New Portobello High School - on going issues

Post by **wangi** » 02 Oct 2007, 12:40

This thread continues on from a previous thread on this issue.

From http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinb ... 1574642007

Schools in limbo as minister pulls plug on £100m revamp

A £100 MILLION plan to rebuild or refurbish five city schools has been thrown into doubt after the Scottish Government ordered the council back to the drawing board.

City leaders had expected to get the go-ahead for work to begin within months to replace the ageing schools.

...

It means the parents and pupils who have campaigned tirelessly for new school buildings, in particular to replace the decrepit James Gillespie's and Portobello high schools, were today left in limbo.

...

Stephen McIntyre, 48, is a former head boy at Portobello, where his daughter Lisa, 17, is a pupil.

He is a member of the Portobello For New Schools action group. He said: "The one thing everyone has been able to agree on is that we need a new school.

"The children will be devastated. So much time and effort has gone into this, but now it seems we have been sold a dream."

Kenneth Aitken, chairman of the Portobello High School Parents' Committee, said:

"We've got a building that is creaking at the seams and that is going to need fairly major expenditure on services like electricity, lifts and heating. If we don't get a new school we'll be throwing good money at bad."

Makes all the discussion and consultation leading up to this seem like a farce. The new school was always going to have to be paid for somehow, how can things progress so far without working out who will be paying.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 02 Oct 2007, 15:22

This is bitterly disappointing news for us all. As Stephen says in the EN article, the one thing that we all agree about is the fact that we need a new PHS.

I, for one, will not be giving up the fight, but I do despair at how how long it may be before the children of Portobello have the educational facilities they deserve.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Oct 2007, 16:53

To : ‘Wave 3 Schools’

Date: 28 September 2007

Your ref:

Our ref: MM/RW

Dear All,

Meeting with Fiona Hyslop MSP and Maureen Watt MSP - 27 September 2007

The Director, the Vice Convenor and myself met with Fiona Hyslop MSP Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and Maureen Watt MSP.

We discussed the funding of your new schools build and I am sorry to say that the news is not good. Although no definite answers will be possible until the 3 year Spending Review is completed, possibly as late as December, we understand from the ministers and officials present, that the final settlement will be very tight. We were told that there was no allocated fund set aside for your schools to bid into, and that this would have been true even if the previous Administration had been returned to power.

The new Scottish Government will honour its commitment to the 125 schools earmarked for expenditure in the previous spending round, including PPP2 schools, but no others.

I know that you, like me, will be desperately disappointed and extremely upset at this and I am sorry to say that at the moment I do not know where we can find the money to rebuild your schools. You may rest assured however, that we will continue to push the Scottish Government to make this necessary investment and I wish you well with your deputation on Monday.

Yours sincerely

Councillor Marilyne MacLaren

Convener - Education, Children & Families

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Oct 2007, 17:05

This news is nothing short of a disaster for local families. A decent education in fit for purpose schools is the right of every child in Scotland and any government that says it cannot be afforded clearly has its priorities all wrong.

I would urge all parents to contact Kenny MacAskill MSP kenny.macaskill.msp@scottish.parliament.uk or telephone 0131 348 5721
to make an appointment to meet with him.

You may also wish to contact your local councillors - Maureen Child, Stephen Hawkins and Mike Bridgeman.

edit - contact details

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Oct 2007, 18:42

wangi wrote:Makes all the discussion and consultation leading up to this seem like a farce. The new school was always going to have to be paid for somehow, how can things progress so far without working out who will be paying.

The Council certainly don't have the capital funds for work on such a scale and it was made clear during the consultation that an application for funding would be made to the Executive. What would be forthcoming and in what manner was always uncertain given the impending election but you wouldn't really expect the funding to be secured prior to working out what you intended to spend it on. Sorting out the finances was always likely to take place after the discussion and consultation on how PHS should be replaced.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Oct 2007, 19:37

Opinion piece in today's EN:

'SNP must not block PPP deals to build schools'

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Oct 2007, 20:40

From The Press Association, 11 September 2007:

Governments in public spending row

Relations between Alex Salmond's administration and the Scotland Office came under further strain in a row over public spending.

A Scotland Office source was reported to have said an official analysis showed up a "fundamental flaw" in the party's plans for a new method of financing public projects like schools and hospitals.

