New Portobello High School - on going issues

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Jun 2010, 00:31

I would agree that the presentation wasn't great. The architects did well enough at the PHS meeting in front of a small and supportive audience but seemed nervous and ill-prepared tonight. I don't doubt that they can produce a great school but public speaking and dealing with (mild) hecklers probably doesn't major on their CVs.

People want answers and detail and get instead artist's impressions and vague waffle because, to be fair, that's the stage we're at. Even so, they could have sold it better. And it's a pity that Peggi wasn't there tonight - she's very good at this sort of thing.

Some of the parents spoke very eloquently, none more so than Paul Smart, the chair of the PHS Parent Council. On the opposition side, there was, to be honest, very little worth recording. It was clarified right from the outset that there was no intention to encroach onto the golf course, which probably came as news to several misinformed attendees who had relied on PPAG for their information.

How the half a mil open space compensation fund is going to be allocated is still rather vague, with the architects having apparently already earmarked some of it at least for 'formalising' and upgrading existing paths within Portobello Park. I'm not entirely sure how much this is for the benefit of the pupils and how much it is intended as a fob-off for the dog-walker contingent, but the latter don't seem very grateful in any case - apparently they are happy enough with the mud and stench of dog poo.

The point was made that, in all likelihood, there will no longer be free community access to the park for recreational purposes as the new 3g pitches will incur a cost for after-school hire. (Floodlighting would increase the community value of the pitches but you can bet that local residents will object on the grounds of light pollution).

I do have some sympathy with local residents on this point and it would be nice if there were some space left for an informal kick-around area but it's a tight site and clearly there just isn't. Still, I can't help but look at the huge area that the golf course takes up. If we were just to shave off even a corner from the east side and make it a 7 hole course? But it seems the golf course is sacrosanct and no-one dares make such a suggestion.

On the whole I was heartened. This was supposed to be PPAG's night but it was hardly a show of strength. Can they raise the funds to fight the Common Good issue? I very much doubt it. Their support is dwindling and a lot of people left before the end. It's not quite game over but they are 3-0 down and we're into injury time.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Jun 2010, 06:19

Bob Jefferson wrote:And it's a pity that Peggi wasn't there tonight - she's very good at this sort of thing.

Sorry, that should be 'Peigi' as in Peigi Macarthur, Headteacher at PHS. Still, not bad for a post-meeting, post-pub analysis!

rmolehusband · Post by **rmolehusband** » 10 Jun 2010, 12:59

Bob Jefferson wrote:How the half a mil open space compensation fund is going to be allocated is still rather vague

Porty and Duddingston are divided by the railway and HLR and the current routes over/under are not very pleasant or even safe for pedestrians and cyclists. I wonder if any of the money could be used to provide a better walking/cycling route (not that I have any bright ideas about what could be done)

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Jun 2010, 13:06

The earmarking of money to improve the remaining Portobello Park is a neccessity because of the Open Space policy OS1 and the Open Space Strategy recently out to consultation. It was also approved as policy by the full council.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 10 Jun 2010, 14:59

I find it very hard to sit on my hands while some of the more ludicrous and bigotted comments are being made but I guess that is just the nature of public meetings. I did take comfort however that the rantings of the 'PPAG' types were wholly irrevelant at this stage of the proceedings and will just be binned in the "did he/she know what this meeting is about" pile. If I was a Council official I would have left very pleased having ticked the, 'well we gave them their meeting box,' and it is nice to see so much public support for the school.

Highlight of the evening was the very last comment when Diana Cairns was asked to do the Maths - essentially 3x4. Ask a....................

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Jun 2010, 15:02

seanie wrote:So...

...any comedy gold moments this evening?

There were a few comedy moments including one or two school on the park supporters who got their words muddled up. And there was the usual peppering of outrageous claims from the anti-brigade, including one story from a reseracher whose brother had been hit by a bus about 50 years ago and has been called "shorty" ever since. Apparently this is all the research required for not locating a school in the vicinity of a busy road.

