New Portobello High School - planning application

[Bob Jefferson]

At the community council meeting last night representations from the Portobello community were invited.

To what purpose, if the Community Council isn't going to take a position? Or are Brenda Molony and Celia Butterworth going to collate and reflect responses from the community? Is this the extent of the CC's consultation process, with just a few days left before the deadline? My advice would be, don't bother. The number of responses they are likely to get will be statistically insignificant. Just make sure you get your comments in to the Planning Dept before the deadline. And get your partner to do their bit as well.

[Bob Jefferson]

Show your support for the new school. Print the poster, stick it in your window.

Yes

[Makaveli]

Hopefully most folk will have gone directly to council's website and by-passed the farce that is the PCC's attempt at consultation.

For starters how do you even know that they will pass your opinion on to Edinburgh council?

[Bob Jefferson]

PPAGWatch notes that the PPAG website has now been updated:

http://news.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/#home

[Porty]

Noise pollution. They admit that there will be noise from the plant at the school but cannot assess this at the moment as the plant design/selection has not been made, so we shall just have to wait and hope!

Well that is good news. Finally it seems both sides are all almost singing from the same hymn sheet. We are waiting and hoping for a new school and PPAG are waiting and hoping for some quiet Plant. As the song goes "you can't have one without the other"

[seanie]

Light pollution - the site will be floodlit, especially the sports pitches. If you can't imagine what it will look like, take a drive through the Queen's Park at night coming from Holyrood Rd toward Duddingston Village and see the light pollution caused by the new Holyrood High School. For residents around Portobello Park, it would be much worse, as houses are much closer to the site.

The planning application includes a perimeter lighting lux levels analysis indicating that the impact on adjacent properties varies between none and negligible.

Noise pollution. They admit that there will be noise from the plant at the school but cannot assess this at the moment as the plant design/selection has not been made, so we shall just have to wait and hope!

It’s a school, not a steelworks. What on earth kind of plant do PPAG have in mind?

As the noise assessment notes;

“In this report we have discussed noise limits that are likely to be required of plant in order to meet the usual Edinburgh City Council planning condition. This is unlikely to be onerous, and due to the distances involved to the nearest dwellings, plant noise limits to ensure suitable noise levels in the school grounds and to control noise break-in to the school building itself are likely to be the overriding requirements."

The potential noise from the sports pitches would be significant to the extent that it is suggested that acoustic fencing would be put up in front of the houses at Hope Lane. That will be a nice view, won't it?

No acoustic fencing is proposed. The noise assessment concludes that for most of the day noise from the sports pitches would not affect local residents, but that there is a small risk of unsuitable noise levels at Hope Lane in the late evening, when background levels drop. The proposal is to agree a reasonable finish time for official use of the pitches. An acoustic fence is mentioned as a possible alternative but discounted on the grounds that it would be neither desirable nor practicable.

Fencing - will be 1.2 metres all round - not shown in any of the visual information in the application. However, the Police are recommending 2.4 metre high fencing for additional security.

The fencing will not be 1.2m high all round. The drawings show that the fencing to the northern site boundary will be 2.4m high, with a 1.2m fence and hedge to the southern boundary.

There would be 5 metre high fencing around the sports pitches - but apparently the protected view of Arthur's Seat would not be affected!

The fencing around the sports pitches is 3m high to the sides and 5m high to the goal ends. The grass amenity space adjacent to the pitches is around 3m higher than the pitch levels so the fencing won’t be all that intrusive; Arthur’s Seat does stick up a bit.

And think how much better the skyline will be once the existing school is demolished.

[Bob Jefferson]

Haven't seen a copy yet but assume it's just more of the usual nonsense, misinformation, paranoia and lies.

I wasn't too far off the mark then.

[wangi]

I've read through the concerns raised by PPAG and the good news is many of these can be answered by the documentation which accompanies the planning application. There's a lot of it though, so here are some key points to help anyone who may share those concerns.

Compensation for the loss of open space is completely inadequate and amounts to no more than a few paths around the park and golf course.

