New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Nov 2006, 21:43

Here is the Portobello Amenity Society submission to the consultation, dated 24 August:

Dear Mr Jobson,

Proposal to Relocate and Rebuild Portobello High School

I write on behalf of Portobello Amenity Society concerning proposals to relocate and to rebuild Portobello High School. In the light of further information now available, we wish these to be the society's comments and these to replace the comments the society made previously.

While fully in support of Portobello High School being able to provide its pupils with the highest standard of education possible, the society is concerned that the public open space, which is already at a premium in Portobello, should be retained to as full an extent as is possible. We are extremely disappointed that the options put forward have eliminated brown field sites from the list of sites being considered and that all of the options involve building a new school on green field sites.

We are also concerned that the proposed new site for a golf course, adjacent to the historic Brunstane House, is too far away from Portobello itself to provide the same function that the present golf course provides where children and teenagers can access the golf course on foot and with great ease, which they would not be able to do at the proposed location.

The society is strongly in favour of rebuilding Portobello High School upon the merged sites of the old St John's and the present High School. (option 1a and 1b) We feel there would be enough space on the combined site for this to be possible and for one pitch to be included in the design of the site. The present St John's Primary could be used as part of the decant process while the nearest part of the Figgate Park, to which there is quick and easy access, could also be used if needed.

As regards the siting of a new St John's Primary School, we are most unhappy that there seems to be no alternative to building a new primary school on other than a green field site. The society feels very strongly that a brown field site within Portobello would have been a far better option, thus allowing all the open green spaces in Portobello to be preserved for use by the general public. If absolutely forced to say which green field site should be the new location for the primary school then, with the greatest of reluctance, we would say that option 2b, the S.W. corner of Portobello Park, would, in our view, be the least damaging to Portobello's green spaces. We do not however like being forced into this position. If this is to be the new site for St John's, then we would insist that as many football pitches as is possible are retained on the S.E. section of Portobello Park as these are well used by clubs such as Portobello Thistle.

Under no circumstances should any housing be built on either Portobello Golf Course or Portobello Park. If Portobello Park is to be the site of the new primary, and a new high school built on the combined existing sites, then we would wish the Golf Course to remain where it is as a fully functioning golf course.

We also feel that the building of new schools should not be funded by the selling off of publicly owned open spaces. A thriving community needs both good schools and open green spaces and the only way of achieving one should not be at the expense of the other. If new schools are needed to be built then greater government funding needs to be provided.

We also feel, most strongly, that full public consultation regarding possible alternative sites for Portobello High School should be sustained at all stages of this decision making process and we look forward to taking our full part in that process.

Yours sincerely,

John M. Stewart,
Chair, Portobello Amenity Society

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Nov 2006, 23:24

UPDATED: We now have the revised submission by Portobello Amenity Society.

Thought it may be useful to have an easy to read balance sheet to keep track on individuals or groups who have spoken up on a school in portobello park. A sort of where we are at at a glance. As other gropus, individuals declare we can adjust the balance sheet. Some groups like PHS have declared in sub-groups. Apologies if I missed anyone off.

SCHOOL ON PORTOBELLO PARK-THE BALANCE SHEET UPDATE NOV 29 2006

ASSETS

PFANS

PHS STAFF
PHS PUPILS
PHS PARENTS
PHS SMT
PHS SUPPORT STAFF
PHS SCHOOL BOARD
St JOHNS SCHOOL
TOWERBANK STAFF
TOWERBANK PARENTS
TOWERBANK SCHOOL BOARD
MAUREEN CHILD
LAWRENCE MARSHALL

PORTOBELLO AMENITY SOCIETY

LIABILITIES
PPAG*

YET TO DECLARE

Duddingston Primary, Brunstane Primary, Parsons Green Primary, Lismore Primary, MP, MSP, Councillor Berry, Portobello Thistle[/quote]

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 30 Nov 2006, 09:09

Porty

I appreciate you think your "balance sheet" is useful and I'm not accusing you of concocting crass propaganda purely aimed at annoying PPAG.

There are groups with conflicting aims in the same list now, where the common factor is building a school on a park.

Rather than being useful, this makes things more complicated - in that it's being left to the reader to work out which school they want built and on which bit of the Park/park/golf course.

If you were an independent consultant and were given the job of making a summary of the various groups/bodies involved in and/or commenting on the consultation, is this the list you would come up with?

