New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Stephen McIntyre]

[quote="Charles"]
Just for the record, I have never been a maths teacher, although I do admit to being a history teacher for many years, and having taught in ......, the annual increase in road crossings = 190 (school days per year) x 2 (crossings per day) x (910-490) = 159,600. Which is nowhere near half a million, although it is still a pretty big number. But if you plan to use statistics make them credible. We all know the saying “lies, damned lies and statisticsâ€

[Charles]

Bob and Stephen, thanks for your comments. I appreciate the points you have made, and acknowledge that there are valid reasons why the new Brunstane site would not work for the high school. My main concern regarding the development of the existing golf course is not so much the high school, but the proposition by the council that they fund the provision of the school by building houses on the remainder of the site, cutting back to a minimum any green space left. I still remain to be convinced that this is the only/best option (although I am sure it is the one which generates the most income for the council).

[Bob Jefferson]

Charles, I agree wholeheartedly that the amount of housing on the site should be minimised to that which is absolutely necessary to raise the funds required. We should be demanding not only this, but also that every penny of the money raised from the various land deals is ring-fenced and I'm confident that we can make both of these things happen. The percentage of the site that would be developed for housing has still to be finalised but there will certainly still be a large area remaining as a public park.

If there was any way of getting the new schools we desperately need AND saving the golf course then I would be delighted to support that proposal but unfortunately I don't believe there is. If anyone knows better then we would all love to hear your suggestion.

[seanie]

Here the Education Department’s annual capital budget for 2004-5 is given as £17.6 million.

Here the (hideously titled) Children and Families capital budget for 2006/7 is given as £33.859 million.

I doubt a new secondary and primary school would leave you any change out of £35m.

That's a huge sum of money. It totally outstrips the capital funds available. You could only do it by diverting virtually all the money spent across Edinburgh to the one proposal. For a couple of years or more. That's a political impossibility.

If PPP isn't avilable (no bad thing to my mind) specific capital for the project has to generated. Housing development isn't about "income" for the Council. It's an essential part of the proposals for the schools

Unfortunately, given the sums required, that probably means a fairly substantial amount of housing. And whilst I wholeheartedly agree that housing should be kept to a minimum, I'd want it kept to a minimum consistent with a good, sustainable development.

All other things being equal, a shoddy building is cheaper to build than a good one. Quality costs, at least up front. And more cost incurred now may mean better value in the long run. It's a difficult balancing act, but it's worth bearing in mind.

[Bob Jefferson]

I agree entirely. If we are going to build two new schools then let's do the job properly and learn from the mistakes of the past. If that means building a few extra houses to avoid having to cut corners and compromise on build and design then so be it.

[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€

[wangi]

"Planning permission will not be given for new development which would result in the loss of any open space which contributes to environmental character and amenity or is of recreational or other social value." Policy GE2 Open Space Protection, Central Edinburgh Local Plan

That’s pretty clear, I’d say?

Portobello isn't Central Edinburgh, the relevant local plan is the North East one.

[Dadaist]

PortyMan

Thanks for taking the time to write that post - as your first, it was a landmark!

I'm sure everyone will chip in with "for" and "against" comments about this or that - but the council will have to take note of objections like this even if they are minded this way or that - and who knows what goes on with that bunch.

This was always going to be a case of ends and means, but I walk down your street all the time and would be gutted too if this was going to be on my doorstep - can you imagine them trying it on the Meadows just next to Spottiswoode St? Would a building ever be considered on the pitch 'n' putt at Bruntsfield Links?

But I'm afraid my criticism is limited and abstract, whereas the school is very real. If it does turn out that you lose your view, well that sucks and I'm sorry.

They built a school in the middle of Pilrig park, and I don't think the price of all those B&Bs went down though.

[Alison Connelly]

..

[Dadaist]

This is the thin end of the wedge.

Conjecture.

I totally disagree that we have to accept "a few more houses" to secure funding for our schools.

