New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Dec 2006, 21:20

but true.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 24 Dec 2006, 14:19

PortyMan wrote:However, as acknowledged by Councillor Perry, the raising of awareness and campaigning by groups and individuals (like PPAG, the Golf Clubs, even PoL) forced the council to take account of public opinion and adjust their expectations/proposals.

Absolutely, I have said before and will say again that PPAG deserve much of the credit for changing the Council's mind on the acceptability of housing on the park.

PortyMan wrote:And I will continue to pester, badger and harass the council to ensure that they remain aware of the public's opinions and should any development take place that it will be of the finest quality and facility possible.

Pester and badger is fine as long as it doesn't mean delay and obstruct.

PortyMan wrote:Perhaps some PFANS supporters should consider doing likewise? Otherwise the council might just throw up the cheapest, nastiest, simplest building it can get away with (and spend more on making James Gillespie's all lovely )?

I'm sure that PFANS supporters are with you 100% on this and it's important now that we forget our past differences and work together to get the best possible outcome.

PortyMan wrote:Anyway, have a fun Xmas and (hopefully) a Happy New Year!! Maybe there will be a game of football between the trenches... ?

Count me in.

PortyMan wrote:PS I note from the latest PHS newsletter that they have started a Pony Club this year. And all without destroying any parks, how wonderful.

I wonder where that idea came from?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Dec 2006, 00:59

Merry Xmas to everyone on all sides of this debate.

Its about 4 minutes to xmas and the truce proposed by that well known POL peacemaker and diplomat Dadaist. Hope you all have a great xmas and a happy new year.

Dadaist wrote:Xmas Truce Proposal

More formally, I'd like to propose not that we refrain from posting but that we simply refrain from comment on the "other side" - whoever that means to you - meaning you can say positive things about your own campaign or make points etc, but no negative campaigning.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Dec 2006, 14:16

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 8546/29128

Interesting information.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Dec 2006, 14:50

I've been thinking about the possible traffic impact on the Milton Road. Has there been any studies carried out on secondary school traffic movements?

My start point is we are moving a school from a two lane road to a four lane road, the A1 which is built to take and does take high volume.
So even several hundred cars may make very little difference. Even if there is congestion, who suffers? The people doing the congesting and there is bound to be some degree of self-regulation.

We don't know yet if the milton road is going to be bus lanes plus one other lane or plus two other lanes, its probably one.

Staff arrival and departure will be staggered and the kids all start at 8:25 in the morning, which i imagine is peak time , however most kids will come from the west, which is against the traffic. School finishes at 15:35pm, except on a Friday when its 12:35pm so that is not going to impact on the rush hour. and suburban bus lanes don't start til 4pm.

Having lived close to both Schools my entire life my impression is that St John's causes more congestion than the high school. (seperating the schools will alleviate congestion in Duddingston Road) Maybe this is because parents park and take the kids in, whereas older children get out and walk, they are often too embarrased to get dropped off. I stress this an impression and not based on any data.

The only study I can find in one carried out bt "Spokes" of P7 kids which is here: http://www.spokes.org.uk/oldsite/mornsurv.htm

Will the school move cause any congestion? Up until the early 90's there was no bypass and the A1 took much of the 18m cars a year that use the harry lauder road. Seems to me that the school traffic will be a drop in the ocean. Am I mistaken?

Izzie · Post by **Izzie** » 27 Dec 2006, 09:54

The bus lanes are coming.Work is starting mid Jan cant remember the date.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Dec 2006, 10:42

I have now moved the existing Milton Road traffic improvements thread to Portobello Matters and added drawings of the scheme. Unless changes have been made to the proposals, it looks like bus lanes in both directions, operating from 7:30 am to 6:30 pm. I will try to get confirmation.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Jan 2007, 15:28

From today's EN:

Why cap doesn't fit for school

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Jan 2007, 08:57

Bob Jefferson wrote:From today's EN:

Why cap doesn't fit for school

My respectful response - I posted it as a comment below the article but it might get deleted :

It's not often you read the words "thankfully" and "Conservative" in the same sentence, although it wasn't until scrolling down to write this that I noticed that Alison is in fact our local tory candidate, so this kind of partisan tapping-up is probably a standard phrase she includes in most of her written and spoken English.

