New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Sep 2006, 11:04

bbb re-your suggesction regarding the off-site playing facilities. Two questions:

Would you be happy to have say the English, and Maths departments or maybe Science and CDT, located on Portobello Park and leave more room for sports facilities on the existing site?

We have an oppotunity to provide the children of portobello with a school buiilt to modern specifications with all of the neccessary facilities on-site and possibly some fine additional facililies too. Why shouldn't we do it?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Sep 2006, 11:20

Dave Connelly wrote:Does the council think that by delaying any decisions until after the elections next year they are fooling anyone?.

I think you have to read the wording of what's being said very carefully to get the true meaning, I have been honing my skils here on POL the last few months.

Does the artclie say "exactly where they will be built?"

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Sep 2006, 11:37

Dave Connelly wrote: , The Figgate was suggested as one of the alternatives (by Ros Sutherland at council executive) but only if the amount of green space was replaced in the same street. That is a matter of public record.

Ros has subsequently, and on public record, widenened her "same street" conditioon to "local neighbourhood".

Ros Sutherland Chairperson of PPAG Edinburgh Evening News wrote:.
The key point here is that no green space would be lost either in the local neighbourhood or to the community in general.

I suspect she reallised that many people and I believe that included all of the councillors who heard her say it, thought it ridiculous.

Dave, given that it only recently that Portobello High School ceased to be located in Park Avenue and indeed it was located there for about 100 years. If it was still located in Park Avenue do you think Ros would be making the same argument for PHS as she is trying to make for St Johns? Namely, move PHS into the park in the same street, which is of course Portobello Park and leave the existing site as open space? Does anyone else think Ros would be making that suggestion?

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 23 Sep 2006, 15:32

seanie wrote:What's possible, feasible and desirable can be quite separate things. .

agreed.

seanie wrote: For example it would certainly be possible to build PHS on the Freightliner Terminal.

Well done, at least now you are acknowledging the possibilities.

seanie wrote: Would it be feasible? Not really. It's a crap site, too small, awkwardly shaped, bounded by a bypass and a mainline railway, that the council don't own and that would cost a significant sum to buy. .

Crap site or not it is feasible and the park is bounded by the same mainline railway and the main road into Edinburgh. The park which as you know is a very short walk from the terminal could be used for playing fields, recreation etc, ( Oh

hang on, thats what it is used for already)

Portobello Park and golf course are publicly owned lands, the payment of monies back into the common good fund, if the council foolishly decide to build there would be a substantial amount of money. (Look what happened in Ayr, in the same situation, (Last deputation at council chambers) and â€œCity Chiefs Running Scared â€“ EN link)

seanie wrote: Desirable? Only if you don't give a toss about the quality of the educational environment, as well as the additional shortcomings.

I definitely care about my childrenâ€™s education and their environment. Surely the council would build an environmentally friendly school in any location, (apart from the harshly microclimated Powerleague site, of course, as that would cost extra money.

)

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 23 Sep 2006, 16:12

Bob I thought you couldnâ€™t be bothered by the point by point thing, or were you just Ducking the issue.

Bob Jefferson wrote: Alison, it seems to me self-evident that a site that does not meet the minimum size requirements should not form part of the consultation.

It is not self evident, the council stated quite clearly that they would consider reducing the size of the area required. So when it suits, you agree with the council, when it doesn't suit you you dont.

Bob Jefferson wrote: However, I accept the findings of the feasibility report, which is why I conclude that PPAG can have only one solution to site selection and I think that it is important that parents realise this.

You are on the attack of PPAG again, trying to make people accept your slightly biased understanding on the whole issue. Please stick to being positive and that would make things a whole lot easier for all concerned. (dada a negative campaigning card would also be useful, or just a Bush photo would do I suppose)

Bob Jefferson wrote: There are only 3 possible sites for PHS. PPAG oppose two of them as they involve building on the park/golf course. That only leaves re-building on the combined existing PHS/St Johns site.

There are only three council proposed options, that does not discount the council or members of the public coming up with altrenatives or the council taking the view of the people seriously. I think the council should be forced to come up with the goods, (far too long in power and treating people with contempt will be their downfall).

Bob Jefferson wrote: This then rules out one of the 4 possible sites for St Johns (re-building on site). PPAG of course oppose 2 of the other sites (building on the park/golf course again) and that leaves Bingham.

