Perhaps if the whole community had got behind the school then it may have happened sooner. Having said that the support at the town hall last night was excellent. Most questions raised were genuine, not the usual whingers Portobello is now, sadly, famous for.
It was very heartening when one of the panel received the biggest round of applause of the night after reminding a PPAGer that if they want to object to the choice of site, object to the planning application.
All in all it was very positive and the meeting from beginning to end was very good indeed.
New Portobello High School - on going issues
At the forthcoming PCC meeting I very much doubt the Chairperson will be encouraging the anti-school zealots to "stick to the matter in hand". It's a bit like putting Yogi Bear in charge of picnic basket supervision.allaboardtheskylark wrote: As for the arguements they seem to just be the same old rubbish. Three times they were reminded to stick to the matter in hand. They were also reminded if they wished to object there was a planning procedure to be undertaken and that would be the place to object to the choice of site.
I guess it will be up to the neutrals and pro-schoolers to try and get a balanced representation to the consultation. Will there be a vote? I expect so. The vote will likely be on "do we support this school in the park" and the PCC is now so loaded with anti-schoolers they are bound to win that vote.
Trouble is; a vote for "no new school on the park" will be akin to voting for Bob Marley in next years Scottish Government elections. He ain't standing, he's dead.
I really like the design, I only hope the End Users find it acceptable.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
For those of you, like myself, who were unable to make last night's presentation, or if you would just like to peruse the latest drawings at your leisure:
PHS Town Hall Presentation 25 August 2010
PHS Town Hall Presentation 25 August 2010
I've given some more thought to some of the issues I heard raised at the meeting;
I can understand concerns about Milton Road. It is a very busy road. But there are many signalled crossing points along it and large numbers of pupils already cross it daily to get to the current high school. The additional signalled crossing point and timed 20mph zone should improve safety in the immediate vicinity of the school, and as to the wider network there’s not much change to the current situation; kids have to cross roads to get to schools, unless someone’s proposing a radical change to our entire transport infrastructure. Actually I’d be quite keen on a radical change to our entire transport network but I’m not holding my breath.
The other design aspect that helps from safety point of view is the circulation zone within the site, between the school and the road. By having that buffer zone set back from the road pupils can feed off to Hope Lane & Park Avenue without being routed right up against Milton Road. It’s also proposed to have areas set back from the road so pupils can wait for buses. There’s a bit of a pinch point from the top of Park Avenue along to the junction where the pavement’s a bit narrower than surrounding ones, but it’s still a pretty normal pavement width.
There’s some rat-running along Park Avenue and Hope Lane already, but they’re still fairly quiet roads, and with new and improved paths on the Park perimeter as well as cycle routes, they should provide fairly safe approaches to the school. Concerns have been raised about the bridge across the railway and bypass and it is worthwhile looking at it to see if improvements are required. But the bridge is already designated a main cycle route, is currently used by pupils on their way to Portobello High School, and I don’t recall coming across any concerns about it before. So I remain to be convinced that there’s a major issue with the bridge.
Another issue that came up several times was traffic generated by the school, by staff and pupils. In terms of staff parking that’s pretty much determined by the Planning Department and sounds like it will be between 110-120 places. That should be pretty adequate on a day to day basis and on occasions that overflow parking is required it will have to go on the surrounding streets, most likely Park Avenue. The very top of Park Avenue is more congested since the properties there don’t have drives/garages, but most of Park Avenue has off-street parking and could easily accommodate more on-street.
The actual access to the car-park is just a straightforward turn off Milton Road; there isn’t sufficient traffic generated to require a more elaborate junction. A concern was raised that the car park access crossed over the pedestrian route so there was a potential conflict between cars and pupils. That’s a reasonable point, but most teachers arrive at school well before most pupils do, and leave well after. If it’s a tight junction to control speed and designed with a raised table with pedestrian priority, the risks are pretty low. That might also discourage unauthorised use of the car park; if access and egress are slowed then it becomes less tempting as a drop-off.
