New Schools proposal - document archive

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Sep 2006, 09:07

PFANS statement, 12 September 2006:

[quote]Portobello High School: Why there can be no further delay

The school environment cannot provide a 21st Century education.

The Council has assessed almost every aspect of the building as â€œpoorâ€

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Sep 2006, 09:10

Message to constituents from Maureen Child, 12 September 2006

Dear All

I thought I would update you about this now rather than at the end of the month.

The Council Education Executive today listened to four delegations from different groups in the Portobello community about the proposals to replace Portobello High School and St John's Primary School. These were Portobello High School Board, Portobello For New Schools (PFANS), St John's Primary School Board and Portobello Park Action Group.

All Portobello's delegations spoke very well indeed. And everyone listened well too. Even although there are strong differences of view among us all, I believe Portobello's community spirit was reflected very well in the way people put across their arguments and listened to others respectfully. There were none of the interruptions which we Council Executive Members very often hear in these kinds of fraught circumstances!

The decision, which the Council Executive were asked to make by the Director of Children and Families, was simply to go out to public consultation with the school communities and the wider community in Portobello and district. There is a huge volume of background paper and a detailed analysis on each of the sites raised in the preliminary discussions we have been having since early this year, up until May. Fifteen sites were put through a rigorous analysis by independent consultants. Any one of these sites can still be raised as possibilities through the consultation, if anyone so wishes. As can the issue of funding any or all of the options.

All the volumes of background papers are available for reference in Portobello Library and at each of the schools. They were too big to fit on a CD ROM without crashing the normal computer!

Each of you, who have already put in comments or raised questions, will be asked whether or not you want these to be fed in to this first formal consultation process, which is only just starting. I hope everyone will fully engage with the process, as many have already. That input already shaped the discussion and was very helpful indeed in getting to this stage.

Everyone's task is to help find the best possible place to build the new schools, which everybody agrees we need and which almost all of our community's children will attend. We must also ensure that community recreation places, sports facilities and green spaces are retained and enhanced as far as we possibly can.

In beginning to scope out the detailed business case to the Scottish Executive, for the full sum for both replacement schools, it will be crucially important that we express our very strong desire to retain good quality green space for school community and wider community use in this process. That point should be very strongly made by everyone over the formal consultation period.

A number of the key questions have already been posed by people writing to Councillors like me. All these and more need to be raised and answered in order that we come up with the best possible solution to the challenges that face the whole community; and that is, to provide the best possible educational opportunities for all Portobello's children and grandchildren and the best possible community facilities too.

The meetings that will be on offer from the Council, over the next month, will not be the only meetings and opportunities that can and will take place. There will - no doubt - be questionnaires and petitions and smaller group discussions organised by others. It is vitally important that everybody concerned with the longer term future of Portobello and its communities - geographic communities and communities of interest - have their full say and help shape all our thinking on these vital questions.

The next opportunity to discuss the issues will be the Council's Children and Young People's Scrutiny Panel. It may well be on the agenda for the next one on 28 September. There will be meetings at each of the schools to which all parents in the school communities affected will be specifically invited. There is also a wider (geographical) community meeting in Portobello Town Hall on 11 October. The result of the consultation will be brought back to the full Council on 21 December this year.

Thank you very much for your input so far and I look forward to further constructive engagement on this issue (and maybe others) in the next few months. I will keep you posted on progress, that is, unless you tell me you would prefer not!

