New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Dadaist]

If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Brian, up until now it is difficult to believe you have read this thread, in any detail.

I'm reluctant to prolong the debate on PPP mainly because it is no longer a funding option. However, I am interested to know how COEC have performed within the PPP projects that already complete or underway? Are they any good at it?

[bbbrown]

Is the land around Duddingston Primary school a possibility for the site of a new St Johns Primary School?
This would be more sensible than sighting St Johns with PHS, especially given the way some pupils of PHS treat the St Johns primary school kids...

[Charles]

I’m a bit confused.
If, as Seanie insists, PPP is such an unequivocal disaster, why are we supporting a council who are just rolling out a new PPP programme involving the building of a whole tranche of new schools? Why are they be allowed to do so, and why is the population at large not up in arms? Surely we wouldn’t want to trust a council which was taking us down a route that has already been proven to fail. Does that not make us question their judgement?
As Brian McCrow suggests, it is that the problems are more in the execution than the principle, and that is something from which lessons can be learned, and can be done properly the next time.
So could the council provide more information about why they have not pursued PPP for Portobello High? Why did Portobello high not make the list for the upcoming PPP? What was the criteria for selecting which schools were included, and why did Portobello not qualify? The effect for all the schools on “the listâ€

[Charles]

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.

Can you confirm that this meeting is at the Royal High School? I had heard that there is to be a meeting on the same date at Portobello High School. Thanks

[Dadaist]

why are we supporting a council who are just rolling out a new PPP programme involving the building of a whole tranche of new schools?

I think this is such an important topic it needs its own thread.

Why are they be allowed to do so, and why is the population at large not up in arms?

Again, an important question which has national, political, party political and philosophical implications - all of which deserve to be picked over at length and in depth. I'd really like to see this as its own discussion.

Surely we wouldn’t want to trust a council which was taking us down a route that has already been proven to fail. Does that not make us question their judgement?

Arguably one should not trust any politicians at all. But this topic is very specific and we're rapidly spiralling out of control with the volume of information here.

So could the council provide more information about why they have not pursued PPP for Portobello High? Why did Portobello high not make the list for the upcoming PPP? What was the criteria for selecting which schools were included, and why did Portobello not qualify?

Now that I'd love to know - all I know is we missed out, just. Hallelujah!!

The effect for all the schools on “the listâ€

[Stephen McIntyre]

Is the land around Duddingston Primary school a possibility for the site of a new St Johns Primary School?
This would be more sensible than sighting St Johns with PHS, especially given the way some pupils of PHS treat the St Johns primary school kids...

This option was mentioned at the community council meeting last night and i think Maureen Child wrote it down with a view to obtaining an answer. The questioner, ( i recognised them but didn't get a name ) also said that Duddingston was a single storey school. This surprised me as I distinctly remember being on detention (although it was called kept back) and Miss Forsyth opening the window on my third floor classroom to torture me with the sounds of the football match that I was supposed to be playing in. Goodness knows why she became one of my favourite teachers?

Personally I would be surprised if there is anything like enough space at Duddingston to comfortably hold another 420 pupils. And where would the funding come from if it was?

[bbbrown]

we need about £6 million for a primary i believe...
properly developed, whats the current st johns site worth??

[Brian McCrow]

Charles

You've hit the nail on the head.

If PPP is bad why is the Council still doing it. If it's good why can't it be applied to PHS especially if it's at least cost neutral.

[Dadaist]

Charles

You've hit the nail on the head.

If PPP is bad why is the Council still doing it. If it's good why can't it be applied to PHS especially if it's at least cost neutral.

Agreed - that is a good question, at least the first part as I oppose PPP and am thankful we missed out.

As far as I know (you'll need to read back through the thread) there was a process which PHS missed out on - hence the current proposal if we want a new school now.

Seanie has sketched out why PPP is an option, although as far as the other schools being built I have no idea as to whether it was a political decision or one forced on them from above.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Bb, i feel like I'm picking on you and I really don't mean to.

we need about £6 million for a primary i believe...

On what do you base your belief?

Will that be £6 million for each school?

