New Portobello High School - on going issues

[Bob Jefferson]

For the record, the answers given to the questions posed at the most recent meeting of Full Council:

Question (1)
With regard to the Inquiry into the Edinburgh Local Plan, what is the Council doing to address the concerns of the National Playing Fields Association (now called Fields in Trust) and sportscotland in order to mitigate any opposition by them to the planned use of Portobello Park as the site of the new school?

Answer (1)
In terms of the Edinburgh City Local Plan, neither Fields in Trust nor SportScotland have objected to the Portobello Park High School proposal as identified in the Plan as Proposal SCH 4. Other parties have objected to this element of the Plan and inquiry time has been scheduled to deal with those objections.

Question (2)
Have Council officials met these groups to discuss their concerns?

Answer (2)
Council planning staff have not met with Fields in Trust or Sport Scotland regarding Proposal SCH 4, as they are not objectors to that element of the Plan. The Wave 3 Project Team would expect to enter into a dialogue with SportScotland and other interested parties as part of the design process, prior to submission of a planning application, when the principle of whether the site is acceptable for the school would be determined. It would be at this juncture that the extent of the proposals and a view on how the sports facilities would be managed and operated for both the school and wider community would allow full discussions to take place.

Question (3)
What steps is the Council taking to ensure that it can put the strongest case in defence of the proposed Edinburgh City Plan?

Answer (3)
The Council’s statement of case regarding Proposal SCH 4 has been prepared by experienced professional planners working in the local plan team. At the relevant inquiry hearing, it is anticipated that the planning representation will be joined by an appropriate representative from Children and Families.

Question (4)
Specifically, when does the council plan to conduct an audit of green space including public open space in the catchment area to evidence there is currently a surplus (eg that it currently exceeds 6 acres of open space for every 1000 residents)?

Answer (4)
Work has already been carried out on a quantitative audit of open space citywide; however, the purpose of that work is to inform the preparation of an open space strategy, not to evidence a specific surplus in a specific area.

Question (5)
What concrete work is the council doing to identify replacement green space to evidence there are equivalent facilities within a 10 minute walk for any green space that may be "lost"?

Answer (5)
To date it has not been possible to identify any alternative green space which meets the cited criteria.

It is also too early to identify exactly what land take will be required for the replacement school. This level of detail would emerge once detailed designs are pursued for the school.

Question (6)
Is the Council prepared to consider a MUGA (multi-use games area) for example on the largely derelict, Council owned depot behind the golf club adjacent to the railway line? Fields in Trust confirmed this would, in principle, address their objection.

Answer (6)
The Edinburgh Building Services Depot at Stanley Street has been declared surplus to requirements as part of a wider Depots Review. The suitability of the site for use as a multi use games area (MUGA) is unclear at the moment and would require further research as to demand, impact on residents and capital and revenue costs.

[Bob Jefferson]

UNBELIEVABLE! I have just learned that David Manson, the chair of St John's Parent Council, has TURNED DOWN an offer from his counterpart, Ken Aitken from PHS Parent Council, for the two groups to meet to explore ways the schools could work together to produce a deliverable solution.

I'm sharing this information because I think that it is important that St John's parents are aware of what the Parent Council is doing on their behalf. I'm sure that many will be very disappointed.

Until now, most members of the PHS Parent Council were prepared to allow St John's to use the tennis courts area before PHS was re-built.

In the light of this rebuff, that is clearly something that will have to be reconsidered.

[Bob Jefferson]

The views of one parent regarding the St John's consultation are expressed in this email sent to PHS Parent Council on 31 October. He has asked me to publish the content:

Dear all

You may have read in the local papers that St. Johns have a consultation underway for a rebuild / refurb. You may not be aware that there has been considerable confusion as to the nature of the three options proposed. It has been suggested only one option includes utilising land currently occupied by PHS, namely the all weather sports facility. After discussion between some parents and Council Officials/Councillors, it has been clarified that all three options for St. Johns include the current primary school site and the PHS all weather sports site. It also has to be said some of the Councillors and parents of St. Johns are confused about the three options on offer.