Best wishes

Maureen

Councillor Maureen Child
Elected Member for Milton Ward
Executive Member for Sustainability and Finance
The City of Edinburgh Council
City Chambers
High Street
Edinburgh
EH1 1YJ
Phone: 0131 529 3268
Fax:0131 529 4133

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Sep 2006, 09:15

From the EN Letters Page, 15 September 2006:

Porty group was misunderstood

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Sep 2006, 13:12

From the EN Letters Page, 16 September 2006:

Pull together for school decision

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Sep 2006, 12:58

From the EN Letters Page, 18 September 2006:

Time to give Porty what it deserves

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Sep 2006, 13:03

High quality colour drawings of the three possible sites for PHS from the feasbility report:

Option A: rebuild onsite

Option B: Golf Course

OptionC: Portobello Park

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Sep 2006, 13:04

From the EN Letters Page, 20 September 2006:

Saving Porty park is our only agenda

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Sep 2006, 16:28

PHS Accomodation Schedule

St Johns Accomodation Schedule

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 13:53

From the EN, 21 September 2006:

City chiefs 'running scared' as they announce schools delay

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 13:55

From the EN Letters Page, 21 September 2006:

Say how schools will be paid for

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Sep 2006, 17:04

From the EN, 22 September 2006:

Parents promised new Porty schools will be built on time

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Sep 2006, 17:05

From the EN Letters Page, 22 September 2006:

Time to end Porty delaying tactics

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Sep 2006, 14:02

Letter (fifth one down) from EN , Mon 25 Sept.:

Campaign for more viable school site

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 27 Sep 2006, 12:34

Letter in EN 27 Sept. 2006 :
Let's be honest in battle over schools

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Sep 2006, 17:11

High quality copies of the drawings for possible sites for St Johns:

Option A - rebuilt on PHS site

Option B - Portobello Golf Course

Option C - Portobello Park

Option D - Bingham Park

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 Sep 2006, 11:32

From the EN Letters Page, 29 September 2006:

No attempt to mislead over loss of parkland

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Oct 2006, 12:18

From the PHS School Board:

PHS School Board backs Option C

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Oct 2006, 13:04

From the EN Letters Page, 2 October 2006:

Sometimes it suits to misunderstand

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Oct 2006, 14:40

From the EN Letters Page, 3 October 2006 (third letter down):

Green space claim can't be serious

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Oct 2006, 17:05

From the EN, 4 October 2006:

Emotions run high in Porty

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Oct 2006, 17:12

From the EN Letters Page, 4 October 2006:

Time to clear up misunderstanding

Let's get back to debate on school

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 Oct 2006, 15:27

From the EN Letters Page, 6 Oct 2006 (fifth letter down):

Let green space take school's place

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Oct 2006, 13:38

From EN Letters Page 7 Oct 2006:

Planning policies are clear on parks

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 09 Oct 2006, 14:02

From the EN, 9 Oct. 2006:

Public meeting on options for Porty school

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 Oct 2006, 16:38

From the EN letters Page 11 Oct. 2006 (7th letter down):

Where would Jet put Porty High?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 12 Oct 2006, 17:48

From the EN 12 October 2006:

Pledge on Porty High rebuild

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 16 Oct 2006, 16:39

From the EN Letters Page 13th October:

Porty green space must be protected

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Oct 2006, 15:33

From the EN Letters Page, 20 October 2006:

Has new site been decided in a fair way?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Oct 2006, 15:36

From the EN Letters Page, 21 October 2006:

We won't build homes on park

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Oct 2006, 16:01

From the EN Letters Page, 16 October:

Can Andrew Burns' pledge be trusted?

Edit: date

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Oct 2006, 23:21

PFANS response to the consultation:

PFANS response

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Nov 2006, 15:28

From the EN, 3 November 2006:

Park the 'best location' for new Portobello High

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Nov 2006, 19:25

Lawrence Marshall's stated position, 30 October 2006:

For the record - and now that the consultation period initiated by this report is today drawing to a close - I myself prefer Option C. It undoubtedly means the loss of a large chunk of green space on Portobello Park but it seems to me to be the compromise most acceptable and, crucially, deliverable.

I had scrambled around - perhaps rather frantically - earlier this year trying to find sites that would not lead to the loss of any open space. Most of the suggestions made at that time and now considered in the above report clearly come with the added difficulty of requiring acquisition by the Council and re-location of existing uses or are problematic in terms of their size or in terms of planning policy. The question of sites other than those outlined in the three options above really didn't arise at any of the three consultation meetings held this month in the community.

