New Portobello High School - PPAG win legal appeal

[wangi]

I can ensure you the cost effectiveness will firmly stack up in favour of a new build.

The current PHS is not listed.

[Makaveli]

(sorry, Makaveli, I do keep coming up with these family ties don't I?)

Why you mentioning me there? I think you are a bit confused as I have never once mentioned your family ties. I can only presume that you have brought it up to emphasise to everyone that you consider yourself as well connected?

Whereas I am sure most folk couldn't give two hoots who you know.

[seanie]

If anyone genuinely thinks the PHS should be listed, then really, they're beyond help.

[portygeoff]

I think the requirement is 3 miles Geoff, anything under that and they make their own way there which is why, if possible, they would theoretically go to the one nearest them. I think, but I'm not sure, that they're given bus passes to use public transport or, if disabled or unable to use public transport they get a taxi.

The three schools mentioned aren't 'all over Edinburgh' , they're a short distance from the current school and judging by the amount of cars outside the school gates of a day a lot of the kids travel by car.

I won't go into how many of the Portobello community see the PFANS activists because that would be petty. (it was my quote, not Betty's)

Hollyrood can take a hundred, Leith very few. The majority would need to go Castlebrae. Everybody north or East of the current School would need to be bussed or provided with bus passes or taxes; the council hiring buses would be cheaper and less disruptive. That's shipping hundreds of kids about for probably 3 years. It is of course doable but not ideal. (I accept that building on the park is also seen as not ideal).

Re the whole refurb debate. I am not sure it is actually viable to repair that building, even then can we please get off the old 'it was ok when i went there' years ago. In the 70's I had a fab wee Austin 1100. Great little car, a bit knackered now but could be patched and still be good. Yes, but I need to drive around Edinburgh everyday now and have a Kia Venga because it meets the requirements of my needs. My little Austin 1100 was fun but would be no good to meet my needs in the 21st Century. Same applies to the existing PHS building.

I agree that we should be open to options other than the park, I can't see any other realistic options being proposed at the moment though. The closest I have seen so far has been a rebuild on site but that seems to avoid lots of awkward questions such as St Johns, swimming pool, size etc. The decant has been discussed but not fully thought out IMHO. (PS edited the name).

[portygeoff]

If anyone genuinely thinks the PHS should be listed, then really, they're beyond help.

Listed in architectural books on how not to design a school perhaps.

[seanie]

The design was driven by the constraints of the site. A 9 storey tower isn't really suitable for a school, and add into that the fact that buildings of the 60's haven't generally aged well, and you're looking at an unappealing option.

Spends huge sums of money, not far of a new build, plus the disruption of an extended decant, to end up with a building that is still essentially poor. It really is the option of last resort.

[Epykat]

The design was driven by the constraints of the site. A 9 storey tower isn't really suitable for a school, and add into that the fact that buildings of the 60's haven't generally aged well, and you're looking at an unappealing option.

Spends huge sums of money, not far of a new build, plus the disruption of an extended decant, to end up with a building that is still essentially poor. It really is the option of last resort.

The decant for refurb wouldn't be as long as a decant for a new build - it's not me that's moaning about a decant.

[seanie]

That would depend where the new build was, wouldn't it.

[Epykat]

That would depend where the new build was, wouldn't it.

Well obviously, if the new build is on the golfie you wouldn't need a decant. I thought we were discussing Plan B seeing as how, at the moment, the new build is going anywhere but the golfie, therefore the new build is going on the current site which would require a long decant or the building refurbished which would require less of a decant. I'm only thinking of the decantaphobes.

[seanie]

Please give the the park it's proper title, as acknowledged from at least 1900.

[Betty Windsor]

I wonder what a new build can provide that a refurb can't. The current building can certainly accommodate 1400 + pupils. I don't understand why there is more concern over the area that the school sits on than the actual floor space. This could look really amazing if the right people were brought in to do the job.
And sorry Seanie, for some of us, Portobello Park will always be the Golfie. We've been calling it that for generations and most of us only realised in the last few years that that was not its real name.

[rathbone]

I can ensure you the cost effectiveness will firmly stack up in favour of a new build.

It’s nice to see you so confident, and you may well ultimately be proved correct, but until a proper cost/benefit analysis is made you cannot say that. Because each building is different, the balance varies in each case. On carrying out a detailed analysis Telford College found it more expensive to refurbish. Boroughmuir school is currently carrying out a cost benefit analysis to determine if refurb would be cheaper than new build of the school. In the majority of school projects I have been involved in (albeit bringing low rise 50s schools up to standard), refurbishment was cheaper than new build).

