New Portobello High School - on going issues

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Dec 2008, 14:18

Wee experiment for Lewis over on the EN comments section.

Lewis1 announces:

"How do the pfans who write on the porty forum manage to get access to comments after they have been removed as unsuitable from the EEN forum and then put them up on the porty forum? Is it a magic trick? Is someone at the EEN giving them access? They have also been tidying up their own comments on the porty forum since they advertised it here.

Please feel free to report as unsuitable and off topic.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Dec 2008, 14:31

Porty wrote:So there you have it; a self proclaimed community leader trying to derail the new high school that will benefit the children of our community, amongst many others. Totally shameful isn't it?

It's almost Christmas and even as an atheist I appreciate that this is meant to be the season of goodwill, and I'm determined to be positive.

But here is something for PPAG to contemplate. Most ordinary parents like myself don't get involved in politics or campaigns. As seanie says, most of us are just busy getting on with our daily lives. But we all have an innate instinct when it comes to protecting the interests of our children. Threaten our kids, their well-being or their prospects for the future and watch what happens to the most mild-mannered mum or dad.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 22 Dec 2008, 13:11

School battle rumbles on as protesters mount legal fight

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 22 Dec 2008, 13:13

EN Letters; Half measure is no solution for school

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Dec 2008, 14:19

Diana Cairns Evening News 10th Dec wrote:“First, the claim that a "few locals that rather selfishly argued that the education of our young people was somehow against the common good" is completely untrue.
The many people who oppose the development of the park for anything simply wanted the council to acknowledge that the Park was common good land. This they denied for two years and then they finally admitted that it was indeed common good land."

One could be led to believe that once the council had acknowledged that the park is Common Good land that Diana and PPAg would then be happy. Based entirley on the fact that she says that is " simply all they wanted." Correct?

No- just 10 days later.

Diana Cairns Evening News 22nd Dec wrote:““At a meeting of the full council, campaigners Diana Cairns, of the Portobello Park Action Group (PPAG), gave a deputation over plans to build the new high school. She said:

"We have had advice to tell us we do have a case to challenge the council's own legal position and that is what we intend to do so this matter is far from over.”

Both of these statements can't be true, as they totally contradict each other. Of course this does not necessarily mean that even one of the statements is true.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 27 Dec 2008, 13:25

Logical site for new school has been overlooked

If space is at a premium, which it is, why not emulate other countries and create space by reclaiming land from the sea, at the foot of Bridge Street, in the heart of the catchment area?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Dec 2008, 15:28

Is the sea in the catchment area?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Dec 2008, 15:42

Yes, but only for schools of fish.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 28 Dec 2008, 00:05

seanie wrote:Logical site for new school has been overlooked

If space is at a premium, which it is, why not emulate other countries and create space by reclaiming land from the sea, at the foot of Bridge Street, in the heart of the catchment area?

Read the whole letter - that's the most sensible suggestion!

Merry Xmas

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Dec 2008, 12:00

AJE SHEILS certainly gave me a festive laugh. The author starts off berating the council for a lack of logic and common sense in relation to our childrens' health and education. It ends by proposing a school in the sea in close proximity to a sewage treatment plant. The thrust of the Sheils argument is; Lismore is the most logicall site for a new PHS, however the author seems to quickly lose conviction and proposes another 4 or 5 alternative sites.

When you already own a fairly suitable, poorly used , easily accessible site in the heart of the catchment area, have no money and a queue of schools needing rebuilt. Why not spend £50m reclaiming a bit of land from the sea that's outwith the catchment area? It's a proposal that sounds like it comes from a different planet but not from Mr Spock.

At least it is being upfront about being prepared to build on other parks.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Dec 2008, 14:28

Let's imagine I'm a resident of Barking Avenue. I've read all the newsletters from PBLAG opposing a school in my local green space and I reckon I've a pretty good grasp of the situation. This is my letter to the Evening Chronicle:

I am disgusted and horrified at the prospect of a school being built on Barking Park. This much-loved green space was bequeathed by the late philanthropist, Colonel Barking to be used as a public park in all perpetuity. The Council has no right to build on it, it is Common Good land and if they do I shall expect to be handsomely compensated.

This is all very inconvenient. Children are quite small in the main and therefore unimportant. They can't even vote, so why should councillors bother about them? Why can't their parents just send them away to boarding school or have them privately tutored at home?

And, frankly, many of them are quite frightful and they would lower the tone of the neighbourhood. My own grandchildren, on the other hand, are perfect angels. Occasionally, we like to take them out to Barking Park to play croquet or to take Rupert for a walk. It is always lovely and quiet and we quite often have the whole park to ourselves. It's very exclusive you know and of course we have an en suite golf course for those so inclined.

