New Portobello High School - on going issues

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 29 Jan 2010, 23:43

Cue PPAG burying old vases etc tonight after dark.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 05 Mar 2010, 15:01

From today's EN : Golf school is right on course

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Mar 2010, 15:22

Have you seen the report on Portobello Park that is to go before the council next week? It makes for totally consistent reading for the vast majority of people from this area. Even the zealots in the anti-school brigade will find it difficult to form a coherent argument with the facts.

Post by **wangi** » 05 Mar 2010, 15:55

This document?

http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext ... cId=137636

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Mar 2010, 16:07

That's the one. Didn't have a link, thanks.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 05 Mar 2010, 16:16

Just had a quick read at the usage report for Park and Golf Course. A question I would like to pose is how many of the people using the park are the same dog walkers over and over again.

If it was broken down to number of individuals who use it, the Park could just about be re-named Portobello Private Park. It really is a wasted use of space.

The usage of the pitch area is incredibly low.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Mar 2010, 16:55

You may be mistaken about any overstating of numbers of dog walkers. I'm led to believe that there's only about 10 dogs to the 90 or so walkers. PPAG were allegedly swapping dogs,, hats, coats etc to make it seem like there was more activity. So one PPAG supporter would walk the dog from the christians to park avenue then hand it over to a different handler, usually of the opposite gender, to walk it back again. The company that conducted the usage survey noted that many dogs kept running away and not coming back. Presumably because the walker was calling the wrong name.

And, if what I hear is true? Several PPAG hardcore actually bought dogs to boost the usage statistics. And they would throw a golf ball for the dogs to fetch in the hope that they would also be counted in the golf statistics.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 05 Mar 2010, 17:09

Yes - I noticed that after the final day of the survey, the number of dogs handed into the Cat & Dog home jumped significantly.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 05 Mar 2010, 19:28

Seems a very sensible report.

On the one hand the sports amenity will be more than improved by the school facilities available to the community, and the other principal use of the park, walking/dog-walking, can also be preserved. If they improve and increase the paths then it could be enhanced. With further improvements to other open spaces in the area it'll pretty much be a winner all round.

Golfers will still golf, walkers will be able to walk around the golf-course enjoying the views, and 1400 children a year will finally get a school with first class facilities, right at the heart of the community.

I can't imagine too many objections to that.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 06 Mar 2010, 13:24

That makes sense Porty. I heard a rumour that the PDSA had half a dozen dogs taken to them from the Portobello area over the winter suffering from hypothermia.
I also heard there were a few new golfers on the Portobello Course. One was seen wearing a PONGS t-shirt, screaming inaudible obsenities about VIRIDOR and completed the course in a record 593 over par with a plastic golf set from Hammies.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Mar 2010, 12:31

I'm sure that PPAG will attempt to make a big deal about 'broken promises' in terms of the Council replacing the green space 'lost' but I think the vast majority will see that it makes sense to consider the quality of the space and not just the quantity. The Portobello Park Usage & Open Space Value Assessment spells out the obvious - that the park is of very limited amenity value and is used, in the main, by local dog-owners. (And, if it were to be brutally honest, it might have added that a significant number of owners seem to treat the park as simply a dog toilet).

In the current financial climate, half a million spent on upgrading the amenity of the park and a receipt for the sale of the present site of £3.9 million, ring-fenced for the Children and Families estate, makes a lot of sense. I agree - it's a good deal for Portobello and a good deal for the city.

Elsewhere, the report suggests that the siting of the school next to the Golf Course is an opportunity to get young people interested in the sport. If I could be bothered trawling through the threads, I could find numerous examples of where I and others have been saying just that repeatedly over the course of this discussion. Far from having anything to fear, Portobello Golf Club should welcome its new neighbours. Here is the chance to secure its future, to expand its membership and to play a leading part in developing a new generation of golfers.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Mar 2010, 21:05

I aint a boy, no I'm a man and I don't believe in the Promised Land!

Post by **wangi** » 08 Mar 2010, 11:10

Maureen Child wrote:Dear All

As many of you will know by now, the thorny issue of the £41.5 million replacement of Portobello High School is on the agenda for this Thursday's full Council Meeting.

It is a progress report and the intention is to start consulting the wider community in the run-up to putting in a detailed planning application. This pre-planning public consultation process would start in early May.

If approved (still 'if', not 'when'), the new school would be built on the Park Avenue side of Portobello Park, with two all weather '3G' pitches alongside to the west.

