New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Porty]

I am trying to understand how building on Figgate Park is acceptable on a platform of green space preservation. An explanation would be most helpful.

Think you will get an explanation when the cows come home but unfortunately they all got auctioned off on Friday.

[Dadaist]

Maybe the clue is in the name - PPAG. And maybe their stance on green space is no more or less questionable than calling yourself something like PFANS but making it obvious you only back a certain plan!

[Dadaist]

selling of the family silver for short term gain

Well put.

[Bob Jefferson]

calling yourself something like PFANS but making it obvious you only back a certain plan!

Perhaps because there only ever was one option and the rest was smoke-screen and wishful thinking?

[Bob Jefferson]

Out of interest Dada, who do you think is winning the 'green' argument thus far? Is it PPAG who want to preserve green space but haven't ruled out building on Figgate Park and would prefer a high-rise PHS on a site that is officially too small with no immediate access to anything remotely green, or PFANS who propose a low-rise school in a parkland setting with sporting facilities available for community use?

It seems to me that PPAG have tried to take the 'greener than thou' moral high ground but I don't see Robin Harper, Mark Ballard or any other prominent environmentalist showing public support for their campaign.

[Dadaist]

I've answered both Bob (with reference to his long-winded rhetorical question) and Porty (with reference to his attack on "integrity") but been deleted.

It's fascinating to watch the amount of scorn being poured onto PPAG by forum members!

[bbbrown]

who is winning the green arguement?
i know one thing....it aint the the Park.....

[Dadaist]

I quite liked my answer to Bob's question, but the mods snipped it.

I know what you mean, bb. Looks like we're going to keep losing green space til there isn't any left to sell off.

BUT EDUCATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OXYGEN







This post was moderated Tue 12 Sept 9.48 a.m.

[Porty]

The council executive offered no objection (not sure if that's the same as unanimous?) to proceeding with consultation on the preferred options put forward in the council report. (However, other options such as St John's @ Powerleague or Scottish Power site) can still be part of the cosultation process.

There were good deputations by the various interest groups, everyone made some valid points.

The meeting was a tough one, particularly the bullying of Roy Jobson by Councillor White.

[Porty]

I dont suggest that my council tax is used for PFANS, but it is my view that PFANS certainly promotes the Council plan,....

It is my view that PPAG certainly doesn't promote the council plan and anyone who follows this thread can have no doubts about where their funding comes from

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN Letter's Page:

Different schools of thought in Porty

THE debate on new schools for Portobello is intensifying and there are varying opinions within our community and at least two campaign groups.

PPAG is one of those groups. Its aim is to "preserve this piece of central, accessible green space for future generations to enjoy because, once built upon, it will be lost forever. Green space is fast being used up all over the country and is particularly important in urban areas close to where people live, performing the function of lungs for the city."

This statement relates to Portobello Park and is lifted from the PPAG website.

The PPAG website has now been updated with a response to the excellent report published by City of Edinburgh Council. The PPAG response to the council urges them to consider building St John's Primary in Figgate Park, which is a rather lovely location.

So on one hand PPAG are waxing lyrical about preserving green space whilst simultaneously lobbying the council to build on another park.

This demonstrates a complete lack of integrity. Ros Sutherland the chair of PPAG said: "The need for further loss of green space in the city is something that all of us should question." (Your Views, August 8th).

PPAG may as well come clean and say: "We don't want schools in our park but we are happy to have one in yours."

Stephen McIntyre, Brighton Crescent West, Edinburgh

[Dadaist]

Unfortunately, Mr Macintyre has shot himself in the foot.

preserve this piece of central, accessible green space for future generations

To my mind, PPAG made it quite clear that they were only about saving their namesake park.

Saving Figgate park will be up to FPAG.

Steven is wrong when he says that PPAG have shown a complete lack of integrity - they have shown exactly as much (or as little) as PFANS, who (as far as my memory serves me) were talking about replacement golf courses on their website despite having a more open-ended name.

At least in terms of naming conventions, PPAG do what they say on the tin. PFANS however should be renamed to more accurately reflect their agenda.

[Bob Jefferson]

Here is the official PFANS position as at 10 am today:

[quote]Portobello High School: Why there can be no further delay

The school environment cannot provide a 21st Century education.

The Council has assessed almost every aspect of the building as “poorâ€

[Dadaist]

If PPAG are to be consistently whipped over their perceived about face, PFANS should certainly be held to account over their swift initial support of the cooncil plan despite being named otherwise.

