New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Porty]

I wasn't offended Stephen, but I know some folk who may have taken it the wrong way, just trying to keep the peace
edited to re-spell

What do you mean "take it the wrong way"? How could it possibly be taken the wrong way? Who are these people?

[Porty]

All conflicts no matter how large or small have ups and downs. Yesterday was a definate up for PPAG, several of the officials applauded after Ros spoke. Did you notice that

I didn't. However I did notice no councillor spoke up against the consultation. If you thought that was a result then fair enough.

It may interest you to know that I also applauded Ros. (I got ticked off by a fellow PFANS supporter) Personally speaking, I thought she made some valid points. Particularly the one about the need for further consultation if housing is needed for funding but I stress that this is a personal view.

[Jbrock]

I was privately dissapointed though that Pfans stated quite categorically that as a group they would rather have the new schools quickly and at any cost.

Dave, you asked for us not to be offended by this comment because you may have misunderstood what we were saying and of course, you did misunderstand what I said. We will put the notes from the deputation on our website. I am not offended. I just despair when I read comments like yours. The council's report states that we will not have the schools ready until 2011/12 in the case of PHS and 2013 in the case of St J's. Roy Jobson said yesterday these timescales were not conservative - they could take longer. Is this what "quickly" means to you?

What does "any cost" mean to you? The cost of years of our children being educated in schools that are no longer fit for purpose as PFANS, the High School Board and the St John's school Board reps all described yesterday? PPAG also accepted the need for new schools.

PPAG and PFANS have both but separately,reluctantlyreached the conclusion that PHS and St John's must be redeveloped and this cannot happen unless there is some build on green space. The difference is that PPAG wants the green space on Figgate Park to be lost. PFANS believes the options of Portobello Park or the Golf course need further open debate. We also want a commitment from the Council that if any green space were lost on Portobello Park, it will be made up for within the area - as Councillor Perry stated yesterday.

I think the PPAG representative made a lot of good comments yesterdy and there is loads of scope for us to work together on the best possible solution.

I don't know what comments like yours are trying to achieve?I could sound off about PPAG recommending to councillors yesterday that st John's with children aged between 4 and 12 is shifted to the freightliner terminal and make some nasty comments about what that says of their interest and commitment to children and the environment. Maybe one of your cartoons could depict that nightmare scene?

But none of this insult-trading is going to get us anywhere.
Can we just try and identfy those issues in this debate that we do agree on. Try and respect the differences that remain and move forward constructively now to this public consultation.

[Dadaist]

What does "any cost" mean to you? The cost of years of our children being educated in schools that are no longer fit for purpose as PFANS, the High School Board and the St John's school Board reps all described yesterday?

Rhetorical question == statement masquerading as question. Partisan.

I could sound off about PPAG recommending to councillors yesterday that st John's with children aged between 4 and 12 is shifted to the freightliner terminal and make some nasty comments about what that says of their interest and commitment to children and the environment.

You just did.

But none of this insult-trading is going to get us anywhere.

First time I've seen someone insult someone else and then immediately decry insult-trading. I think your approach lacks integrity.

[Dave Connelly]

when I read comments like yours. .

Sorry Jackie, I really didnt meant to offend or insult, it just how I felt and was more of a banter with porty than anything else.

[Porty]

when I read comments like yours. .

Sorry Jackie, I really didnt meant to offend or insult, it just how I felt and was more of a banter with porty than anything else.

I don't think you meant to offend or insult. Think it was more of a mischevious mis-quote. It therefore failed to pass muster as banter with me.

Dave when Councillor Brown (?) eyeballed Ros and asked her if she, on behalf of PPAG, accepted the findings of the feasibility studies that the Freightliner Termiinl site was too small for Portobello High School and she answered "No".

Did many Councillors applaud?

[Pal of Porty]

...Fair enough, now lean over and ask Clockwork O to put their stance in the public view

Dave - I am more than happy to share my view, thank you for asking.

There is no doubt in my mind that we need a new PHS and I want to see one that meets current good practice guidelines with the flexibility inherent in the design to meet ever changing future demands. This is the fundamental, which shapes my views and desires in the context of the whole debate. I do not believe that development on the existing site, even including the St John’s footprint, for a roll of 1,200 to 1,450 pupils could do this. I am also totally against the prospect of a decant on this sort of scale for up to 3 years.