There are many other public parks in the vicinity where a new school could be built and logically any one of these would be a better and cheaper option. Or it could be built in the sea as someone has already suggested. Or on the moon. Frankly, I don't give a damn as long as it's not in my back yard.

Remember, once it's gone, it's gone forever.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 28 Dec 2008, 17:01

Well its all our fault for having children!
And obviously if we cant afford to send them to a decent boarding school, well thats our look out , we should take what we get and be happy about it

Think some one did mention rebuilding the peir to house the school once.
Silly

Theres always Inchkeith-all that space going spare
we've proved hovercraft can traverse the Forth easily
Now an underground tunnel linking it with Porty would be the ideal solution,
extend it to Fife and we wouldnt need a second Forth Bridge

so obvious

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Dec 2008, 17:10

Are you AJE Shiels in disguise?

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 28 Dec 2008, 21:32

I really don't see anything wrong with the Inchkeith idea
It has many good points, space, ready made climbing areas, room for a slightly sloping football pitch ( oh come on Hibs managed for years )
We'd even be able to walk around the High St at lunchtime without it being mobbed, though this may have a downside to the turnover of certain shops
The tunnel would provide the much needed second Forth crossing.

Of course the entrance would need to be near a major road. say the A1 ...

But seriously are we going through all the debate of siting of the school, again?

and someone did mention the moon once

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 29 Dec 2008, 14:11

SoupDragon wrote:But seriously are we going through all the debate of siting of the school, again?

Not seriously, no.

It's purely a tactic to maintain the fiction that there are plenty of reasonable alternatives to building on Portobello Park, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It's an attempt to deflect accusations that that those arguing against the proposal aren't actually interested in a new school.

Putting forward alternatives is a way of giving the impression of genuine concern about replacing PHS, even thought the silliness of the actual suggestions reveals the indifference in reality.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Dec 2008, 15:40

And, to be fair, I think that once people face up to the reality that it's a school on the park or no school at all, most are prepared to drop their opposition. After all, most people are reasonable and this is a fair and reasonable position to take.

But not everyone is aware of the facts and not everyone reads this forum. Just this morning a High Street trader told me how unhappy he was that the school was going to be built on the golf course. Unfortunately, these stories persist along with the myths of alternative sites.

I know some people find this thread boring and repetitive but the truth is that we persist with it in part because someone has to try to counter the misinformation that is out there.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 29 Dec 2008, 15:56

Yup
The golf course story is alive and well
My dad was telling me all about it before Xmas

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 29 Dec 2008, 17:22

It's still being suggested that the 'latest' plan shows the school being built on the golf-course, despite this actually refering to the the indicative feasibility drawing from over two years ago. And the deputation to the Council made the accusation that they were still planning to put housing on the golf-course.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Dec 2008, 21:31

seanie wrote:It's still being suggested that the 'latest' plan shows the school being built on the golf-course, despite this actually refering to the the indicative feasibility drawing from over two years ago. And the deputation to the Council made the accusation that they were still planning to put housing on the golf-course.

Yep- Dc Cairns did the deputation and unequivocally stated that "we" would lose not only the park but the pitches and the golf course too.

And now we have AJE Sheils claiming that Bingham park is going to be sold off for housing so we may as well put the School there!!! Never can a school have spawned so many potential housing developments- we are up to 3 already and the sea has now opened up another opportunuity for sumptious sea-front housing that the council will make a fortune from.

If Dc and the other council haters are right then it can't be long before the council are importing columbian death squads to make the city's child population "disappear". Fewer children means falling roles which means fewer schools which means more housing. Is there is no depth to which those illogical, filthy, council bastards will not stoop?

Post by **wangi** » 30 Dec 2008, 22:14

admin: have split the golf course posts to their own thread: http://forum.talkporty.org/viewtopic.php?t=4454

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Dec 2008, 18:10

seanie wrote:Logical site for new school has been overlooked

I had a letter published today (31 Dec 2008) in response to the above but it doesn't appear to be available on-line, there are no letters on-line.

No Dissent on School Park Site (Their headline)

AJE SHEILS -Letters December 27th certainly provided a festive laugh. The author starts off berating the council for a lack of logic and common sense in relation to our childrens' health and education. And ends by proposing a new Portobello High School in the sea, near to a sewage treatment plant.

When you already own a fairly suitable, poorly used , easily accessible site in the heart of the catchment area, have no money and a queue of schools that desperately need rebuilt. You do not spend £50m reclaiming a bit of land from the sea to build a school that is outwith the catchment area. I don't believe many reasonable people would agree that this is a logical and prudent way to progress.