I note you say "individuals or groups who have spoken up" - I would argue for the inclusion, for the sake of completeness, of the Community Council in any list/document and the reasons why they haven't "spoken up".

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Nov 2006, 10:46

UPDATED: We now have the revised submission by Portobello Amenity Society.

Thought it may be useful to have an easy to read balance sheet to keep track on individuals or groups who have spoken up on a school in portobello park and those who may still comment. A sort of "where we are" at at a glance. As other gropus, individuals declare we can adjust the balance sheet. Some groups like PHS have declared in sub-groups. Apologies if I missed anyone off.

SCHOOL ON PORTOBELLO PARK-THE BALANCE SHEET UPDATE NOV 29 2006*

ASSETS

FOR PORTOBELLLO HIGH SCHOOL ON PORTOBELLO PARK

PFANS
PHS STAFF
PHS PUPILS
PHS PARENTS
PHS SMT
PHS SUPPORT STAFF
PHS SCHOOL BOARD
TOWERBANK STAFF
TOWERBANK PARENTS
TOWERBANK SCHOOL BOARD
MAUREEN CHILD
LAWRENCE MARSHALL

FOR St JOHNS PRIMARY ON PORTOBELLO PARK

PORTOBELLO AMENITY SOCIETY
St JOHNS SCHOOL

LIABILITIES

PPAG

*There are e a number of groups that would accept both schools colocating on the park

YET TO DECLARE
Duddingston Primary, Brunstane Primary, Parsons Green Primary, Lismore Primary, MP, MSP, Councillor Berry, Portobello Thistle,

NEUTRAL

Portobello Community Council,

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Nov 2006, 18:08

Edit- accidental deletion.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 30 Nov 2006, 18:53

Porty - you have Towerbank listed 3 times (staff, parents, school board) but St Johns only once as "St Johns School".

Why?

You also have "Assets" listed vertically in upper case, but "Yet To Declare" and "Neutral" seem to be horizontal and in mixed case.

Why?

As those in "Yet To Declare" and "Neutral" don't, at the moment, support a school in the Park, did you consider listing them as "Liabilities"?

You have put Laurence and Maureen - councillors - on their own lines. Do you think it would be worthwhile listing individual community councillors in this manner?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Nov 2006, 19:26

You will recall how I was dismayed that St John's School Board had attended the scrutiny panel meeting on the 28th of September and failed to even mention any of the options that had been offered to them, with the exception of Bingham, which was rejected.

At the time I was accused of talking nonsense by Alison Connelly, a school board member, she strongly refuted my recollection.

Alison Connelly wrote: You keep repeating this nonsense that the board "focused almost entirely on Scottish Power and Powerleague" which is not true.

The minutes from that meeting are now published on the COEC website here: http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=88232 it takes ages to load. This is the only public written record of what St Johns said in the various council meetings in the run up to the consultation. PFANS, PHS BOARD, and even the Duddingston Conservation Society all provided copies of their deputations, which can be viewed on-site.

Here is the appropriate extract unabridged:

Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel
28 September 2006

Alison Connelly spoken on behalf of St Johnâ€™s Primary School Board. The School Board were concerned that the funding envelope for the re-provision of both schools had not been identified at the outset. In the absence of such funding guarantees there were concerns that the undertaking to replace St Johnâ€™s might not be realised.

The School Board would prefer a brownfield site for the new Primary School, and suggested that some of those outlined, but rejected, in the options appraisal be revisited.

Responding, Councillor Burns indicated that it would not feasible to secure detailed funding agreement ahead of a decision on the sites. He was hopeful, however, that a Council decision in December 2006 would help build up momentum for the project.

So no mention of the central catchment options that were offered to St Johns. The School Board preferred a brownfield site. Personally, I 100% doubt that the wider St John's Community, the Staff or the Headteacher were aware that the Board were pitching solely for brownfield sites.

As part of the same scrutiny meeting on September 28th there was also recorded what Alison Connelly had said at the full meeting on September 12th. Once again there is no mention of the central catchment sites and Scottish Power and Powerleague are pursued. Alison is also keen to point out that Portobello Park is Common Good land. I struggle to see how highlighting potential obstacles fits with a School Board that is driven to secure a new school.

Executive Meeting September 12th 2006

c) St John's Primary School Board

Alison Connelly, a parent representative on St John's School Board welcomed the proposal to consult on the site options for both St John's Primary School and Portobello High.

