New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Post by **wangi** » 15 May 2006, 22:13

Dave Connelly wrote:pity it was raining today, could have had better lighting

You'd be surprised... the overcast skys really bring out the greens. Best time to takes shots of flowers too...

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 15 May 2006, 22:19

wangi wrote: You'd be surprised... the overcast skys really bring out the greens.

I can only see the fairways

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 May 2006, 14:49

From today's EN Letters Page:

Make the most of opportunity at Portobello

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 17 May 2006, 06:30

wangi wrote:
Dave Connelly wrote:pity it was raining today, could have had better lighting
You'd be surprised... the overcast skys really bring out the greens. Best time to takes shots of flowers too...

Verdi verdi good point

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 May 2006, 15:38

Dave Connelly wrote:<img src="http://www.clanconnelly.com/portyonline/galleryy.jpg">

Thats not quite so bad either, (not too botanical though) pity it was raining today, could have had better lighting, but thats the beauty of the park. It looks good in most weather conditions. .

Seems nice and peaceful. Pity more people don't use it.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 19 May 2006, 16:07

Porty, can you think of a set of circumstances where, were the park and golf course threatened by a set of circumstances other than the current one, but which would have a similar outcome, you would support the golfers in their aim to save the course as-is?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 May 2006, 16:40

Dadaist wrote:Porty, can you think of a set of circumstances where, were the park and golf course threatened by a set of circumstances other than the current one, but which would have a similar outcome, you would support the golfers in their aim to save the course as-is?

I'm sure I could come up with a few. Basically if it wasn't for the fact that our children deserve a brilliant school with green space an playing fields at the heart of the community, then for me the golfers could beleft in peace.

However, there is already another set of circumstances that are a clear and present danger to the golf course. GOLF. MoM highlighted the issue above. Supply of Golf Courses is out-stripping demand. I had this chat with my friend who now lives in America, used to play for Portobello Thistle and used to golf at Porty. He is now a member of the most exclusive golf club in Cleveland. They are merging with another club from across the city, as demand no longer supports both.

Using tee-offs or whatever it is they are called? Over the last 3 years portobello golf course has lost 12% of its trade. if that trend continues, then in 12 years time less than 18,000 will tee off on an annual basis. There comes a point where a facility is not justified. PGC must be pretty close to that now.

So we could build a school on the periphery to find the golf course close due to poor use. Its perfectly credible

It reminds me of the open air pool scenario.

(Edit-golfers peace bit)

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 19 May 2006, 17:36

I had heard rumblings from people not necessarily against a school on the park but against housing, however also saying keep the golf course. if the school without the houses were a desirable option for some, would it not be better with a public park rather than golf course.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 19 May 2006, 17:38

Porty

OK - take one instance where you *would* support the aims of the golfers.

What would you say to someone who supported a development that you didn't want when they attacked the course usage statistics?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 May 2006, 18:23

Dadaist wrote: Porty

OK - take one instance where you *would* support the aims of the golfers.

What would you say to someone who supported a development that you didn't want when they attacked the course usage statistics?

I'm not attacking usage statistice, I'm analysing them.It has been said time and time that the Golf Course has been around for 150 years. It has 120 members so they acquire a new member every 456 days. Its the Haleys comet of golf courses.

Dadaist wrote:What would you say to someone who supported a development that you didn't want when they attacked the course usage statistics?

I'd say "Man, your development sucks but you do have a point with those usage statistics"

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 19 May 2006, 18:34

I'm not attacking usage statistice, I'm analysing them.It has been said time and time that the Golf Course has been around for 150 years. It has 120 members so they acquire a new member every 456 days.

Have you allowed for dead golfers and leap years in that calculation?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 May 2006, 19:30

Dadaist wrote:
I'm not attacking usage statistice, I'm analysing them.It has been said time and time that the Golf Course has been around for 150 years. It has 120 members so they acquire a new member every 456 days.
Have you allowed for dead golfers and leap years in that calculation?