The council have a duty to provide educational facilities for our children.

They could argue that they have done.

The council also have a duty to protect our environment and green spaces. I don't see why these two duties need to be mutually exclusive.

To paraphrase Porty - what is your counter proposal?

I refuse to accept that the schools ought to be funded by building houses on the golf course.

Fine. That's enough preamble - get to the beef.

Let's face it, once they start building houses on this space, they won't stop until every corner is filled.

Conjecture.

[Stephen McIntyre]

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.

Hey, you are the first to go public on the forum with this argument and respect is due. I expected to hear it much earlier in the debate. The first thing I would like to say is that there is no guarantee that a development will have a direct impact on the view from your home or on its environment. As part of the community and as a resident of Park Avenue I hope that the council consult you directly, before this proposal goes much further.

Also, when you purchased your house 17 years ago there was a duty on your solicitor to bring to your attention that although the property currently enjoyed an unrestricted view there was nothing in the searches or deeds that prevented future development on Portobello Park. It was therefore not part of the deal for which you paid a premium. Did he/she point this out to you?

I have personal experience of owning two houses in Stanley Street one of which shared a wall with the old school, when it was still operational. And as an amazing coincidence my wife was pregnant when we bought both!! I paid a premium for each house and sold both when the school was still there and made a substantial profit. I struggle to see how you could prove that any development would have an adverse effect on the value of your property. And the bad news is that even if it does, this criteria is not an issue in planning.

Do you anticipate an increase in value of the houses that are in proximity to the existing school?

[Pal of Porty]

"Planning permission will not be given for new development which would result in the loss of any open space which contributes to environmental character and amenity or is of recreational or other social value." Policy GE2 Open Space Protection, Central Edinburgh Local Plan

That’s pretty clear, I’d say?

Portobello isn't Central Edinburgh, the relevant local plan is the North East one.

.......But not as clear as you thought PortyMan!

[Dadaist]

Porty

Can you forsee any parallels between the Superstore movement and this issue?

What I mean is, imagine a campaign mounted by residents who overlook the area, green activists and golfers. Let's say they get organised and mount a campaign, get publicity and window stickers etc.

Going by the way the Superstore campaign went - can you guess any of the reasons that either the planning or executive / whoever would give for backing that campaign?

What are their strongest grounds? Environmental? Traffic?

[Stephen McIntyre]

Porty

Going by the way the Superstore campaign went - can you guess any of the reasons that either the planning or executive / whoever would give for backing that campaign?

What are their strongest grounds? Environmental? Traffic?

I'm not Porty for this debate!!!

Before i respond in detail can I make sure I understand what perspective you are coming from with the above two questions?

Do you mean why the executive would support or be against the proposal?

Do you mean what are the strongest grounds for or against the proposal?

Sorry for being a bit thick but im not getting it.

[Dadaist]

Porty

Going by the way the Superstore campaign went - can you guess any of the reasons that either the planning or executive / whoever would give for backing that campaign?

What are their strongest grounds? Environmental? Traffic?

I'm not Porty for this debate!!!

Before i respond in detail can I make sure I understand what perspective you are coming from with the above two questions?

Do you mean why the executive would support or be against the proposal?

Do you mean what are the strongest grounds for or against the proposal?

Sorry for being a bit thick but im not getting it.

No worries Stephen I was probably just typing as I thought.

I mean *against*. Imagine (purely for the sake of argument) in 2 years time a triumphant "anti" campaign which has thrown back the plans and saved the golf course. How did they do it - on what grounds (if you will excuse the pun) ?

[PortyMan]

Hi again,

Just to say - Sorry for the misleading quote from the Planning Document. Who'd have thought that the council would have a rule that says 'NO building on parks/recreational ground' for one part of Edinburgh and another that says (I presume) 'What the hey! Build houses everywhere/anywhere sod the green space!' for another part!?! (No, I'm not really surprised.)

