New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Bob Jefferson]

I was chatting to parents of children at Duddingston who had received the pink PFANS leaflet and they were saying that they were confused, because they understood that children would still be bussed off site if the school had a 4.5ha site at Portobello Park. You quoted it yourself :

The report goes on to say that, in the Council's view, 4.5 hectares is sufficient if sports pitches are provided off-site.
Looking at the drawings, I'm a little confused. The potential sites drawing gives the size of Portobello Park as 5.7 hectares, while the drawing showing PHS on the park gives a 'site area' of 5.1 hectares, which seems to include the pitches.

Alison, I can't see why anyone would come to that conclusion based on that extract from the report. If PHS goes on Portobello Park then it has 2 full size pitches, in addition to the all-weather pitch, immediately adjacent. What does this pink PFANS leaflet say (or the report for that matter) that causes confusion? I'm trying hard but I really fail to see the point of this.

edit - didn't realise Seanie had already answered this point but I'm glad it's not just me that is puzzled by this.

[Porty]

A school board's job is to lead the school . The consultation has about four weeks to go. IMHO if St John's are as non-cmmital as they are at the moment the decsion will be out of their hands.

you are clearly board again and trying to get a rise by being on the attack. Very weak indeed.

Dave, its not an attack, its a statement of how I see things at present.

The council have offered several option for a replacement St John's. THe response of St John's school board has been that they are "unable to declare a position". Furthermore, publicly and by that I mean last week's scrutiny meeting, St John's school board want to talk about any other location but the one's that they are being offred. As I said, Alison did not even mention three of the four options. She was speaking on behalf of the board so they obvioulsy don't feel those optioons have merit.

All I'm saying is that should we get to consultation end and St John's are still unable to declare a position or still want to talk about undeliverable options then the decisions will be taken for them.
You may paint that a scare-mongering or as a veiled threat? At last weeks scrutiny meeting Andrew Burns stated "we are creating an unstoppable momentum to provide new schools for Portobello" and he repeated it several times. If St Johns don't speak up, the momentum will leave them behind.

No refurbishment, no re-build is stilll one potential outcome for St John's and IMHO the continuing procrastination of their School Board, for whatever reason, is going the right way about securing that outcome.

[Maria]

I was chatting to parents of children at Duddingston who had received the pink PFANS leaflet and they were saying that they were confused, because they understood that children would still be bussed off site if the school had a 4.5ha site at Portobello Park. You quoted it yourself

But it'd be a 4.5Ha school site adjacent to 1.2Ha with two additional pitches. I don't think buses will be necessary to take them from the west end of Portobello Park to the east end.

The PHS consultation document says :

5.3
The High School could be located alongside two grass pitches should St John's not be relocated here, thus removing the need to bus pupils off-site to reach the full complement of pitches.

[PortyMan]

The PHS consultation document says :

5.3
The High School could be located alongside two grass pitches should St John's not be relocated here, thus removing the need to bus pupils off-site to reach the full complement of pitches.

Point for consideration:

It is my understanding that:- when the Portobello High School children are bussed to Jack Kane for sports, the activities take place on the astroturf pitch or indoor hall. They do not use the grass pitches (I don't know why not, possibly something to do with dirt, showers, health and safety and public order).


Other than that, glad to see the high-quality debate continues...

[Pal of Porty]

I had responded Dave but if you would like me to do so again.

1) Do you agree that building on the park will be a loss of green space in Portobello

Which park are you referring to? Is it:

The Portobello Park which is one of the 3 options identified by the Independent Consultants as a potentially suitable site for PHS?

or is it

The Figgate Park identified by Ros Sutherland when she said, “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.

2) Do you agree that Green space is fast being used up all over the country and is particularly important in urban areas close to where people live, performing the function of lungs for the city

This is a very subjective statement and not one I totally agree with but in a general sense it could be applied to:

The Portobello Park which is one of the 3 options identified by the Independent Consultants as a potentially suitable site for PHS

and

The Figgate Park identified by Ros Sutherland when she said, “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.