She expressed concern that funding options would not form part of the consultation process at this stage. In addition, she asked that the Powerleague site and the Scottish Power site (both of which had been discounted as being suitable for Portobello High) be included in the consultation as possible options for St John's Primary.

She also queried the use of the golf course and park site as she believed that they were held on the Common Good Fund which could restrict the use to which the land, or any proceeds from it, were put. She also felt that the funding options should be included in the consultation documents.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 01 Dec 2006, 11:03

Several posts have been moved to New Schools Proposal - The Wilder Issues

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Dec 2006, 15:20

For the record, here is the full text relating to that meeting:

Replacement of Portobello High School and
St John's Primary School

Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel
28 September 2006

Purpose of report
1 To refer consultation papers for the replacement of Portobello High School and St John's Primary School to the Scrutiny Panel for consideration.

Details
2 On 12 September 2006, the Executive considered the attached joint report by the Directors of Children and Families and City Development on a proposal to carry out a statutory consultation for the replacement of Portobello High School and St John's Primary School.

3 The Executive heard the following deputations:

(a) Portobello High School Board
Andrew Fraser, Chair, Portobello High School Board welcomed the proposal to consult on the site options for replacement premises for Portobello High School and St John's Primary School. He stated that the consultation should also include funding options for the project. Other issues raised included the proposed reduction in the capacity of the new Portobello school, the reduction in the size of the building footprint, the development timescale and the need to recognise Portobello High as not only an educational facility but as a community centrepiece.

He urged the Executive to approve the recommendations in the joint report by the Directors of Children and Families and City Development and to proceed with the consultation.

(b) Portobello for New Schools (PFANS)
Jackie Brock, Chair, Portobello for New Schools welcomed the proposal to proceed with the consultation exercise. The present building at Portobello High School was not fit for purpose both in terms of the fabric of the building on health and safety grounds and the facilities it was able to provide for pupils and members of the wider community. She urged the Executive to approve the recommendations in the joint report by the Directors of Children and Families and City Development and to proceed with the consultation.

(c) St John's Primary School Board
Alison Connelly, a parent representative on St John's School Board welcomed the proposal to consult on the site options for both St John's Primary School and Portobello High. She expressed concern that funding options would not form part of the consultation process at this stage.

In addition, she asked that the Powerleague site and the Scottish Power site (both of which had been discounted as being suitable for Portobello High) be included in the consultation as possible options for St John's Primary.

She also queried the use of the golf course and park site as she believed that they were held on the Common Good Fund which could restrict the use to which the land, or any proceeds from it, were put. She also felt that the funding options should be included in the consultation documents.

(d) Portobello Park Action Group
Ros Sutherland, Chair, Portobello Park Action Group welcomed the consultation proposal but stated that it should include details of the funding options. Issues requiring clarification included potential housing developments on parkland, increased traffic problems and the loss of green space in the area. The Scottish Executive wished to protect open space.

She asked that consideration be given to rebuilding Portobello High on its existing site and refurbishing the existing St John's Primary School building. Any decant arrangements would represent a one-off cost, but any loss of green space would be irretrievable. The Powerleague, Figgate Park and the Freightliner sites should also be considered as options for St John's Primary School.

4 The Director of Children and Families confirmed that the consultation process would play a major part in reinforcing the Council's funding bid to the Scottish Executive for the projects. The Council's preferred site options were as detailed in the joint report; this would not preclude other potential sites from being discussed and considered as part of the consultation process. He further advised that legal advice indicated that there was no legal impediment to the use of the golf course and park site for the purposes outlined.

The Executive agreed:-
i) To commence the consultation process for the reprovision of Portobello High School and St Johnâ€™s Primary School as set out in the consultation papers attached to the joint report by the Directors of Children and Families and City Development.

ii) To refer the consultation papers to the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel as part of the consultation process.

iii) That a further report on the outcome of the consultation process and financial implications be submitted to the meeting of the Council on 21 December 2006.

Recommendation
5 That the Scrutiny Panel consider the consultation papers as part of the consultation process.

Ewan Aitken
Leader

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 06 Dec 2006, 19:22

From today's EN:

Â£100m plan to upgrade five schools in Capital unveiled

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Dec 2006, 12:23

Following the autumn consultation period, The City of Edinburgh Council is scheduled to consider the findings and recommendations of the consultation outcome report at their meeting on 21 December 2006.

Interested parties have been invited to a meeting on Thursday 14 December in the Old Council Chamber, City Chambers to be briefed on the content of the report and the recommendations being presented.

