New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[bellybabe]

... so vocal in speaking out against new schools...

That's exactly the kind of bias/slant/skew of which we speak. (That and the sad, 'low-life' type comments and the constant 'digs' - playground stuff).

No one, as far as I'm aware, is 'speaking out against new schools'? A large number of people are trying to preserve a Public Park.

And that, my dear, is exactly the kind of bias of which "we" speak. Who exactly are "we", anyway? Who are you speaking for? The rest of that sentence you quote me on stated "anti-schools in the park"; anyone not reading back to my original post would indeed think I was being misleading...but I was very clear about the park bit. I don't think it's fair to accuse me of bias /slant/skew at the same time as doing exactly that with careful editing of quotes.

And anyway, we of course can't see whether or not Alison spoke out against new schools, in the park or otherwise, because she deleted every comment.

[Porty]

The rest of that sentence you quote me on stated "anti-schools in the park"; anyone not reading back to my original post would indeed think I was being misleading...but I was very clear about the park bit.

How remiss of me. I didn't check what you actually said and fell for the dirty trick. I'm kicking myself as that's been a feature of many of the antis' posts. Alison was a master at it. The Tom Ballantyne one being the most memorable.

[Pal of Porty]

.....A large number of people are trying to preserve a Public Park........

You missed out "even it means building on someone elses"

[PortyMan]

.As for 'not answering', Porty... Can we ever expect to see the results of the PHS survey?

As I have stated previoulsy the results of the survey (s) will be published as part of the consultation report (I assume in the manner of the Peebles document that Seanie posted a link to) and I expect they will also be published on the COEC website.

I don't know why you are so against percentage analysis, it is a widely accepted and used method for reporting the results of Polls. What I will say is that in sensitive debates like the one we are having here there are two recognised patterns.

Firstly, those people who are strongly for or against any proposal are sure to make their views known and most likely to respond to a survey.

Secondly, the "save a park" message is an easy one to sell and those people who swither can be easily convinced that a park is worth saving.

When it comes to saving a park I would expect any survey to be weighted in favour of saving tha park, as activists will respond and switherers will favour the park. (same goes for petitions, particularly deceptive ones) Therefore I would expect the support for Option A to be overstated and I'm sure that in this case it has been.

That's a 'no' then?

As for percentage analysis... I have no problem with it, per se. Simply that in this case (and most others) the actual numbers, in terms of of surveys issued, returned, completed etc are quite relevant. If you issue 1000 forms and get 100 back with 80 indicating one choice then that's either 80% (of forms returned) or 8% (of forms issued). That's a significant difference of interpretation, wouldn't you say?

Just interested, that's all - you were the one rushing to trumpet the decisive nature of the survey... Normally I wouldn't be so picky, but given that's what passes for debate (along with name-calling) on this site, I thought I'd join in.

No matter, the debate seems to have moved on... or just ground to a halt?

[Porty]

Just interested, that's all - you were the one rushing to trumpet the decisive nature of the survey... Normally I wouldn't be so picky.

Well to be honest I disn't want to kick a man when he was down but you have bullied me into it.

I have to assume that you opted for Option A and Mrs Portyman too. The same applies to my fellow school board member and anti and his partner, who I'm sure also chose option A.

I have already said that I believe that the numbers that supported Option A were inflated and I explained why. There were over 1000 households surveyed, many of whom had two surveys and if you discount yourselves there was only another 7 people who Opted for A. You must be gutted. Was it yourself that claimed the park was well-loved by everyone?

[PortyMan]

Just interested, that's all - you were the one rushing to trumpet the decisive nature of the survey... Normally I wouldn't be so picky.

Well to be honest I disn't want to kick a man when he was down but you have bullied me into it.

I have to assume that you opted for Option A and Mrs Portyman too. The same applies to my fellow school board member and anti and his partner, who I'm sure also chose option A.

