New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[bbbrown]

If, during the course of conversation, you are asked a direct question. It is polite to at least acknowledge that question and perhaps have a go at answering it. So far, you just answer question with question or a smart assed comment. Let me try once again:

bb. you appear to be quite comfortable, indeed keen on keeping the school on its existing site. In your view and/or opinion what makes the existing site suitable as a site for a modern school? What facilities/qualities does this site possess that other sites don't?

I took the opportunity of a pleasant evening to have a stroll through the current PHS site. I have been there often before, but quite honestly never realised how much free space there is. Most of it is tarmaced, presumably to allow the teachers to park there cars. I would estimate that the current (nine story I think I counted) tower block footprint accounts for a small proportion of the site. You could, I reckon, have a four story building, covering a much larger footprint, (four or five times the size I think), and vastly increase the amount of accomodation. There would still be space for maybe a couple of football pitch sized areas of sports ground, probably keeping the swimming pool, (though I see Holyrood isn't allowed a new pool cause Edinburgh is apparentlyt over suscribed in that departmenty or some such red tape), so maybe the new PHS is going to lose its pool anyway. The point of this is that, in my smart assed but nevertheless humble and honest opinion, there is more than enough space to build a decent school with the decent facilities that my and everybody elses children would benefit from. Why some people are so against even considering this, I'm not sure but I think I know....
In my opinion, the whole issue is purely about funding.
As an aside, I personally think it sucks beyond belief that the Scottish Executive cannot release some money to invest in the future of our children and, it follows, our country. It is our MP's and MSP's who fail us all. Is there not huge amounts of money in the coffers from council taxes? What do they call it..contingency funds or something...How come the Scottish Parliament can have an open cheque book for unbelievable sums of money, yet we cant have a few million for the good of our kids. Oh yeah, thats different money of course..
So, I hear the cry already, get real, we aint getting any money, the only option is to concrete over currently green space, thus losing it for ever, and by building houses to find money.....And this is called the best solution.
( Oh, and as for the spin about gaining, not losing, green space, well, basically that just does not wash. To me, once you concrete over a park, it is gone, no matter what spin the council put on it about nurturing our green spaces and replacement by the green space a few miles up the road, which is pretty much actually already...oh yeah...green space...)

[Dadaist]

Stephen, 2 points - respectfully as I know you will assume from this corner.

You said :

Seanie if COEC forced some of the businesses out of the site, would they have to fund their relocation, purchase new land etc?

Seanie has already sketched an answer to this :

Accquiring the site would represent a huge additional cost. Even if it 's under-used that site has significant commercial potential, and potential is a very important factor in land value. And a significant part of it is in use. There are industrial units and stuff. Use compulsory purchase to buy that and you'll have to pay a cost approximate to those people going and buying land elsewhere and building replacement buildings (maybe subject to a bit of depreciation).

Secondly, your line of questioning of bbbrown - I genuinely think you should not pursue this kind of enforced status-quo justification, but rather you should define what is unsuitable about the site yourself and demand rebuttal. That is, instead of a statement you should be making yourself (*why* the site is too small) you've instead reversed it and posed it as a question to bbbrown (why do you think the site is big enough?)

It's because I support your view that I believe it's not academic or methodical enough to do this - obfuscation and enforced questioning could be mistakenly taken by an observer to be a basic defensive posture - that is, an attempt to mask ignorance - an approach which is entirely beneath you.

[Epykat]

Epykat, so your solution is to send, say 700 children on 190 days of the year out of the catchment area? To avoid sending 120 golfers on a 2 minute drive?

Gilberstoun and Newcraighall I believe, are in the catchment area for Castlebrae. However, many families from both of those areas refuse to send their kids to Castlebrae and they therefore are sent to Holyrood and PHS. And I don't know where you plucked 700 from.
My stance has also got nothing to do with 120 golfers driving for 2 minutes - it's a bit more complex than that - please give me a bit of credit. After all, I went to a good school and my education didn't suffer by not being surrounded by trees and playing fields

[Dadaist]

So, I hear the cry already, get real, we aint getting any money, the only option is to concrete over currently green space, thus losing it for ever, and by building houses to find money.....And this is called the best solution.

bbbrown - yes, you're quite right, as seanie has pointed out several times - it's about funding. Stephen has also rightly laid down the gauntlet and got no takers for alternatives where the numbers add up.

