New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 29 Sep 2006, 08:33

It may mean St John's is delayed, but there seems to be a deafening silence so far from St John's parents as regards what they want for the school, with much more of a sense of involvement coming from PHS parents and the associated feeder primaries. Unless St John's parents make their voices heard as regards what they want for their school the focus will surely be on PHS?

My favoured option would keep St John's in practically the same location, provide a playing pitch for pupils and provide a new Primary School away from the Secondary School which is something parents seem to want. Maybe other parents would favour a move to the Park or Golf Course, in which case I'd be happy to support a move to the Golf Course.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 29 Sep 2006, 09:45

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 29 Sep 2006, 10:24

Alison Connelly wrote:Instead, how about putting St John's on Portobello Park

So now we have established it is OK to build on Portobello Park - let the debate commence on what should be there.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 29 Sep 2006, 10:33

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Sep 2006, 10:48

With a PHS rebuild onsite, St John's need not necessarily have to go on either Portobello or Figgate parks - especially as PoP pointed out Figgate's outstanding natural beauty.

Rather, what about the flat and uninspiring areas of the Brighton and Rosefield parks?

There could be a split campus - nursery & P1-3 on Brighton, P4-7 on Rosefield.

Furthermore, we could do a compulsory on the bowling green next to the library for a sports facility for the new primary.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 29 Sep 2006, 10:51

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Sep 2006, 10:58

Beautifully put. I was just being facetious after PoP's ridiculous suggestion, but the more I think about it ...

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 29 Sep 2006, 11:00

Alison Connelly wrote:
Pal of Porty wrote:
Alison Connelly wrote:Instead, how about putting St John's on Portobello Park
So now we have established it is OK to build on Portobello Park - let the debate commence on what should be there.
As I said, personally I'd prefer to see any new school build on a brown-field site. By raising another option for Portobello Park, I don't really think I'd "established it is OK to build on Portobello Park". I was only seeing if the debate had boundaries

The only boundaries in this debate are the railings round the Park! Whatever your preferences are - your statement says "How about putting St John's on Portobello Park".

Music to my ears

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 29 Sep 2006, 11:01

Dadaist wrote:My question still remains. Peripheral concerns aside, what's the educational advantage of having the school on the park?

Well I've already given my opinion. Leaving aside the issues of delay & decant;

seanie wrote:Design. Incorporating the St Jâ€™s site does improve things but the site is still undersized. Itâ€™s too small. A pitch may now be included but a single pitch, even all-weather, cannot sustain the needs of a school that size. Pupils will still routinely have to travel some distance to off-site facilities.

And I'd need convincing that the size of the site wouldn't adversely impact on the quality of the building. I think I've alreadty mentioned that the experience from the recent wave of school buildings is that well designed schools generally require to be bigger than those in the past. There have been two main reasons for this; greater community use of schools and sustainabilty considerations to ensure the design remains responsive to changes in future needs.

My concern would be that by shoehorning the school onto the present site we could recreate, at considerable expense, the problem we currently face. Even if well designed and constructed by current standards we could be faced a few years down the line with a building no longer fit for purpose, on a site too small for you to do much about it. Because the physical limitations of the site impose significant constraint on what can be built.

That's not simply down to a calculation of floor area but the nature of the site itself. Given it's limitations more of the design decisions are likely to be forced moves, driven by neccessity rather than choice. That's more likely to result in a compromised design, although by no means certain.

Of the 3 recommendations put forward Option C would seem the best to me purely from an outline design point of view.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Sep 2006, 11:40

Thanks seanie - for the info and also for digging it out for me.

Good points, and well made.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 29 Sep 2006, 12:10

Excellently put Seanie and very helpful. The key word for me in your statement is 'shoehorning'. It just does not make sense to me to spend all that money and not even get a future proofed building, particularly when there are other more suitable options available.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 29 Sep 2006, 14:11

The following are the conclusions from the PHS Feasibility Report;

The combined existing sites

Conclusion: Although this site is under the ideal size, a much improved facility can be accommodated although this is dependent on the relocation of St Johnâ€™s Primary School. This site is considerably more awkward in terms of disruption to the existing school to let the works be undertaken. The school has been on this site for over 40 years and itâ€™s main issue in terms of positioning is scale rather than location.