I have already said that I believe that the numbers that supported Option A were inflated and I explained why. There were over 1000 households surveyed, many of whom had two surveys and if you discount yourselves there was only another 7 people who Opted for A. You must be gutted. Was it yourself that claimed the park was well-loved by everyone?

You're having a laugh? Is he having a laugh?

[Porty]

No matter, the debate seems to have moved on... or just ground to a halt?

Not so much moved on, we are getting closer to the truth. And the truth is going to be one of the key deciion factors on Dec 21st.

I still think the PPAG strategy: the hijacked golfers meetings, the exaggerated golf course usage, the poorly researched leaflets, the lie about the gift, the mis-represetation of the St John's position in the recent submission, the desire to build on another park, the vile and uncaring attitude to decant, the infering that the coucil and their consultants were liars (and right there in the council chambers too), will count against them. I would be surprised if a campaign to save a park had ever had so little support.

Then there's the individual tactics; the half-quotes, the deliberate mis-interpretations, the name callling, the personal insults, the personal allegations and the thinly veiled attempts to close POL down.

Bankrupt springs to mind.

It has not been a pretty debate but the pro-school in the park campaigners have at least stuck to the truth, conducted our research well and presented our case fairly. It should count in our favour. Of course we did not only have truth in our armoury we also had what is just, fair, morally, legally, environmentally and intellectually the right thing to do.. And of course the educational argument is unimpeachable.

If Optin A is chosen on December 21st it will be a tragedy to have missed out on such an opportunity for portobello's children

[bellybabe]

Then there's the individual tactics; the half-quotes, the deliberate mis-interpretations, the name callling, the personal insults, the personal allegations and the thinly veiled attempts to close POL down.

Wow, Porty, I can't seem to get pots and kettles out of my mind! In fairness I think there has been this kind of thing on both sides at times (well, maybe not the closing POL down bit). And nobody could say with any truth you're the most innocent of people in it.

[Porty]

Then there's the individual tactics; the half-quotes, the deliberate mis-interpretations, the name callling, the personal insults, the personal allegations and the thinly veiled attempts to close POL down.

Wow, Porty, I can't seem to get pots and kettles out of my mind! In fairness I think there has been this kind of thing on both sides at times (well, maybe not the closing POL down bit). And nobody could say with any truth you're the most innocent of people in it.

interesting that you say that you "think" as opposed to the evidence we witnessed a few posts back from Portyman.

I can remember one name "nimby" being used but there are not many, if any "half-quotes, deliberate mis-interpretations, personal insults, allegations, personal or otherwise" that have emanated from supporters of PFANS, myself included.

I admit. I have been guilty of ridicule and the belittling of arguments.

[Dadaist]

Then there's the individual tactics; the half-quotes, the deliberate mis-interpretations, the name callling, the personal insults, the personal allegations and the thinly veiled attempts to close POL down.

Wow, Porty, I can't seem to get pots and kettles out of my mind! In fairness I think there has been this kind of thing on both sides at times (well, maybe not the closing POL down bit). And nobody could say with any truth you're the most innocent of people in it.

I completely agree with what Bellybabe just said about this sanctimoniousness. I can't get those utensils out of my mind either - now - although the mental picture which sprang to my mind first involved religion.

[PortyMan]

It would be hard for us to try and defend against an accusation against one sidedness, then, when one of the more vocal PPAG supporters removes every post they've made on the subject, wouldn't it? Of course it now looks much more one-sided than it did.

It's also rather odd that a schoolboard member so vocal in speaking out against new schools has decided to remove the public record of all those anti-schools in the park comments.

Sorry Bellybabe, but this is the full quote...

You could even up the debate (and make it much more readable ) by removing just one more person's contributions !

[PortyMan]

Just interested, that's all - you were the one rushing to trumpet the decisive nature of the survey... Normally I wouldn't be so picky.

Well to be honest I disn't want to kick a man when he was down but you have bullied me into it.

I have to assume that you opted for Option A and Mrs Portyman too. The same applies to my fellow school board member and anti and his partner, who I'm sure also chose option A.

