New Portobello High School - on going issues

[Porty]

If PHS gets the go ahead at the forthcoming Council meeting then that will be great news. However, if Councillor Hawkins and PPAG continue to use spoiling and delaying tactics then local parents are going to be very angry indeed.

You give PPAG too much credit, to date they have had no success at either spoiling or delaying PHS on Porty Park. Their only success is helping prevent housing on the golfie.

Had common good not been dealt with prior to Dec 18th then you could maybe have argued they had delayed matters. The fact is not one of the so called "Wave 3" schools has made progress over the last two years. IF MM is as good as her word, we are now on a level playing field and will be treated fairly.

PPAG won't delay planning either. They will will be given time and mechanism to make their views known and that's all. Building on any park , even one of the parks that PPAG would prefer to build on, is not going to happen without a bit of a stooshie but it need not cause undue delay.

As far as securing planning permission is concerned it is by no means a foregone conclusion but on the evidence to date they have a very weak case.

As you suggest, the prospect of a local councillor attempting to delay the re-build of a new school in his own backyard beggars belief and would never be forgiven.

I'm not sure about that. Stephen Hawkins has a lot of local support and more than a few hold him in high esteem in recognition of the good work he has done over the years.

[Porty]

All in all and after a long period in limbo its been a good couple of weeks. Firstly, we had the consultation approval. Which sort of came out the blue. Then today we had the info that after long and deliberate research senior counsel do not believe the park is compromised by common good. Which is further than we thought they and the council would go at this stage. Then we have the prospect of re-profiled money fron the SG- all positive develoments. What I'm not clear on is how the phasing decision will be made. And in particuler what it will mean if we finish first or second? Not that I'm counting chickens.

[seanie]

At least the delay in resolving the Common Good issue shouldn't count against PHS in terms of deliverability. But I don't know the other schools that well so couldn't second guess the results of the prioritisation.

[wangi]

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinb ... 4750996.jp

Lawyers clear way to build on park

Published Date: 02 December 2008
EDUCATION leaders have finally received confirmation that a new Portobello High School can legally be built on Portobello Park.
The site of the new school has had a question mark over it as it was unclear whether a school could legally be built on Common Good land.

However, the city council has now received legal advice which will allow plans for a new school to progress and Portobello can now be considered on an equal basis as the other four schools awaiting modernisation under the "wave three" programme.

Councillor Marilyne MacLaren, the city's education leader, said: "I am extremely pleased to receive this advice.

"The advice we have been given provides an appropriate way forward and I believe it clarifies the extent of local authority power over the use of Common Good land."

A progress report on how the council plans to implement the wave three programme will go before councillors at a meeting on December 18.

Willie Wilson, a member of Portobello For A New School, welcomed the news.

He said: "We now urge the council to do the right thing at their meeting in December and prioritise the money they have already set aside to replace Portobello High School.

"The dedicated teachers and 1400 children of Portobello High School deserve to work and study in a building that is fit for the 21st century."

PHS Parent Council:

COMMON GOOD DECISION REMOVES FINAL HURDLE

The Parent Council of Portobello High School today welcomed yesterday’s announcement by City of Edinburgh Council that it had received legal clarification on the use of Common Good Land. As a result, the Council does not need to seek the permission of the Scottish Courts to use Portobello Park as the site for a new Portobello High School. This removes any doubt about the legality of building a new school on the park and opens the way to beginning the design and planning process for the new school.

The Parent Council of Portobello High School now calls on the City Council to agree a timetable for delivery of the new school, when it considers the Wave 3 Schools report on 18th December.

Parent Council vice-Chair Mike Robb said: "Parents have become increasingly concerned in recent weeks about the condition of the school. Whilst we don’t want to exaggerate the situation, we believe that the School Condition Report now being considered by the Council must highlight the urgent need to bring forward plans for a new school. The removal of the Common Good issue is great news and finally puts Portobello on a level playing field with the other Wave 3 schools. Funding is now the key issue. We heard last week of the additional funds available to the Scottish Government to spend on infrastructure projects as a result of the Chancellor’s pre budget report. Edinburgh City Council must be given its fair share of those funds and use them to kick start the Wave 3 programme. We now have a great opportunity to get on and build a 21st century school that will be an asset for the whole community."

[Porty]

From Maureen Child:

Dear All



Thanks for all your feedback on other issues!

I have heard recently (apologies for those who already know!) that the common good issue around Portobello Park have been resolved with QC’s clear advice to the City of Edinburgh Council that there is no legal impediment to the use of Portobello Park for a school and playing fields. However I do acknowledge that this is very difficult indeed for some to accept.