When I first heard of the possibility that a new PHS could be built on the golf course/park, I thought this was an inspirational idea for a site. In many ways it is perfect. This has always been my personal first choice location as I, (like the independent consultants seem to have recently found), struggled to find many viable options to choose from. I am not of the opinion however that the PHS should be put there at any cost but I support the outline proposals as they currently stand.

[Bob Jefferson]

I'm sure that many people who have signed the PPAG petition will be both astonished and disappointed that a group that purported to be about saving green space is now touting Figgate Park as a possible site for St Johns. Is there a single person who is prepared to state publicly that they think this is a good idea?

I agree that the PPAG petition should now be ditched. Firstly, the wide-ranging site options appraisal it calls for has already been undertaken by an independent consultant (whether they like the findings or not) and secondly PPAG needs to be upfront about its willingness to save Portobello Park at the expense of Figgate Park.

I think that Portobello Park/Golf Course is an excellent site for PHS. I would be happy for St Johns to be built alongside with shared facilities, or alternatively on the site vacated by PHS. I hope very much that the Scottish Exec will make a significant financial contribution and that, as a result, any housing development will be kept to a minimum. Whatever happens, nothing will change the fact that there is no alternative site for PHS in the catchment area that is suitable. I have said this repeatedly for the last 117 pages and the feasbilitiy studies are vindication of what some have dismissed as my 'mantra'.

Re-building onsite should not be considered an option because the site (even with St Johns) does not meet the minimum recommended size and I personally feel that PFANS should have demanded that this option be removed from the consultation process for precisely this reason.

[Alison Connelly]

..

[Bob Jefferson]

Alison, there is no need for you to be so defensive about the Figgate Park option. I am sure that you would not support building St Johns on such a beautiful and much loved green space. Or would you?

Thank you for informing me that I am entitled to an opinion. That is very benevolent of you.

I don't want a PPP-funded school and I won't be making a u-turn on that.

It is a fact that the site proposed for an onsite rebuild does not meet the minimum recommendation.

A school on Portobello Park will have access to 2 full-sized grass football ptiches, which will be available for community use outside school hours.

[seanie]

I think the option of rebuilding on the existing enlarged site offers a very poor solution in many respects. However, given that under PPP2 the idea was to rebuild on-site I can see the difficulty in not exploring it in the consultation. It has points in it’s favour; it’s central to the catchment & the relocation of St.Johns would likely result in a relatively small loss of open space.

But it has major drawbacks; delay, decant, design.

Delay. Whilst redeveloping on site could certainly smooth the Planning process, the whole project would be dependent on the relocation of St Johns. At this point it’s not even certain that St John’s wishes to be relocated. That debate would have to be resolved before you could meaningfully progress a design for PHS. And whilst replacing PHS on site would present a low planning risk, the project could still be delayed by planning difficulties due to relocating St J’s. There would be an overlap in the processes but the development of a new PHS would always have to run behind that of St John’s. Your looking at a new PHS being open 2 years after a new St J’s at best. Tying the replacement of PHS, absolutely, to the prior relocation of St J’s would significantly lengthen the time it took to open a replacement PHS.

Decant. The report says the preferred option would be decant off-site. In my opinion it’d be the only option. Trying to accommodate up to 1500 pupils in temporary units on a site that size alongside a demolition and rebuilding of a high school would be an absolute nightmare. The Health & Safety implications are horrendous, the potential for disruption huge. You could try to find a way around it. You could impose very tight restrictions on how and when a Contractor operated to minimise the impact on the school. But those kinds of restrictions would not only have a financial cost but they’d also have a time penalty. The time it took to complete the project would increase. And that would extend the length of the decant.

Decanting off-site would certainly be preferable but it’d still be an unappetising option; a temporary school for two to three years, a field of portakabins and portaloos, pupils being bussed back and forth to use even more off-site facilities. The disruption would be horrendous and the costs would be huge. The report says £5.8m for a two year decant. You can build a modern 2-stream primary school for that kind of money.

Design. Incorporating the St J’s site does improve things but the site is still undersized. It’s too small. A pitch may now be included but a single pitch, even all-weather, cannot sustain the needs of a school that size. Pupils will still routinely have to travel some distance to off-site facilities.

