New Schools Proposal - The Wider Issues

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Apr 2006, 10:48

We have seen some excellent debate and discussion in the main PHS thread, and we now have a very valuable information resource which archives the many documents pertaining to (at the moment) the plan for Portobello Park.

Now that there is more than one thread in Portobello Matters which concerns new schools funding, I thought I would start one to allow us to discuss those matters which, whilst still being of direct concern to Porty's excellent thread and the debate in general, concern wider issues which, until now, have been viewed by some readers of the original debate as being "off-topic".

For example, even though the SE don't fund things like this - given that they have money in the bank isn't it a bit silly that they aren't giving us some?

also

Why is our local plan different from other places nearby - meaning we somehow can't say the council are being hypocrites?

and

What impact do revelations about intent to build on green belt land elsewhere have on plans to re-site PHS?

These are just some of the wider issues thrown up by the main debate started by Porty.

We're very well served in terms of expert knowledge and opinion on the "when", "where" and "what" of this issue - I think that "why" deserves a home here too.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 29 Apr 2006, 18:14

Dadaist wrote:Why is our local plan different from other places nearby...

The clue is in the name.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Apr 2006, 18:55

seanie wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Why is our local plan different from other places nearby...
The clue is in the name.

That comment is beneath you - you could have provided an informative answer but instead you went for the retort.

For anyone who is interested in reasoned debate, here's a longer version of the question that Seanie decided to throw back at me.

Take the central Edinburgh plan which has been mistakenly quoted from.

What was the exact wording - something about preserving green spaces? What exactly is different about east Edinburgh that means that a green space here can be treated differently?

Seanie, you need to move on from the combat style which was championed under Stephen McIntyre and which led to Bob's edict the other day over treating each other with respect.

I'm going to do my best to hold back the quick and easy epithet style which got us all a reprimand and I suggest you do too. I don't want to have to complain about that last comment or respond with similar cynicism.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 29 Apr 2006, 19:43

Dadaist wrote:That comment is beneath you...

Oh no it's not.

The planning system is guided by a wide range of policies and guidance intended to modify, shape, promote and prevent development in a manner that promotes the public interest. And in a given situation many of the policies will actually conflict. Very few developments, at least at a large scale, are entirley uncontentious in planning terms.

The planning system is intended to strike a balance between competing interests. And one way proposals are assessed is against the local plan.

A local plan represents a framework assesment of a given area in terms of planning policies and guidance. And for any given area some policies will be given greater weight than others, and that will change over time, because all these planning policies are highly contextually sensitive.

Now even local plans are not sacrosanct but they represent a hurdle to inappropriate development. The further a proposal deviates from such a plan the greater the obstacle to its success.

But it's important to remember that local plans differ from other local plans because they're local plans.

If all local plans were the same they wouldn't be local now would they?

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 29 Apr 2006, 20:19

This is lifted from the report .

2.27 In addition to the output from recycled brownfield land, it is clear that new greenfield land will still be needed to meet the demand for housing and business development. The strategy is to meet these demands in locations which conform with the aims and
objectives set out above. In particular they should:
Â¥ be outwith the Green Belt as far as possible and, where this is impossible,
minimise impact on Green Belt objectives;
Â¥ be on existing or proposed rail/tram corridors and/or have the potential for a good
level of access by bus-based public transport;
Â¥ make efficient use of existing or proposed infrastructure;
Â¥ avoid areas where development would result in unacceptable environmental impact.

There is a distinction between Green Field and Green Belt and would appear to give the Council the flexibilty in terms of the four options. So for me the issue for PHS and St Johns comes down to our consideration of priorities.

In the spirit of quality debate can I post this without fear of being labelled New Labour and Pro-Council? It's the schools I want..

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Apr 2006, 21:37

Gilo wrote: In the spirit of quality debate can I post this without fear of being labelled New Labour and Pro-Council? It's the schools I want..

Absolutely. I really want this whole thing to continue in a different tone now that the mods have had to step in. It wasn't getting us anywhere but I'm not optimistic at the moment that it won't all break out again.

Lets respect what Bob said, drop the labels and debate in a respectful manner.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Apr 2006, 21:43

I know that local plans are just that, but what hasn't been answered is exactly why green space/parks policy/whatever has evolved slightly differently here than next door?

The central Edinburgh policy entitled "Open Space Protection" says that "planning permission will not be given for new development which would result in the loss of any open space which contributes to environmental character and amenity or is of recreational or other social value"

- why was this not put in place here - or alternatively, why was it thought necessary in central Edinburgh and who by?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Apr 2006, 21:48

Draft framework for Open Space Protection :

http://download.edinburgh.gov.uk/opensp ... ft_OSF.pdf

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 29 Apr 2006, 22:00

Dadaist wrote:I know that local plans are just that, but what hasn't been answered is exactly why green space/parks policy/whatever has evolved slightly differently here than next door?

