New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[foxy]

Where does Mr P come into it? Want to know what I think. Mr Wilson was in the park Tuesday 2nd, Gemini was in the park Thursday 4th and everything else is just confusing.

That's what I meant too

Mr P was mentioned by Gemini above

[Stephen McIntyre]

I think I'm Mr P. If so? Then Mr P need not visit PP to know that it is a barely used facility. Mr P lives in West Brighton Crescent, which is the furthest away he has lived from PP in all his last 45 years.

We know that 80 people a day golf there. These are the only group who will be inconvenienced by the 1.8km move to the new course. Everyone else who uses the park will find the status quo maintained, dog walkers will be able to walk their dogs, nature lovers will be able to love nature, casual strollers will be able to stroll casually, footballers will be able to play football and gemini's will be able to visit the park on most days at 1pm.

I was surprised, or was I? By the latest group of park users that rank above the children of this commmunity when it comes to a share in our green space.........its.............................hen and stag parties. I heard all about them today from the golf course deputation. Another interesting fact to emerge was that "none" of the members of Portobello Golf Club can recall being involved in the council's usage survey in 2005. Apparently the council restricted the survey to 200 people who were actually playing the course.

[Bob Jefferson]

Stag and hen parties? I assume you are making this bit up?

[gilo]

yes, please tell us more....

[Stephen McIntyre]

Someone from the floor asked the golf deputee ( ?) how many children or youths actually use the course? It was "difficult to say". My opinion is that if the answer had been a sifgnificantly high number then it would be rather easy to say.

As for the Hen and stag nights? I assure you I am not making it up. The deputee announced that they had counted 150 hen and staggers on just one evening!! The inference being that the H & S would desert PP if they had to travel another 1.8km. I kid you not.

I must admit one factor I had not anticpated as a challenge to a school in the park is the scheduling and logistical impact on drunken horn wearers.

Did you hear the one about building the school on the park increasing antisocial behavior, drug use and drug crime?

[Bob Jefferson]

I think I need a transcript of this meeting today. Who made this claim and what evidence do they have to support it?

[Bob Jefferson]

And can we just go back to the Stag and Hen Parties? Are you telling me that it is now fashionable to play golf on the eve of the wedding?

Play around perhaps, but play a round?

[Stephen McIntyre]

I must admit there does appear to be mixed messages. I don't know much about anti-social behaviour, drug use and drug crime but it seems to me that one way to tackle this undesirable behaviour is to have fewer stag and hen nights and better schools. Call me Mr Silly.

I think I need a transcript of this meeting today. Who made this claim and what evidence do they have to support it?

Which claim? The one about the hen and stags or the one about the anti-social behavior, drug use and drug crime?

[Bob Jefferson]

The latter.

[Gemini]

Porty wrote

I was surprised, or was I? By the latest group of park users that rank above the children of this commmunity when it comes to a share in our green space

Your remark re park users ranking above children, is totally without credibility. Children are very important, but so are other's in the community.



Porty wrote

Gemini thinks the EN publised W. Wilson's letter 1 hour and 15 minutes after he wrote it

After reading the bias article published in the EN, after the Public Meeting,
nothing would surprise me

[Stephen McIntyre]

Children are very important, but so are other's in the community.

It is rare but on this we agree.

If the councils PP proposal goes ahead, as is, can you identify individuals or groups who will lose out? And if so how will they lose out?

[Dave Connelly]

I was at the meeting too. I thought the pupils did very well.

I was a bit surprised by the Pfans rep attacking the PPAG people attributing someones personal submission/letter/leaflet or whatever it was, ( I haven't seen it), as being that of the ppag group as a whole. Which it clearly wasn't.

I have spoken to a few friends/councillors since the meeting and they thought it was fairly well balanced with one or two exceptions. One being that whilst Pfans spokesperson appeared to be on the attack, PPAG, the golfers etc came over as being fair and balanced. Wanting better schools and education but clearly not on the park.

I think the 150 stag parties has been misquoted, stag parties/hen parties were mentioned but not as quoted above. The drugs thing is also misquoted, but hey its all down to listening and interpretation isn't it.

