New Portobello High School- Where and how?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 26 Mar 2006, 01:19

Dadaist wrote:People who oppose this plan shouldn't be forced into coming up with an alternative - it is sufficient for them, as individual council tax payers, residents of Portobello, golfers and dog walkers to simply say "no" if asked whether they approve of this or that plan.

That is certainly their right. But I'm not sure anyone suggested people being "forced" to provide alterntives.

However, if they should venture an alternative, it is is entirely within my rights to regard their opinions as transparent idiocy or at best clasping at straws.

Just as people have the right to view my postings with contempt.

But within the wider context a simple "no" really doesn't engage with the problem.

Or does sending people back to the drawing board miraculously generate new alternatives that didn't previously exist?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 26 Mar 2006, 02:19

Since speculation is the order of the day;

Estimated costs;
Cost of new PHS Â£35million
Cost of new St Johnâ€™s Â£6 million
Cost of new golf course Â£2million
Total costs Â£43million
Estimated receipts Development of old school sites and of existing golf course Â£30million
Shortfall Â£13million

So, lets look at an alternative: (note NO HOUSING on golf course)

Estimated costs;
Cost of new PHS (built on park at the top of golf course) Â£35million
Cost of upgrading St Johnâ€™s on its current site Â£3 million
Cost of new golf course Â£nil
Cost of developing new land at Brunstane into large biodiverse park Â£1 million.
Total costs Â£39million
Estimated receipts
from developing houses on existing PHS site Â£10 million
Shortfall Â£29million

Who'd've thought fantasy accounting could be such fun?

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 26 Mar 2006, 12:46

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Mar 2006, 13:35

I agree, Alison. I think he is developing something of a potty mouth as well :

seanie wrote:fantasy accounting

seanie wrote:transparent idiocy or at best clasping at straws

seanie wrote:pie-in-the sky fantasy or voodoo economics

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Mar 2006, 14:35

Just spoke to Dad Of Dada - he thinks the current plan is the only option - in fact in his words the golf course is the "best site".

I was unable to explain exactly where the new course will be (apart from muttering something about "Brunstane") or how many holes are being proposed but he had come to the oft-quoted conclusion that schools should come before golf courses.

He made the point that there are more golf courses around these days - some of which are struggling to get members - as opposed to (recent?) times when places had long waiting lists.

He also remembers playing cricket in the 50s on the site which became the current PHS - pointing out that this means that there is a precedent of building on playing fields.

He mentioned Musselburgh (floodlights etc) as well - I didn't tell him to stay on-topic!

He also mentioned that when a proposal for tramline 3 was made public, it was going to take over a part of his golf club (Liberton) - and there was a public display of the route - with a map - at his local library. He said to the guy making the presentation

"why are you ruining my golf course?"

and the guy presenting the proposal said

"oh no - we're not ruining it - we just want this bit here (about 50m x 100m)"

"oh right" said my dad. "do you drive?" he asked the chappie

"yes"

"well, i don't want your whole car - just the front left wheel please!"

The guy admitted he hadn't really seen it that way.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 26 Mar 2006, 14:45

Dadaist wrote:Just spoke to Dad Of Dada - he thinks the current plan is the only option

-

Dadaist wrote:"why are you ruining my golf course?"

and the guy presenting the proposal said

"oh no - we're not ruining it - we just want this bit here (about 50m x 100m)"

"oh right" said my dad. "do you drive?" he asked the chappie

"yes"

"well, i don't want your whole car - just the front left wheel please!"

The guy admitted he hadn't really seen it that way.

Is your Dad a bit of a fence sitter too then?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Mar 2006, 14:52

Is your Dad a bit of a fence sitter too then?

Can't speak for him - but I would imagine he would say that there was a difference between a school and a tramline - and in the case of the tramline there was a viable alternative!

Damn, I hate using "pro" arguments. It's far too easy.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Mar 2006, 15:03

Epykat wrote:
The people who live in the immediate vicinity (and please remember, they don't ALL live in Park Avenue, some of them live in the Christians, Milton Road and Hope Lane)

A very fair point. I am guilty of omitting them from the discussion

Epykat wrote: They stupidly bought (or were put into by the Council - my mother in law initially being one of them) houses with an open aspect and they then had the audacity to actually like where they lived. Not being bright enough or totally on the ball, they inadvertently missed the fact that it was their responsibility to find out all about feu rights and the law - which is obviously the first thing you look into when you move into a new house,

You actually look into this before you move in otherwise its too late.