Happy to help

[Dave Connelly]

I had responded Dave but if you would like me to do so again.

couldn’t find your response

1) Do you agree that building on the park will be a loss of green space in Portobello

Which park are you referring to? Is it:

Any Park, but in this instance Portobello Park and Golf Course.

Yes or No would do, not other questions, you seem to be avoiding the issue again.

The Portobello Park which is one of the 3 options identified by the Independent Consultants as a potentially suitable site for PHS?

or is it

The Figgate Park identified by Ros Sutherland when she said, “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.

You are misquoting again. You know exactly what was said by Ros, you are choosing to ignore the truth.

2) Do you agree that Green space is fast being used up all over the country and is particularly important in urban areas close to where people live, performing the function of lungs for the city

This is a very subjective statement and not one I totally agree with but in a general sense it could be applied to:

The Portobello Park which is one of the 3 options identified by the Independent Consultants as a potentially suitable site for PHS

and

The Figgate Park identified by Ros Sutherland when she said, “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.

Happy to help

So you are afraid to answer the questions , thats fine

[Pal of Porty]

Dave I am not avoiding you and I am genuinely flummoxed as to how I am misquoting Ros. I took the quote straight from the letter she wrote and had printed in the Evening News:

"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

If anything is being avoided it the answer to how a like for like re-instatement could possibly be achieved.

[Jbrock]

The pink PFANS leaflet?? ALison, PFANS doesn't do pink. Plain black and white (recycled) paper is good enough for us. If there is a pink leaflet doing the rounds purporting to be a PFANS publication, please pass it to me.

Thanks

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN Letters Page (third letter down):

Green space claim can't be serious

[Porty]

.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.

Dave (connelly) talk us through "complete reinstatement"

Dave talk us through "complete reinstatement".

Cue tumbleweed.

If anything is being avoided it the answer to how a like for like re-instatement could possibly be achieved.

Come on Dave, talk us through "complete reinstatement" its your last chance to sort of validate the PPAG petition.

Or is it tumbleweed time again?

[Dave Connelly]

Last chance you are absolutely correct on that one.

You just can't see past the ends of your noses, thats the trouble with wee gangs.


I don't have to validate or justify anything. You are just struggling to find someone to be pedantic with


what I can do though as a last post, which no doubt will be edited is to put those who doubted St Johns School Board's intention of letting folk know whats going on in the picture. As a parent I received this, and if you are a parent at the school, so did you

[quote]St Johns School Board letter to Parents

22 September 06

Dear Parents

As you know, Edinburgh City Council have recently announced a public consultation to gather views regarding the proposals to rebuild St John’s (and also neighbouring Portobello High School). The proposal document, on which the consultation is based, is quite lengthy, but if you would like to read it in full, you can either view a copy outside the school office or you can download it from http://egfl.net/parents/ . The Council have also commissioned a feasibility study by a firm of architects. Unfortunately this is not available online, but can be viewed outside the school office, or in Portobello Library

In summary, the document suggests 3 options for a new PHS and 4 options for a new St John’s building . The options suggested by the Council for PHS are : rebuilt on current site (assuming St John’s moves elsewhere);rebuild on Portobello Golf Course ; rebuild on Portobello Park (the football pitches at the top of Portobello Golf Course)

For St John’s, the Council proposal document states:

St John’s Primary School Replacement

While the main generator for this project is the reprovision of Portobello High School, it would also be desirable to seek the replacement of St John’s Primary School given its fitness for purpose. The school building falls well short of the generic brief for primary schools, particularly with significantly undersized rooms and insufficient accommodation in the main building necessitating the use of Temporary Units. Nor does the school have outdoor sports facilities on-site.


One of the three options for the High School necessitates the relocation of St John’s as part of the proposal. The opportunity also exists for St John’s to be relocated alongside the High School with the other site options should sufficient funding exist.