Option C, of course, is itself not without risk in terms of planning policy but it achieves one crucial goal - it preserves the golf course. But it does more than that. It allows a new High School to be built there, avoiding a costly, lengthy and disruptive decant to the Park that would be required with the correspondingly more expensive Option A. It also "future proofs" the question of what would happen when another new High School was required in, say, 50 years time. Simply put, that generation would not find itself in the unenviable situation we find ourselves in today as a result of a decision taken two generations ago - for, if a new school was again to be required, building now on the Park with grass pitches to the far side of the site (in addition to one all-weather pitch) would allow any subsequent new school to be built on those pitches and the pitches re-provided on the site of the building then demolished. This swapover scenario could continue forever.

I fully recognise that, for those who currently enjoy the Park, Option C represents a significant loss of amenity. The gain to the community overall -a new High School with playing pitches attached for the first time ever - is, however, in my view much greater. I hope, though, that it will be possible to plan in a small pocket park for local youngsters to kick a ball about, etc.. That kind of informal use of open space is something we should strive to retain.

As for the use of the current pitches by Portobello Thistle, it may be possible for them to use the two grass pitches being provided beside the school but, if constant use by the school renders these sub-standard for Portobello Thistle league use, then I hope that the planned re-development of the Jewel and Esk Valley College to the east will allow the Joppa Quarry Park to be upgraded to become a suitable alternative.

From Milton Road the view towards Portobello, the Forth and Fife will undoubtedly change - but, for most of its length, it will still be available.
What, then, of St. John's? Here I prefer Option A - a re-build, with attached all-weather pitch, on the current site of the High School. I would even hope that St. John's could make use of the current new gym at the High School and possibly also the swimming pool - it would seem a shame and very wasteful to knock these down.

The current site of St. John's could then be sold off for housing/conversion into flats to allow at least some financial contribution to be made by the Council towards the likely overall cost of more than Â£40 million - it's hoped that the Scottish Executive will provide the bulk of the monies required.

So, build a new High School on the Park, then knock down the existing High School and, finally, re-build St. John's on the old High School site. That I think is the best way forward to resolving this very difficult issue for the whole community. I'm sorry that for some this will seem too bitter a pill to swallow - but I believe that it does try to balance many conflicting interests in a way least detrimental to the Portobello community overall.

Lawrence

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Nov 2006, 19:28

Maureen Child's stated position, 30 October 2006:

As I write, the period for comments on the proposals and options for building new schools for St Johnâ€™s Primary and Portobello High is nearly ended. I know many hundreds of people have put in their thoughts already. I attended all the formal meetings on the issue â€“ at the two schools and at the Town Hall.

This is not an easy or a comfortable question for anybody. And I take fully into account the understandably very strong feelings of those who live nearby the golf course and those who currently use that green space, or have a clear view of it. But I feel the balance of argument is swinging towards the Portobello Park option for the communityâ€™s new secondary school. I sense that it is dawning on the vast majority of people that the best location for Portobello High School really is on Portobello Park, however painful that might be, even to contemplate.

If it does happen, there is no way that houses will be built either on the golf course or the park. You have an unequivocal commitment, given at all the meetings by Councillors Andrew Burns and Ian Perry, and you have that from me too. Besides that commitment, planning legislation, policy and guidance would preclude building on that green space, as I have said many times before.

Personally, I currently prefer the option of building St Johnâ€™s on the vacated Portobello High School site, with the rest of the site restored to green space and maybe the St Johnâ€™s building converted to housing. This option allows the golf course to continue functioning and retains St Johnâ€™s in the centre of its catchment area.

I am fully aware how difficult it will be for all of us if the Portobello Park option does emerge as the best option for the Council at its meeting in December. But there are a lot more hoops to go though before the schools are actually built, not least a two year planning process, including a public inquiry.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Nov 2006, 15:03

From the EN Letters Page, 7 November 2006:

Battle over school site is far from over