I thought that there was a fair bit of common ground covered today by both sides (Excuse the use of common if you dont think it applies).

I directed a few of my friends to this forum thinking that there may have been one or two laughs and a bit of ribbing, but as usual you appear to have gone too far.

I have to say, you have not done Pfans any favours at all this evening

[Dadaist]

I'm getting pretty fed up with some of the nonsense that has been posted recently as well, so please would everyone start treating each other with respect

[Bob Jefferson]

Dave, Dada - what specifically don't you like about this evening's posts? I should add that I wasn't at today's meeting so I only have second-hand accounts of what took place, though I would be happy to publish the various submissions.

[Epykat]

Perhaps it's the inference that golfers, stag and hen parties, dog walkers, joggers, anybody who dares to disagree etc are all lesser beings to be ridiculed and made out to be worthless because they like golfing, stagging, henning, walking, jogging and thinking about their community space when really they should be thinking only about other people's children at all times?

[Bob Jefferson]

Will someone please explain what stag and hen parties have to do with any of this? I am genuinely perplexed.

[Epykat]

Will someone please explain what stag and hen parties have to do with any of this? I am genuinely perplexed.

Haven't a clue either but you can be sure that whatever they have to do with it, according to PFANS and Stephen, they should definitely not need the golf course to do it on when they should be thinking about other peoples' children instead of enjoying themselves.

[Stephen McIntyre]

I think the 150 stag parties has been misquoted, stag parties/hen parties were mentioned but not as quoted above.

You think wrong, indeed you are misquoting what I wrote, I repeated that Oula Jones claimed there was 150 members of hen and stage parties counted in just one eveing, its easy to check, go look.

The drugs thing is also misquoted, but hey its all down to listening and interpretation isn't it.

All I can say is the leader of the City of Edinburgh Council must have listened and interpreted the same way that i did. Hence his question to dccairns "in what way would building a school on portobello park contribute to increased anti-social behaviour, drug use and drug crime?"

To which the answer was (gist) "I don't know, I didn't write this, I am just reading it out"

I have to say, you have not done Pfans any favours at all this evening

Perhaps but that is a question of perspective and interpretation.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Perhaps it's the inference that golfers, stag and hen parties, dog walkers, joggers, anybody who dares to disagree etc are all lesser beings to be ridiculed and made out to be worthless because they like golfing, stagging, henning, walking, jogging and thinking about their community space when really they should be thinking only about other people's children at all times?

There is no inference, at least by me. Can I put the same question to you that I put to Gemini?

If the councils PP proposal goes ahead, as is, can you identify individuals or groups who will lose out? And if so how will they lose out?

[Bob Jefferson]

All I can say is the leader of the City of Edinburgh Council must have listened and interpreted the same way that i did. Hence his question to dccairns "in what way would building a school on portobello park contribute to increased anti-social behaviour, drug use and drug crime?"

To which the answer was (gist) "I don't know, I didn't write this, I am just reading it out"

This is extraordinary. Can you clarify on whose behalf dccairns made this submission which she did not write and was merely reading out?

[Stephen McIntyre]

Portobello Thistle Football Club

[seanie]

I was a bit surprised by the Pfans rep attacking the PPAG people attributing someones personal submission/letter/leaflet or whatever it was, ( I haven't seen it), as being that of the ppag group as a whole. Which it clearly wasn't....

...I directed a few of my friends to this forum thinking that there may have been one or two laughs and a bit of ribbing, but as usual you appear to have gone too far.

I have to say, you have not done Pfans any favours at all this evening

ROFLMAO

[Dadaist]

Sadly, mutiple questioning has become a neccesity. I can assure you I would much rather ask once.

Bob confirmed that his request about treating each other with respect applied to you and your repeated questioning of Alison.

Did he?

Yeah, go back and look.

But much more seriously, I would like to find a way to remove any suspicion that I'm in any way connected to "theGolfer".

[Bob Jefferson]

Copied over from the 'Wider Issues' thread:

No takers?

