New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[alecmac]

[/quote] Are you saying that you have read the feasibility study, and what it has to say about Bingham Park and you still fail to understand? [/quote]

When the Feasibility Study examined Bingham Park it noted some disadvantages which it has to be said apply equally to Portobello Park/Golf Course, indeed, more so. The nub of the matter is the statement that "The planners view was not favourable as this is open green space."

Bingham Park was thus kicked into touch by the Council which had instituted a supposedly independent enquiry into the relative merits of a number of sites. It was effectively removed from further consideration by the Diktat of the planners.

For the record, the disadvantages noted for Bingham Park were

1]location within small scale surburban streets
2] didnt score well in terms of location and access
3]millenium planting
4]additional traffic detrimental to the surrounding neighbourhood {thats a sine qua non! and since when did that ever stop them?}
5]no direct public access [ignoring Duddingston Row which is a wide street with a bus service]

You might be forgiven for thinking they were talking about Portobello park!

If you remove the attitude of the planners there is a very good case to be made for Bingham Park (both Sites combined) with access from Duddingston Row.

If this is an unbiased forum, why are there slogans on it exhorting us to
"Support our Children" by choosing option 3? This is emotional blackmail.

[Porty]

And under PFI, the contractor owns the building not the land.

I said the contractor COULD own the land and it would be dogmatic of anyone to assert this could never happen.

I agree it would be silly to argue that it would never happen. However, that's not what we are discussing, you have intimated that it COULD happen prior or in conjunction with the imminent re-build of PHS. And you invited people to bet agianst it happening. I'm up for the bet, say £250? Is your money where your fingers are?

[Porty]

Personally speaking there are very few funding sources that I would decline in order to have new schools on the park. So far the portobello community have expressed disdain for housing and the council have listened. Housing on Portobello Park appears to be the least welcome method of funding. Me? I would take housing all day long but no more than about 300.


Shouldn't the last 10 posts or so be moved to the main schools thread?

[Porty]

Bingham Park was thus kicked into touch by the Council which had instituted a supposedly independent enquiry into the relative merits of a number of sites. It was effectively removed from further consideration by the Diktat of the planners.

For the record, the disadvantages noted for Bingham Park were

1]location within small scale surburban streets
2] didnt score well in terms of location and access
3]millenium planting
4]additional traffic detrimental to the surrounding neighbourhood {thats a sine qua non! and since when did that ever stop them?}
5]no direct public access [ignoring Duddingston Row which is a wide street with a bus service]

You might be forgiven for thinking they were talking about Portobello park!

If you remove the attitude of the planners there is a very good case to be made for Bingham Park (both Sites combined) with access from Duddingston Row.

If you remove the attitude...if you lay aside the issues of decant and bussing, if you ignore the minimum requirements and so on.... In other words if you fabricate an entirely false and irrelevant set of circumstances then you will arrive at a different answer. Are you a trainee economist?

Alecmac , Its not the attitude of the planners, it is the planners professional opinion given prevailing planning law.

The planners professional opinion was different for Portobello Park. Bingham Park is open green space, whereas on Portobello Park they say "due to the fact that the assets lost could be relocated or combined within the new schools if located on the site, this was not felt to be an issue that should discount these sites. Planners noted that there are circumstances under which they may support developments"

I find it interesting that you are so resistant to Options B and C as they involve building on Portobello Park but you seem mad keen on building on Bingham Park. From the childrens perspective Bingham Park is off centre catchment. More difficult access doesn't mean just narrow approach roads. It also means travel distance. Bingham Park would mean an additional 159,000 trips (*source Charles Douglas) across the A1 each school year. And extend around half a million school journeys each year. Just to keep the schools off your park and on someone else's. Are you comfortable promoting increased risk to our children's safety?

If this is an unbiased forum, why are there slogans on it exhorting us to
"Support our Children" by choosing option 3? This is emotional blackmail.

Precisely because it is an unbiased forum. You are equally entitled to a slogan supporting your desires. "Save our park... build on Yours" would be acceptable as would "Support Option A.. Keep bussing them away" On ye go son.

[alecmac]

Porty, you may find it interesting that I am agin the Portobello Park site but I find it equally interesting that in your book no-one is supposed to say a word aganst it. The name of the game here seems to be to shout down the opposition. For the record, I am not "mad keen" on the Bingham site, I just don`t accept the somewhat convoluted reasoning which removed it from consideration. And if you suppose that planners do not have a considerable latitude of discretion in how they interpret a situation you are very sadly mistaken.