A copy of this report will be made available online at the earliest opportunity.

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 13 Dec 2006, 19:36

The council report is out tomorrow and I think it will be online.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Dec 2006, 19:12

Just back from the meeting with a copy of the report. There is an embargo on the report until tomorrow, so I suppose I shouldn't really say anything about the recommendations at this point, other than that they are consistent with what was widely expected.

Present at the briefing were Stephen McIntyre, Sean Watters (PFANS), Willie Wilson, Margaret Munro, Diana Cairns (PPAG), Robert Gatliff (Portobello CC) and myself. It was chaired by Lindsay Glasgow (Acting Head, Infrastructure and Development), with Bill Millar (Property Manager) and Amanda Marshall (Communications) in attendance.

The question of whether Portobello Park is Common Good land or not, and whether (if it is) this would prevent a school from being built on this site, is a matter that will be decided by the court.

The full report and the summary of consultation responses on site options will be available online, both on the Council's own website and here on Portobello Online as soon as I receive a copy sometime tomorrow.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 14 Dec 2006, 19:30

Bob Jefferson wrote:...Present at the briefing were Stephen McIntyre, Sean Watters (PFANS), Willie Wilson, Margaret Munro, Diana Cairns (PPAG).....

Don't think Willie will be very happy with one Bob!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Dec 2006, 21:21

What I meant was that Sean was officially representing PFANS and Diana was officially representing PPAG. Robert was obviously there to represent the CC and I would imagine Margaret also. Willie and Stephen are supporters of PFANS and I was there to represent POL. I hope this clears up any confusion as to which hat each person was wearing for the occasion.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 14 Dec 2006, 21:47

The Scottish Executive will choose whether the new work would be carried out under a similar private partnership when it decides whether to fund the programme.

Thats a quote from the Evening News.

Is it correct that money secured from the Executive will be tied to a particular procurement method?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 14 Dec 2006, 21:56

mr magnolia wrote:
The Scottish Executive will choose whether the new work would be carried out under a similar private partnership when it decides whether to fund the programme.
Thats a quote from the Evening News.

Is it correct that money secured from the Executive will be tied to a particular procurement method?

As Bob says the report itself is embargoed until tomorrow but funding was part of the Q and A afterwards.

There was no clarity available re funding and no information as to how any funding will be "packaged". The council opined that in the scheme of things the Â£100m bundle of funding being sought from the SE (as detailed in the recent EN story) was relatively small compared to previous requests. PPP2 was Â£300m+ There was mention that in the past only 80% of funding would come from SE and the council have to put up the rest.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Dec 2006, 07:47

Remember, you read it here first:

2.0 Summary

2.1 The consultation on the various options brought a strong public response with over 440 comments received via letter and e-mail. Most residents, action groups and amenity organisations favoured a rebuild of Portobello High School on the existing site, with a request that brownfield options be reconsidered for St Johns. For many, it was felt that open space should not be sacrificed to provide land for new schools.

2.2 Parents and most School Boards were strongly in favour of building on a site in Portobello Park to take advantage of the larger site and to avoid the problems of a decant. It was also felt that the community recreational facilities that will be provided at the school will help compensate for land that is lost.

2.3 Evaluation of the two sets of views and their benefits, timescales, cost and deliverability supports building a new Portobello High School in the park, with a site for St John's being reserved at the current High School site.

19 Recommendations

The Council is recommended to:

19.1 Approve the selection of Option C (Portobello Park) as the preferred location for a new Portobello High School subject to confirmation, through the courts if necessary, to the land being useable for this purpose;

19.2 Approve the selection of Option A (rebuild within the Portobello High School site) as the preferred location for a new St John's Primary School;

19.3 Delegate authority to the Directors of Children and Families and Finance to

develop a funding strategy for the delivery of these schools

submit an initial case to the Scottish Executive in January 2007 in advance of submission of a full business case

and explore, with the Scottish Executive, possible delivery mechanisms for the Portobello High School and St John's Primary School rebuild programmes

19.4 Approve the size of the new school as 1200 places with a corresponding S1 intake limit of 220 pupils. Approve an interim intake limit of 260 pupils for the 2007/8 start of session.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 15 Dec 2006, 11:15

A copy of the report it is available online at http://egfl.net/parents - please go to current consultations.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Dec 2006, 15:07

Report

Minutes of PHS Meeting

Minutes of St Johns Meeting

Minutes of Town Hall Meeting

Summary of Contents

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Dec 2006, 18:48

From today's EN:

Backlash awaited as park gets planners' vote for Porty High

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 18 Dec 2006, 15:35

I did not attend the meeting at St John's so I was interested to see what questions were asled and if there was a demonstrable support for St John's in Portobello park. There were 21 questions asked, the questions in red have, in my opinion, got nothing to do with the provision of a new school. They are questions on funding, housing, the process, the loss of green space etc. Out of 21 questions only 8 ; the ones in black do have some relevance to a new school. Even then the questions were very negative, For example Question 13 seems to be saying "what on earth are you doing providing us with a larger school?"

