New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 15 Sep 2006, 13:00

bbbrown wrote:....Does being flat and featureless really mean that recreational area is of limited community value?..

According to a letter in today's Evening News, The Chair of PPAG seems to think so:

"...a flat, featureless area of Figgate Park at the end of Hamilton Terrace...."

OK to build a school here then!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Sep 2006, 13:19

Here's the full text of that letter:

Porty group was misunderstood

IN his letter "Different schools of thought in Porty" (September 12) Mr McIntyre has misunderstood the position of Portobello Park Action Group (PPAG) in relation to St John's PS. What we have suggested is that a flat, featureless area of Figgate Park at the end of Hamilton Terrace could be considered for the rebuild St John's. The green space used would be completely reinstated on the vacated St John's site as open playing fields or a park area.

The key point here is that no green space would be lost either in the local neighbourhood or to the community in general.

The option of building schools on Portobello Golf course would necessitate moving the golf course out of the community, almost to Musselburgh (a fact acknowledged at a public meeting by Cllr Perry) and a net loss of green space.

R Sutherland,
Chairman, Portobello Park Action Group

Izzie · Post by **Izzie** » 15 Sep 2006, 20:00

Is the flat featureless area of the figgate park where the air cadets are based?????????????

What would happen to them??????????????????

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Sep 2006, 20:16

From The Scotsman - Monday, 2nd May 1938

EDINBURGH'S NEW PARK

Warm sunshine provided perfect weather conditions for the formal opening, by Sir Thomas B. Whitson, LL.D., D.L. on Saturday afternoon, of the Figgate Burn Recreation Area.

A small platform had been erected with its back to the little loch behind which the new park stretches towards red-roofed houses, and the green slopes of Arthur's Seat. There is a tiny island on the loch, where trees and shrubs have been planted, and during the opening ceremony the friendly call of some waterfowl added just the right note to a happy occasion.

Dogs and children understood very well how closely the proceedings concerned themselves. An upstanding Scots terrier and a dog of no very certain breed, stood by the platform, which the latter showed at one time every intention of mounting. Children, too, crowded about the platform, listening intently to the speeches, and before Sir Thomas and Lady Whitson left the park they were photographed with a group of them by the water's edge. One or two little boats were already afloat. The superintendent of parks and several members of the Town Council were present at the opening function.

Councillor Miller, convener of parks for the city, who presided, said that it was to the foresight of Sir Thomas during his term of office that the people of Portobello and district were indebted for this beautiful park. It was he who saw the possibilities of the place and realised how the rather useless banks of the Figgate Burn could be turned into a place of beauty and health.

Figgate Park in Winter - Elaine Ferguson

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Sep 2006, 08:59

From the Braid Burn millenium project leaflet:

Forms of fegot, fegat and gate were recorded as early as 1466 and these were Old Norse words, fÃ© meaning cattle or sheep, and gata a way, or a pasture. In Medieval times, therefore, the Burn ran through grazing lands, and the monks of the Abbey of Holyrood used to pasture their cattle here. Today it is busy suburbia, but there is a green space at the Figgate Burn Park, reached on the south-west side from Duddingston Road. This has room for dog walkers, joggers and children to play.

The pond at the Figgate Burn Park teems with wildlife - swans, grey wagtails, dippers, mallards, tufted ducks, coots and moorhens. Goldfinches like the open glade with its thistle heads.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Sep 2006, 13:10

From today's EN Letters Page:

Pull together for school decision

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Sep 2006, 12:53

From today's EN Letters Page:

Time to give Porty what it deserves

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 18 Sep 2006, 18:32

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

<a href="http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/busin ... 42006">The group, which has seven Scottish venues, said it was in talks with Edinburgh City Council to secure a new, as-yet unidentified, site in the area to replace its existing outdoor centre there, which opened 12 years ago. </a>

Young Henry is just off the dog to those awefully nice people at the Power League, it would appear that they are moving and are confident that they will remain in the area.

