New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 03 Feb 2006, 16:29

Anyone know if St John's is a listed building?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 03 Feb 2006, 16:32

I believe it is. Nosy will know.

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 03 Feb 2006, 18:33

I have heard that St Johns is a listed building and the facade will be an integral part of the two storey flats that are to be built.

Local residents received a letter from Roy Jobson outlining proposals to replace PHS and St John's and to create a new and improved golf course. I suppose this letter is the standard letter which was sent out to parents.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 03 Feb 2006, 19:19

Do you think it would put a spanner in the works if the Tower were to be listed as a prime example of 1960s architecture?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Feb 2006, 19:55

I had a proper look at St Johns for the first time today. It's actually quite an ugly building, isn't it? Does anyone know what's behind the dirty grey render? Brick?

As for PHS, it's just a pity that Fred Dibnah isn't still around.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 03 Feb 2006, 20:45

Bob Jefferson wrote:As for PHS, it's just a pity that Fred Dibnah isn't still around.

Did he design it then?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 03 Feb 2006, 20:54

Bob Jefferson wrote:I had a proper look at St Johns for the first time today. It's actually quite an ugly building, isn't it? Does anyone know what's behind the dirty grey render? Brick?

I don't think it's that bad. Typical looking old fashioned school building really.

According to the school website

The ground the new school was built on was purchased from the Duke of Abercorn for Â£3735 in 1924. The building itself cost Â£26000 and was completed in 1926.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Feb 2006, 21:04

I guess a lick of paint would make a difference and the retention of the original facade will give the development a bit of character and help it to blend in with its surroundings.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 03 Feb 2006, 21:13

Epykat wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:As for PHS, it's just a pity that Fred Dibnah isn't still around.
Did he design it then?

No, but seeing his beautiful graphics on his progs on TV it's a pity he didn't!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 03 Feb 2006, 21:17

If it was only built in 1926 it's very unlikely to be listed. And it'd be very difficult to convert into fats. If it is part of the deal then the building's likely to be demolished.

However if that helps to avoid PPP then well and good.

Because PPP is, often if not always, a disaster waiting to happen. Take the PPP route and whatever you build may well need demolishing in 30 years too. If it lasts that long.

And that approach is hardly sustainable either.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Feb 2006, 21:29

Welcome to the debate (and the forum) Seanie. I share your reservations about PPP - it's a quick fix but poor value in the long run.

So how do you feel about the Council's proposal?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 03 Feb 2006, 21:58

Well I'd want to look at more detail before a firm conclusion, but I'm an architect with a little experience of education work, new-build and refurbishment, PPP etc, and the basic idea strikes me as about the only realistic option.

Continual refurbishment and maintenence isn't sustainable. Buildings, generally, have life spans. Ones built in the 60's rather short ones. Maintenence and energy costs will be huge compared to a (decent) modern building. After a point you're throwing good money after bad. It's actually more sustainable to build a good, energy efficient, adaptable building that will hopefully serve the needs of the community well into the future. At some point you'll have to build a new building.

Unfortunately the existing site isn't physically big enough to redevelop in-situ. It's just not. So you need to look elsewhere. If you go further afield you might be able to find a prime undeveloped site but that may raise its own considerations of sustainability. It's probably more energy efficient for pupils to walk to school rather than go by bus.

And if you're looking for an easily developable bit of land close to the existing school then your search pretty much begins and ends with the golf course.

And at the end of the day, without wishing to devalue the enjoyment of it's merits in anyway, a golfcourse is a bit of grass with some holes in.

I'm just round the corner. They can come and play in my backgarden.

My green fees will be very reasonable.

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 04 Feb 2006, 08:59

As a local resident, parent, teacher and golfer, I have been watching this thread with great interest. The proposal to rebuild St John's and PHS is only at the start of the consultation process. I am sure we will all be given an opportunity to voice our opinions at the Public Meeting in the Town Hall.

I feel we should all consider what is best overall for the Portobello Community as a whole, not a minority group, who may shout the loudest.

Education affects us all, in our past, our present and our future. The purpose of Education is to create opportunity, release potential and achieve excellence for all. This does not merely apply to children attending school during the day but to the numerous evening classes and weekend courses in vocational and non-vocational activities available to all. A school is, or could be the hub of the community. Two schools in our community are, as we know at the end of their shelf-life. This proposal would allow a new and much needed facility for everyone. This proposal in my opinion, would enhance everone's lifestyle.

