New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Plug · Post by **Plug** » 30 Oct 2006, 17:01

In these non-feudal times you can still create restrictions (now called real burdens) on land which is sold off from a larger area. The area of land entitled to enforce the burden (i.e. the remaining land) has to be identified and the right to enforce the burden would transfer to a new owner if the remaining land was ever sold (i.e. it would not remain with original seller of the land).

Hope this helps.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Oct 2006, 19:09

It does help, thanks.

At the town hall meeting someone asked thatif schools were built on the park could the remaining land be bequesthed to the people in perpetuity and preserved as parkland and or recreational space. From what you have said the restrictions would only apply if the council didn't then sell the land. Is that correct?

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 30 Oct 2006, 19:34

be bequesthed to the people in perpetuity and preserved as parkland and or recreational space

Are we not getting back to the common good here? That is a whole different ballgame!!

the council didn't then sell the land

Do you mean the remaining land (ie the school)? If so, if the local authority were to sell the school then who ever bought the school could then carry on enforcing any restrictions the CEC had put the land (ie Park, Golf Course) when they sold it. Then again, the owner of the school land could discharge (ie cancel) any or all of the restrictions they are able to enforce!!

One also has to bear in mind that planning permission would have to be granted whether there are restrictions or not!!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 Oct 2006, 19:54

It's official. Lawrence Marshall supports Option C for Portobello High School and a re-build on the old PHS site for St Johns:

For the record - and now that the consultation period initiated by this report is today drawing to a close - I myself prefer Option C. It undoubtedly means the loss of a large chunk of green space on Portobello Park but it seems to me to be the compromise most acceptable and, crucially, deliverable.

I had scrambled around - perhaps rather frantically - earlier this year trying to find sites that would not lead to the loss of any open space. Most of the suggestions made at that time and now considered in the above report clearly come with the added difficulty of requiring acquisition by the Council and re-location of existing uses or are problematic in terms of their size or in terms of planning policy. The question of sites other than those outlined in the three options above really didn't arise at any of the three consultation meetings held this month in the community.

Option C, of course, is itself not without risk in terms of planning policy but it achieves one crucial goal - it preserves the golf course. But it does more than that. It allows a new High School to be built there, avoiding a costly, lengthy and disruptive decant to the Park that would be required with the correspondingly more expensive Option A. It also "future proofs" the question of what would happen when another new High School was required in, say, 50 years time. Simply put, that generation would not find itself in the unenviable situation we find ourselves in today as a result of a decision taken two generations ago - for, if a new school was again to be required, building now on the Park with grass pitches to the far side of the site (in addition to one all-weather pitch) would allow any subsequent new school to be built on those pitches and the pitches re-provided on the site of the building then demolished. This swapover scenario could continue forever.

I fully recognise that, for those who currently enjoy the Park, Option C represents a significant loss of amenity. The gain to the community overall -a new High School with playing pitches attached for the first time ever - is, however, in my view much greater. I hope, though, that it will be possible to plan in a small pocket park for local youngsters to kick a ball about, etc.. That kind of informal use of open space is something we should strive to retain.

As for the use of the current pitches by Portobello Thistle, it may be possible for them to use the two grass pitches being provided beside the school but, if constant use by the school renders these sub-standard for Portobello Thistle league use, then I hope that the planned re-development of the Jewel and Esk Valley College to the east will allow the Joppa Quarry Park to be upgraded to become a suitable alternative.

From Milton Road the view towards Portobello, the Forth and Fife will undoubtedly change - but, for most of its length, it will still be available.
What, then, of St. John's? Here I prefer Option A - a re-build, with attached all-weather pitch, on the current site of the High School. I would even hope that St. John's could make use of the current new gym at the High School and possibly also the swimming pool - it would seem a shame and very wasteful to knock these down.

The current site of St. John's could then be sold off for housing/conversion into flats to allow at least some financial contribution to be made by the Council towards the likely overall cost of more than Â£40 million - it's hoped that the Scottish Executive will provide the bulk of the monies required.

So, build a new High School on the Park, then knock down the existing High School and, finally, re-build St. John's on the old High School site. That I think is the best way forward to resolving this very difficult issue for the whole community. I'm sorry that for some this will seem too bitter a pill to swallow - but I believe that it does try to balance many conflicting interests in a way least detrimental to the Portobello community overall.

