New Portobello High School - on going issues

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 05 Jun 2009, 14:56

Bob Jefferson wrote: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'?

http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx

park (n)

1. a large area of open land for recreational use by the public,

2. a piece of open land for public recreation in a town,

3. (Brit) a large area of private land surrounding a country house,

4. an area designed to accommodate a number of related enterprises, a science park,

5. (US Canad) a playing field or sports stadium,

6.
◇ the park Brit informal (Brit informal) the pitch in soccer,

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Jun 2009, 22:55

From the Evening News "Something Luby or Ghost said yesterday made me think about 1964 when the existing school opened. According to PPAG the council are simply repeating what happened then, when the school was built on St John's playing fields and the old building sold off, which is not the way it was.

PHS was about to go through a massive increase in role and the old school, capacity around 600,could not hope to cope with 2000 plus. So the council HAD to provide a new but additional school. Both school buildings operated in tandem for almost 20 years, by which time the school role had dropped and the old building was sold off. That puts a different light on things doesn't it?

They would have you believe that the council simply sold off assets- what were they supposed to do hold onto a surplus building?"

I know we have enough on our plates discussing the existing school but what must it have been like then? I could never understand why they put the school where it is now. Is it possible that in those days they had even fewer options. I think so.

The Freightliner Terminal, Powerleague, Portobello Park were not available and I'm not sure what the status of the Scottish Power site was? Contrary to popular conception we may have more flexibility in our potential sites for local schools than they did then?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Jun 2009, 23:47

Some really bizarre exchanges on the EN comments section tonight.

Reminds of that line from Cronenberg's 'Dead Ringers':

The patients are getting strange.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 12 Jun 2009, 10:35

There certainly is. It has all started as a result of Alison Connelly of PPAG's letter. It is the second one down but the comments go on for miles.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opini ... 5356122.jp

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Jun 2009, 11:52

From today's EN Letters Page:

School must be parked elsewhere

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Jun 2009, 12:47

From today's EN Letters Page:

Park group should go back to school

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 15 Jun 2009, 21:22

It is pretty brutal stuff over there. I still don't get what PPAG think Dave and I can be getting out of a school in the park, financially speaking. The mention of "property interests" is particularly perverse coming from the mob that don't want a school on the park because................................................................................................................they have property interests.

Ghost has suggested that Dave Davidson is trying to discredit PPAG - like they need assistance?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 16 Jun 2009, 15:12

The debate about the new PHS continues in the letter pages of the EEN. Here is another one from today:

School Exists Only in the Imagination

P.S. Thanks Bob

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 17 Jun 2009, 10:10

I only dip into this thread now and again, and I don't really understand what is going on, so please feel free to fill in the gaps...

Essentially they built a poor school in the 60's which is now falling apart, so they need a new school?

They can't use the current site, because during the building works there would be no school (or is it too small?), so they have ot pick an alternative site?

The nearest large enough council owned site is portobello park?

Folk who like the park don't want a school there.

What is going to happen to the original site after the new school is going to be built? Is it the case that another school will then move in? or will they replace it with a new park? Or will they just sell it off to the highest bidder?

The other thing I don't get is that currently we are having the biggest boom in newborn babies ever seen in the area. So why are they closing primary schools instead of rationalising the space to current student level and keeping the existing schools in decent state of repair for when they will be needed?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 17 Jun 2009, 12:45

I will have a go Grunk but Seanie will do better, I think there may already be a handy summation on TP?

Grunk wrote:Essentially they built a poor school in the 60's which is now falling apart, so they need a new school?

Yes. They built an additional school building due to an upsurge in school role. There were 2 PHS buildings for nearly 20 Years. The 1964 school had an anticipated lifespan of 40 years not taking into account the unsuitability of design for today's education. It will be almost 50 years old when the new school opens.

Grunk wrote:They can't use the current site, because during the building works there would be no school (or is it too small?), so they have ot pick an alternative site?

Yes and No. They could use the current site but it is too small . It has always been too small. They could decant the school for the approximate cost of a new primary. There would be no playing fields. However, had there been no other option, the school could be rebuilt there. There is no political will to rebuild in situ. And that applies this time around and to the PPP exercise conducted earlier in the millenium.

Grunk wrote:The nearest large enough council owned site is portobello park?

Yes bur there is a debate about what construes the Park. The golf course area is bigger but it is also more politically sensitive. There is unanimous political support for a school on the park

Grunk wrote: Folk who like the park don't want a school there.

No. I like the park and I want a school there. PPAG claim to love the park but were happy for St John's school to go there. Thay are totally against Portobello School. Some folks don't want any building on the park.

Grunk wrote:What is going to happen to the original site after the new school is going to be built? Is it the case that another school will then move in? or will they replace it with a new park? Or will they just sell it off to the highest bidder?