It may not be the best solution aesthetically, or environmentally, but in terms of getting real, we are quite close to the "put up or shut up" juncture - that is, if you want the high school to be rebuilt on-site you must play the numbers game.

[bbbrown]

for all those determined to concrete the golf course....(i aint one of them as you may notice)

there is a picture on page 20,

how about building the new school on part of the 30% of land designated for housing,
leaving 5% for housing to raise some funds, together with the old school site and maybe using the development of the current five a side pitches site to raise more funds...would that cover the building costs for a new school?

that way, for all the peeps determined to build on the golf corse, at least there is still 70% of the park left, maybe there might be enough money to still have the new golf course....

out of interest, dont think i've seen any figures...how much will it cost to purchase the land, plan and build a new golf course..i dont think golf courses are that cheap to build are they?

just a few thoughts.....

also...why is castlebrae so undesirable and seemingly under utilised..it seems daft that a school exists which is not being used as it should be?
if it could be used properly then the size of the Portobello High School could be decreased?

[Bob Jefferson]

If you are going to bring the Pitz site into the equation then it is going to get very complicated. There is already a lengthy thread dedicated to this issue, involving as it does the question of a replacement community centre and a replacement library and the housing development that would be required to fund these builds.

It is perhaps unfortunate that all of these buildings have come to the end of their useful life at the same time but we now have the opportunity to re-build much better facilities for the 21st century.

And housing isn't necessarily a bad thing. People want to move to Portobello and who can blame them? New residents strengthen our community. New families will help to support our local traders and keep our High Street alive. Let's be positive about the future.

[Bob Jefferson]

I have just learned that there is to be a public meeting held by Portobello Golf Club on Monday 6 March at the Royal High School. No further details but I'm sure someone out there knows more.

[seanie]

I can work out outline figures for recommended school areas but it’ll take me a wee while.

In the meantime let’s look at the reality of funding.

I’ve already outlined the kind of costs involved in building new schools, new schools that really are required given the shortcomings and short-sightedness of the 60’s building programme. And because most of the schools we’re talking about were built around the same time it means the need to replace them has come around at the same time.

The bill for that is huge.

People may complain about politicians failure to fund this directly but to be fair to them, if they did, the electorate would go ballistic. Nationally we’re talking vast sums of money. Try to raise that capital directly through taxation and the public would be squealing like little piggies.

It’s actually sensible to spread the costs. Since these facilities should, ideally, last for a couple of generations then spread the cost over a longer period. Borrow the capital and pay it back. Like a mortgage. It costs more in the long run but it’s more manageable in terms of revenue. And public borrowing has advantages. I think I said before LA’s can get advantageous lending rates since they’re seen as a good risk. Well the UK government can get even better rates.

But there’s a problem. Such borrowing shows up in the accounts. And large borrowings have political and economic consequences. As it gets higher people start to complain, august institutions criticise, the financial markets get jittery, currency values and exchange rates are affected, and the ability to borrow itself becomes diminished. There are genuine reasons why borrowing has to be kept under control. And unfortunately the Conservatives devised an alternative.

PPP (or PFI in its original incantation).

PPP mimics borrowing in that someone else supplies the initial capital and the public sector pays it back, with a premium, over a period of time. But PPP is more expensive then public borrowing by a significant margin. That is unarguable. It is usually excused by claiming the additional expense represents a transfer of risk from the public to private sector. But that’s essentially nonsense. The real reason PPP was embraced, despite its inflated costs, is quite different. I mentioned before that public borrowing shows up in the accounts.

PPP doesn’t.

Despite creating even greater liabilities and debt burdens than public borrowing, PPP is effectively invisible in accounting terms. It’s off balance sheet. As far as the financial markets are concerned it doesn’t exist. An accountant once explained to me why this was so in detail but we were both very drunk. Don’t ask me about the detail but it’s true. Accounting rules magic PPP liabilities out of existence.

PPP is an accountancy scam. Financial slight of hand that Enron would be envious of.

But the Tories invented it, New Labour embraced it, and billions have been committed to schemes that have, by and large, produced absolute crap. The waste of public money is jaw-dropping. Horrific. So obscene that nobody wants to face up to it. It’ll be years, perhaps a decade or more, before that reality really comes out.

But its real enough already for PPP to be shrivelling on the vine. It’s not been a happy experience for anyone. Even the PPP consortia are thinking again. So whilst it will continue as a source of funding it’s scope is already far more limited. All kinds of projects that might have been viable a few years ago simply will not get the funding now.

