New Portobello High School - on going issues

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 05 Mar 2009, 13:43

I don't think so; activity on both sides ebbs and flows depending on what's happening in the process. Things got a bit more active during the Wave 3 prioritisation but we're in a bit of a lull at the moment.

The result of the Local Plan Enquiry should be due soon, but that's not terribly significant either way, and once the actual design process starts there may be community consultation regarding the brief etc. which might spur some campaigning. But overall there's won't be much to focus on, in terms of opposition, until the Planning process and that's probably a year away.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Mar 2009, 20:10

From an otherwise unrelated item in today's EN:

Catholic schools to prioritise places for baptised children

...this nugget of information:

Meanwhile, city chiefs have also announced that the new Portobello High School will accommodate the existing number of 1400 pupils, instead of the proposed reduction to 1200.

It was decided that a smaller school would be "inadequate to cater for fluctuations in pupil numbers".

(I will copy the link over to the St John's thread for discussion on the main point of the article)

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 11 Mar 2009, 23:18

There goes the budget saving from having to buy 200 less chairs..PMSL

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 Mar 2009, 11:43

http://news.scotsman.com/education/Pupi ... 5064404.jp

Trinity decaying - no mention of vandals.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/SNP-g ... 5063506.jp

A sad tale and one that underlines how fortunate we appear to have been with PHS. A school for 1400 at a net cost of about £32M seems like relatively good value for money.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 16 Mar 2009, 14:27

More on the replacement for Castlebrae.

A touch of class in new school plans

And from the architects.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 16 Mar 2009, 15:14

EN wrote: There will be external as well as internal teaching spaces, such as a small lake for learning about wildlife.

Last I heard, a similar plan for the new Holy Rood High was knocked back on health and safety grounds.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 16 Mar 2009, 20:37

Marya wrote:
EN wrote: There will be external as well as internal teaching spaces, such as a small lake for learning about wildlife.
Last I heard, a similar plan for the new Holy Rood High was knocked back on health and safety grounds.

That would be a shame - I think taking thr kids out of the classroom like this is a brill idea!

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 16 Mar 2009, 20:44

Isnt that part of field trips? When I was in High School we just ventured into the countryside around us.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 17 Mar 2009, 10:06

i

BeachBum wrote:Isnt that part of field trips? When I was in High School we just ventured into the countryside around us.

Field trips are important too but I would imagine that having the equivalent of an 'outdoor classroom' would make it so much more accessible and easier to integrate into the timetable.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 26 Mar 2009, 19:27

Letters: Turn Caltongate site into park that does us proud

Post #5 Save Portobello Park

What about those of us in the suburbs who are under threat from scum urban kids and their new school. I'm all for bonding together with other park groups but we can't be seen to be greedy.

Charming as ever.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 26 Mar 2009, 21:40

seanie wrote:Letters: Turn Caltongate site into park that does us proud

Post #5 Save Portobello Park

What about those of us in the suburbs who are under threat from scum urban kids and their new school. I'm all for bonding together with other park groups but we can't be seen to be greedy.
Charming as ever.

I hope there are no CCTV cameras around when I meet this guy. This is only one of numerous vicious post he has made in the last year or so.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Mar 2009, 22:02

Charming is the word!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Mar 2009, 17:57

PPAGwatch has managed to intercept the latest missive from the PPAG propaganda machine:

As you know, the City of Edinburgh Council intends to build on Portobello Park, which is a Common Good asset, without seeking the consent of the Court. As far as we know, all past cases where common good land has been built on have necessitated application by the local authority to the courts for permission, therefore Portobello Park Action Group believes this position to be wrong and at odds with the legal opinion we obtained in 2006.

This leaves us with no option but to challenge the Council's legal opinion through the courts and, as with all legal actions, it will be costly with no absolute certainty of success. This suits the Council as it offers another barrier to local residents, both for and against building on the Park, to having this decision independently scrutinised. As previously mentioned, we need to raise a substantial amount of money to launch this legal challenge.

Fund Raising Gets Off to Flying Start
The first fundraising event held last week - the coffee morning - was very successful and was a great start to our fundraising effort. Once again a very big thank you to everyone who helped and supported the event in whatever way. Watch this space for future fundraisers.

The reality vs the "official" position
It is clear that, once built on, the Park will be lost forever. The Golf Course will soon be lost because the school, especially as it is now to accommodate 1400 pupils, will encroach onto it. Before you know it, we will have lost three public local assets: the Park, the playing fields and the Golf Course.

The council's spin machine keeps repeating that the school is going ahead, failing to acknowledge that there will be a legal challenge to the common good issue and that no planning consent has been given for the school. The Education Convenor and some other councillors choose to believe that there is no longer any opposition to the development of the park. We need to disabuse them of this notion and make sure they understand the strength of opposition to this irreversible loss of precious open recreational space.