Stephen - whilst I understand you comments re caveat emptor - I fail to see how your buying a house beside the old school annexe and selling it when it was still the old school annexe compares? I'd be quite happy having bought a house opposite a park to sell it when there was still a park... Or, if I'd bought opposite a school and housing estate to start with. That's, kind of, my point. Do you really think that being opposite a green space doesn't add to the value/cost of a property? I'd been led to understand you used to be an estate agent? Wouldn't you have used that location factor to your clients advantage?

I know, it's just tough luck and all that. *** happens, after all. Though I'm not convinced you'd be so sanguine if the school was to relocate to Rosefield?

Much of my anger is a result of the whole deal being done and dusted before anyone in Park Avenue, 'The Christians' or Milton Road/Apostles has been advised of anything?(other than Lawrence's pals) We're told there's to be 'consultation' but then told there's nothing to debate, that's the only option, has to be done. Grass 0 Concrete 1, thank you and good night!

And by the way... the value of houses besides the old school sites may well increase... or they might fall. It will really depend on the number/quality/height of the housing development. Maybe the residents there will get a say in the matter?

[Bob Jefferson]

More from the letters page of the Evening News:

No easy answer to site for new schools

Parks are a precious resource

Claims of bright new future hard to believe

[Bob Jefferson]

I received this today:

Questions and Answers

[Stephen McIntyre]

Just to say - Sorry for the misleading quote from the Planning Document.

Its ok, I think you were the only one that was misled. You must have been kicking yourself!!

Stephen …..That's, kind of, my point. Do you really think that being opposite a green space doesn't add to the value/cost of a property? I'd been led to understand you used to be an estate agent? Wouldn't you have used that location factor to your clients advantage?

I do think being opposite a green space makes a house more saleable. And if I had been employed as the Estate Agent that sold the house to you, then naturally I would have pointed it out as an advantage to prospective purchasers. However, I would not have produced a set of sales particulars or given any verbal indication that the green space opposite would never be developed. If I did then it would constitute part of the sale. You seem to have ducked my previous question. When you purchased your house, did your solicitor inform you that Portobello Park could be developed at some point in the future?

Actually as an Estate Agent I once found myself in this exact position when trying to buy a Woolwich home for a client. It was opposite Monktonhall Golf Course. At the time it was rumoured that Lord So and So was going to sell the course to a Japanese investment company, who may have built houses. I asked the saleslady if she could guarantee that houses would never be built on the golf course. She squirmed for a while and eventually announced that it was a really difficult question to answer. I thought to myself; it is a difficult question to answer, unless of course the answer is "No I cannot give you that guaranteeâ€

[seanie]

If the existing schools really are inadequate and alternatives need to be found, then that is going to very expensive. That’s a problem. Even if you decided not to build new schools and decided that other schools would absorb the pupils that doesn’t solve that problem. It merely diverts it elsewhere. Those other schools would suffer unless additions were made to their facilities. Additional capital investment would still be required. There’s still significant costs involved. It’s a question of where the costs fall. And any proposals that directly displace the costs onto surrounding communities stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being implemented.

This proposal, whatever the detail that emerges, is essentially a local issue. This community can get new schools, but that comes at a price to this community. That may be very difficult, even unfair choice, but it’s essentially straightforward. I would imagine most people across Edinburgh are fairly disinterested in the proposals as they stand. They’re not really affected either way. But any alternative proposal that does affect them is unlikely to be warmly received. Any measure that directly diverts funds from or imposes costs on them will have them straight onto their councillors giving them an earful. And councillors, mindful of their constituents concerns, will torpedo anything along those lines.

So it’s unlikely any proposal will work that isn’t essentially a local one. If this community wants new schools, this community will have to pay a price for them. Now that might not necessarily involve the golf-course. Maybe there are other options available. But they’re not going to be cost free either. They’ll just mean a different set of people bear a heavier price.