There are couple of important decisions the Council is being asked to take at this point.

Firstly, report suggests that rather than replacing the green space elsewhere - as decided in 2006 - there should be £500,000 investment in the parks and green spaces that already exist in Portobello. The Council recently completed an open space audit, which identifies is a lot of open space in Portobello, but not all of good quality. That detail is also in the report's appendices, along with results of a survey on the current use of Portobello Park.

Basically, the report's recommendations are approved, that will overturn the previous Council commitment to add to the quantity of Portobello's green space.

Secondly, the report asks Council to agree that the land, which Portobello High School currently sits on, might be sold in future. If that happens, the proceeds (possibly £3.5 million) would be invested in schools or community centre buildings, anywhere across Edinburgh - and not necessarily in Portobello.

There is obviously a lot more detail in the report and that can be seen at:

http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext ... cId=137636

I would welcome your comments.

Maureen

Councillor Maureen Child -- Maureen.Child@edinburgh.gov.uk

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 08 Mar 2010, 13:21

As long as the potential £500,000 is used significantly better than the monies used to pretty much make Rosefield Park worse, then fair doo's.

I'm off to see if there is a thread on that topic to vent my spleen.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 09 Mar 2010, 13:27

Over £40 million spent on a brand new school, the removal of one of the biggest eyesores in Edinburgh, pre-planning consultations and half a million upgrade on parks, sounds like a deal to me.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Mar 2010, 13:43

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topst ... 6138136.jp

From today's Evening News- more legal threats for the council to deal with?

rmolehusband · Post by **rmolehusband** » 10 Mar 2010, 15:47

While PPAG have as much right to be heard as anyone, their claim to represent a significant majority of the community is both a lie and a bit ironic for a group throwing around accusations of undemocratic behaviour. From what I understand of PPAGs internal politics they can't even claim to represent a significant majority of PPAG members.

PPAG do not claim to represent the whole of the community but they do represent a very small and very vocal minority.

Post by **wangi** » 10 Mar 2010, 16:26

Maureen Child, email 10/03/2010 wrote:...
My big THANKS you to all the people who got back to me on this topic, from both sides of the argument. As some of you know, I want to build consensus on this with all interested parties.

Last night, the Labour Group agreed the attached Amendment. We are talking to all other Political Groups about it today to see if they will accept it, or something like it.

The wording will not please some of you, because it starts by strongly reaffirms our commitment to go through the statutory planning process for the school on the Portobello Park, without any delay whatsoever. But it DOES 'park' the issues of the fate of the current site and dealing with the issue of compensatory open space - quality or quantity. Some forty years ago, the current Portobello High School site was green space and playing fields for St John's Primary School . This school is next on the Council's list for rebuilding and refurbishment - and another priority for me. To my mind that is why it is important to eave open the fate of any possible capital receipt (estimated at up to £3.9 million) should the current site be sold.

Having had a positive and constructive meeting with Ros Sutherland (Chair of the 'Save the Park' campaign) and two other sets of nearby residents in meetings on Monday night, and from your feedback, I got the steer that this approach would be welcomed by most people, even those supporting the Campaign against the school on the Park. I am glad my Labour colleagues approved it unanimously and I will be moving it, if necessary, seconded by Councillor Ewan Aiken (Labour, Craigentinny/ Duddingston Ward)

I want to stress that the Labour Group is still totally behind taking forward the school in the Park proposal, subject to the proper planning an legal processes. Those of you who have written saying 'get on with it!' or 'this looks like a good compromise' or other very positive stuff about the Council report should have no fear that your wishes have also been taken account of in our proposals.

The wording of the attached amendment to change the Council officer's recommendations may get further 'tweaked' as we enter into cross-party discussions, but my Labour colleagues will stick to the principle of not pinning anything down at this stage. We want people to be able to fully engage in the pre-planning process whatever their point of view on the planning application itself.

I very much hope we will not have a division and vote on this at full Council on Thursday. But that happy state of affairs very much depends on what the Liberal Democrat,/SNP Coalition are prepared to accept. They are in the majority on the Council.

At least you know how I and my Labour colleagues will be voting. It is consistent with the promises made in 2006 and is the tack we have taken all along on this very important, controversial and divisive issue.