There is a meeting planned to discuss possible improvements in addition to what is included on the application; see http://forum.talkporty.org/viewtopic.php?t=5082

The golf course would be unlikely to survive next door to the school and its future is in question as it is on a hit list of possible sports facilities closures. This could lead to the wholesale development of the area.

This is just fear, uncertainty and doubt. The planning application is for a very specific site, and that's not the golf course. As PPAG point out the site is common good - keep that in mind for any possible future for the golf course. If the golf course were to close it could continue as a not-for-profit community run course, open space and many alternative non-developed uses.

The school could be rebuilt on its current site

Section 2.4 on page 7 of the non-technical summary deals with the alternative sites and build on existing site options which were investigated fully in 2006. It details the reasons for/against each.

Siting a high school on a main arterial A-road into the city is a recipe for major traffic congestion, delays and accidents.

The planning application includes steps to mitigate the risk - reduced speed limits, extra crossings, a new foot path within the school perimeter etc. If you consider the current school location and the new proposed location surely there will be similar number of pupils requiring to cross Milton Rd? Lobby for a safe routes to school plan to be a condition for planning approval. See also the transport assessment lodged.

Loss of trees on the site will lead to loss of amenity and there may be little screening to protect the privacy of residential properties from the school

The application has a number of comprehensive documents which addresses the trees on-site, plans for their removal, retention and replacement where appropriate; see

• tree survey carried out by Donald Rodger Associates; In summary there are currently (Aug 2010) 249 trees on site, 11 of which are dead / have dutch elm disease. Includes list of new specimen tress to be planted on p41 (inc 58 specimen trees; 11 fruit trees; and 3 focal point semi-mature trees)
  landscape masterplan showing existing trees maintained; dead trees to be removed; poor condition or dangerous trees to be removed; trees removed to allow for development and new specimen trees to be planted
  tree constraints & protection plan showing existing trees maintained; dead trees to be removed; poor condition or dangerous trees to be removed and trees removed to allow for development

Looking at the plans for the school on the Park, it has become clear that at least of half of the Millennium planting belt between the Park and Gold Course will be lost.

Again, see landscape masterplan showing retained millennium planting and supplementary planting within it to improve it. The map on page 41 of the tree survey shows the extent of the width of millennium planting that will need to be removed for the development.

Loss of the protected view of Arthur’s Seat, plus other public views to the Forth

Well the proposed school is on the whole below the tree line; see extended front and rear elevations.

The land is common good land and the council has not obtained the necessary permissions from the courts to build on it

The council agrees that it's common good; but it is not disposing of the land and has legal opinion (and prior case law I understand) saying it therefore does not require permission from a court.

It also stands to gain financially from the sale of the current school site

This doesn't really stack up - compare the cost of building the new school (out of capital, not PPP or PFI) with the potential land value of the existing site. It's a drop in the ocean.

Light pollution - the site will be floodlit, especially the sports pitches. If you can't imagine what it will look like, take a drive through the Queen's Park at night coming from Holyrood Rd toward Duddingston Village and see the light pollution caused by the new Holyrood High School. For residents around Portobello Park, it would be much worse, as houses are much closer to the site.

There are four documents regarding this; see proposed external lighting 1/2, proposed external lighting 2/2, external lighting external perimeter lux levels 1/2 and external lighting external perimeter lux levels 2/2. Appears negligible.

Noise pollution. They admit that there will be noise from the plant at the school but cannot assess this at the moment as the plant design/selection has not been made, so we shall just have to wait and hope!
The potential noise from the sports pitches would be significant to the extent that it is suggested that acoustic fencing would be put up in front of the houses at Hope Lane. That will be a nice view, won't it?