I can understand concerns about Milton Road. It is a very busy road. But there are many signalled crossing points along it and large numbers of pupils already cross it daily to get to the current high school. The additional signalled crossing point and timed 20mph zone should improve safety in the immediate vicinity of the school, and as to the wider network there’s not much change to the current situation; kids have to cross roads to get to schools, unless someone’s proposing a radical change to our entire transport infrastructure. Actually I’d be quite keen on a radical change to our entire transport network but I’m not holding my breath.
The other design aspect that helps from safety point of view is the circulation zone within the site, between the school and the road. By having that buffer zone set back from the road pupils can feed off to Hope Lane & Park Avenue without being routed right up against Milton Road. It’s also proposed to have areas set back from the road so pupils can wait for buses. There’s a bit of a pinch point from the top of Park Avenue along to the junction where the pavement’s a bit narrower than surrounding ones, but it’s still a pretty normal pavement width.
There’s some rat-running along Park Avenue and Hope Lane already, but they’re still fairly quiet roads, and with new and improved paths on the Park perimeter as well as cycle routes, they should provide fairly safe approaches to the school. Concerns have been raised about the bridge across the railway and bypass and it is worthwhile looking at it to see if improvements are required. But the bridge is already designated a main cycle route, is currently used by pupils on their way to Portobello High School, and I don’t recall coming across any concerns about it before. So I remain to be convinced that there’s a major issue with the bridge.
Another issue that came up several times was traffic generated by the school, by staff and pupils. In terms of staff parking that’s pretty much determined by the Planning Department and sounds like it will be between 110-120 places. That should be pretty adequate on a day to day basis and on occasions that overflow parking is required it will have to go on the surrounding streets, most likely Park Avenue. The very top of Park Avenue is more congested since the properties there don’t have drives/garages, but most of Park Avenue has off-street parking and could easily accommodate more on-street.
The actual access to the car-park is just a straightforward turn off Milton Road; there isn’t sufficient traffic generated to require a more elaborate junction. A concern was raised that the car park access crossed over the pedestrian route so there was a potential conflict between cars and pupils. That’s a reasonable point, but most teachers arrive at school well before most pupils do, and leave well after. If it’s a tight junction to control speed and designed with a raised table with pedestrian priority, the risks are pretty low. That might also discourage unauthorised use of the car park; if access and egress are slowed then it becomes less tempting as a drop-off.
Which brings us to another issue; there seems to be a consensus that drop-off should not be encouraged, but a recognition that it’s inevitable to some extent. The actual numbers aren’t huge; from existing data maybe around 140 cars. It’s reasonable to expect that, similar to the current school, they’ll be dropping off in a variety of locations over a period of time, instead of being concentrated. Where that will happen is difficult to predict but if it is distributed round the surrounding network it shouldn’t be a big issue. Kids are dropped off on Brighton Place each day because that’s where they meet their mates before walking up to PHS; that might not change.
And whilst relocating the high school will change some travel patterns the proposed school is still pretty central to the catchment and not a great distance from the existing. Just as a point of reference I googled directions from Greggs. To the existing school the distance is about 850m; a 10 minute walk. To the Park Avenue entrance of the new school it would be about 250m further; an extra 3 minutes. The school will be slightly further from some people and slightly closer to others; I can't see that changing how people travel much, or increasing vehicle traffic on the wider network. The new site is also better served by buses so that may help reduce traffic generated by the school.
And whilst I appreciate concerns about Milton Road, there is also a wider picture to consider. Portobello High School has a very large catchment; from up by Meadowbank Stadium to the boundary with Musselburgh, from King’s Road to Bingham. And if you look at the accident statistics for pupils in general, they don’t tend to be concentrated around schools themselves. Accidents tend to happen on the way home, at the home end of the journey. So whilst engineering solutions around the school are important, they’re not the be all and end all.
To really address road safety and transport issues surrounding the school, you need an on-going catchment wide Travel Plan, that can highlight problems and develop strategies to tackle them. Travel Plans are sometimes required as a Planning Condition on a development. If such a condition were attached to any approval for the new school that would allow time for a comprehensive strategy to be in place by the time the school was operational.
