New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Poppy]

I think we need to enlist the assistance of Mr Poppy again to sort this out. Are these conditions still effective or have they lapsed? Can the Council go ahead and develop this land?

Oooooooh! A bit of a sticky wicket for any of us at RoS to comment on, I would think. Mr Poppy is happy to comment on the law in general but it's a bit "job's worth" for us to comment on a particular case.

And anyway the law is different if land was "disponed" rather than "feued".....!

[Stephen McIntyre]

I wouldn't fancy beiing the councillor who tried to persuade another councillor that because he did not want houses in his ward that unfortunately they had to be on his playing fields.

Which ward is Portobello Park in?

See, i try and`answer your`questions, it is the polite thing to do.

I don't know the`answer. I know its all changing soon but dont know if PP is affected. Think the school is in Northfield but Maureen goes to the school board meetings. Presumably you think it will be no problem. Why should the people in the Jewel vicinity mind housing being built there

[Stephen McIntyre]

Seanie, forgive me, I want to use your telephone ruse.

Council: Hello is that BL developments?

BL: Yes, how can we help?

Council: This is COEC here and we would like to offer you a land trade for the site you plan to develop in Portobello.

BL: Ok we are always open to offers, after all we are property developers,lol.

Council: Good, we want to offer you a smaller bit of land in Portobello in exchange.

BL: Oh, I see..............er how much smaller and will we get any cash in addition?

Council: well its only 1 acre smaller and we would certainly look at some cash for the balance.

BL: well that doesn't sound too unreasonable. We would have to consider that we would be buillding less units and therfore risk making less profit so the cash would likely be substantial.

Council: Oh I see, Another factor you would have to take into account is that the site currently has schools on it and we are planning to leave one there, which may take up another 3 or 4 acres.

BL: Who is this?

Council: Its the council, honest. So what are your initial thoughts?

BL: Well we have a lot to think about. We planned an 8 acre development and you are offering 3 or 4. You would have to pay us for the land and for the projected profit we were going to make. However, on the other hand a 3 or 4 acre development would be completed quicker, which is always handy for cashflow. We are due to start construction on the existing site in the next 12 months. When will this alternative site become available?

Council: well naturally we would have to wait til the kids had new schools to go to. It wouldn't be right for you to be building houses on the playground, lol, lol, lol. So, if we started planning tomorrow you could theoretically have access in 3 or 4 years time.

BL: em That could be a problem for us as the bank have financed the land purchase and have a programmed return.

Council: Oh I see, em, when I said that theoretically you could have access in 3 or 4 years time. We actually don't have the money to build new schools and lol to be quite frank there is no possibility in the next 10 years. The last time we tried it took us 14 years lol.

BL: Where do we sign?

[Bob Jefferson]

I think we need to enlist the assistance of Mr Poppy again to sort this out. Are these conditions still effective or have they lapsed? Can the Council go ahead and develop this land?

Oooooooh! A bit of a sticky wicket for any of us at RoS to comment on, I would think. Mr Poppy is happy to comment on the law in general but it's a bit "job's worth" for us to comment on a particular case.

And anyway the law is different if land was "disponed" rather than "feued".....!

I quite understand. Perhaps Mr P could comment in general terms on a hypothetical case similar to the one in question, with as many caveats and disclaimers as he wishes.

[Dave Connelly]

Just as an aside, but on the same topic of putting the schools on the golf course.

The lanes which run between Duddingston Park and Park Avenue, which are used as rat runs just now and would become main thoroughfares if the schools and housing were built on the park, are at present the responsibility of the houses which adjoin them.

When I lived on Park Avenue the council quoted in the region of £100,000 to bring them up to a maintainable level so that the council could adopt them.

My question is, if the plans go ahead, would the residents who live in any of the few houses adjoining the lanes have to pay the money to upgrade them, or would the council/builders pay?

[Dave Connelly]

Lawrence-fair enough.

Right or wrong I am Pleased to see at least one of the councillors coming up with something.

Mr Berry as yet hasn't come forward and this will make an impact on many of his constituants.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Lawrence-fair enough.

Right or wrong I am Pleased to see at least one of the councillors coming up with something.

Yes, I could not agree more at least Lawrence is listening to people and trying to come up with alternatives.