No it doesn't, Bingham certainly would not be my preferred option. I believe though that the council will build housing on Bingham park in the not too distant future. We should oppose that too.

Bob Jefferson wrote: So, a vote for PPAG means PHS re-built on a site that is officially too small, along with a 3 year decant, and St Johns on Bingham Park.

Negative campaigning again and definitely not true. A for PPAG is a vote to preserve the green space in our area.

wikipedia wrote: Negative campaigning is trying to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one's own positive attributes or preferred policies.

Lets not let POL go this way

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30531

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 23 Sep 2006, 16:16

Porty wrote: Dave, given that it only recently that Portobello High School ceased to be located in Park Avenue and indeed it was located there for about 100 years. If it was still located in Park Avenue do you think Ros would be making the same argument for PHS as she is trying to make for St Johns? Namely, move PHS into the park in the same street, which is of course Portobello Park and leave the existing site as open space? Does anyone else think Ros would be making that suggestion?

Stephen given that the council made the huge mistake of building PHS on St Johns playing fields in the first place, do you think they should think twice about recreating the same mistake a few years on?

I think Ros can answer for herself

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 23 Sep 2006, 17:22

Dave Connelly wrote:
wikipedia wrote: Negative campaigning is trying to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one's own positive attributes or preferred policies.
Lets not let POL go this way

POL are not campaigning on any issue.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 23 Sep 2006, 17:57

Marya wrote: POL are not campaigning on any issue.

It wasn't POL in general, that I was on about, it was about individual posters who continually negatively campaign. The comment was meant as a generalisation. (have been guilty of it, (negative comments and generalisation) myself and have tried to stop for the sake of healthy debate)

small edit

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Sep 2006, 18:17

Having looked at the two images of where PHS could be, I'm a bit confused because they look like exactly the same building.

Is this just a rough mock-up?

I thought that if the school was built on the park, it would be this massive amazing uber-school with rocket launch pads, on-site university and hotel complex - and that if it was rebuilt on-site it would be a shed.

Why don't the two pictures reflect this?

I'm sure it's not the case, but if we we're going to get exactly the same school but on two different locations then is the only issue here the decant?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Sep 2006, 19:10

I imagine it's just a 'copy and paste' school. I'm guessing they probably have 3 or 4 basic types to choose from in their CAD Professional Edition, Muncipal Buildings add-on pack. The whole drawing takes about 5 minutes to knock up and they charge about a million zillion quid for it. Seanie?

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 23 Sep 2006, 19:56

Bob Jefferson wrote:I want people to make informed choices. I want decisions to be based on facts. What I was attempting to demonstrate was that if you accept the findings of the independent consultants (and fair enough, you clearly don't) then the outcome of the PPAG campaign, were it to be successful, would be:

a) PHS re-built on site
b) St Johns on Bingham Park

Do you agree that this is the case?

I think what was being considered was

a) PHS re-built on site
b) St Johns on Powerleague or Scottish Power

was the consideration, Bigham is still way off. Why do you favour that Bingham, Bob?

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 23 Sep 2006, 20:00

Bob Jefferson wrote:..... The whole drawing takes about 5 minutes to knock up and they charge about a million zillion quid for it. Seanie?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Sep 2006, 20:10

Dave, what I really can't be bothered with is all the quotes within quotes within etc stuff, so the following are all yours:

So when it suits, you agree with the council, when it doesn't suit you you dont.

Naturally, I don't agree with everything the Council says. Who does? The crucial difference here is that although I don't agree that a site that is officially too small should be in the consultation process, I nevertheless accept the report in full. PPAG doesn't.

You are on the attack of PPAG again, trying to make people accept your slightly biased understanding on the whole issue.

Of course I want to persuade people that I am right. Don't you? Isn't that the point of a debate? My 'understanding' is no less 'biased' than yours, we just have different views on the matter.

There are only three council proposed options, that does not discount the council or members of the public coming up with altrenatives.

Wasn't that the point of the feasibility studies, to examine in detail every possible site including the really silly ones like building it on the Moon? No, hang on, they missed that one.

A for PPAG is a vote to preserve the green space in our area.