And that leave LA’s in a very difficult position.

The schools are their responsibility but they don’t have the capital funds to replace them. And central government isn’t willing to supply the capital funds. Borrowing could come to the rescue but the Treasury severely restricts the ability to borrow. For the last decade or so the only option available, despite its shortcomings, has been PPP. And now even that is drying up.

So what can be done?

Realistically the only option available is to realise assets. That’s a fairly desperate measure. There are only so many assets to realise. But ultimately it comes down to question of whether it’s worth it.

Do we, as a community, feel that new schools are worth losing public green-space where it currently is?

Do we, as a community, feel that keeping public green-space where it currently is, is worth doing without new schools?

That may seem a terribly unfair question. But unfair or not it’s the reality.

[seanie]

i dont think golf courses are that cheap to build are they?

Compared to building a garden shed they're not cheap at all.

Compared to building a high-rise secondary school, a two-stream primary and a nursery, for around 2,000 children in total, the cost is a drop in the ocean.

[Dadaist]

Seanie, I tips my hat to you - the elegance of your prose is matched only by the robust and factual nature of your argument. I'm sorry that you've had to repeat yourself several times, but you can't please all of the people etc etc.

I do fear that Porty is overly optimistic about the response of PGC, and that they will mount an emotive defence - I hope the council have got their act together in terms of the new course being offered - we're being overly simple by just saying "2 more minutes in the car" and thinking that one golf course is very much like another. Even if they do take what's being dangled before them, it's a bitter carrot to swallow.

[Stephen McIntyre]

After all, I went to a good school and my education didn't suffer by not being surrounded by trees and playing fields

I














am not going to go there.

[Stephen McIntyre]

- we're being overly simple by just saying "2 more minutes in the car" .

Not if we are talking about how long it takes to get there in a car. I don't think we require a more complicated measurement than minutes, in fact they are perfect for the task in hand.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Bb, thanks for the lenghty answer, you are obvioulsy passionate about your side of the argument.

Your opinion, contradicts that of the council who hopefully have done more than walk around the site and are making an honest statement. Presumably you don't trust them? You are also proposing a four storey building when the optimum is two.

I say that a decent environment for education is about more than just physical room space. A parkland campus is a desirable objective for the children of our community. You have nothing to say about the largest number of pupils being on the smallest space and that the children of Portobello are some of the few who attend a school without outdoor sports facilities.

The more green space "spin", as you call it, is not how it is being sold. There is obvious recognition that if we build on a bit of space, then it is lost for however long the buildings stay there, most likely forever. What the council are saying is that there will be an overall increase in green space for the use of community, as they will have access to 80 acres of greenbelt land that they do not have at the moment. So we lose about 17 acres at the Golf course site and gain 80. So that's a net gain of 63. Which is almost double the size of portobello park.

I can find no argument with what you say about funding from the scottish exec etc but I am afraid that's the way it is. As a community we could campaign to change that but it would take forever and probably still not succeed. Its a bit like the argument that we should not be spending money on the war in iraq but building new schools. Who can argue with that?
The trouble is that it aint gonna happen and even if it did happen there are probably hundreds of schools in a similar state to Portobello all over the UK. Where would we be in the queue?
Our need is present and clear.

[Epykat]

Compared to building a high-rise secondary
school

????

[seanie]

If it was rebuilt on the existing site it would have to be high rise. Even accepting the absence of playing fields you still require large areas of playground/social space. You can't keep the kids indoors all day. And that limits the footprint of the building on the site.

Without site constraints ideal height is probably 2 storey, but no more than 4 would probably work reasonably well and fairly cost-effectively.

[Dadaist]

- we're being overly simple by just saying "2 more minutes in the car" .

Not if we are talking about how long it takes to get there in a car. I don't think we require a more complicated measurement than minutes, in fact they are perfect for the task in hand.

No. I didn't mean overly simple by using minutes - overly simple by assuming that one will swap a habitual place of golfing for another as they must be alike - in fact the only difference is that the new one is 2 more minutes by car. I note your ironic tone, however.

[Dave Connelly]

St Johns is included in the PHS area and I believe its already been made clear here and elsweher that Powerleague are not part of any plan. They will not feature.

I'm fairly sure, based on instinct, that housing is going along by the railway track and that the "redundant" woodland surrounding the clubhut is being developed as part of the 30% housing.