That might highlight additional measures that would be beneficial, but as things stand I really don’t see any huge, glaring problem with what’s proposed.
And whilst relocating the high school will change some travel patterns the proposed school is still pretty central to the catchment and not a great distance from the existing. Just as a point of reference I googled directions from Greggs. To the existing school the distance is about 850m; a 10 minute walk. To the Park Avenue entrance of the new school it would be about 250m further; an extra 3 minutes. The school will be slightly further from some people and slightly closer to others; I can't see that changing how people travel much, or increasing vehicle traffic on the wider network. The new site is also better served by buses so that may help reduce traffic generated by the school.
And whilst I appreciate concerns about Milton Road, there is also a wider picture to consider. Portobello High School has a very large catchment; from up by Meadowbank Stadium to the boundary with Musselburgh, from King’s Road to Bingham. And if you look at the accident statistics for pupils in general, they don’t tend to be concentrated around schools themselves. Accidents tend to happen on the way home, at the home end of the journey. So whilst engineering solutions around the school are important, they’re not the be all and end all.
To really address road safety and transport issues surrounding the school, you need an on-going catchment wide Travel Plan, that can highlight problems and develop strategies to tackle them. Travel Plans are sometimes required as a Planning Condition on a development. If such a condition were attached to any approval for the new school that would allow time for a comprehensive strategy to be in place by the time the school was operational.
That might highlight additional measures that would be beneficial, but as things stand I really don’t see any huge, glaring problem with what’s proposed.
As per, your synopsis makes total sense and seems entirely reasonable. However, it is not me or those of my ilk that you have to convince.
The Traffic Traffickers will need more convincing. May I propose a minor alteration to your presentation that may help persuade them. Try editing your final sentence thus:
That might highlight additional measures that would be beneficial, but as things stand I really don’t see any huge, glaring problem with what’s proposed.
I think that should do it.
The Traffic Traffickers will need more convincing. May I propose a minor alteration to your presentation that may help persuade them. Try editing your final sentence thus:
That might highlight additional measures that would be beneficial, but as things stand I really don’t see any huge, glaring problem with what’s proposed.
I think that should do it.
I can imagine more pupils crossing Milton Road at lunchtimes as 'Asda' will be within walking distance and if the old 'Big W' site owners are granted change of use to food retail, that will also draw kids in.
Having said that, I know of an Edinburgh school, where the pupils regularly cross one of two busy roads at lunchtimes, to get either to local shops or to a major supermarket and come to no harm from the traffic.
Having said that, I know of an Edinburgh school, where the pupils regularly cross one of two busy roads at lunchtimes, to get either to local shops or to a major supermarket and come to no harm from the traffic.
www.porty.org.uk
-
allaboardtheskylark
- Posts: 128
- Joined: 20 Jan 2010, 01:04
And of course there is the option of simply requiring pupils to stay on the school grounds throughout the school day.Marya wrote:I can imagine more pupils crossing Milton Road at lunchtimes as 'Asda' will be within walking distance and if the old 'Big W' site owners are granted change of use to food retail, that will also draw kids in.
Having said that, I know of an Edinburgh school, where the pupils regularly cross one of two busy roads at lunchtimes, to get either to local shops or to a major supermarket and come to no harm from the traffic.
Because the drawings are at such a small scale they might not be the best way to judge size of spaces or their functionality. When it comes to the actual schedule of accomodation that'll almost certainly be based on a standardised assessment of areas required.
And overall the school's been sized for a roll of 1400, whereas the catchment roll is around 1200, so in that sense it's been oversized if anything.
And overall the school's been sized for a roll of 1400, whereas the catchment roll is around 1200, so in that sense it's been oversized if anything.
-
SoupDragon
- Posts: 2201
- Joined: 03 Oct 2006, 11:02
What's the current roll of the school? There's always applicants from outwith catchment areas.
As for pupils crossing Milton Road there are at present 3 controlled crossings between the park and Milton Link, (near Hope Lane, Magdalene Drive and Milton Link/Bailyfield Road ) there's also an underpass that goes along the side of the old Big W and along to Asda.