Perhaps you should define 'area'. Does that mean street, a radius of 100 metres, 1000 metres?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Sep 2006, 20:17

Dave Connelly wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:I want people to make informed choices. I want decisions to be based on facts. What I was attempting to demonstrate was that if you accept the findings of the independent consultants (and fair enough, you clearly don't) then the outcome of the PPAG campaign, were it to be successful, would be:

a) PHS re-built on site
b) St Johns on Bingham Park

Do you agree that this is the case?
I think what was being considered was

a) PHS re-built on site
b) St Johns on Powerleague or Scottish Power

was the consideration, Bigham is still way off. Why do you favour that Bingham, Bob?

I don't and I don't think many parents will either. But according to the report it is one of only 4 options for St Johns, Powerleague and Scottish Power having been ruled out. By virtue of opposing the building of schools on Portobello Park or Golf Course, you leave PHS with only one choice - a re-build on site. That leaves St Johns with Hobson's choice - Bingham.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 23 Sep 2006, 22:12

Bob Jefferson wrote:.......... according to the report it is one of only 4 options for St Johns, Powerleague and Scottish Power having been ruled out.

They have not been ruled out at all. In fact there is now more pressure on the council than ever to consider these options. Hopefully they will listen to the electorate.

Would you be happy if St Johns was built on the Powerleague site

billg · Post by **billg** » 23 Sep 2006, 22:31

I can't believe people are still swallowing the consultation report when it is so flawed. Simply based on council produced documents and figures, you can see that they are forcing St John's onto green space. The only options given are golf course, Porty Park (why is this 2 options when it's one piece of land?) and Bingham Park. Yet the recommended size would fit on almost all the brownfield sites that anyone has thought of.

And on that subject: Bob, the size recommendation is just that - a recommendation contained in a statutory instrument that is 40 years old next year. A statutory instrument does not get full democratic scrutiny. So we have a recommendation based on the whim of the Scottish Office from before I was born, and I'm no spring chicken. You can almost hear them saying "Aye, add another 50% from me, Wullie - it's the councils that'll pay for this". Bring this up to date: Edinburgh's own SMART schools project shows that smaller sites are tenable.

So what's the bottom line: the council rejects ALL the brownfield sites, even those that are large enough based on the most generous recommendations. Result: rubbish report from a St John's perspective.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 24 Sep 2006, 07:22

Welcome to the debate Billg.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Sep 2006, 12:06

Dave Connelly wrote: It wasn't POL in general, that I was on about, it was about individual posters who continually negatively campaign. The comment was meant as a generalisation. (have been guilty of it, (negative comments and generalisation) myself and have tried to stop for the sake of healthy debate)

One way you could promote healthy debate is to answer some of the questions you are asked.

Your plea to cease negative campaigning, is yet another ploy to divert factual discussion. If one challenges PPAG they are accused of "putting the boot in" "attacking" and now the latest ruse "negative campaigning".

When I challenge something you or PPAG say it is not simply an "aspect" its usually fundamental. For example, PPAG petition under the banner "Loss of Green Space in Portobello". Bob did some research and provided factual evidence of around 50 people who signed that petition thinking they were petitioning against the loss of any green space in Portobello. Ther will be many more. These people had no idea PPAG were campaigning to build on another Park. Are you serioulsy suggesting that we stay stum and keep it secret from the community at large?

This type of factual challenge in not negative, its not positive either its just factual. You may feel negated but its factual all the same.

Dave, can you give us some specific examples of negative campaigning by individuals or by PFANS?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 24 Sep 2006, 18:56

I have moved some posts which strayed off topic to the other forum

Let the debate continue but please, remember to keep to the issue and refrain from making this a personal battlefield.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Sep 2006, 18:56

Well said, Marya.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 24 Sep 2006, 21:55

Dave Connelly wrote:Crap site or not it is feasible and the park is bounded by the same mainline railway and the main road into Edinburgh.

No Dave.

The Park is bounded by Milton Road, Stanley Street, Hope Lane & Park Avenue.

The Freightliner Terminal is bounded by the East Coast mainline & the Sir Harry Lauder Road. There's a significant difference.

And if you don't believe me consult a dictionary on what "bounded" means. Or an A-Z.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 24 Sep 2006, 22:23

seanie wrote:
Dave Connelly wrote:Crap site or not it is feasible and the park is bounded by the same mainline railway and the main road into Edinburgh.
No Dave.

The Park is bounded by Milton Road, Stanley Street, Hope Lane & Park Avenue.

The Freightliner Terminal is bounded by the East Coast mainline & the Sir Harry Lauder Road. There's a significant difference.

And if you don't believe me consult a dictionary on what "bounded" means. Or an A-Z.