Best wishes

Maureen

Councillor Maureen Child
Labour Party Elected Member for Portobello/Craigmillar

City of Edinburgh Counicl
Labour Amendment

Full Council Meeting

11 March 2010

Council -

- notes the report and welcomes the very good progress, bringing forward the Council’s plans for a new Portobello High School on Portobello Park.

- remains totally committed to the Council policy to deliver a new Portobello High School, on time and on budget,

- acknowledges the need and desire of local people to be fully involved in participating in Council decisions about open space and any future capital receipt

- notes that the statutory pre-planning consultation is timetabled to start at the end of April

- notes that the project work will continue, without delay, and in parallel

- accepts recommendation (c)

- does not accept recommendations (b) and (d) and instead:

- agrees to postpone any decisions on the provision of open space and the use of any possible future capital receipts from the current Portobello High School site only, until the pre-planning consultation is completed and the outcome reported to Council.

Proposed

Seconded

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 10 Mar 2010, 17:09

Porty wrote:http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topst ... 6138136.jp

From today's Evening News- more legal threats for the council to deal with?

To be fair, it is a pretty dramatic change from swapping one park for another to taking £500,000 of the potential £4M and improving existing parks.But it's an ever-changing situation and maybe improvements to the quarry,figgy,brighton,rosefield,daisy parks and the beach does look better value for the community.I'd ask for £1M though, why just £500,000?It's not a massive amount in this day.

rmolehusband · Post by **rmolehusband** » 10 Mar 2010, 18:38

Franck wrote:To be fair, it is a pretty dramatic change from swapping one park for another to taking £500,000 of the potential £4M and improving existing parks.

Fair point, but personally think it's a reasonable compromise, especially in the current cash strapped climate. I am torn over the net loss of green space, once it's gone it very hard to get back as this case proves, but the quality over quantity argument, alongside the desperate need for a new school argument, is pretty compelling.

There is also the redevelopment of St. Johns to consider. Some of the existing PHS site would be ideal for the new primary and would provide a far better alternative than, say, building it on Figgate Park. I understand that several of the PPAG glitterati supported the proposal to build a new primary on Figgate park land, which kind of highlights the hypocrisy and, dare I say, NIMBY-ism of their green space platform.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Mar 2010, 18:50

Franck wrote:To be fair, it is a pretty dramatic change from swapping one park for another to taking £500,000 of the potential £4M and improving existing parks.But it's an ever-changing situation and maybe improvements to the quarry,figgy,brighton,rosefield,daisy parks and the beach does look better value for the community.I'd ask for £1M though, why just £500,000?It's not a massive amount in this day.

The original proposal was to compensate for the loss of green space but it wasn't suggesting a like-for-like replacement. Specifically it committed to an audit of usage to inform how the compensatory measures should be achieved, with a view to providing it through new open space. But since the principal function (outside pitches) is walking/dog-walking, that can be fairly well accomodated through chages to the existing park.

In the context of CoEC finances and their capital programme, £500,000 isn't insignificant and the money proposed isn't additional funding. it comes out of the pot already committed to the new school. There might be some negotiating room over how much money is spent but the more on that, the less elsewhere.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Mar 2010, 18:59

The PPAG NIMBYism and desire to build on any park but "theirs" has been done to death. Time and time again they have exposed their willingness to build on other green or open spaces. Yet still Ros Sutherland is brazen enough to try and play the green card. Its a bit like a Tobacco company offering free fags with every lung Xray.

Whether it is £1M or £500,000? I think the principle of what is being proposed is sound and is proven to be so. I just hope the Council are not counting the Tennis Courts area in the potential receipt of £3.9m. You will recall that they recently offered this land to St John's to allow them to expand into a larger area, giving their community some much needed extra space. Even although the serving St John's Parent Council firmly, indeed scathingly rejected this offer. I'm certain it would be welcomed in future by any group or individuals that truly had St John's best interests at heart.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 11 Mar 2010, 14:11

Porty wrote: I just hope the Council are not counting the Tennis Courts area in the potential receipt of £3.9m. You will recall that they recently offered this land to St John's to allow them to expand into a larger area, giving their community some much needed extra space. Even although the serving St John's Parent Council firmly, indeed scathingly rejected this offer. I'm certain it would be welcomed in future by any group or individuals that truly had St John's best interests at heart.