The options for the redevelopment of St John’s are:


The site of the existing Portobello High School – should the high school relocate, then the surplus site could become available for the redevelopment of St John’s. This would represent the least long term implications for St John’s, with the school remaining central to its catchment.


Portobello Park pitches – either alongside a relocated High School, or as a stand alone facility should Portobello remain on its existing site. The main issue with this would be the loss of the existing park to the community – should both schools relocate here it would be difficult to retain any public pitches within the park area. This location is fairly central to the primary school’s catchment area.


Portobello Golf Course - either alongside a relocated High School, or as a stand alone facility should Portobello remain on its existing site. The main issue with this would be the loss of the golf course to the community. This location is central to the primary school’s catchment area.


Bingham Park – also requiring a loss of part of an existing park to the community, this site is poorly located within the catchment area and is more difficult to access given the narrow streets. The primary school will generate the requirement for more escorted trips to and from school for the younger pupils (whether by car, bus or walking) and thus its location is particularly important.


As part of the consultation process, the Council have promised to listen to the views of parents. The Council have confirmed that contributors are welcome to bring other suggestions to the debate. St John’s School Board have already asked that the Council consider 2 brownfield sites for St John’s (the current Powerleague site on Portobello High Street, and the Scottish Power site near the Kings Road roundabout). This would allow the new Portobello High School to be rebuilt on the existing site. An advantage for St John’s of this is that St Johns would be relocated first, which means that St John’s would get its new school more quickly, but also that it would be guaranteed the first “biteâ€

[seanie]

[quote]This would allow the new Portobello High School to be rebuilt on the existing site. An advantage for St John’s of this is that St Johns would be relocated first, which means that St John’s would get its new school more quickly, but also that it would be guaranteed the first “biteâ€

[seanie]

The more I read the St John's Board letter the stranger it seems;

St John’s School Board have already asked that the Council consider 2 brownfield sites for St John’s (the current Powerleague site on Portobello High Street, and the Scottish Power site near the Kings Road roundabout). This would allow the new Portobello High School to be rebuilt on the existing site.

I don't see the big attraction of relocating St John's to either the Powerleague or Scottish Power site. The latter in particular would seem a pretty crappy location for a primary school. And both face considerable problems in terms of affordabilty and deliverabitly as sites.

But should St John's choose to go down that path what's it got to do with the redevelopment of PHS?

PHS could relocate simultaneously to the park or golf-course, with no delay, no decant and a school that fully met pupils' needs.

[Pal of Porty]

.....what I can do though as a last post....

I will genuinely miss your posts if that is your last one. I also have no problem with you not answering the question and agree that you do not have to validate or justify anything, (although to say it is because I am pedant is a bit pedantic). I will now forever be perplexed as to how defenders of green space in Portobello can continue to campaign on that basis when key members of that very same campaign can say:

…..Instead, how about putting St John's on Portobello Park (a lot less of the Park would be used up, leaving more for football pitches/woodland reserves ( ) and so on, and much less traffic congestion on the narrow roads surrounding the park. Personaly I'd prefer to see any new school build on a brown-field site, but the Council have indicated that the Powerleague and Scottish Power sites will be ruled out because of the costs of acquisition, so if they insist on building on green space, we have to keep it to an absolute minimum….

And Ros with her letter:

"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

It will just have to remain as one of the mysteries of the world

[Breenjohn]

Bailiefield Road would have been the perfect site - given footbridges could be constructed to link the two parts of the SSEB site. Sadly that opportunity has gone and there is no option but to rebuild on site. St John's is the better provided for in terms of space per pupil but the High School really needs an architect of genius to sort it out. Living in Australia, I haven't inspected what remains of the extensive former British Rail property holdings but I doubt there is much scope there because of both area and the distribution of the land i.e. too linear. It should be noted too that the high school was controversial in its day (early 1960s) because of its disproportionate height relative to the surrounding buildings.

Wherever the High School is built, can we please have some quality construction materials this time round? After all, inspiration to those attending ought to be something derived from the buildings' appearance as well as from other sources.