[Stephen McIntyre]

The lanes which run between Duddingston Park and Park Avenue, which are used as rat runs just now and would become main thoroughfares if the schools and housing were built on the park, are at present the responsibility of the houses which adjoin them.

Commonsense suggests these roads will get busier, however we would have to see that actual plan. Hopefully, there will be a decent traffic management scheme put in place, perhaps there will be no entry into these streets betweeen certain hours? It is difficult to say.

[PortyMan]

No, you are both misinterpreting.

The impending change is feudal law was widely known Its a totally brilliant change. However, as with all laws there are winners and losers.

You may groan all you wish but you are groaning for the wrong reason..

So you knew about this? And did nothing to effect any resistance? And you say you were 'initially' against building on the park?

Thanks for nothing.

Welcome back. Yes I am guilty as charged. I did nothing. Same as you, same as the council. Mind you, you had coninced yourself that you had paid a premium for a perennial view. I make this the third time of asking: Did your sollicitor advise you that this was the case?

Your assertion that 'everyone' knew about this is a tad disingenious. I suspect most people, like me, had heard something about feu laws being changed, but, not being 'in the business' and having no direct feu conditions on 'my' property, would not have given it much further consideration. (Just goes to show, eh? Maybe I should subscribe to Hansard and pore over it on a regular basis, just in case...?)

You, on the other hand, were obviously fully aware of the impact that these changes would have on Portobello Park - even though you had no direct connection with the park? You are also one of the foremost proponents of building on the park and one of the most dismissive of any alternatives.

Maybe the dots are joining up, or maybe it's just co-incidence, but when I first read your thread on the School I did think your 'conversion' to the cause was a tad Damascene - it took about one and a half pages I think?

Still you seem very pleased with yourself, maybe they'll name the sports block after you!

Re: my solicitor (as this seems to be troubling you greatly), as you might imagine, being a solicitor they would be extremely unlikely to 'guarantee' anything. And in this instance they did not guarantee the park would remain forever unchanged. The park, at that time, was protected by the feu conditions referred to elsewhere in this thread, but even that couldn't be guaranteed - as has been evidenced.
Similarly, you are convinced that 'they' couldn't get planning permission to build on Rosefield (bully for you!). However, it only takes an act of Parliament and the whole scenario could change (but then you'd know about it in advance and move...).
So, does that answer your 'question'? Was it wildly different from the answer you expected? Will you be able to sleep nights, now? (Don't worry, I won't press you for answers on these. They're sort-of rhetorical )

Sweet dreams...

[Maria]

You, on the other hand, were obviously fully aware of the impact that these changes would have on Portobello Park - even though you had no direct connection with the park? You are also one of the foremost proponents of building on the park and one of the most dismissive of any alternatives.

Maybe the dots are joining up, or maybe it's just co-incidence, but when I first read your thread on the School I did think your 'conversion' to the cause was a tad Damascene - it took about one and a half pages I think?

Still you seem very pleased with yourself, maybe they'll name the sports block after you!

Portyman, please refrain from making implications of this nature. As has already been stated in this thread this sort of allegation is very serious and must be backed up with proof.

[Dadaist]

this sort of allegation is very serious

Yeah? Whereas Bob is allowed to give out blanket accusations of "the label of nimbyism" to everyone who doesn't support his view.

And yet from what you're saying here, by implication I should not accuse him of a suspicious change of opinion from defending the green space of the bowling green next to his house "with his life" to not minding a school or houses being built on it, because that would also be a similarly serious accusation?

I would say that applying an unfair label to large numbers of our community was as serious as making a specific allegation against one person.

[Maria]

this sort of allegation is very serious

Yeah? Whereas Bob is allowed to give out blanket accusations of "the label of nimbyism" to everyone who doesn't support his view.

And yet from what you're saying here, by implication I should not accuse him of a suspicious change of opinion from defending the green space of the bowling green next to his house "with his life" to not minding a school or houses being built on it, because that would also be a similarly serious accusation?

I would say that applying an unfair label to large numbers of our community was as serious as making a specific allegation against one person.

That inference is all your own Dadaist.

I repeat that allegations that an individual's support of this issue is related somehow to personal financial gain are very serious indeed and , unless substantiated, should not be made.

[Dadaist]

this sort of allegation is very serious

Yeah? Whereas Bob is allowed to give out blanket accusations of "the label of nimbyism" to everyone who doesn't support his view.