Game set and match to bbb it would appear.

Plans or no plans eh Mr Porty. If I were you I'd be right onto their press office to give them what for.

Pip pip

"Having been admonished by this Holy Office [the Inquisition] entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun was the center of the universe and immovable, and that the Earth was not the center of the same and that it moved... I abjure with a sinceâ€

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Sep 2006, 09:13

Rex_Mundi wrote:
Young Henry is just off the dog to those awefully nice people at the Power League, it would appear that they are moving and are confident that they will remain in the area.
]

Where's the site and where is the planning application?

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 19 Sep 2006, 09:21

I've heard it said that PHS is relocating within the area. What nonsense!!.....where's the site and where's the planning permission?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Sep 2006, 09:34

Touche?

Not really. There are three sites identified for PHS and planning permission shall follow. Its not based on "what you heard". Its an official council consultation based on a real report.

Bbb instead of using the Evening News as a source try writing to your local councillor and asking them what the situation is with Powreleague?

And once you have done that consdier whether or not Powerleague is a widely used recreational facility and what the implications of building on it are?

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 19 Sep 2006, 11:03

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Sep 2006, 11:26

Alison Connelly wrote:
Porty wrote: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.
Porty
I find your "strap line" rather disingenuous.

Would you care to substantiate your findings?

Alison Connelly wrote: A bit like your letters to the Evening News. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, but I presume

Why do you need to presume anything? . I thought I made it clear that from my observations of what each group has said there is a lot of common ground and ALL 5 of the interest groups try to work in harmony. The Evening News certailnly seemed to get the message judging by the headline they gave to my last letter. And their invite to "have your say" about a compromise on green space further confirms this. They also checked out that each groups position was as I stated. Perhaps moving forward together to benefit the greater community is beyond your comprehension or is it just too much to ask of you?

When you say "thanks but no thanks" are you speaking personally? It doesn't read that way.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 19 Sep 2006, 13:54

The tone of some recent posts has become rather combative. I would urge posters to show respect for differing points of views and refrain from personalising the issue as far as possible.

Thanks

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Sep 2006, 12:56

We now have good 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, 13:00

From today's EN Letters Page:

Saving Porty park is our only agenda

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Sep 2006, 13:15

Five days is a long time in community politics. Do I sense some back-tracking on an untenable position?

Ros Sutherland, Evening News Friday, 15 September:

Mr McIntyre has misunderstood the position of Portobello Park Action Group (PPAG) in relation to St John's PS. What we have suggested is that a flat, featureless area of Figgate Park at the end of Hamilton Terrace could be considered for the rebuild St John's.

Diana Cairns, Evening News Wednesday, 20 September:

STEPHEN McINTYRE (Your Views, September 16) misrepresents the position of Portobello Park Action Group. It is not "lobbying to build St John's either in Figgate park or on the recreational facility known as power league".

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Sep 2006, 13:19

The story of the emperors clothes springs to mind.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 20 Sep 2006, 13:33

Reminds me of one my favourite books, 'Animal Farm' in the way the rules were subtley changed by small additions.

The next time we look at the strapline 'Save Our Park', will it be changed to 'Save Our Park - Build on Yours'

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 20 Sep 2006, 13:34

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Sep 2006, 13:46

Alison Connelly wrote: Bob
Any chance you could also upload the drawings from the St John's feasibility study?

Certainly. I will be requesting these drawings next.

It is worth noting that there are no drawings available showing the 2 schools co-located.

No, because the site possibilites for each school were considered separately, but I'm sure we could mock one up.

Also worth noting that the drawings of option B and C show the remainder of the park left unchanged - but it is not likely to be the case especially in the case of option B - if a section of the golf course is built on, then the remainder of the golf course will not remain as it is. What will happen to the rest of it - do you think the council would be able to produce drawings which are more complete?

