New Portobello High School - on going issues

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 08 Dec 2008, 19:35

michael_traill wrote:....Bearing in mind that I pay little attention to the whole PHS issue as it has no relevance to me.

Good schools are a vital asset to a community whether one has children or not.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 Dec 2008, 21:33

That's the advantage of having onsite playing fields. When it comes time to re-build your school, you just build it on the playing fields and then reinstate the playing fields on the site of the old school. In theory, you could go on swopping round indefinitely without the hassle of having to find a new site.

And that's another reason why a re-build on Portobello Park makes sense. It is a future-proofed solution.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Dec 2008, 21:41

Pal of Porty wrote: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.

It is a big week for both schools, well that's a bit peroquial, all 5 schools. I've been trying not to speculate but I find it impossible to resist. I genuinely feel that there is something afoot for PHS.

St Johns options all include land from PHS (which is a no-no if school stays in situ)
Consultation gets approved.
Common Good issue gets resolved
Scottish Government announce more money for schools. (although no guarantee for Edinburgh at this stage)
Marilyne MacLaren has a complete volte face with her tone relating to the school and publicly acknowledges that PHS has issues.

There is a definite sense of momentum or its another false dawn and we are being shafted again; take your pick.

What I'm hoping for is PHS finishes in 1st or 2nd place in the condition report, the council's 14 year plan gets accelerated because the SG give some more money, this means work begins more or less immediately on PHS and we have a new school that opens just after the 2012 Oympics. Wouldn't that be nice?

One can't go solely on previous condition reports but in my opinion St John's will finish 4th or 5th and their new school will be 7 to 10 years away, assuming there is no new borrowing mechanism for either local councils or the Scottish Government, that would accelerate the plan.

It would be a pity if either school had to wait such a long time and that goes for all 5 schools. With St John's there would be one tangible benefit in a delay- the current property commitee will be long gone and they will have a chance of an open and informed choice about their new school.

Post by **wangi** » 08 Dec 2008, 23:13

admin: Guys, have split that wee tangent off to it's own thread.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 Dec 2008, 13:06

Thought Seashell's post was worth duplicating in the real thread:

seashell wrote:
I hope the new school will not just be of interest to parents and pupils, but to the whole community. IT will have facilities that can be used by many people out of school hours: as meeting places; areas to carry out crafts and hobbies; sporting facilities that can be used by all ages.
The new school has the potential of being the hub of the community and bringing people together - even those like Michael, who feel they are only "passing through"! There's enough negativity fro certain quarters about the school - let's start to look at the positive - and what we can all contribute to help make the venture a success.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Dec 2008, 13:34

In the PPP2 prioritisation only one school ranked worse in terms of Condition, Accessibility and Fitness for Purpose; however that was Boroughmuir.

But the other criteria that worked against PHS then don't seem to have been included in the current prioritisation, so you'd think PHS would rank fairly high as a priority. Boroughmuir, for all it's problems, might still suffer in terms of deliverability, depending on the refurb option.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 Dec 2008, 13:51

Do you think the council are taling the refurb option seriously? I thought that they were resistant to "hybrd" buildings of new and old, due to the ongoing maintenance costs.. And what about procurement? Malcolm Fraset at Boroughmuir and the 3 amigos at St John's have brought forward their own schemes. Am I correct in thinking that the council would have difficulty authorising this type of indivdual approach?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 Dec 2008, 14:01

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/lette ... 4773718.jp

Succintly put-4th letter down.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Dec 2008, 14:07

Refurbishment tends to be disruptive, less cost-effective, with less cost-certainty and with higher on-going costs. That's not to say it's necessarily a poor option but I'd understand if the Council were wary.

Malcolm Fraser's a decent architect so he may have come up with a good scheme for Boroughmuir in architectural terms, but the Council will have more experience of this type of project so they might take some convincing.

That the St John's school board proposal was being touted as 'considerably cheaper', rings alarm bells for me. That doesn't strike me as credible given what I've read about St John's. With the amount of work required I wouldn't expect a refurbishment to be significantly cheaper if at all.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 Dec 2008, 14:21

Are there issues around procurement? For example; lets say the council tendered the planning and design contract for all 5 wave 3 schools and then St John's come along with their own plan. What implication would that have? Especially if there was a significant cost difference.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Dec 2008, 14:50

It's really up to the Council as to whether to take these alternative plans seriously. They're the ones that are responsible, for education, the schools and the finances (capital and revenue), and so they have to satisfy themselves as to what course of action to take.

