New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 Mar 2006, 14:49

It seems to me that this thread has run its course *not a deliberate pun*and that all discussion on the legality of building on the golf course has been exhausted.......

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 14:55

Marya wrote:
Brian McCrow wrote:
One of the current PHS teachers said that the school isn't falling apart.

Who, when, where and to whom?

What's this ... Cluedo?

Who are you ... Inspector Morse ?

What's this ... the third degree ?

You've been spending too much time reading Macintyre posts!!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Mar 2006, 15:02

I agree. Marya - would you like to summarise the 115 posts (inc this one) to save the casual reader the bother of having to read them all?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 15:07

Bob Jefferson wrote:I agree. Marya - would you like to summarise the 115 posts (inc this one) to save the casual reader the bother of having to read them all?

Do you know, I think it would be a useful facility that - although it would be hard work for the poor mod that had to do it.

A summary of a thread would enable somebody to come in without having first read 10, 30, 50 , however many pages first.

A "wiki" or mediawiki-powered tool could be used which could be added to by anyone - or just this forum perhaps - but a summary which cut out the rubbish would be a good tool as you do get good points sometimes - not from me - but for example we've had some near-perfect posts from seanie in the PHS thread.

Or you could have a "classic threads" forum where these threads get sent - like the elephants graveyard.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Mar 2006, 15:31

I'll do it, with the caveat that what i'm about to say is not evidenced and is my understanding. I will stand corrected if any of the RoS posse want to step in.

Portobello Park was left to the community by the Miller family as part of a much larger donation. It is not known whether the Park has always represented the area that it does now. It is thought that the Park was designated for the benefit of the community for the purpose of recreation.

However, no-one that has partcipated in this thread has been able to establish whether this is true but it is generally accepted to be just so.

Although the land was donated to the community the Feu fell into the hands of Liverpool Victoria an insurance company. They held the superior rights over the burdens and feudal restrictions. So, at any time, had they had a request, they could have given permission or the restrictions to be waived. This did not happen but it could easily have happened. So even though the land was designated recreation, the council could have done little or nothing to prevent LV from lifting the burden. There are varous mechanisms for overcoming burdens.

Feudal rights were abolished in Nov 2004. LV could have applied for an extension, they did not, as there was no money in doing so. It is thought that the restrictions or burdens "flew off" at that stage.

It is thought, but is the subject of some debate, that the burden of recreation has now been lifted.

No-one intervened to prevent this happening and even if they had tried there is little or no chance that they would have succeeded.

There will now likely be a new school on the park and at least one of the residents has imagined a whole new virtual feudal system that protects his rights.

He has duly recieved a factual kicking but has continued to defend his corner, for which I suppose grudging respect is due.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 28 Mar 2006, 16:33

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Mar 2006, 16:37

Dave Connelly wrote: Who was responsible for placing the bid for ppp?
Why was the bid unsuccessful?
Why did other newer schools benefit where PHS didn't?
Giving the answer, PHS didnâ€™t get enough points is not good enough. I believe that we have the right to know the whole story.

Dave, some of those points were addressed at the PHS meeting and in the discussion groups. The information came from EA, IP, Andrew Fraser and a member of the school management team whose name escapes me.

I Don't know who was responsible for placing the bid. Surely, every school had the same or similar process?

Why was it unsuccessful? -

Portobello missed out on the PPP round because it was too expensive and could not be built to meet some key requirements. For example it was downscored as it would not have playing fields, which are a modern requirement. Also, amongst other things the cost of a very awkward, staged, decant meant that two or more schools could be "done" for the price of Portobello. This partially explains why newer schools are replaced or refurbished more quickly. It is quite possible indeed probable that schools that have the greatest need are not in the front of the queue. In the case of PHS it was 86ed for the very reasons it should have been included.