My own feelings are, that rather than recieve this information third hand the CoEC should have informed our own parent council. There should have been a full briefing on how this impacts on PHS. It should have been made clear if the CoEC intend to utilise the land while PHS is on its current site. There has also been no discussion with the PHS parent body as to how this impacts on PHS now and on the efforts being made to redevelop PHS in the future. I as yet do not know for certain if they intend to take the sports pitch from PHS. I do not know if they can.

My own feelings are that the CoEC (not the school ) have handled this badly and I would be very disappointed if they intended to bus our kids to PE once again. I hope any rebuild for St. Johns is completed to the best standard possible but I will represent Portobello High and fight any attempt to diminish the educational experience for PHS pupils.

I must state once again, I do not know what the Council's intentions are until they deem it fit to consult the parent body.

[Porty]

UNBELIEVABLE! I have just learned that David Manson, the chair of St John's Parent Council, has TURNED DOWN an offer from his counterpart, Ken Aitken from PHS Parent Council, for the two groups to meet to explore ways the schools could work together to produce a deliverable solution.
this information because I think that it is important that St John's parents are aware of what the Parent Council is doing on their behalf. I'm sure that many will be very disappointed.
.

bob you are quite right to bring this out in the open. It doesn't make sense for a parent council to refuse to hold talks with a neighbouring school under ANY circumstance however if news reached us that PPAG had refused to meet with the PHS council it would make perfect sense. If you think PPAG everytime you hear or are reference to at Johns parent council you won't be so surprised. David 'alcatraz' Manson has made another gaffe and he must be nuts if he thinks those that matter haven't noticed. - were I still serving on PHS council I would know exactly what to make of it.

[Bob Jefferson]

I just know that if it was the other way round and PHS Parent Council were refusing to meet with St John's PC, as a parent I would be very surprised, disappointed and, frankly, embarrassed.

[Porty]

Any news from the local plan inquiry meeting the other day. Is the school in the park still in the plan?

[seanie]

Yep.

[Porty]

That's good.

[seanie]

The hearing also may've witnessed the founding of a new local football team.

[Porty]

Now you have my interest. Have PPAG formed a team simply so they can claim the "loss"of the pitches will cost them a shot at the big time. No, it can't be a PPAG football team as it would likely be doomed from the start, given their astonishing propensity for own goals.

Were PPAG represented? And if so was there any "hen and stag" type comedy moments?

[wangi]

So, what was the news this morning? Did I imagine Kenny MacAskill on the radio talking about how the Scottish Parliament have given the "school on the park" the green light and it was now down to getting planning permission and for the council to get funding in place?

Can't see this news anywhere.

[Porty]

I know they have given the "school in the park the green light" and I was expecting an announcement. Sean will be able to explain the significance better than I.

My understanding is as follows: when a statutory consultation is conducted under the Education Act (Scotland) 1980 it is usually by the local council, in the case of PHS, Edinburgh. Once the consultation is completed and the outcome is voted on, it has to be presented to the Scottish Executive (then) for approval and this is not a foregone conclusion.

This approval normally takes around 9 months but in our case it is nearly 2 years. In reality it has not caused us delay, but simply given PPAG room to suggest that the consultation was in some way flawed, sham is the word they often use.

CEC were very thorough. They held an additional Town Hall meeting for the community at large, which was not a stautory requirement, and even although there was unanimous approval from Councillors at every stage of the process, they twice took it to the Scrutiny Panel for further exammination and approval.

So now the consultation has been approved by the Scottish Government, another door is closed behind us and we can move on a little. This doesn't mean that planning will be any easier or that there won't be a public inquiry. It is really just that to date the process for site selection and the site itself has been approved by national Government.