I would prefer our schools not to be built under the PPP system if at all possible. The private company who win the tender only build and maintain the school for a period of 30 years. What would happen then?

There was a recent EIS survey completed regarding PPP1;
only 30% of teaching staff believe that their new school represents good value for money;
only 20% of teaching staff felt they had been properly consulted regarding recreational facilities for pupils;
only 25% of teaching staff felt they had been properly consulted on health and safety issues.

As for Portobello Golf Course, how many of the 120 members actually play regularly during the golf season which only lasts six months of the year? Portobello golf course is, to quote Seanie "a bit of grass with some holes in." It provides a Handicap for players before they even lift a golf club. The opportunity of a new golf course this side of town should be seen as a very exciting project for golfers. This new course could have proper, well tended greens, regularly dressed. There could be a floodlit driving range available for evening golf even in the winter months. There could be practice areas for putting, chipping, and bunkers shots...There could be holiday activity programmes for adults as well as children. There could even be a restaurant/cafe/bar catering for the social aspect of the new Portobello Golf Club. If these facilities were available our youngsters could be introduced to the council's Passport to Golf scheme. This junior golf development programme encourages juniors to participate in this ever increasingly popular sport. I have to take my children to Melville as this facilty is not offered at present, this side of town. I certainly would not fight tooth and nail to keep a substandard, antiquated nine hole golf course, when there is an opportunity to acquire a state of the art modern golf course, with endless facilities. But, as a fellow golfer and resident, I wasn't even asked.

So, When is the public meeting at the Town Hall?
Hope to see you ALL there.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Feb 2006, 10:07

Mate of Marya wrote: But, as a fellow golfer and resident, I wasn't even asked.

You are being asked, and you have just made a very valuable contribution to the consultation exercise.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 04 Feb 2006, 10:46

Mate of Marya wrote:As a local resident, parent, teacher and golfer, I have been watching this thread with great interest. The proposal to rebuild St John's and PHS is only at the start of the consultation process. I am sure we will all be given an opportunity to voice our opinions at the Public Meeting in the Town Hall.

I feel we should all consider what is best overall for the Portobello Community as a whole, not a minority group, who may shout the loudest.

Education affects us all, in our past, our present and our future. The purpose of Education is to create opportunity, release potential and achieve excellence for all. This does not merely apply to children attending school during the day but to the numerous evening classes and weekend courses in vocational and non-vocational activities available to all. A school is, or could be the hub of the community. Two schools in our community are, as we know at the end of their shelf-life. This proposal would allow a new and much needed facility for everyone. This proposal in my opinion, would enhance everone's lifestyle.

I would prefer our schools not to be built under the PPP system if at all possible. The private company who win the tender only build and maintain the school for a period of 30 years. What would happen then?

There was a recent EIS survey completed regarding PPP1;
only 30% of teaching staff believe that their new school represents good value for money;
only 20% of teaching staff felt they had been properly consulted regarding recreational facilities for pupils;
only 25% of teaching staff felt they had been properly consulted on health and safety issues.

As for Portobello Golf Course, how many of the 120 members actually play regularly during the golf season which only lasts six months of the year? Portobello golf course is, to quote Seanie "a bit of grass with some holes in." It provides a Handicap for players before they even lift a golf club. The opportunity of a new golf course this side of town should be seen as a very exciting project for golfers. This new course could have proper, well tended greens, regularly dressed. There could be a floodlit driving range available for evening golf even in the winter months. There could be practice areas for putting, chipping, and bunkers shots...There could be holiday activity programmes for adults as well as children. There could even be a restaurant/cafe/bar catering for the social aspect of the new Portobello Golf Club. If these facilities were available our youngsters could be introduced to the council's Passport to Golf scheme. This junior golf development programme encourages juniors to participate in this ever increasingly popular sport. I have to take my children to Melville as this facilty is not offered at present, this side of town. I certainly would not fight tooth and nail to keep a substandard, antiquated nine hole golf course, when there is an opportunity to acquire a state of the art modern golf course, with endless facilities. But, as a fellow golfer and resident, I wasn't even asked.

So, When is the public meeting at the Town Hall?
Hope to see you ALL there.