And I'd need convincing that the size of the site wouldn't adversely impact on the quality of the building. I think I've alreadty mentioned that the experience from the recent wave of school buildings is that well designed schools generally require to be bigger than those in the past. There have been two main reasons for this; greater community use of schools and sustainabilty considerations to ensure the design remains responsive to changes in future needs.

My concern would be that by shoehorning the school onto the present site we could recreate, at considerable expense, the problem we currently face. Even if well designed and constructed by current standards we could be faced a few years down the line with a building no longer fit for purpose, on a site too small for you to do much about it. Because the physical limitations of the site impose significant constraint on what can be built.

That's not simply down to a calculation of floor area but the nature of the site itself. Given it's limitations more of the design decisions are likely to be forced moves, driven by neccessity rather than choice. That's more likely to result in a compromised design, although by no means certain.

Of the 3 recommendations put forward Option C would seem the best to me purely from an outline design point of view.

[seanie]

Roy Jobson said at the meeting on Tuesday that he was optomistic that the SE would come up with some funding. He also said that he was unsure as to whether that would be PPP or conventional funding. That's a bit of a u-turn from the first 100 odd pages of this thread when we been told time and time again to "get real" about the funding. Are u-turns allowed? I thought they weren't.

No need to worry about any housing development then.

[Bob Jefferson]

Did those people who signed the PPAG petition believe that by doing so they were helping to save ‘green spaces.’ It would appear so judging by these quotes from signatories to the petition. In view of the fact that PPAG is now proposing Figgate Park as a possible site for St Johns, will they now remove the signatures of the authors of these comments from their petition?

the loss of green space is unthinkable

How long will it be before there are no green spaces left? What a legacy to leave your children and grandchildren.

There are far too many instances of Green space being taken as the easy option for new schools.

I believe we must retain what green spaces Edinburgh still has.

all green spaces should be saved!

It is important to preserve green spaces

Green recreational space is very important for public and private health and we should be safeguarding it, not destroying it.

Edinburgh's green spaces are what make it such a beautiful City, both for residents and tourists.

save the greenfiled areas for all of us to enjoy.

Keep our green spaces

Our green parks are being eroded by the council trying to make a quick buck. Where are our children meant to play safely.

We must protect green spaces

we need more accessable (sic) green spaces not less.

The community needs its green spaces

Parks should be preserved

save our green spaces

Green spaces are essential for our physical and mental well-being

Green belts must be protected

hands off green spaces

there's no going back once you take away city greenspace

green space is important for all.

developing on green space is the easy option..but wrong.

save the green spaces!

It is a green zone and should stay as such

the reduction in green space would be greatly detrimental to the area

No building on green spaces

there is hardly any green space left aready (sic)

green space has to stay

We must strive to preserve and protect local large green spaces for the good of the whole community.

Once these green spaces are gone it is very unlikely that they will ever return - don't cause irreparable damage!

we need more green space not less

Loss of Green Fields can never be replaced

removing GREEN IS MEAN!!

Green Belt should remain as it was intended

We should not lose green space

Cities need green spaces for people's physical and mental health

[Alison Connelly]

..

[Bob Jefferson]

I'm delighted that both you and Dave are supporting the campaign to save Figgate Park, though I will feel more relieved when PPAG drop their demand for this site to be included in the consultation process. Perhaps you can assist in facilitating this?

Portobello Park and Figgate Park are probably equi-distant from where I live. I confess that in 15 years I have never used Portobello Park for recreational purposes, because I'm afraid to say that it is a flat and featureless field. Great for playing football on however, and it is important that this function is preserved, but otherwise of very limited community value, (in my opinion of course.)

Now, if I happened to live next to it then admittedly I might take a slightly different view. In fact my view is what I might be most concerned about. I might also be concerned about the adverse effect on the value of my property. I might be concerned about the prospect of housing and particularly what 'affordable' housing might mean. I understand all of these concerns.

By comparison, I have spent many happy hours with my wife and kids in Figgate Park. We have walked, cycled, fed the ducks, sledged and generally had a great time. I have done a fair bit of research into Figgate Park as part of my study of Portobello parks through the Scotsman digital archive. It was of course a former clay pit and was transformed into a public park in the 1920s.