All 3.

As things stand:

St Johns will be given a chunk to increase their campus.
A small park will be created
The remainder will be sold for housing.

There is still plenty time for interested groups or indivduals to influence the outcome, as the funding for the new school does not depend on the proceeds of sale.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 17 Jun 2009, 17:44

Grunk wrote:The other thing I don't get is that currently we are having the biggest boom in newborn babies ever seen in the area. So why are they closing primary schools instead of rationalising the space to current student level and keeping the existing schools in decent state of repair for when they will be needed?

There is expected to be a rise in pupil numbers over the next few years, but that comes after a sustained period of decline; the current primary school roll is about 19% less than it was in 1997. That decline is not spread evenly so there are some schools close to capacity and others less than half full. The schools currently proposed for closure are supposed to have occupancy rates between 33 and 41%, although there is a question as to how accurate the Council's capacity figures are.

Schools operating at significantly below capacity tend to be more expensive to run, and since funding from central government is related to pupil numbers, that can have an adverse effect on schools in general. There is a compelling argument that, at some point, a schools' occupancy has dropped so low as to be an unjustified financial drain on the school sector as a whole.

It is true that the coming demographic change can be expected to offset some of this spare capacity, but the population growth isn't necessarily going to match up with the areas of spare capacity. So the schools that are currently well under capacity, could still be well under capacity regardless. Mothballing buildings might be a sensible option, in case they were required in the future, but just keeping every school open in the hope that it might be needed some day makes little financial sense.

As things stand Edinburgh's school catchments largely date from early last century, and in many cases the context has changed so much as to undermine their rationale. So an alternative to closure (although it might still be required in some instances) would be a wholesale catchment review. But an Edinbugh wide catchment review would generate so much grief that the prospects of one are pretty slim. I think the Greens are advocating something along these lines but, presumably, safe in the knowledge that they'd never have to actually implement it.

On top of all that the council, and most other LA's, a facing severe budgetary constraints, not all of their own making. They're in a position where they have little choice but to make fairly significant cuts overall. As far as closures go, whoever was in charge, they'd probably be on the cards.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 18 Jun 2009, 08:45

Schools building plan announced

is this connected with us in Porty at all? I'm struggling to keep up with all the non-happenings re schools and funding.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 18 Jun 2009, 12:33

Looking at the sites, they seem to be the same size (unless the golf course is included in the new site plans?)

Anyway, I don't see the problem with a new state of the art school anywhere on public land. Especially in a city with as much open space as Edinburgh has.

Generations of well educated, responsible adults in the community has to be worth pulling out all of the stops. Especially if included in the school plans (as I think there are) is the provision to use the school as a centre for adult education.

The only down side is that I'm not sure if the Milton road junction would be able to cope with all of the SUVs randomly stopping and double parking between 8 and 9 in the morning.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 18 Jun 2009, 13:52

If you're referring to the existing and proposed sites then no, they're not the same size. The exisiting campus is about 2.9Ha whereas the Portobello Park pitch area is about 5.7Ha in total.

The indication so far is that the actual school, including a full sized all-weather pitch, will take up 4.5Ha or less, leaving enough public park for a couple of grass pitches. There's probably some leeway with that so the actual proportion occupied by the school might be reduced.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Jun 2009, 18:52

From today's EN Letters Page:

Setting the record straight on school

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 19 Jun 2009, 17:15

The war of words rages on in today's EN Letters Page:

Yes to new school, but keep the park

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Jun 2009, 07:45

From yesterday's EN:

Building on the Capital's educational foundations

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Jun 2009, 16:38

From today's EN Letters Page:

No rest from Porty High campaign

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Jun 2009, 11:07

From today's EN Letters Page:

Don't be so quick in spending cash

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Jun 2009, 17:00

"I can't help wondering" - er I think we were already aware of that. Anything is preferable to reality.

I can't help but wonder why the council act on the advice of senior and junior counsel and not on the behest of 3 or 4 self interested ignorami.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 29 Jun 2009, 10:10

This is a bit of a non-letter really.

The Council have sought legal opinion and made their decision to proceed on this basis. The replacement green space is a condition of putting the school on the park so it will obviously be addressed.

Waste of ink.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Jun 2009, 10:46

I'm going to risk the wrath of Seanie, as I'm sure he will have addressed this before;

The replacement green space has to be local. What does it mean exactly?

Can the council revamp some of the 92% of accessible open space? how local is local and does the replacement land have to be the same or a similar size?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 29 Jun 2009, 15:23

The council commited to;

a) an audit of usage of the current park being undertaken to inform the re-provisioning of adequate facilities to meet that need;

b) the identification of local available land for open space provision
in compensation for the loss of part of Portobello Park;

c)this land (which may include the current St John’s Primary
School site) being identified and secured prior to the
commencement of construction of any new Portobello High
School;

That they were going to undertake an audit of usage to inform re-provisioning suggests there was no intention that the same amount of land had to be provided.