Mike Robb, Vice Chair, Portobello High School Parent Council has sent this press release out today - and I agree with their position:

COMMON GOOD DECISION REMOVES FINAL HURDLE

The Parent Council of Portobello High School today welcomed yesterday’s announcement by City of Edinburgh Council that it had received legal clarification on the use of Common Good Land. As a result, the Council does not need to seek the permission of the Scottish Courts to use Portobello Park as the site for a new Portobello High School. This removes any doubt about the legality of building a new school on the park and opens the way to beginning the design and planning process for the new school.

The Parent Council of Portobello High School now calls on the City Council to agree a timetable for delivery of the new school, when it considers the Wave 3 Schools report on 18th December.

Parent Council vice-Chair Mike Robb said: “Parents have become increasingly concerned in recent weeks about the condition of the school. Whilst we don’t want to exaggerate the situation, we believe that the School Condition Report now being considered by the Council must highlight the urgent need to bring forward plans for a new school. The removal of the Common Good issue is great news and finally puts Portobello on a level playing field with the other Wave 3 schools. Funding is now the key issue. We heard last week of the additional funds available to the Scottish Government to spend on infrastructure projects as a result of the Chancellor’s pre budget report. Edinburgh City Council must be given its fair share of those funds and use them to kick start the Wave 3 programme. We now have a great opportunity to get on and build a 21st century school that will be an asset for the whole community.”

The future of two of out local schools – St John’s Primary and Portobello High – crucially depends on the outcome of a process by which five possible new schools are prioritised for funding and the outcome of the Scottish Government discussions about what to do with the extra money for public investment coming to them from the Westminster Government.



As Mike says, the City of Edinburgh Council will discuss this very important topic on December 18th and I very much hope for some further good news on funding at that point!



Regards



Maureen

[seanie]

Good news for St John's as well. This should improve the deliverability of all three options considered for them.

[seanie]

On the other hand some potentially not so good news for schools across the city.

City schools lose thousands in cuts

[Porty]

I see park supporter is doing its dinger in the en comments section. Its pleading.- Its pleading that we don't forget ppp2 and how phs could have been rebuilt on site. Meanwhile it seems to have forgotten the more recent consultation where the idea was voted down unanimously. Its also pleading for park lovers "across the world" to help. I hope its not a ppag supporter as they don't even love the next door park. I'm sorely tempted to publish the desperado lyrics again.

[Pal of Porty]

It beggars belief - Making a rallying call to 'park lovers of the world' while the chairmain of PPAG has gone in print to suggest building St John's on the 'flat featureless bit of land in the Figgate Park' etc etc etc etc etc etc

[seanie]

During the consultation they also suggested building on the Jewel or Bingham Park as 'reasonable alternatives.'

[Pal of Porty]

During the consultation they also suggested building on the Jewel or Bingham Park as 'reasonable alternatives.'

Absolutely correct. They want to build on that many parks I could not be bothered typing them all in my earlier post.

[Bob Jefferson]

Yes, ironically 'park lovers' (isn't that you Epy?) have a lot more to fear from PPAG than PFANS. One of their supporters even touted Rosefield Park to build a school on at one point. Donald Trump that if you can.

[Porty]

This years PPAG Calendar features pictures of all the parks that they wouldn't consider building on.

[wangi]

Yes guys. I think you've made the point.

[seanie]

PPAG's response.

Two things stand out;

PPAG obtained a legal opinion from the Dean of Faculty in 2006 saying that the Council would have to apply to the Court to get a decision as to whether they could build on Portobello Park

That's not how the opinion was described at the time. The opinion quoted was;

“Whilst the issue is ultimately a matter of fact to be judged by the court, it is my opinion that the Park does form part of the common good of the Council and the Group would have reasonable prospects of obtaining a decision of the Court to that effect. In that situation, there would be limitations upon the entitlement of the Council to alienate the land forming the Park”.

And they've also included the following;

Also, the latest Council plan shows that they will be building over part of the eighth tee of the Golf Course.

This 'latest' plan they're refering to is just the drawing from the Consultation report two years ago. They're trying to spin an indicative drawing in a two year old feasibility report as what's actually going to be built.

[Bob Jefferson]

admin: post removed

[Bob Jefferson]

PPAG = people who give the impression that they don't necessarily like children very much. Although, in a free and democratic society, they are entitled to their opinion.

[seanie]

Also, the latest Council plan shows that they will be building over part of the eighth tee of the Golf Course.

That really is, at best, disingenuous.