To quote two relatively recent studies by leading experts in the field:
“ The bespoke nature of construction projects, and the degree to which cost variation results from specification and design choices, makes generic comments on capital expenditure difficult. However we analysed generic range costs per square metre for four refurbishment options and compared these to three levels of new build rates. The comparison demonstrates that most refurbishments are less expensive in capital terms due to the extent to which existing building elements are retained.” ( 2009 study by Scott Brownrigg for the British Council)

“In the majority of cases, refurbishment will be a quicker and cheaper means of restoring second-hand space to grade-A specification.” (2010 study by Grimleys in Property Intelligence magazine.)

As Porty has said, there are too many people who know f**k all about refurbishing schools making subjective judgements based on no knowledge and even less information. (Sam the spaniel excepted, of course).

[Sceptic]

Why a refurbishment simply will not do.

1) building is now the best part of 50 years old. It's structure, although I have not seen an engineer's report would, probably, conclud that demolishing the tower is badly needed. The flats build in the same era were demolished, mainly for the same reason.

2) it was not built with 1400 children in mind, if I remember correctly, it was built for about 2/3 that number.

3) standards for classrooms has moved on in 50 years, teachers do not do "chalk and talk" any more. Modern teaching needs modern teaching aids.

4) Cost effectiveness, apart from 1 school, every school under PPI has been a newbuild, if it were cheaper and more efficient, schools would have been refurbished, the people who are behind the PPI schools are no fools, they do it for minimum cost and maximum income and gain.

5) Health and Safety, it is easier and safer to build when not surrounded by masses of children on the site.

By the way a 1960 /70 s car fares worse off in a collision, mainly due to safety features on 21st century cars, it has nothing to do with maintainance or anything, just it's now better by design.

[gillian]

Betty, I base my opinion that the building is not adequate on the experts. I read, listen, take in and come to conclusions based on their assessments and expertise. I also listen to what the pupils and teachers say and come to conclusions based on their experiences. I read, listen and take in what the people who oppose the school being built on the park say about the adequacy of the building and come to conclusions.
Then and only then I form an opinion on whether the building is adequate to provide the necessary accommodation for the education of 1400 pupils in the 21st century.

Rosa, I am genuinely interested to know where I can access all this information provided by these experts. I would be grateful if you could point me in the right direction.
I too have listened to teachers and pupils (different ones apparently). The feedback I got from the few teachers (and ex-teachers)I have spoken to, is that the classrooms in the proposed school in the park were smaller with less storage space and the design was "uninspiring". This is perhaps to be expected from a new build.
As far as adequacy and "fit for purpose", maybe I am misunderstanding these terms but whether we like it or not the school IS actually serving its purpose ie educating 1300+ kids.

Betty, along with many,many people I have been to more meetings than you could shake a tower block at. At these info meetings, consultations, parent council meetings etc information, and expertise was there for all to digest and assess. Sorry you missed them but I think you are capable of accessing whatever you choose.

[seanie]

Boroughmuir school is currently carrying out a cost benefit analysis to determine if refurb would be cheaper than new build of the school.

Nope. The refurbishment option was ruled out some time ago. In fact Boroughmuir dropped out of the PP2 schools despite then scoring worst in terms of condition, because the absence of an alternative site meant refurbishment was the only option. And despite it being the only option that still didn't want to do it. Malcolm Fraser spent a lot of time trying to convince the Council otherwise but got nowhere.

[rathbone]

I stand corrected and am grateful for the information. I was basing my comment on the school newsletter of last November and comments made to me by a friend whose son goes to the school. I have now fully appraised myself of the Fountainbridge option.

I’m not personally advocating refurbishing the existing tower, but it is an option worth exploring. (I do get irritated by things being dismissed with sweeping statements without evidence being cited to back them up.): It’s refreshing to have some points on which we can have a proper debate

1)Most tower blocks were demolished for two reasons: social stigma and housing stock transfer schemes, not structural problems. Most people did not like living in tower blocks and when housing stock transfers were taking place the partners wouldn't take them on because of high maintenance costs.

2)At the time it was designed for 1,000. (I subsequently worked for Bamber Hall, the architects who designed it and got that figure from Jim Laidlaw, the guy who actually did the designing.)

3)Modern teaching does indeed need modern teaching aids. That is not inherently relevant to new build vs. refurbishment.

