New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 10:07

For me, it boils down to the fundamental objectives of each group.

On the one hand, PFANS recognises the urgent requirement for replacement schools and wants them to be built to the highest possible standard without further delay on a site that at least meets the minimum requirements and includes on-site playing fields.

On the other hand PPAG want to protect Portobello Park and Golf Course. In doing so they are prepared to block the only real option for a replacement PHS in the knowledge that the only other alternative is officially too small.

I would argue that PPAG has by its actions demonstrated that it has no interest whatsoever in replacing the schools and its tactics are deliberately intended to delay the whole process for as long as possible.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 10:40

As Porty observes (what happened to Stephen McIntyre btw?), things have moved on.

There is a good deal of cynicism about the way the question of funding has been separated from that of site selection but there is, elections aside, some logic to this as Seanie, I think, pointed out. Wherever you build your schools, they still have to be funded somehow. Theoretically, you could end up with a replacement PHS on its current site and still end up with housing on the Golf Course to pay for it. I guess you could call that the lose/lose outcome.

So let's decide on the best site(s) and then we can argue about the method of funding.

The prospect of part-funding by the Scottish Exec is, I believe, a real one. No-one wants housing on the Golf Course or Portobello Park, although admittedly PFANS was prepared to accept the minimum necessary when it appeared to be the only deal in town. If PPAG's efforts have helped to avoid that scenario and put pressure on the Council to seek funding from the Exec then we should all be grateful.

This is where I believe there is common ground between PFANS and many PPAG supporters and the best chance we have of securing Exec funding and avoiding housing on the park is to campaign together on this issue.

But to imagine that the Exec will fund the whole deal, that we can have our cake and eat it too, is naive and unrealistic. By selling off the existing combined site we will raise around Â£12 million and that would be the community's contribution.

By selling off the site you have lost one of the possible replacement sites for PHS but as it was officially too small anyway, that's no great loss. Now you have to build PHS on Portobello Park. St Johns? Well, I would argue that it would be best placed next to PHS on the SW corner of the Golf Course but there are other options, so let's explore them and see what the parents want.

So now you have saved the Golf Course or at least most of it (if you decide to put St Johns there as well). You could re-configure what remains and make it a 7-hole course I suppose, but better still you could re-locate it as per the Council's original suggestion. By doing so, you are now left with a sizeable bit of land that would make a wonderful new park/woodland area, designed by and for the community.

All of this is perfectly possible. We just need to face up to the facts and campaign together to make it happen.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 21 Sep 2006, 11:01

Porty wrote:....And I'm certain that the council brief didn't inclued things like: Site 14: Make up a flood risk.

Here is actually what the report said about Site 14:

o) Site 14 Relocate St. John's Primary School to Figgate Park

This park is situated to the rear of the existing school site. It has a large pond as a central feature and the Figgate Burn runs its length. There are obvious issues with flooding and to create a sufficient zone of site in one area, there would have to be some degree of drainage and clearing of mature planting. The pond area itself would not offer suitable ground conditions for a building if drained. The removal of this green asset would be a loss to the local community. This site is oddly shaped and although it has a large overall site area there is insufficient suitable land in one location to build a school, whether it be due to ground conditions, prominence or accessibility.

CONCLUSION: Site 14 is not suitable for the relocation of St. John's Primary School and it will not progress to level 2 Analysis.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Sep 2006, 11:03

Bob,

At the executive Roy Jobson explained why the only funding option mentioned in the report was asking the Scottish Executive. The strategy is to get a location sorted out, that the community broadly supports and then go with a package to request funding. You must watch Dragon's Den? You have to have a carefully thought out concept and a a working model before you can make a case for financial support. You can't turn up at the SE and say we want to build two new schools in Portobello, we don't know where, we dont know what size and we don't have any demonstrable support for our case. Can we have some cash please?

He stated that his department have been very successful at securing funding from the executive in the pas and that he was quite confident. PPAg and many others think the SE should stump up the lot but are simultaneously berating the council for asking. like many of their positions its contradictory, illogical and unreasonable.

I believe you are quite correct when you say that no-one wants housing on the Park or the Golf Course but there are still many people who will accept housing to get the schools they desire and that the children deserve. I belive that many would love to start campaigning for no housing but this is a chicken and egg situation.

.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 11:09

Bob Jefferson wrote:So now you have saved the Golf Course or at least most of it (if you decide to put St Johns there as well). You could re-configure what remains and make it a 7-hole course I suppose, but better still you could re-locate it as per the Council's original suggestion. By doing so, you are now left with a sizeable bit of land that would make a wonderful new park/woodland area, designed by and for the community.

Admittedly, this would involve PPAG having to make a bit of a U-turn but, let's face it, saving the Golf Course was about saving that green space from the developers first and foremost. Portobello Golf Club members were simply useful allies, along with the dog owners, 'ramblers', kite-flyers etc.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 11:14

Porty wrote:You must watch Dragon's Den?