To give an extreme example. Lets say PHS was in an even worse state than it is at the moment and its going to cost Â£100m to rebuild. The council have a Â£150m budget. They have to choose and the scoring system dicates that its better to tackle say four schools than rebuild one.

One thing that's overlooked in this debate is the cost of decant in a project like Portobello. If the school ends up in the existing site we will have a cramped facility, with no playing fields and it will cost bundles more into the bargain.

Why did other schools benefit when Portobello didn't?

Basically because 7 or 8 less expensive projects, that met the required standards, could be paid for out of the budget. If PHS were included this may have dropped to 5 or 6. It doesn't look as good on the press release. The worst schools don't get priority.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Mar 2006, 16:49

Dadaist wrote:
McCrow wrote:30 years - I would expect my garden shed to last longer than that.
I would like to own my garden shed, even if I have to pay for it by moving my rabbit hutches a wee bit and selling off part of my old allotment.

Run little rabbits! Ewan Aitken (aka Mr McGregor) will make you into rabbit pie. Ewan McGregor - hmm, has a ring to it.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 Mar 2006, 16:53

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Marya wrote:It seems to me that this thread has run its course *not a deliberate pun*and that all discussion on the legality of building on the golf course has been exhausted.......
I agree. Marya - would you like to summarise the 115 posts (inc this one) to save the casual reader the bother of having to read them all?

Was only suggesting that we should perhaps consider locking it

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 Mar 2006, 16:57

Dadaist wrote:
Marya wrote:
Brian McCrow wrote:
One of the current PHS teachers said that the school isn't falling apart.

Who, when, where and to whom?
What's this ... Cluedo?

Who are you ... Inspector Morse ?

What's this ... the third degree ?

You've been spending too much time reading Macintyre posts!!

OK, just the name will do

And you're correct, I spend far too much time reading other people's posts!

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 28 Mar 2006, 17:11

Marya wrote:
And you're correct, I spend far too much time reading other people's posts!

I know the feeling. And I've got no pension rights. Should we go on strike, M?

Ok, I know, off topic, but hey - as someone so rightly pointed out today, I'm the boss

.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 Mar 2006, 17:19

You *are* the boss. And Marya and Bob.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Mar 2006, 17:21

Nah, locking is not needed. think its dying naturally but a new twist may come to light.

It doesn't cost anything to leave it open and the fact that hardly anyone uses it, is quite topical.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Mar 2006, 17:28

Lawrence Marshall wrote: I think a 3/4 storey High School roughly triangular in form ...!

You mean like a dairylea cheese? You may have something there. Back in the seventies Crighton House was run by Mr McChesney who was endearinlgly referred to as "cheesey". So there is a historic connection, quite krafty, Lawrence.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Mar 2006, 17:43

What else would you expect from FETA's grand fromage?

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 28 Mar 2006, 17:53

Just being picky:

fell into the hands of Liverpool Victoria an insurance company

Less emotively, the Millers sold the superiority to Liverpool Victoria! Superiority = title to collect feuduty and enforce or waive burdens. The Council in its various forms remained the 'vassal'.

the council could have done little or nothing to prevent LV from lifting the burden.

That don't make sense, Mr M. Superiors don't (or didn't to be up to date!) lift burdens unless requested to bt the vassal so there was no need to 'prevent'....

LV could have applied for an extension, they did not, as there was no money in doing so. It is thought that the restrictions or burdens "flew off" at that stage.

If the restrictions flew off then they could not have applied for "extension" really.

What all this thread boils down to is that some people thought the Council had been "caught out" when in fact they had not!!!!!

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 28 Mar 2006, 18:05

Could one build a building that size on an old clay pit?

I'm sure this has been discussed before (Gemini springs to mind??), though.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 28 Mar 2006, 19:40

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Basically because 7 or 8 less expensive projects, that met the required standards, could be paid for out of the budget. If PHS were included this may have dropped to 5 or 6. It doesn't look as good on the press release. The worst schools don't get priority.