In summary this site should not be discounted, however in respect of long-term suitability, it may prove more sensible to relocate elsewhere where expansion would be possible and the construction of a new secondary school and relocation of a primary school would not cause disruption to pupils.

The Golf Course

Conclusion: Although this site is large and offers various potential locations for a new high school, none are particularly prominent and all would result in the school being sited in a predominantly residential neighbourhood. Although the existing school is in a similar type of area it is on the main road, thereby giving it access and prominence that does not directly effect the surrounding houses. The planners have noted that this site is high risk in terms of gaining consents, although they have noted that further discussions would be considered for developments that support community purposes.

In summary locating on this site would mean moving the school to an area that has less prominence and still has all the issues related to locating in a residential area with insufficient local amenities. There would be a loss of asset and a requirement to convince the planners of itâ€™s suitability. It is however a large site, centrally located in the catchment area, and should not be discounted until discussions with the planners, based on a more in depth feasibility report , are undertaken.

The Park

Conclusion: This site would provide a prominent and pleasant location for Portobello High School. Careful planning could ensure that the existing asset of the Football Pavilion pitches is improved. The School could be built on this site and the pupils moved over with minimal disruption to their education. The area of resistance is the Plannerâ€™s vie that locating here is a high risk in terms of Planning Approval, sensitive land use, prominence etc. They have noted that there are circumstances in which Planning might be able to support development for community purposes on the site, but they are complex and would need discussed at a later date.

In summary this site meets a lot of the requirements and should not be discounted until further discussions have been undertaken with the Planning Department. It is the more preferable site in terms of location when compared to that of the neighbouring golf course.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 29 Sep 2006, 14:20

I'd query some things but overall it seems a reasonable summation.

Rebuilding on the existing site should result in an improved facility, but the limitations of the site is a cause for concern. There is also the question of the required decant that may not be seen a peripheral issue by everyone.

The golf-course is large enough to fully accomodate the required facilities but scores low on wider planning issues and loss of assets. That could be off-set depending on detailed proposals.

The park scores highly purely from a design point of view. It's a suitable location in design terms, with minimal loss and potentially enhanced amenity, and big enough to allow some flexibiliy. Again it's tricky in terms of Planning but not insurmountable.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Sep 2006, 14:27

When I referred to the decant as being a peripheral issue, I didn't mean in terms of importance.

I just picked the word to serve as an umbrella for the group of issues being discussed alongside what I wanted to know - which was the difference between the onsite build and the park build.

I'm sorry if this confused you.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 29 Sep 2006, 16:34

Not especially. I'm roundabout my customary level of confusion.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Sep 2006, 17:51

I received the following message today:

PORTOBELLO SCHOOLS PUBLIC MEETINGS

The Council has been informed that a leaflet has gone out encouraging the Portobello Community to attend all three public meetings. We would like to remind local residents that the first two meetings (Portobello High School and St John's Primary School) have been organised under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and that priority has to be given to recording the views of parents at these meetings. If there is a high turn-out at the meetings we will prioritise entry to parents.

To ensure that the wider views of the local community can be heard, the third public meeting has been organised at Portobello Town Hall on 11 October. Everyone is welcome to attend this meeting.

This position was explained to all the interest groups when an initial briefing was given and we would hope everyone would understand and respect our reasons for organising the meetings in this way.

David Fenton
Head of Infrastructure and Development
The Children and Families Department
The City of Edinburgh Council

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 29 Sep 2006, 19:31

Option C is for me

...and bagsy the 5000th post

:sith::sith::sith:

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Sep 2006, 20:12

I still think they should have some sort of vote - it would be great to go forward with (insert option of your choice) which is clearly supported by the majority of right-thinking people in the community - with a real mandate.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 29 Sep 2006, 20:52

A real mandate?