Lawrence

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 Oct 2006, 20:10

Maureen Child's report to the Community Council this evening will include the following:

I feel the balance of argument is swinging towards the Portobello Park option for the community's new secondary school. I sense that it is dawning on the vast majority of people that the best location for Portobello High School really is on Portobello Park

Maureen will also state a preference for St Johns to be re-built on the vacated PHS site.

The full text of her statement will be published here as soon as I receive an electronic copy.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 30 Oct 2006, 20:45

Lawrence wrote:Option C ... achieves one crucial goal - it preserves the golf course.

If the SE say "yes" to the funding it does.

If the council don't change their tune if the SE say "no" it does.

But the council kicked this off by proposing flogging it off to the housers. It was their idea in the first place.

The golf course, as we were browbeaten into accepting in the early stages of this argument, is a capital asset, a bit of land currently being used as a golf course which the council even went as far as proposing the replacement bit of land for!

Please excuse those people who can't keep up with council doublespeak - because option C preserves the golf course only if and when the council say it does.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 30 Oct 2006, 21:10

I've said before I think the funding question is the elephant in the room.

But it's an issue regardless of which option is chosen; the re-build on site comes in at Â£47.9m; the Golf-course at between Â£35.3m & Â£43.8m; the Park at between Â£32.7m & Â£41.2m.

So how the funding question is resolved is in some ways tangential to the question of which is the best option. Not irrelevant but it can be separated to some degree.

I think we'll just have to wait and see what funding's eventually proposed and the impact it might have.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Oct 2006, 23:53

I am pleased that lawrence has given his support to a school in the park. I'm also pleased that Maureen has spoken favourably about a school in the park although I felt all along that she would support it. I guess we will know in the run up to Dec 21st.

I don't want to pick holes in Lawrence's statement but I would like to draw attention to his style versus the PFANS response. Lawrence speaks of a "significant loss of amenity" in relation to the use of the football pitches. PFANS took the trouble to reserach the actual pitch bookings, which work out at less than 4 hours use per week for each pitch for the 36 weeks of the football season.

From the PFANS response:

"Apart from the occasional dog walker, Portobello Park is used by a relatively small number of footballers. During the 36 week football season the three pitches are booked for a total of only four to five games a week, less than two games a week on each pitch.(21 is a reference to the data source) Ironically, two of those bookings are for Towerbank Primary School, the largest feeder primary school for Portobello High School which also has no playing fields. The park currently offers little else in terms of the recreational or leisure amenity normally associated with Parks. We have a considerable public green space, at the â€œheartâ€

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 00:03

seanie wrote:But it's an issue regardless of which option is chosen; the re-build on site comes in at Â£47.9m; the Golf-course at between Â£35.3m & Â£43.8m; the Park at between Â£32.7m & Â£41.2m.

Funding is an issue regardless of which option is chosen. however, if we introduce say Â£12m for the land sale of the existing site, Option B and C get the benefit and it puts option A even further off the scale.

Re-build on site remains at Â£47.9m, the golf course needs to find between Â£23.3m and Â£31.8m, the park is between Â£20.7m and Â£29. 2m. Option A could be more than twice as expensive, which is one mother of a funding headache. If I were the council, parent, pupil, teacher or grandparent. I would much rather find Â£20m than Â£47.9m, wouldn't you? Especially when the Â£47.9m gets you a realtively small school in comparison includes the prospect of a 3 or 4 year decant and 40 years of PE bussing into the "bargain".

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 00:15

Lawrence wrote:Option C ... achieves one crucial goal - it preserves the golf course.

I doubt that this a crucial goal for more than about 1-2% of the 35,000 or so people who make up the Portobello community. (Porty said in direct contradiction to his "picking holes" statement only two posts ago

)

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 09:46

The PFANS document is an outstanding piece of work, in every respect and homage is due to the fine people that put it together.

In your opinion. I've not read much of it yet, but the bits I have done (Monbiot misrepresentation and now this "occasional dog walker" section) don't quite put me into the semi-religious ecstatic trance you seem to have fallen into.