I'm glad Alison is thankful for the state-funded education she got at PHS - even if she did have to rub shoulders with the toiling classes, tory candidacy is surely a springboard to a loftier life amongst the ranks of her silver-spooned Etonian ilk.

I wonder if Alison is also thankful that the new PHS will be owned by the state as opposed to some grubby PPP consortium out for a buck?

Contradictions abound in the political prism through which Alison views her morning toast. One must suppose that the "greater choice and opportunity" afforded to those pupils who will benefit from a free state-funded education, received at an institution which will thankfully be owned by us, will result in the odd tory candidate being produced - a creature to whom terms like "state-funded", "state-owned" and "free" must give the willies.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Jan 2007, 12:51

I believe that when this report is received it is vital the council takes the decision to maintain the current capacity.

I believe that it is vital that the Council makes a sensible decision based on the results of the report. Isn't that the point of the report? Having said that, I don't think that 1200 is just a number that Roy Jobson plucked out of the air. This work (future projections of school rolls etc) has already been undertaken and I would be very surprised if the report demonstrates that a larger school is required.

it makes me really angry that the building and its infrastructure has been allowed to fall into such a shabby state.

It makes me really angry that education has been so under-valued by successive governments.

There is choice of schools for parents who can afford it; those who can buy a house in a nice neighbourhood or move into the independent sector

I laughed out loud at this one. Is Alison really saying that it's not right that people should be able to buy themselves in to better education? This from the Tory party? Or is she saying that we should all have the choice, that every kid from every sink estate in Edinburgh has the right to attend PHS? In which case, we had better build a 20 storey school on Portobello Park.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Jan 2007, 13:47

Dadaist wrote:I wonder if Alison is also thankful that the new PHS will be owned by the state as opposed to some grubby PPP consortium out for a buck?

It's a bit early to say that given that funding remains the big unanswered question.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Jan 2007, 13:57

seanie wrote:
Dadaist wrote:I wonder if Alison is also thankful that the new PHS will be owned by the state as opposed to some grubby PPP consortium out for a buck?
It's a bit early to say that given that funding remains the big unanswered question.

I know. I realised once I'd written it. Fingers crossed on the SE money.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Jan 2007, 14:13

My guess is that the prospects of anything other than a largely private-financed deal were sunk when the Council backed down on the plan to develop part of the park and the existing site for housing. At that point we had a self-financing solution. We opted to save a 9 hole golf course and now we have two schools to pay for.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Jan 2007, 14:16

It might depend what happens come May.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Jan 2007, 14:58

Bob Jefferson wrote:My guess is that the prospects of anything other than a largely private-financed deal were sunk when the Council backed down on the plan to develop part of the park and the existing site for housing. At that point we had a self-financing solution. We opted to save a 9 hole golf course and now we have two schools to pay for.

What sort of deal are you guessing at that is private-financed, but not PPP?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Jan 2007, 15:04

I would expect some variation on PPP but I think Seanie is likely to give you a better informed answer to this.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Jan 2007, 15:16

Oh dear. That would be a bummer. I thought we were going to own it.

Royal Bank Of Exxon Enron Monsanto High School just doesn't have the same ring to it.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Jan 2007, 15:21

There's been a proliferation of different "procurement vehicles" that have tried to address some of the flaws in PPP schemes, and they may improve the quality of what's built. But at the end of the day PPP is still an accountancy scam. It's produced poorer quality buildings at inflated costs but it's off the books.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 Jan 2007, 14:02

From today's EN:

Schools need to land prime sites

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 16 Jan 2007, 10:13

seanie wrote:And as it turns out I still have no idea what St John's, on balance, wants. We've had demands to look at brownfield sites that aren't viable, ignoral of the options presented for consultation, comment on where PHS should go, questionnaires that are confidential and then, on the very morning of a decision, that refurbishment is preferable. Something that's not been mentioned before.

The St John's deputation complained today that St John's hadn't been listened to in the consulatation. But even if listening carefully it'd be difficult to discern a coherent position.