Ok I’ll explain where I’m coming from, leaving the issue of funding aside.

I know very little personally about the condition of either PHS or St Johns, but given their age I’d be surprised if they were fit for purpose by today’s standards. PHS in particular. Virtually all buildings from the 60’s fall vastly short of what’s now expected in terms of function, environmental performance, accessibility etc and most are approaching or have reached their natural life span. That life can be extended, but it’s not a cheap or easy option, and has to be considered against the end result.

In the case of PHS refurbishment sounds a bad idea. It would be disruptive and expensive, incurring the cost of an extended decant, and at the end of the day you’d have a building hugely constrained by its form and site. High rise, as well as being costly, inherently restricts flexibility and adaptability because the demands of structure, services and circulation impose massive constraints. And the site is fundamentally too small, ostrich like attempts to deny it notwithstanding.

Which is why rebuilding on site is pretty much a non-starter. It may have been the initial proposal for PPP2 but I can’t imagine it would’ve survived detailed scrutiny. The site is too small to build a new school without demolishing the old one first, so you’d still incur the cost and disruption of an extended decant. And the limitations of the site would compromise the design of the replacement. It would be difficult to avoid another high-rise solution with the attendant problems already mentioned. There’d be little sense in going to the huge expense and disruption of replacing the school if at the end of the day the new school would be fundamentally compromised by the inadequacy of the site.

So if you’re looking to replace PHS, and at some point you’ll have to, you’re really looking for a new site. But that’s not easy because schools do require a large amount of space. With sustainability in mind the preferred choice might be a brown-field site. But all the brown-field sites suggested so far are either too small, poorly located, not in Council ownership or frequently all three. They’re non-starters.

Only a lunatic would build a school at Seafield Road Bus Depot.

So whenever PHS is replaced, be it now, in 5 or 10 years time, and however it’s funded, you’ll be looking for a greenfield site, large enough to accommodate both schools and playing fields, that’s in the catchment area and in council ownership.

The shortlist of sites meeting those requirements is indeed short. It gets even shorter when you take planning considerations into account.

There is no way in hell you’d get to build it at Calvary Park.

The Planning dept would be against because it would encroach on greenbelt and their aspiration for a green corridor to the heart of the city. The Education dept would be against because two large schools in close proximity would be a management nightmare. The Transport dept would be against it because it would cause traffic chaos. And I can’t imagine the locals up at Duddingston would be ringing the bells in joyous anticipation. In short the number of people in favour of such a proposal will be dwarfed by the number who think it a really, really bad idea. It’s not going to happen.

Similarly building at Brunstane faces problems. As a general rule I think that building schools outwith their catchment area is frowned upon. But leaving that aside the Planners won’t be keen. I’m still unaware of the exact boundaries and designation of the land involved but if, as I understand it, most of the land is greenbelt then most of the land is very difficult to develop. Not impossible mind. If you put forward a very good case, that it was the ideal site and there was no alternative, then the planners might be persuaded. But since it’s clearly a crappy idea and there’s at least one obvious alternative, I can’t imagine they’ll be convinced.

I think, when it really comes down to it, you’ve probably got a choice between two sites for a new PHS. Either PGC or the Jewel. Of those I’d prefer PGC. It’s close to the centre of the catchment and the existing schools, which would make relocating St John’s in particular easier.

Both Portobello Park and the Jewel will have planning protection as Open Space and because of their playing fields. That protection will not prohibit development but it does mean the benefits of any proposals will be judged quite strictly against loss of amenity. I think in those terms developing on Portobello Park is preferable, primarily because the golf-course can be relocated.

For me that’s the key. Moving the golf-course up to greenbelt land at Brunstane doesn’t present a significant planning hurdle. Yes it’s further away which will inconvenience some people. But the vast majority of golfers drive to the course and if you’re not playing golf you’re not really supposed to be wandering about it anyway. I’m in no doubt that many people have a significant attachment to the golf-course where it is. But in terms of actual usage I don’t think relocating represents a significant loss of amenity. And it frees up a huge amount of land. Enough land that amenity could actually be enhanced.

