New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Lawrence Marshall]

I welcome this new thread and the discussion this will allow regarding provision of a new Portobello High School.
A new golf course would have been provided quite near by - the main reason Maureen and I were asked to keep the golf course option secret was the need to negotiate the acquisiton of the land required for a new 18-hole course.
This option was self-financing, including as it did building on the current school site, moving the High School to the golf course and providing playing fields alongside (around one third of the park), building houses on another third and keeping one third as a park. No other option is self-financing - and that's why I can't see any prospect of a new school in the near future if that new school is dependent on Council or Scottish Executive monies. The Council has not a penny to make this happen - we barely have enough money to do repairs to the existing building year on year.
When contemplating the failure of my attempt to see if the High School could be re-located to the Power League site (a High School on the High Street attracted me) I did mention to officials the possibility of the Freightliner site. It would be of sufficient size to accommmodate both a new school and its playing fields. However, and I think rightly so, this site was ruled out since it is rather isolated, sandwiched as it is between the main East Coast rail line and the Portobello bypass. It wouldn't have been as expensive as, say, the site proposed for the superstore, however, as, although also zoned for industrial use, you couldn't ever think that housing would be permitted there.
The suggestion of perhaps being able to acquire the Laidlaw's site and at least parts of the Baileyfield Industrial Estate is intriguing. It's a central site but not obtrusive. I don't know if it's an option but it's worth keeping in mind should Laidlaw's show any wish to re-locate.
The current PPP programme across the city has certainly raised people's expectations - but, if you're not in it, projects as expensive as a new Portobello High School really are very difficult to see a way forward on.

Lawrence

[Cynthia]

I appreciate you are trying to find a way of rebuilding the school Lawrence. What seems incredible to me is that the Council has no money for what, I am told, is the biggest school in Edinburgh.

Shouldn't you be talking to the Scottish Executive and Gavin Strang re this ridiculous situation that Schools are dependent on private funding, or selling off public park land, or other assets, when we are spending so much on killing people in Iraq? I know you will probably say that is outwith the Council's remit, but it is your Political Party which is in Government - and even if it wasn't, shouldn't you be remonstrating with the Government to say enough is enough - we need money for public services not for destroying services and lives elsewhere?

It has to be said.

and by the way, if you think it is just in Portobello that we have local communities wanting to defend our green spaces, and have public services kept up to scratch or rebuilt, you are mistaken - there are campaigns across Scotland on similar lines - in other words, communities everywhere across the UK are experiencing the same problems ---

see this on BBC News site today http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4453898.stm
which starts

Park protest against housing move
There are fears that homes could be built on the site
Hundreds of people are expected to take part in a demonstration amid fears that an East Kilbride park could be sold off for housing.
South Lanarkshire Council has drawn up a list of more than 400 sites in which developers are interested, including greenbelt land next to Colonsay Fields.

I know this doesn't get us further forward locally, but I really don't think we should sell off our green spaces, yet I also feel we should have a new School/s if these are beyond repair and there is, as you say, little money for repairs anyway...and I would be saying this whichever Party is in power - enough is enough.


Carla aka Caroline

Edited1 - to put in my real name!

[Gemini]

[quote="Lawrence Marshall"]I welcome this new thread and the discussion this will allow regarding provision of a new Portobello High School.
A new golf course would have been provided quite near by - the main reason Maureen and I were asked to keep the golf course option secret was the need to negotiate the acquisiton of the land required for a new 18-hole course.
This option was self-financing, including as it did building on the current school site, moving the High School to the golf course and providing playing fields alongside (around one third of the park), building houses on another third and keeping one third as a park. No other option is self-financing - and that's why I can't see any prospect of a new school in the near future if that new school is dependent on Council or Scottish Executive monies. The Council has not a penny to make this happen - we barely have enough money to do repairs to the existing building year on year.
When contemplating the failure of my attempt to see if the High School could be re-located to the Power League site (a High School on the High Street attracted me) I did mention to officials the possibility of the Freightliner site. It would be of sufficient size to accommmodate both a new school and its playing fields. However, and I think rightly so, this site was ruled out since it is rather isolated, sandwiched as it is between the main East Coast rail line and the Portobello bypass. It wouldn't have been as expensive as, say, the site proposed for the superstore, however, as, although also zoned for industrial use, you couldn't ever think that housing would be permitted there.
The suggestion of perhaps being able to acquire the Laidlaw's site and at least parts of the Baileyfield Industrial Estate is intriguing. It's a central site but not obtrusive. I don't know if it's an option but it's worth keeping in mind should Laidlaw's show any wish to re-locate.
The current PPP programme across the city has certainly raised people's expectations - but, if you're not in it, projects as expensive as a new Portobello High School really are very difficult to see a way forward on.



If I recall correctly - in Duddingston House Properties 'Master Plan' for
Portobello, Brammell Laidlaw/Council 'tip' etc, were given over to housing.

In the information provided by (DHP) on view at the Library, before the PI,
There was a document from Standard Life stating that they would up for negotiating the sale of the Council Site on the Causeway.

If DHP's plan showed Laidlaw's site given over to housing, then some sort of talks must have taken place between the two, or could this juust be pure speculation? (Enter Porty!)

Both sites in question, are fairly large, and IMO could accomodate a new Porty High School quite comfortably.