I'm still confused as to what St John's School Board really want

Yesterday, my son brought home from school two letters; one from Roy Jobson, Head of Children and Families and the other a copy of last Friday's newsletter from St John's.

Mr Jobson's letter details the decisions taken at the full meeting of Council on Thu 21 Dec. Regarding St John's it states that the decision was taken to :

3) To 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 with a commitment to ongoing dialogue about possible further improvements to be made to the current school site.

and

6) To call for a further report on new build versus refurbishment of St John's Primary School.

which seems to fit in with what has been reported on this thread regarding the submission of the St John's School Board at the Dec meeting.

However, in the newsletter dated Friday 12 Jan the Head of St John's tells parents:

the School Board will continue to to have dialogue with the Authority and councillor Andrew Burns, in the light of what can be done to improve our school facilities prior to a new building being erected on the Portobello High School site.

Please note that the emphasis is mine.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 16 Jan 2007, 14:20

Yes, I was confused, too. And I came across a newsletter from September from SJ in which Ms Service stated that a representative fo the school board had attended a meetng with the council, i think, and that "our case for a new building was put".

Other people are confused by what is happening at St John's, but as a parent, I really don't understand what is happening and unable to trust any of the information i receive. Ms Service tells parents in newsletters that we want a new school and yet the school board seems to act to sabotage that new school without the parents even being informed of what their "representatives" are saying.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Jan 2007, 15:18

I have spoken to a number of teachers and none knew that the school board had requested a refurbishment rather than a new school. I don't think staff were consulted, parents definitely were not consulted and I'm assuming that Ms Service was informed.

I can only think that the desire for refurbishment came about due to the timing for a new school on the high school site. When St John's realised they had lost out on a school in the park it became clear they would wait 6 or 7 years for a school. Perhaps they think refurbishment will be deliverable earlier? In reality refurbishment could in fact take longer than a new school. Co-location would have secured the shortest possible time for a new school.

Time is running out on my FOI request for the St Johns questionnaires, not that I expect to get them.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Jan 2007, 20:09

Copy of a letter sent to Portobello Community Council by Andrew Fraser, Chair, PHS School Board. It should be noted that the letter was sent prior to the Council decision of 21 December and the Board is asking the Community Council to support the decision (whatever that might be) rather than any particular option.

REPLACEMENT OF PORTOBELLO HIGH SCHOOL

The consultation period to consider plans for replacement of Portobello High School, also St John's Primary School next door, has now passed. Early indications are that a clear preference exists in the community to replace one or both schools on part of the Portobello Park or adjacent golf course. The full results of the consultation go before the City of Edinburgh Council on 21 December. There is general, and welcome, acceptance that re-building both schools is a necessary and urgent matter, and that the sites shortlisted in the report for consultation were broadly accepted as the only viable options.

During the consultation, the City of Edinburgh Council made clear its intentions to seek funding primarily from the Scottish Executive to re-build both schools, on the basis that such an approach was consistent with the Executive's policy on the previous 2 Parliaments. The Council also said that there was no intention to build housing on Portobello Park, or sell portions of the Park for this purpose by private developers. Without this assurance, the consultation would have been in serious trouble. Although affordability of the whole venture is at risk, we commend this approach.

Looking forward, regardless of which option succeeds, there are 2 key tasks for public representatives:

1. to expedite planning and avoid hampering progress through objection and legal challenge if at all possible; and

2. to secure a clear funding commitment at an early stage.
On the matter of planning, there needs to be wide involvement of local community interests. a range of stakeholders and, in particular, neighbours to the chosen sites. Portobello Community Council should remain a key forum for disconsolate community members, although the community has nothing to gain and much to lose from further delay after the decision of 21 December. Adherence to the planning process is important, as is the attraction of designing a structure and surrounding environment that is an asset to the community, a centrepiece to East Edinburgh, and potentially a magnet for the community due to excellent and sustainable design.

Whatever the outcome of forthcoming elections, the Scottish Executive will want to invest in education and complete programmes of renewal in school building. Withholding commitment to fund the re-build of 2 schools makes no sense. This commitment would remove uncertainty and enable planning with confidence.