Somehow I don`t think your diatribe about extra travelling would cut much ice with the many parents who send their children to Holyrood or fee paying schools across the city. To keep it in perspective, Bingham is a few minutes` walk from the present school and some pupils would find it more, not less, convenient.

No I am not an economist. Are you in the building trade that you are so keen to see houses built?

Others have commented on the level of hostility this issue is generating and I am sorry to say your emails are an example in point. I shall retire to my Bunker to count the windfall golf balls while I still can.

[gilo]

Given that new public buildings are no longer built to last and may have a life expectancy of about 25 years, perhaps those in favour of building on our parks might care to explain where the next but one school will have to go? Where will it all end???

I think this was quite a combative tone set. I hope the question has been satisfactoraly answered.

Regarding PFI contracts, my understanding is that with all schools in Edinburgh, under the most recent PPP funding, the contractor does not own the land. I don't see that it is likely to change if PHS is funded this way.

[Poppy]

Regarding PFI contracts, my understanding is that with all schools in Edinburgh, under the most recent PPP funding, the contractor does not own the land. I don't see that it is likely to change if PHS is funded this way.

You're right - the land is leased to the Edinburgh Schools Partnership Limited for something like a £1 per annum, then leased back to the Council for something similar in the way of rent. The leases are for 32 years from 2001.

I should be able to be more precise as it wuz me wot dealt with the registration of them a few years ago - will check tomorrow and correct any errors of a material nature.

[bellybabe]

If this is an unbiased forum, why are there slogans on it exhorting us to
"Support our Children" by choosing option 3? This is emotional blackmail.

Alecmac, I think you'll find such slogans are in people's signatures. People are allowed to have any signature they like as long as they abide by posting guidelines (for example, I'm biased in thinking everyone should read Borges), and once again, nobody has complained about signatures against the building of new schools on the park/golf course. If you can show me anywhere else on the site where there are slogans suggesting POL itself is supporting a particular stance, I will be happy to consider its removal.

I also note the lack of complaint about signatures in support of keeping the golf course/Portobello Park; if talking about the children is emotional blackmail, then surely the same rule must apply to the mention of losing Portobello's green space. One could easily view the suggestion we shouldn't allow signatures in favour of rebuilding the schools there, without any criticism of allowing the opposite view to be put, as emotional blackmail.

Paula

[Porty]

Somehow I don`t think your diatribe about extra travelling would cut much ice with the many parents who send their children to Holyrood or fee paying schools across the city.

To which I say big deal. They are not the people who would be affected one way or the other.

To keep it in perspective, Bingham is a few minutes` walk from the present school and some pupils would find it more, not less, convenient.

I allowed for them in my calculation and so did Charles Douglas in his A1 crossings calculation.

Others have commented on the level of hostility this issue is generating and I am sorry to say your emails are an example in point. I shall retire to my Bunker to count the windfall golf balls while I still can.

I must confess I do get hostile when people put forward erroneos arguments that may impair the educational opportunity for our children. I get even more hostile when people suggest building on other parks in the area to preserve their own sefish interests and in doing so short-change the pupils and staff at our schools. I get even more hostile when people in a position of great responsibiilty and trust attempt to manipulate a whole school community to further their personnal desires.

Hey I guess I am just a bad guy that wants Porty kids to have the best educational facilities that we can give them. I am quite happy to engage in factual discussion with anyone on this matter and to stand my ground. I won't be crawling into a bunker anytime soon no matter how personal the opposition get. And BTW I am neither a builder nor an estate agent but you are not the first to imply that I may be in this for the money there are some desperate people among us.

[Pal of Porty]

..Somehow I don`t think your diatribe about extra travelling would cut much ice with the many parents who send their children to Holyrood or fee paying schools across the city.

And why should it – it is an irrelevant comparison?

If I choose to send my child to a fee paying school across the other side of Edinburgh then that is my choice and the extra travelling is a consequence of not sending my child to their local school. Catchment area schools should be situated where they are best placed to serve their catchment and that normally does not mean a significant amount of travelling!

Denomination schools such as Holyrood are a totally different case and by definition serve a much larger catchment area.

To keep it in perspective, Bingham is a few minutes` walk from the present school and some pupils would find it more, not less, convenient.

A few minutes walk – you must have long legs! Some pupils would indeed find it more convenient but most would not. A school built anywhere on the edge of the catchment area it serves would not be best placed for the majority.