I have already said that I believe that the numbers that supported Option A were inflated and I explained why. There were over 1000 households surveyed, many of whom had two surveys and if you discount yourselves there was only another 7 people who Opted for A. You must be gutted. Was it yourself that claimed the park was well-loved by everyone?

I would have trimmed, but you insist on full quotes now ...

That last part is a question. To which the answer, in true DailyMail style, is 'no'. But then, you already knew that.

It's apparent that you don't care about the park (and never have) along with Bob (defender to the death of green space on his doorstep - oops, that post was 'removed', how sinister... ). So not 'everyone' loves the park. OK? Clear? Understand?

But I do. So do many others. I have suggested that there are more who do than there are supporting the proposals to build on the park. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish, but it seems clear to me. (And to you, in your heart of hearts... go on, admit it!)

Besides the figures you quote would suggest that the numbers voting for option b/c are about 77? (12.5% = 11, do the math(s)...)

From a thousand? Sorry a thousand households, that's something between 1 and 2 thousand then. And from a survey issued by the school to parents (so figures are probably inflated by rabid 'schools on the park' supporters? By your own logic.) So what does this prove? Answers on a postcard...

Love the ranting though... Great stuff. Nonsense, of course, but great fun.

Liked the bit about being 'bullied into kicking a man when he's down' - what did I do? Look at you funny?

And who says I'm down?

[Bob Jefferson]

Portyman, I have just skimmed over today's posts on this subject because none of them appear to be of any consequence. However, I am intrigued to know which post you refer to that you believe has been 'removed'? I am not in the habit of removing posts that I have made as I believe that members should take responsibility for what they write.

I don't know what the actual 'turnout' figures are for the PHS surveys. I would imagine that they are pretty high for the staff and also for the pupils, assuming it was distributed and completed within school-time. If, on the other hand, you are sending home forms for completion by parents then I would expect a much lower return rate, regardless of what was being asked of them. That isn't necessarily a reflection of interest/disinterest but rather a symptom of the lazy, disorganised, apathetic bunch we are, and I include myself in that description because much to my annoyance I found my own completed, but sadly unreturned, questionnaire lying under a pile of stuff on the coffee table just the other day.

So, I would expect the actual number of questionnaires returned to be pretty low, and that goes for both PHS and St Johns. Nevertheless, we do know that of the parents who did get their act together to return their forms, an overwhelming majority favoured a school in the park and there was a clear preference for Option C as predicted.

Now, can anyone tell us what the results were from St Johns? I will be happy to accept either 'real' numbers or percentages. Or for that matter a bar chart, a pie chart or a Venn diagram. Why is this information being withheld?

[Porty]

Love the ranting though... Great stuff. Nonsense, of course, but great fun.

Which bits are nonsense?

[Porty]

I have suggested that there are more who do than there are supporting the proposals to build on the park. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish, but it seems clear to me. ?

Yes you have suggested it but you are not able to back it up. What source are you using? (Only 11 people out of 1500 or so
truly local people opted for A)

And yes, it may seem clear to you but we've seen things seem clear to you before. Remember your claim about building on portobello park being in clear breach of the central edinburgh local plan. You exact words were "that's clear to me I'd say" . And your smugness was tangible.

Until that is Wangi pointed out that the the central edinburgh local plan didn't include portobello. So i'm afraid your "clarity" isn't worth Jack.


There are countless other examples but hey we've been through those.

[Bob Jefferson]

I have suggested that there are more who do than there are supporting the proposals to build on the park. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish, but it seems clear to me. ?

Yes you have suggested it but you are not able to back it up. What source are you using?

Let me guess. Is it the 708 adults and children worldwide who thought that by signing an online petition they were saving green space?

[Porty]

I have suggested that there are more who do than there are supporting the proposals to build on the park. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish, but it seems clear to me. ?

Yes you have suggested it but you are not able to back it up. What source are you using?