We therefore call on local representatives at Community, City and Parliamentary level to lead the East Edinburgh community through the most efficient planning process with wide ownership of the venture, to broaden the scope of re-building to become much more than two schools â€“a community asset; and to ensure that the City secures funding commitment at the earliest possible stage.

Yours sincerely

DR ANDREW FRASER
Chair, Portobello High School Board

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 06 Feb 2007, 14:27

Out of the blue ... and into the red

A furious argument is brewing in the Treasury over a surprise change to accounting rules that could suddenly dump billions of pounds of PFI liabilities in the governmentâ€™s lap.

This could spell the end of many PFIs. Civil servants will be much more reluctant to use the procurement route if the money comes out of their budgets. A source working on the Treasuryâ€™s action plan says: â€œThe Treasury is considering the impact of withdrawal of the note and the impact on schools, hospitals and roads. Itâ€™s not just the Treasury â€“ accounts departments at all major spending departments are looking at it.â€

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 13 Feb 2007, 20:10

Scottish architect slams PFI as a â€˜catastropheâ€™ for pupils

[quote]"The general silence of the building industry on this issue is a disgrace,â€

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Feb 2007, 14:56

After the Council meeting of 21 December, I asked Andrew Fraser, chair of PHS school board to provide me with a copy of his speaking notes. Here, for posterity, is what I received:

1. Why hold back on seeking firm financial commitment to the schoolâ€™s rebuilding?

PHS has cross-party support for a rebuild on a specific site; it is a city priority, a Scottish and UK parliamentary priority to renew our schools and invest in education.

The need is urgent

2. Planning â€“ no-one finds the prospect of changing the park an easy decision to take. But weâ€™d be out in force if there were plans to improve the park, because it has much potential for greater community use and benefit than current happens

To sceptics of the plan â€“ please do not use the planning process, and laws, to hold up the schoolâ€™s replacement just because you can â€“ only lawyers benefit. Please respect the process and the Councilâ€™s unanimous decision. A lawyer makes a good judge if he takes his (metaphorical) new accordion to the party and does not play it.

3. Support the Councilâ€™s decision and then look at this exciting plan as much more than a school. It has health, sports, arts and other possibilities â€“ the potential is great.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Feb 2007, 22:53

Scotland confirms committment to PFI

The Scottish Executive this week published its blueprint for architecture, in which it renewed its commitment to PFI....

...It follows the dramatic resignation of architect Malcolm Fraser from design watchdog Architecture & Design Scotland (A&DS) over its refusal to criticise the PFI process (News February 9).

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Mar 2007, 22:25

From the Porty Greenkeepers website:

POP QUIZ AND DISCO

Friday 16 March

Portobello Freemasons Hall, Beach Lane

Teams of 4-6 people required (can be decided on the night)

Doors open 7.30 pm and Quiz starts prompt at 8 pm

Tickets £5/£4 available from Kitcheners Deli

Bar - Raffle - Snacks

Come along to test your knowledge of pop music old and new then shake your booty later on the dance floor

Proceeds to Portobello Park Action Group www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk

So, are the proceeds to pay the exorbitant fees of the QC who will contest the issue of 'common good' land in an effort to prevent the Council from building new schools for our children?

tom nimmo · Post by **tom nimmo** » 18 Mar 2007, 13:13

Bob, by the time you posted the above advertisement the Pop Quiz and Disco was already well underway, but thanks anyway. Thanks to everyone who came along and joined in the fun. The hall was packed out and it was a fantastic night and the winning team will no doubt be spotted around Porty wearing their rather exclusive winners medals.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Mar 2007, 13:46

Tom, next time you are holding a community event just drop us a line at events@porty.org.uk and we will be happy to list it. QCs don't come cheap so I imagine there could be a few. Maybe PPAG could negotiate a 'no win no fee' arrangement? Just a thought.

tom nimmo · Post by **tom nimmo** » 19 Mar 2007, 19:46

I didn't organise the event Bob, I was just happy to contribute to a fun night out. I wasn't aware that the organisers had not asked you to advertise this event on Porty On-line but it's probably just as well given the number of people who attended as it would have been a shame to have had to turn people away.
It's an interesting concept this 'no win, no fee' arrangement that seems to be regularly touted on day-time tv adverts. I wonder if it should be adopted as the norm by all lawyers to make them try a bit harder.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Mar 2007, 19:50

Think you may find that it is against a QC's code of conduct to not charge their Clients fees.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 20 Mar 2007, 13:43

Porty wrote:Think you may find that it is against a QC's code of conduct to not charge their Clients fees.