St Johns' did not get what they asked for in the consultation. Clearly their school on the park does not make the most educational sense. However, they cannot feel miffed as at no time during the process was a real desire or support for a move to portobello park demonstrated.

Q1 The parent of a child at St Johns PS asked how the consultation processworked taking the two schools in isolation. The community should not be broken up, the two schools impacted on each other and there needed to be joined up thinking.

Q2 The parent of a child at St Johns PS referred to the cost of purchase of part of the golf course. It was necessary to put money into the Common Good Fund for the purchase of the land. Also, a firm assurance was needed that houses would not be built on the site.

Q3 The parent of a child in the area commented that this was a good school. It was not possible to build on this site four years earlier, it was not acceptable to give up the green site at that stage.

Q4 The parent of a child at St Johns PS referring to the funding issue, relating to the market value attached to the site, suggested that this would preclude building.

Q5 The parent of a child at St Johns PS stated that the children received a good education, so why should the present building be renovated and term and conditions could be included. If there was a move to the other end of the site, the new sections of the building could be possibly included. It was a spurious exercise to link the two sites.

Q6 The parent of a child at St Johns PS raised health and safety concerns, which ncluded asbestos, if the existing site was retained, under Option A.

Q7 The parent of a child at St Johns PS commented that the proposed rebuilding of St Johns in 2011-2014 involved a big time factor and asked were there any plans for refurbishment at present. There were no significant savings through colocation, but how would financial gains be achieved.

Q8 The parent of a child at St Johns PS indicated that the sustainability issue had been cited, but there was no mention of the sustainable use of land, which was disappointing. All the brown field sites had been rejected and Holyrood Park site was not being considered. Construction in this location might be advantageous.

Q9 A further question was raised about the development of houses. After the May 2007 elections, the Labour Party would probably retain influence. Therefore what would their policy be on the use of the park.

Q10 The parent of a child at St Johns PS asked if the two schools were built on the golf course, how much would it cost to build other golf course.

Q11 The parent of a child at St Johns PS asked for clarification of the option whereby St Johns PS moved out and the High School was located in this vicinity. If there was to be a loss of a greenfield site, St Johnâ€™s should be built on the Park and the High School would be built on the present site. She thought there should not be a primary school near a High School.

Q12 The parent of a child in the area commented that there was a more difficult decision to be made at the High School. People needed assurance about the move from the brownfield site and an explanation was required to explain the process of the move. The majority opinion was for a move to the Park.

Q13 A parent of Child of St Johns PS expressed the view that the funding was forthcoming. Was it advantageous to have an exchange of green space. Were Options B and C not similar here and why was the space requirement for St Johnâ€™s School increasing in size by a factor of 2.5?

Q14 A parent of Child of St Johns PS referred to the funding process, stating that there was a need for a replacement, therefore when was it was recognised that this school had a finite time.

Q15 A parent of a child in the area asked what would be the life span be of the new school?

Q16 A parent of Child from the area commented that not everyone at the previous meeting was in favour of Portobello Park. Regarding St Johnâ€™s PS, the Holyrood site was the preferred option. How could there be constant change taking place, such as separate consultations. The public was being told that there was funding from the Scottish Executive, which did not exist previously.

Q17 A parent of Child at St Johns PS indicated that she was pleased with the momentum that was taking place. What involvement would the City of Edinburgh. Council have with the design process?

Q18 A parent of Child of St Johns PS asked about the desirability of swapping green spaces.

Q19 A parent of a child of St Johns PS commented about the potential design of the new High School from the previous meeting. Co-location was a bigger issue for primary children then secondary children, as there needed to be distance between the schools.

Q20 A parent of a child of St Johns PS referred to the timescales of the various options and the implications for the locations of the two schools, and the possible
loss of parkland.