Because one locale has slightly different priorities from another locale. Exactly what they may be and how they're evaluated? That's complex. You'd best start by reading the local plans.

- why was this not put in place here - or alternatively, why was it thought necessary in central Edinburgh and who by?

Who?

The Council of course. They have committees, consultation processes, reviews, projections and evaluations and periodically approve local plans.

The nitty gritty is rather dull but it's not mysterious.

Post by **wangi** » 29 Apr 2006, 22:02

Matt, have you read the east local plan at the library, or elsewhere, as it's not available online?

I've not, so while I know the central one has the clause against green site development i'm unsure if the east does or does not. I'd like to know, but not enough really, since I've not trundled into the library to look it up. Back with the SSP leaflet I only really pointed out that they quoted from the wrong plan - I don't know if the right plan has the clause or not. But then again I'm not publishing a leaflet, so that's good enough...

But anyway in a major city the city centre will normally have more pressure for development, hence it makes sense to safe guard the already scare green space.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Apr 2006, 22:11

I assume we're NE Edinburgh?

Cos SE Edinburgh seems to be forward thinking :

"Accessible, well located open space close to where people live and designed to serve a wide range of recreational purposes is an essential attribute of a good environment, and vital to community health, well being and development."

That's from the SE Edinburgh Local Plan.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 29 Apr 2006, 22:12

Look at the link provided;

3.21 Whilst they acknowledge that no open space is without some significance in its locality, the plans identify certain spaces as of outstanding quality...

Well yes. All open space is recognised as important to some extent but it's not evaluated equally. Some open spaces will be all but impossible to develop on. Others less so depending on what's proposed and why. And the evaluation is dependent on local context.

Some areas will have greater pressures, shortages or needs that will affect their respective local plan.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Apr 2006, 22:15

Absolutely. I just can't ever see them building on the pitch 'n' putt at Bruntsfield even if they did provide one somewhere else!

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 29 Apr 2006, 22:17

When the areas of local space are graded, our area doesn't have Green Space which is regarded as "Important Space'. Therefore it will have less protection priority. look at the map at 3.15

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 29 Apr 2006, 23:37

Dadaist wrote:Why is our local plan different from other places nearby - meaning we somehow can't say the council are being hypocrites?

Initially I was going to be as succinct as Seanie , local plans are exactly that. The areasof Portoello,Milton and Northfiels are not densley developed and large areas have no architectural merit. We alos have oodles of green space. I have 4 pulbic parks within 500m of my home. Conversely the new town has oodles of architectural merit, limted green space, almost no brownfield sites and as far as I know is not bordered by green belt.

Given the different characteristics differing local plans are required. Picking one or two policies out of a neighbbouring plan and claiming hypocrisy is unreasonable.

As far as your question about the SE having money and not giving it to us being silly. Firstly, as far as I know we haven't asked for any yet. Secondly, there has to be conditions attaching to SE money, otherwise its a free for all. Central government have set aside large sums for the SP and apparently large sums are not spent each year. There must be good reason. I don't know what?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 30 Apr 2006, 00:14

I think I caused the problem by not phrasing my question properly - although doing so might have pointed to the answer Stephen has hinted at - that the reason green space in area A can be treated differently from area B not only depends on local needs but also on how much existing green space there is in a given green space - hence east Edinburgh's plan ending up less green than central or SE.

This still seems odd to me, but then I'm not an expert in planning or property, nor am I an expensive consultant - the kind I wonder if the PPAG will end up buying.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 30 Apr 2006, 00:25

The NE Edinburgh local plan alteration :

http://download.edinburgh.gov.uk/neelp/ ... n_2004.pdf

Interestingly the background refers to "strengthening the open space policy by making specific reference to allotments" - so I wonder what our open space policy even is - at least there is one if it can be strengthened!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 30 Apr 2006, 01:02

I'll be more careful in future if I decide to call the council hypocrites. While we wait - here is an article detailing CEC buying land in order to protect it from developers -

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid ... =168492006

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 30 Apr 2006, 01:23

All this argument about "green space" is effectively a discussion about building on a section of a little field. If you want a wider issue then why not start doing something about the mass de-forestation of the rainforest - I can assure that this has a greater impact on all our lives.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 30 Apr 2006, 07:01

Pal of Porty wrote:All this argument about "green space" is effectively a discussion about building on a section of a little field. If you want a wider issue then why not start doing something about the mass de-forestation of the rainforest - I can assure that this has a greater impact on all our lives.

I appreciate your point. I think we can do both!

