New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Dave Connelly]

your not missing anything Bob, I personally have never wanted anything built on any park.

[Bob Jefferson]

So are you suggesting that PHS could be re-built on its exisiting site of 2.9 hectares?

Let's get this straight, the Scottish Exec recommends a minimum of 6.2 hectares. The Council feels it can get away with 4.5 hectares for a school 'in an urban context'. However, one of the options under consideration is to build a school on 3.5 hectares, dependent upon St Johns re-locating. But you think that even that is too generous and we can squash them into 2.9 hectares.

Is that your position or have I misunderstood?

[Dave Connelly]

So are you suggesting that PHS could be re-built on its exisiting site of 2.9 hectares?

Let's get this straight, the Scottish Exec recommends a minimum of 6.2 hectares. The Council feels it can get away with 4.5 hectares for a school 'in an urban context'. However, one of the options under consideration is to build a school on 3.5 hectares, dependent upon St Johns re-locating. But you think that even that is too generous and we can squash them into 2.9 hectares.

Is that your position or have I misunderstood?

I would like St Johns to be refurbished on site. PHS could be rebuilt on site as a school for less than 1000 pupils on site with a decant. Thats a fairly short term decant, (See Bonaly). Have you considered or tried to quantify the non financial cost of building on Portobello Park, Golf course, (TWO SITES APPARENTLY), or Figate park.

You clearly have not considered the negatives of your proposal.

Face up to it Bob, its fairly ill conceived.

[Dave Connelly]

Lets not fall out over this Bob, we have different ideas, I do care a wee bit about the environment ( I also care about my childrens education, but I also care about their health)

In a recent survey the people of Aberdeen, (also near the coast, Microclimates and all), were considered to be the happiest folk in the UK. That in the main, due to their access to open space.

Would you do away with all of our open spaces?

[Dave Connelly]

How about St Johns on the power league site and PHS built on the whole current site, with absolutely no housing on green space, no matter who owns it?

Then we dont lose any green space and we all get new schools?

Cue Seanie

[Bob Jefferson]

I'm certainly not advocating building anything on Figgate Park. I thought that was one of the sites that PPAG want the community to be consulted upon? Or is that one just in there to muddy the waters?

So you propose to re-build PHS onsite for 'less than 1000 pupils'? Where does that leave the hundreds of kids within the catchment area who now don't have a school to go to?

[Dave Connelly]

What about the kids out of catchment who currently go to PHS?
What about the falling school rolls?

[Dave Connelly]

you are being hard on your self "Poisoning the community etc"

[Bob Jefferson]

Lets not fall out over this Bob, we have different ideas

Dave, this is just an exchange of ideas. I'm not falling out with anyone. I know that some people have taken the whole issue very personally but you are still in there fighting your corner and I respect you for that.

[Dave Connelly]

Ditto Bob

[Bob Jefferson]

you are being hard on your self "Poisoning the community etc"

Not my words, though I did find them rather amusing.

[Dave Connelly]

you are being hard on your self "Poisoning the community etc"

Not my words, though I did find them rather amusing.

[Bob Jefferson]

What about the kids out of catchment who currently go to PHS?
What about the falling school rolls?

That's why the Council is proposing to build a school for 1200. This will mean that very few kids out of catchment will get a place, disappointing a lot of parents, but what you are proposing would entail re-drawing the catchment areas and you would have parents up in arms if you tried to do that.

[Dave Connelly]

What about the kids out of catchment who currently go to PHS?
What about the falling school rolls?

That's why the Council is proposing to build a school for 1200. This will mean that very few kids out of catchment will get a place, disappointing a lot of parents, but what you are proposing would entail re-drawing the catchment areas and you would have parents up in arms if you tried to do that.

The catchment areas, as far as I am aware will have to be redrawn anyway, to accommodate all of the new folk who move into the new houses on the golf course If the council get their way.

[Dave Connelly]

Just in case there's someone watching the thread who hasn't seen the park, there are lots of photos of it

<a href="http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/gal ... l">Here</a>

some of which are very good. Jet's Gallery is new, just uploaded today.