I also enjoyed the bit at the end when a well known local activist stated in a voice laden with contempt "At the last meeting Roger promised he would tell us the height of the new School" To which the response was:; " I did say that the height floor to floor is 4M and at a maximum there are 3 flloors". I make that 3x4 =12! It seemed to me she had made herself look a bit silly.(I now notice that PoP has identified the culprit)

It was also amusing to see the body language and stoney faces of those that pushed to have this public meeting added to the consultation process. They were obviously hoping for a show of strength from the anti-brigade that would provide momentum for a reversal of the decision to put the school on the park. The plan backfired big time as the positive comments far outweighed the negative.

The design of the school went down well with the vast majority of the audience. Although this was partly due to many of the anti's leaving the meeting after the discussion about the site and didn't hang around for the best bits.

I'm looking forward to seeing the plans in more detail but the conceptuals are exciting, especially given the tight nature of the site. There were some genuine concerns about children's safety. And I'm sure the council/architects/project mnagers will take these on board, if theey haven't already thought of them.

I thought the presentation was weak in regard to the idea of providing corridors, in the form of pathways, around the school site, which would chaperone kids away from the surrounding roads. And I thought that the idea of OS compensation wasn't dealt with as well as it could have been. i'm not sure that some people grasped that they had a say in how and where the money would be spent.

There were excellent contributions from Paul Smart and John Burnside. Tom Wood was an excellent host. Altogether it was a very positive meeting. I expected Common Good to raise its head but there was only one question asked and it was dealt with firmly and properly by billy McIntyre; "we are building the school on the park" was his message. The only other person that questioned the site of the new school was John Stewart who said that the PCC is still undecided as to where its preferred site is? - Seems to me the PCC are not in touch with what is happening in their community either that or they are choosing to ignore it.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Jun 2010, 16:03

No pitchforks and torches?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Jun 2010, 17:42

Nah, it was very tame. There may have been some spells being cast or some voodoo performed but not that I could see.

There was quite a stirring from the anti's when Roger the architect stated that a school in the park would have little or no impact on the number of kids crossing Milton Road. Oh how they scoffed and bellowed. However, when Roger invited the bellowers to provide reasoniing for their rationale, there was an eerie silence. A fair headed local man stepped in and set the record straight. Pointing out that the the new school will be on the same side of milton road as the existing school, which they really ought to have been able to work out for themselves.

The architects were unnerved by the bellowing, no doubt about it. I imagine they mistakenly believed that a presentation on a £41.5M investment in the future of our community wiould be universally welcomed.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Jun 2010, 18:11

Porty wrote:A fair headed local man

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Jun 2010, 19:44

For those of you who couldn't make last night's meeting, here is a copy of the presentation that was given by the architect. I requested it as a slide show with voiceover but that doesn't seem to be possible. However, if you need any clarification then I'm sure someone who attended could probably assist or we can ask the architect firm for further info.

Town Hall Presentation

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Jun 2010, 21:44

A question for seanie, or anyone else who wishes to comment. PPAG have noted that in the case of the refusal of the Viridor appeal:

The main reasons for refusal were that the proposal would be detrimental to the appearance of the Portobello Conservation Area, that it would have a negative effect on the wider townscape and a detrimental effect on visual amenity.

No doubt this gives them hope that the plans for PHS on the park could be rejected on similar grounds. How do you rate their chances?

Post by **wangi** » 10 Jun 2010, 22:14

Well it would be worth remembering the boundary of the Portobello Conservation Area in the first instance.

"enclosed to the north east by the sea and to the south west by Sir Harry Lauder Road which creates a visual and physical boundary for the conservation area as far as Windsor Place. At this point, the boundary turns north down Windsor Place and excludes the housing on the former Mount Lodge Estate. The north western and south eastern boundaries are less well defined: the north western boundary being generally defined by Beach Lane on the north side of the High Street and to the rear of Adelphi Place properties on the south side of the High Street, and the south east boundary extending to the end of Joppa Road taking in Dalkeith Street and Morton Street." (map)

In the Viridor case the clear issue was the visibility of the proposed structure from the conservation area, and the resulting impact. The proposed school will clearly not be visible from anywhere in the conservation area. Unless you're hanging from the spire of St Philip's or St John's!