As for pupils crossing Milton Road there are at present 3 controlled crossings between the park and Milton Link, (near Hope Lane, Magdalene Drive and Milton Link/Bailyfield Road ) there's also an underpass that goes along the side of the old Big W and along to Asda.
The actual roll has been between 1400 and 1450 over the last few years, but only about 1200 have been catchment pupils.
The original proposal for replacing the school was for 1200, but the school preferred 1400 as it allows a broader curriculum. Eventually the Education department accepted a 1400 replacement. There's a blip in catchment pupils expected but the school as sized is comfortably larger than the current and projected catchment demand.
The original proposal for replacing the school was for 1200, but the school preferred 1400 as it allows a broader curriculum. Eventually the Education department accepted a 1400 replacement. There's a blip in catchment pupils expected but the school as sized is comfortably larger than the current and projected catchment demand.
PPAG have been at it again.
Any advance?
I count seven falsehoods."Members of the community in Portobello, Edinburgh are fighting to save publicly owned land. One third of the community are against the council using Portobello Park to build a new school on. They want the school built on the current site, which the council has earmarked for housing development. The park is supposed to be protected as Common Good land, which means that it is community property held in trust by the Council and should never be built on. The community are preparing for a legal battle against the Council and are having to find £20-30,000 to prove that the land belongs to the them. It seems that, in the past, authorities recognised that people need open space and green places, and acted as guardians of these assets. But now the Council are hoping that they win a legal case, which will mean they can use the land to build on. If they do win, it will give a green light to build on or change use of Common Good land throughout the country."
Any advance?
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
1. "One third of the community are against...."
I don't know where the one third figure comes from (although it does raise a question about the other two thirds) but in any event there's a problem. The PPAG web-site says they represent a SIGNIFCANT MAJORITY. Those are not compatible claims. So at best they're spreading falsehoods on one web-site, at worst two.
2. "The park is supposed to be protected as Common Good land, which means that it is community property held in trust by the Council...
Common Good land is not 'held in trust'. It is legally owned by the Council. That fact is established by the 1973 Local Government Scotland Act and is beyond question.
3. "...and should never be built on"
Whilst there are restrictions on the use and disposal of Common Good land, that does not mean Common Good land should never be built. Indeed, the Courts have gone so far as to say that their permission is NOT REQUIRED for schools to be built on Common Good land.
4. "The community are preparing for a legal battle against the Council and are having to find £20-30,000 to prove that the land belongs to the them."
This sentence may not actually be a falsehood so I include it only provisionally. Instead it may just be a sincere statement of utter nonsense. I'll take it in two parts;
"having to find £20-30,000"
To raise an action in the Inner house of the Court of Session? That may be enough for a couple of consultants at a Planning Inquiry but QCs and court cases? Dream on. There's also the additional risk to consider. Take a case to court and lose and the Council might pursue it's own legal costs. You need to raise enough money, not just to cover your own costs, but the other sides should you lose. Otherwise those who mount the action could face very serious financial difficulties, because such an action can only be mounted by an entity that can be held liable; an individual, a group of individuals, a company etc. I'd suggest £100,000 as an absolute minimum.
5. "to prove that the land belongs to the them."
If the land isn't Common Good, it belongs to the Council. If the land is Common Good, it belongs to the Council. Under no conceivable circumstances does it belong to a self-declared 'one third' of the community who don't like the High School proposals.
6. "But now the Council are hoping that they win a legal case..."
No they're not; there is no legal case, they're not expecting one, and so they don't have any hopes regarding said non-existent legal case.
7. "If they do win, it will give a green light to build on or change use of Common Good land throughout the country."
If they win the non-existent legal case, it will not change the situation one iota and will not give the green light to anything. The Council received legal opinion from two QCs that permission from the courts was not necessary for the school to be built on Common Good land.
That opinion was in line with recent legal precedent;
An actual court case;
"the petitioners wish to use the land for the construction of two schools on a shared site with shared facilities. Both areas of ground form part of the petitioners' common good."
North Lanarkshire wanted to build two schools on parks forming part of the Common Good and went to court to seek permission. And the Court said?
