New Portobello High School - PPAG win legal appeal

[Epykat]

So Betty and Epykat where should a school fit for 1400 Portobello kids be built?

That wasn't what the jist of my post was about Mark. We've been there, over and over and over. The point I was trying to make was that Bob (and others) won't admit that more than two people in Portobello don't agree with him/them and that not all of these people are members of PPAG. Maybe if PFANS supporters were more willing to concede this fact, and the fact that the Council are in the wrong, which has been decided in Court, then things could move forward. Constant sarcasm just gets everybody's back up - on both sides.

[Bob Jefferson]

Like I said, they don't have an answer to your question. PPAG have effectively blocked the only viable site and, in doing so, jeapordised the education of thousands of local children. We have had two judgments. The first said that the Council was perfectly entitled to build a school on the park, in line with other recent cases in Lanarkshire, and did not require the permission of the courts. The second judgment completely contradicted this. That doesn't make the Council wrong, it simply makes the law look like an ass. An appeal to the Supreme Court may well overturn that judgment and commonsense will prevail.

[Porty]

But this is far from being over. .

Agreed but we are likely looking at another 5 years before kids occupy a new school on the park. IMHO a five year delay is much,much better than yet another 50 years of a smaller school crammed onto a site that is too small.

PPAG, Epykat, The Connellys's, Cairns and Hawkins are content to destroy or remove Portobello High School from the heart of our community. We can't let them win. The social cost is too high a a price to pay for future generations.

[rmolehusband]

the fact that the Council are in the wrong

At worst, the council were wrong in their belief that current legislation would permit them to build a new school on the park. I don't blame them for this, opinion is clearly divided on this and the council's view was in line with the majority of experts. However, we have to accept the opinion of the highest court to have ruled on this point so yes, the council are wrong in exactly the same way PPAG were wrong up to the point the appeal hearing was delivered.

The council are not wrong in their desire to build it on the park. The council exist to do the democratic bidding of the people thy represent and, after years of debate, the democratic decision of the people of Edinburgh is that they want the new school built on the park. You simply can't argue with that fact.

If the law prevents the new school from being built on the park then the law should be changed. The law, like the council, is the servant of a democracy rather than its master. Assuming no one's fundamental rights are being trampled then what's wrong with changing it? laws are introduced, repealed and changed regularly.

Do you really think that urging CEC to break the law (again) is a good example to set to our children?

No Betty, I think we should change the law and then urge CEC to get on and build the school legally.

And as for the children, you seem to care so much about them, but simply ignore their wishes in this matter. Isn't that a tad hypocritical?

[commander114]

off topic

[seanie]

Not in your assumed name surely?

[fresian]

Commander wrote: There are solutions available without squandering green land. By choosing to take the 'easy' option other solutions have been ignored.

OK commander, where would YOU suggest would be a suitable alternative? Bearing in mind if it is put up in Craigmillar, as has been suggested, you are then faced with additional traffic on the road, as parents are more likely to drive their kids to school rather than have them walk, so I'm sure everyone would be interested to hear your suggestion.

[Porty]

I'm new on the forum but not new to either Portobello ( moved to P in the late sixties ) or the comments and rumours on the forum. So maybe I should cease to be part of the silent majority who have listened with incredulity to the goings-on surrounding this subject.................. ..............There are solutions available without squandering green land. By choosing to take the 'easy' option other solutions have been ignored.

...

Commander- I'm so glad you have decided to cease remaing silent. Perhaps you can enlighten us with the "other solutions" that have been ignored?

[Porty]

Don't second guess the Commander, Fresian- the solutions are 50 years in the making, this has got to be worth hearing from the horse's mouth.

[Pal of Porty]

There are solutions available without squandering green land. By choosing to take the 'easy' option other solutions have been ignored

I look forward to reading your list of other options, which have been ignored.

[wangi]

Just to recap the 15 sites which were considered in 2006, see http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/me ... ool-part_1 and http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/me ... ool-part_2
Level 1 analysis:

Site 1(a) Portobello High School
Site 1(b) St. John’s Primary School
The site of Portobello High School was too small by itself to deliver the desired specification for the new high school. A combination of the high school and primary school sites, while falling short of the anticipated size of 4.5ha, could still offer opportunities to deliver a school and all weather pitch. Accordingly the combination of sites (extending to 3.5ha) was taken forward to 'Level 2' analysis.

Site 2(a) Portobello Park (Golf Course)
Site 2(b) Portobello Park (Football Pitches)
Given their location in the centre of the catchment and the Council ownership of the sites, both were taken forward to 'Level 2' analysis.