So the A1 isn't a main road Seanie, and the Freightliner Terminal and associated railway lines which are still in use on a daily basis do not constitute a similar danger for children.

Wake up, a very poor argument from you Seanie. I was expecting at least 2 pages

Perhaps you should have a look at the dictionary.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 24 Sep 2006, 22:37

Milton Road is a very busy road. But given the catchment area for PHS locating a school whereby noboody has to cross a busy road is impossible.

How do children who live south of Milton Road get to PHS at present Dave?

The particular problem with the Freightliner Terminal is it's isolation in terms of access. It may be centrally located but is bounded by a dual carriageway bypass and a mainline railway. Access to the site, in the context of a school, is dreadful and difficult to overcome.

The Park is bounded by one very busy road and 3 pretty quiet ones. It is not bounded by the east coast mainline. In terms of access and routes to school it'd be fairly straightforward.

Do you not understand what bounded means Dave?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Sep 2006, 08:17

At this juncture I would like to make a suggestion. I think it has become clear that this debate has become dominated by a handful of people and inevitably this has led to it becoming quite personal at times.

I think that it would be healthy, refreshing and perhaps instructive to hear from a few other people who may have felt reluctant to post their own views thus far.

In order to facilitate this, some of us need to shut up for a while to give others breathing space. I would like to propose that Porty/Stephen McIntyre, Dave Connelly, Alison Connelly and I undertake not to post at all on this or related threads for a period of 7 days. I will continue to post links without comment to press coverage or factual material but only as an admin function.

Please pm me to acknowledge that you are in agreement with this. I think we could all do with some time out.

The rest of you, carry on. We will be reading with interest. Just remember to stay on-topic.

Izzie · Post by **Izzie** » 25 Sep 2006, 08:44

I dont know anything about funding planning or anything like that.I am just a mum,who wants to see the park golf course left and let the kids learn how to play golf,football and have fun climbing trees or whatever.

Why cant they build the houses on the land for the new golfie.

St Johns beside Holyrood as it is the feeder for this school

PHS on Bingham Park as this is not used as much as the golfie

Also I think that something is wrong with this whole thing when now most off the kids at Porty have now seen the plans for the new school being built on the Golfie

Sorry if I have opened a can off worms here.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Sep 2006, 09:23

Although a Vatican-style complex for St Johns & Holyrood has been mentioned, when I was at the initial "hijack" meeting at PHS way back when, I think one of the councillors said (to groans from the mob) that the land there was green belt, or green something, and couldn't be built on - have I missed something?

Izzie · Post by **Izzie** » 25 Sep 2006, 09:52

Is Holyrood getting rebuilt?????????

If so they could build St Johns at the same time.

As I said I know nothing much about all this.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Sep 2006, 11:40

Izzie wrote:Is Holyrood getting rebuilt?????????

If so they could build St Johns at the same time.

As I said I know nothing much about all this.

Izzie, Holy Rood is being rebuilt, but using private money. It isn't a Council funded build. Although building St John's beside the new Holy Rood was suggested by some folk, it has been discounted as it contains an Urban Wildlife site and there would also be 'serious planning objections' to siting another school there.

Furthermore, it would remove St John's from a central position within the catchment area, which would prove difficult for parents, some of whom would be making several trips to and from the school each day, if they had a kid in nursery say, as well as one in a Primary class, which is a high possibility.

I also know that some St John's parents would be happier if St John's wasn't built next to a Secondary School. I personally don't have a strong opinion on this, but wouldn't like to see St John's move out of a central location regarding its catchment area.

I suspect the plan(s) that your kid's teacher had on display for his class would have been downloaded from the Edinburgh Grid for Learning which is the Council's website for Parents and School Staff. You'll find all the consultation papers and possible site maps etc on there.
(as well as on POL's own archive thread of course!

).

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 25 Sep 2006, 13:17

Just read the letters page of today's Evening News. Very good letter Bob

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Sep 2006, 14:00

Letter (fifth one down) from today's EN :

Campaign for more viable school site

Hmm...thought you were going to keep quiet on this issue for a week Bob?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Sep 2006, 14:15

I'm sorry that I wasted my time reading this letter, as it's nothing more than a re-hash of various PFANS arguments we've seen over the course of this debate.

It's such a shame to see the glee with which veterans of the superstore campaign rubbish their neighbours, and how any and every opportunity is taken to stick the boot into PPAG - either here or in the press - an organisation whose aims I don't even support.