The noise impact assessment covers this in some detail: "We believe that noise from the sports pitches would be of a satisfactorily low noise level to the houses across Milton Road at all times, and to the houses at Hope Lane during the daytime. However, moving into the late evening, we consider there to be a small risk that maximum noise levels could be unsuitable at Hope Lane. At this stage we would suggest that a reasonable finish time be agreed, particularly for the sports pitch nearest to Hope Lane, in order to minimise the risks..." and on the plant noise "This is unlikely to be onerous, and due to the distances involved to the nearest dwellings, plant noise limits to ensure suitable noise levels in the school grounds and to control noise break-in to the school building itself are likely to be the overriding requirements"; read the document for the full data.

One final point... Perhaps the must useful document which was lodged along with the planning application was in fact mislabeled. It's down as the "environment statement 1/3" but is infact the non-technical summary of the application; see http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... =553590707

The full set of documents (it's a hard slog) can be found at http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /02830/FUL and I understand the four local libraries.

L/

[seanie]

The council agrees that it's common good; but it is not disposing of the land and has legal opinion (and prior case law I understand) saying it therefore does not require permission from a court.

Yep.

The Council’s stated position, based on legal advice, is in accordance with recent precedent. South Lanarkshire Council in 2004, and North Lanarkshire Council 2006, both sought permission from the Courts to build schools on Common Good land, from the Inner and Outer Houses of the Court of Session respectively. In both instances the petitions were dismissed as unnecessary; permission was not required from the Courts under the terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The reasoning behind this was that, since the land remained in Council ownership and schools were of value to the community, the community would still be deriving benefit from the land. As such, no alienation was occurring and the land would remain as Common Good, albeit with schools on.

[seanie]

This is despite being told at successive public meetings that NO TREES WOULD BE LOST.

That is not true.

I attended numerous public meetings and always heard exactly the same thing; some trees would be removed due to their condition, some would need to be removed to accommodate the design, but that would be kept to a minimum and there would also be new trees planted.

During the educational consultation on the site in 2006, two sites, i.e. Jewel Park and Bingham Park, were dismissed because building on them would involve the loss of Millennium planting. Clearly, some Millennium planting is more equal than others,

Twaddle.

Neither park was dismissed because of Millennium Planting. The reasons given in the 2006 site feasibility report were;

c) Site 3(a) Bingham Park Area 1 and Site 3(b) Bingham Park Area 2.

These sites, due to their location within small-scale suburban streets, did not score well in terms of location and access. As they are both under ideal site size they were also investigated as a single combined unit. While there were no major environmental issues on this site, it does contain a substantial amount of millennium planting. Lismore Primary School bordered this site and it was felt that the additional school traffic a high school would generate to this area would be detrimental to the surrounding residential neighbourhood. There are no direct public transport routes to the site, with streets being narrow and routes tortuous. The impact of the existing neighbourhood was agreed as being high risk, as was the loss of an existing asset, with the majority of the open space being required for the school. The planners view was not favourable as this is open green space.

Conclusion: Sites 3(a) and 3(b) did not progress to Level 2 Analysis.

Bingham Parks was dismissed on the combined grounds of location, access and the loss of the majority of Open Space; the Millennium planting is only mentioned in passing.

d) Site 7(a) and 7(b) Jewel Park Area 1 and Area 2

As can be seen from Drawing 0524/D-10, Site 7(b) is more appropriate in terms of available and suitably shaped area, however it is greatly compromised by services issues. Both sites are criss-crossed by a number of services, most onerously several sewers which unless relocated will restrict building locations (due to varying exclusion zones for construction around them). The locations of sewers are indicative based on location sketches received and if proposals were to progress on this site more accurate surveys would have to be undertaken. To locate the school it has been assumed that at least one main sewer will require to be relocated, and this has been indicated on the drawing.

For prominence and access the School must be orientated to Duddingston Park South, but must sit back from the street edge due to the existing planting. As there is a flood risk from the Niddrie Burn, this may affect the sports pitch, but the buildings have been located as far away from the burn as possible to prevent any adverse effect on them in a flood scenario. Site conditions and service re-routing add abnormal costs to constructing on this site.

Conclusion: These sites are located at the southern most edge of the catchment boundary and as such are more suited to access by car and public transport. The sites have existing services, which unless re-routed at great expense will compromise the layout of the School.