[Porty]

PFANS should certainly be held to account over their swift initial support of the cooncil plan despite being named otherwise.

The floor is yours.......

[Dadaist]

Thanks. Begin at "PFANS" and end at "name".

Unfortunately, Mr Macintyre has shot himself in the foot.

preserve this piece of central, accessible green space for future generations

To my mind, PPAG made it quite clear that they were only about saving their namesake park.

Saving Figgate park will be up to FPAG.

Steven is wrong when he says that PPAG have shown a complete lack of integrity - they have shown exactly as much (or as little) as PFANS, who (as far as my memory serves me) were talking about replacement golf courses on their website despite having a more open-ended name.

At least in terms of naming conventions, PPAG do what they say on the tin. PFANS however should be renamed to more accurately reflect their agenda.

I remember when I first surfed to the PFANS website, and was royally baffled as to why a pro-school organisation was going on about golf courses. Fine if they were called "Portobello For A New School On The Golf Course", but to my mind their site (then, at least) seemed like it had been knocked up by a bunch of people who just wanted to cheerlead the initial council plan.

[bbbrown]

hats of to the cooncil/pfans steam roller. they are playing a blinder at the moment. simultaneously sticking the boot into PPAG in the local rag and commending the council for there excellent work on the web sites. the orchestration is at least worthy of merit.....now if they can just get the £50 million worth of houses in there some how...game set and match....who knows...maybe the exec will surprise everyone and shower us with money....

[Bob Jefferson]

I think that someone claimed earlier that Maureen Child was 'at the heart' of the PFANS campaign. I believe that she has taken a very balanced view on the matter and is prepared, as any local councillor should be, to take on board the opinion of the whole community, as this message demonstrates:

Dear All

I thought I would update you about this now rather than at the end of the month.

The Council Education Executive today listened to four delegations from different groups in the Portobello community about the proposals to replace Portobello High School and St John's Primary School. These were Portobello High School Board, Portobello For New Schools (PFANS), St John's Primary School Board and Portobello Park Action Group.

All Portobello's delegations spoke very well indeed. And everyone listened well too. Even although there are strong differences of view among us all, I believe Portobello's community spirit was reflected very well in the way people put across their arguments and listened to others respectfully. There were none of the interruptions which we Council Executive Members very often hear in these kinds of fraught circumstances!

The decision, which the Council Executive were asked to make by the Director of Children and Families, was simply to go out to public consultation with the school communities and the wider community in Portobello and district. There is a huge volume of background paper and a detailed analysis on each of the sites raised in the preliminary discussions we have been having since early this year, up until May. Fifteen sites were put through a rigorous analysis by independent consultants. Any one of these sites can still be raised as possibilities through the consultation, if anyone so wishes. As can the issue of funding any or all of the options.

All the volumes of background papers are available for reference in Portobello Library and at each of the schools. They were too big to fit on a CD ROM without crashing the normal computer!

Each of you, who have already put in comments or raised questions, will be asked whether or not you want these to be fed in to this first formal consultation process, which is only just starting. I hope everyone will fully engage with the process, as many have already. That input already shaped the discussion and was very helpful indeed in getting to this stage.

Everyone's task is to help find the best possible place to build the new schools, which everybody agrees we need and which almost all of our community's children will attend. We must also ensure that community recreation places, sports facilities and green spaces are retained and enhanced as far as we possibly can.

In beginning to scope out the detailed business case to the Scottish Executive, for the full sum for both replacement schools, it will be crucially important that we express our very strong desire to retain good quality green space for school community and wider community use in this process. That point should be very strongly made by everyone over the formal consultation period.

A number of the key questions have already been posed by people writing to Councillors like me. All these and more need to be raised and answered in order that we come up with the best possible solution to the challenges that face the whole community; and that is, to provide the best possible educational opportunities for all Portobello's children and grandchildren and the best possible community facilities too.

The meetings that will be on offer from the Council, over the next month, will not be the only meetings and opportunities that can and will take place. There will - no doubt - be questionnaires and petitions and smaller group discussions organised by others. It is vitally important that everybody concerned with the longer term future of Portobello and its communities - geographic communities and communities of interest - have their full say and help shape all our thinking on these vital questions.

The next opportunity to discuss the issues will be the Council's Children and Young People's Scrutiny Panel. It may well be on the agenda for the next one on 28 September. There will be meetings at each of the schools to which all parents in the school communities affected will be specifically invited. There is also a wider (geographical) community meeting in Portobello Town Hall on 11 October. The result of the consultation will be brought back to the full Council on 21 December this year.