OK ta, its a pity the councillor couldn't have told me that

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 28 Mar 2006, 19:45

Marya wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Marya wrote: Who, when, where and to whom?
What's this ... Cluedo?

Who are you ... Inspector Morse ?

What's this ... the third degree ?

You've been spending too much time reading Macintyre posts!!
OK, just the name will do

And if you don't actually know........just make it up

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 28 Mar 2006, 22:14

Alison Connelly wrote:Is the existing PHS site 7 1/2 acres, or is it the combined PHS & St John's site which is 7 1/2 in total? How many acres is the St John's site?

I looked further into this.

My understanding is that the current PHS is 2.9Ha/7.2 acres (83% of the minimum recommended).

St. John is around 0.71 Ha/ 1.75 acres (59% of the minimum recommended).

So the combined site would be around 3.61 Ha/ 8.92 Ha (77% of the minimum recommended).

Those figures ignore the nursery provision required and of course the minimum figures are for schools without playing fields.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 28 Mar 2006, 23:46

Poppy wrote:Could one build a building that size on an old clay pit?

I'm sure this has been discussed before (Gemini springs to mind??), though.

Yes it could Poppy, but it would be costly.

I wouldn't trust the Council to undertake the groundworks, and would wish to see the remit, from 'parties' appointed by the Council, just in
case they got it wrong AGAIN!

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 29 Mar 2006, 07:26

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 29 Mar 2006, 08:36

seanie wrote:
Alison Connelly wrote:Is the existing PHS site 7 1/2 acres, or is it the combined PHS & St John's site which is 7 1/2 in total? How many acres is the St John's site?
I looked further into this.

My understanding is that the current PHS is 2.9Ha/7.2 acres (83% of the minimum recommended).

St. John is around 0.71 Ha/ 1.75 acres (59% of the minimum recommended).

So the combined site would be around 3.61 Ha/ 8.92 Ha (77% of the minimum recommended).

Those figures ignore the nursery provision required and of course the minimum figures are for schools without playing fields.

I'm probably wrong again... but didn't you say earlier that there were no fixed guidelines for the number of pupils in a school? Some variation between 800 and 1400 or similar? So how do we get a situation where the size of the school has a recommended level but the roll doesn't? How many pupils would your recommended size accommodate? Or are you recommending a size for the 1400 pupils expected to attend?

(And, as Alison says, a source for these figures would be useful.

)

Note, in passing. The site, including the St John's bit, meets the 'recommended' level for the High School... More merit in moving St John's to Cavalry? (I know, can't be done, etc, much easier to move them to Portobello...). Just a thought. (How do those pesky kids ever get to Holyrood?)

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 29 Mar 2006, 09:23

Dave Connelly wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:Basically because 7 or 8 less expensive projects, that met the required standards, could be paid for out of the budget. If PHS were included this may have dropped to 5 or 6. It doesn't look as good on the press release. The worst schools don't get priority.
OK ta, its a pity the councillor couldn't have told me that

The total bid from COEC was for Â£305m and they only got Â£188m.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 29 Mar 2006, 09:25

Thanks Poppy.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 29 Mar 2006, 09:28

Bob Jefferson wrote:What else would you expect from FETA's grand fromage?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 29 Mar 2006, 09:28

PortyMan wrote: More merit in moving St John's to Cavalry? (I know, can't be done, etc, much easier to move them to Portobello...). Just a thought. (How do those pesky kids ever get to Holyrood?)

Lawrence keeps suggesting this too.

Can I just say that when my children are 12 and over, I think travelling from Portobello to Holyrood is fine, but for us to do that now would be simply impossible. There's a big differnece between the stamina of an S1 pupil and a P1 pupil - is that not obvious?