[Bob Jefferson]

A new golf course would have been provided quite near by - the main reason Maureen and I were asked to keep the golf course option secret was the need to negotiate the acquisiton of the land required for a new 18-hole course.

Lawrence

I understand the need for confidentiality but it may have made the Golf Course option much more palatable to those concerned with 'preserving green space' if they had realised that there was to be no overall loss of amenity. This is one of the reasons why I feel that this option is not dead yet.

Wouldn't a self-financed school be preferable to a PPP funded one? The location is ideal, a third remains a park and the other third provides much-needed housing.

On the bigger picture, I agree with Carla that more should be spent on public services, but right here and now this looks like a good compromise.

Anyone else?

[Cynthia]

Interesting two postings above - first as Gemini: says:

In the information provided by (DHP) on view at the Library, before the PI, There was a document from Standard Life stating that they would up for negotiating the sale of the Council Site on the Causeway.

If DHP's plan showed Laidlaw's site given over to housing, then some sort of talks must have taken place between the two, or could this juust be pure speculation? (Enter Porty!)

Both sites in question, are fairly large, and IMO could accomodate a new Porty High School quite comfortably.

Lawrence or anyone - does anyone know any more about the possibility of this?

Second, as Bob pointed out Lawrence Marshall wrote:

A new golf course would have been provided quite near by - the main reason Maureen and I were asked to keep the golf course option secret was the need to negotiate the acquisiton of the land required for a new 18-hole course.

Lawrence

Does Lawrence or Maureen or anyone have information about this? its hard to have an opinion without more information. How would the School be self financing? Where is this land? Would it include current football pitches? Would the land, golf course, football pitches etc be Council owned and run or would the land be leased to Council/privately run? etc

More information on both issues would be helpful, especially with the current consultation meeting coming up next weekend....

Carla
Edited 1 - to add in question re private ownership of land

[Gemini]

A new golf course would have been provided quite near by - the main reason Maureen and I were asked to keep the golf course option secret was the need to negotiate the acquisiton of the land required for a new 18-hole course.

Lawrence

I understand the need for confidentiality but it may have made the Golf Course option much more palatable to those concerned with 'preserving green space' if they had realised that there was to be no overall loss of amenity. This is one of the reasons why I feel that this option is not dead yet.

Wouldn't a self-financed school be preferable to a PPP funded one? The location is ideal, a third remains a park and the other third provides much-needed housing.

On the bigger picture, I agree with Carla that more should be spent on public services, but right here and now this looks like a good compromise.

Anyone else?

Lawrence wrote>>

A new golf course would have been provided quite near by - the main reason Maureen and I were asked to keep the golf course option secret was the need to negotiate the acquisiton of the land required for a new 18-hole course end quuote<<

Where 'within the area', is there land enough for an 18 hole course

[Porty]

its hard to have an opinion without more information.

Carla

Carla,! quick, someone has hijacked your log in name.

[Cynthia]

Ha Ha Ha how not very funny Porty - keep to the thread or I'll report you to El Moderator Dada.....

Have you nothing to add on this topic? that's not like you.....

Carla

[karen]

The proposed land for an 18 hole golf course is owned by Lord Burton and is adjacent to Newhailes. Not really within the immediate area. More accessible to East Lothian boundary then Portobello area. That's what I remember - I could be wrong.

Karen

[Porty]

Phew!! I was worried about taking a "comedy" pot shot in the serious forum.

I am very interested in this topic, I cannot think of a more important issue facing our community. As you probably know I am pro the golf course idea and even more so now that it appears we can retain some of the open space. I am quite excited about the prospect. Although, I don't quite understand why a replacement the golf course needs to be a pre-requisite? To me the priorities are wrong.

It is all very well jumping on the "open space" bandwagon but Portobello has lots of open space. We are not trading a community resource to property developers or some other development body we are trading for another community resource. If I was either of our elected representatives and I was 100% certain that this was the only fundable option, I would do my utmost to make this happen.

[Porty]

The proposed land for an 18 hole golf course is owned by Lord Burton and is adjacent to Newhailes. Not really within the immediate area. More accessible to East Lothian boundary then Portobello area. That's what I remember - I could be wrong.

Karen

Thanks for that Karen.

[Cynthia]

Porty said:

It is all very well jumping on the "open space" bandwagon but Portobello has lots of open space.

Have to differ with you - not much open space down this end (West) of Portobello - I guess Figgate Park is the nearest and it doesn't feel very near to me (I'm sure someone will correct me if I have forgotten somewhere but this end of Porty feels very surrounded and enclosed by traffic/roads/buildings, all very necessary, but with very little green to compensate for this - lorries, buses etc past my & many others' windows and on the streets 24/7, including ofcourse on the bypass, Portobello Road and Porty High St). Kids will lose the Pitz and also the football pitches, as I understand it, on the present land which everyone refers to as the golf course. There was a good speaker at the public meeting recently who referred to this loss, and that quite a lot of young people will be affected.

Porty:

We are not trading a community resource to property developers or some other development body we are trading for another community resource

But the School's current site will be sold off to pay for the new school, so we will be losing Council/publicly owned land.