Site 3(a) Bingham Park Area 7
Site 3(b) Bingham Park Area 2
Individually, these sites were too small for the high school unless considered together. Accordingly, the development of the high school here would represent the almost entire removal of this area of open space to the local community. The sites were poorly located in relation to the catchment area, and access was difficult given the narrow streets leading there, creating potential traffic difficulties. For these reasons, the sites were discounted. [and note the new Seaview respite centre is now in advanced state of construction on the old Lismore primary school site]

Site 4 Freightliner Terminal
This site has been discounted as being too small and having difficult pedestrian and vehicular access, being bounded by the main railway line on one side and the Portobello bypass on the other. It is also unlikely that Planning Permission would be granted for school use as the site has been identified in the Draft Edinburgh City Local Plan as a "Business and Industry Area" where "development, including change of use that results in the loss of industrial, business or storage floorspace or potential will not be permitted".

Site 5 Cavalry Park
Cavalry Park and the neighbouring site of Holyrood High School (site 13) were discounted as having insurmountable planning issues. The greenbelt, nature conservation and designed landscape designations mean the only remaining developable area is being utilised for Holyrood High School. The sites are also very poorly located for either the high school or primary school catchment areas, being right on the periphery.

Site 6(a) Baileyfield (BL Developments - formerly Scottish Power)
Site 6(b) Baileyfield (Standard Life)
Site 6(a) on its own was discounted as it is too small but if included along with Site 6(b) a site of sufficient size could be created. Site 6(a) is owned by BL Developments and has been the subject of a recent refusal of planning permission for a supermarket development. Site 6(b) includes a main Ford car dealership incorporating a car showroom, workshops and car parking areas in the ownership of Evans Halshaw and an industrial estate in the ownership of Standard Life comprising a Depot let to the City of Edinburgh Council and five business units which are fully occupied. The cost of acquiring these sites, including the disturbance claims resulting from the relocation of the businesses would be extremely costly and alternative locations would be required for the various businesses. This is deemed not feasible or deliverable and the sites have therefore been discounted.

Site 7(a) Jewel Park Area 1
Site 7(b) Jewel Park Area 2
The developable area of these sites was restricted by flooding risk, accordingly they were considered as one option and taken forward to the ‘Level 2’ analysis.

Site 8 Powerleague
Discounted as being too small to accommodate the High School.

Site 9 Marine Bus Garage
Lothian Buses has carried out an extensive search over the past two years for an alternative site for their depot but, to date, no alternative site has been identified. As Lothian Buses have an operational need for the depot, their existing depot will not be available for use as a site for the school. The depot site on its own is not large enough for the new school and to create a site of sufficient size for the school the adjacent garage and workshop in the ownership of the John Martin Group would also require to be purchased. The costs of these purchases together with the disturbance costs in relocating both owners to alternative sites, assuming alternative suitable sites could be found, would run into many millions of pounds. These sites have therefore been discounted as being too costly and undeliverable.

Site 10(a) Meadowbank Stadium
This site lies outwith the catchment area, and has been discounted as unlikely to become available within the timeframe.

Site 10(b) St. Margaret’s House
Discounted as being too small and outwith the catchment area.

Site 1 1 City Edge Greenbelt Land
Discounted as unlikely to secure planning permission as it would require the release of further greenbelt land for development.

Site 12 Duddingston Primary School (Relocation of St. John’s)
Discounted as being too small for the relocation of St John’s

Site 13 Holyrood High School (Relocation of St. John’s)
Discounted for reasons set out for Site 5 above.

Site 14 Figgate Park (Relocation of St. John’s)
Discounted as the developable area of the park would be too small, with the site being prone to flood risk.

Site 15 Waterfront
3.32 Discounted on the advice of planning given the international nature conservation designations, and the difficulties with construction

And the level 2 analysis:

Portobello and St John’s Existing Sites
In order to deliver the required brief for a new high school, the combined sites of the existing schools would be required. This would require the relocation of St John’s Primary School to another site. An evaluation of alternative sites for St John’s has been conducted, and there are a number of options referred to later in this report. This would introduce a delay into the timing for the high school in that St John’s would require to be designed, planning permission secured, built and occupied before construction could commence for Portobello High School.

The main benefit of developing on this site is that the permanent build for the High School does not affect other community assets within the Portobello area. This option however displaces St John’s to a new greenfield site location, and decant accommodation may also be required to be located on open space for around two years. This site is also located in the middle of the catchment area, making it more easily accessible to the population of Portobello.