Were you very tired and emotional on Friday nighy by any chance?

Lawrence Marshall · Post by **Lawrence Marshall** » 26 Mar 2006, 15:05

Dear All,
Bob Jefferson kindly posted my e-mail of 23rd March to Andrew Holmes, Roy Jobson, Ewan Aiken and Ian Perry. Here's another letter which I've just e-mailed to them and which I hope explores further options for consideration ahead of the report to the Executive of the Council on morning of 25th April.
Please also don't forget that Portobello Community Council meets in the Portobello Baptist Church Hall tomorrow evening (Monday 27th March) at 7.30 p.m.. This will be in effect the last unrushed opportunity for the Community Council to consider this issue prior to the 25th April meeting as its next again meeting is on the evening of 24th April.

Lawrence

Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 2:41 PM
Subject: A High School instead of a superstore

Dear Andrew, Roy, Ewan and Ian,
further to my e-mail to you of 23 March 2006, I thought that I'd fling another option onto the table for your consideration.
As you're probably well aware, apart from the overall Freightliner area, most of the brownfield sites which might well be re-developed in the coming years in Portobello lie to the west of the Figgate Burn. No-one's going to knock down any bits of Joppa and there's very limited potential for change in the town centre. The development pressure is already obvious and isn't going to go away.
Will this all be private development or can we secure some of it for the public good?
The site which has been most controversially debated and fought over in the last couple of years is that of the former Scottish Power H.Q. at the very entrance to Portobello. Big enough to attract interest from superstore operators and with room for large amounts of associated car parking, this proposal was successfully and rightly resisted by the local community - right through to Appeal.
Following refusal of planning permission by the Scottish Executive last year this site was sold by Duddingston House Properties to B L Developments who I understand are looking at a largely residential development on the site.
My suggestion is to ask B L Developments whether they would consider a deal with the Council whereby they got most of the site of the current Portobello High School and St. John's for housing instead with the High School being built on Portobello High Street as the gateway to the town. St. John's could either be re-located as I previously suggested to incoporate the relatively recent High School games hall or re-built elsewhere - the grounds of Duddingston Primary School have been mentioned to me a few times.
I know that the old argument of the High School being then on the edge of its catchment area will no doubt be flung back at me. I don't really buy that orthodoxy in this instance. Portobello High Street is well served by bus routes from east, west and south (obviously not north!). Fishwives Causeway will be a good walking route for many as well.
Is the site big enough? Well, it obviously isn't 17 acres but it's also obvious to me that the more land you allow for any development, the worse the architectural solution - just look at the mess that is the new combined school campus outside Dalkeith. A tight site produces a more creative solution, better attuned to the urban grain of a school on a community's High Street. The Council constantly trumps the triumph of the new St. Thomas of Aquin's in Chalmers Street - I agree. Enough said!
St Thomas of Aquin's obviously has The Meadows next door and I'm not sure about space for outdoor sports facilities on the superstore site but I understand that Duddingston House Properties believe that Standard Life are interested in relinquishing their ownership of at least that section of the Baileyfield Industrial Estate immediately bordering the old Scottish Power site - and currently leased by the Council's own Culture and Leisure Department as a warehouse. If the Scottish Power site itself couldn't accommodate an outdoor pitch - and why not on the roof if that were the case? - then this adjacent land should be considered.
Moreover, I'm pushing very strongly that the proposed East Edinburgh Sports Centre coming to the area when Meadowbank Stadium closes should be located beside the Portobello Indoor Bowls and Leisure Centre just across the High Street from the former Scottish Power site. There may well be a synergy here with any new school development.
Someone has also raised with me the possibility of Standard Life and the car dealer which used to be Laidlaw's pulling out completely. I've been told this on a number of occasions recently and it might well be worth at least asking them!
I realise that there still remains the question of how to pay for all this. The overwhelming element of financing the package currently proposed by the Council was always going to be the building of houses on the golf course. As I mentioned before, why can't other sites throughout the city be looked at? I recognise the political sensitivity of this but it accords fully with the rules of local government finance: no ring-fencing, the receipts from almost everything sold added to the common city-wide kitty from which are financed new developments according to priority need. Again I make the suggestion of looking at housing at The Jewel.
This neatly brings me to my final point: a growing sense of resentment as to why Portobello itself is being asked to self-fund such vital pieces of community infrastructure as a High School and primary school. At least when in 1896 Portobello merged with Edinburgh the local community got a Town Hall, a swimming pool, a good bit of the Promenade and a golf course! To those who still today ask whether this merger was a good thing I always reply that it allows Portobello to benefit from the collective resources of the capital city! I grant you that we got a beautifully refurbished Swim Centre and we're seeing welcome streetscape improvements along the High Street - but we've still not got a new library or community centre and now we're being told that we have to self-fund new schools as well!
I do hope that you will consider at least the former Scottish Power site as another option as a site for Portobello's new High School - a High School on the High Street.