And yet from what you're saying here, by implication I should not accuse him of a suspicious change of opinion from defending the green space of the bowling green next to his house "with his life" to not minding a school or houses being built on it, because that would also be a similarly serious accusation?

I would say that applying an unfair label to large numbers of our community was as serious as making a specific allegation against one person.

That inference is all your own Dadaist.

I repeat that allegations that an individual's support of this issue is related somehow to personal financial gain are very serious indeed and , unless substantiated, should not be made.

Where was there an explicit mention of personal financial gain? All I'm saying is that Bob underwent a similarly spectacular conversion from wanting to defend a green space with his life to suddenly not minding having anything built on it.

Are you saying that I'm suggesting financial gain on behalf of Bob? My only criticism of him is that he is making himself look feeble. I wouldn't dare suggest that his conversion was fake, much less think that he had a price - even if that price was a view, or retaining his current level of tranquility!

[Stephen McIntyre]

No, you are both misinterpreting.

The impending change is feudal law was widely known Its a totally brilliant change. However, as with all laws there are winners and losers.

You may groan all you wish but you are groaning for the wrong reason..

So you knew about this? And did nothing to effect any resistance? And you say you were 'initially' against building on the park?

Thanks for nothing.

Welcome back. Yes I am guilty as charged. I did nothing. Same as you, same as the council. Mind you, you had coninced yourself that you had paid a premium for a perennial view. I make this the third time of asking: Did your sollicitor advise you that this was the case?

Your assertion that 'everyone' knew about this is a tad disingenious. I suspect most people, like me, had heard something about feu laws being changed, but, not being 'in the business' ..

Portyman, your research is abysmal. When have I ever said that 'everyone' knew about this? And, if you meant me? then I stopped being "in the business" in 1991.

You are also one of the foremost proponents of building on the park and one of the most dismissive of any alternatives.

I beg to differ. I am one of the foremost proponents of having new schools with sports facilities in the centre of the catchment area and having them sometime soon. Conversley, you are the foremost proponent of not buliding in the park, even if it means no new schools. And you don't see the need for sports facilities, as your son plays for the senior football team.

As for alternatives? I guess I have been dismissive. If the council had £50m in spare cash the best place to build the schools would be Portobello Park, it has everything. I don't see why we shouldn't give the young people among us, the best that they can have and that we can afford. So I get dismissive when poorly thought out, unaffordable, compromises are put forwrad. I'm a bad guy.

Maybe the dots are joining up, or maybe it's just co-incidence, but when I first read your thread on the School I did think your 'conversion' to the cause was a tad Damascene - it took about one and a half pages I think?

You may think what you wish, if you want to get specific, bring it on. However, so far you have demonstrated that you are more than prepared to hoodwink your neighbours and you made it crystal clear that as you and yours are alright, there is no need for change. You naturally must feel that everyone is the same as you ie: they are 'in it' for themselves and only themselves. I'm not and there are quite a numbe of us who are the same.

Still you seem very pleased with yourself, maybe they'll name the sports block after you!

I'd much rather they named it after you or Alistair Cuthbertson. Maybe even Steve Roy, Kenny Walker or John Ferrier, these are some of the people who make a difference to the sport available to our young people.

Re: my solicitor (as this seems to be troubling you greatly), as you might imagine, being a solicitor they would be extremely unlikely to 'guarantee' anything. And in this instance they did not guarantee the park would remain forever unchanged.

So, as I thought, you made it up. You decided that paying a premium guaranteed a legal entitlement, that does not exist. As I say, your argument are totally selfiish and fundamentally flawed.

The park, at that time, was protected by the feu conditions referred to elsewhere in this thread,

See, there you go again. It wasn't protected, the burdens could have been easily overcome. Re-read the thread.

Similarly, you are convinced that 'they' couldn't get planning permission to build on Rosefield (bully for you!). However, it only takes an act of Parliament and the whole scenario could change (but then you'd know about it in advance and move...).

I hav already acknowledged that things can change, more than once. You need to brush up on your reading and interpretation skills.

[Dadaist]

Nah Mac - you are one of the foremost proponents of building on the park cos even when people were only talking about funding, you were the one that came up with the scheme to more council offices to PP or something like that. And when nobody replied you bumped it.