St. Johns have taken half the area of playground adjacent to the school, the other half has been used to build an astro pitch, which looks rather good.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 12 Mar 2010, 12:52

Good to see yesterday that the Council passed the Report on PHS by 54 Votes to 4 Votes (with ammended ammendment!) and that the process for taking the project to the pre-planning application consultation will be proceeding as planned. The 4 'No' voters were our local Lib-Dem Councillor Stephen Hawkins and the 3 Greens.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Mar 2010, 13:52

From Maureen Child:

Dear All

Some of you will have had the attachment already last night from my colleague, Andrew Burns (on behalf of the Labour Group), but I wanted to make sure everybody who has ever emailed me about Portobello High School gets the information, and that you are all collected together on the one growing list. (By the way, if you want off or on to my list, on this issue, do just let me know)

The attached document is the final Motion which the Council passed yesterday, by 54 votes to 4, on the issue of Portobello High School. For those of you who have not had an opportunity to see the report it refers to, the link is:

http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext ... cId=137636

The Labour Group had shared our proposed amendment with all the political groups on Wednesday and we tabled it at the start of the Council Meeting yesterday morning, so there were no surprises in what we were proposing. Both Portobello High School Council and Portobello Park Action Group put their views to the full Council meeting yesterday, at the beginning, and were able to answer questions from Councillors, before the decision was taken. After hearing the deputations, the Labour Group decided to go with the Motion which the Council Administration were proposing, which was not too different to ours. The three Green Party Councillors proposed that the the issue of compensatory green space - to substitute for what we will lose if the Park is built on - should be reported back to the next Council Meeting on 29 April. That would certainly have delayed the the delivery of a new school, on Portobello Park - or anywhere else.

The open space issue is to be dealt with through discussion with the two local Neighbourhood Partnerships, who will have to decide how best to do that part of the process. I'll keep you posted on that. The next Portobello/Craigmillar Neighbourhood Partnership Meeting is on Wednesday 31 March and the Portobello High School report is bound to be part of its Agenda.

The Labour Group decided not to pursue our own amendment because we wanted there to be no doubt whatsoever, in anyone's mind, that the project timetable would slip. Since everyone says they very much want a new Portobello High School, wherever it may be built, it is in all our interests that the 'School in the Park' matter is resolved as quickly as humanly possible. Even a month's delay could put the project back one or two academic terms, and the need for a new school is pressing.

It is clear to me that it is vitally necessary for everyone with an interest in this to be fully engaged in the consultation process about how we get the best possible replacement for Portobello High School. I am fully committed to help us ALL do that.

Best wishes

Maureen

Motion passed 11/3/10

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 12 Mar 2010, 14:12

Pal of Porty wrote:Good to see yesterday that the Council passed the Report on PHS by 54 Votes to 4 Votes (with ammended ammendment!) and that the process for taking the project to the pre-planning application consultation will be proceeding as planned. The 4 'No' voters were our local Lib-Dem Councillor Stephen Hawkins and the 3 Greens.

Our local Lib-Dem Councillor was opposed to continuing to look for replacement Open Space?

That a bit of a surprise isn't it?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Mar 2010, 14:14

Trying to get a copy of the amendment the Greens proposed.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 12 Mar 2010, 15:23

seanie wrote:
Pal of Porty wrote:Good to see yesterday that the Council passed the Report on PHS by 54 Votes to 4 Votes (with ammended ammendment!) and that the process for taking the project to the pre-planning application consultation will be proceeding as planned. The 4 'No' voters were our local Lib-Dem Councillor Stephen Hawkins and the 3 Greens.
Our local Lib-Dem Councillor was opposed to continuing to look for replacement Open Space?

That a bit of a surprise isn't it?

No surprise - any tactic whatsoever to delay/cancel the rebuilding of PHS.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Mar 2010, 16:07

From today's EN:

Council to press ahead with new school amid park row

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Mar 2010, 17:47

Green Group Amendement

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Mar 2010, 09:53

Courtesy of PPAGwatch:

TRIPLE WHAMMY BY THE COUNCIL?

If the council gets its way on building the school on Portobello Park, Portobello will lose out in three ways: firstly by losing the Park, secondly in the lack of replacement open space provision and thirdly by not seeing any of the money that will be raised by selling off the current PHS site.

The decision in 2006 to site PHS on the Park was conditional upon replacement green space being found to compensate for the loss of the park. The council sought to overturn that earlier promise at full council on 11 March and thereby demonstrated that the promises made at the time of the 2006 decision were just cynical moves to get support for what was, and remains, a deeply contentious issue.