In terms of sports and recreation I’d absolutely expect amenity to be enhanced by new schools. I’d expect the community to benefit from more, better and more varied facilities. But because moving the golf-course frees up so much land I’d also expect a sizeable public park to remain that could be of considerable value despite the loss to development. Be it an eco-park or a nature reserve I think there’s the potential for a public green space of more interest and use than the barren expanse of close cropped grass that Portobello Park is at the moment.

Even with the development of housing.

I know I said I’d leave aside the issue of funding but it is another reason why I prefer PGC as the site.

Ideally I’d like to see new schools funded directly through progressive redistributive taxation or via public borrowing. However the prospects of that any time soon are slim. I suppose we could put aside our differences and work together to make it a reality. And after we’ve succeeded we can bring a just peace to Israel-Palestine, end world hunger, reverse global warming, and ensure ponies for all.

However if you’re actually looking to replace the schools any time soon funding options are somewhat limited. The council doesn’t have the revenue streams or capital budget to fund such proposals outright, certainly not given all the other schools across the city that also require attention, and their ability to borrow is constrained by central government. I suppose we could put aside our differences and campaign for a huge increase in our council tax. But I’m not sure support will be unanimous.

Failing that you’re looking at PPP or self-financing. I’d put PPP close to the bottom of my preferred sources of funding. I think PPP delivers, more often than not, crap buildings at extortionate expense but you may be able to go down that route if you really want to. However you may be waiting some time. Another round of PPP is not in the gift of local authorities. If and when it does happen it’ll be at the behest of central government. Given the rise in public borrowing, the repeated shortfalls in tax revenues and the hidden liabilities coming on stream of all the PPP projects already embarked upon, another large wave of PPP may be some time off.

So if you’re looking to actually replace the schools in a timeframe you have some control over, then you’re looking for a significant element of self-financing; the realisation of assets. I think that’s probably best achieved by housing development.

I confess that the prospect of housing doesn’t fill me with the same dread as some. Even (shock, horror) affordable housing. There is a shortfall and I don’t think building homes is a bad thing per se (although the output of some of our volume house builders could persuade me otherwise.) However since the prevailing opinion appears to be that housing is indeed a bad thing I’d suggest it be seen as the cost incurred to obtain the benefit of new schools. And to my mind, whilst costs and benefits rarely fall entirely equitably, they should be closely linked.

I’d regard new schools as, potentially, of great benefit not just to the pupils who will attend but to the surrounding community. I’d be more doubtful of that if the project were funded by PPP, but with sufficient funds, time, care and a commitment to quality I think it’d be possible to develop a real asset. And I think the community that reaps those benefits should also bear the costs.

It’s been suggested to me that the housing would be better built somewhere else in Edinburgh entirely. To my mind that’s fundamentally unfair. It’s an attempt to derive benefits whilst offloading the costs onto someone else. Even developing the housing elsewhere within the catchment leaves me uneasy. Put the housing up at the Jewel and you could pay for new schools down here in Portobello. The people who live round the Jewel would lose local amenity. They’d derive some benefit from the new schools but the facilities would hardly be on their doorstep. I think they’d be bearing a cost disproportionate to their likely benefit.

That’s why I quite like the proposals for Portobello Park. It ties up costs and benefits in one package.

Portobello Park is the only viable site in the entire catchment large enough to sustain the development of new schools with playing fields, the housing to help fund them, and still have a sizeable public green space left over.

Now I still think that much depends on the detail of what’s proposed, but add in the fact that the golf-course would be relocated rather than lost and that strikes me as not a bad deal. It’s not entirely fair. Some people will derive greater benefits than costs, others greater costs than benefits. Some will bear no cost and only benefit and vice versa. But that’s inevitable whatever happens.

Overall, the proposal to develop on Portobello Park seems reasonably equitable to me.

For new schools to be built any time soon I think a better deal is unlikely.

[administrator]

Woah! Please do not post anything further here relating to the moderation of this thread or complaints against other members. A new thread has been started on the general forum specifically for this purpose.