[Alison Connelly]

removed

[bellybabe]

As a St John's parent, having never received a copy of the letter Dave posted a few pages back, even though neither of my children are in P6, I was heartened by this:

The school board at St John's have decided to draw up a questionnaire, (as I believe PHS have also done), to distribute to all parents next week. A meeting is planned for Monday night to prepare it, and I expect we will include space for individual comments which we will ensure are passed back to the council.

This questionnaire was given out on the Friday before the holiday and has to be returned by Wednesday - which gives us a whole two school days to actually return it. But anyway, that aside, I am disgusted by this questionnaire, and cannot see how it can possibly be considered appropriately drawn up. And here's a sample of it, to explain why:

1. Your views on the options for the new site.

Four sites have been proposed by the Council.

A. The existing site of the High School and St John's Primary School.
The new Primary School could only be built after a new High School hs been constructed, elsewhere, allowing the existing buildings to be demolished.

B. Portbello Golf Course.
This would mean relocating the golf course with the loss of public open space in this area.

C. Portobello Park.
This would mean the loss of open parkland and football pitches.

D. Bingham Park.
Close to the current edge of the current catchment area this option would also mean the loss of open parkland.

E.None of the above.

Which is your preferred option? Please circle. What factors influenced your choice?

Well, could it be that the factors influencing parents' choices might be the very leading wording of the questionnaire? The fact that every one of these options listed here is accompanied by a negative comment, about the downside of each option, wiht no mention of any positive benefits, except in the case of E, none of the above, which significantly omits the accompanying downside of getting nothing at all for St John's? Surely if we need to be told what terrible thing will happen wiht each of the possible options, we should be reminded that option E has the downside of leaving the children in overcrowded, outdated buidlings? There is an absolutley clear bias in this.

Then we have question 2.

Your views on where Portobello High School should be located.

The location of a new PHS may have an impact on the siting of the new St John's School. The Council have suggested 3 sites for a new High School. Please tick one option.

The existing Site of the High School and St John's Primary School: This option is likely to mean that a new St John's School would have to be built elsewhere first, to allow the existing site to be cleared for the construction of a New High School.

Portobello Golf Course: The Golf Course would ned to be relocated. The Golf Course Site may be able to accommodate both new schools so this option could make the co-location of St John's School and Portobello High School feasible.

Portobello Park/Playing Fields: The Park alone may be too small to easily accommodate both new schools so this option could mean having to find an alternative location for St John's.

Additional comments? Or if you feel none of these options is appropriate - tell us why.

Again, each option's explanation seems to start with a negative point; if this about what parents feel about the schools, surely if we're not going to prejudice people to start with, the questionnaire should explain what it means for the schools before stating that the gold course would need to be relocated? It's simple semantics. "If you choose this, this bad thing happens...although it might be ok apart from that..." Phrases like "could mean having to find an alternative location for St John's", when the first part of the questionnaire mentioned other options for St Johns anyway, is clearly using negatively-biased language.

And finally (the fourth section is a simple further comments section)...

Your views on co-locating with Portobello High School.

The council's original proposal was to locate both new schools on the Golf Course/Park site. Do you feel this is a positive solution or are the alternatives more attractive.
What do you think about co-location?

I can't believe that anyone thought such a leading question was an acceptable way of getting people's views. What was wrong with simply asking the question, without asking if "the alternatives" are "more attractive"?

I am really stunned that this questionnaire was considered appropriate as a way of getting parents' views. It's bad enough that it's taken until now for the school board to bother asking the parents for the views, but to then put every option so negatively, with no mention of benefits, and to preface open questions wiht closed ones, is so clearly leading people in one direction. Talk about negative campaigning!


Edit: fixed quote

[gilo]

What sort of selfish interests do you mean, Porty?

Let's be upfront about this. I have children who will attend PHS. I'd like a school that attempts to meet good practice with playing fields. I would also be worried about the impact of decant on my children and other children in this community. Given the options, only B or C are runners for me.

When this gets debated on these pages I think the reasons for wanting B or C are put forward clearly and consistently. Conversely the opposition to B and C is just a continuing moving target, a smoke screen. Take for example Alecmac. His starting point was concern about building on green space. Then he was worried about the council selling the land and this then being sold on by the contractor. I think it was fairly demonstrated this won't happen. He then raised an interest on building on Bingham. So I think it is fair to ask what is the motive for objecting to B or C.

If consistent arguments were put forward that would be one thing, but they are not. In their absence it raises questions about motive. These may be people's aspects being affected by a school outside their front window, or their children going to Holyrood not PHS, thus decant is more acceptable if it's other people's children.