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 10 Jun 2010, 22:54

Interesting to see how pleased the panel were when they left the building. They did not deal to well with the early guffaws from the anti's, but gained their composure as the meeting went on. Felt sorry for the lovely young lady who was getting a bit of a tough time.

Personally I thought it was just a bit of bullying and they should be ashamed of themselves.

On the other side the anti's lost confidence as the meeting progressed.

Desperation set in from PPAG as they tried to put some rationale behind their arguement. One contributor had difficulty asking his question while searching for his mobile phone to switch it off. Another seemed to be asking for immunity to hit PHS pupils with golf balls and the final reposte.........what are three fours.

ps, there was another shouting liar, liar.
Does anyone know what that was about?

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 10 Jun 2010, 23:07

As for the PCC. Surely the whole of the communities views should be reflected.

It seemed to be thanks for the meeting but, traffic, open space, loss of amenity blah, blah.

No thanks for a £41.5M investment with a further £0.5M for "loss of amenity". No suggestions as to how this £0.5M could be spent.

Has the PCC been aware of the poor state of the school. Not to mention the discredited design and the potential for long term closures. Has this been reflected in their minutes over the last 10, 20 etc years.....or does the school only get a mention when a hardcore of campaigners want to stop it being relocated. This without any suggestion as to how to resolve the issue.

Who do they really represent!!!!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 11 Jun 2010, 00:18

Bob Jefferson wrote:A question for seanie, or anyone else who wishes to comment. PPAG have noted that in the case of the refusal of the Viridor appeal:

The main reasons for refusal were that the proposal would be detrimental to the appearance of the Portobello Conservation Area, that it would have a negative effect on the wider townscape and a detrimental effect on visual amenity.
No doubt this gives them hope that the plans for PHS on the park could be rejected on similar grounds. How do you rate their chances?

The site's close to half a mile from the Conservation Area and the view of Portobello from a distance will not be materially altered. From close to the building it will, but such views aren't relevant planning considerations.

Given the school will be 2-3 storeys, similar to surrounding buildings in overall height, beneath the treeline that will be retained, and unlikely to impinge on the view towards Arthur's Seat, I'd say the chances of rejection on similar grounds being somewhere between none, and none at all.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 11 Jun 2010, 13:36

There are various planning issues that will need to be addressed as part of the design but the only really significant ones, as far as grounds for refusal go, are the Open Space policies.

They've adopted a strategy that certainly could satisfy the requirements of those Open Space policies, but whether it does depends on the final proposals. That's why the Open Space improvement aspect is so pimportant, as well as improving the quality and accessibility of the remaining park.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Jun 2010, 14:36

seanie wrote: Given the school will be 2-3 storeys, similar to surrounding buildings in overall height, beneath the treeline that will be retained, and unlikely to impinge on the view towards Arthur's Seat, I'd say the chances of rejection on similar grounds being somewhere between none, and none at all.

Agreed. And its their latest "Joker".

Of course PPAG will try and play the VIRIDOR/conservation card. Didn't they go the local plan inquiry and claim that even a one storey school would breach the City's Skyline policy?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 Jun 2010, 15:28

I hadn't looked at the PPAG site for quite some time, but was surprised to see that despite it having been obviously updated recently, it still states:

portygreenkeepers.org.uk wrote:Portobello Park Action Group ............are concerned about the council's proposal to build housing and school(s) on the Park.

Surely this is libelous?

edited to amend the misspelling of 'portygreenkeepers'

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 11 Jun 2010, 15:42

Inadvertently, yes.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Jun 2010, 15:46

seanie wrote:. pimportant,

what an inspired word. Even your typos make for good reading.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 11 Jun 2010, 15:59

Maybe we should coin a new definition for the new word?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Jun 2010, 17:24

allaboardtheskylark wrote:......or does the school only get a mention when a hardcore of campaigners want to stop it being relocated. This without any suggestion as to how to resolve the issue. Who do they really represent!!!!