Let me guess. Is it the 708 adults and children worldwide who thought that by signing an online petition they were saving green space?

Nope. Think the 708 relates to the petition asking for a consultation prior to building on Portobello Park. Well, thats what the words say anyway. You may be getting confused because the petiton is run by the Portobello Park Action Group whose stated aim is to preserve Portobelo Park.

Its the very same group whose chairperson sat in the council chambers and suggested building in Figgate Park. So regardless of what the people signing that petition may have thought. If its successful then it will do what it says on the tin.

Can you imagine what the scrutineers are going to say, when they are de-duping and authenticating the petitioons?

"The covering letter says its a petition against building on Portobello Park. I have read and re-read the petition and nowhere does it say that. I don't feel i can support what is said in the covering letter. The petition asks for a consultation and we have had one"

So, NO! I still don't know what source Portyman is using toi support hisdeclartion.

[Bob Jefferson]

Now, can anyone tell us what the results were from St Johns? I will be happy to accept either 'real' numbers or percentages. Or for that matter a bar chart, a pie chart or a Venn diagram. Why is this information being withheld?

Further to this, in an attempt to obtain clarification I spoke to Barbara Service, HT at St Johns. She was able to confirm that letters have been received from parents requesting this information and that the matter was being attended to.

From our conversation I learned that it was a very close result between a re-build on the vacated PHS site and Portobello Park, possibly a tie. I was also told that the questionnaire sent to parents informed them that the results would not be made public, this presumably being the justification for the failure to publish the results.

I am in no doubt that the results will vindicate the School Board's decision to recommend Portobello Park. Clearly, it would be madness to conduct a poll of parents and then act contrary to their wishes. In which case, why don't they just publish the results? By refusing to do so, they are causing needless speculation.

And how does the Council evaluate their submission without evidence that the School Board's views are in accordance with those of the parents?

[Bob Jefferson]

Perhaps what we need is some kind of exit poll? Would any St Johns parent care to divulge which option they voted for?

[Porty]

Thought it may be useful to have an easy to read balance sheet to keep track on individuals or groups who have spoken up on a school in portobello park. A sort of where we are at at a glance. As other gropus, individuals declare we can adjust the balance sheet. Some groups like PHS have declared in sub-groups. Apologies if I missed anyone off.

SCHOOL ON PORTOBELLO PARK-THE BALANCE SHEET


ASSETS

PFANS
PHS STAFF
PHS PUPILS
PHS PARENTS
PHS SMT
PHS SUPPORT STAFF
PHS SCHOOL BOARD
St JOHNS SCHOOL
TOWERBANK STAFF
TOWERBANK PARENTS
TOWERBANK SCHOOL BOARD
MAUREEN CHILD
LAWRENCE MARSHALL


LIABILITIES
PPAG*




YET TO DECLARE

Duddingston Primary, Brunstane Primary, Parsons Green Primary, Lismore Primary, MP, MSP, Councillor Berry, Portobello Thistle

[bellybabe]

I voted for rebuilidng on the PHS site.

[Bob Jefferson]

Thank you. May I ask you a further question?

Do you think that the results should be made publicly available?

[bellybabe]

Yes.

I don't remember the letter saying results wouldn't be published; I thought it said individual comments wouldn't, but maybe it said individual "responses" which i would have taken to mean the more long winded answers - I assumed the statistics would be made available. But if Ms Service says that what it said I mustn't have been paying attention.

"Bellybabe could do better..."...!

Presumably it can be obtained thorugh a FOI request?

[Bob Jefferson]

Anyone still have a copy for clarification? I agree entirely that it would be inappropriate to make public individual comments, although a representative selection could be published (without being attributed to a particular author) to give a flavour of opinion expressed.

In any case, that's not what is being asked for. All that is being requested is the numbers, expressed in real or percentage terms, of parents who voted for each option.

Anyone else for the exit poll?

[Bob Jefferson]

The Scottish Executive 'Common Good' session is now available to view on Holyrood TV.