A source close to First Minister Alex Salmond accused the Scotland Office of "extraordinary behaviour" and of acting as a conduit for Labour Party press releases.

"In any event, they are in no position to comment on our proposals, which will be coming forward in the autumn, as they have not seen them," said the source.

The row followed a report in The Times which said advice to ministers from Scotland Office civil servants, with additional input from the Treasury, cast doubt on SNP plans for a "Scottish Futures Trust" to replace the controversial PPP/PFI methods of using private finance for public projects.

The newspaper quoted from a leaked document which purportedly said the Executive "does not have the powers under the devolution legislation or (Treasury) statement of funding policy to borrow and issue funds."

The document also cast doubt on the basic rationale, saying: "It is difficult to see a value for money case for the Trust: either the Trust would be a public sector body in which case conventional financing would be cheaper, or it would be a private sector body in which case it would amount to a form of PFI/PPP."

The newspaper quoted a Scotland Office source as saying the analysis highlighted a fundamental flaw and adding: "They should come clean about how they are going to guarantee the new schools and hospitals which are already planned."

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: "Work is in progress on the creation of a Scottish Futures Trust which will obtain better value funding, including bond issues, to finance future infrastructure projects.

"This work will be reported to Cabinet in the autumn."

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 03 Oct 2007, 12:10

Perhaps someone with a better memory than me could refresh us as to what the funding gap for Portobello High was seen as being?

I'd like to be hammering peoples letter boxes with a potentially achievable sum of money attached to my particular complaint, as I'm sure that there will be lots of factors effecting the other schools that perhaps don't effect Porty High.

ta

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 03 Oct 2007, 17:30

mr magnolia wrote:Perhaps someone with a better memory than me could refresh us as to what the funding gap for Portobello High was seen as being?

ta

Option C - PHS on Portobello Park and St John's on the present PHS site - came in at £32.7 million Mr M.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 03 Oct 2007, 17:57

Marya wrote:
Option C - PHS on Portobello Park and St John's on the present PHS site - came in at £32.7 million Mr M.

hmm

but is that the amount of money that the council were going to need to seek? I thought that was a scheme cost that would be offset by some payback from development on the PHS site?

(obviously the shortfall would be less with some housing value to the pocket of land near the proposed site, but hey, we apparently don't want that, do we?)

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 03 Oct 2007, 18:13

I could be wrong Mr M, but I thought that the figure of £32.7m allowed for income generated by building housing on the current St John's site.

(Option C costs broke down to £32.2m to build new PHS plus £0.5m as the cost of a new St John's. )

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Oct 2007, 19:09

Here is what Fiona Hyslop was saying in the run up to the election:

After eight years of Labour too many of our schools are in desperate need of repair and many more need to be built.

That's why the SNP is committed to continue the current executive programme of school building and refurbishment, as part of our wider plans to provide a better start for our young people.

An SNP government will match the current school building programme brick for brick and offer a Scottish Futures Trust as a new, better value option for future infrastructure funding.

Post by **wangi** » 03 Oct 2007, 21:06

Yeah, read it and it's probably accurate... All the committed plans are being seen through. The problem is with those not quite at that stage. Still in real terms means a delay, although with the previous council there wasn't a fixed timetable.

So, when's this whole Future's Trust thing coming together?

Post by **wangi** » 04 Oct 2007, 13:43

mr magnolia wrote:but is that the amount of money that the council were going to need to seek? I thought that was a scheme cost that would be offset by some payback from development on the PHS site?

The "Council papers online" area on the Council website should give you access to all minutes of various meetings held re this issue: http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/

Of note is http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocID=92200 (Smart Schools Initiative: Proposals for Further Investment in the School Estate) and http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=92198 (Consultation on Site Options for the Replacement of Portobello High School and St John's Primary).

I see that Andrew Burns has posted on this in his Blog: http://andrewburns.blogspot.com/2007/10 ... anics.html

Post by **wangi** » 04 Oct 2007, 13:56

wangi wrote:Of note is http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocID=92200 (Smart Schools Initiative: Proposals for Further Investment in the School Estate) and http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=92198 (Consultation on Site Options for the Replacement of Portobello High School and St John's Primary).

The CPOL site is really unreliable, i've made copies of these documents: 92200.pdf & 92198.pdf

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Oct 2007, 17:06

From today's EN:

Salmond told: Back election pledge on schools

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Oct 2007, 18:42

I can't believe that Kenny Macaskill, our local MSP is saying:

I was at the school a few weeks ago and it is clearly in need of repair

In need of repair???