Q21 A parent of a child of St Johns PS indicated that she was not in favour of collocation and she thought that ensuring the safety of the primary children was an issue.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 19 Dec 2006, 18:11

From the PPAG website:

OUTCOME OF CONSULTATION - CONCERNS - KEY POINTS - COUNCILLORS' E-MAIL ADDRESSES - PLEASE READ ON
Please spend a few minutes reading about the outcome of the schools consultation.

The report can be viewed, in full (spelling mistakes and all) at http://egfl.net/parents/

Your response has been magnificent so far and we would ask you please to take some time to send a brief e-mail to councillors before the full council meeting on Thursday 21 December.

This is a very brief encapsulation of some of the main points the report raises, maybe it will give you some ideas for comments to the councillors...

It comes as no surprise that the report concludes that 'option C' is the 'favoured' option (as stated by a local councilor 3 days after the consultation closed!). (And by Roy Jobson at the Town Hall consulation meeting).

Despite PFANS attempts to suggest that the community are in favour of building on the Park, the report fairly accurately reflects the huge opposition to such proposals. For example, our online petition bears more than 700 signatures while theirs has just over 200. Our paper petition brings this to over 3,000 signatures opposing the development of the Park and Golf Course. We need to leave the councillors in no doubt as to the strength of feeling against this proposal.

The table on p4 clearly shows that the majority of people (parents and residents) oppose building on the Park and favour a re-build on site, contrary to what the Evening News article stated, as it quoted almost exclusively from the PHS internal questionnaire. Note also that the views of parents have been given double consideration as their views were also considered in the PHS questionnaire.

In the parents' and residents' consultation 208 people voted for option A (re-build on site), 83 for option B (Golf Course) and 120 for option C (Park). Similarly, 45 people objected to option A, 283 objected to option B and 258 objected to option C. (Note that it was possible to vote for or object to more than one option.)

Interestingly, in the internal PHS questionnaire, the pupils were split fairly evenly between the three options. It would seem that council officers reached their decision of option C despite option A being the more popular with parents and residents.

There is also no consideration of the suggestion of two smaller schools for Portobello High.

There is no categoric assurance that housing will not follow the development of the park for the school. The councillors' promise that there will be no housing on the Park or Golf Course can only be guaranteed up to next May's elections.

Options B and C are subject to the legality (or not) of building on the Park being confirmed. If it transpires that the council cannot build on the Park then they will have to go back to the drawing board on the location of the new school. (Having already dismissed many of the alternatives...)

There is still no satisfactory explanation as to why a re-build on site under PPP2 was acceptable for both schools and now is not.

The report ignores the fact that the council's consultants have acknowledged that a re-build of PHS on site was perfectly possible without a decant (if St John's were to move).

There is no indication of where the green space lost would be replaced - though it would most likely NOT be in Portobello. They can't really argue that it will be replaced on the cleared PHS site alongside the new St John's - as that space is presumably not as big as the area of park intended for the new building. Otherwise, why not just build the new school on site?!!

It is acknowledged that the council is adopting a high risk planning strategy which could fail several years down the line, bringing the problem of replacing the school back to square one.

Funding is still a completetly unknown quantity... The council are being asked to determine the location of the school with no real idea of the funding that may (or may not) be available.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 19 Dec 2006, 21:45

I note that the PHS consultation with staff parents and pupils is open for all to comment as they fit. What a pity that we cannot see the breakdown of the St. John's one.

Nelson Hatstand · Post by **Nelson Hatstand** » 20 Dec 2006, 00:05

Bob Jefferson wrote:From the PPAG website:

OUTCOME OF CONSULTATION - CONCERNS - KEY POINTS - COUNCILLORS' E-MAIL ADDRESSES - PLEASE READ ON
Please spend a few minutes reading about the outcome of the schools consultation.

The report can be viewed, in full (spelling mistakes and all) at http://egfl.net/parents/

Your response has been magnificent so far and we would ask you please to take some time to send a brief e-mail to councillors before the full council meeting on Thursday 21 December.

This is a very brief encapsulation of some of the main points the report raises, maybe it will give you some ideas for comments to the councillors...

It comes as no surprise that the report concludes that 'option C' is the 'favoured' option (as stated by a local councilor 3 days after the consultation closed!). (And by Roy Jobson at the Town Hall consulation meeting).