What you can do
Please write to Cllr Marilyne MacLaren, Education Convenor (e-mail:
marilyne.maclaren@edinburgh.gov.uk) and Cllr Jenny Dawe, Leader of the Council (e-mail: jenny.dawe@edinburgh.gov.uk) to make your opposition to the development of the Park clear (I know you have done this many times before but obviously unless we drive it home repeatedly they are going to continue to try to pretend that there is no longer any opposition to the development of the Park). Please also ask them for a categoric assurance that the Golf Course is safe and an explanation of how they intend to ensure its preservation.

Please also copy in to the people below:

Portobello/Craigmillar councillors: Maureen Child (maureen.child@edinburgh.gov.uk), Mike Bridgman
(michael.bridgman@edinburgh.gov.uk) and Stephen Hawkins (stephen.hawkins@edinburgh.gov.uk).

Duddingston /Craigentinny councillors : Ewan Aitken (ewan.aitken@edinburgh.gov.uk), Gary Peacock
(gary.peacock@edinburgh.gov.uk) and Stefan Tymkewycz
(stefan.tymkewycz@edinburgh,gov.uk)

Recreation Convenor, Deidre Brock (deidre.brock@edinburgh.gov.uk)

MSP Kenny MacAskill (kenny.macaskill.msp@scottish.parliament.uk)

Best wishes and thanks for your support.

Diana

Peter Bradley · Post by **Peter Bradley** » 30 Mar 2009, 19:43

I'm almost scared to comment anymore as everytime I do I seem to be targetted by the planning department - interesting n'est pa?

Anyway, what the hell, I heard the fundraiser at the church was a bit cloak and dagger with the organisers being less than up front about what they were raising money for.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 30 Mar 2009, 21:41

PPAG EXTRACT

"The reality vs the "official" position
It is clear that, once built on, the Park will be lost forever. The Golf Course will soon be lost because the school, especially as it is now to accommodate 1400 pupils, will encroach onto it. Before you know it, we will have lost three public local assets: the Park, the playing fields and the Golf Course."

Total utter crap - more lies and assumptions from the PPAG propaganda machine and most certainly not reality.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Mar 2009, 22:19

It is utter crap and totally ineffectual. They've been spouting this nonsense for 3 years now and its got them precisely nowhere. I wonder what the councillors think when Diana cairns appears before them to accuse them of not listening to her arguments. And claiming that she speaks for the majority of people. What a brass neck. Most of the councillors will have fought long and hard for their seats and wouldn't dare claim to speak for the majority! I'm interested to learn what peter means by cloak and dagger? Ppag are raising money on the basis of what they believe to be true, which is not idyllic when the highest profile believers are proven liars and fantasists. .

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 31 Mar 2009, 09:25

It is clear that, once built on, the Park will be lost forever. The Golf Course will soon be lost because the school, especially as it is now to accommodate 1400 pupils, will encroach onto it. Before you know it, we will have lost three public local assets: the Park, the playing fields and the Golf Course.

The original consulation and feasibility report was based on a school size of 1400, so the decision to opt for that size over the 1200 option makes precious little difference.

As for losing three public local assets, that's rather creative accounting.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 28 May 2009, 16:50

I found it interesting to note that in the draft 'Open Space' audit, Portobello Park is in fact classified as a 'Playing Field' and not as a Park.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 May 2009, 20:08

PPAG seem to be pinning their hopes on the open space audit and I imagine they will be using the opportunity to try to persuade the Council that Portobello 'Park' is a highly-valued, much-loved and well-used asset.

Scottish ministers are committed to strengthening protection for existing open space resources and ensuring that the future open space needs of all communities are planned for. This Scottish Planning Policy (SSP) sets out national policy on planning for open space and facilities for sport and recreation. Your attention is drawn to the following aspects of the SPP in particular:

Every Scottish local authority must now undertake an open space audit and prepare an open space strategy. Once in place, these should be reviewed on a regular 5 year cycle to link with development plan preparation.

A presumption against development on open spaces which are valued and functional, or which are capable of being brought back into functional use to meet a need identified in the open space strategy.

A requirement to notify Scottish Ministers before granting planning permission for development which would result in the loss of land identified as open space in the development plan.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 28 May 2009, 20:25

There was a consulation workshop on the draft Open Space Audit in the library this evening. I'm not sure if the public in attendance were entirely representative of the local community, seeing as it largely consisted of PPAG and me.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 28 May 2009, 22:06

Pal of Porty wrote:I found it interesting to note that in the draft 'Open Space' audit, Portobello Park is in fact classified as a 'Playing Field' and not as a Park.