This calls into question one of the other promises that were made at the time, namely that no housing would be built on the Park or Golf Course. PPAG made a deputation to the council meeting on 11 March and this was put to them. They were reneging on one condition, so how long would it be before they reneged on the decision to build housing on the Park? There is a clue in the report that went to council http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext ... cId=137636 in appendix 3, p 12 where it says that: " At this stage, there are no plans to change the golf course itself or for any development in the area." So in other words, it will be developed in the future, in spite of politician´s promises to the contrary in the 2006 decision that there would be no housing built on the park or golf course. This ties in with what Andrew Holmes, the then director of City Development, admitted at an ELDC meeting at the start of this process which was that the council´s intention was to develop the whole area of the park and golf course. NO ONE AT THE COUNCIL MEETING SOUGHT TO REFUTE THIS.

We are promised "compensatory measures" in the council report, instead of replacement green space, for example, para 3.34 states that "existing uses of the park, mainly as a walking venue should not only be preserved but improved wherever possible". It is hard to imagine how the council can conclude that replacing an open green space with a three-storey building, surrounded by a 10 foot high steel fence and a number of tarmac corridors, overlooked by CCTV cameras, could possibly be an improved venue for walking.

The alleged half a million pounds to be spent on "compensatory measures" that should be happening anyway would not compensate Portobello for the loss of this park and the playing fields. In appendix 3, p 12 it is made quite clear that the money may contribute towards off-site pitch upgrades at various locations not in Portobello. We will not even be consulted - it will be Services for Communities who decide. The "golf academy" idea reported in the Evening News as though it was really going to happen is only something that is being "explored".

The claim that there will be new a swimming pool and all-weather pitches accessible to the local community is untrue. These facilities already exist at the school and, whilst it is possible to apply for a let for the swimming pool, it cannot be used casually and the all-weather pitch is for school use only. This will not change.

It is clear that there is no firm commitment to any of the "compensatory measures" in this report and they will never materialise, based on our experience of broken promises to date.

In fact, you cannot trust anything the council says on this matter. At the outset of this process, we were told the school would be built on the golf course and that land at Brunstane had been purchased for a replacement. This turned out not to be true. We were told that the land was not common good land. This turned out not to be true. We were promised replacement open space to compensate the community for the loss of the park and football pitches and now the council has reneged on that promise.

Then there is the still unresolved issue of the common good. At the beginning of this process the council denied that the park was common good land but then changed its mind and has been forced to acknowledge that it is common good land. The council then obtained a legal opinion to say that they did not have to go to court to build on the land. They sought to prevent us from obtaining via FOI the opinion that we had paid for but, following an appeal, the Information Commissioner ordered them to release it. The council&´s opinion is not the definitive word on the common good issue - it is just an opinion, which the council to date have refused to have tested in court. We await their next move.

It is not necessary to build the school on this park. The real reason for the council´s keenness on pressing ahead with the development of the park is because it is a gateway to developing the whole expanse. Portobello will lose its only significant area of open space. Would this happen on Leith Links or the Meadows? We know the answer to that.

The pre-planning application consultation will start soon, so watch this space for information about consultation events.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 13 Mar 2010, 14:15

It's like a glimpse into an alternative reality....

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 13 Mar 2010, 14:44

thirdly by not seeing any of the money that will be raised by selling off the current PHS site.

...the new school must be getting built for nothing then

That has to be the most cynical and negative Mills and Boon I have ever had the misfortune to read

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 13 Mar 2010, 15:27

Some people might think that investing over £40 million in a new school might be a good thing for the community rather than, say, a terrible injustice.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 13 Mar 2010, 16:02

There is a clue in the report that went to council http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext ... cId=137636 in appendix 3, p 12 where it says that: " At this stage, there are no plans to change the golf course itself or for any development in the area." So in other words, it will be developed in the future, in spite of politician´s promises to the contrary in the 2006 decision that there would be no housing built on the park or golf course.

In context, the report says;

The proposals to create a network of surfaced paths and accessible green space will enhance public use and establish a framework should a further stage of recreational/landscape improvements be considered for the golf course. At this stage, there are no plans to change the golf course itself or for any development in this area.

All they're saying is that the current proposed changes to the park could tie in with future improvements to the golf-course but that no such changes to the golf-course are currently proposed.

To interperet that as confirmation that houses are going to be built takes twisted reasoning to the brink of insanity.

It's deranged.