[Libby]

I for one am glad to see that things are starting to happen, once they sign on the dotted line then we can start to put smiles on the children's faces.

I have a Child that is Due to go to PH'S next year, my son who is 16 and attends there now along with 2 older girls( who both attended PHS) are moaning about the fact there younger sister might be getting a new high School.

The 2 eldest are saying how could they not have built a new school when we were there ?

You can all sit her and argue/disagree all you want but we all know it is going to happen sooner or later preferably sooner

Long Long over due In my opinion

[Dave Connelly]

I for one am glad to see that things are starting to happen, once they sign on the dotted line then we can start to put smiles on the children's faces.

I have a Child that is Due to go to PH'S next year, my son who is 16 and attends there now along with 2 older girls( who both attended PHS) are moaning about the fact there younger sister might be getting a new high School.

The 2 eldest are saying how could they not have built a new school when we were there ?

You can all sit her and argue/disagree all you want but we all know it is going to happen sooner or later preferably sooner

Long Long over due In my opinion

I too would like to see smiles on my kids faces, and your right, new schools would be great, but not at the expense of losing the park, then another park and another, to fill a very short term financial gap in the councils fiscal shortfall.

Maybe if they hadn't wasted as much money on some of the wasteful projects, such as the "Road Safety Measures", which were ill advised to say the least as they have NO proven safety record, cause pollution, damge vehicles and cost a fortune to replace and replace again, then we could have had better schools without the housing option and not on green space.

Ths school whereever it will be built is quite a few years away. Imagine that the copuncil plan goes ahead, it is then open season on all of our parks, the damage that the council could do over the next 10 years
is frightening.

When the parks are gone they are gone forever

[Bob Jefferson]

Dave, I know that you are not the official spokesperson for PPAG but do you agree that they should drop their insistence that Figgate Park

should be consulted upon for St John's.

or quit the pretence that their campaign is about saving green space? They can't have it both ways.

[Dave Connelly]

PPAG

Can speak for themselves, I wont be drawn into a dialogue of that kind.

Any opinions I put on the site are my own and may or may not reflect the opinions of the group as a whole. We live in a democracy and PPAG is run that way.

[Maria]

You can all sit her and argue/disagree all you want but we all know it is going to happen sooner or later preferably sooner

Unfortunately, Libby, I don't agree that it's a done deal. I think it's important that folk like you, who want the best for our young people, start to make their voices heard.

[Dave Connelly]

You can all sit her and argue/disagree all you want but we all know it is going to happen sooner or later preferably sooner

Unfortunately, Libby, I don't agree that it's a done deal. I think it's important that folk like you, who want the best for our young people, start to make their voices heard.

Your absolutely right Marya, Libby read and if you agree, sign our <a href="http://www.PetitionOnline.com/allgreen/ ... etition</a> now to make a difference.
<a href="http://www.PetitionOnline.com/allgreen/ ... html">READ THIS</a>

[Maria]

Isn't that petition redundant now Dave? After all the Council have done exactly as your petition requests.

Shouldn't there be a new one instead saying that PPAG want the council to build on Figgate Park?

[Bob Jefferson]

Shouldn't there be a new one instead saying that PPAG want the council to build on Figgate Park?

Well, they are certainly demanding that they should be consulted on it and logically they would only do this if they were prepared for St Johns to go there. Although to be fair, I think Dave is disowning that bit of it, which makes you wonder how many other PPAG supporters are in agreement with this particular democratically made decision.

[Porty]

PPAG

Can speak for themselves, I wont be drawn into a dialogue of that kind.

Any opinions I put on the site are my own and may or may not reflect the opinions of the group as a whole. We live in a democracy and PPAG is run that way.

Democracy you say?

Here's what the PPAG chair had to say on August 4th in the Evening News:

"The need for further loss of green space in the city is something that all of us should question."

And.....................

