depot suggestion...maybe even incorporate a new St. Johns onto the land and use part of the old land from both schools to 'donate' some park land back.

Shame to lose a golf course I've played for 25-odd years, but a new school for my nippers is more important (incase the wife reads this)

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Nov 2005, 21:33

This message, which I was copied into, seems to suggest that the Golf Course proposal has been abandoned in the face of public opposition, leaving no viable alternative:

Jackie

Thanks for your letter of November 12th regarding the future prospects for the fabric, etc. of Portobello High School.

I'd rather speak with you on the 'phone about this since it affords you the opportunity of an instant response to any further questions you might have but, for the moment, I'd say that I recognise the concerns raised over the years by parents and the School Board regarding the fabric of the school and the desirability indeed for a completely new building.

Whilst improvements to the fabric have been made and continue bit by bit, these will not deliver the quality of building now seen increasingly throughout the CEC education estate through PPP (Portobello High School didn't score highly enough to be included in PPP2).

However, with not a single penny to finance a new school (estimated to cost Â£25m) and with the recent public meeting expressing its strong
resistance to a self-financing package being explored by CEC Education officials which would have involved building the school (with playing fields) on Portobello golf course, it seems to me that, at least until the completion of PPP2, there is little if any chance of a new build Portobello High School. Instead, I guess that we'll have to carry out the necessary basic repairs to the existing building.

I'm sorry not to be more hopeful but I really can't see where we can find Â£25m and the self-financing package outlined above now seems to me to be pretty much dead in the water given the level of opposition this is likely to arouse in the local community. Maybe there might be a PPP3 - but at the moment we are being told not expect this.

Lawrence Marshall

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Nov 2005, 22:19

I suppose that in a sense we shouldn't be surprised at this. Certainly, no-one here has come up with a viable alternative. Lawrence believes that there is strong resistance to the Golf Course plan, but is he right? The questionnaire suggested that preserving green spaces is our top priority, but is it, and at what expense?

The questionnaire didn't include the option of 'Build a new Portobello High School'. If it had, perhaps that would have emerged as our top priority.

Perhaps it should have asked the question:

'Are you prepared to sacrifice the Golf Course in exchange for a new PHS?'

In fact, the questionnaire was poorly thought out and proves nothing in my view. It certainly shouldn't be taken as the basis for forming policy on such an important matter.

There is another dimension to the proposal that until now has not appeared in the public arena. My understanding is that the loss of the Golf Course would be compensated by the acquisition of greenfield land nearby to provide a new course. Perhaps we can get Lawrence to comment on this.

Like almost everyone else, I ticked the box to say that I wanted to preserve green space. But equally, I want a new fit for purpose school for my kids. Perhaps the salient point is that even if we did have the Â£25 million, the school would still have to be sited somewhere.

Where is it going to go?

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Portobello High school