The Jewel was dismissed due to the location in catchment and poorer pedestrian access, along with the considerable costs of relocating numerous services. Millennium planting was not mentioned at all.

[Bob Jefferson]

PPAG have also updated their home page. At first glance, it looks as though they have now dropped their ridiculous and libelous claim that the Council intend to build housing on the park. However, if you read on it soon degenerates into dark threat and spurious suggestion, before ending sadly and inevitably in the realm of pure fantasy.

In these cash-strapped times the Council will be keen to sell off the golf course. Even if they find that they cannot sell off the land, they are likely to use the same argument as they have used for the school and say that they are not disposing of the land and therefore they can legitimately build housing there. How convenient.

[seanie]

I note that Cllr Hawkins lists his membership of PPAG in the Councillors' Register of Interests.

Do you think any of his fellow Councillors have asked him why he associates himself with an organisation that so routinely misrepresents and denigrates the Council of which he is a part?

[Porty]

No, I doubt any of his fellow Councillors has asked. No doubt many will have noted the allegiance and modified their views accordingly. His "performance" at Development Sub Committee meetings wil also be on their radar. His fellow Councillors may not be so aware of his tendency to misrepresent Portobello Community Council.

[Porty]

Councillor Hawkins lists PPAG as one of his interests. We all are all aware of the lies, half-truths and scaremongering purveyed by them over the last 5 Years. They continue to lie to their friends and neighbours, see above. And still the Councillor openly supports the group. How can he reconcile his position with this plea for accurracy from the EN back in MAy 2008.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/lette ... 4091139.jp

"A serious debate needs accuracy
STEPHEN McINTYRE in his letter of May 12, claiming to speak for the wider community, is wrong in the figures that he quotes.

The council's option to locate Portobello High School on the 5.7 hectares of Portobello Park was arrived at after an educational consultation and takes up the whole of Portobello Park. That is 100 per cent – not the ten per cent as quoted.

Similarly, the costs quoted are wide of the mark of the figures given in the 2006 appraisal even allowing for inflation. The reprovisioning of Portobello High School, which includes the loss of accessible green space, is a contentious issue within Portobello and one that is dividing the community. In this serious debate it serves no-one to make such inaccurate claims.

Stephen Hawkins, Lib Dem councillor for Portobello/Craigmillar"

Sums him up.

[Bob Jefferson]

I'm quite sure that local voters will remember Stephen's support for PPAG at the next election.

[Makaveli]

I know I will that's for sure. Got a leaflet through the door the other day from this shower and read about a paragraph and almost fell about laughing.

I just hope that right minded people in the local area will see through the lies and do the right thing.

[seanie]

You don't have a scanner do you?

I never seem to get the leaflets.

[Makaveli]

See when I wrote that I thought that someone would want to see it - unfortunately I binned it and the bin men have been since then

There must be others that got it too so hopefully some else would have a copy.

[Makaveli]

Got a copy of the leaflet from friends up the road. Got it in pdf format how can I upload it here?

[wangi]

When you post a message there is an option to upload an attachment (see under the preview and submit buttons; upload attachment tab)

[Makaveli]

Cheers Wangi.

[Porty]

In terms of outrageous lies/claims the leaflet is not nearly as bad as some of their previous leaflets. in terms of providing material objections to the planning application itself, it is woeful. I reckon out of the 9 pointers they provide for objection, just one is of any relevance.

[Maria]

For information: Portobello High School planning application - deadline for representations has been extended

An oversight in the neighbour notification has been identified by the planning case officer. An administrative error unfortunately resulted in part of the planning application boundary being wrongly plotted on the planning system. This had a knock-on effect on which neighbours were identified for subsequent notification. As a result some neighbours that required to be notified did not receive this, so a notification of the affected properties was done yesterday.



This means that the consultation period has been extended by 3 weeks to allow for further representations to be made to the Planning Authority. The period is extended for all respondents, not just those notified. While this was an unfortunate event it is not expected to delay the application being reported to Committee.