Regards
John Breen

[Porty]

[quote="seanie"][quote]This would allow the new Portobello High School to be rebuilt on the existing site. An advantage for St John’s of this is that St Johns would be relocated first, which means that St John’s would get its new school more quickly, but also that it would be guaranteed the first “biteâ€

[Porty]

what I can do though as a last post, which no doubt will be edited is to put those who doubted St Johns School Board's intention of letting folk know whats going on in the picture. As a parent I received this, and if you are a parent at the school, so did you :

Dave the letter from SJSB does not put people in the picture, it is mis-leading. I'm not going tonight but I will be gobsmacked if Powerleague or Scottish Power are given anything other than short-shrift.

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

Emotions run high in Porty

[Bob Jefferson]

Meanwhile, the 'Figgate question' saga rumbles on in today's EN Letters Page:

Time to clear up misunderstanding

and

Let's get back to debate on school

[Porty]

From today's EN:

Emotions run high in Porty

Quite a balanced article although they were woefully out on the overall cost of option A.

[Bob Jefferson]

Yes, there were a few errors or misunderstandings. I'm not sure that PFANS are campaigning specifically for a school on the Golf Course, rather than on Portobello Park, but I think this was part of the journalist's angle to suggest that we all wanted different things.

It seemed clear last night at the PHS consultation that there is a lot of support among parents for Option C and I'm sure that this will be borne out by the results of the questionnaire.

[bbbrown]

Porty, your views on St johns School Board are less than helpful. The chances of St Johns losing out altogether are zero, certainly if what the council are saying is true...talk about scare mongering....

[Porty]

Porty, your views on St johns School Board are less than helpful.

Not from the feedback I have. Over the last few days there has been a severe reality check. Powerleague and Scottish Power are no longer being considered. This time last week they were the sites being pitched to the Council scrutiny panel by the representative of St Johns School Board. That is quite a turnaround.

The chances of St Johns losing out altogether are zero, certainly if what the council are saying is true...talk about scare mongering....

I agree there is a real will for the council to help St John's. Even given that do you agree that losing out altogether is one potential outcome?

[bbbrown]

Porty, time will ultimately tell, but no, i do not believe that there is the remotest chance that St Johns will lose out.
We are in the middle of a consultation exercise which still has time to run. St Johns School Board are still actively seeking the views of parents, and i see nothing untoward in why they should not be considering all options, including those that some people see no merit in.
The PHS school board have declared support for an option already. some may find this a bit like jumping the gun, but that is for them....I find nothing wrong with St Johns board keeping their options open...

[Porty]

Porty, time will ultimately tell, but no, i do not believe that there is the remotest chance that St Johns will lose out....

Fair enough. I don't believe they will lose out either but I do think it is one potential outcome, which is all that I said. I am concerned that if the non-commital stance of SJSB persists, so no strong signal is given to the council, then they may conclude everything is alright as it is.

I was a SJSB member for 4 years and at that time we needed two new temporary classrooom, the Board along with the Head and about 30 parents started an unstoppable momentum which worked. This is a whole new school. It doesn't stack up.

My opinion and I stress that its my opinion of what's happening with SJSB?

The board is in the grip one or two indivuduals who have something other than the best educational interests at heart. It seems that up until now all of their energy has gone into non-central, non-available sites. When one of the real options is a new school in almost the same location. In my viiew the board are hiding behind parental consideration as the most desirable solution does not suit them for reasons unknown.


There are quite a few St John's parents who follow POL. Can I ask if the board canvassed parents opinions for support before trying to persuade the council to include Powerleague or Scottish Power as options? Was this a direct result of parental wishes?

[bbbrown]

"The board is in the grip one or two indivuduals who have something other than the best educational interests at heart. "

There you go again. What axe have you got to grind?

I am not privvy to the petty politics of school boards and community councils etc....thank god.


I can assure you that the board and the parents of St Johns sent some very strong signals out to the council and the best interests of all the kids is up there on top of the agenda....