This option presents a huge amount of disruption to the existing high school in that the entire school would require to be decanted for a period of around two years. Given the small size of the existing site, and the health and safety issues of being in such close proximity to a large demolition and build, the preferred strategy would be to decant off-site, and the favoured site for this would be Portobello Park. A full off-site decant has been costed at f5.8m while an onsite decant is slightly more cost effective at f4.6m. The provision of large spaces such as gym halls is not possible with temporary units and some school activities would require to be carried out at an alternative venue(s). It is likely that accommodation for all exams, for example, would not be able to be provided on-ca m pus.

Portobello Golf Course
This location is central within the catchment area, and would avoid the decant and disruption created by redeveloping the existing site. This option would require the relocation of the golf course to an alternative site and would involve some loss of the current open space for the local community. This would have implications for the timescale for delivering the high school should a new golf course require to be established before construction work commenced. The site is not as well accessed as the Park being located one street back from the main road and bus services of Duddingston Park Road, nor is the location as prominent as the Park for a civic building.

Portobello Park
This location is fairly central within the catchment area, and would avoid the decant and disruption created by redeveloping the existing site. This option would allow the school building to be developed whilst being able to reprovide two pitches for community use on the site which the school could also benefit from during the day. The location reflects the road hierarchy in the area, with the Milton Road on the southern boundary being a main route with bus services, making the location both accessible and prominent, reflecting the civic status of the school. This option would displace the current school traffic from Duddingston Road and its neighbouring streets to Milton Road, which would have greater capacity to accommodate it.

The main issue with this site is the loss of part of an area of existing open space in a well established park.

The Jewel
This site is very poorly related to the catchment area, being located on the southernmost boundary of the catchment area. It also brings the school close to the proposed new location of the new secondary school to serve Craigmillar (in Craigmillar town centre) and it would not be desirable to have two schools offering the same sector of education close to each other. Its development would also mean the loss of a significant proportion of the existing public open space in the area. The site itself has flooding issues and its development would require the relocation of sewers crossing the site.

The merits of developing here centred on being able to avoid the disruption to the school by developing off the existing site. Being bounded by the main road and bus route of Duddingston Park South makes vehicular ccessibility slightly better than other discounted sites such as Bingham Park.

The number of disadvantages far outweighed the merits of this site, and it was discounted from further consideration at the ‘Level 2’ stage of analysis.

As a result of this evaluation, it is proposed to take forward the following three sites for a replacement Portobello High School to statutory consultation.
Option A Existing sites of Portobello High School and St John’s Primary School
Option B Portobello Golf Course
Option C Portobello Park Pitches Site

[jb5370]

jb, it's currently reading:

275: On Portobello Park - get it built, politicians make it happen
18: Next to Holyrood High share playing fields
6: At Castlebrae, Craigmillar
edit: scores on the doors are now: 324/21/7

Thanks Wangi. Appreciated.

[commander114]

removed

[Sceptic]

All this talk of bulding elaborate buildings, decanting pupils for about 2 years etc., fails to recognise on obvious point, cost.

Any new school has to be built for the lowest cost possible. Councils cannot afford expensive buildings, well perhaps for Waverly Court, but not for a school. Building over rail yards might seem an option, but, ever tried to do your best in Higher Examination whilst the 12.55 to King's Cross hurtles underneath? Cost and noise would probably make it a non starter.

Redevelopment of the present site is also a non starter, as I have said before, how do you demolish an eight storey tower with 1500 pupils and staff onsite. In addition, how do you provide classrooms, science labs, PE halls, language labs, CDT workshops for 1400 pupils? It's not that pile of portacabins will do the job. They need specific resources for their courses.

That is why, Portobello needs a new school, together with facilities, now. A Temporary building will not do.

[Porty]

All this talk of bulding elaborate buildings, decanting pupils for about 2 years etc., fails to recognise on obvious point, cost..

Yes, and there are other factors such as planning permission, capacity, accessibility and so on. A decant is unpalatible, enormously expensive. If it was done purely to rebuild on site, it would result in a school of about 1000 capacity, a severly restricted curriculum offer, 400 or kids displaced, very limited recreation and sports space. And it would cost much,much more. It was mooted in 2003 and discounted due mainly to poor value for money. it is almost 10 years on and schools ideally require more space these days.

Having said all that, it is still an option, the worst, worst option. A mistake was made in 1964, most of us now know better. that includes the council, parents, kids and staff. A tiny minority (see above) couldn't give a f***. Their kids have left school or go to school elsewhere. They see little or no value in great facilities for our young people, it is a real shame.