Thanks Karen for the information. I think we need to hear from Lawrence Marshall or Maureen Child soon what the deal would be, if the community agrees (and is consulted) about this: ie would the Council be purchasing this land? would the golf course be provided by a private or public provider and ditto any football pitches (and are any proposed) and where is this land in relation to Portobello? Will there be aby public walking areas?

I agree a new School is vital - I am just saying it should a) have been planned for b) should not have to rely on PPP/PFI c) the Government has plenty of money to squander on a very unpopular and in my view unjust war yet when it comes to vital public services we are told to go to the private sector or sell off Council land.

Carla

[Cynthia]

Bob said:

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.

Just seen this when scrolling back - do we have the results of the questionnaires given out at the public meeting and to be analyzed by someone from Porty Community Council? I couldn't make the last meeting. Sorry if its been posted on POL and I've missed it. I'd be interested to hear the results of the questionnaire....however flawed some may feel the questions were. (not something I noticed but maybe I'll change my mind when I see the results!)

Carla

[Porty]

I agree a new School is vital - I am just saying it should a) have been planned for b) should not have to rely on PPP/PFI c) the Government has plenty of money to squander on a very unpopular and in my view unjust war yet when it comes to vital public services we are told to go to the private sector or sell off Council land.

Carla

I am not getting into a point by point analysis like I normally do, for one thing, I feel almost everyone agrees that we need a new school, "vital" is your observation and I agree.

We are both agreed we need a school and a proposal has been put forwrad that you have issues with.

Do you have a viable alternative and can you share it with us?

We agree that the need is vital and that the project needs funding; you have ruled out PFI or PPP and are pinning your hopes on a transfer of funds from the War in Iraq to fund Portobello High School. What is your gut feel about when this money may become available.

And when it does become available, where would you locate the new school?

[Cynthia]

We have needed a new School for years - I agree we can't put it off much longer if that is what you and others are saying, especially if the buildings are deemed not fit for purpose.

I am assuming that rebuilding on the existing site has been thoroughly investigated and is being ruled out on grounds of practicalities and not just for the need to sell the land to be able to fund the rebuilding of the School? I am still unsure of the thinking of the Council behind ruling this out, or if, indeed, they have ruled it out.

Assuming that suggestion is ruled out, my main suggestion is that if the Council are considering purchasing land anyway, for a replacement golf course (hard to know as we haven't been told this other than through vague suggestions through POL), why doesn't the Council purchase land for a new School? I guess the Scottish Power site is one - although neighbours might object/parents and school students might feel it is dangerous with so many main roads nearby. The Council owned Depot/Laidlaw's site mentioned by Gemini is another possibility - part owned already by the Council - not far from the existing School, nearer Portobello and its' facilities ie the Bowling Centre and planned sports area nearby (suggested), swimming pool, library, shops, houses where kids will be drawn from. If the Council have money to purchase land, or if they intend to sell the School land in order to rebuild a School, under Council ownership and build, on newly bought Council land, I don't think I would object. I just don't like these deals with private developers or PPP/PFI which end up in green spaces being lost, houses built on those green spaces which are not council houses, or the Council not ending up being the owner of any of the public facilities eventually built ie under PPP/PFI - we end up paying effectively rent for 25 years and own nothing - and lose green space into the bargain.


It is very hard to know what the Councillors are suggesting because we haven't been told except there is a vague suggestion that they could find the money to buy land to replace the Golf Course. Why not just avoid the Golf Course and buy land to rebuild the School on ?

Carla

[Porty]

It is very hard to know what the Councillors are suggesting because we haven't been told except there is a vague suggestion that they could find the money to buy land to replace the Golf Course.

I agree the information available is patchy, in fact little more than gossip and tittle-tattle You therefore have to take into account that what I'm about to say is interpreted rather than factual. I'm trying to deploy common sense, which I'm sure you are aware doesn't come as standard with my gender.

Why not just avoid the Golf Course and buy land to rebuild the School on ?
Carla

Funding

Lawrence may be able to enlighten but my interpretation of what he said above is that the council do not have enough money to buy a bit of land for a new school, he said they barely have money for repairs.

I can only surmise that the land sought by the council was available at a reasonable price (land that is designated Greenfield is usually cheaper) and that the money to buy it was coming from the sale of land the school is currently built on and the land at the golf course, which is to be sold for housing. Lawrence intimated that this project would be self-funding, in my book that mean the purchase of the new GC land was covered.

It could even be the case that the land was to be almost donated to the council, much in the same way that Portobello Golf Course was originally. If Karen is correct with her information then it is very likely that the land in question cannot be built on. This would rule it out as being suitable for a new school.

Your post has emphasised what I was trying to achieve with the thread. Namely, lets get the ideas down and start an evaluation exercise. I intended to write to officials and get their evaluation on the sites that are put forward. I imagine some shall be ruled out straight away and others will be "in the hat". For example you mention the Scottish Power site, which I understand is considered to be too remote to the rest of the catchment area. I understand this to be the case but I haven't heard it from the horse's mouth (s)

Carla, please don't construe these questions as browbeating, it is not my intention. The questions are open to anyone that cares to engage.

You seem to have backed down a little on PPP/PFI funding or am I mistaken? (personally I think if it can be avoided, it should be)

Where else do you see money coming from and what is your gut feel as to when it shall be available?

If we accept what Lawrence says; that there is no money to purchase land, can you suggest another way of financing a new school in the forseeable future?