Leap years were discounted in favour of a fair analysis, I dont want to beat them up. Dead golfers? There's a waiting list, so what's the relevance?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 19 May 2006, 19:31

Dadaist wrote:Have you allowed for dead golfers

Fairway to Heaven?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 May 2006, 19:34

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Have you allowed for dead golfers
Fairway to Heaven?

How long have you been waiting to use that?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 19 May 2006, 21:09

Hey Porty, Didn't know your office was open late in the evenings?
We passed by around 9.30pm last night, place was crowded.
Business must be booming!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 19 May 2006, 21:24

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
I'm not attacking usage statistice, I'm analysing them.It has been said time and time that the Golf Course has been around for 150 years. It has 120 members so they acquire a new member every 456 days.
Have you allowed for dead golfers and leap years in that calculation?
Leap years were discounted in favour of a fair analysis, I dont want to beat them up. Dead golfers? There's a waiting list, so what's the relevance?

Cos I was wondering how many people had been members in total - is 120 just the current membership? How many are on the waiting list?

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 19 May 2006, 22:04

Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote: Have you allowed for dead golfers and leap years in that calculation?
Leap years were discounted in favour of a fair analysis, I dont want to beat them up. Dead golfers? There's a waiting list, so what's the relevance?
Cos I was wondering how many people had been members in total - is 120 just the current membership? How many are on the waiting list?

According to http://www.golftoday.co.uk/clubhouse/co ... portobello the club membership is only 32.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 19 May 2006, 22:09

This one works :

http://www.golftoday.co.uk/clubhouse/co ... bello.html

ali · Post by **ali** » 20 May 2006, 10:55

Bob Jefferson wrote:Posted on behalf of Stephen McIntyre:

Sandra wrote:http://www.alison4portobello.com/

Alison is one of my colleagues and was brought up in the area.

Sorry to drag this to the top of the thread again but I must have missed something along the line -

Am I right in assuming that it was Alison Miller, the Scottish Conservative candidate for Craigmillar & Portobello who was responsible for handing out the pro forma letter above?? And is she a member of the forum?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 May 2006, 11:06

Definitely not. Sandra's post was a non-sequitor, though very interesting none the less.

I think I am already on record as having said that I believe the person who handed me the leaflet in question, and most likely also the author, to be the young lady who posts as Green Dream. If I am wrong about this I am sure that she, or someone else, will soon correct me.

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 20 May 2006, 11:48

Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote: Have you allowed for dead golfers and leap years in that calculation?
Leap years were discounted in favour of a fair analysis, I dont want to beat them up. Dead golfers? There's a waiting list, so what's the relevance?
Cos I was wondering how many people had been members in total - is 120 just the current membership? How many are on the waiting list?

If you go onto this website:
http://www.golftoday.co.uk/clubhouse/co ... portobello
you will notice that the current club membership for Portobello Golf Course stands at 32.

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 20 May 2006, 12:15

If my deja vu is correct Dadaist will now post the working link?

ali · Post by **ali** » 20 May 2006, 12:46

Bob Jefferson wrote:Definitely not. Sandra's post was a non-sequitor, though very interesting none the less.

I think I am already on record as having said that I believe the person who handed me the leaflet in question, and most likely also the author, to be the young lady who posts as Green Dream. If I am wrong about this I am sure that she, or someone else, will soon correct me.

Thanks for clearing that up, Bob. I did wonder.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 20 May 2006, 13:02

Porty wrote:
Dave Connelly wrote:<img src="http://www.clanconnelly.com/portyonline/galleryy.jpg">

Thats not quite so bad either, (not too botanical though) pity it was raining today, could have had better lighting, but thats the beauty of the park. It looks good in most weather conditions. .
Seems nice and peaceful. Pity more people don't use it.

So the 30,000 people who used the course are not enough. I am sure that it was either Porty or Stephen who said that there were 36,000 people in Porty, (reference to meetings).

If we take one T off for every resident that leaves 6,000 T offs unused. Maybe your right, we should really be encouraging the other 6000 to use the course.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 May 2006, 13:03

It surely cant be just 32? Let me see:

(actual membership* record hen + stag attendance)*number of holes+ portymans offical daily playing figures)*evening news factor = 433380

(32*150)*9+180)*10= 433380

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 May 2006, 13:09

Dave Connelly wrote:
So the 30,000 people who used the course are not enough. I am sure that it was either Porty or Stephen who said that there were 36,000 people in Porty, (reference to meetings).

