New Portobello High School - PPAG/"Save Porty Park"

[seanie]

At the risk of repeating myself;

Why, in defence of their claim that the Council's 'traffic survey described the A1 as a minor road’, have the Portobello Park Action Group cited a document that a) isn't a traffic survey and b) doesn't describe the A1 as a minor road?

Why have the Portobello Park Action Group provided three incompatible claims regarding the document containing this claim?

a)“What Sean has in his hands has NEVER been printed by PPAG. It was on our facebook page for a very short time (as confirmed by Sean Watters and others), its' purpose was to get feedback from supporters”

b)“Sean is holding a poster put up around the park, it was not handed round schools “

c)“we used the image on a poster but the text was different - that is why I know the version Sean has did not come from us”?

What are the developments that the Portobello Park Action Group claim have been planned for Figgate & Quarry Parks in recent months?

Why have the Portobello Park Action Group said that “the council stand to make a significant profit from the sale of the existing school site to property developers but have not said how this will be spent” when the council has indeed said how any capital receipt will be spent; for capital investment in the school estate, specifically the remaining Wave 3 schools?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group say they oppose development on any green space, when the Portobello Park Action Group have suggested Bingham Park, Jewel Park and Greenbelt land as suitable alternatives for the high school?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group say it would be possible to build on the former Lismore School site without the loss of any green space, when that would mean moving the school from a site that's only 40% of the recommended minimum, to one that's only 20% of the recommended minimum?

How do the Portobello Park Action Group propose to fit a secondary school of 1400 pupils onto the site of a primary school built for 270 without losing any green space on Bingham Park?

When asking for donations for the Portobello Park Action Group legal case, why do they never mention to people that the established legal precedent is that permission from the courts is not required to develop schools on Common Good land?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group never explain to people that rulings from the Courts of Session have established that, since the land remains in council ownership and is used to the continuing benefit of the community, schools are compatible with the Common Good status and no permission from the Courts is required to proceed?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group state that “the Golf Course will be lost if the school is built on the Park” when the original high school sat close to the park quite happily for several decades?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group state that “housing will be built on the course” when there are no such proposals and such a development would be incompatible with the Common Good status of the land?

Since the Portobello Park Action Group profess concern about “the possibility of children being knocked down by speeding vehicles on Milton Road”, why have the Portobello Park Action Group spent the last three years promoting Lismore as a better site, when that would result in a fourfold increase in the number of children having to cross it?

Why do the Portobello Park Action Group say that the school will result in the "loss of 25% of our precious parkland" when there are over 52Ha of parks in the local area, and the school and playing fields won't even take up 5Ha?

And have the Portobello Park Action Group found the Council’s traffic survey yet?

[seanie]

And;

So what about this other flyer of yours and the "loss of 25% of our precious parkland" claim?

Rosefield Park - 1.34Ha
Brighton Park - 0.86Ha
Abercorn Park - 0.79Ha
Bingham Park - 3.88Ha
Jewel Park - 11.46Ha
Portobello Community Garden - 0.13Ha
Straiton Park - 0.35Ha
Joppa Quarry Park - 2.42Ha
Figgate Park - 10.97Ha
Portobello Park - 20.00Ha

That’s over 52Ha of local parks. The school and playing fields won't even take up 5Ha.

So go on saveportypark, tell us which local parks you're ignoring in your calculation.

Which of them aren't "precious parkland" in the view of PPAG?

As if we didn't know...

[seanie]

Two facts are beyond question;

a) You produced the 'poster' with a blatantly false claim on it.

b) You put it into the public domain by publishing on Facebook.

You insist that you did not distribute this 'poster' but frankly, given PPAG's track record of contradictory and false statements, I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. But even assuming that on this rare occasion you're saying something that's actually true, you can't possibly be sure that one of your over eager supporters didn't print it out and pass it around.

Because I was passed a paper copy of that very 'poster'.

[seanie]

There's another thing that niggles.

The response to Cllr Child says the following;

Don't forget that the original plans unveiled in 2006 included a large amount of housing on the park and GC and the then Director of City Development, Andrew Holmes, said at a public meeting that the council intended to develop the whole area. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS AGENDA HAS CHANGED.

Well the idea first floated in early 2006 did indeed include a large amount of housing on the park. That was because there was little prospect of another PPP round (which indeed hasn't happened) and the Council were trying to find a way of financing a much needed new school.