Thank you very much for your input so far and I look forward to further constructive engagement on this issue (and maybe others) in the next few months. I will keep you posted on progress, that is, unless you tell me you would prefer not!

Best wishes

Maureen

Councillor Maureen Child
Elected Member for Milton Ward
Executive Member for Sustainability and Finance
The City of Edinburgh Council
City Chambers
High Street
Edinburgh
EH1 1YJ
Phone: 0131 529 3268
Fax:0131 529 4133

[Bob Jefferson]

Meanwhile, back on the 'Comments' section of the EN (see link posted previously), the debate continues with Stephen taking on all-comers.

[Porty]

I don't know if anyone is compiling a summary of the goings on today? Will we get the submissions and the answers to the questions posed by the councillors.

[Dave Connelly]

I'm sure Dave is big enough to take a bit of criticism of the old web skills, it isn't actually meant that way anyway cause god only knows how he finds the time for the input he does.

I am big enough thanks, in fact I welcome any crticism as long as it’s constructive. If I don’t pick up the mistakes immediately and people don’t tell me that there are mistakes on the sites, they may go entirely un-noticed and my prooffeshanull image may be tarnished.

I don’t take offence easily, bb, which is why I still post on this site.

I'm sure Dave will be the first to admit that big green, moving graphics (which must take all day to load on dial up) with celebrate spelt celbrate hardly conveys the same professionalism as the PFANS website does.

It caught your attention though bb. and that is the whole point. Over 3500 hits since July. Good point about the graphics though, but having tested them on 56k dial up, they loaded in 6 seconds, which was quicker than the council site).

Thanks for your support. To keep the site watchers happy, I have changed the offending "celeb" graphic, the music still plays though. The Kids like it.

Good luck to Richard Butt who produced the PFANS site. It is very informative.

selling of the family silver for short term gain

Never a truer word spoken

[Dave Connelly]

I'll let Dave Connolly ...I'm sure they are not quite as 'amateur' as you think.

Ta

[bbbrown]

Dave,

No criticism meant at all. The whole point I was trying to make is simply that, in my opinion, (are opinions still allowed on this site?...its confusing the way posts mysteriously disappear without trace from day to day under the censors knife), PFANS looks like a council mouthpiece, while the Greenkeepers site looks a little more thrown together, more like an action group web site in fact.....

Anyway....can I ask Dave...what do you think of all this negative campaigning by Stephen and Bob aginst PPAG rather than concentrating on their own campaign? Why so little mention of houses on the park all of a sudden? Why do so many posts keep vanishing into thin air?

[Dave Connelly]

It is my view that PPAG certainly doesn't promote the council plan and anyone who follows this thread can have no doubts about where their funding comes from

<img src="http://www.clanconnelly.com/portyonline/thinice.jpg" >

[Porty]

It is my view that PPAG certainly doesn't promote the council plan and anyone who follows this thread can have no doubts about where their funding comes from

<img src="http://www.clanconnelly.com/portyonline/thinice.jpg" >

Why?

[Pal of Porty]

....PFANS looks like a council mouthpiece...

And your point is..............?

PS I love your new avatar Dave.

[Dave Connelly]

....

....

....Brighton Crescent West, Edinburgh

I think questioning someones integrity should be thought about in depth prior to placing comments about it online for all to read.

I am not a spokesperson for PPAG, (Stephen that is not me distancing myself, I am really not the spokesperson), but what I think was said at the council meeting regarding building the school on the Figgate Park, was that PPAG wanted the greenspace replaced in the same street, on the present site of the school.

Mr Perry also didn't appear to have heard or hadn't listened to what PPAG had said and asked a very silly question indeed which was along the lines of

if I (Mr Perry), could replace the 5 hectares of park next to Portobello Park would PPAG accept that.

Where on earth would he find another 5 hectares in Park Avenue, or surrounding areas


I think all of the deputations spoke very well and all credit to them.

What happened to the Duddingston Conservation folk though

I was privately dissapointed though that Pfans stated quite categorically that as a group they would rather have the new schools quickly and at any cost.

Rolling over to the council in such a grand way like that only confirmed to the wavering council officials that Pfans would support them in any direction they cared to travel.