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 30 Apr 2006, 16:54

Dadaist wrote:
Pal of Porty wrote:All this argument about "green space" is effectively a discussion about building on a section of a little field. If you want a wider issue then why not start doing something about the mass de-forestation of the rainforest - I can assure that this has a greater impact on all our lives.
I appreciate your point. I think we can do both!

But the mass deforestation of the rainforest started somewhere - like a section of a little bit of forest.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 02 May 2006, 14:01

Epykat wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Pal of Porty wrote:All this argument about "green space" is effectively a discussion about building on a section of a little field. If you want a wider issue then why not start doing something about the mass de-forestation of the rainforest - I can assure that this has a greater impact on all our lives.
I appreciate your point. I think we can do both!
But the mass deforestation of the rainforest started somewhere - like a section of a little bit of forest.

Have you been talking to Confusious? He said that even the longest journey starts with a single step.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 May 2006, 14:06

Heh - watch out PoP, someone will suggest that the Council's journey to build on every last bit of green space starts with the single step of building on Portobello Park!

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 02 May 2006, 21:50

Pal of Porty wrote:
Epykat wrote:
Dadaist wrote: I appreciate your point. I think we can do both!
But the mass deforestation of the rainforest started somewhere - like a section of a little bit of forest.
Have you been talking to Confusious? He said that even the longest journey starts with a single step.

Giant schools from little breeze blocks grow

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 03 May 2006, 14:26

Here's a question, not about this new school proposal but the one after it.

When the time comes to re-build the new school - where will the houses go then to fund that re-build?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 03 May 2006, 14:42

No new housing will be required. The new schools will be gifted by a portobello philanthropist. Sounds far fetched I know but this sort of thing happens all the time. Dont you know Portobello Park is a magnet for this type of magnificence?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 03 May 2006, 14:46

Stephen McIntyre wrote:No new housing will be required. The new schools will be gifted by a portobello philanthropist. Sounds far fetched I know but this sort of thing happens all the time. Dont you know Portobello Park is a magnet for this type of magnificence?

Then why are the current ones not being so gifted?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 03 May 2006, 15:49

There's no guarantee on timing of such gifts so we can't depend on them in the next 3 or 4 years. I'm basing my gift funding proposal on a variable set of factors, some of which I have invented. I have included a "suits my argument" quotient to justify the theory to myself.

I thought I'd join in, is that ok?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 03 May 2006, 15:52

Thanks. If anyone else wants to have a go at the question, be my guest :

When the time comes to re-build the new school - where will the houses go then to fund that re-build?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 03 May 2006, 16:03

The Iraq war may be over and we divert funds?

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 03 May 2006, 16:42

Dadaist wrote:Thanks. If anyone else wants to have a go at the question, be my guest :

When the time comes to re-build the new school - where will the houses go then to fund that re-build?

To "have a go" do I need to be hard enough?

I'll try to consider the dilemma you are presenting us with though, being that of funding. At the moment the councils hands are tied in many ways - we could go into to this if we have to but I'd prefer not to.

If we start to think sixty years ahead now then we could campaign for a more equitable taxation system which increases taxes to pay for a school building programme. We could argue to divert priorities of future revenues towards building schools. We could think of other similarly community minded ideas and campaign for them. By doing this we could remove the less than ideal options that are infront of us today, for future generations....just some thoughts.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 03 May 2006, 16:50

60 years is a long-time in the future. Perhaps by that stage a large proportion of children's learning will happen remotely and be PC based. So maybe we won't need such big schools? There are too many unknown factors for the "where in 60 years" debate to have any real worth.

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 03 May 2006, 16:57

Agreed, but there is a genuine grievence that funding schools has come down to this. I think it's important to consider our tax and spend policies, think about our priorities and try to create a community and environment where we are not put in these positions....it doesn't help with the decisions we're faced with for PHS and St Johns but could help in the future.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 03 May 2006, 17:45

Stephen McIntyre wrote:The Iraq war may be over and we divert funds?

No. Going by New Labour's precedent of invading Afghanistan and Iraq, the chance of them invading to inflict democracy again is real while there are countries left to invade - Iran and Syria for example.

So it is also with invading open spaces.

I want to know where the houses to fund the new school's refurbishment should be built using the funding model suggested by the council and promoted by PFANS.

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 03 May 2006, 17:50

Dadaist wrote:I want to know where the houses to fund the new school's refurbishment should be built using the funding model suggested by the council and promoted by PFANS.

Where have PFANS promoted the funding model?

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Schools Proposal - The Wider Issues

New Schools Proposal - The Wider Issues

Re: New Schools Proposal - The Wider Issues

Re: New Schools Proposal - The Wider Issues

Re: New Schools Proposal - The Wider Issues

Re: New Schools Proposal - The Wider Issues