But as I recall, and I'm sure others will confirm, the suggestion was a split of 25% housing, 50% park, and 25% school. There was some uncertainty about this, and of course the idea was soon dropped, but I certainly don't recall the Council saying they intended to develop the whole area.

So the claim that "the then Director of City Development, Andrew Holmes, said at a public meeting that the council intended to develop the whole area" strikes me as odd.

[seanie]

Certainly I don't recall this being brought up during the vigorous discussion here on talkporty back in 2006.

However the claim is not entirely new to me.

The first I can recall coming across it is in March 2010, in a Portgreenkeepers post now deleted but recorded here;

This ties in with what Andrew Holmes, the then director of City Development, admitted at an ELDC meeting at the start of this process which was that the council´s intention was to develop the whole area of the park and golf course.

But that's the first I recall coming across such a claim. Which is odd because, if that's indeed what he said, you would've thought the Portobello Park Action Group would've been singing it from the rooftops back in 2006, when he was supposed to have said it.

But I can't remember that.

[seanie]

Can anyone else?

[seanie]

However, we've at least been given a clue to go on. An ELDC meeting.

That means an East Local Development Committee meeting. That committee no longer exists but the papers are still on record. Having looked through the records from mid-2005 to the end of 2006 the only meeting at which I can find Portobello High School raised as an issue is this one of 23 May 2006, at which the report presented to the full Council of 4 May 2006 was noted.

And within that report is the following;

4.2 Recent schools have been funded through the PPP programmes. It is unlikely, however, that further PPP funding will become available for several years if at all. In the meantime the City has a limited capital resource and, within the education sector, the City is faced with major issues of school refurbishment and replacement particularly in South Edinburgh around Borou hmuir. Any funding for schools will require rigorous prioritisation and difficult decisions.

4.3 The current Portobello High and St-John’s Primary school sites offer a funding opportunity if sold for residential purposes. A further opportunity arises from the possible sale of a portion of the remaining golf course land for residential purposes once the land for the proposed schools has been agreed and allowance for retention of a suitable area of public park has also been agreed. Any development in the park will of course be subject to planning permission being granted. The three sites together could provide up to 23 acres of developable land to set against school costs. The value of this land will depend upon densities, levels of affordable housing and other infrastructure issues. The current valuation assumptions are based around relatively low densities to reflect anticipated design requirements but could still provide returns of up to £28m. It is intended that the proceeds of all land sales will be utilised for the construction of the proposed new schools.

4.4 It would appear that the majority of the costs of the new provision could be addressed through development of these surplus areas. Depending on the number and size of replacement schools this development option could cover most of the costs. In either case, and at current values, development returns covering more than half of the costs of the schools and a replacement golf course could be achieved, This still leaves a sizeable public contribution but brings the project into affordability.

[seanie]

Which fits what I remember.

There was a huge funding problem because PPP had dried up, the Council were faced with extremely difficult prioritisation decisions given the limited funds, and were looking to inject extra capital.

They were looking to develop the school whilst retaining an area of park, whilst developing enough housing to at least partially fund the project.

However there's nothing about developing the whole park.

[seanie]

And the Portobello Park Action Group don't bring this up when they appear before the Children & Young People's Scrutiny Panel.

[seanie]

The Portobello Park Action Group don't bring this up in their responses to the 2006 consultation, or at the December 2006 full Council meeting that chooses the park as the site for the school.

[seanie]

Admittedly it's difficult to be sure, given the regularity with which the Portobello Park Action Group delete the record of what they've said and posted, but I genuinely don't recall coming across this claim until the March 2010 post, almost 4 years after the only ELDC meeting that this issue was on the agenda.

Which, as I said, strikes me as odd.

[seanie]

And of course, at that December 2006 full Council meeting, the decision taken included that;

"that no housing would be built on the remaining green space of Portobello Park/golf course."

Which slightly undermines the "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS AGENDA HAS CHANGED" claim. Especially since the prospect has never been raised since, would not be compatible with the newly discovered Common Good status of the land, and would be close to impossible given current planning policies.

[seanie]

Of course it's certainly possible that someone within the Portobello Park Action Group, sometime in Spring 2010, suddenly recalled what "the then Director of City Development, Andrew Holmes" had said at a meeting almost 4 years earlier.