Despite PFANS attempts to suggest that the community are in favour of building on the Park, the report fairly accurately reflects the huge opposition to such proposals. For example, our online petition bears more than 700 signatures while theirs has just over 200. Our paper petition brings this to over 3,000 signatures opposing the development of the Park and Golf Course. We need to leave the councillors in no doubt as to the strength of feeling against this proposal.

The table on p4 clearly shows that the majority of people (parents and residents) oppose building on the Park and favour a re-build on site, contrary to what the Evening News article stated, as it quoted almost exclusively from the PHS internal questionnaire. Note also that the views of parents have been given double consideration as their views were also considered in the PHS questionnaire.

In the parents' and residents' consultation 208 people voted for option A (re-build on site), 83 for option B (Golf Course) and 120 for option C (Park). Similarly, 45 people objected to option A, 283 objected to option B and 258 objected to option C. (Note that it was possible to vote for or object to more than one option.)

Interestingly, in the internal PHS questionnaire, the pupils were split fairly evenly between the three options. It would seem that council officers reached their decision of option C despite option A being the more popular with parents and residents.

There is also no consideration of the suggestion of two smaller schools for Portobello High.

There is no categoric assurance that housing will not follow the development of the park for the school. The councillors' promise that there will be no housing on the Park or Golf Course can only be guaranteed up to next May's elections.

Options B and C are subject to the legality (or not) of building on the Park being confirmed. If it transpires that the council cannot build on the Park then they will have to go back to the drawing board on the location of the new school. (Having already dismissed many of the alternatives...)

There is still no satisfactory explanation as to why a re-build on site under PPP2 was acceptable for both schools and now is not.

The report ignores the fact that the council's consultants have acknowledged that a re-build of PHS on site was perfectly possible without a decant (if St John's were to move).

There is no indication of where the green space lost would be replaced - though it would most likely NOT be in Portobello. They can't really argue that it will be replaced on the cleared PHS site alongside the new St John's - as that space is presumably not as big as the area of park intended for the new building. Otherwise, why not just build the new school on site?!!

It is acknowledged that the council is adopting a high risk planning strategy which could fail several years down the line, bringing the problem of replacing the school back to square one.

Funding is still a completetly unknown quantity... The council are being asked to determine the location of the school with no real idea of the funding that may (or may not) be available.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Dec 2006, 00:30

I was going to comment on each claim indvidually but PPAG are just not worth it. Good job Nelson.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Dec 2006, 18:09

From Lawrence Marshall:

Dear All

As you may be aware there are two very important reports going to tomorrow's Full Council meeting - one of great local relevance and one of more significance for the whole city.

The first of these - the report on the Consultation on Site Options for the Replacement of Portobello High School and St. John's Primary School - can be viewed at http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=92198

It recommends that a new Portobello High School with playing fields be built on Portobello Park with a new St. John's Primary School being built on the current High School site.

The second of the two reports relates to the Edinburgh Tram Draft Final Business Case - there are actually many reports posted on the Council's website (www.edinburgh.gov.uk/cpol) for tomorrow's Full Council meeting re. the tram but the one of most relevance is http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=92204

Neither of these issues have proceeded without great debate and I know that strong, opposing views are still held. With respect to the schools, in particular, local people - including myself - have had to wrestle with difficult choices and I hope that the Council have tried to find the best compromise all round in a way which means that we now have a site for a self-sufficient Portobello High School which meets the aspirations of local youngsters and their kith and kin and can, moreover, be adapted in future in terms of re-build on site with playing fields which was never the case with the site chosen for - at that time - Europe's largest comprehensive school back in the 1960s. I'm also, of course, pleased that St. John's can then move just up the road to occupy most of the former High School site.

I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to the schools debate. The decision likely to be taken tomorrow does recognise the possibility of legal challenge to the use of Portobello Park for the High School - but let's for now concentrate on making the case to the Scottish Executive for the funding to enable these new schools for Portobello to go ahead.

Lawrence

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Dec 2006, 22:38

Well said Lawrence.

PPAG are keen to denigrate you for making your mind up midway through the process but I know you gave the matter full consideration and did not arrive at your decision easily. You have previously proven that you are quite prepared to stand your ground even when your party colleagues oppose your views. I vividly recall my own frustration at your reluctance to commit to a school in the park earlier than you did.

Indeed during the dabate you came up with some alternative suggestions for PHS, which i scoffed at and ridiculed from a commercial perspective but at the time some of the main PPAG protagonists applauded you. You were a temporay champion; fickle friends.