I could knock up a scheme for PHS myself. The Council wouldn't have to pay me any attention.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Dec 2008, 14:54

As far as procurment goes, since PPP or NPDO don't appear to be progressing at the moment, it'd probably be easiest to go down the traditional route; treat each school as an individual project with a separation of design and construction. I think you tend to get better results that way.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 Dec 2008, 15:07

I definitely read somewhere that schools bringing their own schemes forward were cuaisng some sort of commercial conflict of interest. However, i don't know which parties any conflict would be between or what it may be?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Dec 2008, 15:22

I don't really see how a 'school' could bring a scheme forward in any meaningful sense. They might come up with something to persuade a Council to go down a particular route, but at the end of the day the Councils have the corporate responsibility. The schools belong to them afterall.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 Dec 2008, 16:44

seanie wrote:Refurbishment tends to be disruptive, less cost-effective, with less cost-certainty and with higher on-going costs. That's not to say it's necessarily a poor option but I'd understand if the Council were wary.
.....
That the St John's school board proposal was being touted as 'considerably cheaper', rings alarm bells for me. That doesn't strike me as credible given what I've read about St John's. With the amount of work required I wouldn't expect a refurbishment to be significantly cheaper if at all.

Ghost disagrees with you and it seemed to know all about the plans Months before the parent body at St John's . How does it do that? From the Evening News 20/06/2008

"Ghost,
20/06/2008 17:26:35
St John's have put forward a proposal to the Council for a refurbishment and extension of the current building. It would fully meet the modern teaching requirements, and would come in several million pounds cheaper than a complete rebuild. The design proposed would deliver an environmentally friendly school, with a low carbon footprint.

It would also retain the character and heritage of the school. So what sense is there is a new build for St John's?"

It sure as hell knows a lot about it- even down to measuring the carbon footprint- must be an insider. - Out of curiousity- What sense is there in a new build school for St John's?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Dec 2008, 17:02

From what was proposed before for refurbishing St John's, you're talking about pretty much gutting it and starting from a shell. That's not cheap and I'd expect that bringing the building up to modern environmental standards would also be difficult and expensive.

It might be cheaper, but I'd be very suprised if it'd be by much. At least not if done properly.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Dec 2008, 23:49

Porty wrote:Out of curiousity- What sense is there in a new build school for St John's?

Refurbishments can work well but there is a danger of being hamstrung by the existing building. In short you have to make more compromises so, even if a refurbishment comes in cheaper, it might not actually deliver what you want as well as a new build.

New build in comparison tends to be quicker, with greater cost certainty and, depending on your procurement method, the end result is likely to be closer to what you actually want.

However I wouldn't want to lay that on too thick. Some refurbishments work very well and some new-build schools are dreadful. But personally I'd be a bit wary of refurbishment if the work required was significant.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Dec 2008, 11:47

seanie wrote:New build in comparison tends to be quicker, with greater cost certainty and, depending on your procurement method, the end result is likely to be closer to what you actually want..

And you can put a new build where you want on the given site allowing optimum configuration of the remaining space.

St Johns will still be a 2 storey building but there's no need for it to be as tall as it is at the moment.

What about construction materials. I saw a letter to the council that was bidding for a refurb as it couldn't see the point of building a new school out of a material this is "cheaper" than stone. I don't know much about modern building materials; are they cheaper and better than stone. And what about the costs of matching new and old build together when the latter is made from stone.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Dec 2008, 12:23

I'm not sure how much of the existing building is stone. It looks like stone dressings but the building's mostly rendered so it could well be mainly brick.

Stone tends to be a bit expensive and there are some environmental drawbacks. It's the sort of material that's more likely to be used as a feature or for dressings much like the existing school. The new Sandersons's Wynd Primary in Tranent for example has real sandstone lintels and cills at the windows but the rest of the building is a mix of brick, render and timber cladding.

Whilst the choice of materials is partly driven by cost, there are other important considerations. Modern buildings need to meet environmental standards (insulation, acoustic separation, air tightness etc.) that just weren't considerations just a relatively short time ago. And if you're serious about an environmentally sustainable design there are quite complex decisions about where materials are sourced from, embodied energy, recyclability etc.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Dec 2008, 14:03

You got to love how desperate some are getting over on the EN comments page- their bums are squeaking:

"52 I claudia,10/12/2008 11:59:33
What is really motivating local businessman Steven MacIntyre to be so vocal about the new school? We must pray his next venture isn't into building either on the lucrative land the council will be selling off or the new high school. Anyone remembering him in one of his past lifes as an Estate Agent will remember the story about selling his mother in law a house and the back wall fell down. "

I was never involved in any sale to my in-laws or any other family member for that matter.