I'm not saying it's not.

I just find it odd, that's all...

[seanie]

Actually I went back to check whether the issue came up at any other ELDC meeting and I'd missed one. Funnily enough it happened to be the one and only ELDC meeting I've ever attended, along with Bob and Maria if I recall. I don't remember the Director of City Development saying any such thing. In fact it would've pretty odd if he had.

Officers make recommendations for Cllrs to decide upon. It's not their role to tell Cllrs what the Council intends to do.

[Bazza]

So what about this other flyer of yours and the "loss of 25% of our precious parkland" claim?
...
Portobello Park - 20.00Ha
...
The school and playing fields won't even take up 5Ha.

Without wanting to get too involved in this debate, it looks clear to me that PPAG were referring to Portobello Park as "our precious parkland". 25% of Portobello Park is 5Ha.

[seanie]

I wouldn't be so sure of that; at times they've discounted over 70% of Portobello Park as being parkland, because there's a golf course on it.

[Porty]

And they class the area set aside for sports pitches as buildings/development to be included in the 5Ha. Whch means, by their own definition, the park has already been developed, so what's the fuss?

[rmolehusband]

With typical consistency, the PPAG/ProtyGreenkeepers website talks about 'Portobello's parkland'

the irreversible loss of 25% of Portobello's parkland

which must include some other parks in the area, so I guess to make 25% they must be excluding the golf course. There is no depth these people won't sink to to try and scare the community.

A golf course is as much a park as a football pitch, it's just the golf course is used more of the time.

[seanie]

The Portobello Park Action Group's website also states;

The school would take up ALL of the park. No public green space would remain once car parking and access roads have been factored in.

It's not remotely credible to suggest the school would take up 20Ha. For the purposes of that comment they must be excluding the golf course from being public green space; it isn't part of the park at all.

I reckon I know how they came up with 25%....

[Porty]

Pray tell.........

[seanie]

PPAG want a suitably shocking figure for the loss of local parkland, but not too shocking.

Tell people it's 25% and the reaction might be; "Oh, that's awful".

Tell people it's 50% and the reaction might be; "Oh, that doesn't sound right".

Now if you look at local parks within reasonable proximity to the site then yes, you're looking at something over 50Ha, with the school taking up less than 10% of that. So how to get that percentage up?

They’re obviously going to discount the Jewel and Bingham. Even though they’re relatively close to the site, and so clearly relevant in terms of the impact on amenity, they’re in the Craigmillar ward. So the Portobello Park Action Group couldn’t give two stuffs about them. That’s why they suggested them as suitable alternative sites for the school back in 2006.

They probably would’ve liked to have excluded Figgate Park on the basis that it’s not in Portobello either; it’s in the Duddingston ward. However, most people would regard Figgate as a local park, a pretty outstanding one at that, and if the percentage they come up with is too high people might start querying what’s been excluded. Also PPAG did get a lot of strife for suggesting it as a suitable location for St John’s; on “the flat, featureless bit of ground” that now contains the wildflower meadow. So reluctantly they’ve included it to avoid awkward questions.

But they’ve then excluded the 14.4Ha of Portobello Park that has the golf course on it; it’s not ‘precious parkland’ to the Portobello Park Action Group because of the pesky golfers.

That leaves;

Rosefield Park - 1.34Ha
Brighton Park - 0.86Ha
Abercorn Park - 0.79Ha
Portobello Community Garden - 0.13Ha
Straiton Park - 0.35Ha
Joppa Quarry Park - 2.42Ha
Figgate Park - 10.97Ha
Portobello pitches – 5.60Ha

That’s 22.46Ha, of which the 5.6Ha of the Portobello Park pitches are 24.9%.

[seanie]

The alternative would've been to leave out Figgate but include the golf course.

However that would give a figure of 21.6% which isn't as catchy as 25%.

[Bob Jefferson]

The funny thing is, I don't feel like I'm losing anything at all. Just gaining a brand new £41.5 M school. Something to celebrate, surely?

[Makaveli]

Exactly Bob - if you showed this proposal to anyone they would tell you that this is the only viable way of upgrading the school.

And in the current financial climate anyone with the good of Porty and the surrounding area in their hearts would be biting the councils hand off for this opportunity.

[Porty]

And in the current financial climate anyone with the good of Porty and the surrounding area in their hearts would be biting the councils hand off for this opportunity.

