New Portobello High School - on going issues

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2008, 13:22

The park and golf course are what 56 acres? So there's 10000 people taken care of! And there's only about 125 properties overlook the park. When I feel a bit better and struggle back into work. I will dig out the park sizes. Why did Ewan Aitken specify the catchmemt as being the relevant area. , I know it seems obvious butis he right to do so?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 20 Nov 2008, 13:38

Different types of space serve different sizes of population and so different sizes of area. So while so many acres per 1000 might be a useful rule of thumb an Open Space audit is more complicated.

Just take the beach for example. Under planning policies it should be part of any audit, but how do you measure its accessibility? In some respects its very accesssible but in other ways it's not.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 20 Nov 2008, 13:39

Same with the golf-course I suppose.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2008, 13:45

With you. So if one of our open spazes was a military establishment and theefore had severly restricted public access it would count little.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2008, 14:00

Surely accessibility could. Be assesed by current usage. At least to an an extent. I mean both the beach and golf course are werl used. I rarely use the former and never use the latter but I coils access them no bother. So if as claimed 30012 use the course each year there's little reason why that couldn't be 50000. Point being our parks and leisure spaces must surely rank high on accessibility, even if hardly anyone uses them.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 20 Nov 2008, 14:05

Possibly. But such an area might be viewed as of importance in longer-term strategic terms or in terms of ecology/bio-diversity etc. so it might still be viewed as quite important in that context although not in terms of public use.

One of the difficulties is that the term Open Space covers such a wide variety of things, including potential rather than actual use. There might be a scabby bit of land somewhere that isn't publicly accessible but potentially could be, so it should be audited as well.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 20 Nov 2008, 14:10

Accessibility, use and potential use are all different things though and you should probably give consideration to all three. And at the end of the day it'll be open to interpretation. You won't be able to reduce it to a formula.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 20 Nov 2008, 14:22

Sportscotland used to (and probably still do) take the view that any bit of land of sufficient size and suitability that could accomodate a pitch, should be included in any assessment of pitch provision regardless of whether there is a pitch on it or not. Obviously there's value in protecting for future use but as a policy it can get a bit convoluted.

When is a pitch not a pitch?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2008, 14:42

It sounds like a bit of a minefield - which sport Scotland would include no doubt. I do think, perhaps mistakenly, that existing parks and leisure spaces are open space. I can accept the debate about marginal bits of land but existing parks would have to be declassified - doesn't sound right. We could get quite a lot of beach football pitches on the beach!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 20 Nov 2008, 15:16

Exisiting parks are open space but they can differ in accessibility and use, a case in point being Portobello Park. It's a big area of Open Space in total but how does it rank in terms of accessibility and usage? I'd think actual usage, given it's size, is relatively low but does that count for or against the proposal to locate the school on the pitches? There are two ways of looking at that, in planning terms, that are both logically valid but also mutually exclusive.

There are inherent contradictions within Planning Policy relating to Open Space. That, in itself, isn't so suprising since there are inevitably contradictions between different policies anyway. But it makes the Planning issues less than clear cut either way.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2008, 15:25

seanie wrote:Accessibility, use and potential use are all different things though and you should probably give consideration to all three..

agreed but whilst all three are different they are not mutually exclusine. So its fair to say that if a park or leisure facility is well used then. It must by default be accessible. The beach being a fine example.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 20 Nov 2008, 15:45

The beach isn't accessible to all, just ask Rapunzell.

Would the middle of the Kings Road roundabout have been included as an open space before it was tarmaced over?

I was going to make a glib comment about building the school over the sea but was that not put forward as a serious suggestion at one point?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2008, 16:16

I was thinking of Rapunzell when I typed that and I agree that the beach in ot accesible to everyone. there's not much that is. Its not going to come down to the accesibility of the beach but if I were looking to illustrate; I would point out one of those splendid photos from the fifties showing the place teemimg. Can anyone oblige?

As for the roundabout? think that would fail on accessibility. The only regular users were "the roundabut couple" and let's face it they were just plain weird.(no offence meant if they are realtives)

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 20 Nov 2008, 17:41

There's usually a minimum size for inclusion in an Open Space audit, say 0.2 Ha, so you're not including gardens and verges. And as I said the beach is very accessible in some respects and in others not, same with the golfcourse and the pitches I suppose. I don't see a clear cut way of measuring that. There's bound to be a degree of subjectivity to any assessment.

That'll drive some people nuts.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Nov 2008, 17:59

Diana Cairns has a letter in today's EN (4th letter down):

'Ruling' is not a momentous move

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2008, 18:44

It is not even worth commenting on.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2008, 18:48

seanie wrote:There's usually a minimum size for inclusion in an Open Space audit, say 0.2 Ha, so you're not including gardens and verges. And as I said the beach is very accessible in some respects and in others not, same with the golfcourse and the pitches I suppose. I don't see a clear cut way of measuring that. There's bound to be a degree of subjectivity to any assessment.