I feel I draw attention to the irony of PPAG and its followers deriding yourself and Maureen for declaring for option C prior to tomorrow's decision. These are the people who petitioned for a consultation, asked for evaluation of all of the potential sites, demanded public meetings all in the name of a transparent process in which an informed decision could be taken. After all that have they moved an inch from their initial NO to portobello park position? Of course they haven't, they never would. Their call for consultation was yet another shameless hoax and delaying tactic. Their minds were made up from the beginning. At least you had the decency to listen and consult.

Lawrence, you are just another victim of PPAG double standards, the human equivalent of figgate park and I don't mean flat and featureless.

As for me? I had my mind made up well before the consultation. I didn't need a consultation and I never pretended that I did.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Dec 2006, 14:49

At the executive meeting this morning there was unanimous support for the officals recommendations for Portobello High to be built on Portobello Park. That is to say full cross-party agreement from all Parties.

There was equal support for the a new build of St John's on the site of the existing PHS. However, the deputation from St John's asked for a refurbisment on the existing school in line with the feasibilty study conducted in 2004 rather than have to wait until 2012 for a new school. My interpretation is that the recommendation were amended to reflect this request. There was cross-party agreement.

There were other amendments put forward by the Tories, these were accepted. The exact wording of those amendments is yet to be agreed.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Dec 2006, 15:08

I'm absolutely delighted for all the staff at PHS, the school board, the parents and all the kids who will benefit from this new school. I'm delighted for Jackie Brock, for Emma Wood, for Richard Butt, for Sean, Tom Ballentine and everyone else who has worked hard to put forward the cause.

I'm delighted that we got all party support and I want to congratulate the councillors on this decision.

Well done everyone!

As for St Johns, I think only the school board can explain their stance today. I am gobsmacked that they are now saying they are happy with a refurbishment rather than a new school and I think a lot of parents will be as well.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 21 Dec 2006, 15:40

A refurbishment instead of a new school? You're kidding me, right?

Is the school board allowed to do that? Surely after a consultation process where they stated a new school was favoured they can't simply turn their backs on the parents' and teachers' views? I thought about odging a formal complaint about the conduct of the board before now but decided it wasn't worth it, but I can't believe we suddenly get completely shafted by them at the last minute. And of course by a board whose parent members will not have children affected by the changes - a bit of an I'm-alright-Jack kind of thing?

I can't believe this.

And of course on the last day of term...maybe they're hoping we'll have calmed down by the start of the new term.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 21 Dec 2006, 16:03

Porty wrote: However, the deputation from St John's asked for a refurbisment on the existing school in line with the feasibilty study conducted in 2004 rather than have to wait until 2012 for a new school. My interpretation is that the recommendation were amended to reflect this request. There was cross-party agreement.

There were other amendments put forward by the Tories, these were accepted. The exact wording of those amendments is yet to be agreed.

I am delighted and much relieved that the new Portobello High School proposal gained unanimous support, but feel angered and betrayed by the latest action of the St John's School Board. I do not believe that they have any mandate from parents for this request. Today's action totally beggars belief and I for one will be demanding explanation.

Izzie · Post by **Izzie** » 21 Dec 2006, 16:11

There goes yet an other park

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 21 Dec 2006, 16:38

Here comes a fantastic opportunity for all children in the Portobello community.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Dec 2006, 16:56

Marya wrote:I am delighted and much relieved that the new Portobello High School proposal gained unanimous support, but feel angered and betrayed by the latest action of the St John's School Board. I do not believe that they have any mandate from parents for this request. Today's action totally beggars belief and I for one will be demanding explanation.

There was a large contingent of PPAG supporters in the public gallery and many of them applauded the SJSB deputation at the end.

The leader of the Tories questioned SJSB. He pointed out that there is no money for a refurbishment and there is likely to be no money in the next round of 3-year budget plans, which are scheduled for Feb 2007. He was basically saying that there is no guarantee that a refurbisment could be delivered quicker than a new school. He then asked them if they still wished to opt for a refurbishment under those circumstances? The answer from Susan Scotland was "yes".

So the upshot is that a refurbishment is now an option for the council. And in Seanies' expert view this will require at least a partial decant.

As you say Marya I cannot believe that the staff, pupils or parents of St John's can be aware that the school board were asking for a refurbisment over a new school. Equally, the head teacher must be fully aware, as Alison Connelly read out a statement which was compiled by the entire board.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Re: A School in the Park - The Balance Sheet