If you think I'm wrong about a smoke screen, look at two recent letters in the Evening News. Diane Cairns said we musn't trust the council over housing and Stephen Hawkins complained about people not getting the chance to speak up about brownfield because of parents asking questions when they were told not to. Dear oh dear, not much there about the options then. ( and I think I can remember who the first parent was to ask a question when they shouldn't have). The questions on common good land and houses on the park were too numourous to mention. The brownfield question looked like it was being actively avoided, though I guess there was a well qualified panel there that may just have answered the point. It was a Q and A session, you don't get the A if you don't ask the Q. Therefore if brownfield keeps getting mentioned, you could understand why people may feel a tad frustrated.

If you think I'm wrong about a smoke screen, present the case for Option A and lets see if it stands up to scrutiny.

BB you have my sympathy.

[seanie]

...Stephen Hawkins complained about people not getting the chance to speak up about brownfield because of parents asking questions when they were told not to.

It is worth pointing out that paretns were not told to not ask questions.

The request was for people who had asked questions at previous meetings not to do so again.

[Bob Jefferson]

From yesterday's EN Letters Page:

Has new site been decided in a fair way?

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN Letters Page:

We won't build homes on park

[Bob Jefferson]

From the EN Letters Page, 16 October:

Can Andrew Burns' pledge be trusted?

Edit: date

[Bob Jefferson]

Re Bellybabe's post about the St Johns school board parents consultation, firstly I would like to say that I am delighted that some kind of consultation of parents' views has finally taken place. I had asked about this on more than one occasion and I don't think I ever got a reply. Let's hope the results provide a clear indication of the way forward.

I wasn't entirely happy with the PHS School Board questionnaire either, to be honest. I think it might have been better if both consultations had simply asked parents to choose between the various options without offering their own spin or asking supplementary questions. There is enough information out there for parents to make an informed choice.

What I find particularly baffling about the St Johns questionnaire is that parents are being asked to choose a preferred site for PHS. Doesn't anyone else find this odd? I don't have a child at St Johns and, while I am free to express an opinion about its reprovision, I wouldn't really expect it to carry much weight when it comes to a statutory consultation, or any at all to be frank.

[Bob Jefferson]

Re Stephen Hawkins' recent letter to the EN, from which I quote:

They have also failed to explain how the consultation will be assessed, for example whether parents' views have more weighting than other members of the community.

Stephen knows very well that the statutory consultation is with parents. There is no requirement on the Council to consult with 'other members of the community' and, as a parent, I think I would be rather disappointed if I discovered that my view didn't carry more weight than non-parents or parents who send their kids to private schools.

Having said that, I think it is important to remember that parents are members of the community as well and form a large part of it. I wasn't able to attend the Town Hall meeting, but I'm not too surprised at the muted opposition from PPAG. This wasn't a rabble-rousing meeting on their own terms but a properly conducted consultation with a cross-section of the community. I'm now more confident than ever that PHS will be re-built on Portobello Park, not because it's a 'done deal' but because it is the best option and appears to have the support of both parents and the wider community.

[Porty]

Hopefully the ST J parents will see through it.

Aftre the scruitiny meeting I mistakenly thought that there had been change in the St John's School Board's attitude to securing a new school for the pupils and staff. That was certainly the impression i was given when talking to senior figures. It looks like i was wrong. The questionnaire is shameful.

We have a few days left to go in the statuatory consultation and the ST J communiity have only just been asked to give their views. If the school board present the findings to the council and deploy the same spin treatment to to the results then we will have reached the end of the process and the St J community will not have had their say.

In the event that there is a "hung" view from St Johns and no option is strongly favoured. The council will have a choice to make. X) they decide on behalf of St Johns or Y) they remove St Johns from the new schools proposal.

In my personal opinion the council won't touch Option X with a barge pole. Option Y is doing what the St Johns community want. And the council may suggest that there shall be further consultation with ST Johns at some time in the future. There is a real possibility that when SJSB re-convene in 2007 they will be discussing how they could have had a new school but that it is no longer on the table. I hope it doesn't go that way but the questionnaire is so weighted to a non-decision thatt the liklihood is very real.

Ironically and delightedly. If St Johns can't make up their minds Option A is dead and buried.

[Alison Connelly]

removed

[bellybabe]

letters were distributed to the majority of classes asking for views, and directing parents torn date of no later than 25th October - 12 days. Not really our fault about the holiday.....