Lawrence

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 26 Mar 2006, 15:20

Stephen McIntyre wrote:You actually look into this before you move in otherwise its too late.

Were you very tired and emotional on Friday nighy by any chance?

Nope, I wrote that before I became tired and emotional - the holocaust was perhaps a bit later on

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Mar 2006, 15:21

Did you mean Holeinonecaust?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 26 Mar 2006, 15:28

Lawrence - thank you! You are the only one of our Councillors who seems prepared to stick their neck out to defend the golf course. It remains to be seen whether your opinions, suggestions and ideas will be given a fair hearing but thank you anyway for seeing the bigger picture and listening, fairly, to all sides of the argument.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Mar 2006, 15:33

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Did you mean Holeinonecaust?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Mar 2006, 16:04

Lawrence-some good lateral thinking. However, as you state, there is no funding solution in your proposal and it would basically mean moving the school out of the centre of the catchment onto a similarly sized site. Is it worth it even if you could fund it?

It is clear from the debates that people want a centrally located school with playing fields, your suggestion meets neither criteria. Our High School is the largest in the city, it is crammed onto a 7 1/2 acre site. The BL development site is 8 acres.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Mar 2006, 16:15

Its early days but it looks like the schools but no housing on the Park idea is gaining some support. So, is there a way to get funding without building houses on the Park?

Why not move another council establishment onto the Park and develop housing on the site where that used to be? There seems to far less resistance to developing houses on sites where there are already buildings.

I'm thinking another education facility perhaps a "destination" school as opposed to a catchment school. So, if the council has a specialist music school or something of that ilk, parents will gladly send their kids out of their catchment to go to this type of school, so why not a brand new facility in Portobello park?

Of course it doesnt have to be a school. It could be a sports facility, it could be a medical facility and perhaps there are more suggestions?

Any merit in this idea?

Lawrence Marshall · Post by **Lawrence Marshall** » 26 Mar 2006, 16:17

Stephen,
you can't get more central in Portobello than the High Street! And. as I say, all future major development in Portobello will be west of the Figgate Burn unless we start knocking down Joppa and the town centre!
The current school site is a few buildings set in a mass of tarmac and scrappy grass. The new St. Thomas of Aquin's building is lauded by the Council - and rightly so. I can't see why we couldn't do likewise on the High Street.
I'm not proposing moving St. John's here - hence why I think there may be room for an outdoor pitch either on the site, on the roof or next door where the Recreation DSO depot is.
I'm not looking for perfection! As my minister who took his last service at London Road Church this morning would say: "it's no good being so heavenly minded that you're no earthly use"!
As for funding, my option rules out a capital receipt from the sale of the existing school sites - but that was ever only going to contribute a fraction of the Â£43m cost of the Council's suggested package. House building on the golf course was the overwhelming source of funding - and I've suggested The Jewel instead.

Lawrence

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Mar 2006, 16:25

The fact that this idea wasn't included in his original letter but added as an afterthought leads me to conclude that not even Lawrence seriously believes that this option is credible. The brightest architects in the country would be struggling to produce anything other than another towerblock school on such a tight space.

Playing fields on the roof? Castles in the air more likely.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Mar 2006, 16:32

Sports clubs set out opposition to school park plan

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Mar 2006, 16:33

Lawrence-fair enough, lets see what they say? Please don't forget it wasn't just the land value from the houses on the park. It is also the developers profit from the sale of houses on all three sites.