That'll drive some people nuts.

Agreed. On the question of over or under provision. What geographical area will be considered? Ewan Aitken specifies catchment area. I've alos seen "within a 10 minute walk" mentioned. If it was the latter that is used we would be a shoo in.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 20 Nov 2008, 19:02

Logic would suggest that if you replaced the single space lost with a number of smaller spaces around the area, then you'd improve accessibility. Alternatively you might improve the quality of existing spaces in compensation. There's no hard and fast rule as such but it would depend more on what the planners saw as adequate compensation.

there are other considerations but in terms of usage the pitch aspect should be more than covered for by the new facitlites in order to satisfy sportscotland etc. So the only remaining usage that's affected would be the 'dog toilet' amenity value.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 20 Nov 2008, 19:28

Porty wrote:It is not even worth commenting on.

True...........but I cannot resist this one.

DC Quote - "The fact is an administrative process has been misrepresented as some kind of momentous decision"

This is yet another PPAG opinion expressed as a 'fact'. It really does sum up the way PPAG present a lot of their mis-information.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2008, 19:48

The approval was momentous - we don't have to revisit the consultation. DC et Al don't fully appreciate the consequences. As usual she writes as if she speaks for everyone. She thinks its not momentous therefore it can't be. The approval was a concern for those of us who want new schools. We expected the approval in sep 2007 and the delay was wee bit worrying. When I say a wee bit I mean a bit like man united worry when they are 6 - 1 up with a minute to go. So the approval was momentous - the moment we got it the moment we didn't have to go back.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2008, 20:01

Sean I'm not making myself clear: over provision - what geographical area will be assessed? Catchment, post code or what? You have previously stated, quite correctly, that few areas in Edinburgh will have over provision. Is there a prospect that the area where portobello park is located could have over provision? Finally, assuming the pitches are not contained within the fenced in area of the new school, what size of land will it use?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 20 Nov 2008, 20:40

There's no definition, I'm aware of, as to what area should be considered. In planning terms it's a matter of judgement.

As for the park & golfcourse, they're certainly significant in size so may result in overprovision depending on the wider area considered. But that in turn raises the question of whether 'overprovision' is to be judged merely in terms of area, or whether use, accessibility etc are also factors to be considered. Again there's no definiton, that I'm aware of, as to what constitutes 'significant overprovision'.

These are terms open to interpretation.

I think the drawing from the consulation gives a reasonable guide to how much space the school would take. With the school occupying 4.5Ha there wouldn't be any difficulty in leaving two full size grass pitches , about 1.2Ha, publicly accessible outside the boundary.

However you could get away with less than 4.5Ha. In the feasibility studies they managed to squeeze the same nominal facilities onto the combined PHS/St Johns site at 3.5Ha. You'd want to look closer at how well that would work, but if you replicated that footprint
up on the park it would leave about 2.2Ha of public park. You could fit four full size pitches on that, more than what's there at present.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2008, 20:57

Ok thanks I appreciate its not formulaic. Returning to replaceme t green space. Fron your previous posts and experience; am I correct in thinking that the 4.5ha used by the school is the nominal amount of land to be replaced? But it does not need to be replaced exactli in terms of size? Usage and quality are key considerations?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 20 Nov 2008, 21:49

Yes. The Planners would certainly consider the wider questions of usage, accessibility and what would in particular benefit the area. They wouldn't be looking for a like for like replacement since the prime function of the park ie. the playing fields, would still be fulfilled by the school facilities. They may look for another pitch or two to be upgraded somewhere as well to satisfy sportscotland but the loss of sporting facilites won't be an issue.

The Council might have it's own ideas on that, seperate from the Planners, but if you look back at the December 2006 Council meeting it agreed to;

an audit of usage of the current park being undertaken to inform the re-provisioning of adequate facilities to meet that need;

So even back then they were talking about replacement green space being informed by 'usage' rather than simply size.

Since pitch provision will be covered, the remaining challenge is to find somewhere new for dogs to crap.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2008, 22:23

So it is perfectly possible that no new green space may be required to satisfy the councils condition . However the planners may require some extra ie upgraded land. If that is the case I can't see that being a big problem. If one is being flippant; all we are looking do is use land currently used primarily for dogs to crao on for childrens education. I can't see that being much of an issue either. In your opinion what will be the most difficult hurdle to surmount when it comes to planning?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 20 Nov 2008, 22:37

The Open Space policies are the difficulty. The way they're framed sets quite a high hurdle to development, but if those conditions are satisfied the remaining issues are pretty straightfoward.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Nov 2008, 23:36

Accepted. On re reading the council amendment on replacement space it is quite clear to me that your interpretation is correct. Our PPAG opponents don't share that view. Their statements and propaganda all allude to a similar amount of green space has to be found locally. It is another case of misleading themselves. Whilst creating false hope. The condition doesn't say what they think it does.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Nov 2008, 00:12

I've noticed a tendency to 'read with a broad brush'.