It really did look like you just wanted something built on the park - I know that's not what was in your mind though but it did look like that.

p.s. I asked you a question ages ago and you missed it. I'm not saying you're a bad boy or anything though - it's just you've since handed out sermons on having to ask loads of times if ye ken whit ahm sayin eh.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Nah Mac - you are one of the foremost proponents of building on the park cos even when people were only talking about funding, you were the one that came up with the scheme to more council offices to PP or something like that. And when nobody replied you bumped it.

It really did look like you just wanted something built on the park - I know that's not what was in your mind though but it did look like that.

What was on my mind was not building housing on the park, which is a real bugbear for people. I came up with a suggestion to avoid it. There was a flurry of posts at the same time so I bumped.

I still think there may be merit in the idea. If the council has another facility which need replacing and is of a fair size, why not build it on the park and raise cash from wherever the facility is at the moment? Money could come from a budget other than education. Maybe a correctional facility or something of that nature?

[Dadaist]

Nah Mac - you are one of the foremost proponents of building on the park cos even when people were only talking about funding, you were the one that came up with the scheme to more council offices to PP or something like that. And when nobody replied you bumped it.

It really did look like you just wanted something built on the park - I know that's not what was in your mind though but it did look like that.

What was on my mind was not building housing on the park, which is a real bugbear for people. I came up with a suggestion to avoid it. There was a flurry of posts at the same time so I bumped.

I still think there may be merit in the idea. If the council has another facility which need replacing and is of a fair size, why not build it on the park and raise cash from wherever the facility is at the moment? Money could come from a budget other than education. Maybe a correctional facility or something of that nature?

Why Porty park though? As a fundraising idea yes, but why did you pick Porty park - have the council not also got things they could put on Brighton/Rosefield too?

I wonder if it's not building housing on the park that's the bugbear but building on the park ? (with due consideration to your most recent poll, though)

[Stephen McIntyre]

Why Porty park though? As a fundraising idea yes, but why did you pick Porty park - have the council not also got things they could put on Brighton/Rosefield too?

I didn't pick Porty park. It is the subject of discussion.

And it seems like there is a groundswell of opinion, even people like Epykat seem to grudgingly accept the schools on the park and not houses. I am quite prepared to discuss other parks.You mention Brighton and Rosefiled. Lawrence brought up the Jewel which seems more likely than the formers due to the size,there are other issues but it might work.

Maybe I'm just being realistic but there is no chance Brighton, Rosefield or Abercorn parks would get planning permission and they are too small to raise the amount of money needed. Joppa Quarry is a possibility so is Figgate Park. This would perhaps mean people losing an entire park, which is not the case at Portobello.

[Dadaist]

I didn't pick Porty park. It is the subject of discussion.

You picked it inasmuch as you suggested building on it purely for fundraising - and there have certainly been other bits of land here or there mentioned during the thread (which is about where to put a school).

If you don't qualify it - which you didn't - either by mentioning other parks or by saying that it is the subject of discussion - you can understand why some people (myself included) might make the erroneous assumption that you just want to build on PP!!!

[Epykat]

..... even people like Epykat seem to grudgingly accept the schools on the park and not houses.

I haven't 'grudgingly accepted' anything! I've said from the beginning that I'm in support of the building of the High School (not schools) on the Park.

[Stephen McIntyre]

You picked it inasmuch as you suggested building on it purely for fundraising - and there have certainly been other bits of land here or there mentioned during the thread (which is about where to put a school).

Are you Portyman is disguise? Go read the thread title.

Epykat, I tried to be careful with my words, I did not know your position. I wasn't aware that you had supported a School on the Park from the outset, my bad.

[Epykat]

I did not know your position.....

It's a problem quite a few people have had.......

[Dadaist]

You picked it inasmuch as you suggested building on it purely for fundraising - and there have certainly been other bits of land here or there mentioned during the thread (which is about where to put a school).

Are you Portyman is disguise? Go read the thread title.

Um, no - you go read the thread title where you posted this :

Why not move another council establishment onto the Park

Cos it weren't this one.

[Dadaist]

Its early days but it looks like the schools but no housing on the Park idea is gaining some support. So, is there a way to get funding without building houses on the Park?

Why not move another council establishment onto the Park and develop housing on the site where that used to be? There seems to far less resistance to developing houses on sites where there are already buildings.

I'm thinking another education facility perhaps a "destination" school as opposed to a catchment school. So, if the council has a specialist music school or something of that ilk, parents will gladly send their kids out of their catchment to go to this type of school, so why not a brand new facility in Portobello park?