I was able to establsh the following detail about PP2. The total cost was/is £180 million, the largest ever PPP project in Scotland> I have no idea of cost breakdown for each school.

Bonaly Primary: New build on existing site

Juniper Green Primary: New build on existing site

Craigroyston High: New build on alternative site

Forrester High: New build school

St Augustine's High: New build school

Holy Rood High: New build on existing site

Broughton High: Majority new / limited refurbish on existing site

Tynecastle High School: New build on alternative site

[bbbrown]

no probs....£6 million is a figure seanie quoted for a primary school.
maybe it is not accurate..i wonder how much does it cost?

[Dadaist]

Oh well, while the PFI/PPP discussion is still based here - here is a guide to complement seanie's - from the BBC :

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

It's very difficult to be non-partisan about this policy as it does tend to split people on party lines - Neo Labour loyalists and Tories love it, those with philosophical, political or practical objections think it's the spawn of Satan.

It's such a complicated issue - I think that's one of the reasons that the only people opposed to it are the lefty types that read Private Eye all the way through (and even keep some copies) - as seanie hints, it might not be until we can actually see buildings start to collapse that there is opposition.

In one sense it's too late anyway - it should have been opposed when the Tories first came up with it. Also, I have no idea what you're supposed to do when something you thought was a Tory policy is adopted by Labour - who then is the opposition?

[Stephen McIntyre]

Bb, I tried to get some info on that. I recall that a new school was estimated at £24m before StJohn's was in the frame then the cost seemed to jump to £30m, so that fits. However, Towerbank is getting a realtively small amount of work done and its costing £2.6M.

I was going to ask you to do one of your infamous walk rounds to assess the value of St John's I recall reading something that suggested the value of the entire PHS/St Johns site is placed at £10-12m.

[Dadaist]

The initial estimate for the Scottish Parliament was £40m.

[Stephen McIntyre]

The initial estimate for the Scottish Parliament was £40m.

Yes but the market for new scottish parliamant buildings is nowehere near as well-developed and mature as the market for residential land in Edinburgh. Apples and Pears old boy.

[Dadaist]

The initial estimate for the Scottish Parliament was £40m.

Yes but the market for new scottish parliamant buildings is nowehere near as well-developed and mature as the market for residential land in Edinburgh. Apples and Pears old boy.

Heh. Sorry, my bad. And there was me thinking of starting a business selling Scottish Parliament franchises.

[Brian McCrow]

Dadaist

Do you oppose PPP because you can't get your brain around the concept or is it just because private companies are involved in building and running the schools and (heaven forbid) will be making some profit?

The alternatives are that Edinburgh Council raise some cash (currently proposed as coming from the sale of land for housing) then they pay a builder to build the school, which is run by the Council at an annual cost.

Or they use PPP whereby a developer builds the school (hopefully on the same plot as the present school) using his own capital then he runs the school for which he is paid an annual fee - typically less than the Council would have had to pay itself to run the school. And we still have a park to play golf etc.

I know which option I'd go for.

All the guff about schools falling down due to PPP is typical Socialist Worker mis-information. In any case PHS was built by the Council in the 60s, held up to be a wonder of its age and now look at the state of it. It's having to be replaced well before it should. So much for the Council's ability to build and manage schools better than anyone else.

[PortyMan]

Two quick points...

There is a meeting in PHS on Monday the 6th. I know nothing of any meeting in RHS on the same night. It may be there are two meetings? Neither has been organised by the council (or at least the council have told the Evening News that they haven’t arranged any meetings).

Stephen wrote:

Personally I would be surprised if there is anything like enough space at Duddingston to comfortably hold another 420 pupils. And where would the funding come from if it was?

my italics...

That's just a recent example, Stephen, not a particular 'go' at you. But there is a lot of 'I believe', 'I think', 'my guess', etc going on here and very little 'fact: a=b' or 'this will happen'.

All makes for a very frustrating and pointless excercise (which makes it very upsetting to have people lampooned for not accepting all these opinions, rumours and conjecture as facts).

We really ought to have a tag-line that says 'the views and opinions expressed herein are nothing more than bar-room banter, in a noisy bar-room at that (thus occasionally misheard)'.