Are not all golf course - green land with holes in it? unless of course
you know differently?
Portobello Golf Course, may only have 120 registered members, however
you seem to be forgetting the hundred's of others,kids and adults who utilise the course/football pitches. Notwithstanding the countless others who utilise the Park in general. PGG is central, therefore convenient for local people,
and countless others from other surrounding communities

Your ideas of what /if a new golf course was ever built, sounds great,
my question is, why COEC have never taking the initiative to upgrade
the course we already have? Or is this to obvious?

Your proposals for what/could/if, be built on the new PGG (at Newhailes)
Cafe'e, floodlight golf etc.... not many ordinary folks would be able to
afford it or even access it.

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 04 Feb 2006, 11:43

Gemini,
Yes, to the layman a golf course is basically green land with holes, but most keen golfers prefer the land from tee to green to be well tended and in particular, the area around the holes, known as greens, to be kept short and well maintained.

I am not forgetting the hundreds of others; kids and adults who utilise the course/football pitches. I am assumming that they would have access to the new facilities at the new school site.

Perhaps the COEC have never been asked or pushed to upgrade PGC. Perhaps this is an issue which some of the 120 keen members could take up with the council.

Ordinary folks, myself included, are forced to travel outwith Edinburgh to use the facilites of a nine hole course, which is better equipped than PGC. The course I visit with my children is a play as you pay course, costing the same amount to play on as PGC. The Passport to Golf Scheme, introduced by COEC, is a non-profit making scheme being offered to local school children who have access to a local golf club. As for access to the Newhailes site, most golfers at PGC take their cars anway, so it would only involve an extra 2 minutes journey.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 04 Feb 2006, 13:05

Mate of Marya wrote:This new course could have proper, well tended greens, regularly dressed. There could be a floodlit driving range available for evening golf even in the winter months. There could be practice areas for putting, chipping, and bunkers shots...There could be holiday activity programmes for adults as well as children. There could even be a restaurant/cafe/bar catering for the social aspect of the new Portobello Golf Club.

I'm not disagreeing with you MOM that that all sounds fantastic and I truly would love to think that that's the way it would be. In fact, I might even go as far as to say it sounds like a great idea. However, where are the Council going to get the money to give you all that if they don't have a bean in their coffers? Or are they going to use the change they'll have left over from the new housing development? I don't mean to keep sounding cynical - it just keeps coming out that way

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 04 Feb 2006, 16:40

There might be all the facilities MOM would like at the new golf course but there is no guarantee that there would be They could presumably upgrade PGC but they haven't so why would the investment be put into the new place? A friend who lives adjacent to the golf course says it had been allowed to run down in recent years...just like PHS. And as for the land at Brunstane being kept as recreational land in perpetuity...where have we heard that before? Oh yes! the Pitz site.

If this goes ahead, that land at Brunstane will have been flogged off in 15 years' time for housing.

The trouble with people repeating the mantra that there is no alternative is that if you say it enough times, people start to believe it. The fact is that there is no evidence of any other options or alternatives having been properly evaluated. Or if they have, tell us about it. Where are the cost comparisons?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 04 Feb 2006, 17:44

dccairns wrote: There might be all the facilities MOM would like at the new golf course but there is no guarantee that there would be They could presumably upgrade PGC but they haven't so why would the investment be put into the new place? A friend who lives adjacent to the golf course says it had been allowed to run down in recent years...

I'm sure that the golfers can negotiate on their own behalves.

dccairns wrote: If this goes ahead, that land at Brunstane will have been flogged off in 15 years' time for housing.

I find this type of snide, baseless, insinuation totally unhelpful and negative at a time when the community should be united in resolving this problem. This is not a fight or campaign agianst a third party looking to invade and harm or community yet you seem to think it is.

dccairns wrote: The trouble with people repeating the mantra that there is no alternative is that if you say it enough times, people start to believe it.

The trouble with people repeating the mantra that there are plenty of alternatives is that there is no evidence of any real alternatives that will deliver us a new school in the forseeable future. Your suggestions are welcome.

Edited by porty

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 04 Feb 2006, 19:50

I confess I know absolutely nothing about the condition of PHS.

But I'll make some observations from my experience elsewhere.

Most of the schools in the building wave of the 60's were poorly constructed, to standards unacceptable today; they're expensive to maintain, extortionate in energy terms, unpleasant and ineffective environments, too hot in summer, too cold in winter, with poor ventilation, terrible acoustics, they lack flexibility and are difficult to adapt. In non-technical language they're crap.