Just 5 weeks later we have PPAG lobbying the council to build a school in Figgate Park. What happened Dave, was there a fraught meeting? were tempers raging? was ther a vote? Has Ros been overthrown as Chair?

Its a big step forward I agree but what made building schools in Parks the new face of PPAG?

[Porty]

How about St Johns on the power league site and PHS built on the whole current site, with absolutely no housing on green space, no matter who owns it?

Then we dont lose any green space and we all get new schools?

Cue Seanie

Cue Stephen

Dave, there is 83 years of a 99 year lease remaining on the Powerleague site. Are you suggesting St John's wait another 88 years or so.

[Bob Jefferson]

There is a world of difference between taking a principled (if dogmatic) stand in opposing all development on green space and on the other hand saying that you don't want development on YOUR green space, but it's fine to build what you like on a public park a hundred yards up the road.

In my view, the demand to consult on Figgate Park for St Johns discredits the whole PPAG campaign.

[Dave Connelly]

Isn't that petition redundant now Dave? After all the Council have done exactly as your petition requests.

They haven't

To: Residents, parents and users of Portobello Park
We call upon the City of Edinburgh Council to consider and evaluate a full range of options and alternatives, cost comparisons and funding options for the re-provisioning of Portobello High School and St John’s Primary School. We oppose the use of Portobello Golf Course and Park for re-siting the schools and building houses on. This land belongs to the people of Edinburgh and should not be sold or built on until a full debate is had and all the options, including keeping the land for public recreation, have been fully consulted upon with people who use the facility, live or work in Portobello and Joppa.

They really haven't, have they

Shouldn't there be a new one instead saying that PPAG want the council to build on Figgate Park?

I think that's a wee bit silly

[Libby]

I will assume that when you are talking about the road safety measures are you talking about all the speed bumps that were installed then they found out there was a problem with them and they all have to be fixed ?

If so, well i am very lucky because in the area that i live in we did not get them, so the council have not wasted any money in my area.

So i still say give my kids a new school, if it means doing a way with Green space then what is the problems, as most of the green space now a days is filled with owners taking there dogs for a walk in the park.

Whats my problem you say ? well i will tell you, i like the colour of my trainers at the moment, i am sick to death every time i cross a field i have to carry an anti bacterial wipe, No not for my face or hand but to clean the Crap that is usually on the bottom of my shoe.


Libby

[bbbrown]

I, like Dave, think it is a pretty poor idea to build on Figgate, Bingham, Portobello....any public park really, (i would even defend Bobs wee bowling green, though maybe not with my life)
To me, PPAG comes across as pretty amateur compared to PFANS. You just need to compare the web sites to see that. You could easily be forgiven for thinking that the PFANS site is Labour/Council backed, which, in my personal opinion is a highly likely scenario. So, i for one, am not too surprised that PPAG score the odd own goal. It just is not as well spun as PFANS obviously is...
As for the real issue...the council report is, in my opinion, disingenious in that the issue of raising what is more than likely to be around £50 million is given little profile. We are of course talking houses. Build the schools on site, on the park, on the golf course, where ever it goes, the Labour controlled Council, still needs to build around £50 millions worth of housing on green land. Why? Because the Labour controlled Scottish Executive, despite the nice soundbites from our First Minister, will not release any funds for building new schools. Of course we are not allowed to mention the scottish parliament or iraq or nuclear power stations or trams or congestion charging fiascos (or just about any other issue in Labour controlled Britain which takes priority over Education)...so that just leaves building houses on green land.
Which leaves your average parent stuck between a rock and a hard place. Local politics...dont you just love it..personally no...it just leaves me, and most others, feeling distinctly let down......

[bbbrown]

interesting thoughts Libby...get rid of green space cause of the dog crap.
how about get rid of porty beach cause of all those winged sanitary items you women flush down the loo.....

[Maria]

To me, PPAG comes across as pretty amateur compared to PFANS. You just need to compare the web sites to see that. You could easily be forgiven for thinking that the PFANS site is Labour/Council backed, which, in my personal opinion is a highly likely scenario

You must have managed to insult both groups with that one bb.