I would have to walk from Portobello to Cavalry and back three times a day, and while I might conceivably be fit enough to manage that, I don't have the time, and I think doing it twice is a bit too much to expect a three or four year old to do. Or we could get the bus, which would cost Â£2.30 a day for me, and Â£1.20 for my elder boy, and anothr Â£1.20 for the younger one after the summer. So taking my kids to school would cost Â£4.70 a day, Â£23.50 a week, just for the privilege of school.

Not everybody wants a car; we certainly shouldn't be punished financially for that.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 29 Mar 2006, 09:35

Bellybabe, you are missing the point. Portyman's kid won't have to walk any further.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Mar 2006, 11:43

I think the point is that most parents probably wouldn't be happy to allow their primary school age children to travel by bus on their own. Secondary school is a different matter - by the time they are 12 they are generally responsible enough to do so. Most working mums don't have the option of walking their kids to school.

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 29 Mar 2006, 13:24

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Bellybabe, you are missing the point. Portyman's kid won't have to walk any further.

You're all missing (or avoiding) the point. My main posting related to Seanie's 'recommended' sizes. (This often happens, someone asks a question and make a passing point. The question is ignored (terrible, that) and the comment is discussed at length!). So just to add to the pile of poop (see elsewhere).

Obviously the location of the nearest school is quite an important point when you buy/rent a house. You wouldn't want it moving down the road a bit - say, 2 minutes, by car - all of a sudden.

- I'd have a word with your solicitor!!
Admittedly smaller children would struggle to walk from Portobello to Cavalry. (Maybe the council would lay on a school-bus

). Though some idea of how many children actually walk to school would be interesting... I'm sure it must be more than 4%

And, can we be sure that all the children will manage the extra jaunt up to Milton Road? Has this been considered? Maybe we shouldn't move anything at all?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 29 Mar 2006, 13:45

Brian McCrow wrote:One of the current PHS teachers said that the school isn't falling apart.

Thank goodness for that - it must be OK then!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 29 Mar 2006, 13:54

PortyMan wrote:I'm probably wrong again... but didn't you say earlier that there were no fixed guidelines for the number of pupils in a school? Some variation between 800 and 1400 or similar? So how do we get a situation where the size of the school has a recommended level but the roll doesn't? How many pupils would your recommended size accommodate? Or are you recommending a size for the 1400 pupils expected to attend?

If you check back earlier in the thread youâ€™ll see reference to Building Bulletin 82 â€œArea Guidelines for Schoolâ€

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Mar 2006, 14:16

Portyman, I can assure you that the vast majority of Towerbank pupils walk to school and I would expect that it would be a similar story at St Johns. I'll try to get back to you with figures on this.

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 29 Mar 2006, 14:19

seanie wrote:If you check back earlier in the thread...

... The minimum requirement for playing fields would add 0.5Ha/1.2acres and 6 Ha/14.8 acres to those figures although again shared facilities along with specialist recreational provision could reduce that significantly.

Thanks for that Seanie... I would 'check back' but my heart sinks at ploughing through 66 pages!! (Even limiting it to your posts is still a challenge). So, thanks for bearing with me and repeating the details.

That last figure... 14.8 acres... that's a summed figure, isn't it? You don't really mean 15 acres of playing fields? Do you? That's 50% bigger than the school! That would give room for ponies!

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 29 Mar 2006, 15:08

Alison Connelly wrote:Thanks Seanie. Where did these figures come from? It would be interesting to see how these provisions compare to other schools, both throughout the city, and wider afield.

What I find more interesting is why you are asking where Seanie got the figures from? Here's what you had to say 40 pages ago on the same figures.

Alison Connelly wrote: Seanie tells us that guidelines would suggest the 2 schools will take up 11.2ha. Wangi tells us the total site is 20ha - so if we add a bunch of housing there's not much left for public parkland. .

Surely you must recall? At the time you were quite happy to use Seanies figures to prove "the loss of Portobello Park". Rather embarassingly you argued Seanie's 11.2ha would all be built on, thus overlooking 6ha would be playing fields. When this was pointed out to you, you skulked off without further comment.