Maybe part of your reaction is that they are preaching to the converted (option B notwithstanding!) but I'm getting a whiff of a sneering tone from this document.

All these facts about usage of the park and the golf course fascinate me, because in another context they would be used as virtues. Imagine a predatory environment where evil supermarket developers had their eye on the same kind of land - the same people who have decried dog walkers and golfers would be saying something along the lines of "this is a public resource and should not be measured in such a callous manner!" when the developer pointed out that the land they wanted for their supermarket was only being used by occasional dog walkers. Bob would probably have a signature defending occasional dog walkers, actually!

They also fascinate me because they are all after the fact. The decision was made first to put the school on this land and then justify it by going on about occasional dog walkers.

I wouldn't call post facto Darwinism an outstanding piece of work.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 11:24

Dadaist wrote:. Imagine a predatory environment where evil supermarket developers had their eye on the same kind of land -
.

I know your are keen not to be lumped in with PPAG but imagining irrelevant scenarioss has been one of their key strategies. They have imagined a botantical gardens on Portobelo Park, imagined hunderds of golfers per day, imagined that they purchased a perpetual view, imagined that it was coomon good land, imagined that it was donated by a benefactor and so on. They could have done with you on the team.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 11:31

Yes, they had a much more difficult job than your lot. All you had to do was cheerlead the initial council plan!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 31 Oct 2006, 12:31

I disagree. I think PPAG had a much simpler idea to sell. Defending green space against the Evil Empire, sorry Council, is the kind of seductive, sabre-rattling cause that every man and his dog will unthinkingly subscribe to. The PFANS case took a bit more explaining and involved personal sacrifice for the greater long-term good of the community. I think it is testament to their powers of persuasion and coherent argument that PFANS has convinced a majority of the community that a school in the park is indeed the best solution.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 12:53

That's a fair point, but I think that some of the more militant PFANS acolytes could have been a bit nicer about the people that got to your space first. You'll have noticed that the council are a bit more diplomatic when it comes to addressing golfers, dog walkers and other park users because they know their worth as voters and council-tax payers - whereas it wouldn't have surprised me if, on discovering a retirement home on the site of one of your precious Options, PFANS had espoused the persuasive and coherent argument that, well, they were going to die anyway. You can afford to be callous when arming yourself with terms like "greater" and "good".

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 13:16

Dadaist wrote: - whereas it wouldn't have surprised me if, on discovering a retirement home on the site of one of your precious Options, PFANS had espoused the persuasive and coherent argument that, well, they were going to die anyway.

The only way I could see "militant" PFANS behaving in such a manner would be in the event that the 100 or so occupants of the old folks home claimed that they were in fact 500 young folks who had been bequesthed the old folks home in perpetuity and were thinking of starting an even younger folks club sometime in the near future, even although they had had 150 years to do so. Once PFANS discovered that the old folks were not zimmer frame bound residents but actually drove from miles away to visit the home, things may have got nasty. And I wouldn't like to have been around when the old folks were having one of their notrious stag and hen parties with 150 party goers.

As Bob previoulsy said, each claim by PPAG/GOL:FERS etc has been examined and most have been found wanting.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 13:36

Those whose claims have really been found wanting are COEC - the one body that PFANS and its cheerleaders won't dare attack in the manner that they are happy to adopt when attacking dog walkers, golfers, park users and residents - a previously innocent section of the community who found themselves being turned into cloven-hooved demons for the mere fact of being in the way of the development juggernaut.

Do you think any of the officials we've been dealing with ever lie?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 13:41

Dadaist wrote: Those whose claims have really been found wanting are COEC - the one body that PFANS and its cheerleaders won't dare attack .

Nah, PFANS got stuck in about the council on a number of issues including, housing, school size and standards.

Dadaist wrote: Do you think any of the officials we've been dealing with ever lie?

Not sure but I suspect some of them are golfers.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 13:46

In that case I applaud them.

It's been a weird one this - to be specific the difference between the two public meetings (the initial "hijack" one and the quiet town hall one) in that they really appeared to have climbed down on the housing front.

I really hope the SE approve the money.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 14:40

I really hope they approve it too. I would put money on it and I'm not bluffing.