"...the use of land held for the purposes of the public park to construct a school and playing fields does not involve any "disposal" for the purposes of the subsection. In view of that decision, which is obviously binding on me, I consider that there is no "disposal" in the present cases. It follows that section 75(2) has no application. In these circumstances I refused the prayers of the petitions as unnecessary."
The Court held the petition was uneccessary.
Since the land would still be owned by the Council, and used to the benefit of the community, the Court decided that the Council didn't even need to seek permission. The proposal was perfectly legal as far as the court was concerned.
To be generous for a moment, there is always a legal case that can be made for or against something. That's true no matter how inauspicious the circumstances and that's why lawyers can command such eye-watering fees. So I've no doubt at all that some sort of legal challenge against the Council's position could be brought to Court.
But the Council's position is based on recent decisions from both the Inner and Outer Houses of the Court of Session. So any legal challenge would have to overturn those previous rulings.
Going to the Court of Session and arguing the Council is wrong is one thing.
Going to the Court of Session and arguing the Court of Session is wrong is another.
I don't know where the one third figure comes from (although it does raise a question about the other two thirds) but in any event there's a problem. The PPAG web-site says they represent a SIGNIFCANT MAJORITY. Those are not compatible claims. So at best they're spreading falsehoods on one web-site, at worst two.
2. "The park is supposed to be protected as Common Good land, which means that it is community property held in trust by the Council...
Common Good land is not 'held in trust'. It is legally owned by the Council. That fact is established by the 1973 Local Government Scotland Act and is beyond question.
3. "...and should never be built on"
Whilst there are restrictions on the use and disposal of Common Good land, that does not mean Common Good land should never be built. Indeed, the Courts have gone so far as to say that their permission is NOT REQUIRED for schools to be built on Common Good land.
4. "The community are preparing for a legal battle against the Council and are having to find £20-30,000 to prove that the land belongs to the them."
This sentence may not actually be a falsehood so I include it only provisionally. Instead it may just be a sincere statement of utter nonsense. I'll take it in two parts;
"having to find £20-30,000"
To raise an action in the Inner house of the Court of Session? That may be enough for a couple of consultants at a Planning Inquiry but QCs and court cases? Dream on. There's also the additional risk to consider. Take a case to court and lose and the Council might pursue it's own legal costs. You need to raise enough money, not just to cover your own costs, but the other sides should you lose. Otherwise those who mount the action could face very serious financial difficulties, because such an action can only be mounted by an entity that can be held liable; an individual, a group of individuals, a company etc. I'd suggest £100,000 as an absolute minimum.
5. "to prove that the land belongs to the them."
If the land isn't Common Good, it belongs to the Council. If the land is Common Good, it belongs to the Council. Under no conceivable circumstances does it belong to a self-declared 'one third' of the community who don't like the High School proposals.
6. "But now the Council are hoping that they win a legal case..."
No they're not; there is no legal case, they're not expecting one, and so they don't have any hopes regarding said non-existent legal case.
7. "If they do win, it will give a green light to build on or change use of Common Good land throughout the country."
If they win the non-existent legal case, it will not change the situation one iota and will not give the green light to anything. The Council received legal opinion from two QCs that permission from the courts was not necessary for the school to be built on Common Good land.
That opinion was in line with recent legal precedent;
An actual court case;
"the petitioners wish to use the land for the construction of two schools on a shared site with shared facilities. Both areas of ground form part of the petitioners' common good."
North Lanarkshire wanted to build two schools on parks forming part of the Common Good and went to court to seek permission. And the Court said?
"...the use of land held for the purposes of the public park to construct a school and playing fields does not involve any "disposal" for the purposes of the subsection. In view of that decision, which is obviously binding on me, I consider that there is no "disposal" in the present cases. It follows that section 75(2) has no application. In these circumstances I refused the prayers of the petitions as unnecessary."
The Court held the petition was uneccessary.
Since the land would still be owned by the Council, and used to the benefit of the community, the Court decided that the Council didn't even need to seek permission. The proposal was perfectly legal as far as the court was concerned.