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 21 Nov 2008, 11:36

Just a thought:
If the land curently occupied by the school were turned into green space - would this appease some of the objectors?
Open/green space is a valuable resource - but education is vital.
When I moved house over 18 years ago, there was a field at the bottom of the street. Now tehre is a primary school - which was vital for the locality. There weren't any protests about this, although not everyone was entirely happy. But things change and we have to move along with the times

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Nov 2008, 14:14

I'm not sure it'd be that good a location but it's possible. One thing I'd suggest would be to keep and maybe do some landscaping to the strip of planting between the pitches and the golfcourse. That way you'd have a buffer between the school and the golfcourse, and you could run paths through it so people could still enjoy their walks with the view acroos the golfcourse to the Forth.

If you could find other ways to improve or extend the path network in the area that might also contribute.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Nov 2008, 17:24

Seashell its nice to see a positive interjection from a "neutral" observer. As it happens the council have committed to creating a park of some description on the site of the old school. I imagine it won't be sizeable but it will be there and it could run along the perimeter of the area known as the tennis courts. Which is one of the reasons I was so annoyed bt David Manson's Alcatraz statement.

You quite reasonably ask if a park on the old site will help to appease the objectors? The answer is an emphatic NO. If the objectors (PPAG) were truly interested in green or open space then your suggestion would make all sorts of sense but they're not.

To date the have suggested building schools on 2 parks (Figgate and Rosefield Park), supported building on another park (Bingham) and tried to reclassify an open leisure space as Brownfield (Power League) so that they could justify building on it.

If the council came up with a plan to divide the school into 4 and build on 4 seperate parks that didn't include Portobello Park most of the objectors would be all for it. For PPAG green space is a veneer, a veneer that has ruptured time and time again throughout the course of the campaign.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Nov 2008, 00:10

Nevertheless, this veneer is once again celebrated in the 2009 PPAG Calendar, now on sale. One of the photos used appears to show a water feature I was hitherto unaware of, or is it just a large puddle?

While PPAG boast of the "fantastic success" of the worldwide sales of their 2008 calendar their map suggests that absolutely no-one in South America, Africa or Asia supports their campaign. They really must try harder.

PPAGwatch will again be ensuring that no local trader is duped into stocking the calendar, the proceeds of which will, one assumes, be used to attempt to prevent the re-build of Portobello High School on its agreed site. It is also worth noting that PPAG may be soliciting donations under false pretence by continuing to perpetuate the myth that the golf course is under threat, when this is clearly not the case.

If you would like to help to save our green spaces, in particular Portobello Park and Golf course

And this from the group that was prepared to sacrifice Figgate Park to save their own patch of grass. Donald Trump has better green credentials.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 23 Nov 2008, 00:34

Their contention is that locating the school on the pitches would threaten the golf-course, either through children wandering across it and damaging it or through health and safety fears of pupils being hit by golf balls.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Nov 2008, 00:41

It's nice that they are concerned about the children's welfare.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Nov 2008, 03:05

I guess that sometimes we are all a bit over zealous. Maybe a bit too focused on our own goals to the exclusion of everything else. I often find that the old folks are either the wisest or the dumbest. Jean Douglas was way ahead of the game when it comes to protecting kids from golf balls or vice versa. Here's Jean's masterplan. From March the 18th 2006 right here on Talkporty (around page 44 of the original schools thread)

Jean Douglas proposes

Regarding the site for the new PHS since the proposed site on the golf course for the two schools is to be, roughly, the same size as the present PHS site and St. Johns jointly, perhaps St John’s could be moved and the entire area used for PHS. Since some green space has to be lost I suggest rebuilding St. John’s on Rosefield Park. That would avoid the undesirable positioning of a primary school on a shared campus with a large secondary school. Rosefield Park is in the centre of Portobello, is away from the A1 and the railway line. Expense would be saved in not having to resite the Golf Course. Playing fields could be upgraded in the Park Avenue site which is near PHS and the planned development of housing on the remainder of the park could go ahead to raise money

Have they got her in the Calendar? It truly is something to behold.
(any connection between the Jean Douglas featured above and the Jean Douglas that occasionally has letters about preserving green space published in the Evening News is irrefutable)

Admin: small edit to remove personal details