Any further off-topic postings will be deleted. Let's get back to sensible and polite debate please and again can we appeal for everyone to abide by the posting guidelines.

[bbbrown]

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index ... =676452006

While it is nice that this is happening for South Edinburgh and Craigmillar, is it not a touch hypocritical of the same council to be proposing the concreting over of a large part of Portobello Park and Golf Course.

Councillor Perry says

"The creation of accessible and well-managed open space is an important part of the regeneration process. "As well as developing high-quality homes, better shops and community facilities, we also want to create a desirable environment in which to live, with plenty of open space for our young people to play in and for families to enjoy."

To me, Portobello park and Golf Course is a plentiful, open space. It helps create a desirable environment in which to live. It is accessible.

I think we should keep it, in its entirity...on site...

Brown field sites should be looked at again, and hopefully that is what the Council might do

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index ... =676172006

[Stephen McIntyre]

Councillor Perry says

"The creation of accessible and well-managed open space is an important part of the regeneration process. "As well as developing high-quality homes, better shops and community facilities, we also want to create a desirable environment in which to live, with plenty of open space for our young people to play in and for families to enjoy."

Interesting.

If you substitute "better schools" for "better shops", this statement by Councillor Perry could easily apply to Portobello Park, so at least we have consistency.

The council have promised to "look at" brownfield sites, the cost of buying it and so on. Apparently it was the Labour group who insisted on it and they were also the ones that pushed for an full environmetal audit on each potential site at yesterday's meeting. Donald Anderson was the main mover.

[bbbrown]

So it was not the Lib dems as reported?

[Stephen McIntyre]

What?

[Stephen McIntyre]

Oh I see.

Yes you are correct, prior to yesterdays meeting the liberal dems amendment to look at brownfield sites was accepted. However, this had already been agreed by the labour group at their own meeting on tuesday evening, or so I am led to believe. And that is what I meant and I qualified with the word "apparently".

The environemental audit was def Donald Anderson at the meeting but the Lib Dems may have pitched the same idea privately, i don't know.

[Alison Connelly]

..

[Dave Connelly]

Despite the difficulties the council has been forced to consider all options by the strength of public opposition to the loss of its first choice - Portobello Park, home of a 150-year-old golf course and football pitches.

Press quote

Cant believe everything we read in the press though can we

[Bob Jefferson]

Too true. The bit about the 150 year old golf course is wrong for starters.

[Dave Connelly]

Too true. The bit about the 150 year old golf course is wrong for starters.

[seanie]

This will have to be in instalments but...

Have you looked at the feasibility reports available to view in Portobello Library?
The St John’s one, produced by the council’s own in house team in December 2004, describes the condition of St John’s as good, and identifies a number of positive aspects of the building, including, but not exclusively, its character.

As I’ve already said I have little personal knowledge of the schools. My comments are largely formed by my professional experience and, as indicated, were directed primarily to PHS. But since you’ve raised St Johns I feel I should point out that conditon and fitness-for-purpose are not synonymous. A building can be in excellent condition, even have a wonderful character, and yet still be inadequate for its function.

And as I understand it;

St Johns Primary School building as opened in 1927. The classrooms are extremely small. Standard provision for a classroom and activity space is 75m2 per class and in St Johns most are about 45m2.

Do you see the problem Alison?

The 45m2 square classrooms may be in wonderful condition and even have a wonderful character, but they’re still inadequate by modern standards. You can refurbish a 45m2 classroom till you’re blue in the face but at the end of the day it’s not going not be any larger.

The 75m2 figure isn’t sacrosanct but there are clear space standards per pupil. In my professional experience 60m2 is pretty much the minimum for a primary school classroom. If class sizes reduce significantly (beyond the standards due to come into force next year) then 45m2 may become adequate again.

But then you’ll need even more classrooms to accommodate the same school roll. And since St Johns is already relying on temporary units to accommodate pupils I think it’s obvious that St Johns has serious accomodation issues, its numerous positive aspects notwithstanding.