Finally, a point on PPP. It is a dreadful mess and a complete waste of money, sure. But its cost is spread across the whole community(city/region-wide). The cost of destroying the Park is borne dispropotionately by those who used the park or live in close proximity. They're both unfair, one's just unfair to everyone equally!

And in both cases there's no guarantee we get a decent build or any funding to ensure proper servicing and maintenance.

Sorry that was three points, I guess... Easy to get carried away.

Now - get back to work!

[Dadaist]

Dadaist

Do you oppose PPP because you can't get your brain around the concept or is it just because private companies are involved in building and running the schools and (heaven forbid) will be making some profit?

The alternatives are that Edinburgh Council raise some cash (currently proposed as coming from the sale of land for housing) then they pay a builder to build the school, which is run by the Council at an annual cost.

Or they use PPP whereby a developer builds the school (hopefully on the same plot as the present school) using his own capital then he runs the school for which he is paid an annual fee - typically less than the Council would have had to pay itself to run the school. And we still have a park to play golf etc.

I know which option I'd go for.

All the guff about schools falling down due to PPP is typical Socialist Worker mis-information. In any case PHS was built by the Council in the 60s, held up to be a wonder of its age and now look at the state of it. It's having to be replaced well before it should. So much for the Council's ability to build and manage schools better than anyone else.

Definitely cos I can't get my head round it. I always thought PPP was meant to stand for "Point to Point Protocol" anyway.

[Dadaist]

All makes for a very frustrating and pointless excercise (which makes it very upsetting to have people lampooned for not accepting all these opinions, rumours and conjecture as facts).

We really ought to have a tag-line that says 'the views and opinions expressed herein are nothing more than bar-room banter, in a noisy bar-room at that (thus occasionally misheard)'.

It's just the internets.

[Brian McCrow]

Portyman

How can you slag everyone off for unsubstantiated statements and then slip this in against PPP

"It is a dreadful mess and a complete waste of money, sure"

Wow. That's true DoubleSpeak.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Stephen wrote: Personally I would be surprised if there is anything like enough space at Duddingston to comfortably hold another 420 pupils. And where would the funding come from if it was?

My choice of the word “personallyâ€

[Dadaist]

Portyman

How can you slag everyone off for unsubstantiated statements and then slip this in against PPP

"It is a dreadful mess and a complete waste of money, sure"

Wow. That's true DoubleSpeak.

No, I think you mean hypocrisy. An example of "true DoubleSpeak" would be PPP, which is doublespeak for privatization.

For an example of hypocrisy, please attend to the thread you created over in our general discussion forum entitled "Punch Taverns - Meeting With Management".

[Brian McCrow]

Dadaist

I think you need to sit down and take your pills dear.

You're getting a bit carried away with the insults. Take it easy it's only a Forum.

[PortyMan]

Hi,

I'm not 'slagging' anyone off for unsubstantiated statements, nor am I criticising them for stating their thoughts, opinions or beliefs.

I'm simply saying that this forum is replete with statements which stem, quite simply, from what people think. And, thus, should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Apologies for any offence. None intended, as I tried to indicate.

I shall keep an eye out for any useful information that might appear here but as I don't really feel inclined (or have the time) to partake in tit-for-tat point scoring, I think I'll keep my views for elsewhere.

[seanie]

no probs....£6 million is a figure seanie quoted for a primary school.
maybe it is not accurate..i wonder how much does it cost?

East Lothian Council is curently building, via traditional procurement, a new two-stream primary school and nursery on a 2.7Ha greenfield site to the south of Tranent.

The contract value is just over £6.2 million and the Gross Internal Area is around 3600m2 which works out at about £1700/m2.

The floor area is on the generous side, at least compared to what you would expect under PPP, but that’s down to issues of flexibility and adaptability, along with community use. Also the cost per m2 is towards the higher end of what you might expect but the design has reasonably good sustainability credentials, and additional investment has been deemed acceptable to produce a high quality, durable, environmentally friendly project.

It might be unreasonable to expect Edinburgh to build to the same kind of space and quality standards but you never know.