The thrust of the Sheils' argument is; that Lismore is the most logicall site for a new PHS, however the author seems to quickly lose conviction and proposes another 4 or 5 alternative sites. Sites, like Lismore, that have already been ruled out during the consultation process.

On a more serious note the author states "If it was decided to build the school on this site (Portobello Park)it would certainly encroach on the golf course"

I can only assume that AJE Sheils is poorly informed about the process that has unravelled over the last 3 Years or so. Other than planning permission there is no "If" about PHS on Portobello park. In reality; the decsion to build there was made in December 2006. The case for building on the park made so much sense that there was no need for a vote. There was TOTAL consensus amongst our councillors and not a dissenting voice. Which is why it is safe to assume the choice is representative of the majority of Edinburgh's citizens. As for the claim about encroachment on the Golf Course, it is utter nonsense, the Golf Course will remain as is.

Yours sincerely

Stephen McIntyre

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Dec 2008, 18:14

And one more point about Golf Courses and Secondary Schools that has so far gone unmentioned. Duddingston Golf Course is in part bordered by Holyrood High School- its pupils access the school using a lane that subjugates the course. As far as I am aware, apart from the occasional incident, the course and school co-exist quite happily. It is not a major issue.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Jan 2009, 11:23

I got my annual free copy of the apparently "sold-out" PPAG calendar. It is full of nice photos of things that will still be there after the School is built on the park.

The Calendar was posted through our office letter box, in an an unmarked envelope. Inside was a typed note, which didn't go down to well with my colleagues. Here it is:

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 13 Jan 2009, 12:01

Charming as ever.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 Feb 2009, 16:52

http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext ... cId=122724 looking like we got the additional funds. Section 3:13

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 09 Feb 2009, 17:48

Porty wrote:http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext ... cId=122724 looking like we got the additional funds. Section 3:13

What do you mean Porty? I see that it mentions £41.5m for the new PHS. Was this originally going to be a lower figure?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 09 Feb 2009, 23:22

Marya wrote:
Porty wrote:http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext ... cId=122724 looking like we got the additional funds. Section 3:13
What do you mean Porty? I see that it mentions £41.5m for the new PHS. Was this originally going to be a lower figure?

Yes, they only had £33 million and needed to get the extra £8.5 million in this round of capital allocation. This report is recommending the full £41.5 million, which is great news if you want to see a new school built.

The £41.5 million is based on building a school to handle the current roll of 1,450 pupils although one of the conditions is to explore the possibility of a school roll with 1,200 pupils.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 09 Feb 2009, 23:50

Thanks PoP. I hadn't realised that the initial sum would have resulted in a shortfall. Must pay more attention!

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 10 Feb 2009, 09:19

Marya wrote:Thanks PoP. I hadn't realised that the initial sum would have resulted in a shortfall. Must pay more attention!

Once there is no shortfall it should be full steam ahead with the design and planning process.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 10 Feb 2009, 13:16

Wow if there were 25 pupils per class, then that's ~ 700K per class room.

I'm in the wrong business, I should be working in construction.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Feb 2009, 13:23

Or you should have spent more time in the classroom

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Feb 2009, 14:12

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/educa ... 4963184.jp

Sad but true.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 10 Feb 2009, 14:30

Porty wrote:Or you should have spent more time in the classroom

1450/25 = 58 classes
41.5M / 58 = 715.5K

I reckon you can buy a brand new 1 bed flat for ~ 120K these days. And you can easily fit 25 kids in the space of a 1 bed flat.

So the answer is obviously to buy up 58 of the brand new flats that aren't selling, knock through the internal walls, put a fence round it and call it a school.

which leaves around 30M for my consultation fee. Although that is a bit small compared to most consultation costs, I'm sure I can survive.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Feb 2009, 14:31

I don't doubt your long division prowess but we were thinking of giving them a gym and some lockers too!!

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 10 Feb 2009, 14:37

Porty wrote:I don't doubt your long division prowess. but we were thinking of giving them a gym and some lockers too!!

Does all the equipment have to be new? Surely there are still items that are currently in use that can be used in the new school, perhaps with a phased replacement policy (which should be in place anyway).

If a gym is a must, I can always reduce my consultation fee to 29M, 1M should be enough to build a large empty room.

Edit: What I'm getting at is that I sincerely doubt that final quality of the school and it's facilities will reflect the amount of money spent on it.

The kids should be getting the best quality facilities for the money, not the most overpriced.