4)It isn’t true that most schools under PFI have been new build. The National Audit Office report ‘Renewing The Secondary School Estate’ published in 2009 found that it was exactly 50/50. In studying the actual costs they found that the average cost/pupil was £8,028 for new build and £3,660 for refurbishment.

A similar report into the NHS found similar. A hospital scheme in Coventry was reverse-engineered by health chiefs to attract private capital. The city’s two hospitals were to have been renovated by the public sector for £30m. Instead they were demolished and one was rebuilt for £410m In most PFI schemes the return to the private sector partner is a percentage directly linked to the cost of the scheme. The reason for them preferring new build is because they cost more, not less.

5)I will concede that the health and safety issues associated with school refurbishment are different with people in situ.

[Epykat]

I just find it interesting that - the PPAG opposers posting here at least - are so closed to any other proposals. Most of the people on here who have tried to find a solution to your problem (and ultimately it is your problem because I know for a fact that several people on here have no vested interest at all) have been dismissed forthwith because they're not suggesting building on the golfie.

Now, we all know that you want the golfie site but, let's be realistic. There is a very real possibility that this is not going to happen. It has to be said that some people were incredibly confident, smug even, suggesting parties on the site, half price champagne, a welcome committee for the diggers - but it didn't happen and if it does ever happen it will take several years now.

If you really, truly want anything to happen you're going to have to open your mind to an alternative because otherwise the only people letting down your children is you. To not have a Plan B is naive and unrealistic and constantly ridiculing people and attempting to make them sound ignorant and selfish isn't really going to get anybody anywhere.

Should the latest ruling be upheld you're not getting on the green site, so your only options are to rebuild on site or refurb - both of which will require a decant - one having less of a decant than the other. You can take the p**s out of that idea if you like but it could be an option, and you may not have all that many of them.

[seanie]

I think we have to be open to other possibilities, but I think the reality is there aren't many that are viable. additional funding might make a difference but the scope for that may be pretty limited.

[Porty]

PoP, I agree with you entirely. This is a great design, low-rise and shrouded in trees but this type of design is not popular around here.

On the contrary, its not popular with PPAG, a tiny group of people, but the vast majority of those who have expressed an opinion are all for it. A school like Holyrood is what we are fighting for.

[commander114]

deleted

[AndyB]

Can't say I've read back through all the recent pages but has anyone mentioned that the park may actually not be on Common Good ground. Would this not leave the latest judgment somewhat in doubt? What are the avenues for taking this forward as building on the park is only merely delayed by the latest judgement.
http://www.andywightman.com/?cat=7
As Bob said the insincerity of PPAG's offer to 'work together' to find a solution is staggering and makes me chuckle.

[Sceptic]

It is amazing that some people can come up with design that, according to them, solves all the problems. However, have they conducted tests as to suitability of their design? Will the lower strata of soil / rock support such a structure, access for vehicles, during and after construction, access by pupils, whether they are part of the school run, or by public transport, impact on surrounding areas? There are so many tests that need to be done before you even turn over the first sod.

Rathbone, as an architect, am I being unreasonable in asking these questions?

Has anyone asked what happens to staff and pupils with disabilities in the present school? Do they go up in a lift? What happens during a fire alarm? Are they evacuated by evac chair down eight floors, or are they kept at low level, which may be contrary to equal opportunities legislation. Would the school employ a member of staff who is confined to a wheelchair? If not, why not? If it is down to safety concerns, then the point is made, CEC is in breach of equal opportunities legislation. So to those who say the tower is fine, ask yourself these questions.

[rathbone]

Rathbone, as an architect, am I being unreasonable in asking these questions?

No, of course not. These are precisely the questions which have to be answered in assessing any proposal and it is right to ask them. If Porty is to be believed then these assessments have already been made in relation to the Tower.

However,at least the Commander is putting forward suggestions to address the question which other people are ignoring: What options are there if all attempts to secure the school on the park fail? As he rightly points out, if that isn't addressed now then the situation for the students will drag on even longer.

[seanie]

A pre-fab modular school on stilts above Figgate Park?

[Makaveli]

I can't speak for Porty (the person not the place) but I am sure he is, as the rest of us are, frustrated at this 'plan B' approach that certain folk are taking. As others have said it is a smoke and mirrors tactic trying to put people off track from the real issue which is to get the school built where it should be built - the only place in catchment it can be built correctly and that is on a section of Portobello Park.

So please no more about schools on stilts, or schools offshore, or schools being built on Figgate Park.