My daughter, and her future sibling, will hopefully progress through both St Johns and PHS - but the last thing I want is for them to have been built on land which was meant for something else, in use as something else and whose building was bulldozed into life by the blustering banality of the boorish.

I'm really sorry to those in either camp who have had to stomach this most negative of campaigns.

edit -> removed and added some words

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 25 Sep 2006, 14:22

The word "bullying" is being bandied about with reckless abandon on this thread, and I am getting tired of it. If people have a complaint to make, with clear evidence that bullying is taking place, please make a formal complaint in writing. Otherwise, since accusing people of bullying seems to be a new method of bullying round here, I want it to stop. This is a public forum, not an extension of the playground. Keep it civil, people.

Paula

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 25 Sep 2006, 15:42

Porty asked

"Would you be happy to have say the English, and Maths departments or maybe Science and CDT, located on Portobello Park and leave more room for sports facilities on the existing site?"

I would suggest that all the Academic subjects be taught under one roof, on the same site.
Sporting facilities, on the other hand, could be provided for on Portobello Park. It seems to work well with the likes of Heriots, Stewart Melville etc, etc, who have playing fields away from the main schools.
I see no reason why PHS could not benefit from top notch sporting facilities a mere 5 mins walk away.
I wonder Why the School/Council has not done something along these lines long ago to address the bizarre practice of bussing kids around Edinburgh when the facilities are, literally, on the doorstep?

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 25 Sep 2006, 20:01

Dadaist wrote:I'm sorry that I wasted my time reading this letter, as it's nothing more than a re-hash of various PFANS arguments we've seen over the course of this debate.

It's such a shame to see the glee with which veterans of the superstore campaign rubbish their neighbours, and how any and every opportunity is taken to stick the boot into PPAG - either here or in the press - an organisation whose aims I don't even support.

My daughter, and her future sibling, will hopefully progress through both St Johns and PHS - but the last thing I want is for them to have been built on land which was meant for something else, in use as something else and whose buliding was bulldozed into life by the blustering banality of the boorish.

I'm really sorry to those in either camp who have had to stomach this most negative of campaigns.

edit -> removed and added some words

I agree with a lot of your sentiment and hope it's reflected in my posting. When you're talking about same old issues, I think the arguement is now well worn on this thread, In fact you could probably put it on a six page loop and no-one would notice.

One area that hasn't been covered (well not a lot). It was suggested a few pages ago that PHS could have a referburb as there are other schools worse off, (Boroughmiur) It's worth pointing out that Boroughmuir is worse off because the council haven't found another site for it. Fortunately here we have options. I'm not convinced that because they are up ----- creek we should be too.

Regarding debate of the issues I think it's important to scrutinise what both PFANS and PPAG advocate. The difficulty, in my opinion comes
from there not being the space to express views without them being roundly jumped on, on this thread. If that 's the culture then I believe people will post less. Therefore there should be respect for people to both express and explore their views on this thread.

"whose building was bulldozed into life by the blustering banality of the boorish"

I wouldn't worry, they're not as important as that!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Sep 2006, 20:42

Moved on behalf of bathst2:

UnfortunateyI've only had a glimpse at the document kids brought home from PHS as I lent it to my sons dad who then went off on hol without giving it back!!!
I feel a bit wary of commenting as I'm sure someone will then say I've missed or misunderstood something...anyway here goes..!
The 3rd proposal building PHS (& sorry I didnt glean naything so far about a new St Js site) on the existing playing flied rather than the golf course seems to be what I thought should happen all along! The picture suggestes the school would exist amongside the golf course and there are no houses mentioned on either site. I DID realise however that CEC are proposing a smaller intake and overall school role but I feel this may be overlooking the numbers of families moving into Porty over recent years as it's such a great place to be and house prices are still not as high as som e places (and were really quite affordable 7 yrs ago when my son and I arrived!!!). Also the sq footage seems to be to the minimum and this could lead us to similar problems of overcrowing we have now.
I'm sure I'm missing something ....I dont know the brown field sites people have referred to but cant see that going to school by the rail line is any more pref than by Milton Rd...and it is always going to be in someone's back yard!!! Sad thing is that as my son and many others left Towerbank this year and will not benefit from the new developments there they will not now benefit from a new high schoolas they will be leaving by time the council predict it will be ready!!