[admin: two paragraphs removed]
It is time the PCC acknowledged the fact and started positively contributing. Instead they sent a long letter to the council COMPLAINING about the pre-planning consultation. In what way does this represent the range of views amongst the community of Portobello. I suspect that with the exception of the adults in 5 or 6 households the rest of portobello is either unconcerned, unaware or quite happy with the 16 week consultation and all the events therein.

So to answer your question Skylark. So far, Portobello Community Council have represented the views of those that are unhappy with the pre planning consutation and a small group who have chosen to place themselves outwith our democracy by refusing to accept the decision. They are behaving like an arm of PPAG and it is no coincidence.

The PCC has lost sight of its raison de tere. (as an aside; how come the April and May minutes are not published on POL?)

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Jun 2010, 17:49

Porty wrote:(as an aside; how come the April and May minutes are not published on POL?)

April's minutes are now available. I'm still waiting for the minutes for May.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Jun 2010, 18:23

Marya wrote:I hadn't looked at the PPAG site for quite some time, but was surprised to see that despite it having been obviously updated recently, it still states:
portykgreenkeers.org.uk wrote:Portobello Park Action Group ............are concerned about the council's proposal to build housing and school(s) on the Park.
Surely this is libelous?

Both libelous and deliberately misleading in my view.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 Jun 2010, 02:36

allaboardtheskylark wrote:I
Desperation set in from PPAG as they tried to put some rationale behind their arguement. One contributor had difficulty asking his question while searching for his mobile phone to switch it off.
?

I couldn't see the questioner in question but the voice sounded like it may have been Archie Burns.When the mobile started ringing, I decided it couldn't be him.

You know when you go abroad or call someone that happens to be in a foreign country, you call their mobile, you get a different ring tone? When the fellows' mobile went off it sounded just like it would do here on Planet Earth.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 12 Jun 2010, 11:44

allaboardtheskylark wrote:..........Has the PCC been aware of the poor state of the school. Not to mention the discredited design and the potential for long term closures. Has this been reflected in their minutes over the last 10, 20 etc years.....or does the school only get a mention when a hardcore of campaigners want to stop it being relocated. This without any suggestion as to how to resolve the issue. Who do they really represent!!!!

Stephen Hawkins represented the PCC on a conducted tour of the school and his report back to the PCC stated that the condition of the school was not that bad. This is at odds with the Council Report conducted a bit later which said that it would cost around £5 million just to keep the school breathing over the next 5 years?

For the Chairman of the PCC to stand up at this stage of the process and announce that the PCC are still undecided as to the preferred site for the school is ludicrous. This is a £40+ million investment in the community - can they not even notice this was a meeting to contribute to the design of the school on the park and not debate the location!

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 12 Jun 2010, 12:17

Traffic and the safety of all children was another very valid concern that was raised at the meeting. Unlike primary school pupils, many secondary school children do not use a car to get to and from school and I think that Milton Road offers a much safer environment for children than the trafic mayhem that surrounds St John's during the morning and afternoon drop off/pick up sessions. I hate having to negotiate around St John's on my bike in the morning.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Jun 2010, 12:37

An open letter to Portygreenkeepers:

To whom it may concern

It has been noticed that some of the information on the portygreenkeepers.org.uk website is out of date. The phrase:

and who are concerned about the council's proposal to build housing and school(s) on the Park.

is misleading and possibly libelous. The Council, as you are aware, has no intention of building housing on Portobello Park and intends to build no more than one school on the park.

I'm sure you will agree that during the pre-planning consultation it is important that we present the facts accurately to avoid confusion. I am in no doubt that this is an oversight on your part but I would appreciate it if this phrase could be removed.

Thanks

Bob Jefferson

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 14 Jun 2010, 11:37

Bob Jefferson wrote: I do have some sympathy with local residents on this point and it would be nice if there were some space left for an informal kick-around area but it's a tight site and clearly there just isn't. Still, I can't help but look at the huge area that the golf course takes up. If we were just to shave off even a corner from the east side and make it a 7 hole course? But it seems the golf course is sacrosanct and no-one dares make such a suggestion.