[Porty]

"The board is in the grip one or two indivuduals who have something other than the best educational interests at heart. "

There you go again. What axe have you got to grind? ...

None whatsoever. in fact I am fed up with those of you who don't want to engage in nitty gritty debate so you keep taking it back to personal.

I'm telling it as I see it. How do explain a school board who when offered a brand new school central to the catchment that was avialable in the forseeable future, on a selection of sites, including the one that the occupy. They get a chance to pitch to some of the decision makers and FAIL TO EVEN MENTION any of the options offered to them

Instead they campaign for two sites remote from the centre of catchment, sites that are not available and no-one can say when they will becoime available, the schools will cost more than twice as much.

Bbb can you give any educational reasons that would explain the boards conduct?

To me it doesn't make sense there is no rational explanation. Hence the conclusion that I've drawn. Its not personal, its not an axe that I'm grinding, You are welcome to put me straight with a credibe explanation.

[bbbrown]

I have no idea about that.
All I do know is that last nights consultation was very positive, from the school board to the council, to the parents. The Council would have to be dumb to have taken any thing other than positives from last night.....

You are to wrapped up and involved in the petty politics of all this. At the end of the day it is parent power and the feelings of the entire community that will win the day, not a few individuals who like to shout the loudest.
(mostly on this board)

[Bob Jefferson]

Bb, as you and Porty don't seem to be getting along, I thought I might interject. As most of us were not at last night's meeting at St Johns, could you give us some indication of how it went? I have no idea what St Johns parents make of the options. What was the general consensus? Did the School Board express a preference, or offer any kind of lead? Have St Johns parents been polled on the issue, and if not, are there any plans to do so? (PHS parents have been, which is why I ask).

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN Letters Page:

Beware of threat to our parkland

[bbbrown]

All I can say is that it was a very positive meeting. The council presented the options and committed to a new st johns, either along side PHS or stand alone. The board rep spoke positively for the school getting renewed, saying they were not plumping for any option at present cause they are still seeking, and getting, the views of the parents. There was no stress on any particular site. I think think this is fine, and there was no dissent from any one. Certainly no feeling of any sinister or under hand agendas.
The Councillors seemed to put paid to the idea of houses on the golf course, and seem positive of funding from the Exec, though this is, of course, not in concrete. We shall have to wait and see.
There was a fair bit of feed back from the floor that it may not actually be in St Johns best interests to be alongside the PHS, especially in view of the antagonism towards the primary school kids from the PHS kids.
Over all, what I took away is the councils commitment to the two schools and also to taking on board the parents views from the consultation.
It seemed clear, and I can only hope sincere, that the council are listening to parents.

[Bob Jefferson]

Thanks and sorry to repeat but, have St Johns parents been polled on the issue, and if not, are there any plans to do so? I'm still no wiser as to which option St Johns parents prefer. Would you say that, from the views expressed, any one option was considered preferable? Was there strong opinion against any particular option? On balance, how would you summarise the views of the parents who attended?

[PortyMan]

Just a few thoughts...

1) The 'bussing' issue gets a lot of press, but in the main, the children are bussed to Jack Kane ONCE a week (if at all). Swimming, badminton, basketball, etc all take place at Portobello. Football and Hockey take place at JK on an astroturf surface. No games are played on grass. (The new Holyrood, for example, would still be bussed for swimming).

No evidence has been provided by the council to show that PHS children are suffering physically from the lack of on-site pitches. (Far from it, running up and down 8 flights of stairs seem to have kept them very fit Apart from those who can't quite hold their bladders for a whole flight... )

2) The decant could be made to Holyrood instead of Portacabins. Roy Jobson's argument (at PHS meeting) that they need the builders to move from building Holyrood to demolishing the old one is pretty lame, the 'builders' will be long gone before the fitting-out is complete and the school ready to move into. In any case they could just move to Portobello and demolish that.