The scope of the study was to consider site locations. That is what we must decide upon during the consultation stage and the ifs and buts will come later.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Sep 2006, 14:01

Alison Connelly wrote: Also worth noting that the drawings of option B and C show the remainder of the park left unchanged - but it is not likely to be the case especially in the case of option B - if a section of the golf course is built on, then the remainder of the golf course will not remain as it is. What will happen to the rest of it - do you think the council would be able to produce drawings which are more complete?

Alison, I don't thnk it was the council that produced these drawings, it may have been the independent consultants.

I think its most unfair that you request more complete drawings at this stage, no-one, and that includes you, knows what will happen to the remainder of the golf course or park. We can't be sure that the schools will be located as depicted. At this stage its largelyl speculative.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Sep 2006, 16:31

Completists, and perhaps Seanie, will be pleased to know that I have now added the missing 'Schedules of Accomodation' for PHS and St Johns to the Schools Document Archive.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 20 Sep 2006, 18:45

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 20 Sep 2006, 18:53

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Sep 2006, 18:55

Alison, all I can say is that if the decision is to build a school or schools on Portobello Park then I will be happy to campaign with you for funding from the Executive to avoid the need for housing on the Golf Course.

What are you offering in return?

Izzie · Post by **Izzie** » 20 Sep 2006, 20:39

My son came home from school today and has told me that one teacher had the plans for the new schools on his desk

All the class has now seen them so I will now tell all

St Johns is going on the Hope Lane side and PHS at the other and it will be built on the football pitches

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Sep 2006, 22:34

Alison Connelly wrote: The consultants were commissioned by the council, who then issued the report. So the consultants are not independent - they are working to a brief provided by the council.

Total nonsense. If you went to an Independent financial adviser for financial advice. Would you give her some guidance as to your requirements or just sit there dumb and expect her to advise you? Does anyone engage a consultant without a brief? The key to independence in a consultant , is adhering to ones professional code of conduct.

Alison Connelly wrote: I don't see why it is unfair to ask for information which I think will help me make up my mind about which option I think is best.

You are misquoting me again. I said it was unfair to ask for more complete drawings. Alison, the council and the independent consultants have provided 3 volumes of incredibly detailed feasibility studies to help you make up your miind. You take that information and when it suits you you just dismiss it as being untrue. And you claim that some pictures will help you make up your miind.

You are a supporter of PPAG, who basically sat in front of the council executive and made out they were liars. Dave is on record here stating he "doesn't trust the council as a whole". Do you feel that's the best way to get people to work with you towards your objective?

I think its worth noting that the consultants discounted Figgate Park as it was a flood risk and there was no area big enough to accomodate St John's primary. I'm guessing this is why they didn't go on to do a picture of St John's in the Figgate Park. The consultants didn't do a picture of houses in Portobello Park either. I wonder why?

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 20 Sep 2006, 23:06

Alison Connelly wrote: The consultants were commissioned by the council, who then issued the report. So the consultants are not independent - they are working to a brief provided by the council.

Porty wrote: ... Independent financial adviser .....

Wikipedia wrote: The term "Independent Financial Adviser" was coined by Peter Glover, the former chief executive of Clerical Medical to describe the advisers working independently for their clients rather than representing an insurance company.

i.e. they are independent from the third parties, not from their clients, who they have an obligation to protect the best interests of.

Do you have a copy of the brief given to them? You seem to be up to date on the goings on at the council chambers.

Alison Connelly wrote: I don't see why it is unfair to ask for information which I think will help me make up my mind about which option I think is best.

Porty wrote: ......provided 3 volumes of incredibly detailed feasibility studies to help you make up your miind. You take that information and when it suits you you just dismiss it as being untrue. And you claim that some pictures will help you make up your mind.
.....

Are you saying that we are not allowed to question anything which these independent consultants say?

Incredibly detailed? There are gaps, are there not?