Not just the Porty area but the entire city. After all whatever money we get to pay for our school comes out the budgets for theirs.
One of our local councillors wanted the rebuild on site option at the time when land values were sky high. the cost, including decant and loss of capital receipt, would have been £55m-£60m instead of the net £37M. £18M-£23m more spent on Porty High is equivalent to the cost of 2 or 3 new primary schools elsewhere.

What an untrustworthy bunch the council are for taking the least cost; best value option. The one that makes most economic sense for the people of the City. Portobello Park is a low grade, poorly used amenity, this type of solution would not be available near the Meadows, Inverleith park and so on.

[seanie]

On their Facebook page Save Porty Park has just posted the very first Council flyer floating plans for the new school back in March 2006.

Do you think, given how their campaign's panned out so far, that they've decided to start again from the beginning?

[seanie]

Save Porty Park eventually got around to giving a reason for the post;

This document was issued in 2006 by the council in relation to the re-provisioning of Portobello High School. As you can see, the original plans unveiled in 2006 included a large amount of housing on the park and GC and the Director of Cit...y Development at the time, Andrew Holmes, said at a public meeting that the council intended to develop the whole area of the Park and Golf Course. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS AGENDA HAS CHANGED.

The report that went to full Council in March 2010 says in appendix 3, p12, that: “At this stage, there are no plans to change the golf course itself or for any development in the area.” It does not say it will NOT or will NEVER be developed.

Given that the undertaking to provide replacement open space for that lost by building on the park was reversed, why should anyone believe that there will be no housing built on the Park/Golf Course?

The red line designating the boundary for the planning application for the school encompasses the whole of the park and GC. The reason is not, as has been claimed, because the new paths would go right around GC, as planning permission is not needed for paths. So why does it encompass the whole area? You can draw your own conclusions

[seanie]

The first paragraph is an invention.

At an East Local Development Committee in early 2006, the Director of City Development gave an update on the the proposals for the new high school that were in development. These did indeed include a proposal for housing to fund the project but at no time did he state that the Council intended to develop the whole area of the park and golf course.

[seanie]

As to the report referred to, in context it says;

The proposals to create a network of surfaced paths and accessible green space will enhance public use and establish a framework should a further stage of recreational/landscape improvements be considered for the golf course. At this stage, there are no plans to change the golf course itself or for any development in this area.

All they're saying is that the current proposed changes to the park could tie in with future improvements to the golf-course but that no such changes to the golf-course are currently proposed. That's what's meant by devlopment in this context, and it would be pretty odd to promise to never improve the golfcourse ever.

[seanie]

On the Facebook site, Save Porty Park says;

Happy to deny(again) that the suggestion to build on Figgate Park was made. What was suggested was that the flat area of Figgate Park at Hamilton Terrace could be used for pitches. But you know this all of this already.

Mmmm....

What did Ros Sutherland, Chair of the Portobello Park Action Group, say in defence when their insistence that Figgate Park be included as a site option first came to light?

What we have suggested is that a flat, featureless area of Figgate Park at the end of Hamilton Terrace could be considered for the rebuild St John's. The green space used would be completely reinstated on the vacated St John's site as open playing fields or a park area.

It's almost as if Save Porty Park is incapable of saying things that are actually true...

[seanie]

Maybe it's a neurological condition of some kind.

[seanie]

Happy to deny(again) that the suggestion to build on Figgate Park was made.

What we have suggested is that a flat, featureless area of Figgate Park at the end of Hamilton Terrace could be considered for the rebuild St John's.

D'oh.....

[SoupDragon]

Going round and round, seeing and saying the same things over and over again?

Seanie, I think you've got trapped in that Mobius strip

[Makaveli]

It is getting boring reading the same old tripe being rolled out by SPP.

I am not surprised the people that are against the school stay hidden behind Facebook identities as if the parents of children in the catchment area knew there were people trying to stop the building of the school there would be a huge uproar.

[seanie]

What PPAG actually first suggested was this;

The Figgate Park is dismissed as an option for a rebuild of St John's because of risk of flooding. This site is only one metre below the level of the current St John's and a good ten metres above the level of the burn; the risk of flooding is negligible and could be totally eliminated. This site should be consulted upon for St John's.

No mention of playing fields on the existing site, just an insistence that Figgate Park be considered for St John's.