[wangi]

As a result some neighbours that required to be notified did not receive this, so a notification of the affected properties was done yesterday.

Looks like quite a few properties weren't notified first time round, although I'm sure most appreciated the application had been submitted. That's if I'm reading the maps on the original and updated notification lists correctly (maps should have a key!). The updated list would seem to include everyone who had submitted a comment to the PAN too?

So, deadline for representations is now Tue Nov 23.

• Application overview & form to submit comments online: http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... eturn=true
  Associated documents:
  http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /02830/FUL

I see comments have recently been put onto the planning portal from SEPA, SNH and Historic Scotland...

SNH comment

We have no objection to this development. The Environmental Statement is thorough and contains the required surveys and assessments, as well as robust mitigation proposals. Specific advice on the chapters of relevance to SNH is provided below.
...

SEPA comment

We have no objection to this planning application. Please note the advice provided below.
...

Historic Scotland comment

I have considered the proposed development for our statutory historic environment interests. That is scheduled monuments and their setting, category A listed buildings and their setting and gardens and designed landscapes in the Inventory.
I note that the Environmental Statement considers that there will be no significant effects on any of the above sites as a result of the proposed development and I am content to agree with this assessment. Consequently, I have no further comments to offer.
...

[Porty]

And Sportscotland's comments are also of significant import

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... =559242383

Dear Lesley,
Thank you for consulting sportscotland on this planning application. Having viewed the associated supporting documents and plans on the planning portal, I can confirm that sportscotland has no objections to the proposed development.

[seanie]

The reasoned voice of conciliation;

Schools groups should be proud

[seanie]

Since the deadline for comments has been extended, it's been decided to try something extra. An open letter regarding the application.

Click on the link in the letter if you'd like to have your name added.

And no grief about the font please. Comic sans may not be pretty but it's easy to read.

[seanie]

The letter's been updated with the signatories to date. We're up to 115 I think.

And if you follow the link and give your details don't worry if your name doesn't appear straightaway. I'm not very technologically sophisticated so there's no automatic updating; I have to rely on periodic copy and pasting.

[wangi]

I notice a PPAG leaflet has been added to the Planning Portal:

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... =540566839

[seanie]

Well when the planning committee come to decide on the application, some background context on the misinformation and distortions spread about the issue may be of some use.

[Porty]

.
The irretrievable loss of a major public open green space which is freely accessible and very well used by people of all ages for a wide variety of purposes.

I think a few photos of Portobello Park showing people of all ages engaging in a variety of purposes may have been a better illustration for the PPAG cause.

[Pal of Porty]

I think a few photos of Portobello Park showing people of all ages engaging in a variety of purposes may have been a better illustration for the PPAG cause.

It would have to be generated using computer graphics!

[wangi]

Comment from Architecture and Design Scotland: http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... =540442615

...
Conclusion
We thank the Project Team for their excellent presentation. We feel that the project is potentially exemplary and we commend the Client for their high aspirations and commitment to procuring a high quality school for the City. We commend the Project Team for the level of consultation that has been carried out throughout the project’s development and feel that this is illustrative of an exemplary procurement method for future schools. It is fundamental that the Client maintain control of the procurement process and route to ensure that the designs to do not become diluted, and that the potential for the school can be delivered through the conceptual design, the materials selection, high quality detailing, and the construction process. We support the level of analysis that has been carried out and feel that the proposed building responds skilfully and sensitively to the surrounding context, despite the compromise which has been necessary regards the quality of natural light that will be provided to some of the outdoor learning areas. We also have some concerns with the amount of parking proposed and the apparent disconnect between the Council’s parking standards and their own sustainability agenda and we encourage the Council to look towards addressing this.

[wangi]

So, deadline for representations is now Tue Nov 23.

• Application overview & form to submit comments online: http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... eturn=true
  Associated documents:
  http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... /02830/FUL

So, today is the deadline for submitting support / object or comments to the application.

[seanie]

The Planning Portal now has the Community Council's response.