[Bob Jefferson]

commander114, your idea is brilliant, bold, innovative....and completely bonkers. I'm out.

[Porty]

Not a single stilt in reality.

[tufty]

Scotland is about to change the exam system, the new curriculum for excellence has brought many good things and many unknowns.
As yet the full details have not been released so there remains a large unknown.
If any decant were to overlap the introduction of this new exam system, or even happen in the years before it, there will be a drop in attainment for sure.
How can teachers prepare students for new exams in temporary accomodation that by its very nature will never be as good as a permanent school?
Adding the stress of change and "make do" the pupils will feel will be unfair for a school population that have already been let down by a lot of the adults around them.

[seanie]

Why bother with stilts? Just attach skyhooks to the school and give the kids jetpacks.

Crisis over everybody. It's all sorted.

[Scoop]

commander114, your idea is brilliant, bold, innovative....and completely bonkers. I'm out.

But why is it completely bonkers? And where is your idea for an alternative?

[seanie]

Portobello Park was chosen for a good reason. It's well located in catchment, had good accessibility, avoids the cost and disruption of a decant and at 5.6Ha is large enough to accommodate all the facilities required by the school, including two all-weather pitches.

There are NO quick or easy alternatives for locating the school. It took 5 years from selecting Portobello Park as a site, to the point where a contractor was ready to be appointed and the legal challenge intervened. If we are forced to go down the route of an alternative site there is still a process that has to be followed that will itself take years; 4-5 at minimum. All alternatives also involve significant additional costs that are not currently budgeted for and money, inescapably, is a very important consideration.

50 years ago a mistake was made when the largest school in Edinburgh was built on a site that was far too small. We have an opportunity to rectify that. The reasons for choosing Portobello Park remain, and it remains the best site of very limited options. For that reason we need to look at what options might exist, either legal or legislative, to allow the school to proceed as planned.

However, we also have to recognise that Portobello High School will not be able to function indefinitely. The building is not fit-for-purpose, is at the end of its useful life, and huge sums of money have been diverted from other schools for repairs simply to keep it functioning. So we have to consider what other options might be available should the Park be impossible.

Existing Site

The existing site is still fundamentally too small and can’t accommodate all the required facilities. Also, unlike Holy Rood, there isn’t sufficient space to build a new school whilst the existing one continues to function. A decant off site would be required, for up to 3 years, at considerable expense and disruption, and there is no obvious location for a decant. If it could be done the school would still be compromised by being on a site too small. It would also prevent St John’s being extended or re-built on an expanded site, and St John’s is next priority in the Wave 3 schools after PHS, James Gillespie’s and Boroughmuir.

Existing Site + St John’s

This option, considered back in 2006, could be viable although the school would still require additional off-site sports facilities and the limitations of the site could compromise the layout. A decant on site might be possible, but off-site may be necessary given the requirements of demolition and construction. The same difficulties of cost, disruption and how to decant would apply. This option also requires the prior re-location of St John’s. St John’s have previously indicated that they wish to remain where they are, but if this were to be pursued just relocating St John’s could be around a 4-5 year process before demolition of PHS could even begin, so total time to deliver a new PHS could be 7-8 years.

Holy Rood

Co-locating schools has worked elsewhere. Forresters and St Augustine’s have a shared site, with a combined roll of 1800. However the site is 15.4Ha compared to Holy Rood’s site of 5.3Ha (designed roll of 1200). The Holy Rood site is not remotely big enough for two schools with a combined roll up to 2600. Locating close to Holy Rood on Cavalry Park was looked at back in 2006. Whilst that would provide a site large enough, the land is designated as Greenbelt and a Historic Scotland Designed Landscape, in addition to being Open Space. Planning difficulties would likely be insurmountable. In addition both sites are on the extreme edge of catchment and have poor accessibility and transport links.

Craigmillar

The Council have outline planning permission for a new Craigmillar Community High School and a detailed design was ready to be submitted for full planning when credit crunch stalled the redevelopment of the area. The long term plan is to proceed when the redevelopment of the area can fund the project. The Council is currently going out to consultation on closing Castlebrae due to falling pupils numbers (S1 intake of 21) with many pupils opting for out of catchment schools, including PHS. However, the proposed school is designed for a roll of 600 rising to 900 as the redevelopment of the area takes place. Combining the PHS catchment would require a school of 2000-2300. That would be a huge school. The budget for a 1400 school will not stretch to building a school of 2000 or more, and the process of statutory consultation, design and planning would have to start again from scratch so a 4-5 year delay at minimum is likely. Transport and access would also be a considerable problem with such a large catchment and, most importantly, Portobello High School, a very successful school, would simply cease to exist.