I believe Lawrence has also stated that PHS is so far down the PPP pecking order that there is no guarantee it will be in the next round, whenever that might be? Do you accept that some degree of sacrifice is going to have to be made, whatever happens?
Edited by Porty

[Bob Jefferson]

One of the reasons the Council would have for keeping quiet about the possibility of buying land to provide an alternative golf course would be to avoid a situation whereby an artificially high value for the site was created through public knowledge that it represented a key element of a much bigger picture.

I had been aware of this possibility for some time but, until now, respected the reasons for confidentiality. Following Lawrence's recent posting however I felt that, with the Golf Course proposal in jeapordy, it was important that people knew that there were at least plans to replace the facility. If Karen is correct, let's hope Lord Burton has his philanthropist's hat on and isn't out to make a fast buck.

It's not the first time this situation has arisen and it won't be the last. Councillors are often caught between a rock and a hard place. We all want to be kept informed, we demand transparency, but we must also appreciate that there are occasions when deals have to be done behind closed doors for very good reasons.

[Cynthia]

Porty - I don't mind you asking the questions - I take it they are for anyone to give their tuppence worth of ideas in reply to.
Re Porty said:

I can only surmise that the land sought by the council was available at a reasonable price (land that is designated Greenfield is usually cheaper) and that the money to buy it was coming from the sale of land the school is currently built on and the land at the golf course, which is to be sold for housing. Lawrence intimated that this project would be self-funding, in my book that mean the purchase of the new GC land was covered.

Thanks for that possible explanation. That worries me considerably. No I haven't backed down on the use of PPP/PFI - we end up with a shoddy deal in my experience, having to pay for it for 25 years and getting sxd all at the end of it. eg new RInfirmary for one. It also worries me because the Council does not seem to be very good at dealing with private developers and seems to come off badly eg 99 year lease on Pitz site to Powerleague, now having to buy their way out of that by selling off the land and giving them more land. But most of all it seems a bad deal to sell of the School, its land, and part of the golf course, to fund the building of the school, on green space, and to buy some other land which is not, it seems, very near our area for community use - we don't all have cars. What a mess.

Where else should the money come from? From, as I said above, Council coffers (plenty of money was found for promoting the Congestion Charges and I expect trams too); or our Councillors should a) approach the Scottish Parly who underspend every year or, b) through our MP, approach the Government. It comes to something when we can't fund the biggest school in Edinburgh, or any school for that matter. What is the Council for? The likelihood of any of this happening? not in my power to make any of this happen but my experience is that things that are impossible suddenly become possible when enough people voice their opinion, campaign and protest....

Some degree of sacrifice because it is so far down the pecking order? no - why is it so far down the pecking order? Surely schools spending should come above Congestion Charges promotion of, for example; or trams; or a whole host of other things the Council does. We didn't get ourselves into this mess. I hate it when we get lectured at public meetings by being told we have to solve this problem when we didn't make the problem.

As far as I am concerned the Government has made this problem - and it is one which is being faced by communities across the UK. We do need to address this and one first step would be for our Councillors, MSP and MP to raise the issue of lack of local government funding at every level possible.
When we cannot afford to rebuild a school (and repair others) which are not 'fit for purpose', under a government which came to power on an education education education remit, we need to change that government. And you might find that happens sooner rather than later. I am not saying this for the sake of Party politics - if this Government was doing a better job of spending money on public services, I would for one be a lot more supportive of them.

People have made the connection between the vast amounts of spending on bombing the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the lack of public funding available for schools, hospitals etc. We cannot be told anymore there is no money. There are millions and billions of ££££s for weapons, not to mention Trident upgrade.

Instead of putting questions to the community which we have not the power to solve - ie our councillors telling us we have to solve the problem of lack of money for this school - they should be putting these questions to our Government and Scottish Parliament. Where is the money from our Income and Council Tax going? Why isn't it going into local Schools instead of wars that no one wants? (these questions are not aimed at you Porty to answer they are aimed at our Councillors, MP and MSP)

I hope you will include them in your list of options. Finding the money from Council, Scottish Parliament or Central Government funding are the only options I feel which don't cut short the amount of green space for us and future generations.

Carla

[Gemini]

I heard on the radio, that it will cost £95m to maintain the Scottish
Parliament in the next financial year!

Well we can see where the priorities lie then

[Porty]

I heard on the radio, that it will cost £95m to maintain the Scottish
Parliament in the next financial year!

Well we can see where the priorities lie then

Gemini, I have serious doubts whether the SP represents value for money but we may as well face up to the fact that it is here to stay. The funding for the SP is completely separate from the COEC and the two are not interchangeable. In my view to start a battle on that front or to even waste a minute arguing against it merely detracts from the task in hand.

Carla, its a similar story with the £8m plus "wasted" on the congestion charge. That money is spent, it probably came out of a city development budget or something similar. Every city needs to spend money on development and they quite often get it wrong. I was annoyed by the way CG was handled but its a long game and maybe the £8m will turn out to be a good investment, in the event that the city end up with a better alternative, unlikely I know, but possible. The £8m would have bought 1/3 of a new high school but still not solve the question of location.

It may or may not be the Government's fault and I don't want to turn this into a political debate. However, the funding issue is real and you seem to be suggesting that a change in Government will bring a change in fortune.