PPAG will no doubt still be calling a sham even although they petitioned for a consultation, got one and lost.

I hope Kenny MacKaskill wasn't seeking to claim glory with this announcement. SNP haven't commissioned one single extra scottish school since coming to power. And at a time when the rest of the world's governments are getting together to promote increased government spending to boost their economies. Alex Salmond spends more time discussing whether Chris Boyd should play for Scotland than how he is going to achieve ANY new schools.

[wangi]

I hope Kenny MacKaskill wasn't seeking to claim glory with this announcement. SNP haven't commissioned one single extra scottish school since coming to power. And at a time when the rest of the world's governments are getting together to promote increased government spending to boost their economies..

Don't think so - was very much a talking head I think...

Anyway, while Edinburgh Council does have the authority to raise bonds to fund a new Portobello High School I am surprised that more hasn't been made of the "build your way out of recession" idea with PHS put up as a prime candidate...

L/

[seanie]

I wouldn't be certain that the Council does have the authority to raise sufficient money. Prudential Borrowing gave a bit more freedom but it's still circumscribed. Also the concordat agreed between LA's and the Scottish Exec. essentially gave the Councils a pot of money that they had to get on with.

If spending programmes down south get brought forward to inject money into the economy then there's a pretty good case for funding being made available here, and that additional expenditure should be from central government.

[wangi]

Before PFI it was the done thing, and with the false economies of PPP/PFI being widely acknowledged, and with them going to be "on the book" from now on... Well what's wrong with good honest borrowing by the council to fund capital projects?

If it is a debt, call it a debt.

An interesting read: http://www.scotsman.com/opinion/-PFI39s ... 4517420.jp

[Porty]

Call yourself a moderator?

I posted a link to that article weeks ago.

You do make a fair point, where does Scotland stand in the "spend our way out of recession" policy. I suspect we will be trapped as we are, due to the lack of a public sector borrowing mechanism that suits the SNP. If Gordon Brown's suggested policy is globally adopted, we will be hamstrung because PFI/PPP are deemed unacceptable and they have not yet developed a replacement. If increased public spending is the solution, or part of the solution to recesssion, it is not a remedy that is open to the Scottish people.

On the bright side; George Burley seems to have left the door ajar for Chris Boyd and Alex Salmond completed the draw for the league cup, without hitch.

[wangi]

The Scotsman has a Schools 'crumble as SNP fails to deliver funding system'... I'll leave you to read it over and come to your own conclusions... PHS hasn't started falling apart in just the last 18 months, and councils are still able to progress new PFI projects if they choose to.

Also interesting to see Council takes out £90m mortgage on HQ. Clearly a matter of priorities. When it was being built wasn't the selling off of properties lauded as a great cost saving exercise?

[seanie]

PPP might still be a theoretical possibility for LA's but there's a big difference now in that such schemes won't be financially supported by the Scottish Executive. Previously, spending on such schemes was supported by central government money, I think up to 80%. There's no longer a central fund to augment LA spending. LA's might not have realised that when they signed up to the concordat but that's the situation they're in.

[Bob Jefferson]

Reproduced from today's EN by kind permission of Frank Boyle

[wangi]

If spending programmes down south get brought forward to inject money into the economy then there's a pretty good case for funding being made available here, and that additional expenditure should be from central government.

As in Barnett consequentials? By the look of it last weeks "Primary Capital Programme" announcement in England was previously budgeted for, but of course there may be other plans afoot next week...

[seanie]

That's all that I can think of. Holyrood has no borrowing powers and LA's are limited, so any significant public borrowing has to be sanctioned by Westminster. At the same time the prime motivation behind PPP has evaporated since it will no longer be off balance sheet. In the same vein any Scottish Futures Trust is likely to show up as public borrowing and so, yet again, will probably need to be sanctioned by the Treasury. I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

Ruling clears way for school plan

[Porty]

Although it appears to be a formality "that doesn't cbange anything". The consequences of not being approved would have sent us back to ground zero. It would have changed everything. I can't understand why PPAG haven't been making representation to the SG over the last 18 months to have it overturned. They either missed a trick or knew there was no hope. - another brick in the wall- next up common good!