Porty wrote: You are a supporter of PPAG, who basically sat in front of the council executive and made out they were liars. Dave is on record here stating he "doesn't trust the council as a whole"....

You are a supporter of PFANS, blah blah blah.

Porty wrote: I think its worth noting that the consultants discounted Figgate Park as it was a flood risk and there was no area big enough to accomodate St John's primary.

You seem to have a wee thing about the Figgate

Porty wrote: I'm guessing this is why they didn't go on to do a picture of St John's in the Figgate Park. The consultants didn't do a picture of houses in Portobello Park either. I wonder why?

Guessing is what most of the comments have been so far

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 20 Sep 2006, 23:36

Porty wrote: The consultants didn't do a picture of houses in Portobello Park either. I wonder why?

I could be fairly certain old chap that the local politicians are quaking in their boots about the forthcoming elections. The Tonyites after all these years in power, would appear to be hanging on to a very loose nail at present.

"An election is coming. Universal peace is declared and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry".

T. S. Eliot

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 09:11

The PFANS website has now been updated and includes updated, downloadable posters and leaflets, sporting the new tagline 'Give a little green'.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 09:15

Please note that Edinburgh Grid for Learning now has all the consultation papers online. Just click on the 'Current Consultations' button.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Sep 2006, 09:31

Dave Connelly wrote:
Do you have a copy of the brief given to them? You seem to be up to date on the goings on at the council chambers.

I'm not up to date but I do listen. And I'm certain that the council brief didn't inclued things like: Site 14: Make up a flood risk. Site x; Make up a microclimate and make it smaller than it actually is. Site Y make that one smaller too. That's the type of things that PPAG are "questioning".

Dave Connelly wrote:Are you saying that we are not allowed to question anything which these independent consultants say?

Who is we?
You are pefectly entitled to question aspects of the consultants reports. At the executive meeting Roy Jobson told us that he had two good departments with good people and he had a report from independent consultants. All of those groups told him that Figgate Park was a flood risk and he said that "when these people tell me its a flood risk, I believe them. "
This was quite clearly aimed at PPAG, who are the only group/individuals whao claim that its not. Roy was basically saying "don't call us liars". All I'm saying is that is no way to do business. Councillors read this forum and they know you are a mover within PPAG and it does your cause no good to go into writing saying that you mistrust the whole council.

Don't get me wrong, I am quite happy for you and PPAG to keep on digging. Although my PERSONAL preference would be to work together honestly and towards a mutually agreed goal

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Sep 2006, 09:41

Now that both PFANS and PPAG have skipped the odd groove and moved on to track 2 of their respective debut albums, I'm getting a little confused as to their agendas.

I guffawed when I saw the PFANS page - it's still confusingly sporting the demand for an improved golf course - understandable if you've been following this whole thing and know that they came about to cheerlead the initial council plan, but eyebrow-raising given the reverse nature of the now-expanded choices being put out, combined with the fact that issues like housing,funding, St Johns etc seem to all have been teased out into their own issues.

Same deal for PPAG now that they have committed their Figgate boo-boo.

Imagine if international groups had agendas and slogans as confusing, vague and contradictory as this ...

"Save Some Of The Rainforest"

"Abolish Most Nuclear Weapons"

etc

It's almost getting to be like the difference between Neo-Labour and the Tories!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Sep 2006, 10:04

Dadaist wrote:"Save Some Of The Rainforest"

"Abolish Most Nuclear Weapons"

etc

It's almost getting to be like the difference between Neo-Labour and the Tories!

Beautifully put.

Much better than my "Save Our Park..Lets build on Yours" but maybe not in alocal context.

Dada you make very valid points and I don't take issue with anything you say. In my personal opinion PFANS need to re-visit their position, things have moved on since day one of this campaign and we should focus the message. I'm sure we will achieve this at the next meeting.

As for your Tories/new Labour analogy that is very astute. If you take the zealots out of the equation. i don't believe the core groups are that far apart. IMHO