And most have reached they're useful lifespan unless subject to a major overhaul. But refurbishment, of the sort required, is actually very expensive. Once you start stripping things out you usually find more and more problems. You're quite likely talking about stripping the building back to it's most basic structure and starting again.

And even if you can get away with less you still have the problem of what to do with the pupils. Children and building sites are not a good combination. So you need to decant the pupils. You need to find the space to put a whole lot of Portakabins you've hired for the duration. And that in itself is expensive as well as inconvenient.

In many instances proposals for refurbishment turn out at a cost not too far short of new-build, at higher risk and with a less satisfactory outcome.

So new build is frequently preffered. Done right you'll have a better outcome and the costs are easier to predict. But to do new build on an existing site you need space. The usual pattern is to build the new school on the playing fields, wait till it's finished, then demolish the old school and turn it into playing fields. That way children are kept separate from a building site and decanting costs are obviated. But you need the space to do it.

And whilst I know nothing about the state of PHS it's blindingly obvious that they do not have an abundance of space. I think it would be extremely difficult to develop a new school in-situ. And when it comes to construction the extremely difficult translates into the extremely expensive. Even if possible it's likely to be cost prohibitive.

At any given time there's a going rate for constructing a school. I don't know the figure for secondary schools but it might be in the Â£1600 to Â£1800 per square metre range. Any proposal that falls outwith the currently accepted band is extremely unlikely to get off the ground.

So if PHS really is in a state, and I'm in no position to judge, you face a real problem. Given the limitations of the site the prospects of either refurbishment or new development in-situ face huge obstacles. Even if possible they're probably financially unviable.

But even a scheme that could work within such constraints faces another problem. Developing in-situ has no self-financing element. And without a cash injection from somewhere any such project could only be realistically funded via PPP.

And PPP is an all but unmitigated disaster. Billions have been thrown away replacing old crap schools with new crap schools. But given the political sensitivities about admitting such a monumental waste of public money it'll take a few years for the true awfulness of the situation to percolate into the general conciousness.

If a way can be found to avoid PPP grab it.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 04 Feb 2006, 20:51

Seane,

Welcome and thank you for your valuable contributions. As far as building PHS in-situ is concerned? My understanding is that pupils would have to be decanted for 3 years. if the same size of accomodation is rebuilt then it will be a 3 storey building. However, the current school size is too small. The school is over capcity by almost 400 pupils. So we would be looking at a 5 storey building with no playing fields and limited leisure space.

But apart from all of that: there is no money available, even through PPP. We are years awaty from having funds, if ever?

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 04 Feb 2006, 21:24

Perhaps I am just an eternally optimistic person, but you don't know what is available until you ask for it. COEC are not going to plough money into PCG if the golfers haven't even asked for any improvements to be made to their existing course. The letter dated 1/02/06 from Roy Jobson which was issued to Local Residents, states "we are also looking to create a new and improved golf course, all at no cost to council taxpayer." Let's see what the new and improved golf course entails....
Any members from PCG wanting to comment?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 05 Feb 2006, 10:49

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Gemini wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:Gemini, do you agree that we need a new Portobello High School? Just a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
I don't know
OK. Do you agree that we need a new school to replace St Johns? (You might want to read Bellybabe's earlier post before answering this one.)

If we don't need new schools then we can bring a swift end to this whole debate. If we do, then we have to examine the next logical step.

I read Bellybabes Post the first time round, Bellybabe has her opinion,
and I have mine.
When ALL the information is in the Public Domain (not just POL) then everyone will be able to fully consider the proposals.

I for one, would certainly NOT take what was stated as the PCC as gospel.
It obvioulsy pushed all the right buttons for some.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 05 Feb 2006, 10:55

seanie wrote:If it was only built in 1926 it's very unlikely to be listed. And it'd be very difficult to convert into fats. If it is part of the deal then the building's likely to be demolished.

However if that helps to avoid PPP then well and good.

Because PPP is, often if not always, a disaster waiting to happen. Take the PPP route and whatever you build may well need demolishing in 30 years too. If it lasts that long.

And that approach is hardly sustainable either.