<img src="http://www.customcaninecookies.com/Tumm ... y_rubs.JPG">

This is of course only my interpretation and I certainly do not mean to offend anyone. I am quite happy to be corrected. If you could publish the full unedited script that would be helpful to my understanding of what Pfans really want.


In regards to my previous posts where I have honestly told you what I personally want, preserving all of the green space etc etc etc...

when I asked you individualy to publish what you individually want.

<img src="http://www.fridaymusic.com/images/album ... ing200.jpg">

[Dave Connelly]

PS I love your new avatar Dave.

thanks, yours too

[Dave Connelly]

It is my view that PPAG certainly doesn't promote the council plan and anyone who follows this thread can have no doubts about where their funding comes from

<img src="http://www.clanconnelly.com/portyonline/thinice.jpg" >

Why?

it suggests impropriety.

[Porty]

<img src="http://www.clanconnelly.com/portyonline/thinice.jpg" >

Why?

it suggests impropriety.

In what way?

[Dave Connelly]

I am sure that was not what you were intending.

[Porty]

I am sure that was not what you were intending.

Dave I wasn't intending anything. How PPAG is funded is clearly indentifiable to anyone that follows ths thread. Its not an opinion.

[Dave Connelly]

I wasn't offended Stephen, but I know some folk who may have taken it the wrong way, just trying to keep the peace
edited to re-spell

[Porty]

I think questioning someones integrity should be thought about in depth prior to placing comments about it online for all to read.">

I would like a bit of respect and privacy about my private life if you don't mind.

I am not questioning the integrity of any individual, its not someone, its a group, PPAG.

I am not a spokesperson for PPAG, (Stephen that is not me distancing myself, I am really not the spokesperson), but what I think was said at the council meeting regarding building the school on the Figgate Park, was that PPAG wanted the greenspace replaced in the same street, on the present site of the school.

Dave, for the last time. I know you are not spokesperson for PPAG. If you take the spin off the above statement then it is unequivocal that PPAG would support building a school in a portobello park. When you flash a petition under peoples noses that's headed "Loss of Green Place in Portobello" it is reasonable to assume that many people would sign it thinking all space woyuld be preserved, and not think the petitioning organisation wished to build in their local park.

Mr Perry also didn't appear to have heard or hadn't listened to what PPAG had said and asked a very silly question indeed which was along the lines of

if I (Mr Perry), could replace the 5 hectares of park next to Portobello Park would PPAG accept that.

Where on earth would he find another 5 hectares in Park Avenue, or surrounding areas

You may have thought the exchange to be "silly" it was actually fundamental. The PPAG restriction to "the same street" was the nub for many. There was a sharp intake of breath from many of the executive. You could hear Ros's voice quiveriung with the lack of conviction. It was like one of those movies where tumbleweed drifts across the street.

This is only the internet and it doesn't matter much. Yesterday was "the room" where it counted and the executive response said it all. PersonallyI think it was at that point you lost any hope of a delay and PPAg may not recover.

when I asked you individualy to publish what you individually want. ">

Personally, I have not made my mind up yet about which option to support? I'm tending towards the Park but I am interested in all the views that will be expressed through consultation. I definitely don't want a decant under any circumstance.

[Dave Connelly]

I ould like a bit of respect and privacy about my private life if you don't mind.

Sorry you lost me there

When you flash a petition under peoples noses that's headed "Loss of Green Place in Portobello" it is reasonable to assume that many people would sign it thinking all space woyuld be preserved, and not think the petitioning organisation wished to build in their local park.

The petition wording is constant though, unlike Pfans which was different in the library than it was online, that could have been a typo I suppose as several of the sheets were different.

There was a sharp intake of breath from many of the executive. You could hear Ros's voice quiveriung

It is very difficult to speak in those circumstances when you are not used to it. The only sharp intake of breath was when the councillor reminded the officials that their jobs were on the line at the next election. You could see them shuddering in their seats, even you smirked at that one

This is only the internet and it doesn't matter much. Yesterday was "the room" where it counted and the executive response said it all. Personally I think it was at that point you lost any hope of a delay and PPAg may not recover.

All conflicts no matter how large or small have ups and downs. Yesterday was a definate up for PPAG, several of the officials applauded after Ros spoke. Did you notice that

Personally, I have not made my mind up yet about which option to support? I'm tending towards the Park but I am interested in all the views that will be expressed through consultation. I definitely don't want a decant under any circumstance.

Fair enough, now lean over and ask Clockwork O to put their stance in the public view