New Portobello High School - on going issues

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Dec 2008, 23:42

Marya wrote:I first heard the good news when Cllr Hawkins announced it tonight to the Brightons and Rosefield Residents AGM. I'm delighted

So how delighted exactly was Cllr Hawkins? (Sorry I couldn't make it btw. I think I owe you a tenner. Are you still chair?)

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 10 Dec 2008, 23:46

He was very pleased that PHS secured first position, but did reiterate his opposition to building on the park and also expressed his disappointment for St John's.

(Yes, you owe me £10 and no, I'm no longer Chair

)

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Dec 2008, 23:48

Apologies from me also. Football tonight.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 10 Dec 2008, 23:50

seanie wrote:Apologies from me also. Football tonight.

Well, one of your team mates made it along...and secured some funding!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Dec 2008, 23:51

Well he shouldn't have been there.

It was four against three tonight and I was one of the three.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Dec 2008, 23:52

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

I will be at the panto on the 18th celebrating Emily's birthday (oh no I won't, oh yes I will) but happy to join up with you later if you are still in party mode.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 11 Dec 2008, 00:23

I am absolutely delighted with the news for PHS and the next steps now appear to be planning and money. I am however disappointed for St John's and frustrated that they appear to have been the architects of their own downfall.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 11 Dec 2008, 13:24

Fury as school revamps could take over 14 years to finish

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 11 Dec 2008, 13:33

Landing school on green is not a fair way for Porty

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 11 Dec 2008, 13:45

...the majority (87 per cent, according to the council report of December 21, 2006) of residents who made their views known at the time of the consultation were against the plan.

28% of individual responses supported building on the Park, and 19% supported building on the golfcourse. A total of 47% compared to 48% in favour of rebuilding on-site.

Where has 87% come from?

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 11 Dec 2008, 13:53

Where has 87% come from?

Maybe her neighbours that she asked?

Noticed the school being on the golf course was mentioned

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 11 Dec 2008, 13:53

Leaving aside the golfcourse as an option, and just focusing on the park proposal, 258 out of 431 individual responses objected.

That's 60%.

Where has 87% come from?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 11 Dec 2008, 13:59

Oh hang on... I think I know.

There were 431 individual responses but they were categorised into Residents, Parents and undetermined Residents/Parents.

If you take the 196 residents classed as Residents (ignoring the residents classed as Parents and Parents/Residents) and then take the 171 of them who objected to building on the golfcourse, you get 87%.

Disingenuous ain't the word.

Although I think it does start with D......

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 11 Dec 2008, 14:04

seanie wrote:Landing school on green is not a fair way for Porty

makes it sound like an alien invasion.

I do love the new phrase in the letter about "aesthetics". Any reason why the school and its grounds shold not be aesthetic?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 11 Dec 2008, 16:55

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opini ... l-on-green[/quote]

Apart from the obvious inaccuracies contained in this letter, me thinks it's a tad too late.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Dec 2008, 18:11

Seanie- any chance you could to a quick timeline for us on the process that will hopefully be implemented early in 2009.in terms of time/delay what will it mean if the Scottish government "call the application in" - thanks

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 11 Dec 2008, 18:49

Would you not rather savour the moment before I depress you with a programme?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Dec 2008, 18:51

Yes- let's leave it til' after xmas, i'm sure you will be busy with the other wise men over the holidays.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Dec 2008, 21:35

seanie wrote:Landing school on green is not a fair way for Porty

Ergo one of the reasons Alison Connelly deleted all of her POL posts. She was on record arguing Porty Park for St John's instead of PHS and was of course the main player of SJSB when they plumoped for Porty Park in the 2006 consutation report.

Fortunately she didn't cover all her tracks- there's a distinct lack of integrity.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 11 Dec 2008, 22:21

What's the bet that e-mails are winging their way to Councillors at the moment claiming 87% of residents were against putting PHS on the park?

It's shameful. Pretending that some that responded weren't actually 'residents' because the consultation identified 'parents' as a particular category is bad enough. It's obviously wrong not to include them as well.

But to then take the number of 'residents-excluding-parents-and-those that-haven't-said-whether-they're-parents-or-not' opposed to development on the golfcourse, instead of those opposed to development on the pitches, is just deliberately misleading.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Dec 2008, 23:32

admin: deleted

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Dec 2008, 23:49

admin: deleted

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 Dec 2008, 11:31

http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext ... cId=120880

The Wave 3 report.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Dec 2008, 12:41

And here is an extract from the official press release of 10 December:

Go ahead for Edinburgh’s Portobello High school

A proposal to invest an estimated £41.5m in a new Portobello High School as part of the Wave 3 programme to rebuild five schools in Edinburgh is the subject of a report to be considered by the City of Edinburgh Council next week.