No, not the school board's fault there was a holiday, but I can't imagine you didn't know about it - which in fact, as I said, gives us exactly two days to return it to the school office as it states we are to do. And which the school board clearly knew.

It's a leading, biased questionnaire; as at St John's parent, it really doesn't matter to me that you copied it from the PHS one. What is clear is that you mention only the negative aspects of every option except the "do nothing at all and continue in the same sorry state" one, where, interestingly, the board has no negative comment to make.

[Porty]

[
B. Portbello Golf Course.
This would mean relocating the golf course with the loss of public open space in this area.

C. Portobello Park.
This would mean the loss of open parkland and football pitches.

[/i]


The wording for options b and C are identical to the PHS questionnaire. St John's also included thier 4th option (Bingham Park), and the "none of the above" option, as we felt some parents may wish to have the choice
.....

Was the wording extracted from the PHS questionnaire all that the PHS school board had to say about each site or did they mention any positives?

[Porty]

I get even more hostile when people in a position of great responsibiilty and trust attempt to manipulate a whole school community to further their personnal desires.

.Interesting take on it

Its not a "take" its a stone wall certainty. There is not a single educational benefit for St Johns to move to any brownfield site when the existing site is also an opotion.

Hey I guess I am just a bad guy that wants Porty kids to have the best educational facilities that we can give them. I am quite happy to engage in factual discussion with anyone on this matter and to stand my ground. I won't be crawling into a bunker anytime soon no matter how personal the opposition get. And BTW I am neither a builder nor an estate agent but you are not the first to imply that I may be in this for the money there are some desperate people among us.

.

I think anyone who has suggested this must be thinking that because your are in the mortgage business, you would generate extra business from new residential property developments locally. However I daresay you would only gain a percentage of any new mortgages locally, so you would only really gain substantially if there was a huge amount of development..

Right from the word go I have preferred no housing on the park, just take a read back through this thread. When Andrew Burns informed us that there would be no housing my reaction was glee, i thought it would turn out to be the clincher. We will see. So I believe your assertion as to why these inferences have been made do not stack up. I have been campigning for schools on the park not houses, although I would accept houses. Alison, since Andrew Burns/Ian Perry/Roy Jobson/Evening News announced there would be no housing have you noticed my enthusiasm wane? I think not.

As you know i was paritally responsibile for the "Jamie" series of leaflets. (which worked a treat). These leaflets said "No to Housing" in big bold letters. My conscience is clear, in fact I'm squeaky. Can you say that?

[Porty]

Hopefully the ST J parents will see through it.

It would seem that St John's School Board can't do much right!!

It is clear that the St Johns School board have something other than the school's best interests at heart.

Alison, what will be your reaction if St Johns is dropped from this process as a result of them showing no commitment to a new school?

[seanie]

They have also failed to explain how the consultation will be assessed, for example whether parents' views have more weighting than other members of the community.

I was at the Town Hall meeting and that issue was raised a couple of times.

What was emphasised was that the greatest weight would be put on the educational issue. Beyond that I can't see a straightforward answer to such a question. The decision won’t come down to a scoring system, weighing postbags or counting the names on petitions. It’ll be for Councillors to decide which site, on balance, is best having considered the issues and the responses to the consultation.

That's inescapably subjective.

[Dadaist]

You're right, Seanie.

I've been at two of the meetings - the hijack one and the quiet one at the Town Hall. The most detail they have gone into at those about the final decision for recommendation of site is "a judgment call", "somehow" and "we'll just have to".

I guess that's where some of the perception of it being a done deal (not without hurdles though) comes from - (although I'm not making any slight on the consultants and unelected officials) - not only does the initial plan appear to have come from the same people that are going to decide which site to recommend, but their decision is "inescapably subjective".

Funding and housing are different though, and I'm sure everyone is praying that the man from Del Monte says yes - otherwise we'll really see what they think about housing!

[seanie]

I'd prefer housing and self-financing to the risk of PPP but I'm obviously in a minority on that one.

[Porty]

We are all in a minority. Seanie athe TH meeting do you recall Roy Jobson saying something like "PPP does not restrict design". What did he mean?

Incidentally there were a total of 34 questions asked and answered at the Town Hall meeting and about 60% were asked by anti-new schools campaigners some of whom asked the same questions. The only mention of brownfield sites was when Ian Perry stood up and expressed astonishment that no-one had asked a question about them. As soon as he said it the anti's went straigh back to asking questions like "did you actually visit the sites" and "will you resign if houses are built on the park". Then there was the one about bussing kids to Holyrood for science lessons.