I was wondering, how accurate your instinct may be, given your line of work, is there some professional basis for this remark?

The members brief states that Portobello park will not be affected, I realise your map is "unofficial" but it contradicts this. What do you think?

[seanie]

Schools inevitably require significant vehicle access. And looking at the roads bounding the park Stanley Street and Hope Lane are hopelessly restricted and Park Avenue not much better.

You'd probably prefer to locate the schools so that you can take vehicle access off Milton Road, keeping pupil access separate. Which obviously causes problems with the park as existing.

I'd suspect that at this point details such as site layout haven't really been looked at. Certainly not in detail. I'd expect that all that's really been worked out is the finances. They've gone through the financial projections and the sums add up. Exactly what goes where will only really be determined as the design process proceeds.

Assuming it does.

I'd think that firm(ish) commitments at this point could only really relate to relative areas and amenity, not their precise disposition.

[Stephen McIntyre]

I note your ironic tone, however.

How ironic.

[Stephen McIntyre]

I note that we have John Ferrier as a new registered member, welcome John. You spoke very knowledgably and passionately at the public meeting pre-xmas . I know you have been involved with the football at Portobello Park since the 60's and want that involvement to continue for the years to come.

I imagine you are worried about the possible consequences of the proposal and hope that you share your opinions with us.

[tom nimmo]

Way back on page 20 Stephen presented a map with his imagined layout of the park. As a new school seems to depend on house builders buying a substantial piece of the land to go with the current high school site I would be extremely surprised if they settled for the bit by the railway. I suspect any housing on the site would be expensive and the obvious location would be alongside Park Avenue and Milton Road. If the deal includes a quantity of so-called social housing (ie cheap and poor quality) then I'm sure the builders wouldn't have a problem with chucking that up by the railway.

I liked the earlier point Dadaist made about the ERI and I would like to see our council build a new golf course as a demonstration of its commitment to the displaced golfers. I would have serious doubts that the promise of a golf course would be honoured if it's not built first.

I follow this debate with interest and I am always prepared to review my position on any subject if the arguments are presented well however, I have a real difficulty trying to believe that the council actually give a toss about anything that's said here by the few people who are contributing. Hopefully I'm proved wrong and full and open public debate and consultation will follow.

[Dadaist]

I would like to see our council build a new golf course as a demonstration of its commitment to the displaced golfers. I would have serious doubts that the promise of a golf course would be honoured if it's not built first.

Agreed. The new golf course should be made operational before the old one is mothballed. There should be a special ceremony whereby the most senior members tee off on the last ever round on the old course - and as they play round the holes, each flag is transported to the new course for the newest members to start a round - so that there is a brief overlap but no point at which there is no functioning and playable course.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Way back on page 20 Stephen presented a map with his imagined layout of the park. As a new school seems to depend on house builders buying a substantial piece of the land to go with the current high school site I would be extremely surprised if they settled for the bit by the railway. I suspect any housing on the site would be expensive and the obvious location would be alongside Park Avenue and Milton Road. If the deal includes a quantity of so-called social housing (ie cheap and poor quality) then I'm sure the builders wouldn't have a problem with chucking that up by the railway.

Tom, I have imagined the layout but there is a rationale, which i will publish when i have time. One key factor to bear in mind is that there will be no involvement with private developers. If there had been then I think you would be bang on with your assertion.. I think the housing will be where I have indicated, as fewer, if any, exsiting houses will look directly onto the new houses. The path of least resistance one might say. There was also mention of retention of the tree line, there are few trees on the south side of the park.

The council are saying that the absoulte minimum of land will be sold for housing, meaning just enough to help fund the proposal. As you say if the new housing were located on Park Avenue it would probably be worth more, so less area would need to be sold and fewer new houses built. This would obvioulsy be right up the PAD's street, as they are most concerned about the loss of green space.

I liked the earlier point Dadaist made about the ERI and I would like to see our council build a new golf course as a demonstration of its commitment to the displaced golfers. I would have serious doubts that the promise of a golf course would be honoured if it's not built first.

I think i would still support this proposal even if there was no new golf course but I suspect I would be in a minority and the council's proposal would be dead in the water. However, the good news is that a new golf course does not happen overnight. It has to be "constructed" then bed in for 2 years before it can be played on. I believe the council will have to offer a seamless transfer for the golfers. (Its ok to decant children for years on end but you can't screw around with golfers) All being well the new course will be bedding in well before work starts on the park. Also, if Maureen and Lawrence give an assurrance that a new course will definitely happen, it will be good enough for me.