Are you saying that it is acceptable to wait and see what happens in 2009-2010? This seems to dilute the "vital" need that we identified earlier.

What if your guess is wrong and the new regime does not wave a new school magic wand, what shall we do then?

For me this is a community issue that needs solving now . Sure we can take on the Government, challenge the methodology, funding policy etc but there is no guarantee of winning and there is no measurable timescale, it could take 50 years. From what Lawrence says we have a solution within our grasp that is self-financing without the need for PFI. Is that so bad?

BTW I don't see this issue as an US v THEM scenario with the US being the Portobello Community and THEM being the council, do you see it that way?

Carla thanks for responding at such length.

Edit

[Cynthia]

I am not going to turn this into a question and answer debacle as on other threads, as I have put my views already Porty - here they are repeated again in case I wasn't clear about what I think :

If the Council/Scott Parly/Gov can find the money for other things they sure as hell can find the money for schools and other public services.

You can add another £1million plus taking the bill for Congestion Charges vote up to and above £9 million to date - see here:
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=2275692005
its irrelevant what budget its held in - the Councillors or the Government decided to put it there - they can decide to put it in a budget for a new school.

If it is so urgent now, why haven't the Councillors, MSP or MP done something before now in the years they have had to find the money or location? Having left this problem for a good many years, I don't think we should be pressured now into a rush sale of green land, and lose out yet again to the private developers. (more houses to be built and more green space lost including football pitches - the possible replacement land is not necessarily a) going to be in the right area for people of Portobello to use with any ease, especially those without cars, especially young people and b) not necessarily going to have football pitches, general walking area and c) not necessarily going to be run by the public sector - hence charging issues

Re the Us and Them scenario - I was responding to the feeling I have whenever we are in a public meeting where these sort of funding problems are put back to the audience or community to solve, with the implication we just expect 'too much' by wanting to keep our green spaces and have good public services like schools - the solution in this case lies in the hands and policy decisions of our elected representatives. Our role is to pressurise, campaign and protest about them spending our money on the wrong things ie illegal war in Iraq, and to persuade them to spend our money on the essential public services the community needs and wishes.

I'd like to hear more from others about their views on this and my suggestion re funding.....and especially from our Councillors, MP or MSP...

Carla

[Porty]

Thanks Carla.

Lawrence has presented us with a scheme that has funding, requires no PPP/PFi involvement. Does involve the sale of land to developers. Does involve the sacrifice of an amenity although an alternative is being sought. Does include playing fields and does include retention of parkland. Giving us a reasonable chance of having a new high school before the end of the decade.

To summarise your views and at the risk of mis-representation, please correct me if I am wrong.

You do not accept your elected representatives when they publicly state that the coucil have no money. You argue that they are just spending it in the wrong budgets.

When an elected representative tells us that he has explored many avenues and he can see no other way to deliver a new school in the forseeable futures, you don't accept it.

You do not see it as the public role to come up with a workable solution. It is the job of our elected representatives.

You do not recognise or accept that there is a "pecking order" ie there are many City schools deemed more needy than PHS .

Scottish Parly and the UK government should be picking up all or a substantial part of the tab. As the Government came to power on a education manifesto.

Deals with private developers and schemes such as PPP/PFI are wholly unacceptable.

Building a new school on open space is unacceptable.

There is no room for compromise on any of the above.


And in terms of alternative scenarios:

You have suggested some different ways of funding but can offer no gut feel on if and when funds may become available? You cannot say if by deploying your suggested funding a strategy a new school will be available by say 2025.

A project of this size should be planned.

You prefer the Laidlaw option, although you have suggested no mechanism for making it happen.

You view that a new school is vital but there is no rush.

You would prefer or insist that the council come to public meetings with all of the finances in place.

Is that a fair representation? ( I had to squeeze in 1 question)

[Gemini]

Thanks Carla.

Lawrence has presented us with a scheme that has funding, requires no PPP/PFi involvement. , Does involve the sale of land to developers. Does involve the sacrifice of an amenityalthough an alternative is being sought. Does include playing fields and does include retention of parkland. Looks like we have a reasonable chance of having a new high school before the end of the decade.


The whole point of the debate is alternatives! without sacrifices.

You have singled out the GC without taking any other possibilities
into consideration. Laidlaw/Council Site for example, both within
reasonable distances of ample green recreation area's.
In any case, why does it all of a sudden, become a priority for PHS
to have it's own 'on site' playing/sporting facilities?

There are ample sporting facilities at Duddingston? Prior to Duddingston,
kids from Portobello etc had to travel to Kirkbrae/Meggatland to participate in various outdoor School sports activities. Duddingston is
approx 5 - 6 bus stops away, from the Porty Town Centre.

Relocating the GC (and if Karen's correct - to Newhailes) well IMO, this is just plain stupid, for all the reasons, and more, given previously, by Carla.





To summarise your views and at the risk of mis-representation please correct me if I am wrong.

You do not accept your elected representatives when they publicly state that the coucil have no money. You argue that they are just spending it in the wrong budgets.

I would concur with Carla on this point

When an elected representative tells us that he has explored many avenues and he can see no other way to deliver a new school in the forseeable futures, you don't accept it.

Lawrence did say this, but he also thought Laidlaw's/ Council Site was interesting!