You can FF to 2 mins 50 secs when the action starts. The Q & A teleconference with Andy Wightman continues until 42 mins. Sound is a bit dodgy but listenable. To listen to the petitioners session, FF to 1 hr 42 mins. This again lasts for around 40 mins.

Common Good

[Bob Jefferson]

I have now located the minutes, basically a transcription in fact, of the meeting on the 14 November:

Local Government and Transport Committee Official Report 14 November 2006

Further evidence relating to this matter was considered on 21 November:

Written Evidence to Local Government & Transport Committee by The Society of Local Government Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland (SOLAR) and Audit Scotland

[Bob Jefferson]

Again, the meeting on 21 November can be viewed online on Holyrood TV. It runs for just short of 90 mins:

Evidence from SOLAR on Common Good

[gilo]

This isn’t my opinion (although I welcome it). It was discussed at the Local Government and Transport Committee at the Parliament. The question was asked by one of the committee members, and Andy Wightman responded to say that as the law stands, common good land cannot be used for statutory functions.

Thanks to Bob for pasting details of the committee mentioned above. Having looked at the written account, Andy Wightman says that he formed his opinion about common good land not being for use for statutory functions from looking at the legislation and being "helpfully informed by Andrew Ferguson, who is a solicitor with Fife Council and whose recent book on common good law I commend to the Committee."

However, one Andrew Ferguson from Fife Council also appeared before the Committee on behalf of of the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland (SOLAR). The SOLAR written submission says:

Other than the requirement to have regard to the interests of the former burgh’s inhabitants, there is no specific legal requirement as to how the common good fund should be spent. There is nothing legally to stop the local authority from using the fund for one of its statutory purposes.

In terms of disposing of the land, the SOLAR submission goes on to say what Seanie has basically already said.

[Porty]

Beautifully put Gilo.

Those documents are an interesting and informative read.

[Bob Jefferson]

Meanwhile, over on the Pottygreenkeepers forum there still appears to be no way to register or contact the administrator.

Have a go yourself at www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/forum

[seanie]

Since Jamesie seemed to want a summary I’ll provide one, albeit from the perspective of a sneering, cynical propagandist.

Portobello School is in poor condition and is no longer fit for purpose. A refurbishment, itself disruptive and expensive, would not address the underlying physical inadequacy and so a new school is required.

For the purposes of evaluating sites the model chosen was for a school of 1200 pupils (less than the current role of 1400+) with an on site all-weather pitch. The optimum size for such an arrangement was considered to be 4.5Ha. This would not meet all sporting requirements, off-site pitches would still be needed, but is more manageable than the 6.2Ha minimum (as set down The Schools Premises (Scotland) Regulations 1967).

Of the brown-field sites put forward most were too small, not in Council ownership, or both, which ruled them out as viable prospects with the exception of the existing (enlarged) site – Option A.

Under the PPP2 round a couple of years ago it was proposed to replace the school on the existing site. This is possible but has a number of drawbacks. The site is fundamentally too small (2.4Ha). Leaving aside the issue of playing fields the site is still below the statutory minimum and that statutory minimum itself falls well short of what would be regarded good practice by today’s standards. However by extending the site to include St John’s the shortfall would be eased.

The combined site, at 3.5Ha, would still fall below the optimum 4.5Ha but an on-site all weather pitch could be accommodated. However there is a significant risk that the resulting design would be compromised. The limitations of the site would impose more constraints on the design and could recreate the same sort of problem the existing building presents: a school on a site fundamentally too small, unable to cope with adaptation or change. Most sports provision would continue to be provided off site, at some distance which is far from ideal, and a decant for 2-3 years would be required involving considerable disruption and expense.

From a purely educational point of view option A appears the least satisfactory but in its favour it would involve the least loss of green space. It requires the relocation of St John’s, almost certainly to a green-field site, but that’s considerably smaller than the high school. It also represents a low planning risk in itself but does carry the planning risk of the prior relocation of St John’s. That prior relocation would make this the longest to deliver: a new PHS might be ready in 7-8 years time. It's also expected to be the most expensive option.