Of course it doesnt have to be a school. It could be a sports facility, it could be a medical facility and perhaps there are more suggestions?

Any merit in this idea?

Are you saying that when you said this, you thought you were posting in the "Golf Course" thread and not the "High School" thread?

[Stephen McIntyre]

Are you saying this thread is about where to put a school?

"Portobello Golf Course-What's the real story?

[Dadaist]

Are you saying this thread is about where to put a school?

"Portobello Golf Course-What's the real story?

We got round to talking about your quote on this thread.

The quote was made in the "schools" thread.

I am saying that the thread where you made your post about moving another council establishment onto the park was made in the "schools" thread.

You said :

I didn't pick Porty park. It is the subject of discussion.

Not on the thread you made your quote it isn't.

[Stephen McIntyre]

So what thread did you say this in?

You picked it inasmuch as you suggested building on it purely for fundraising - and there have certainly been other bits of land here or there mentioned during the thread (which is about where to put a school).

[Dadaist]

So what thread did you say this in?

You picked it inasmuch as you suggested building on it purely for fundraising - and there have certainly been other bits of land here or there mentioned during the thread (which is about where to put a school).

This one! It doesn't mean "the thread" means this one though - it means the one where you made your quote.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Fair enough. Where were we?

[Dadaist]

We're right here :

Why Porty park though? As a fundraising idea yes, but why did you pick Porty park - have the council not also got things they could put on Brighton/Rosefield too?

You tried to answer by saying that you didn't pick Porty park and that it was the subject of discussion.

I responded by saying :

You picked it inasmuch as you suggested building on it purely for fundraising - and there have certainly been other bits of land here or there mentioned during the thread (which is about where to put a school).

If you don't qualify it - which you didn't - either by mentioning other parks or by saying that it is the subject of discussion - you can understand why some people (myself included) might make the erroneous assumption that you just want to build on PP!!!

at which point you told me to "go read the thread title".

I already had, and the one where you made your original quote.

[Stephen McIntyre]

You picked it inasmuch as you suggested building on it purely for fundraising - and there have certainly been other bits of land here or there mentioned during the thread (which is about where to put a school).

If you don't qualify it - which you didn't - either by mentioning other parks or by saying that it is the subject of discussion - you can understand why some people (myself included) might make the erroneous assumption that you just want to build on PP!!!

Ok. I can understand why some people may think that I just want to build on PP. Particularly if they only have those two or three bits of information and not the 300 or so posts I have made on these school related threads. As for you? You seem to be saying that you are included in making what you are simultaneously describing as an "erroneous assumption". Which one is it?

In any case perhaps you are correct? Earlier today I made the following statement "As for alternatives? I guess I have been dismissive. If the council had £50m in spare cash the best place to build the schools would be Portobello Park, it has everything."

I am obvioulsy hell bent on putting the schools on the park. I admit it, unashamedly. Ideally I would love to do it without Housing, but I can't see a solution that delivers that ideal.

Edited at length.

[Dadaist]

Ok. I can understand why some people may think that I just want to build on PP. Particularly if they only have those two or three bits of information and not the 300 or so posts I have made on these school related threads.

Well, obviously my initial assumption must be wrong once you have corrected it and said that it's not the case. I'm not going to dispute what you say your intentions are.

Thing is though, you started a new kind of discussion when you shared with us your new idea for moving a council establishment onto Portobello Park.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about this being a new idea of yours.

Instead of wondering which park to use, or giving any sort of justification or preamble, you pose your "why not move" question with the only location being Portobello Park.

Thus when PortyMan says that you are "one of the foremost proponents of building on the park" and you deny it, I feel that I must point out that perhaps in your head (where your 300 or so school-related posts are obviously a coherent volume set) it is indeed not the case, but to a casual reader or to someone exceptionally fussy it may not hold true by default - and stating that you have a new idea to move council establishments onto the park to provide funding goes some way to proving his point and not yours - or at least putting a question mark over your denial.

By wanting a school you're doing nothing wrong. By wanting a school in the park you're doing wrong by some eyes (not mine) and are therefore a "proponent of building in the park" - but so what? By being flexible on housing you're doing your case good in that we're all trying to look for solutions to this problem.