You do not see it as the public role to come up with a workable solution. It is the job of our elected representatives.

What Carla said was:

I was responding to the feeling I have whenever we are in a public meeting where these sort of funding problems are put back to the audience or community to solve, with the implication we just expect 'too much' by wanting to keep our green spaces and have good public services like schools - the solution in this case lies in the hands and policy decisions of our elected representatives. Our role is to pressurise, campaign and protest about them spending our money on the wrong things ie illegal war in Iraq, and to persuade them to spend our money on the essential public services the community needs and wishes.





You do not recognise or accept that there is a "pecking order" ie there are many City schools deemed more needy than PHS .

There maybe are schools more needy than PHS, however, PHS is our
Community High School, therefore we see the need for a new one, from
our own perspective. I am sure other communities feel the same way.

Scottish Parly and the UK government should be picking up all or a substantial part of the tab. As the Government came to power on a education manifesto.

Well they did - didn't they! We have our own Parly Education Crowd, what are they there for, if not to improve our Schools and the Education
of our children?

Deals with private developers and schemes such as PPP/PFI are wholly unacceptable.

IMO yes, they cost the tax payer substantially more in the long run

Building a new school on open space is unacceptable.

Building a new school on open space is acceptable, building a new school
on Public Open space, is unacceptable

There is no room for compromise on any of the above.


And in terms of alternative scenarios:

You have suggested some different ways of funding but can offer no gut feel on if and when funds may become available? You cannot say if by deploying your suggested funding a strategy a new school will be available by say 2025.

Again, there is a huge underspend every year by the Scottish Parliament,
Why can't adequate funding be released by them to Councils, for a Schools programe - Surely that is not an unreasonable request?
As Carla mentioned, there is ample ££ sloshing around for less important
projects - eg keeping the pidgeons of MSP's, windows of contemplation?



that is not an unreasonable request

A project of this size should be planned.

You prefer the Laidlaw option although you have suggested no mechanism for making it happen.

I do - bulldoze the lot, and build a new PHS

You view that a new school is vital but there is no rush.

Appears the local reps have not rushed to do anything, for x amount of
years!

You would prefer or insist that the council come to public meetings with all of the finances in place.

Is this unreasonable?

Is that a fair representation? ( I had to squeeze in 1 question)

[Porty]

Gemini, your response is such a mess (no offence) I don't know where to start and I do not want to get into a nitpicking debate. I tried to summarise what Carla said, without passing judgement. If I mis-represented her, i have asked that she corrects me. I am not going to challenge her views either individually or collectively.

Could you tidy your post up a bit to make it easier to respond?

I will say the following:

The debate started with a hope of bringing up potential sites for a new school , it has succeeded. There was no caveat that said without sacrifice or compromise. There is no MUST to have playing field attached but it is desirable for participation, health and safety and environmental reasons. The GC option happens to offer it.

I am not singling the GC proposal out. During the course of the debate Lawrence has availed new information that makes the GC not just a possibility but a near future possibility. If anyone is singling out the golf course its Lawrence and he is singling it out because he sees it as the only credibe option in the forseeable future.

Carla simply doesn't agree, which is totally fine. She is not alone in supplying no viable alternative, noone else has either. Collectively we don't have enough information to decide what is and what's not viable? The one option we can be sure is self-financing and therefore viable is the GC.

Having said that, I do not think its is unreasonable to measure other suggestions against a do-able option, do you?

Edited by Porty

And finally to your suggestion for Laidlaw, I don't see how bulldozing alone is a mechanism for delivering a new school. How does bulldozing produce revenue to buy land and pay for a new school building or were you just being facietious (Sp)

[Gemini]

Apologies for my 'posting debacle' It was late - I was tired.

I do not intend to get into a nit picking argument with you about
this.

Lawrence did bring up the GC site, at the meeting in the Town Hall.
As far as I was aware, this idea had been dropped due to public
opinion.

I find it impossible to reconcile your ref to Health & Safety/Environmental
issues for the following reasons:

i) Building new PHS at GC, would 'eat up' much of the remainder of the only space in Portobello.

ii) Why should kids/ramblers/golfers/dog walkers etc. loose this space
when there are alternatives. Not everyone in Portobello has a park on their doorstep.

iii) Health /Safety/Environmental Issues, have never been a topic that
CEC take seriously - I am talking about personal experiences here.

iiii) If a school is built on the GC, do you think that would be it?
enter developers.

iiiii) I am not (unlike your goodself) a financial genius, however, I am sick
and tired hearing that there is no £'s, for this and that.
When they can pull squillions out for other agenda's!

Schools, I am afraid, are not as important, as raking in Taxes from Housing and other types of enterprises that CEC appear to favour.

[Porty]

Thanks Gemini I have noted your views and no problem about what you call a debaucle, your word not mine.

i) Building new PHS at GC, would 'eat up' much of the remainder of the only space in Portobello.

ii) Why should kids/ramblers/golfers/dog walkers etc. loose this space
when there are alternatives. Not everyone in Portobello has a park on their doorstep.

I am fearful as being seen as banging the drum for the GC project but i have to take issue with what you say above.

1) The GC is nowhere near the "only" space in portobello. There are at least 5 other parks in this area. And of course we have the immeasurable benefit of what I believe is the longest public walkway in Scotland, the promenade.