Say you decide to redevelop on the existing site. Fine, that can be done. The quality of the building may be compromised but it’s doable. But that’s not a cheap option. It’s almost certainly more expensive. Because not only would you build a new building but you’d also incur the costs of an extended decant. That’s a huge expense. That will swell the project costs. And since development will almost certainly be required for funding that’ll mean more development in total. Development that’ll have to take place somewhere.

If you are going to keep development to a minimum, you have to keep project costs to a minimum. No decants, no difficult sites, no purchasing of sites if possible. They’re additional expenses that will have to be funded somehow. And whilst looking for alternative locations for the schools, you’ll need to look for alternative sites for the housing. Because the two are inextricably linked.

If Portobello is going to get new schools, wherever they may be, in the foreseeable future, then Portobello is going to have to pony up land, somewhere, for development. That’s the unpleasant reality. The sums involved are too large for anything else, at least in the absence of PPP.

That doesn’t mean the proposals should be accepted. Maybe the price is too high. Maybe there are viable alternatives. Even if not it may be preferable to wait and hope an alternative does come along.

But in any event it’s unlikely that a miraculous cost-free option will come riding out of the sunset to the rescue.

[Maria]

Let's face it, once they start building houses on this space, they won't stop until every corner is filled.

Conjecture.

Alison's statement may be conjecture Dadaist, but she is merely expressing a very real fear that many have regarding this proposal. Until firm plans are drawn up all anyone can do is conjecture.

I was glad to see that the Questions and Answers pdf. posted by Bob Jefferson makes it clear that

It is estimated that the two new schools will account for around one third of the current golf course. The existing park will not be affected

[Bob Jefferson]

Housing on the Golf Course is an integral part of the proposal. Where else does the money come from? Once the Council has worked out its sums we will know exactly how much housing is required. Then we can take it or leave it.

But let's not kid ourselves. This is post number 337 on this subject and there has not been a single realistic alternative suggested so far. If I'm wrong, let's hear it.

[wangi]

But let's not kid ourselves. This is post number 337 on this subject and there has not been a single realistic alternative suggested so far. If I'm wrong, let's hear it.

Oh, I don't know about that. Myself and a few others have mentioned the site between the railway and Harry Lauder Rd. The site is currently a waste to the community. Half is used as an industrial site and the rest as depots and car/bus parks.

There is sufficient space for the school and playing fields and it is centrally located within the catchment area. Yes, it would be a big challenge to get the access and safety done right, but if it was done right then a blight on our area would be turned into an asset... Plus you'd still have the golf course...

Not something discused on that Q&A.



(click for larger size)

[seanie]

It might be a possibility but it doesn't look particularly auspicious. It looks like a difficult site to develop, and difficulty usually entails added cost. Do the Council own all the site?

And that still leaves the question of the housing. Given the sums required we're looking at a significant development. What options are there for that?

I'd forget Figgate Park. It'd be a swine to develop given the topography.

[Dadaist]

I received this today:

Questions and Answers

This is well dodgy. Who exactly is this document from?

Other than saying it's from the council, there's no provenance here at all. Is this how these things work? "They" provide some answers to the questions they deign answerable, and don't even say who asked what question and who is answering?

At least on this forum there is some sort of oversight and accountability - what happens if we want to ask questions about their answers? What about the questions they chose not to answer?

Or are we supposed to just be grateful that we got some tablets sent down from the mountain?

[Bob Jefferson]

I don't know who authored it. I have been in touch with a number of different council officials asking for more information about the proposal and requesting that they deal with some of the questions about site selection etc that have been asked and I expect that someone has been tasked with supplying those answers. I have chosen to make this information public. Make of it what you will.

[Dadaist]

I don't know who authored it. I have been in touch with a number of different council officials asking for more information about the proposal and requesting that they deal with some of the questions about site selection etc that have been asked and I expect that someone has been tasked with supplying those answers. I have chosen to make this information public. Make of it what you will.

You say you've chosen to make this information public, yet it says it's to "Portobello Online".