Your proposal would mean that BL gets the profit from housing on the existing school site instead of these profits going to help fund the schools. There would be no profit from the sale of houses on the golf course. There would be no profit from the sale of houses at Brunstane. You have actually come up with negative funding!! And wiped out the cost savings with a two school campus. Which probably also wipes out much of the potential for prudential borrowing. Way to fund!!

The high street is central for Portobello. People want central for the catchment area. Take a look at a catchment area map, I don't think its fair to say the scottish power site is central. You just skipped over the largest high school on the smallest space statement. Are you aware that each of the students at PHS and ST John's have only 2/3rds of the MINIMUM recommended space for a school?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Mar 2006, 16:42

Lawrence Marshall wrote: The new St. Thomas of Aquin's building is lauded by the Council - and rightly so. I can't see why we couldn't do likewise on the High Street.
Lawrence

Lawrence ST Tams was not PPP as I'm sure you are aware, how many years did it take to secure funding for the new school?

And, do you know which assets the Council sold off to bridge the funding gap?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Mar 2006, 16:44

If the only information you had about the Council's proposal was the EN article I just posted you might be forgiven for not realising that the golf course is to be replaced with a much bigger and better facility within a few minutes drive (for the vast majority of golfers who arrive by car), that the sports pitches will remain, that John Ferrier's community work is recognised by the Council and seen as an integral part of the park development, that local schools and the community at large will have more access to better sports facilities and that the general public (dog-walkers included) will still have access to a new community-designed park.

There's no point in only telling half a story.

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 26 Mar 2006, 16:50

Bob Jefferson wrote:The fact that this idea wasn't included in his original letter but added as an afterthought leads me to conclude that not even Lawrence seriously believes that this option is credible. The brightest architects in the country would be struggling to produce anything other than another towerblock school on such a tight space.

Playing fields on the roof? Castles in the air more likely.

Don't you love farce?
My fault I fear,
I thought that you'd want what I want,
Sorry my dear......

Stephen Sondheim

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 26 Mar 2006, 17:01

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 26 Mar 2006, 18:49

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Its early days but it looks like the schools but no housing on the Park idea is gaining some support. So, is there a way to get funding without building houses on the Park?

How about Lawrence's idea of building houses at the Jewel site?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Mar 2006, 20:02

Marya wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:Its early days but it looks like the schools but no housing on the Park idea is gaining some support. So, is there a way to get funding without building houses on the Park?

How about Lawrence's idea of building houses at the Jewel site?

Perhaps it has merit. However, I wouldn't fancy beiing the councillor who tried to persuade another councillor that because he did not want houses in his ward that unfortunately they had to be on his playing fields. Is the Jewel playiing fields or is it just space, I don't know.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Mar 2006, 20:10

Alison Connelly wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:Lawrence-some good lateral thinking. However, as you state, there is no funding solution in your proposal and it would basically mean moving the school out of the centre of the catchment onto a similarly sized site. Is it worth it even if you could fund it?

It is clear from the debates that people want a centrally located school with playing fields, your suggestion meets neither criteria. Our High School is the largest in the city, it is crammed onto a 7 1/2 acre site. The BL development site is 8 acres.
Lawrence
A great breath of fresh air into a weary debate! Thank you.

Stephen
Is the existing PHS site 7 1/2 acres, or is it the combined PHS & St John's site which is 7 1/2 in total? How many acres is the St John's site?

A breath of hot air.

Alison, I am not getting into an analysis of this option, its a non-starter. There is no money. Lawrence starts with a proposal that nets us even less money. He suggests doing a trade with BL. BL have a bigger bit of land so we would have to pay them to take the school site and if we left St Johns there it would be multi-millions. We start the new school project with a duff location and negative cash. Lawrence has not been around to answer the questions I put to him about funding but I can tell you it took 14 years to get the cash for St Thomas and they didnt have to buy a site.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Mar 2006, 20:13

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Its early days but it looks like the schools but no housing on the Park idea is gaining some support. So, is there a way to get funding without building houses on the Park?

Why not move another council establishment onto the Park and develop housing on the site where that used to be? There seems to far less resistance to developing houses on sites where there are already buildings.