Kenny, PHS is in need of DEMOLITION. Even PPAG understand that much!

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 04 Oct 2007, 20:46

I also think Mr Macaskill needs to realise that there are a lot of voters in his constituency, and that hiding behind another minister just won't wash.

Irrespective of how they got here, SNP have one shot at CEC and Scottish Government level of getting this right.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Oct 2007, 21:02

I've had some email correspondence with Kenny this evening on this subject. As you might expect, he blames previous Labour administrations for the situation the SNP has inherited.

On a more positive note, he does say:

I do believe a new school is needed at Portobello.

and:

I have given a commitment to supporting a new school and I stand by that.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 04 Oct 2007, 21:47

Realistically there's no way the Council can itself generate the capital for the next phase of school replacement, the sums are just too big. So the funding was always likely, in large measure, to come through borrowing in one form or another. It's the one form or another that's the issue. Local Authorities can't just borrow as they see fit but have to conform to the requirements of central Government which over the last decade has pretty much meant PPP/PFI or nothing, since it took the borrowing off the public sector balance sheet.

As things stand there's anticipated to be a reduction in public expenditure overall, PPP/PFI isn't as popular as it once was (for various reasons), and the SNP's plans for bond issues, whilst reasonable in many ways, may not be within their power to deliver.

I'd be suprised if Westminster had allowed the Scottish Parliament the power to allow such bonds as I'd expect they'd show up as Public Sector Borrowing. And that's almost certainly a Treasury matter.

My guess is that, at Holyrood and the Council, there's probably a fair bit of scratching of heads.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Oct 2007, 22:14

seanie wrote:I'd be suprised if Westminster had allowed the Scottish Parliament the power to allow such bonds as I'd expect they'd show up as Public Sector Borrowing.

The SNP are answering this point by saying that:

the Futures Trust would be issuing bonds, not the Scottish Government

The whole thing sounds to me like it's still at the conceptual stage. Maybe SFT is the answer for future public building programmes but Portobello parents need action not words and we need it NOW.

Post by **wangi** » 04 Oct 2007, 22:43

Bob, I don't think an SNP-this, Labour-that take on this is going to get anything done. Looking into it it's clear that there was no funding commitment to the rebuild/replacement of Portobello High. Indeed looks like a few lies were told early on re the buying of ground for a replacement golf course! The previous Edinburgh Council administration left the matter to be resolved until after the election (sounds reasonable). Where there was commitment the current government is sticking with it.

The real question is what does this mean for the timeframe of delivering a new Portobello High? As pointed out in the Council report into the replacement this was always a fluid timeline. In section 7.4 they detail the steps needed - only the first (identify preferred option) was completed.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 04 Oct 2007, 23:14

Bit free and easy with the accusation of lies. My understanding is that the Council had negotiated an option to buy the land for the replacing the golf-course and had factored it into the initial proposal. But given the strength of feeling against development to help fund the schools relocating the golf-course was abandoned and so purchasing the land at Brunstane was no longer justifiable.

Post by **wangi** » 04 Oct 2007, 23:20

That sounds a reasonable enough explanation Seanie - my apologies. Of course the problem is that this is "commercially sensitive information" and therefore not in any council minutes etc - but that's another discussion.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 04 Oct 2007, 23:37

The report from April last year;

http://www.porty.org.uk/pdf/phs_rep.pdf

3.8 This exercise will include details of negotiations by the Councils property development company, EDI, relating to land at Brunstane which offers the potential of providing a replacement golf course of significantly improved area and layout within reasonable distance of the existing course.

Negotiations relating to the potential.

That's all.

Without the revenue generated by developing part of the golf-course, actually buying the green-belt land to relocate the golf course was neither necessary nor justifiable.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Oct 2007, 08:07

Wangi, I'm not interested in making party political points here. Like thousands of other concerned parents I just want fit for purpose schools for my kids. Those schools are needed now and we can't afford any further delays while the Scottish Government tries to put a new, untried and untested funding mechanism in place, which may or may not prove to be viable.

Because of the timing of the election, it is true that funds could not be allocated. However, there was a firm committment to replace these schools from all parties and the SNP promised to match Labour's spending plans on new schools 'brick by brick'. I think it is reasonable to assume that this included Portobello High School and St Johns. But sure, they weren't 'signed off' and no-one is pretending they were.