I'll let Dave Connolly defend his own reputation as website designer for PPAGS and assure you instead, that you don't need to worry about your council tax being spent on the PFANS site. PFANS are a group of ordinary, concerned residents and 'average parents', no doubt much like yourself and nothing more sinister. Unlike you though, I have respect for the abilities of the PPAGS group who have some seasoned campaigners, plus the Lib Dem candidate from the last local council elections. I'm sure they are not quite as 'amateur' as you think.

[Porty]

I, like Dave, think it is a pretty poor idea to build on Figgate, Bingham, Portobello....any public park really, (i would even defend Bobs wee bowling green, though maybe not with my life)
To me, PPAG comes across as pretty amateur compared to PFANS. You just need to compare the web sites to see that. You could easily be forgiven for thinking that the PFANS site is Labour/Council backed, which, in my personal opinion is a highly likely scenario. So, i for one, am not too surprised that PPAG score the odd own goal. It just is not as well spun as PFANS obviously is...
As for the real issue...the council report is, in my opinion, disingenious in that the issue of raising what is more than likely to be around £50 million is given little profile. We are of course talking houses. Build the schools on site, on the park, on the golf course, where ever it goes, the Labour controlled Council, still needs to build around £50 millions worth of housing on green land. Why? Because the Labour controlled Scottish Executive, despite the nice soundbites from our First Minister, will not release any funds for building new schools. Of course we are not allowed to mention the scottish parliament or iraq or nuclear power stations or trams or congestion charging fiascos (or just about any other issue in Labour controlled Britain which takes priority over Education)...so that just leaves building houses on green land.
Which leaves your average parent stuck between a rock and a hard place. Local politics...dont you just love it..personally no...it just leaves me, and most others, feeling distinctly let down......

The main difference between PFANS and PPAG is integrity. PFANS are ultra careful about the message they give out and are meticulous about the data they use. They are also greatly assisted by the fact that they are working from an honest and transparent basis. They said what they wanted from the outset and nothing has changed.

Contrast this with PPAG; the leaflets they send out are riddled with inaccuracy, the claims they make about the golf course have been proven to be nonsense (bequeathed etc) Dave likes to excuse the inaccuracies with "we used the wrong words again" . Now PPAG are advocating building schools in parks. To call that an "odd own goal" is diluting the implications somewhat.

Bb you are distancing yourself from the PPAG position, Dave has already done so. We will wait and see if anyone from PPAG steps forward and backs the position. There must be plenty of people who do as the response was compiled democratically, Dave told us so.

Your points about funding have some merit. And I am sure that the council realise that if they consult on a basis on no housing on the park, then they subsequently need to put housing on the park then they will have to consult again.

Maybe PPAG could campaign for housing in the Figgate Park? Do you know if they have been discussing it?

Edit: removed the word honesty as potentially inflammatory.

[Pal of Porty]

... So, i for one, am not too surprised that PPAG score the odd own goal......

Well there is the history of an earlier own goal in previous PPAG literature ('the land was bequeathed') so perhaps I should not be too surpised either. I do however feel it is rather more than an own goal when it is suggested that different green space be built on when the PPAG campaign itself is founded on the preservation of all green space.

[bbbrown]

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'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. I dont suggest that my council tax is used for PFANS, but it is my view that PFANS certainly promotes the Council plan, with the likes of the Executive Member for Sustainability and Finance right at the heart of it. (as is her perogative). But anyway, that is all by the by....
I am going to be interested to gauge the public reaction at the forth coming meetings at the school and town hall. I note that PFANS web petition has 172 sigs, compared to PPAGS 579. I wonder if that is at all a measure of opinion......Personally, if the opinion and mood is that parents and the community are happy to see Portobello park destroyed for new schools then fair enough...so be it. If, like me, people are uneasy at selling of the family silver for short term gain, i wonder if the council will be big enough to think again, or just ignore us all anyway....

[Pal of Porty]

What on earth have web skills, colours and spelling got to do with this? 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.