Golf is played over either 2 rounds of nine or one of 18.It's also a valuable and well used local amenity.I think it's probably best to try and fight one fire thats easily put out rather than stoke the flames and give them areas to create support.I'd certainly feel much less comfortable with the proposal if the golf course was to be included in the plans.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 14 Jun 2010, 12:02

7-hole golf courses are hardly unheard of and, as a user survey demonstrated, the overwhelming majority of golfers travelled to the course by private vehicles. So the 'local' aspect probably isn't that important in terms of golfing amenity.

However the opportunity to relocate the golf-course would appear to have passed so we'll just have to live with the proposals as is.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 14 Jun 2010, 14:56

seanie wrote:7-hole golf courses are hardly unheard of and, as a user survey demonstrated, the overwhelming majority of golfers travelled to the course by private vehicles. So the 'local' aspect probably isn't that important in terms of golfing amenity.

However the opportunity to relocate the golf-course would appear to have passed so we'll just have to live with the proposals as is.

I've played golf for over 25 years, all over Scotland/Ireland/Europe and never come across one, can you point me in the direction of one? *Pitch and putts dont count.

As for being local, it's an Edinburgh Leisure facility, owned and operated on behalf of the residents of Edinburgh (not Portobello) by the council so not sure what your getting at there either.I've not played on the course for a good fews years, but started playing there when I was 9 and lived in Brunstane Bank, since it was a bit of a trek along Milton Road for a child of my age, my neighbour used to take me there (by car) and play.Both of us could be classed as local I guess.
There is also alot of of older people playing the course who feel that carrying (or pulling) their bag to the course and the walking is possibly a bit too much so chose to drive from the homes in Portobello to the course to play.

Anyway, we're getting the school and playing fields and keeping the golf course, something for everyone.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 14 Jun 2010, 19:47

Try googling "7-hole golf course".

And you were the one who suggested it was a

"well used local amenity."

I was suggesting that, since a survey suggested over 90% of golf-course users arrived by private vehicles, it's probably less of a 'local amenity' than an Edinburgh one. The very nature of the course probably attracts a particular type of golfer who's willing to travel to it even if it isn't the closest course to them.

The relevance of that is that the original proposal to relocate the golf course to greenbelt land at Brunstane wouldn't have caused much disruption to golfers in terms of amenity; if the overwhelming majority are driving anyway, driving a few hundred yards further is hardly a great hardship.

If the golf course had been relocated, not only would that have opened up more opportunites in terms of the school design, but it could've resulted in a park that was genuinely used by most local residents, which at the moment it's not.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 14 Jun 2010, 22:42

3 rounds of 6 perhaps.
I played on this course many years ago and it is what it is, ok for beginners or older golfers and well loved by many in Portobello who don't know one end of a golf stick from another. Still, the community said it stays so stay it does.

Perhaps given the hard times many golf clubs are going through it may not be long until some of the private courses ask to come over to the public sector. What would happen then?

Meantime, Portobello Golf Course members should be doing all they can to bring in new blood to the game to keep the course going in a shrinking market. Given some of the comments I heard, such as "who needs them" the CoEC will have a job getting some members involved in a golf academy.

My own opinion (for whatever it is worth) promote the facility to keep it, a school next door is an ideal chance to boost the membership and ensure the future viabilty of the course.

ps only joking about the 3 rounds of 6, don't want quoted on planet PPAG

Post by **wangi** » 14 Jun 2010, 23:08

Some observations, I wouldn't want to go as far to say they are points...

The trend to allocate less parking places than are actually needed should be looked into. It clearly doesn't translate into a reduction in car use, only the parking of cars outwith the campus and on neighbouring streets. For an illustration just look at Holy Rood. There either needs to be more parking allocation or more carrots.

Will the location of the new school impact businesses on Portobello High St? For kids at lunch time it wouldn't be a surprise to see a shift toward the shops on the Milton Rd W / Duddingston Pk corner...

L/

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 15 Jun 2010, 07:29

The car park at Holy Rood has not been built yet!