[seanie]

Successful PPP bids have tended to be both excessively expensive and unrealistically low.

PPP is inherently more expensive than public borrowing. PPP consortia have to pay higher rates of return on the capital they borrow, have high tendering costs due to the nature of the process itself, and on top of that have to make a profit.

But they’re also under the constraint of competitive tendering, and whilst people pay lip service to best value, the lowest tender tends to be very attractive. There’s strong pressure to make the bid as low as possible to maximise the chance of winning, because unless they win they get no return on their already significant investment. And if they do win they face a problem.

The Consortia have little control over the rates they can borrow at. There’s also little they can do to cut down on tendering costs, not without compromising their likelihood of success. And they’re very very keen on making a profit. Given those constraints where can they make savings in order to keep to their bid low? What can they sacrifice?

In a word – quality.

They’ve already spent considerable sums getting up to Scheme Design stage to win the bid. Under traditional procurement there’s a period of Detailed Design that follows to fine tune exactly what the client/users require. PPP consortia rarely bothered with that because it involved additional expense. They generally went through a few months of sham “consultationâ€

[Dadaist]

Dadaist

I think you need to sit down and take your pills dear.

You're getting a bit carried away with the insults. Take it easy it's only a Forum.

seanie - thanks again for taking the time to give us this insight into the reality of the PPP process.

[seanie]

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.

They, like every other local authority in the country, haven't been able to make the budget provision.

The biggest single influencing factor on local government finances is and always has been......central government.

The bulk of Local Authority budgets are funded by Central Government and they've never encouraged the setting aside of large capital reserves. On the contrary successive governments, Labour and Conservative, have actively discouraged it.

And now the time has come for LA's to build new schools they're forced into a difficult position.

Central Government isn't willing to provide the capital directly. Central Government restricts the capacity of LA's to borrow. Central Government restricts LA's capacity to raise additional revenue.

But Central Government has been willing to provide assistance and encouragement to go down the PPP route. In many instances LA's have had no choice. It's been PPP or nothing. And PPP, despite well founded misgivings, has generally been chosen as better than nothing.

And, despite thinking PPP is an all but unmitigated disaster, I think that choice isn't itself unreasonable. It's been an attempt to make the best out of a difficult situation.

[seanie]

Here's a little article by Andy Wynne of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. It's brief but it outlines some of the ways the Public Sector Comparator has been manipulated to give PPP the illusion of value for money.

[Bob Jefferson]

This thread is exhausting and even I'm having problems keeping up with the posts. Incredibly, it has already attracted more posts than the Superstore thread, which has been running for two and a half years and the views rate is increasing at a phenomenal rate. If nothing else this debate has been a huge success for the Portobello Matters forum.

Here's the latest onslaught of opinion from the EN letters page. Note that the first link actually has 3 seperate letters under one ill-fitting heading, including one from the chair of PHS school board:

Find an alternative to our golf course

Don't take risks with our children's future

You can look forward to further EN coverage tomorrow.

[seanie]

In any case PHS was built by the Council in the 60s, held up to be a wonder of its age and now look at the state of it.

A wonder of its age?

Are you sure Brian?

It never cropped up in any of my lectures.

[Dave Connelly]

Having read through this thread I have found difficulty in determining what some of you actually want. Let me be clear and honest about what I want and don’t want.

I want a decent education for my children.

I want class sizes to be under 30 pupils.

I want their education to be in Portobello.

I want more information about the proposals for building or developing.

I want to see all of the reports so far regarding the movement of the schools.

I want Portobello to benefit from any financial gain that the council makes.

I do not want to loose part of the Portobello ward to Craigentinny.

I do not want housing built on the golf course or the course to move.

I do not want 5 year old children sharing a dining room or facilities with 17 year olds.

I do not want Portobello/Brighton/Quarry/Rosefield/Abercorn parks to be lost to the community.

I will not gain financially from any of the developments in the short or long term.

What about You

[Pal of Porty]

In any case PHS was built by the Council in the 60s, held up to be a wonder of its age and now look at the state of it.

Are you sure it's not you on the pills?