I'm skeptical you'd achieve that. I'd think the turnout would be pretty small and an outright majority unlikely. You'd get a winning scheme on the basis of a plurality of a minority. And probably a small one at that.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Sep 2006, 21:31

seanie wrote:A real mandate?

I'm skeptical you'd achieve that. I'd think the turnout would be pretty small and an outright majority unlikely. You'd get a winning scheme on the basis of a plurality of a minority. And probably a small one at that.

Sounds like a general election!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 29 Sep 2006, 21:46

Yeah. And when Tony's alluded to his mandate did it feel real to you?

Me neither.

On a more local note look at the Community Council. I don't know the balance of opinion now but back in the spring, when these proposals came to the fore, my understanding was that the CC was approached to organise a public meeting on the issue. And the CC declined because the community's opinion on the matter was already known.

And the mandate that justified that position?

A questionnaire answered by 114 people.

Yeah!

Let the people decide!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Sep 2006, 23:41

It would be nice to have a faint whiff of democracy. Ewan Aitken said at the "hijack" meeting that the decision would be made as a "judgement call" by some individuals - why not let the community as a whole decide?

I'd still plump for a local referendum. Although you may think the turnout would be small, plenty people have expressed some sort of interest thus far - whether it's going to a meeting or signing a petition.

I'm no fan of the tories, but when they do their leadership elections they have something whereby there are 1st & 2nd choices and rounds of voting. You could therefore avoid the "winning scheme on the basis of a plurality of a minority" by introducing a similar system - as long as we don't get John Redwood.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 Sep 2006, 11:30

From yesterday's EN:

No attempt to mislead over loss of parkland

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 30 Sep 2006, 12:12

I don't buy into this "no net loss of green space" excuse.

If I set myself up as being about saving the rainforest, it would be because I wanted no evil tree cutters to set foot on my sacred land - think of the frogs etc, what about the parrots - you know the chat.

If I then stood up in front of my environmental followers and said - but yeah, we just cut a deal with McDonalds-Monsanto that means they can torch some of the jungle as long as they stick on a new bit over on the other side, I would expect to be pelted with vegetation from aggrieved forest-savers, and removed from my post.

If the council/whoever have been inconsistent in saying no to Figgate and yes to Portobello Park, by the same token Ros has been inconsistent by countenancing something that PPAG set out to oppose.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 30 Sep 2006, 14:42

Dadaist wrote:I'd still plump for a local referendum. Although you may think the turnout would be small, plenty people have expressed some sort of interest thus far - whether it's going to a meeting or signing a petition.

I'm not keen on plebiscitary democracy. I think it's only justified on very straightforward issues. Most of us know very little about most subjects. But that doesn't stop us having firm opinions on those subjects. For that reason I think referenda are generally a very poor way of reaching decisions.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 30 Sep 2006, 16:18

seanie wrote:
Dadaist wrote:I'd still plump for a local referendum. Although you may think the turnout would be small, plenty people have expressed some sort of interest thus far - whether it's going to a meeting or signing a petition.
I'm not keen on plebiscitary democracy. I think it's only justified on very straightforward issues. Most of us know very little about most subjects. But that doesn't stop us having firm opinions on those subjects. For that reason I think referenda are generally a very poor way of reaching decisions.

Fair enough. If they have a vote on whether there should be a vote, yours and mine will cancel each other out!

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 30 Sep 2006, 21:51

I haven't read the last few pages, as I was under the impression that a 7 day banning order was in force.

I would just like to express my disgust with the anonymous, biased and factually incorrect fliers that were either given out to parents at the schools or put through our doors recently. (You know the pink ones and the ones with the kiddy picture).