I place a very high value upon green space. I share the concerns of many of the people who are quoted from the PPAG petition. But I do not believe that Portobello Park, or the Golf Course for that matter, is worth saving at all cost. I'm sorry, but the education of my children and their children is also of great importance to me and I will not sit back and watch as others attempt to deny them the opportunity to receive the best possible state education affordable to them under the options available.

[Alison Connelly]

..

[Bob Jefferson]

Quite apart from the decant issue, I can't see this happening for a number of reasons. Although large in size, Figgate Park is an odd shape and of course a large part of it is taken up by the pond itself. Most of the surrounding land slopes sharply down to the pond and there is very little remaining that is flat. Even if you could level it and overcome the flood risk issue, I doubt that there is room for one full-size pitch, let alone two. You would also have to remove a number of mature trees. The contours and undulations make for a great park and a lousy sports pitch.

Maybe Sean could add to this from an architect's perspective?

[Porty]

My final though for the evening (all this thinking is making me sleepy!)

How would you feel if :
St Johns was relocated to a brownfield site (such as Powerleague)
.

My first POL thought of the morning and I'm wide awake.

Your argument is dead. Alison, Powerleague is not a brownfield site. In fact as far as I recall the community fought to keep it for recreational purposes and the council agreed, it has been ever since. There have been variious rumours and developments but the fact is the space is still recreational and in terms of usage iit dwarfs Portobello Golf Course. It is likely to remain recreational for the forseeable future.

Moving St Johns to Powerleague would be building on an extremly well used recreational space. So thats two recreational sites that PPAG are prepared to build on. Where will it end?

When you are in a hole.................

[gilo]

I asked you individualy to publish what you individually want.

I don't want PHS to be rebuilt on the current sight. At 3.5 Hectares it's too small. I did want the council to look at the feasibility of 6.2. Hectares Scottish Exec regulations as minimum size. They didn't. I believe their explanation is to do with the buliding of Craigroyston on 4.5 Hectares (though I think there are 900 students there). I really object to the shoe horning approach.(There's also delay and decant)

Therefore my preference is the park/golf course. The park option looks better as it includes the footy pitches in school space. However personally I'm not so comfortable with the idea of school and golf course only. This would mean lack of access for the public to open spaces.

I don't know what the council commitment to replacing the green space looks like or where that would be.

I think the golf course is a lower quality green space to the park. Therefore from current info available I'd like to see the school built in the park with the golf course re-sited. this would give a fantastic opportunity to have a bigger park space and a school with space and facilities.

St John's to be rebuilt on PHS site, and the cherry on the top would be the rest of that site becoming park.

[Bob Jefferson]

It would certainly help if we could persuade the Scottish Exec to make a significant contribution. But I think it is completely unrealistic to think that they will meet the entire cost, so we have to acknowledge that there has to be development somewhere.

For me, the ideal scenario would be PHS on Portobello Park with St Johns built alongside on the SW corner of the Golf Course, making best use of shared facilities and services. The Golf Club re-locates to its new site and the existing course is turned into a community park/woodland. The current PHS/St Johns site is sold to raise £12 million, the community's contribution to the overall cost, with the Exec picking up the remaining tab.

I think that this is a solution that would be seen as ideal by a large majority in the community and a platform that many PFANS and PPAG supporters would be willing to share, campaigning together for no housing on the Golf Course.

[Alison Connelly]

..

[Porty]

Alison. are you still claiming Powerleague is a brownfiield site?

[Porty]

By the way, earlier on in this thread, you indicated that you would be very opposed to relocating the Powerleague to Portobello Park. Why would that be?

I don't want Powerleague to be relocated anywhere including Portobello Park.

[Alison Connelly]

..

[Porty]

Alison are you uing the wrong words again? A bit like when you used "outline" and "draft" in relation to a potential layout.

You really ought to be more careful or is it deliberate? I know its difficult to get used to techy terms but of course we are not talking about techy terms here we are talking about actual usage.

I totally concede that Powerleague is not parkland, neither is Portobello Golf Course nor are the football pitches on Portobello Park. This is why I used the phrase "recreational space".

For the record I am prepared to build on parkland and I am prepared to build on recreational space. I am at one with Ros and PPAG on that issue we are only in disagreement about which space should be built on.