That could be because it's not a park - it's a playing field.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 May 2009, 22:22

I don't regard it as a park either. Never have. A park to me signifies rather more than just a non-descript grassed area. So why do PPAG keep banging on about 'saving the park'?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 May 2009, 22:24

Seanie - were yourself and PPAG content with the draft and its findings?

Any major objections to be adopted?

Post by **wangi** » 28 May 2009, 23:13

I wrote:Some comments on the Draft Open Space Audit.

1. The utility and validity of the "Open Space Accessibility: Distance from Dwellings to All Significant Accessible Open Spaces" maps is questionable due to only accessible open spaces within the "neighbourhood partnership" being considered. This is an artificial Council serving construct and does not in reality impinge on the ability of residents to openly access green space within another ward which is often very close. For a specific case consider the North side of Milton Road West (Craigentinny/Duddingston) which is reported as being 600-900m away from nearest open space; while a few metres across the road (Portobello/Craigmillar) the lucky residents are 200m away from open space. There are many other examples.

2. Beaches (for example at Portobello and Cramond) are accessible open spaces and should be included (to the mean high water mark at least). Indeed they are some the most widely used in Edinburgh.

3. A very specific observation in the Portobello area: I don't think CIV13 should be included - this was previously an accessible open space but in the last couple of years has been fenced off (by the council) for residents exclusive use.

4. "The interactive map is compatible with Internet Explorer only". When are Council produced web resources going to be fully accessible regardless of operating system or web browser? It is not acceptable for resources produced using public funding to be inaccessible to appropriately 40% of the population.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 28 May 2009, 23:44

1. That issue came up tonight and apparently the analysis was done on an Ediburgh wide basis before being summarised in wards. So accessible open space outside the ward boundary is still factored in when calculating accesibility. There may be errors in the draft audit but in principle your objection is unwarranted.

2. The classifications used are derived from PAN 65 from the Scottish Government. Beaches aren't explicitly included within that but it would seem to make sense to include it since it is such a valuable open space feature.

3. I think CIV13 is a mistake. I think the designation is meant to refer to the area around the Town Hall and they've just drawn the map wrong.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 28 May 2009, 23:45

Porty wrote:Seanie - were yourself and PPAG content with the draft and its findings?

Any major objections to be adopted?

The golf course must be saved because lots of children use it and they're going to build the school on it.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 29 May 2009, 09:08

seanie wrote:
Porty wrote:Seanie - were yourself and PPAG content with the draft and its findings?

Any major objections to be adopted?
The golf course must be saved because lots of children use it and they're going to build the school on it.

I must keep more up to date - what school is going on the Golf Course?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 29 May 2009, 09:09

Epykat wrote:
Pal of Porty wrote:I found it interesting to note that in the draft 'Open Space' audit, Portobello Park is in fact classified as a 'Playing Field' and not as a Park.
That could be because it's not a park - it's a playing field.

So it should really be called Portobello Playing Field Action Group?

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 29 May 2009, 10:24

Or PeePee Fag for short.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 May 2009, 13:55

Some light at the end of a long dark tunnel for our Wave 3 comrades?

http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/New- ... 5315111.jp

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Jun 2009, 19:08

From today's EN Letters Page:

An open and shut case for putting school in park

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 03 Jun 2009, 09:58

Bob Jefferson wrote:From today's EN Letters Page:

An open and shut case for putting school in park

Having just read the letter I would say to the author, "Yes, you are being naive".

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 04 Jun 2009, 13:58

Hardly an open and shut case for school

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 05 Jun 2009, 09:05

Secondly, no members of the public have demanded an open space audit. This initiative has come purely from the council so that they can identify open space they can develop

extract from letter. I think this is playing politics a step too far. As I understand it, its a statutory requirement for all councils to produce an open space audit and then to produce plans for the management and use thereof. The consultation process (albeit very poorly advertised and promoted) is a part of this process.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Jun 2009, 09:57

Quite right. As seanie points out in the very first comment on the letter:

The Open Space Audit is not an initiative that “has come purely from the council so that they can identify open space they can develop”. In fact all Local Authorites are now required by the Scottish Government to conduct an Open Space Audit and develop an Open Space Strategy. This is set out in Scottish Planning Policy 11 and Planning Advice Note 65, and the express intention of these policies is to protect and enhance open space. In line with this, the Open Space policies outlined in the Councils proposed new Local Plan also set a high hurdle for development on open space.

However, Diana's statement is consistent with much of the nonsense we have heard from PPAG over the years. If she really believes that the motive behind the audit is to 'identify open space they (the Council) can develop' then perhaps she should take the matter up with a local councillor.