The only realistic alternatives involve building PHS on a greenfield site. That inevitably represents a significant planning hurdle, albeit to different degrees depending on location. Most sites were ruled out for a combination of factors: particular planning considerations, catchment location, access etc.

Two were taken to consultation: Option B – the golf course, Option C – the pitches.

Option B, on the golf course, easily allows the 4.5Ha optimum size and the adjacent pitches (at 5.7Ha) would provide more than sufficient additional pitch provision, easily accessible. The principal difficulties would appear to be planning related; the loss of green space; loss of amenity regarding the golf course; traffic issues; public prominence.

The loss of green space might be acceptable in planning terms given the size of the site. The total area of park and golf course is 19Ha so a school at 4.5Ha would still leave 14.5Ha of publicly accessible green space. Given that the golf course could be relocated at Brunstane and the remaining green space reconfigured to increase use, the Planners might be persuaded that this represented a marginal loss of amenity. However the Planners would appear to favour Option C over B.

Option C would give the school a prominent public location and access off Milton Road would be easier to manage in terms of traffic. The loss of greenspace would be a planning obstacle but again there would still be14.5Ha of publicly accessible green space and the two existing community pitches would remain. Not relocating the golf course would also be easier and cheaper.

In educational terms the large question mark over option C is the pitch provision. One all weather pitch and two community grass pitches for shared school use falls well short of the statutory minimum required under the regulations. Whether that level of provision is sufficient to sustain the needs of both the school and community is questionable and certainly hasn’t been demonstrated.

Both options B & C obviate the need for a disruptive and costly decant and, even with the anticipated lengthy planning process, are considered quicker to deliver than Option A: 5-6 years.

Other suggestions have been put forward for replacing PHS but none seem plausible. Options A, B & C probably do represent the most viable solutions presently available.

There are two other question that should be mentioned if only in passing.

The fundamental issue of funding has not been resolved. The Council doesn’t have the capital resources to fund a project on this scale and their capacity to borrow is severely restricted. They’ve stated their intention to approach the Scottish Executive for funding but if that should be unsuccessful, or provide only partial funding, then the sale of assets to generate capital may be required. No indication has been given of what might be sold or where but Labour has promised a manifesto commitment that no housing will be built on the golf course or park. Quite where that leaves the financial viability of new schools is unclear.

The other issue that seems to be coming to the fore is whether the park & golf course is Common Good land. The Council’s legal advice is that it isn’t, PPAG’s legal advice is that it is. However it’s not clear whether this is a significant issue or not. LA's don't appear to be aware of a legal constraint on such a use and there’s at least one current example of a school being built on Common Good land, with others that have been proposed, without an apparent legal impediment. In any event the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 makes express provision for transferring land out of the Common Good and substituting it for other land. Given the newly acquired land up at Brunstane a fairly obvious (and cost free) resolution would seem possible should the land be Common Good.

[Porty]

Brilliant summation Seanie balanced and fair although I don't imagine Portyman would agree. So to even things up for Jamesie here's Portyman's landmark opening post from way back when:


[quote="PortyMan"]Hi - thought I’d join in on the ‘discussion’… There’s quite a lot to comment on, even if it is all conjecture, rumour and gossip? So apologies in advance if this rambles…

First, I declare an interest… I chose to live on Park Avenue. That is, I didn’t stick a pin in a map and I didn’t find it in a lucky bag. My, then pregnant, wife and I selected this area from a variety of alternatives, largely, but not simply, because it overlooks the park and golf course – an ideal situation to raise a family in our view. We did, of course, pay a premium for this, but were happy to do so.

I have since come to love and enjoy the eccentric nature and community spirit of Portobello (Hence my forum ‘name’, which I also use in a variety of completely unrelated situations… despite, technically, not being in or from Portobello.)