[Underscore]

Porty is going to end up a one horse town pretty soon. If people dont understand that having a decent school in the area is vital to the success of the "village" then we really have no hope. If you move the school further away people will move with it. I know 3 friends already who are selling up and moving into town to find a decent school. The whole thing is a disgrace and i pity some people and there petty attitudes to life.

[rathbone]

So please no more about schools on stilts, or schools offshore, or schools being built on Figgate Park.

Or any discussion on what happens if all attempts to get the school on the park fail?

The presumption is that the purpose of all people using this site has to be to get the school built on the park no matter what. There is a danger that if you suppress all discussion by people that disagree with you this forum will turn into the equivalent of the PPAG Facebook page and I certainly wouldn't hang around if that happened.

[seanie]

Porty High is a decent school, in fact it's a very good one. But the accommodation is sub-standard and deteriorating. If you're going to spend 10's of millions on a new school for the community, serving the next few generations, then it's worth trying to get it right.

[Makaveli]

Or any serious discussion on what happens if all attempts to get the school on the park fail?

Fixed that for you

[seanie]

So please no more about schools on stilts, or schools offshore, or schools being built on Figgate Park.

Or any discussion on what happens if all attempts to get the school on the park fail?

The presumption is that the purpose of all people using this site has to be to get the school built on the park no matter what. There is a danger that if you suppress all discussion by people that disagree with you this forum will turn into the equivalent of the PPAG Facebook page and I certainly wouldn't hang around if that happened.

I've gone through quite a number of alternatives, albeit briefly, and I think alternatives have to be considered. But fantasy stuff about Cumbernauld style schools on stilts over the Freightliner terminal or Figgate Park is a worthless distraction. I think the idea of refurbishment comes close to that as well.

[Epykat]

Then there's you. You totall diss all of the above in favour of your own experiece as a classroom assistant. You really ought to think twice about hurling accusations about arrogance at other people.

I don't recall ever claiming to be a structural engineer which is why I asked you to avail us of the expert reports on the structure of the Tower, I don't see how a conclusion of arrogance can come from that. Had I said, the Staff are all liars, the school is sparkling and everything is completely, utterly and absolutely fandabby dozy and I know because I am Queen of PHS, that would have come across as quite arrogant.

I also don't blame anybody for the mess you're in apart from the Council - oh and maybe some people who are inciting their kids to write things like #parkavenuescum on social networking sites which is really not doing anybody any favours in the charm offensive war.

As somebody else said somewhere "The council initially denied it was CG land and then agreed it was. If 2 parties ask a court for a ruling based on something they both agree on, why would the court feel the need to check it? It's a bit like the Lanarkshire cases - the judges only ruled on what they were asked for, not whether it was OK to build a school on CG land. IF it is not CG then the council are even more useless than previously suspected - they could have killed this issue 4 or 5 years ago and the school could be half built by now!"

[seanie]

Don't know if that's a productive avenue but the point is sound. The question of whether the land is or isn't Common Good has never actually been determined by the courts. So there is still a question mark there, although it may be a small one.

[Epykat]

Porty is going to end up a one horse town pretty soon. If people dont understand that having a decent school in the area is vital to the success of the "village" then we really have no hope. If you move the school further away people will move with it. I know 3 friends already who are selling up and moving into town to find a decent school. The whole thing is a disgrace and i pity some people and there petty attitudes to life.

I absolutely agree with you Underscore. The school shouldn't be moved further away, it should be an integral part of the community, which it is at the moment and has been for years. The problem is that as things stand it's not going where some people thought it was going. Therefore, something else has to be done with it. It's a shame your friends feel the need to move. PHS is a good school with great staff and I'm sure their kids would have been happy and successful there.

[Epykat]

Don't know if that's a productive avenue but the point is sound. The question of whether the land is or isn't Common Good has never actually been determined by the courts. So there is still a question mark there, although it may be a small one.

And what happens if it's found that it IS common good land? Actually, let me rephrase that. At what point will you accept that the school is not going on the golfie? (this isn't a sarcastic question Sean, I am genuinely interested)

[seanie]

Well I'm aware of a number of possible ways that the school could still be built, via legal or legislative routes, so building on the Park is certainly still possible. What I don't yet know is how deliverable these alternative processes are; timescale, cost, risk etc. At the moment my priority is exploring these, because the Park is still the best site and the alternatives are poor. If none of the ways of getting the school on the Park are promising then I'll re-evaluate.