The full project value is estimated at between £162m and £182m, depending on the preferred option for each school. A report which went to the Council in June 2008 estimated that based on projected funds available the programme would take at least 14 years to deliver and would represent a significant challenge.

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. The outcome of the assessment also listed the other four schools in order of priority: James Gillespie’s High School (second), Boroughmuir High School and St John's Primary School (joint third), and St Crispin's Special School (fifth).

The rebuilding of Portobello High school will now go to the budget setting process in February for approval and it is estimated that construction work would start in 2011/12 with the new school being open in 2013/14.

Councillor Marilyne MacLaren, Convener for Education, Children and Families, 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. I am seriously concerned that the other four schools are not fit for purpose and desperately need to be replaced.

"We put the business case for each of the schools to the Scottish Government in June of this year and we have made it very clear that we need additional funding if we are to deliver all of these schools in the next five years. I will continue to work at all levels to find funding to rebuild the other four.

“The young people at each of these schools do very well despite poor buildings but I know how important it is for all young people to have the first class facilities they deserve.”

Next steps for each school

Portobello High School

A further report will go to the Education, Children and Families Committee in March to agree the size of the new school (either for 1200 or 1400 pupils).

It is recommended that the new school goes ahead on the Portobello Park site, subject to approval during the budget setting process in February.

St John's Primary School

The school community were also consulted on their preferred option (refurbishment or new build). Although responses were in favour of a refurbishment, the Children and Families Department has delayed a decision on what option should proceed when funding is available. The benefits of new build are not fully evaluated in light of the opportunities demonstrated by recently completed new buildings.

Criteria

All schools were considered using two main criteria (a) condition and (b) suitability. The assessments conformed with Government guidance on these two criteria.

Condition - surveys were carried out by property specialists employed by the council and independently validated.

Suitability - all schools carried out a self-assessment and this was then moderated by professionally qualified council staff to ensure fairness and equity across all five schools.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Dec 2008, 12:52

From today's EN:

Schools funding: 'SNP prevents the city from raising cash'

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Dec 2008, 12:54

From today's EN:

City faces £16m bill to keep its crumbling schools open

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 12 Dec 2008, 15:22

seanie wrote: http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opini ... 4783065.jp - Landing school on green is not a fair way for Porty

This is an incredible statement to go public with. No matter how hard I try I still cannot reconcile this very same author recommending in September 2006, that St John's be relocated to Portobello Park (A copy of this recommendation appeared on this very forum). How can it be OK for one school and not another?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 12 Dec 2008, 15:31

Beware, your land could be next

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 Dec 2008, 15:47

I've read the Wave 3 report from cover to cover and I can't see how the methodology can be reasonably questioned. Surely there will not be a vote on it?

I fully appreciate that the council must do eveything it can to keep PHS from closing but I shudder at the £5.7M estimated cost of repairs. A new roof, new windows, new hot and cold water tanks (on the 9th floor!!) and all to be demolished in the near future.

Hopefully, all being well and timing of course, part of the existing PHS can be used for the decant of St John's. Makes so much more sense than Lismore doesn't it?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Dec 2008, 14:08

Diana Cairns is still looking for compo in today's EN Letters Page:

Park will be lost if building begins

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 14 Dec 2008, 06:13

Dc cairns says:"First, the claim that a "few locals that rather selfishly argued that the education of our young people was somehow against the common good" is completely untrue.

The many people who oppose the development of the park for anything simply wanted the council to acknowledge that the Park was common good land. "

"Simply wanted the council to acknowledge that the park was common good land- if, as dc cairns states, that is all they wanted - they got what they wanted almost a year ago.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 14 Dec 2008, 21:57

And the question has to be asked- DC Cairns has written in the Evening News and stated the all "we"wanted was to have the council acknowledge that the land was Common Good land and that is all. Like I said the council did this a year ago. So why are PPAG still raising money if they got all they wanted? Something is untrue and its not looking good. Either she is lying about PPAG's real agenda with Common Good or they are raising money without cause? Maybe she'll drop by and put the record straight.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Dec 2008, 18:46

The Council has produced a newsletter to update PHS parents of recent developments:

Portobello High School Newsletter

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 16 Dec 2008, 13:28

Letters: New school will be great chance to benefit Capital

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Dec 2008, 17:46

From today's EN Letters Page:

Please show your hands for Wave 3

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School - on going issues

phs