The difference between those two meetings is stark, or so I believe as I wasn't at the first one. No housing made a big difference I totally agree. However, the comparative strengths and integrity of the arguments have also been contributory to the debates' calming

Here on POL the debate has been deeper and more ferocious than in the community at large. As portyman alluded its a timy minority of us. I wonder what differences it would have made, to the schools debate, if Bob had never gone to the trouble of starting POL?

What's your views on that?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 15:00

The strength and integrity of the argument about not having housing on the park certainly got through. Oh sorry - did you mean your arguments?

I don't know how you'd measure the effect the debate on here has had on the community or on the wider process.

In terms of people here though, a big effect and a positive one for all concerned in that, if you follow the whole thing, you're very well informed and thus in a better position to make your mind up.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 15:48

Mama mia. I just read the PFANS consultation response paragraph entitled "the green question". I would encourage non PFANS supporters not to read this whilst eating cornflakes because you might choke on them. Although you might want something to chew on - like in the movies when they're about to amputate someone's limb and they give them something to hold between their teeth - it's that bad.

Whoever came up with the phrase "environmental justice" is either a cynic or an idiot.

Please make sure Greenpeace don't read this document. They might end up building an enormous rainforest preservation complex in the rainforest, or making an anti-whaling ship out of dead whales.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 16:51

Dadaist wrote:Whoever came up with the phrase "environmental justice" is either a cynic or an idiot.

I tried to assist in identifying the culprit, this is all I could come up with.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&sa ... ce&spell=1

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:35

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Whoever came up with the phrase "environmental justice" is either a cynic or an idiot.
I tried to assist in identifying the culprit, this is all I could come up with.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&sa ... ce&spell=1

In this context. Whoever called building a whacking great school on a bit of green space "environmental justice". Would be what I meant then.

That would be why I used quotes. I was quoting the phrase "environmental justice" as used in the PFANS document what I was just talking about in the previous sentence that I had just written.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:37

Aye right.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:39

Porty wrote:Aye right.

Er - yes. Are you calling me a liar?

The "whoever" was pointed at the author(s), not anyone on the planet who had ever used the term.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:47

I did ask for your views and I meant it. My view is that the below is a very reasonable argument for "environmental justice" in the micro environment that is Portobello. Why do you believe it ain't so?

Edited mine for yours.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:47

Here's the offending paragraph :

Right - so turning an open green space into a complex of buildings represents "environmental justice" ?

Whoever wrote that is either a cynic or an idiot.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:49

Hey - where did you get text from?

Can you also please address your reaction to my explanation?

I'll happily go into detail about the paragraph itself, but would first like to know exactly what you mean by "aye right" when I gave you a straight explanation as to what I meant by "whoever".

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:50

I did ask for your views and I meant it. My view is that the above is a very reasonable argument for "environmental justice" in the micro environment that is Portobello. Why do you believe it ain't so?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:52

Porty wrote:I did ask for your views and I meant it. My view is that the above is a very reasonable argument for "environmental justice" in the micro environment that is Portobello. Why do you believe it ain't so?

Happy to answer once we have overcome the obstacle of your "aye right" post.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:52

Dadaist wrote: I'll happily go into detail about the paragraph itself, but would first like to know exactly what you mean by "aye right" when I gave you a straight explanation as to what I meant by "whoever".

No problem. I said to POP, Dada is ripe for going off on one so i will just say "Aye right".

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:54

So - you believe the explanation I gave you?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:57

I guess so but to be frank I didn't check the PFANS doc before responding. My default is to belive you.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 18:08

I assure you that I was talking about the PFANS author(s), not Gaia. I can understand that if you hadn't read the paragraph it wouldn't be clear that I was quoting from it directly.

Right.

The paragraph begins with a phrase which could have come out of a PPAG document. It says :

The sustainability of people on this planet requires young people to be educated to value the environment.

This is followed by an argument for building on the golf course and the usual stats on how the golf course is under-used.

It's almost as if the first sentence has come from a different document.

If you set yourself an initial framework of sustaining people on the planet and valuing the environment, arguing to build a complex of buildings on what used to be an open green space could be argued to be a miscarriage of environmental justice, but to go on and describe it as "environmental justice" with no explanation that you have started using a different meaning of "environment" from the one you started off with is either an act of cynicism or idiocy.