Stephen Hawkins asked a political question and Diana asked about the decision process.

[Porty]

The meeting, in the time allocated, could not explore every point and despite Councillor Burns asking parents, who had already had their own closed meetings.

The meeting at PHS was not closed. The second question was asked by a grandfather, a member of my Tennis Club, who when asked at the entrance what his connection with the school was (he looked too old to be a parent) he couldn't recall his grandaughters name. There were many non-parents there. The costello family from Park Avenue, whose kids left PHS a few years ago, sat behind me and Danny Costello asked the question about moving holyrood to castlebrae and PHS to holyrood at the town hall meeting. Non-parents were asked to wait until parents questions were exhausted, they didn't. There was no mention of brownfield sites at this meeting either.

But, if a decant is such a horrendous proposition I'm surprised that Roy Jobson was happy for it to have been included in his department's submission for reprovisioning. Portobello High School under the PPP2 scheme. If there had been enough money available the replacement for the high school would have been progressing at present. A decant may not be at the top of the list of what we want but how can it now not be acceptable?

Now this is an excellent question, it identifies a weakness in the argument against Option A and unlike most of the anti-new schools arguments its true. Stephen has political ambitions, I'm surprised that neither he nor anyone else brought this up at one of the meetings, they missed a trick and its a much more relevant question than many that were asked, including his own question.

Although its an excellent question it is pretty easy to answer. PHS school board accepted a decant, as at the time they had no other option. the desire and need for a new school outweighed the horror of a decant. This time around there are other more palatable, less damaging, less expensive options. In the old days if ones leg was badly infected it was common to just cut it off. With advances in medicine this is no longer the only option. Can Stephen imagine a patient asking a doctor to ignore the medicine and just cut my leg off because its six million pounds more expensive and it used to be acceptabe?

He is also forgetting that this is an educational consultation if there is a huge demand for a decant then the council will have to go with it.

[seanie]

We are all in a minority. Seanie at the TH meeting do you recall Roy Jobson saying something like "PPP does not restrict design". What did he mean?

PPP doesn't necessarily compromise design, there are some successful buildings, but there has been a real problem with design quality generally. The process is difficul to control from the Client side and that was a particular problem in the early wave of PPP building. The results tended to be dreadful.

As time's gone on Clients havebecome more wary and have become more proscriptive about their requirements and brief. That's had a beneficial effect on quality but simultaneously increased costs which makes the treasury nervous.

Given their experience of PPP so far maybe the Council are confident they can ensure design quality isn't compromised. But frequently it is. Even Audit Scotland and the National Audit Office have criticised the design quality of PPP projects.

[Bob Jefferson]

I found this in my inbox on my return from holiday from the producer at Talk 107. Anyone know if the show went ahead? Maybe we could get a copy.

Hello!

We would like to spend an hour of Wednesdays’ Mike Graham show (10-11am) looking at the issue of the new Portobello High School. We felt Wednesday would be an appropriate day to take a look at the arguments for and against the options with the final public meeting taking place at Portobello Town Hall.

I’d be grateful if you would give me a call on my mobile as we are keen to speak to you and would also welcome your thoughts on who else we could interview.

[seanie]

I guess that's where some of the perception of it being a done deal (not without hurdles though) comes from - (although I'm not making any slight on the consultants and unelected officials) - not only does the initial plan appear to have come from the same people that are going to decide which site to recommend, but their decision is "inescapably subjective".

But short of tossing a coin almost any means of reaching a decision is inescapably subjective. Not entirley, there will be some elements of consideration that can be addressed objectively, but it'll come down to balancing and ranking relative priorities which comes down to an issue of values. And values are subjective.

Even a referendum would be a subjective way of reaching a decision. It just involves a lot more people making a subjective decsion.

[Porty]

Re Bellybabe's post about the St Johns school board parents consultation, firstly I would like to say that I am delighted that some kind of consultation of parents' views has finally taken place. I had asked about this on more than one occasion and I don't think I ever got a reply. Let's hope the results provide a clear indication of the way forward..

Bob unless i am mistaken St John's school board had previoulsy sent out a questionnaire on co-location but the results were neve made pubic, for reason unknown. As you can see above the most recent Q included a question on co-location. Perhaps Alison can enlighten us to the results of the first questionairre. It does have some relevance. For example if there was a ground swell of support for co-location then that's really a vote for schools on the park. Perhaps one our ST John's parents could write to the board and ask for the results?

[Alison Connelly]

removed