But to suddenly come up with a new funding idea with the only park being suggested being Portobello Park, you're opening yourself up to an accusation of being a "foremost proponent of building on the park" (Portobello Park, that is).

[Lawrence Marshall]

Bob,
the superstore site I've thought about before but ruled out as an option because I didn't think Duddingston House Properties would play ball. Maybe BL Developments might take a different view?
I think a 3/4 storey High School roughly triangular in form with a landmark aspect to the King's Road entrance to Portobello and a central circulation/gathering space would be great. Look at St. Thomas of Aquin's!
Could you put a playing surface on the roof? Why not, if required? I've see it done a few times on my travels.

Stephen,
re. the housing providing the funding, maybe the existing school site wouldn't provide any profit if developed by BL Developments but EDI could build houses at The Jewel and the profit there be used to build new schools - in the same way as proposed on the golf course. That's by far the largest chunk of the funding.
Ian Berry is the councillor for both the golf course and The Jewel. I mentioned building houses at The Jewel to him today and he didn't say no. I never realised Jewel Park was actually a park until recently. I thought it was scrap land where the father of one of my friends died of exposure one cold night many years ago trying to get back home to the old Bingham after a drink in the Miners' Club.
New schools for Portobello wouldn't be PPP - that's why we're having to self-fund. St. Thomas of Aquin's wasn't PPP either, looks great as result and I'm sure was almost instantly funded because the old townhouses that were the school were condemned as unsafe and the money just had to be found!

Lawrence

[PortyMan]

Portyman, your research is abysmal. When have I ever said that 'everyone' knew about this? And, if you meant me? then I stopped being "in the business" in 1991.

Sorry. You said it was 'widely known' - my inference was that everyone who's now concerned about the destruction of the park should've known about it. As you say, must brush up my interpretation skills... Not sure how I'm meant to know when you gave up being 'in the business' (what do you do now? Apart from this, of course).

I beg to differ. I am one of the foremost proponents of having new schools with sports facilities in the centre of the catchment area and having them sometime soon. Conversley, you are the foremost proponent of not buliding in the park, even if it means no new schools. And you don't see the need for sports facilities, as your son plays for the senior football team.

The point about the football team was a 'throwaway' comment regarding the 'must have' nature of the argument for extensive pitches.
You decided to build it into an issue (much like the 'lawyer' thing - where you still seem to believe that you won't pay more for a house facing a park than you would for one facing a gas works?)

However, so far you have demonstrated that you are more than prepared to hoodwink your neighbours and you made it crystal clear that as you and yours are alright, there is no need for change. You naturally must feel that everyone is the same as you ie: they are 'in it' for themselves and only themselves. I'm not and there are quite a numbe of us who are the same.

Don't get the hoodwink/mendacity thing? I believed the 'golfer's meeting' was a 'public one'. My trusting nature meant that it never crossed my mind that the councill would be isolating the golfers for special attention before presenting any information to the parents or residents. You're right I should have checked with someone, but at that time I wasn't quite sure who or how.
I joined this forum to try and get some answers to my concerns. In some ways I have, in others my concerns are still unaddressed...
You have determined that I'm 'alright jack', not me. And my view on the schools is still open. But, I'd certainly like to avoid the destruction of the park. I certainly don't want it to become a housing scheme.

So, as I thought, you made it up. You decided that paying a premium guaranteed a legal entitlement, that does not exist. As I say, your argument are totally selfiish and fundamentally flawed.

As you wish. You said that (legal stuff), not me. It's a fact that the price reflects the location. Part of that was that the park was 'council' and therefore less likely to be built on. Whatever. Am I not supposed to be upset? Am I not entitled to fight my corner? Should I just roll over and let you do what you want outside my window?

[Stephen McIntyre]

Lawrence- I do think there is potential at the Jewel and we should pursue it. Congratulations on producing the first credible idea outwith the council proposal.

Your BL development suggestion is a non-starter. They are a commercial company and cannot wait indefinitley to build The decision would not even be theirs to make. The bank would call the shots. You suggest the school site was an insignificant part of the funding. The land value alone would contribute £10m plus. If you had to pay BL to take the school site, it could be £5m at least. So we would be £15m down plus the profit from the houses.. The Jewel would produce revenue but we would lose a large chunk of the prudential borrowing and the profit from the brunstane houses.

And we would have a school in a worse location of similar size. Get real.