This would enable the school to move out of PHS sooner rather than later (the school's in a very bad way...isn't it? Isn't it?)

Additionally, Roy Jobson quoted an example where a school had burned down and they needed to construct a school very quickly... In this case we have 3 or 4 years to plan a decant. Surely, they can organise something in that time to minimise disruption and inconvenience? Or don't they learn from their experiences?

Alternative sites could be Meadowbank House (not too far away and with excellent sports facilities nearby - if they're quick!) Or even the old Royal High School... Surely with three years planning they could come up with something?

Much is made of the 'problems' associated with decant. But no mention is made of the 'problems' remaining in PHS would entail. Or have the circumstances of the children who will attend PHS between now and the new build not been considered? (Or the problems currently being experienced, overstated?)

3) The costs for decant seem to be based on the assumption that staying on at Portobello High School until 2011 will incur no costs? I would have thought they would be required to spend some money on providing safe and functional facilities in the meantime? Thus, decant costs are really the difference between the two - a bit less than £6m, I'd guess.

4) Strange how some people have gone all quiet about the U-turn the council appear to be making on the funding front? Only a few weeks ago anyone who suggested that we should push the council to insist on central funding rather than selling off public land were castigated as idiots and dreamers... Now it seems the council propose to do just that. Expect ponies for Christmas (or religious festival of your choice).

5) Numbers games. Some of you like the challenge of doing hard sums...

1200 pupils
That's 200 pupils per year-stream.
Over say 30 - oh, let's be generous 40 years - that's 8,000 children.
8,000 - that's quite a few kids, but not quite as many as many might have imagined (less than the number of kids who have been educated at the existing school...).

---

Providing them with a decent school is a good idea .
Destroying a park and golf course to provide them with a couple of football pitches seems less so.
---

Anyway, I look forward to the nitty-gritty debate (or is that nit-picking debate?).

[Bob Jefferson]

Thanks and sorry to repeat but, have St Johns parents been polled on the issue, and if not, are there any plans to do so? I'm still no wiser as to which option St Johns parents prefer. Would you say that, from the views expressed, any one option was considered preferable? Was there strong opinion against any particular option? On balance, how would you summarise the views of the parents who attended?

Or indeed, can anyone else who was present at this meeting last night answer these questions?

[Maria]

Thanks and sorry to repeat but, have St Johns parents been polled on the issue, and if not, are there any plans to do so? I'm still no wiser as to which option St Johns parents prefer. Would you say that, from the views expressed, any one option was considered preferable? Was there strong opinion against any particular option? On balance, how would you summarise the views of the parents who attended?

The meeting was attended by between 50 -60 people and included a fair number of St John's Staff as well as parents and other interested parties. At the start of the meeting the Chair of the School Board explained that the Board did not want the school re-built on Bingham Park, for a variety of reasons, not least because of its position in relation to the catchment area. She also explained that they wished to gauge the opinions of parents before making any other recommendation.

Two parents raised concerns about co-locating alongside High school pupils (possible bullying etc.) and an equal number pointed out the benefits of shared curricular resources etc. of a possible co-location. The consultants explained if a co-location was required they would prefer for St John's to be situated on Milton Road, rather than on the Park Avenue side. Parents were also assured that if funding for a new St John's was made available then it would be ring fenced so that no monies would be spent on say an overspend on a new PHS. I asked about Health and Safety implications for St John's pupils during demolition of the old PHS ( in particular the tower block), if parents of St John's opted to rebuild on the cleared PHS site. The consultants said that this was not an issue but that noise, nuisance etc. may be.

A small number (3?) asked about building on other sites or refurbishment and the panel explained the reasons why these were not options.

I don't feel that there was a preferred option voiced by parents. The meeting closed with Cllr Burns and Roy Jobson suggesting that they meet with the School Board to help them with further analysis of the site options. The Board agreed that this was a good idea and said that they would gather the views of parents before such a meeting. However, it remains unclear at the moment how they intend to do this.




edit: inserted the word 'with'