[bbbrown]

Has the Powerleague site been saved Porty? This is good news. I thought it had been earmarked for housing.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/busin ... =313042006


It is heartening to note the new found anticipation that the Scottish Executive is going to bankroll the new schools. This is quite a change in the propoganda war. For ages on here I've advocated that this should be the case, and, well.............lets just say its never been taken too seriously. The advice has always been to get real etc, etc....

Can I ask what has changed in this regard?

By the way, I can relate to Bob waxing lyrical about Figgate Park. I'm the same with Portobello Park. Isn't it funny how one mans flat featureless wasteland can be anothers pleasant, tree lined park.


[/url]

[Porty]

Has the Powerleague site been saved Porty? This is good news. I thought it had been earmarked for housing.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/busin ... =313042006

Great source and a bit of an about turn on what you had to say about it yesterday:

simultaneously sticking the boot into PPAG in the local rag ....

My understanding is that there is no sale, there is no earmarking, there is an apparently insurmountable hurdle to any sale (reloaction within Portobello)

The space is recreational and there is an 80+ lease that says so. Never mind "my understanding" lets look at the evidence; Are you aware of any planning application for housing on the site? Are you aware of any planning application for a football facility within the portobello area?

If PPAG were to succedd in a bid to build a school on Powerleague. They would be building on recreational land.

The point is that regardless of the nuances and variiables involved in any site. PPAG, PFANS, Portobello School Board, City of Edinburgh Council and St John's School Board are all prepared to build on parkland and on recreational space.

[Alison Connelly]

..

[Porty]

Unless you believe that Powerleague sell out, then new houses are built then the new houses are demolished and only then is a new school built. A new St Johns would be build on recreational space.

Please allow me to reiterate.

The point is that regardless of the nuances and variiables involved in any site. PPAG, PFANS, Portobello School Board, City of Edinburgh Council and St John's School Board are all prepared to build on parkland and on recreational space.

Alison, there is not a song in the world that's going to alter that.

[Alison Connelly]

..

[bbbrown]

Here are some flat and featureless "recreational areas" (is park not the right word any more?)

The Meadows,
Pilrig Park,
Leith Links,
Cavalry Park,
Inverleith Park,

I wonder if any of these have had the honour of Bobs presence?
Does being flat and featureless really mean that recreational area is of limited community value?

[Porty]

Have you ever played cricket there, or practised your rugby kicks, or flown a kite...or just enjoyed the openess of the space?

Won't it be great that thousands and thousands of kids for many, many years to come will be able to do all of those things in Portobello Park? At the moment if the children at Portobello High want to practice their rugby kicks or play cricket they can do so for 15 minutes after being bussed out of the catchment.

By your own admission, it is as convenient for you to go to Figgate Park as it is for you to go to Portobello Park, but for many people this is not the case. Driving or walking along Milton Road, or passing by on a bus, it is a green oasis in the middle of buildings and it raises spirits and feelings of well-being. It is worth preserving.

Desperado, why don’t you come to your senses?
You been out ridin’ fences for so long now
Oh, you’re a hard one
I know that you got your reasons
These things that are pleasin’ you
Can hurt you somehow

Don’ you draw the queen of diamonds, boy
She’ll beat you if she’s able
You know the queen of heats is always your best bet

Now it seems to me, some fine things
Have been laid upon your table
But you only want the ones that you can’t get

Desperado, oh, you ain’t gettin’ no youger
Your pain and your hunger, they’re drivin’ you home
And freedom, oh freedom well, that’s just some people talkin’
Your prison is walking through this world all alone

Don’t your feet get cold in the winter time?
The sky won’t snow and the sun won’t shine
It’s hard to tell the night time from the day
You’re loosin’ all your highs and lows
Ain’t it funny how the feeling goes away?

Desperado, why don’t you come to your senses?
Come down from your fences, open the gate
It may be rainin’, but there’s a rainbow above you
You better let somebody love you, before it’s too late

[Bob Jefferson]

Can we please agree to a ceasefire in the battle of the song lyrics? Someone might make a musical out of it one day but I don't think that time has come quite yet.

[Porty]

Agreed.

[Rex_Mundi]

My understanding is that there is no sale, there is no earmarking, there is an apparently insurmountable hurdle to any sale (reloaction within Portobello).

“There is no failure except in no longer trying. There is no defeat except from within, no really insurmountable barrier save our own inherent weakness of purpose.â€