[Pal of Porty]

It certainly changes the fact that PPAG cannot continue to call the Consultation a sham and a fix - or do they now think the Scottish Government is in on it too!

[Bob Jefferson]

It certainly changes the fact that PPAG cannot continue to call the Consultation a sham and a fix

According to a PPAG spokesperson:

The consultation was a statutory consultation under the Education Act, and as suchthonly considered educational matters in the decision. What was a sham was that the council paid lip service to widening out the consultation by inviting comments from the public, who responded in no uncertain terms to say they were overwhelmingly against the proposal. The council, of course, did not need to take this into account, as it was an educational consultation. It is this statutory process that the government have signed off, and in its very limited remit, it was ok from an educational perspective - ie it will deliver a school. What was not ok was the consideration of the wider issues, but fortunately these have still to come under further scrutiny through legal and planning processes.

[Porty]

Where is the.quote from Bob? Dave Davidson dealt with this tripe brilliantly some months ago in a dhort letter published in the evening news. We have always said we will have to abide with the law and planning and it may not go our way. I've read a summation of the goings on at the recent local plan inquiry meeting where PPAG did themselves no favours, ignorance endears Noone ,more crucially they availed the crux of their arguments and they have no silver bullet. The council dealt with the questions comfortably although many of the issues raised were wholly irrelevant at that stage. I'm no expert but it seems there is a better than 50:50 chance that planning will be secured. And I'm certain the common good question will be neither here nor there-history shows as much.

[Bob Jefferson]

It's Ghost's latest contribution on the EN comments section at Ruling clears way for school plan. As no PPAG supporter is sufficiently confident in their argument to post on talkporty, I thought I would do them a favour and post their position statement on their behalf.

I'm quietly confident on the planning application and the common good issue as well. Bring it on! The only real hurdle is the question of funding. That's the real issue - PPAG have always been simply an annoying distraction.

[Porty]

Ah ghost! I love the way it reads a factual statement or document.then either misunderstands or misinterprets its meaning and implications. Then pronounces it to be misleading. Technically it is correct except ghost is the only one that is misled! It is a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. . .

[Porty]

Sean - Ewan Aitken asked the council when an audit of green space to include public open space would be conducted. To demonstrate that there is an over provision of such space in the catchment area. The benchmark being 6 acres per 1000 population. What types of spaces are included in the calculations and do you have any data for an educated guess? I have the councils official park sizes. And how important is the result? I imagine much more so when there is a distinct under provision. .

[seanie]

Local Authorities are now required to undertake Open Space audits, which includes private as well as public land. Guidance emphasises that such an audit isn't simply a question of the amount of land but that "quality, community value and use" are of particular importance. That makes it more difficult to second guess the outcome of an audit as rules of thumb on area provision are too simplistic.

[seanie]

To put it another way, not necessarily relevant to the immediate context, there is explicit recognition in national Planning Policies that sometimes quantity of open space can be sacrficied in favour or quality. However that's really only when there's considered to be an over-provision of open space in the first place and there won't be too many areas of Edinburgh that fit that criteria.

[seanie]

In general terms Open Space would include almost any vegetated area, woodlands, fields, playing pitches, parks, paths, allotments, cemetries, paths, rivers, lakes, civic spaces, squares, market places etc.

So if you're considering all that, as well as making assessments on quality, accessibility etc, and also bearing in mind that different elements will cater for different sizes and parts of the community, I'd imagine it's a fairly complicated business.

[SoupDragon]

Just a thought , would the beach be included in such a count?

[seanie]

High tide or low tide?

[SoupDragon]

I suppose it could be argued that the whole of the Firth is an open public space