I could easily make up an anonymous fliers with a picture of the old couple who live in Stanley Street, who lived and fought through both wars, brought up their children, worked hard all of their lives, scrimping and saving to make the best possible life for their children and who believed that having eventually paid off their mortgage, that they could live happily in the knowledge that what they had achieved could be enjoyed by them, their children and their childrenâ€™s children. Their daily routine of helping each other the few yards to their beloved park to have what little fresh air they can manage these days, being one of the few pleasures they can enjoy together, etc etc etc.

You who ever you are are clearly desperate and the schools that handed out the pink fliers have mislead the parents who received them.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 30 Sep 2006, 22:13

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 30 Sep 2006, 22:36

Dave Connelly wrote: I could easily make up an anonymous fliers with a picture of the old couple who live in Stanley Street, who lived and fought through both wars, brought up their children, worked hard all of their lives, scrimping and saving to make the best possible life for their children and who believed that having eventually paid off their mortgage, that they could live happily in the knowledge that what they had achieved could be enjoyed by them, their children and their childrenâ€™s children. Their daily routine of helping each other the few yards to their beloved park to have what little fresh air they can manage these days, being one of the few pleasures they can enjoy together, etc etc etc.

Dave, I think it will be hard for you to do this anonymously now that you've told us that you might do it.... but I can't help thinking that a nice green flier with this heart wrenching story would be very successful

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 30 Sep 2006, 22:42

I want to know more about the pink flyers.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 30 Sep 2006, 23:00

seanie wrote:I want to know more about the pink flyers.

Kids from a local primary brought them home to their parents. It may well be that the school produced them, although they would have put their address/website/name on them. It certainly looked like they were oficial and as the school handed them out, then it looks as though the school were promoting that view.

I am sure someone will post the pdf.

re the heart wrenching story. It wasn't meant to be, I was just highlighting how silly the flier with the kiddy was.

Just like when World Vision wrote to me and included a picture of a young and obviously very poor child, saying that because I hadn't given them any money yet, (less than a week after I had made an enquiry with them) that the child was really suffering. Its really desparate measures doing that sort of thing. I think the kiddy flier has scared a lot of people off who may have voted for that option. Keep up the good work, who ever you are.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 30 Sep 2006, 23:06

seanie wrote:Design. Incorporating the St Jâ€™s site does improve things but the site is still undersized. Itâ€™s too small. A pitch may now be included but a single pitch, even all-weather, cannot sustain the needs of a school that size. Pupils will still routinely have to travel some distance to off-site facilities.

Beautifully put.

Kids having to get buses to get PE at the Jack Kane Centre, from the new PHS/St Johns schools in Portobello Park's leafy parkland surroundings wasn't mentioned on any of the fliers, must have been a misprint, surely

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 30 Sep 2006, 23:09

Which local primary?
I'm outraged.
My child's at a feeder primary. Why don't I have a pink flyer?
I like pink.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 30 Sep 2006, 23:12

Pal of Porty wrote:BB here is where I have difficulty. The extracts below set out the context in which the PPAG petition has been 'sold':

* Firstly the banner heading the petition is "Loss of Green Space in Portobello".

* Secondly, the website states "Green space is fast being used up all over the country and is particularly important in urban areas close to where people live, performing the function of lungs for the city"

1) Do you agree that building on the park will be a loss of green space in Portobello

2) Do you agree that Green space is fast being used up all over the country and is particularly important in urban areas close to where people live, performing the function of lungs for the city

Simple yes or no to each will do

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 30 Sep 2006, 23:19

Dave Connelly wrote:
seanie wrote:Design. Incorporating the St Jâ€™s site does improve things but the site is still undersized. Itâ€™s too small. A pitch may now be included but a single pitch, even all-weather, cannot sustain the needs of a school that size. Pupils will still routinely have to travel some distance to off-site facilities.
Beautifully put.

Kids having to get buses to get PE at the Jack Kane Centre, from the new PHS/St Johns schools in Portobello Park's leafy parkland surroundings wasn't mentioned on any of the fliers, must have been a misprint, surely

Why would the relocation of PHS to the park require bussing to the Jack Kane Centre for sports?