It came up during the Local Plan Inquiry, that the consultation drawing showed the school site encroaching on the strip of 'semi-mature' woodland and the eighth tee. The Council Official pointed out that it was only an indicative drawing, didn't represent an actual design and that the exact extent and configuration of the site was yet to be developed. Yet here are PPAG touting this two year old drawing as the 'latest' plan, as if it were some new threat to the golf-course.

Presumably they need to keep this angle up to persuade more American golfers to sign their petition.

It was also claimed at the hearing that the consultants' drawing was wrong and that, with the footprint shown, the school would have to be mostly four rather than three storeys high as stated in the report. It hardly needs saying that this turns out to be untrue as well. The consultants erred on the side of caution and made the footprint slightly larger than necessary, so if anything the school is likely to take up less space than indicated.

[Pal of Porty]

PPAG = people who give the impression that they don't necessarily like children very much. Although, in a free and democratic society, they are entitled to their opinion.

That is not true Bob. Many members of PPAG like their children so much that they are sending them to a brand new school currently getting built just up the road.

[Porty]

PPAG's response.

Two things stand out;

PPAG obtained a legal opinion from the Dean of Faculty in 2006 saying that the Council would have to apply to the Court to get a decision as to whether they could build on Portobello Park

That's not how the opinion was described at the time. The opinion quoted was;

“Whilst the issue is ultimately a matter of fact to be judged by the court, it is my opinion that the Park does form part of the common good of the Council and the Group would have reasonable prospects of obtaining a decision of the Court to that effect. In that situation, there would be limitations upon the entitlement of the Council to alienate the land forming the Park”.

.

The legal opinions acquired by both sides of the argument are basically consistent.

On the issue of whether the land is common good? Roy Martin- The Dean of Faculty- states that the outcome will ultimately be for the courts to decide. Prior to it getting to that stage the council moved the land into the common good account, ostensibly conceding that it is common good. Therefore no need to go to court.

On the issue of "alienation". Which in laymans terms mean should the council wish to cede ownership to a 3rd party. Roy Martin- The Dean of Faculty- states that the council may have limited powers to do this. Which is likely true. However, it is also irrelevant as the council will retain ownership. The fact that powers may be limited has no bearing.

The opinions are more consistent than contradictory to those that can read and discern

So there is nothing for PPAG to challenge. And PPAG do not state that they will make a legal challenge merely "intend to challenge".

[Porty]

Also, the latest Council plan shows that they will be building over part of the eighth tee of the Golf Course.

That really is, at best, disingenuous.

It came up during the Local Plan Inquiry, that the consultation drawing showed the school site encroaching on the strip of 'semi-mature' woodland and the eighth tee. The Council Official pointed out that it was only an indicative drawing, didn't represent an actual design and that the exact extent and configuration of the site was yet to be developed. Yet here are PPAG touting this two year old drawing as the 'latest' plan, as if it were some new threat to the golf-course.

Presumably they need to keep this angle up to persuade more American golfers to sign their petition.

The other day I re-read "Portygreenkeeper's" duping American golfers, (think it is in the wilder issues thread). It has horrid connotations.

And once again by encouraging their supporters to write to councillors to save the Golf Course. They will be shooting themselves in whatever remains of their feet. Any councillor or MSP who gets a letter asking him or her to help save the golf course will just think, "the golf course is saved" and take no further action.

PPAG’s letter campaigns have certainly contributed to the unanimous support for a school in the park.

[Pal of Porty]

Show me the money.

[seanie]

And once again by encouraging their supporters to write to councillors to save the Golf Course. They will be shooting themselves in whatever remains of their feet. Any councillor or MSP who gets a letter asking him or her to help save the golf course will just think, "the golf course is saved" and take no further action.

I think you'll find they'll be in the slightly awkward position of talking up the golfcourse and talking down the golfcourse simultaneously.

They'll want to draw as much opposition as possible to the school proposal so they'll be trying to argue the golf-course is still threatened by having a school adjacent to it. In doing so they'll play up the whole 'much-loved-facility-at-the-heart-of-the-community-used-by-everyone-young-and-old-alike' angle.

But when it comes to the open space policies, and the issue of open space provision, they'll be emphasising the limited value of the golfcourse; 'it's-only-used-by-golfers-so-it's-not-really-that-accessible-to-the-wider-public-and-doesn't-represent-a-significant-open-space-despite-it-being-so-big-afterall.'

It'll be a fine line to tread. Push the latter too far and it'll lend weight to the argument that the golfcourse should be altered or reconfigured to accomodate other uses. I'm not sure the golfers will be too keen on that idea.