I'm thinking another education facility perhaps a "destination" school as opposed to a catchment school. So, if the council has a specialist music school or something of that ilk, parents will gladly send their kids out of their catchment to go to this type of school, so why not a brand new facility in Portobello park?

Of course it doesnt have to be a school. It could be a sports facility, it could be a medical facility and perhaps there are more suggestions?

Any merit in this idea?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Mar 2006, 20:41

Stephen McIntyre. wrote: Is the Jewel playiing fields or is it just space, I don't know.

I believe that Edina Hibs Boy's Club is based there. See:

http://www.edinahibs.co.uk

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 26 Mar 2006, 21:20

Stephen McIntyre wrote:No, you are both misinterpreting.

The impending change is feudal law was widely known Its a totally brilliant change. However, as with all laws there are winners and losers.

You may groan all you wish but you are groaning for the wrong reason..

So you knew about this? And did nothing to effect any resistance? And you say you were 'initially' against building on the park?

Thanks for nothing.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Mar 2006, 21:28

PortyMan wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:No, you are both misinterpreting.

The impending change is feudal law was widely known Its a totally brilliant change. However, as with all laws there are winners and losers.

You may groan all you wish but you are groaning for the wrong reason..
So you knew about this? And did nothing to effect any resistance? And you say you were 'initially' against building on the park?

Thanks for nothing.

Welcome back. Yes I am guilty as charged. I did nothing. Same as you, same as the council. Mind you, you had coninced yourself that you had paid a premium for a perennial view. I make this the third time of asking: Did your sollicitor advise you that this was the case?

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 26 Mar 2006, 21:35

Steven McIntyre wrote: I wouldn't fancy beiing the councillor who tried to persuade another councillor that because he did not want houses in his ward that unfortunately they had to be on his playing fields.

Which ward is Portobello Park in?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Mar 2006, 21:36

I read something recently about the Jewel Park. Wasn't it gifted to the community? Can't recall where I found it, but I found this info on Portobello Golf Club, which may be of interest, from Margeorie Mekie's collection of postcards and photographs of 'Old Portobello'.

The Golfers Handbook of 1936 included Portobello amongst the oldest golf clubs, giving the year of institution as 1856, although a golfing annual of 1886/1887 quotes the much later year of 1883, when ex-Provost Wood was captain. At that time the golf course was in Joppa in an area known locally as The Quarry. The (present) course ...was created in 1908, and although play continued throughout the First World War, the land was put under cultivation during the years 1939 to 1945 and the course was not reopened until 1953.

Elsewhere, she informs us that the clubhouse was opened in June 1911.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 26 Mar 2006, 21:47

Bob Jefferson wrote:I read something recently about the Jewel Park. Wasn't it gifted to the community? Can't recall where I found it, .

Maybe you were thinking of this Bob,on the Portobello Golf Course -What's the real story? thread....

Kingsroader wrote:This situation is potentially a can of worms. A similar situation arose at the Jewel Park some 6 or 7 years ago. The land at the Jewel Park which is used as football pitches by Edina Hibs was originally part of Lady Wauchopes estate. Wauchope estate donated this to the Jewel mining community and was maintained by the Jewel Miners Club. As the maintainence of the land (football pitches) became a burden to the Jewel Club they transfered it to the Edinburgh council on the proviso that it was for recreation purposes for the local community. At the time it suited the council as it helped with their "green area" requirement. So everybody was happy !

Whats this got to do with anything you may ask ! Well around 6 or maybe 7 years ago, the council proposed to use the land to build a Fire Station. Of course Edina Hibs were not happy as they were going to lose their pitches and through letters from the Jewel and CISWO (miners organisation) Lawers, the council were reminded that they were gifted the land in the first place for recreational use. - The fire station is now at Newcraighall !!

Sorry to be long winded about it all - but if conditions are imposed when greenfield land is gifted to the council then they can be challenged - if proved of course !

Surely this can't be the land Lawrence means.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Mar 2006, 21:56

oops moved it thanks.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Mar 2006, 21:58

I think we need to enlist the assistance of Mr Poppy again to sort this out. Are these conditions still effective or have they lapsed? Can the Council go ahead and develop this land?