I have a real difficulty trying to believe that the council actually give a toss about anything that's said here by the few people who are contributing.

I ken what you mean. The councillors do follow the discussion and Jane Bradley from the EN also follows closely but who knows what value they place on it? POL is undoubtedly a good source of local information, some of which is not always accurate.

[Brian McCrow]

When I looked at the aerial photo of the schools there certainly seemed to be enough space to build a replacement school(s). Without measuring it exactly it looked as if there was about 70% free space versus 30% built on space. I don't understand why a school building should be only 2 storeys max. It's good exercise if nothing else for kids to walk up and down stairs. Teacher parking could be placed underground.

I don't think that a new PHS needs a swimming pool when there's a very good one along the Prom. Also playing fields could be situated by the Golf course along with the Pitz site. It's no distance for kids to walk or run to.

Of course, someone has to find funds for it. I may be naive but prudent accounting should allow sums of money to be held in reserve for replacement buildings either at Local Government or Education Department level. We all know that buildings will wear out over time.

Now did the Education department provide funds to Local Government who spent them on another project? Or does the Education Department have funds we aren't tapping into?

OK. There are issues with Public Borrowing limits but it does seem false economy to sell off the school land to build it elsewhere. This approach will work this time round but not in 40 years time when the new school needs to be replaced. Even if we are forced to go this route this time I think we should insist on proper accounting from now on so that schools and other public buildings are correctly funded for future maintenance and replacement.

PPP as I understand is an initiative where private companies build and operate the schools. They provide the capital to build the school and they get paid by Government/Local Government to run the school. In principle it should be a cost neutral exercise and have no impact on the Public Borrowing limits as it is the private company who borrows money to build the school. In practice there appears to be problems but I consider these to be poor management of this type of outsourcing deal by the Government/Local Government not a problem with the principle.

I don't understand why the new PHS can't be built under PPP as it should be cost neutral and doesn't affect Public Borrowing.

Normally I welcome the Council exploiting its land assets for the benefit of the people but this one seems to be covering up a fundamental accounting flaw and I don't like that. If we don't run Edinburgh like a normal business we're likely to become quickly bankrupt and have to sell the City to the highest bidder. Are there any Russian millionaires interested??

[Dadaist]

I think I've stopped laughing now. Thanks Brian - you're a master at work.

When I looked at the aerial photo of the schools there certainly seemed to be enough space to build a replacement school(s). Without measuring it exactly it looked as if there was about 70% free space versus 30% built on space.

Did you have one of those eye-piece thingies they used to use in the RAF for the intelligence photos? I think you'll find that you need to read this thread and provide an alternative which provides the funding for the gap in the accounts which would appear if we went with the McCrow Plan.

I don't understand why a school building should be only 2 storeys max. It's good exercise if nothing else for kids to walk up and down stairs. Teacher parking could be placed underground.

What about one of those windy Playmobil things so that we could put the cars on the roof? The cars could roll down the helter-skelter at the end of the day. I think you'll find that you need to read this thread and provide a rebuttal to the outline evidence from seanie that tall buildings are not optimal, for several reasons.

I don't think that a new PHS needs a swimming pool when there's a very good one along the Prom. Also playing fields could be situated by the Golf course along with the Pitz site. It's no distance for kids to walk or run to.

Would that be the busy pool that everyone else is using - and you want to tip 1000 kids into it as well? I think you'll find that you need to read this thread and provide a source of funding for the McCrow Plan.

Of course, someone has to find funds for it. I may be naive but prudent accounting should allow sums of money to be held in reserve for replacement buildings either at Local Government or Education Department level. We all know that buildings will wear out over time.

Yes, it's all down to imprudence, if you'll excuse my impudence.

Now did the Education department provide funds to Local Government who spent them on another project? Or does the Education Department have funds we aren't tapping into?

I think you'll find that you need to read this thread and take note of those points made in reference to the complete lack of funding from anyone remotely government-related. Or maybe you should phone them yourself and ask them if they have forgotten to look in the "spare money" account.

OK. There are issues with Public Borrowing limits but it does seem false economy to sell off the school land to build it elsewhere. This approach will work this time round but not in 40 years time when the new school needs to be replaced. Even if we are forced to go this route this time I think we should insist on proper accounting from now on so that schools and other public buildings are correctly funded for future maintenance and replacement.