Now, seventeen years later… I find that this fine amenity on my doorstep is to be destroyed, with a direct impact on my immediate environment, the quality of my family’s life and the value of my home. And for what? To compensate for the failure, short-sightedness and incompetence of the education authority and council?

This isn’t about a new school. Everyone – pretty much - agrees a new school is needed, or at least ‘a good thing’. It’s the location that’s at issue (and in turn, the funding, because we can’t build anything in Edinburgh without giving housing/supermarket developers their ‘cut’).

There is no alternative, we hear (where have we heard that before?). But, no mention is made of any alternatives; no discussion is enjoyed, no thought given. Just mysterious experts who’ve already made the decision but are unable (or incapable) of informing those most directly affected (I’m also a parent of a child at the school)?

So - the ‘old’ school site (which was previously playing fields!) becomes housing. Bearing in mind there’s an eight-storey building on the site at present and that precedence is a major consideration in planning decisions, that’s a lot of flats!

And the Golf Course becomes two schools and houses… and “Powerleagueâ€

[Porty]

Community Council Members
Local City of Edinburgh Councillors
MSPs

REPLACEMENT OF PORTOBELLO HIGH SCHOOL

The consultation period to consider plans for replacement of Portobello High School, also St John's Primary School next door, has now passed. Early indications are that a clear preference exists in the community to replace one or both schools on part of the Portobello Park or adjacent golf course. The full results of the consultation go before the City of Edinburgh Council on 21 December. There is general, and welcome, acceptance that re-building both schools is a necessary and urgent matter, and that the sites shortlisted in the report for consultation were broadly accepted as the only viable options.

During the consultation, the City of Edinburgh Council made clear its intentions to seek funding primarily from the Scottish Executive to re-build both schools, on the basis that such an approach was consistent with the Executive's policy on the previous 2 Parliaments. The Council also said that there was no intention to build housing on Portobello Park, or sell portions of the Park for this purpose by private developers. Without this assurance, the consultation would have been in serious trouble. Although affordability of the whole venture is at risk, we commend this approach.

Looking forward, regardless of which option succeeds, there are 2 key tasks for public representatives:

1. to expedite planning and avoid hampering progress through objection and legal challenge if at all possible; and

2. to secure a clear funding commitment at an early stage.

On the matter of planning, there needs to be wide involvement of local community interests. a range of stakeholders and, in particular, neighbours to the chosen sites. Portobello Community Council should remain a key forum for disconsolate community members, although the community has nothing to gain and much to lose from further delay after the decision of 21 December. Adherence to the planning process is important, as is the attraction of designing a structure and surrounding environment that is an asset to the community, a centrepiece to East Edinburgh, and potentially a magnet for the community due to excellent and sustainable design.

Whatever the outcome of forthcoming elections, the Scottish Executive will want to invest in education and complete programmes of renewal in school building. Withholding commitment to fund the re-build of 2 schools makes no sense. This commitment would remove uncertainty and enable planning with confidence.

We therefore call on local representatives at Community, City and Parliamentary level to lead the East Edinburgh community through the most efficient planning process with wide ownership of the venture, to broaden the scope of re-building to become much more than two schools - a community asset; and to ensure that the City secures funding commitment at the earliest possible stage.

Yours sincerely






DR ANDREW FRASER
Chair, Portobello High School Board

[Porty]

True but people are also entitled to a fair hearing prior to denigration. Hesitate before denigrate may be a good bit of advice for you to follow in future.

[Dadaist]

The casual reader would have to look at the links provided for my post to make any sense at all.

Meaning you gave no thought to the volatile nature of links - whatever it was you pointed to could be removed or changed.

I think I prefer it when you tell us about minimum school footprint sizes and stuff - you've produced some excellent information over the course of this debate and I feel that you cheapen those posts (which took a lot of your time and effort) by joining in with the likes of Bob in a bit of PPAG-bashing.

Negative campaigning is not your forte.