In reality my in-laws bought a house, in John Street almost 25 years ago and they are still there. They bought it on a strong closing date and I wasn't selling it- some lawyesr up in Edinburgh were. They lived in their previous house for about 30 years.

I think what they mean by the wall falling down is this: it is a lower villa and instead of taking the internal staircase out during the conversion- the previous owners just built a cupboard around it. So when you opened the door you walked straight into a staircase that didn't go anywhere.
It was a tremedous waste of space and they decided they wanted to remove it and create a shower room. They got a quote for the demolition and I said that's ridiculous- I will knock it down, Which I did, breaking 3 sledgehammers and loads of sweat. i did it in one evening.

However, what I had not realised: it was a structural staircase, which is probaly why they left it as is and there was a possibility the structural integrity of the house was at risk. The upstairs neighbours were understandibly annoyed. The banging was terrible.

Anyway it got sorted by professionals and has been a shower room for more than 20 years. They love their house.

admin: small edit

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 10 Dec 2008, 14:08

Charming! Type of comment that should be removed, I'd say. Possibly litigious.

What's the link, Porty???

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Dec 2008, 14:18

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opini ... 4770279.jp

At the foot ofthe comments section- I reported it as unsutable but I wished I hadn't- shows them up. Its not the first time there's been accusations/ suggestions that I may be in this for the money. in fact I think its the 5th- Alison Connelly, Dave Connelly, Jean Douglas and Portyman here on TP/POL and Jean Douglas implied it in the Evening News. My conscience is clear.

admin: small edit made

Here's some previous dialogue from the old schools thread.

Jean Douglas wrote: .... or who ,personally, are not likely in some way to benefit directly from this project?

Stephen McIntyre wrote: This is the third or fourth suggestion or implication that one or some people stand to personally gain, financially or in some other way from this proposal. Portobellosite alluded to this and someone in the hairdresser told me that he might be your son in law. What are you getting at?

Dave Connelly wrote: Stephen, the someone in the hairdressers you referred to is my brother, as you probably know. Yes, Jean is my mother in law. I also have several other relatives who may or may not post on the site. One is abroad, two of my friends in Germany also watch the site with interest. I think you may be gettiong a wee bit paranoid here.

Wonder if I claudia was one of those German friends?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 10 Dec 2008, 15:13

Porty wrote:http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opini ... 4770279.jp

The Evening News have quite rightly removed it now although it is a brilliant example of how desperate some are becoming.

admin: small edit

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 10 Dec 2008, 15:47

It makes fascinating reading.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 10 Dec 2008, 16:59

Yeah
facinating
But you spoiled a good story

As my granny used to say why spoil a good rumour with the truth?

As I've said before, I'd be more convinced of motives of the save the park people if they were as concerned to save other green spaces around Portobello.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Dec 2008, 17:10

It is really getting low-life over there. I'm not asking for the posts below to be removed. Much better to let the desperation remain on view for all to see.

I claudia,10/12/2008 14:30:48
Comment 52 removed. Someone got something to hide after all then?Re

I claudia,10/12/2008 14:43:51
Porty Pirate, he's currently flogging dead horses..sorry mortgages on the high street but the back end has fallen out of that too.Report Unsuitable56 west end girl,edinburgh 10/12/2008 15:22:58
#52/54/55

I claudia,10/12/2008 15:48:26
West End Girly
Build a school wherever you like I have no interest in where it goes just that it doesn't fall apart like the 60's tower has been falling apart since they built that. I made no personal attack I asked a question and it got removed. Why? Makes you think someone has got something to hide.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Dec 2008, 19:55

The Wave 3 Report, which sets out the way forward for the schools involved, is set to be published in advance of the full Council meeting on 18 December. A briefing to the schools and local councillors took place a short time ago.

My understanding is that Portobello High School came TOP of the list of priorities with St John's in joint 3rd place.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Dec 2008, 20:07

There was an item on St Johns and phs on reporting Scotland - anyone see it?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Dec 2008, 20:42

I got a text from an attendee at the breifing meeting to say that the order that the Wave 3 schools will be delivered is as follows.

1) Portobello High School
2) Gillespies
3) Boroughmuir
3) St Johns
5) St Crispins

This is still subject to a vote next week.

No further info on timing as yet or if any schools will be tackled simultaneosly. So I'm a bit more than cautiously optimistoc. It is tempting to be elated but by definition it means our school is in the worst condition of the 5.