Who would you forsee providing proper accounting? Arthur Andersen?

PPP as I understand is an initiative where private companies build and operate the schools. They provide the capital to build the school and they get paid by Government/Local Government to run the school. In principle it should be a cost neutral exercise and have no impact on the Public Borrowing limits as it is the private company who borrows money to build the school. In practice there appears to be problems but I consider these to be poor management of this type of outsourcing deal by the Government/Local Government not a problem with the principle

I think you need to be much more specific as to why you think PPP works, and provide examples of this shining beacon of capitalism, and also of the alleged mismanagement by government - as opposed to corruption and shoddy/sharp practise by business.

I don't understand why the new PHS can't be built under PPP as it should be cost neutral and doesn't affect Public Borrowing.

I think you need to read this thread as you'll find that this issue has already been covered. I'm not religious but I am prepared to kneel down and thank the deity of your choice that we aren't getting a PPP school.

Normally I welcome the Council exploiting its land assets for the benefit of the people but this one seems to be covering up a fundamental accounting flaw and I don't like that.

So in your book "there is no money" equates to a fundamental accounting flaw. Yes, and when you have spent all your pocket money on sweets you may or may not be happy with the fact that you can't buy a toy plane, but you still have no pocket money left.

If we don't run Edinburgh like a normal business we're likely to become quickly bankrupt and have to sell the City to the highest bidder. Are there any Russian millionaires interested??

The Russian millionaire reference is actually quite relevant as an example of why businessmen and capitalists should not be allowed free reign over something as precious as the education of our children - because if we followed your arguments, we would have the Roman Abramovitch High School teaching our kids how to avoid paying taxes which go to, er, building new schools?


edit - fixed quotes

[seanie]

I don't understand why the new PHS can't be built under PPP as it should be cost neutral and doesn't affect Public Borrowing.

You don't understand PPP. In principle it's meant to be cheaper, in reality it's turned out to be, by and large, more expensive.

First off it's different mechanism, with a profit element. These consortia aren't building and managing schools out of the goodness of their hearts. They're in it to make money. Now that additional profit margin is supposed to be offset by the greater efficiency of private companies and in particular their supposed ability to manage risk. This was to ensure that PP would be more cost effective though it only ever appeared that way once the figures had been fiddled by the Public Sector Comparator, weighted to ensure public always looked worse than private.

The theory was that, because they would be responsible and take the risks of the project over the 30 years or so of the contract, they'd make sure that what they built was sound. That these private consortia woulsd be best able to evaluate value for money over the long term and allocate resources efficiently accordingly.

But the reality of PPP is that the overwhelming driver isn't value for money. It's cost. They seek to maximise profits in the short term. Long-term management of risk went out the window. The consortia, in most instances, paid little head to value and threw up crap buildings as cheaply as they could. And the consortia that gave it a little more cosnderation, and put in higher tenders that more realisically represented value for money didn't win the contracts.

So there was a race to the lowest common denominator. Companies put in unrealistically low bids, and once they found themselves successful had to cut every corner imaginable. The build quality on most PPP projects is very poor, sometimes shocking.

So the public sector is increasingly wary of PPP. Most LA's would avoid it like the plague unless they really had to.

And the PPP consortia are increasingly wary of taking on jobs. Because they've found themselves with a whole heap of problems due to the shoddy nature of their own work. I imagine they're banking on a bail out from a future government. And in that regard they'll probably be successful because the transfer of risk was always largely an illusion.

PPP will continue but vastly diminished in scope. And it's not on the horizon for PHS.

[seanie]

I don’t want to diverge too far into the shortcomings of PPP. In the fullness of time it’ll become apparent anyway. But just to be clear…

Say you, as a public body, wanted to build a new school. That’s a considerable sum of money that’s not easy to raise outright. So you could borrow it and repay it over 30 years say. As a public body you have a good chance of getting a very good borrowing rate. LA’s, and Central Government even more so, are seen as low risk, safe investments and so lenders accept a low rate of return. The downside is that the borrowing shows up in the public accounts and that cause political and economic problems.

An alternative is PPP. Under PPP a private consortium borrows the money to build and then manage the school over 30 years, the public body paying them “rentâ€

[Bob Jefferson]

Seanie, I just wish you had been at the Community Council meeting this evening because, with your professional knowledge and experience, I think you could have answered many of the questions that were posed better than our local councillors were able to.