To be generous for a moment, there is always a legal case that can be made for or against something. That's true no matter how inauspicious the circumstances and that's why lawyers can command such eye-watering fees. So I've no doubt at all that some sort of legal challenge against the Council's position could be brought to Court.
But the Council's position is based on recent decisions from both the Inner and Outer Houses of the Court of Session. So any legal challenge would have to overturn those previous rulings.
Going to the Court of Session and arguing the Council is wrong is one thing.
Going to the Court of Session and arguing the Court of Session is wrong is another.
Whilst not technically earmarked for housing, that's what's expected.
The Council considered whether compensatory Open Space could be provided on the existing site but concluded that it didn't make much sense;
a)Because of the proximity of Figgate Park, it wouldn't actually address any shortfalls in Open Space provision in the wider area; it's just not a very sensible location for it.
b) The site's valued at about £3.9M. Given the fairly horrendous financial squeeze looming it doesn't make sense to forgo that capital receipt; the site will be sold with the money ring-fenced for Education, Children & Families capital expenditure.
It's not confirmed but part of the site will almost certainly be allocated to St John's since their site is significantly under-sized. So that bit's not a falsehood, although it could still be misleading. Some people, unfamiliar with the issue, might read that and conclude;
"Aha! That's why the Council's building a new school on the park. They just want to sell the existing site for housing."
But, if in possession of the facts, that's clearly a very silly conclusion to come to.
Nobody would invest £43.5M in a new school, simply to get £3.9M to invest in another school in a few years time.
The Council considered whether compensatory Open Space could be provided on the existing site but concluded that it didn't make much sense;
a)Because of the proximity of Figgate Park, it wouldn't actually address any shortfalls in Open Space provision in the wider area; it's just not a very sensible location for it.
b) The site's valued at about £3.9M. Given the fairly horrendous financial squeeze looming it doesn't make sense to forgo that capital receipt; the site will be sold with the money ring-fenced for Education, Children & Families capital expenditure.
It's not confirmed but part of the site will almost certainly be allocated to St John's since their site is significantly under-sized. So that bit's not a falsehood, although it could still be misleading. Some people, unfamiliar with the issue, might read that and conclude;
"Aha! That's why the Council's building a new school on the park. They just want to sell the existing site for housing."
But, if in possession of the facts, that's clearly a very silly conclusion to come to.
Nobody would invest £43.5M in a new school, simply to get £3.9M to invest in another school in a few years time.
I doubt PPAG could demonstrate support by one third of the community, I'm not even sure what they mean by "community?" However, if it amounts to say 10000 people and they need 20 , 30 or £100,000 surely a whip around at a tennner a skull would get them the money they say they need.- simples.seanie wrote:1. "One third of the community are against...."
I don't know where the one third figure comes from (although it does raise a question about the other two thirds) but in any event there's a problem. The PPAG web-site says they represent a SIGNIFCANT MAJORITY. Those are not compatible claims. So at best they're spreading falsehoods on one web-site, at worst two.
4. "The community are preparing for a legal battle against the Council and are having to find £20-30,000 to prove that the land belongs to the them."
"having to find £20-30,000"
To raise an action in the Inner house of the Court of Session? That may be enough for a couple of consultants at a Planning Inquiry but QCs and court cases? Dream on. There's also the additional risk to consider. Take a case to court and lose and the Council might pursue it's own legal costs. You need to raise enough money, not just to cover your own costs, but the other sides should you lose. Otherwise those who mount the action could face very serious financial difficulties, because such an action can only be mounted by an entity that can be held liable; an individual, a group of individuals, a company etc. I'd suggest £100,000 as an absolute minimum.
Seanie, lets say PPAG do find a group of individuals (Monty Python) to raise action. Prior to taking on the court of session about its previous ruling would they first have to prove that the land is in fact Common Good? And if so, they presumably risk the chance of losing that argument and incurring more costs.
-
Pal of Porty
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 13:41
- Location: Old Folks Home
- Contact:
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
This is the official PCC response to the PHS designs proposals. The points made therein were collated from a meeting of a small sub-group of members. Seanie, can you remind us who that sub-group consisted of?
PCC Response to PHS Design Proposals.