2) I am aware of no area of Edinburgh or any major city where every citizen has a "park on their doorstep", yet you say it like there is some sort of entitlement.

As far as Portobello is concerened I would say if there is anyone who lives more than 500 yards from a park then they are in the minority and probably live less than 500 yards from the seaside.

[Gemini]

Thanks Gemini I have noted your views and no problem about what you call a debaucle, your word not mine.

i) Building new PHS at GC, would 'eat up' much of the remainder of the only space in Portobello.

ii) Why should kids/ramblers/golfers/dog walkers etc. loose this space
when there are alternatives. Not everyone in Portobello has a park on their doorstep.

I am fearful as being seen as banging the drum for the GC project but i have to take issue with what you say above.

1) The GC is nowhere near the "only" space in portobello. There are at least 5 other parks in this area. And of course we have the immeasurable benefit of what I believe is the longest public walkway in Scotland, the promenade.

2) I am aware of no area of Edinburgh or any major city where every citizen has a "park on their doorstep", yet you say it like there is some sort of entitlement.

As far as Portobello is concerened I would say if there is anyone who lives more than 500 yards from a park then they are in the minority and probably live less than 500 yards from the seaside.

1) Agreed, GC is not the only space in Portobello. Apart from the GC, what other space are you suggesting?

2) I did not mean every citizen in Portobello, had a park on their
doorstep. But I am sure that quite a few do!

3) As yet, have not got the tape measure out, but I would say, that BR
is more than 500yrds from the sea, and maybe just 500 yrds from
Rosefield Park (as the crow flies - probably nearer)



Do you agree, that if the School plan got the go ahead for the GC site,
that would leave the door open for further development? a simple yes/no
would be sufficient.

Health /Safety and Enviromental issues, still waiting for your response!

[Porty]

Are you sure nitpicking is not your intent. I really did not want to get into a defensive argument about the what idea is best and so on. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong.

1) Agreed, GC is not the only space in Portobello. Apart from the GC, what other space are you suggesting?

None, I don't think I have made a suggestion yet. I may have mis-interpreted your meaning of the "only" open space. It read like you were claiming the GC to be the only open space in Portobello.

2) I did not mean every citizen in Portobello, had a park on their doorstep. But I am sure that quite a few do!

So you meant a personal reference to me? I missed that, sorry.

3) As yet, have not got the tape measure out, but I would say, that BR
is more than 500yrds from the sea, and maybe just 500 yrds from
Rosefield Park (as the crow flies - probably nearer)

So, that falls within the parameters of my statement, you are in the majority.

Do you agree, that if the School plan got the go ahead for the GC site,
that would leave the door open for further development? a simple yes/no
would be sufficient.

Yes, Lawrence has quite clearly said so and so have I.

Health /Safety and Enviromental issues, still waiting for your response!

Environmental calculations are not my bag but here is a rather unsophisticated attempt.

There are 1500 pupils at PHS, each week about 1/3 of those pupils travel to either Meadowbank or Duddingston, which are roughly 2 miles away and probably involves 20 coach trips a week. In a 39 week year that is 780 coach trips that use fuel and endanger lives. (its not so long ago a PHS pupil died on a coach trip). On top of that about 1/3 of PE activity time is lost in travel so kids are not as active as they should be and therefore not as healthy. Furthermore, based on the uptake and success of Basketball at PHS there is bound to be more kids who will participate in sport when the playing fields are in situe. There is also a definite policy of increasing PE in the curriculum to combat obesity and other issues.

Do you get where I am coming from?

[Cynthia]

Porty - my views do not need to be rewritten or summarised by you - I do not intend to comment on your rewriting of my views, as I have stated my views in my own words, and that should be good enough.
and I would actually repeat your very own words said to Gemini, but to you now:

Are you sure nitpicking is not your intent

. (Porty)

As I said above, I am not going to get into a tit for tat debate with you. And I do not need to be asked to agree to your rewriting of my views.

Apart from anything else, I do not have time to go through your writing and my writing to see if it adequately reflects what I wrote in the first place, or if there is some subtle added message in the way it is written - but ofcourse Porty you wouldn't do that would you??? Its easy done when you clearly disagree with me.

That's an end to it as far as I am concerned - I don't have time to keep repeating my views to you Porty - if you don't agree that's ok with me.

And to return to the topic, in relation to one point I made previously which was
Carla wrote:

If the Council/Scott Parly/Gov can find the money for other things they sure as hell can find the money for schools and other public services.

I give as further evidence http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=2282952005

article starts "A SCOTTISH Executive bail-out of £115 million towards Edinburgh's proposed tram network will not save the controversial project, it was claimed today.

Ministers are set to increase their £375m contribution by linking it to inflation, but even if the additional sum materialises this will still leave the project with a massive funding gap....."

Plenty of money available - it would seem.

Carla

[Porty]

Apart from anything else, I do not have time to go through your writing and my writing to see if it adequately reflects what I wrote in the first place,Carla

There is no need to compare the statements, just look at the 8 or 9 points I summarised and decide if they accurately reflect your views. Its not a trick, you did a fair amount of writing and I tried to condense it for my own benefit.

or if there is some subtle added message in the way it is written - but of course Porty you wouldn't do that would you??? Its easy done when you clearly disagree with me.
Carla

The reason I am asking you to peruse the summary is precisely because I do not wish to mis-represent you. I cannot see how you can conclude that I don't agree with you, I have done my best not to comment on your views.