I would like to congratulate you on your invaluable input into this debate thus far and, whatever way this issue is resolved, I hope you'll stick around to contribute to future discussions.

[Dadaist]

Seanie, I just wish you had been at the Community Council meeting this evening because, with your professional knowledge and experience, I think you could have answered many of the questions that were posed better than our local councillors were able to.

I would like to congratulate you on your invaluable input into this debate thus far and, whatever way this issue is resolved, I hope you'll stick around to contribute to future discussions.

Seconded. Bob, this discussion is very long and would be quite daunting for someone approaching it for the first time - do you think it would be helpful to construct a FAQ with the best posts (from either or no view) to provide at least a grounding to someone who hasn't been following it? I think we're building up a body of information here which is only set to grow as meetings start and various reports are made - and not one brick has yet been laid nor blade of grass removed.

Because we can provide links to other sites and documents we're well placed to provide a decent, non-partisan resource.

(wangi - do you think this warrants its own wiki?)

[Brian McCrow]

Dadaist

You are so anxious to score debating points that you misunderstood the thrust of my argument. Edinburgh Council haven't made budget provision over the years for the renewal of schools and hence now have to sell off assets to fund these developments. I have assumed that this affects not only schools i.e. other public buildings may also be in a similar state of disrepair with no replacement budget provision. If the Council continues in this way we will have no more assets to sell off and hence will become bankrupt. Facetiously I pointed out that the only "White Knight" may be a Russian billionaire who would have the wherewithal to buy the City.

The PHS replacement is only the tip of the iceberg.

[Dadaist]

Dadaist

You are so anxious to score debating points that you misunderstood the thrust of my argument. Edinburgh Council haven't made budget provision over the years for the renewal of schools and hence now have to sell off assets to fund these developments. I have assumed that this affects not only schools i.e. other public buildings may also be in a similar state of disrepair with no replacement budget provision. If the Council continues in this way we will have no more assets to sell off and hence will become bankrupt. Facetiously I pointed out that the only "White Knight" may be a Russian billionaire who would have the wherewithal to buy the City.

The PHS replacement is only the tip of the iceberg.

I'm not anxious to score debating points, sir - in fact I concede them graciously when my opponent does not talk rubbish. When one reads an entire topic and responds with an opinion - fine. When one parachutes in and posts questions which have already been answered and makes points which have already been made - then you have a case to answer for.

You may well be entirely accurate in terms of Council budget provision over the years, or you may have made a completely erroneous assertion which our councillors (and everyone else) may have very forthright opinions and detailed rebuttals regarding - but I'm afraid you're going to have to address the topic in hand when making comments in this thread.

By all means, start a new topic or discussion about budget provision - you could also start a local group to discuss it!

Anyway, enough from me, as I am sure you have a lot to say in defence of PPP.

[Brian McCrow]

Seanie

I understand Outsourcing very well as it used to be part of my job within a computer company to structure Outsourcing deals for our clients.

Typically, the client will transfer assets, both physical and staff as well as some of the risk to the Outsourcer (you can't transfer all of the risk). In a well structured deal the client, outsourcer and the end user, who is receiving the final service, all benefit.

PPP is a form of outsourcing so in principle it should benefit all parties.

If it isn't working it's because the deal wasn't structured correctly in the first place. This may mean that the expected standard of the building design wasn't specified correctly, that Service Level Agreements weren't properly put in place etc. And probably the correct Project/Contract Management wasn't in place on the Outsourcer and/or Council's side.

Outsourcing has been successfully used in many industries over many years in a variety of ways.

You can't knock the principle but you can and should knock the execution.

If PPP isn't working it's because it wasn't set up well and/or hasn't been managed well. I'm not saying that it's easy to do. You have to have the experts running it.

I think I'd sooner have a well run PPP than sell off assets, which are a dwindling resource. If the Council can't crack PPP or Outsourcing then it should resign and we'll vote in people who can do this job.

[Brian McCrow]

Dadaist

I am entirely on topic. This discussion about where the new PHS school is built and how it is funded has arisen precisely because the Council doesn't have funds and hence has to sell off the land, on which the present school is built, for building homes.

If it had funds there might be proposals from the Council on how it can be built on the current site. Currently there is a defeaning silence from the Council on this option.

Even you must see this.

[Bob Jefferson]

If.

[Poppy]

Re the 'deafening silence' on the option of building on the present sites of the schools - I thought that was covered in the FAQ?