PCC Response to PHS Design Proposals.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
Here are my thoughts on the response:
1. Design proposals - it's great to see such positive comments from the CC and I sincerely hope that the CC and individual members will continue to be so positive about what is an outstanding design throughout the planning process.
2. Basketball proposals - I share these concerns and I note that CC members feel that some of the open space compensation fund should be used to upgrade the basketball facilities.
3. Traffic and road safety - one or two red herrings here. The footbridge lies outwith the scope of the design and is not in the ownership of the Council. I doubt that many pupils will choose to shop in Asda at lunchtime and re. Big W, we can't judge one application in terms of what might happen at another unrelated and undecided development. Re. pick ups/drop offs I think this issue is greatly exaggerated. If the area is congested then parents will simply drop their kids off a little further away. If double yellow lines reduce parking space for residents then too bad, safety is paramount. Traffic lights might help, so might a 'no right turn' sign.
4. Open space provision - I have some sympathy with the points expressed here. Although I'm happy with the upgraded paths, I agree that they shouldn't be at the expense of such a large portion of the compensation fund. Re. informal space, there simply isn't room for this, unless you want to annexe a bit of the golf course. Feel free.
A total of £41.5 million is set aside for the new school. We know that the procurement and tendering processes are running in parallel with the planning application. In the present economic climate there are potentially large savings to be made. The project could come in under budget. And then what? The compromises that have inevitably had to be made, such as the basketball court, can be rectified? Unfortunately, that's not how the Council see it. There is a long list of other schools, including St John's, that desperately need to be replaced or upgraded and that's where any savings will be directed. That's entirely understandable but we need to fight our own corner and squeeze every penny out of this once in a lifetime opportunity.
1. Design proposals - it's great to see such positive comments from the CC and I sincerely hope that the CC and individual members will continue to be so positive about what is an outstanding design throughout the planning process.
2. Basketball proposals - I share these concerns and I note that CC members feel that some of the open space compensation fund should be used to upgrade the basketball facilities.
3. Traffic and road safety - one or two red herrings here. The footbridge lies outwith the scope of the design and is not in the ownership of the Council. I doubt that many pupils will choose to shop in Asda at lunchtime and re. Big W, we can't judge one application in terms of what might happen at another unrelated and undecided development. Re. pick ups/drop offs I think this issue is greatly exaggerated. If the area is congested then parents will simply drop their kids off a little further away. If double yellow lines reduce parking space for residents then too bad, safety is paramount. Traffic lights might help, so might a 'no right turn' sign.
4. Open space provision - I have some sympathy with the points expressed here. Although I'm happy with the upgraded paths, I agree that they shouldn't be at the expense of such a large portion of the compensation fund. Re. informal space, there simply isn't room for this, unless you want to annexe a bit of the golf course. Feel free.
A total of £41.5 million is set aside for the new school. We know that the procurement and tendering processes are running in parallel with the planning application. In the present economic climate there are potentially large savings to be made. The project could come in under budget. And then what? The compromises that have inevitably had to be made, such as the basketball court, can be rectified? Unfortunately, that's not how the Council see it. There is a long list of other schools, including St John's, that desperately need to be replaced or upgraded and that's where any savings will be directed. That's entirely understandable but we need to fight our own corner and squeeze every penny out of this once in a lifetime opportunity.
Nothing much I'd disagree with in there, I played Basketball for Edinburgh and know the value and importance it plays in Portobello HS life, I'd also agree that the £500,000 has to be ring-fenced and not diluted.Bob Jefferson wrote:This is the official PCC response to the PHS designs proposals. The points made therein were collated from a meeting of a small sub-group of members. Seanie, can you remind us who that sub-group consisted of?
PCC Response to PHS Design Proposals.
I'm not suggesting they use that money to improve sporting facilities inside the school, just improve the facilities.It's also a shame there is no pool included in the new school, but I realise there are limits.seanie wrote:The £500,000 was ringfenced for Open Space improvements which, as a category, doesn't include enhanced basketball facilities. If money's to be diverted towards that they'd need to un-ringfence it first.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