Scottish Power site

At 2.1Ha the Scottish Power site itself is far too small. If the Council were able to purchase the additional properties adjacent, the site are could be brought up to 3.2Ha, again on the small side. Acquiring property at the Standard Life estate could create a large enough site, but Standard Life has indicated in the past they had no intention to sell. The Council’s nearby Baileyfield Depot is due to close, but that is because the lease is running out i.e. the Council don’t own it. The site is on the edge of catchment but has good transport links. The biggest problem with the site is size and ownership, with the costs of acquiring sites and compensating for relocation likely to be prohibitive. If deliverable it would again mean starting a process from scratch, so 4-5 years at minimum.

Bingham Park

This was considered back in 2006. Being on the edge of catchment the location isn’t ideal and access is poor. There’s also a respite centre being built on the old Lismore Primary site which isn’t ideal. A school in this location would effectively take up the whole of Bingham Park so the biggest issue would be planning, and the Planners indicated they weren’t keen on the idea back in 2006. Again the process would start from scratch, so 4-5 years minimum, and there would be a planning risk (although who would object to building a school on a park?)

Freightliner

Same size as the existing site at 2.9Ha so too small, terrible location bounded by bypass and East Coast mainline, appalling access, polluted site, not owned by the Council and nationally designated as a Strategic Rail Site. There is no prospect of locating a school here.

Big W

Slightly smaller than the existing site so too small, poor location and access, not owned by the Council and commercially valuable site so expensive to acquire. If it could be acquired, again the process would start from scratch, so 4-5 years minimum.

Two Schools

Two smaller schools could make smaller sites viable, but there are economies of scale so two smaller schools are more expensive than one big one, and smaller schools don’t take up that much less space. To make the existing PHS site viable you would have to greatly reduce the roll. Not only would that require a hugely divisive and disruptive redrawing of the catchment, but it would fundamentally change the character of the school. The size of PHS at 1400 enables it to deliver a breadth of educational opportunities that a smaller school would struggle to. There is currently no budget allocation sufficient to cover the cost of two schools, pursuing this option would mean starting a process from scratch so 4-5 years minimum, and it is likely to face considerable public opposition which could cause further delay.

[brian]

It is no surprise that so many people choose to monitor the forum from a distance. Commander 114 has taken off his / her blinkers and expressed their personal opinion of a potential solution, only to be ridiculed for it. This behaviour will only serve to deter others from offering what could be potentially constructive suggestions.

[seanie]

Have you any conception of the difficulty and expense involved in building a 3-4 storey building on stilts over the possibly re-aligned East Coast mainline, possibly involving a "conference, research, sport or a visitor centre or something"?

It's not constructive, it's silly.

[Bob Jefferson]

Look at this way. If there really was a viable alternative, do you really imagine that any of us would still be pursuing Portobello Park, given the years of grief, delay, frustration and anger it has caused? The school has to go on the park because it is the only option and if the law has to be changed to allow this then that is exactly what will happen. PPAG have simply delayed the inevitable.

[brian]

I expressed no opinion as to whether Commander 114 had made a constructive suggestion. Only that it was their opinion and that ridiculing suggestions could serve to deter others from posting what could be constructive suggestions.
If there are no viable alternatives, why is there a meeting at the Town Hall on Friday asking for people to give their suggestions " no matter how radical ".

[seanie]

So opinions offered must pass without comment? Even the really silly ones?

Not convinced that will lead to any "possible constructive solutions".

And there are indeed alternatives. I've outlined some above. But there is no easy "keep everyone happy" solution. Trying to provide a replacement PHS on a suitable site, in an affordable way, is genuinely difficult. To pretend otherwise is delusional.

[Porty]

Commanders idea is silly, ridiculous and totally impractical. And I'm entitled to say so If it's all that's on offer I'd be happy for the commander to return to watching from a distance. I want a new school not the ruminations of a fantasist. Apologies if that offends.

[wangi]

Just to recap the 15 sites which were considered in 2006...

And in the report to the Council in Dec 2006 there was further explanation:

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/me ... ary_school

[seanie]

Just to expand.