If you are unhappy with anything I will alter it. What on earth is wrong with trying to get clarity on what someone else is actualay saying in an important debate?

Personally judging by Gemini's counter post i think I did a reasonably good job.

[Jbrock]

For many of us, the most important priority for our community is that the local secondary school is good enough for our children. Meeting health and safety requirements is essential (and I understand PHS doesn't do this) having sports facilities etc nearby would be a bonus.
I believe, others may disagree, that a stimulating environment, contributes to a more positive, rewarding learning environment for children. This opinion is borne out by inspection reports of new schools and those that need redevelopment.
I think it's amazing that PHS does as well as it does, despite the environment - but let's face it the building and surrounding areas are a disgrace. What message does it send to children about how much they are valued?
Others will have other priorities for the area. But if the community is as divided as it appears to be from reading these on-line contributions, no-one wins. The council can sit back and watch - not suggesting it is doing this of course!
These contributions suggest that the golf course site is one option worth exploring further as is the Laidlaw site (altho' not sure where that is). Is the pitz site a possibility? More information is essential and it's our right to have full information on these options to help inform decisions.
I think we need to set ourselves, our representatives and others in the PHS catchment, the challenge of delivering new school buildings and amenities within say, five years. This will focus us all on geting on with identifying the various options, choosing the way forward, however difficult this is and and building it.
I'd be glad to do more to help get on with this. I know many others who would too. What do you think?

[Porty]

Some research on the "pecking order" for COEC replacement and refurbishment programme. PPP1 was signed in November 2001 and from what I can gather it is a bit behind, based on St Peters being opened in September 2005 and Firhill is not yet complete/

I believe PPP2 is not signed as yet and perhaps Lawrence can tell us if and when this is anticipated? I am aware that Holyrood which is on PP2 is delayed, indefineltly

PORTOBELLO is not on PP2 so on the basis that PP1 took 4 years our place on the pecking order could be 8 to 10 years away if we are on PPP3?.

Appendix 8: Public Private Partnership

The contract for Edinburgh's first PPP project was signed in November 2001. This project will result in ten new primary schools, five new or refurbished secondary schools, two new special schools, a close support and secure unit and a new community education centre. In December 2004, the ITN (Invitation to Negotiate) for Edinburgh's second PPP project was sent out to bidders and the preferred bidder will be named by Summer 2005.

PPP1
Contract:
Capital value of works - £91 million
Unitary payment for buildings and services - £12 million per annum
The contract expires after 32 years – 2 years construction and 30 years operation.

Completed projects:
Pirniehall and St David's RC Primary Schools (joint campus) August 2002
Craigroyston Primary School November 2002
Broomhouse and St Joseph's RC Primary Schools (joint campus) November 2002
Rowanfield School November 2002
Craigour Park Primary School December 2002
Castleview Primary School April 2003
Goodtrees Community Centre August 2003
Forthview Primary School August 2003
Drummond Community High School August 2003
The Royal High School August 2003
Gracemount High School August 2003
Craigmount High School August 2003
Howdenhall Secure and Closure Support Unit October 2003

Construction Timetable for remaining schools

Oxgangs Primary School Spring 2005
St Peter's RC Primary School Spring 2005
Firrhill High School Summer 2005
Graysmill/Willowpark School Summer 2005

PPP2- As yet unsigned

Projects
Bonaly Primary School
Broughton High School
Craigroyston Community High School
Forrester High School
Holy Rood RC High School
Juniper Green Primary School
St Augustine's RC High School
Tynecastle High School

[Jbrock]

Hi
I think PP2 has been suspended while contractual issues are resolved. I think as a result the whole contracting process has to be re-run.
So you need to put bac k these timescales for PP2 by a few years. PP3 - if there were to be a PP3 - couldn't start before at least 2012. We don't even know if PHS would be in PP3. Delaying and giving any further consideration to a PPP option seems pointless.

[Porty]

Hi JBrock,

I am reliably informed by a school board member at a PP2 school that the whole process does not have to begin again. The contract has or will be offered to one of the 2 remaining shortlisted companies soon.

They expect work to begin on the building of their school in Nov 2006 but no later than early 2007, which at worst will be 18 months after it was due to start. So there is a delay but the timimg you mention above (2012) still may not be too far out.

Interestingly, the SBM said that COEC have an excellent record of selection and management of PPP schemes. Which, i was surprised to hear after the ERI PFI, is that a different type of scheme?

Can someone please explain a PPP to me?
Is there involvement from Holyrood?
Why are they so unpopular?
What's the difference between a PFI and a PPP?

[Jbrock]

Hi - this is great news for those children affected by PPP2. But, as you say, there is no prospect for PHS until, at the very earliest and very optimistically,
2012.

I think debating the rights and wrongs of PPP may be an interesting matter but irrelevant to the future of PHS - unless this forum seriously considers that putting the future of PHS on hold for at least the next 7 years is a credible option.

I know many people are thinking through the options of how to get new and or refurbished buildings for PHS. If anyone has any particular proposals for practical next steps, do get in touch and we could see how we can work together to get some proposals and hopefully some progress towards a new school.
Best wishes