[Porty]

It was also claimed at the hearing that the consultants' drawing was wrong and that, with the footprint shown, the school would have to be mostly four rather than three storeys high as stated in the report. It hardly needs saying that this turns out to be untrue as well. The consultants erred on the side of caution and made the footprint slightly larger than necessary, so if anything the school is likely to take up less space than indicated.

I trust that a 3 storey school will be below the existing tree line? And what about "protected view" number 23- will we still be able to see the 822ft high Arthur Seat if there is a 3 storey building in eye line?

http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/skyline.html

How did that cionsultation go? What are the implications for Porty Park?

[seanie]

Given the slope of the site, you could probably get away with a four storey building and still be below the treeline. There might be an argument for that in order to minimise the footprint and maximise the amount of green & public space left.

The proposed school will obviously affect some views but it shouldn't conflict with the skyline policy. And knocking down the existing building should improve the view.

[seanie]

Just to clarify, as the name suggests, the skyline policy is primarily concerned with the skyline and in particular the impact of high rise buildings. Any proposed building would inevitably affect views, but it's unlikely to affect the skyline. There's a distinction there that some don't appear to have grasped.

[Porty]

Yeah they must be thinking of pie-in-the-sky line.

[Porty]

And once again by encouraging their supporters to write to councillors to save the Golf Course. They will be shooting themselves in whatever remains of their feet. Any councillor or MSP who gets a letter asking him or her to help save the golf course will just think, "the golf course is saved" and take no further action.

I think you'll find they'll be in the slightly awkward position of talking up the golfcourse and talking down the golfcourse simultaneously.
....
It'll be a fine line to tread. .

PPAG do duplicity splendidly.

Your link to their CG response encouraged me to look at their website more closely. On the main page you will find a "Friends of Figgate Park" button. It's a nice touch and shows solidarity with anoher local park group. The button is near the bottom of the page

http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/

And if you look into the FOFP site you will see that Dave Connelly helped put the site together and does bit of hosting- nice- if it stopped there!! - "Stop Press" is another featured button and this brings up the PPAG blog from Dec 17th - 4 days before the Executive Meeting on Dec 21st 2006.
The blog is full of spin, lies and half-truths but there is an interesting excerpt that FOFP may not be so chuffed about.

http://portygreenkeepers.spaces.live.com/

Its about 3/4 of the way down the page and for those who cant't be bothered looking, it says:

We believe the council should reconsider the following options, not having given adequate reasons in the report for the their rejection:

The Figgate Park is dismissed as an option for a rebuild of St John's because of risk of flooding. This site is only one metre below the level of the current St John's and a good ten metres above the level of the burn; the risk of flooding is negligible and could be totally eliminated. This site should be consulted upon for St John's.

Not sure PPAG are the type of friends that FOFP need!!

[Pal of Porty]

Big week this week on the school front as the Council will be revealing their thoughts on the wave 3 prioritisation before the vote on 18 Dec.

[seanie]

It's difficult to believe it's almost exactly two years since the vote on the consultation.

It must be exciting working for CoEC.

The breakneck pace of things must make every day seem like a rollercoaster ride.

[seanie]

Time for us to all work together on a new Porty High

Quite appropriate given the season of goodwill.

Maybe we should organise a Christmas Day game of footy on the pitches?

PPAG Ladies FC up and running yet?

[seashell]

[Maybe we should organise a Christmas Day game of footy on the pitches?

Bit like the famous WWI Allied troops versus German troops match? Then each side can retreat back to their positions

I liked the bit in the Evening News letter about making sure the new school is environmentally friendly - a really important factor.

[BeachBum]

I was curious about that letter in the evening news which says:

YOUR story "Lawyers clear way to build on park" (Evening News, December 2) made welcome reading for the majority of the city who support a new Portobello High School on Portobello Park.

For the majority of the city. Is a new PHS an issue that is of Edinburgh wide importance? Isnt it a fairly local issue, as its unlikly to affect people in Wester Hailes, Morningside etc?

Or am I missing the point totally? Bearing in mind that I pay little attention to the whole PHS issue as it has no relevance to me.

[seanie]

Building the school on the pitches would be considerably more cost-effective, and cheaper, than rebuilding on site. So it is of financial relevance to people across the city, particularly given the economic difficulties and other capital projects in the pipeline.

[Porty]

You are not totally missing the point. However every councillor, even those in the places you mention, voted to put the school on the park.hence the majority. I think.you are concerned that perhaps it doesn't interest ordinary punters. That is likely true, however it really ought to concern you and others. Even if money is the only consideration. The options for phs varied by up to £30m in cost. That's roughly equal to the entire city school re build budget for the next 3 years. It impacts on huge numbers of people across the city .