If we take one T off for every resident that leaves 6,000 T offs unused. Maybe your right, we should really be encouraging the other 6000 to use the course.

Dave, seriously if the 30,000 figure is accurate it will be only the second golf course related number thats true. The other one is 9 holes. As sure as I am sitting here the 30,000 figure has been over-stated.

How many did the PPAG deputations claim? Have you got a copy for us yet?

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 20 May 2006, 13:18

Porty wrote:It surely cant be just 32? Let me see:

(actual membership* record hen + stag attendance)*number of holes+ portymans offical daily playing figures)*evening news factor = 433380

(32*150)*9+180)*10= 433380

How ironic that the incarcerated Cats and Dogs of Portobello have more green leisure space than the children at Portobello High School.

Lets build on the rest of the green space then and on the cat and dog home to boot.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 20 May 2006, 13:21

Porty wrote: Dave, seriously if the 30,000 figure is accurate it will be only the second golf course related number thats true. The other one is 9 holes. As sure as I am sitting here the 30,000 figure has been over-stated.

How many did the PPAG deputations claim? Have you got a copy for us yet?

30,000 was what was put forward by the golfers, I take it from that, that it was 30,000 T offs registered through their books. The web site is updated fairly regularly, If the ppag stuff isnt on yet, it will be soon, sorry for any delay, I have been working elsewhere, quite a lot.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 May 2006, 13:30

Dave Connelly wrote:
30,000 was what was put forward by the golfers, I take it from that, that it was 30,000 T offs registered through their books. .

I'm not sure it was put forward by the golfers. It appeared sometime around when the details of the survey were made public. I think and I stress think PFANS have the actual info.

Interestingly enough and if my memory serves me correctly? At the council meeting Oula Jones was very vague about numbers. I think the only ones she seemed certain about was 68 lady members and 150 hen and stag people.

Dave Connelly wrote: The web site is updated fairly regularly, If the ppag stuff isnt on yet, it will be soon, sorry for any delay, I have been working elsewhere, quite a lot.

No need to apologise you are doing a good job. Have you been working or have you been on the golf course?

( I think you missed an opportunity, sharpen up there boy!!)

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 20 May 2006, 13:34

Porty wrote: Have you been working or have you been on the golf course?

work, work and some more work unfortunately, dont golf though, wouldn't know which bat to use for which hole

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 May 2006, 13:40

Gemini wrote:Hey Porty, Didn't know your office was open late in the evenings?
We passed by around 9.30pm last night, place was crowded.
Business must be booming!

If you looked a little closer you would have realsied that those were cardboard cutouts. Meanwhile the PFANS think tank was meeting in a bunker on the golf course.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 28 May 2006, 10:32

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 May 2006, 09:02

From Maureen Child's most recent newsletter:

Portobello High School/St John's Replacement

Speaking of 'what people say', the channels are still open for real options to come forward even before a full, formal consultation process starts at the end of August. Some Council officers and some members of the community may have made up their minds in advance what the outcome for new school buildings should and will be, but most of us are determined to explore all feasible options and will welcome any sensible suggestion. Those who are most concerned, are working very hard on this and want to find the best possible solution. By all means, our community members must attack the questions and challenges with gusto, but it would be helpful if the personal attacks and wild conspiracy theories could be kept in check?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 May 2006, 20:19

One voice that hasn't been heard so far in this debate is that of the PHS staff. We can all speculate on the condition of the building and its fitness for purpose but no-one knows better than the people who actually work there. Here are the results of a staff survey conducted a few weeks ago:

Portobello High School Staff Survey Results

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 30 May 2006, 20:52

"The proposed site of a new school is not an issue that I feel should be commented on by the staff, itâ€™s the local people â€“ both parents and non-parents who need to sort this out in dialogue with the Council."

I think this was the most sensible quote of the lot - and no, it wasn't mine