No 1 Portobello High Street 'Red Brick Building' constructed 1920's
LISTED!!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Feb 2006, 11:17

Gemini wrote:[I read Bellybabes Post the first time round, Bellybabe has her opinion,
and I have mine..
When ALL the information is in the Public Domain (not just POL) then everyone will be able to fully consider the proposals.

I for one, would certainly NOT take what was stated as the PCC as gospel.
It obvioulsy pushed all the right buttons for some.

You're absolutely right. Trust no-one.

We have already established that you don't know whether or not PHS needs to be replaced. I am simply asking, in your opinion and on the basis of what you may have read/heard recently, whether you agree that St Johns needs to be replaced. To answer this question you do not require any further information, nor to consider any proposal. We can get to that later.

Yes, No or Don't Know?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 05 Feb 2006, 12:20

Gemini wrote:1 Portobello High Street 'Red Brick Building' constructed 1920's
LISTED!!

There are buildings from the 60's that are listed. But not many. The more recently built the less likely a building is to be listed. A school built in 1926 is unlikely to be, unless it is of special architectural character or has some other particular interest - the work of a regarded architect for example.

So I'd be suprised if St Johns is listed, and if so its unlikey to be a Grade high enough to save it from demolition should the developers come knocking.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Feb 2006, 14:09

Bob Jefferson wrote:
You're absolutely right. Trust no-one.

How will we achieve anything without trust?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Feb 2006, 14:24

Precisely. I was being facetious.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 05 Feb 2006, 14:25

Marya wrote:Anyone know if St John's is a listed building?

Poppy? ecm? Can you help us out here? I've looked at the Historic Scotland site, but it isn't listed there. Could be that it is a groundless rumour much as Sean suspects. I'm just curious to know - doesn't make me want to campaign to save it, either way!

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 05 Feb 2006, 15:00

Marya

It would prob depend on the category and anyway finding council property that old is diffy. However, I did have a look at the council's website and there appears to be a link there for seeing if your property is listed. Didn't have time to take it further!

Mind you, the James 'Jimmy' Clark school at St Leonard's was converted into flats so maybe they can do the same to St J's??

Pops

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 05 Feb 2006, 15:03

Historic Scotland's database might be incomplete.

Because here they have the listed buildings on Portobello High Street but appear to have missed out No 1.

Post by **wangi** » 05 Feb 2006, 18:51

Marya wrote:
Marya wrote:Anyone know if St John's is a listed building?
Poppy? ecm? Can you help us out here? I've looked at the Historic Scotland site, but it isn't listed there. Could be that it is a groundless rumour much as Sean suspects. I'm just curious to know - doesn't make me want to campaign to save it, either way!

The various databases at http://www.rcahms.gov.uk/ would tell you - but they're off line this weekend for maint.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 06 Feb 2006, 13:29

Gemini wrote: I read Bellybabes Post the first time round, Bellybabe has her opinion,
and I have mine.

Gemini, just to be clear, I expressed an opinion that it's not fair to say the children's education is not suffering; however, the other points I made about St John's are not my opinion but fact. The school has not one inch of extra space. The nusery's woefully inadequate accommodation has been mentioned in HMI reports. What I know of the Parsons Green decant is first hand because my partner was a teacher there at the time, and had to be part of that decant. I saw the awful effects of that decant on an adult; I would hate to think what it was like for the children.

I hate the thought of losing green space, and I have been through a process of immediately hating the idea of losing the space, to realising that there really does seem to be no viable alternative. This area needs three new schools, and work doing on a fourth. One of those new schools is being provided through PPP2; probably nobody's ideal solution, but the only one. PHS and St John's need to be replaced. For the sake of the whole community, the schools need to be replaced. There are still many questions to be asked about how that will happen; but at the moment, the one thing that is absolutely irrefutable is that these two schools need to be replaced.

Paula

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 06 Feb 2006, 13:32

I have a question for anyone who can answer it. As I understand it, PHS pupils go to Jack Kane for some PE stuff at the moment, as they have no playing fields. JK is to be demolished/altered (I'm a bit vague about the whole thing), with the velodrome being located there and possibly an indoor football hall or something. Not being entirely sure of what the plans are for JK, I'm wondering how it will affect sports provision for the PHS students. Anyone know?

Paula

teddygirl · Post by **teddygirl** » 06 Feb 2006, 16:46

I really don't know but when my two were at PHS they used to get bussed to Meadowbank so perhaps they will go there again. It's future is in jeopardy too though, so what then?