As to what's local, that might depend on that usage. Different types of space are used in different ways and people are willing to travel further for some things than others.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Jun 2009, 16:26

"an audit of usage of the current park being undertaken to inform the re-provisioning of adequate facilities to meet that need; "

It doesn't sound very onerous and as for the "reprovisioning of adequate facilities" _ we are talking about finding a far from flat but featureless open space of indeterminable size.

So if 10000 dogs are walked on a 4ha site at the moment, as long as 10000 dogs can still be walked, there is adequate provision. It seems to me that NO additional land is one potentially acceptable "re-provision".

Is that right?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Jun 2009, 16:37

It is not worth responding to Charles Douglas or Diana Cairns for that matter' when they say "the council have gone quiet on the replacement land". The council don't need to specify at this stage. It is like giving someone shit for not having their christmas presents bought by the end of June!!!

if the council come up with a smaller or even NO land. Why would they give PPAG more months to bleat about how unfair it is?

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 15 Jul 2009, 03:43

All of this may be irrelevant as yesterday, the independant company who are testing the ground at Portobello Park, found it difficult to say that a school could be built on the ground that they were drilling on. They've basically hit clay which isn't good enough for a foundation of a school. This will probably raise the cost to a level where it is not economically viable.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 15 Jul 2009, 09:19

A four storey school would most likely be frame built on pile foundations. Soil conditions aren't so significant in those circumstances. I'd be suprised if it made much difference whatever they found.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 17 Jul 2009, 13:00

Anger over over the ‘theft’ of people power

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 17 Jul 2009, 16:30

Yawn- same shit different media: Noone is listening, we are being ignored, riding roughshod over the public and so on.....

These groups must all have at least one desperado:

ann coleman wrote:“We are desperate,” said Ann Coleman from Greengairs Community Council

PPAG has several

The journalism is shoddy, What has a school that has not yet been subject to a planning application, got to do with a waste incinerator, power station, huge housing developments and planning democracy?

Journalist Rob Edwards wrote:
Huge industrial plants and other controversial schemes are being bulldozed through by developers, depriving communities of their rights, polluting their environment and threatening their health. This is because the Scottish government has fast-tracked major developments

Erm,.... its a school we are talking about here Rob and nothing in your statement applies to that school.
There will be builders not developers and they will not be involved until planning is granted so no bulldozing planning applications. Rather than denying, the community's statutory rights to education are actually being fulfilled.

There will be less pollution from the new school. Health will likely see a substantial improvement due to the proviosn of sports facilities and siting a school in a park location. What's more the Scottish Government have not fast-tracked the project. Although they have ratified the community wide statutory consultation process conducted by Edinburgh City Council.

So that's nil out of 5 Rob. Maybe you should do more thinking and investigation rather than just googling 'action groups' then picking up the phone to and getting one , not especially accurate, side of the story.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 17 Jul 2009, 20:01

One does wonder why Diana Cairns didn't use the Viridor example when the journalist called. On the face of it, it seems more appropriate.

maybe he said "we already have a waste facility example, can you think of anything else even iff its only remotely relevant"

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Sep 2009, 22:43

Saw a presentation form the architects of the new school this evening. Very encouraging overall. It's still early days but it looked like they were developing a really good approach.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Sep 2009, 16:43

Yeah I heard it was pretty good and well received. long way to go tho.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 21 Sep 2009, 19:46

New hope for rebuild at ailing secondary

Looks like James Gillespie's might be in with a shout for funding. St John's came equal third in the prioritisation with Boroughmuir so it might be in with an outside chance, though I can't imagine the capital allocation being huge.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Oct 2009, 08:50

I wrote recently on another thread:

Long after the idea of building a school on the golf course was ditched, it suited PPAG to perpetuate the myth that it was still under threat. Indeed, they continue to do so.

Following this, I was sent a message yesterday from a reliable source, informing me that a certain PPAG supporter is telling people that the Council plan to build houses on the golf course.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Jan 2010, 18:48

I have been asked by the Children and Families Department to help publicise the following:

Survey Work in Portobello Park

An Archaeological Survey of Portobello Park is due to take place from 1 to 4 February. This survey must be carried out before any planning application for the new school can be submitted. The work is a non-intrusive survey and therefore no damage will be done to the park and we anticipate no disturbance to the residents living around the park.

We would like to reassure everyone that this is preparatory work for the planning application and that before the planning application is submitted we will be undertaking a pre-planning consultation phase on the proposed school design with the local community.

More details will be issued when this is due to start and will be advertised widely in the local community.