Now we are down to the crunch. Money is scarce and we have the school in the worst condition but from what I gather not by much. Even after alll the due process, consultation and democratic process are some people still going to argue that PHS should be rebuilt in-situ at a cost of £25m to £30m more. Thereby delaying St John's and other Schools even longer.

Sad as it is I'm guessing they have already begun.

Post by **wangi** » 10 Dec 2008, 21:22

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi ... 776079.stm

BBC wrote:Portobello High School is set to be rebuilt first out of a list of five Edinburgh schools shortlisted for the state of their disrepair.

The £41.5m school plans mean Edinburgh City Council would need to find another £8.5m in February's budget to meet a shortfall.

...

Edinburgh councillors will vote on the proposals next week.

...

Portobello has been recommended as the first school to be rebuilt after a condition and suitability assessment gave each school a score with the intention of addressing the school in most need.

If the recommendations go through then construction work would start in 2011/12 with the new school opening in 2013/14.

'Seriously concerned'

Marilyne MacLaren, Edinburgh City Council's education convener, said: "This is great news for Portobello but this is a bitter-sweet situation as the other four schools will be disappointed and worried about the future of their buildings.

...

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Dec 2008, 21:52

Porty wrote:Even after alll the due process, consultation and democratic process are some people still going to argue that PHS should be rebuilt in-situ at a cost of £25m to £30m more. Thereby delaying St John's and other Schools even longer.

The 'deliverability' aspect of the prioritisation will be based on the agreed proposal to locate on the park. So if the report is approved it'll be on that basis. There's no prospect of re-opening a debate about rebuilding on-site, particularly when that's both considerably more expensive and even less feasible now that St John's has decided not to relocate.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Dec 2008, 22:55

Just back from the PFANS post-meeting analysis. I'm confident that there will now be another unanimous vote in support of the report on 18 December. Or will there be one abstention? Could a local councillor conceivably vote against the rebuild of a school in his own patch? A school that will benefit thousands of local children for generations to come?

Why am I so confident?

Because the consultation process which led to the site selection was officially approved by the Scottish Government.

Because the Common Good issue has been resolved in our favour.

Because the methodology behind the prioritisation process was agreed in advance, accepted as fair and impartial by all the schools involved and independently validated.

And here is another fact for you to consider. The cost of essential repairs over the next five years for Portobello High School, that's just the bare minimum to keep it up and running, has been estimated at 5.7 million pounds. We are wasting over a million pounds a year to prop up a school that should have been reduced to rubble years ago.

Now we can look forward to the appointment of a design team, perhaps by April 2009, a planning application by late 2010 and work started in 2011.

My daughter celebrates her 8th birthday on 18 December, coincidentally the date that Council votes on this report. With luck, she will start secondary school at a brand new state-of-the-art PHS in Portobello Park. Not PPP/PFI but built with real money. I couldn't wish for a better birthday present for her.

(Although what she really really wants is a black tutu.)

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Dec 2008, 23:11

There probably won't be a vote. Think it will be like the last time. If all parties are happy with the methododlogy then the protocol is a pass without challenge. However, we will see. I hope PHS are putting forward a deputation to consolidate our position.

I suggest we convene in the Cafe Royal after the meeting and have a celebratory beer.

We will celebrate passing another critical stage not the final hurdle. We still have planning to address.

Bob Jefferson wrote: And here is another fact for you to consider. The cost of essential repairs over the next five years for Portobello High School, that's just the bare minimum to keep it up and running, has been estimated at 5.7 million pounds. We are wasting over a million pounds a year to prop up a school that should have been reduced to rubble years ago.

I was unaware that the maintanence budget was so bad. That is a horrific number but it is essential we provide the best education we can until the new build opens.

Out of interest Bob was there any insight into the St John's response to the consultation?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 10 Dec 2008, 23:32

I first heard the good news when Cllr Hawkins announced it tonight to the Brightons and Rosefield Residents AGM. I'm delighted that soon all secondary school pupils in Portobello will have excellent educational facilities.

I am disappointed, however, that St John's have found themselves in 3rd equal position.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Dec 2008, 23:39

What I read about St John's in the press release made little grammatical sense, apart from anything else, but the gist of it seems to be that the Council isn't persuaded by the school's preferred option of a refurb and want to postpone that decision until such time as funding is forthcoming.

My impression is that the Council would prefer a re-build and if PHS is definitely going on Portobello Park, as seems to be the case, then this would make a lot of sense.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School - on going issues

Back of the class...