When the decision on the Park site was taken in Dec '06, that itself was after a period of debate then consultation of over 6 months. From selecting a site, to the point at which a Contractor could be appointed took close to 5 years, with a build and fit out of a wee bit shy of two years expected after that. So it would've taken close to 7 years without any legal challenge.

Now, about 2 years of that were unproductive as they were spent waiting for possible funding options and then going through a prioritisation process. But leaving that aside and assuming there were no funding complications at all, from initiating the process of selecting a new site to opening a new school, following the process that has to be followed, is likely to take 5 years. You may be able to skim some time off that, but it'll be marginal.

That's a major problem.

[Sceptic]

I do not ridicule any idea, I can only point out any shortfalls, as far as I can see.
Other may see other problems.
The Council, whatever their political hue at the time, have been down this route. Portobello has a shortage of open space large enough for a school footprint, the present site will not do as an eight storey tower is not on the plans. That is why Portobello has one, no other school in edinburgh was built in this way. Build upwards so that the school could fit the area available. Towers cost money and any school is built at minimal cost, to the correct standards, but still to a basic cost.
I only know of one school which was part refurbished / part new build under PPI, the Royal High, since then, due to the problems encountered, every new school has been a total new build, either on a neighbouring site or, like Holyrood on another part of the site away from existing buildings.
The existing PHS site does not have enough room for this, nor does it have the room for storage of building materials, equipment and office space needed by architects and site managers. It is for that reason the existing site is a total non starter, unless you are part of PPAG.
All other sites within the school catchment area, apart from the park are either on the periphery of the catchment area or too small in size.
What we are left with is Hobson's Choice. It's the park or it's the park. Common Good land or not, we have no other practical choice.
It would be built for the common good of the people of Portobello, therefore, like it or not, the new school MUST be built there.
If the law does not allow for this to happen, then, in this case, the law must be altered to allow for this to happen. It does not mean that flats will be built over every bit of "common good" land in Scotland, nor Edinburgh.

[fresian]

Commander, I'm not going to rip your proposal to shreds, as such ideas have worked elsewhere ( albeit not through public funding), the main issues I can see, however, relate to the costs which would be involved, maintenance of the structure would be extremely onerous and costly (I have a lot of experience in dealing with Network Rail on this kind of issue). As many have pointed out, anything is possible, but it has to be achievable within the limited budgets available (unless of course it is a world class, iconic, sustainable, half-tramline for an eco-city in the 21st century).

[Franck]

It's getting to the point where some PFANS contributors are doing harm to their own cause imo.A legal route was followed, happily by PFANS on the basis they were confident they would succeed.Suggestions of where to buy discounted champers a day or two prior to the decision kinda reeked of smugness.And whereas I'm no fan of PPAG, I can't recall any similar thing from them in the lead up.

Bizarre and outlandish alternatives may be just that, but they are alternatives,just not ones that fit in with the determined provisional wing of PFANS.It's the park or nothing, but the the people you accepted prior to the ruling have now told you no, so now it's unacceptable and we'll change the law to get what we want.

If I were part of the 'movement', I'd be suggesting piping down a wee bit, let the councillors do their thing, and not contribute to the divisions that are occurring in Porty.

[seanie]

Alternatives have to be feasible otherwise they're not actually alternatives.

One thing that does suggest itself is that additional funding might bring some options more realistically into play, perhaps for site acquisition. Given the financial circumstances that may be difficult, but it's something to consider.

[commander114]

removed

[Porty]

If I were part of the 'movement', I'd be suggesting piping down a wee bit, let the councillors do their thing, and not contribute to the divisions that are occurring in Porty.

And as one of the main protagonists, I am tending to agree with your sentiment.

However, it is difficult when something like Commander introduces himself (?) to the debate with "there are plenty of suitable alternatives". Accompanied by disparaging comments about the regulars here, who have been dissecting the issue for six years. And then asks us if we have any ideas?

When challenged to introduce a suitable alternative, he comes up with a totally undeliverable project. (He seems to think the main problem is building on piles, ffs.) Now Brian and others may think that Commanders idea should result in him being feted as the new PHS contingency plan messiah. I think its a ridiculous idea, rudely presented.

I'm all for thinking "out of the box" but "out of the reality box" - ain't going to get us a new school.

At fridays meeting, radical thinking is being encouraged. This is probably because not every participant is aware of the independent and in-depth analysis that has been conducted TWICE in the last 6 years and they need space to express their ideas, which can then be examined against facts.

There is also the problem of the many people who have fallen for the PPAG line that there are plenty of suitable alternatives. They have yet to name a single one and they have had 7 years to not do so.