Parents aren't daft and they will see the Scottish Government's response for what it is - semantics, prevarication and back-pedalling.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Oct 2007, 09:31

Bob Jefferson wrote:Wangi, I'm not interested in making party political points here.

I accept what you say but the SNP are interested in making political points. Nothing is going to be easy for Edinburgh. Theres more than one senior SNP figure privately saying that a schhols for trams swap would be welcome.

Bob Jefferson wrote:Parents aren't daft and they will see the Scottish Government's response for what it is - semantics, prevarication and back-pedalling.

You have more faith than I do about that.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Oct 2007, 09:33

Bob Jefferson wrote:
seanie wrote:I'd be suprised if Westminster had allowed the Scottish Parliament the power to allow such bonds as I'd expect they'd show up as Public Sector Borrowing.
The SNP are answering this point by saying that:

the Futures Trust would be issuing bonds, not the Scottish Government
.

But the Scottish Government would be providing the security for the bonds, which is public sector borrowing. Seanie is right; SG may not be allowed to deploy such a financial mechanism.

Post by **wangi** » 05 Oct 2007, 09:35

Some more reports on this issue:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/new ... 35.0.0.php - "Bricks everywhere as schools issue takes centre stage"

Though he ought to be used to it by now, Mr Salmond was growing tired of being doubted. He had found a brick with Ms Alexander's name on it. Or rather he had found a letter, written by the Labour administration in February. "Dear Edinburgh," it said. "No dosh until after the election. Dosh then, if then, only in the context of the next spending review'. Love and people's priorities, Labour."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7028023.stm

Post by **wangi** » 05 Oct 2007, 09:36

Porty wrote:Theres more than one senior SNP figure privately saying that a schhols for trams swap would be welcome.

Sounds fair, I certainly know what should be the priority out of the two.

(Don't want to get into the whole tram debate - but what does it give Edinburgh? Why not increased spending in busses? Why bother with allt eh work putting down rails - just use trolleybuses...)

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 05 Oct 2007, 09:50

wangi wrote:
Porty wrote:Theres more than one senior SNP figure privately saying that a schhols for trams swap would be welcome.
Sounds fair, I certainly know what should be the priority out of the two.

(Don't want to get into the whole tram debate - but what does it give Edinburgh? Why not increased spending in busses? Why bother with allt eh work putting down rails - just use trolleybuses...)

I'm with you all the way there Wangi.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Oct 2007, 10:37

One group that will be celebrating the Scottish Government's position is PPAG, who are prepared to do just about anything to 'save' Portobello Park. Their latest wheeze is a calendar:

We are in the process of making a calendar for 2008 celebrating Portobello Park and Golf Course. We would like your photographs depicting all aspects of life in Portobello Park and Golf course to use in the calendar. We will choose 12 images from all of the entries which we think portray the park in the most appropriate manner.

Calendars are a real money-spinner - the PCATS calendar raised thousands of pounds. And I'm sure it will look very nice, particularly if they manage to persuade wangi to contribute. But local parents should remember that the profits will be used to try to prevent the building of replacement schools in Portobello. Remember the QC fees they have to cover?

For the sake of our children, please boycott the calendar.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 05 Oct 2007, 10:48

trams for schools is such an obvious option that I've assumed that it is one of the factors driving the way in which the decision has been publicised. But even invoking that thought brings with it the idea that this will still be being debated in two years time... CEC input to the trams is only about £45m.

Don't know if CEC were due to make any contribution to EARL?

Post by **wangi** » 05 Oct 2007, 10:53

Porty wrote:But the Scottish Government would be providing the security for the bonds, which is public sector borrowing. Seanie is right; SG may not be allowed to deploy such a financial mechanism.

...

mr magnolia wrote:CEC input to the trams is only about £45m.

I find it confusing that it's seemingly ok for Edinburgh council to contemplate borrowing £20-30M to cover shortfall in contributions for the tram, yet borrowing for education is...?

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 05 Oct 2007, 12:15

Trams clanging along, education in decent buildings for the privileged few.
Edinburgh in 1920s and Edinburgh in the 2020s ?

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School - on going issues

New Portobello High School - on going issues

Re: New Portobello High School - on going issues