Who is it from, and in what capacity, and who was it for?

Are you saying it was you that chose which questions to pass on? I thought Stephen Macintyre was doing that.

[Bob Jefferson]

My request for this information preceded Stephen's thread. I think that whoever put it together hoped it would answer not just my questions but tackle others that were likely to arise. There is nothing to stop anyone asking additional or supplementary questions and I would hope that if they did so they would post any response here.

[kittywink]

I have been following this discussion and I have to say that I have been getting more information from POL than from our local councillor/s . This really does concern me.
Is there now a local spokesman for the councillor/s?If so, is this a real post with a job description. I am not being facetious here.I just find it quite depressing and alienating that the people who we elect to be our representatives do not furnish us with the information and knowledge we require to make an informed choice.
Rather than hiding behind the usual 'we can't tell you because ....well.....really it's at a difficult stage.......we don't know ourselves so how can we tell you........we have explored all the options and this is the only one..........etc' I would like to hear clear reasons and hear about the 'discarded' options from the Horse's Mouth....Pleeeeease?

[Stephen McIntyre]

Welcome Kittywink. Your views are shared by many of us.

[wangi]

Who is it from, and in what capacity, and who was it for?

Fear not Dada - if you're on Maureen Child's email list you'll have just received the "official" version.

[Dadaist]

Who is it from, and in what capacity, and who was it for?

Fear not Dada - if you're on Maureen Child's email list you'll have just received the "official" version.

aaah!

[Bob Jefferson]

Kittywink, I hope that Portobello Online keeps us all better informed. You could say that's our raison d'etre (still can't figure out how you do a circumflex). Certainly, the sharing of ideas and information pertaining to local issues is what this forum is about. Everyone wants more facts and more detail about this proposal and I'm happy to share anything that comes my way.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Porty

Can you forsee any parallels between the Superstore movement and this issue?

By superstore movement I take it you mean PCATS? PCATS obviously still exists but Stephen Hawkins made it crystal clear that as a group they would not be campaigning against the proposal. He quite correctly pointed out that as individuals they have a right to make their views known.

It is apparent from this forum that key personnel in PCATS (along with many others) do not trust the council and as the council are the key players in the TPP proposal then there may be a resistance to whatever the council propose.

Unlike the supermarket threat TPP is an internal community issue and I would include COEC and our representatives in that community.

What I mean is, imagine a campaign mounted by residents who overlook the area, green activists and golfers. Let's say they get organised and mount a campaign, get publicity and window stickers etc.

I don't know about any potential campaign against the proposal, I hope there is not. And that people look at what is trying to be achieved and the methodology. Here is how I see it and I stress that much of this is my opinion:

Golfers

COEC have enjoyed a 150-year relationship with the golfers who use Portobello Park. In the interests of the greater community COEC have a request of the golfers; they are asking that they agree to be displaced to a new facility, nearby. If the golfers agree to move, it will help facilitate the development of two state of the art schools for the enjoyment of 1800 local children and the 200 or so staff that support them. In order to ameliorate the golfers, COEC are promising them a say in course design and an altogether much better facility.

To me this is a very reasonable request. And I am prepared to take Maureen, Lawrence and the rest of COEC on trust that they will deliver this new course and new long-term commitment to Portobello golfers. I believe that some golfers will resist the change and be tempted to campaign, however I also believe that when they close their bedroom doors at night and reflect what is best for the community, their resolve will weaken. They are being offered a good deal and included in a wonderful opportunity for the community.

Green Activists

There is good input on this thread from the likes of Jotbox and Seanie regarding building quality and bio-diversity, These are people who know their stuff. I am much more of a layman when it comes to green but my understanding is that the “greensâ€

[dccairns]

Stephen McIntyre said: "Firstly, land will be sold for the benefit of the community and all of the profits will be ring-fenced and go towards the creation of the new park including the schools."

You know this for a fact do you? Strange, because I could get no such guarantee from my elected representative.