Wish it was against mine...

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Mar 2007, 19:47

Bob Jefferson wrote:So, are the proceeds to pay the exorbitant fees of the QC who will contest the issue of 'common good' land in an effort to prevent the Council from building new schools for our children?

While we wait for confirmation on this, you may be interested to know that you can now contribute to the PPAG war chest via their website with PayPal.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Apr 2007, 21:30

Buoyed up by the success of their pop quiz, PPAG continue in their quest to sabotage the Council's plans to build a new high school for local children on a site that was agreed upon with all party support.

Supporters are now being asked to contribute to the Edinburgh Skyline Study, which seeks to protect and add to key views in Edinburgh.

Meanwhile, Gary Cowans has recently updated his Action Network site with a positive spin and a call to arms:

Hi again... only three months late!

The Council, surprise, surprise, have accepted the findings of the department charged with finding a justification for building on the Park!! Which is to propose Portobello Park as the main site for the new Portobello High School.

In some ways this was a slight 'victory' for the Action Group in that they originally planned for both schools (St John's Primary as well) and a housing scheme to be sited on the park. There is now an agreement that there will be NO housing... And the Golf Course will remain, as is. Though, that's a politicians promise... (and elections coming up!)

They've also agreed to replace the land lost (not lost yet!!) with recreational, green space 'in the local area'. It'll be interesting to see where they think that'll be?

The full report is available on the council web-site. It doesn't make for very pretty (or easy reading). Given that a team of officials had six months or more to create the report it is surprisingly poorly put together... But judge for yourselves...http://egfl.net/parents/ (cut and paste, if need be).

Look for 'Consultations' then the Portobello link...

Please note, this is not the end of the story! Far from it.

The council have still to determine the legality of building on Common Good land... Current legal advice suggests this might prove difficult and incur additional costs (ie the Park isn't 'free' and the land will have to be paid for...).

The council also have to approach the Executive (Scottish Parliament) for funding...
The funding request been consolidated with a general call including other schools in Edinburgh (one of which has experienced actual physical failure of building structures - ie bits falling off!).

Thus, the actual finance received is very likely to fall short of expectations - in contrast to the likely rise in costs!

Which probably means that the suggested 'visions' for the new school... finest this, greatest that, new pool, olympic sports facilities, music and drama specialist facilities, special units for learning difficulties, etc, etc, the whole nine yards... are likely to remain fond imagings. They'll be lucky to get as much as they currently have!

In addition they still have to come up with a design that will house 1400 pupils (yes, the numbers mysteriously increased from 1200 - possibly due to potential, but undisclosed, plans to, ahem, 'adjust' the catchment area) and obtain planning permission...

Do you think they'll design a school in keeping with the surrounding area? Or do you think it'll be another B&Q style warehouse (with extra windows)?

There's every chance that getting planning permission will not be a straightforward process, given the sensitivity over the loss of such a large park, the knock-on effect to the golf-course, the increase in traffic - especially on the main A1 into Edinburgh, the destruction of mature trees surrounding the park, the effect on Edinburgh's 'skyline' (a current project), etc, etc...

The council have admitted they have no idea of the impact on :
traffic congestion - the school will abut the main A1 into Edinburgh,
local roads (the lanes off Park Avenue are in very poor state) and Stanley Street is very narrow (not suitable for all those 4x4 people carriers!),
local businesses - some will gain/other will lose - considerably,
drainage (hard-scaping such a large area of parkland is likely to lead to increased local 'flooding' - the golf course may well become a lake!).

Much of which will have an additional (but unaccounted for in the council 'study') cost to both the overall project, financially, and the surrounding area, financially, environmentally and more.

There's much still to be argued and fought over...