Erm, no, but what you say makes perfect sense.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Sep 2006, 11:16

Bob Jefferson wrote: Portobello Golf Club members were simply useful allies, along with the dog owners, 'ramblers', kite-flyers etc.

At the risk of being inflammatoiry the golfers appear to be giving up. There have been no letters in the evening news from them recently, there was no deputation at the council . I have it on good authority that there was not even a handful of golfers who supported the Party in the Park.

(Although there may have been a smal number of very local residents who double as golfers.) Are there photographs on the PPAG gallery?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 13:15

From today's EN:

City chiefs 'running scared' as they announce schools delay

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 13:18

From today's EN Letters Page:

Say how schools will be paid for

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 21 Sep 2006, 15:07

Porty wrote:who is we?

Me and the other general public, those for and those against, I could go on but wont.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 21 Sep 2006, 15:15

Porty wrote:
...Roy Jobson told us that he had two good departments with good people and he had a report from independent consultants. All of those groups told him that Figgate Park was a flood risk and he said that "when these people tell me its a flood risk, I believe them. "

He as you are entitled to believe what you want. I dont believe them, thats my choice.

Porty wrote: Roy was basically saying "don't call us liars". All I'm saying is that is no way to do business. Councillors read this forum and they know you are a mover within PPAG and it does your cause no good to go into writing saying that you mistrust the whole council.

A mover, gosh! As regards doing our cause no good, Stephen you are the PPAG secret weapon

Porty wrote: Don't get me wrong, I am quite happy for you and PPAG to keep on digging. Although my PERSONAL preference would be to work together honestly and towards a mutually agreed goal

I would also like to work together, however I could never agree to allowing the council to build on Portobello, (or Figgate for that matter) park and that is where we differ.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 21 Sep 2006, 15:25

"give a little green" .....

.....and a little fairway and a little rough.....

.......ach......lets just say all nine holes.........

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Sep 2006, 15:42

Dave Connelly wrote:
Porty wrote:
...Roy Jobson told us that he had two good departments with good people and he had a report from independent consultants. All of those groups told him that Figgate Park was a flood risk and he said that "when these people tell me its a flood risk, I believe them. "
He as you are entitled to believe what you want. I dont believe them, thats my choice. .

It certainly is. So,if you don't believe them, why keep asking for more information?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Sep 2006, 16:14

Dave Connelly wrote:
I would also like to work together, however I could never agree to allowing the council to build on Portobello, (or Figgate for that matter) park and that is where we differ.

Well to be honest, I think you and I are a lost cause, I was hoping the people occupying the middle ground might sort it out.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 16:18

Porty wrote:
Dave Connelly wrote:
I would also like to work together, however I could never agree to allowing the council to build on Portobello, (or Figgate for that matter) park and that is where we differ.
Well to be honest, I think you and I are a lost cause, I was hoping the people occupying the middle ground might sort it out.

Now that was funny.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 21 Sep 2006, 16:21

bbbrown wrote:"give a little green" .....

.....and a little fairway and a little rough.....

Nice one bb - I like that.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Sep 2006, 16:22

bbbrown wrote:"give a little green" .....

.....and a little fairway and a little rough.....

.......ach......lets just say all nine holes.........

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Sep 2006, 16:25

Pal of Porty wrote:
bbbrown wrote:"give a little green" .....

.....and a little fairway and a little rough.....

Nice one bb - I like that.

That was pretty good. bbb is normnally away wi the birdies.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 16:27

You see, isn't it nice when we all get along.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Sep 2006, 16:36

Did I tell you I met Portyman a few weeks ago? Had a decent chat with him, unfortunately he was in the quiz winning team and I was the quizmaster. Understandably, there were no accusations of favouritism .

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 21 Sep 2006, 19:00

Porty wrote:Beautifully put.

Thatâ€™s twice you have said that now

Porty wrote: Much better than my "Save Our Park..Lets build on Yours" but maybe not in alocal context.

That was your slant on the whole issue.

Porty wrote: Dada you make very valid points and I don't take issue with anything you say.

Thatâ€™s a first

Porty wrote: In my personal opinion PFANS need to re-visit their position

You have clearly distanced your self from PFANS, which is a shame, you were doing so well for PPAG.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 21 Sep 2006, 19:02

Porty wrote: It certainly is. So,if you don't believe them, why keep asking for more information?

Information is power.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 21 Sep 2006, 19:03

Porty wrote:
Dave Connelly wrote:
I would also like to work together, however I could never agree to allowing the council to build on Portobello, (or Figgate for that matter) park and that is where we differ.
Well to be honest, I think you and I are a lost cause, I was hoping the people occupying the middle ground might sort it out.

I think you are correct on that one Stephen

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 21 Sep 2006, 19:44

Dave Connelly wrote:
Porty wrote:
Dave Connelly wrote:
I would also like to work together, however I could never agree to allowing the council to build on Portobello, (or Figgate for that matter) park and that is where we differ.
Well to be honest, I think you and I are a lost cause, I was hoping the people occupying the middle ground might sort it out.
I think you are correct on that one Stephen

It might not surprise you but I'm not sure about this "third way" talk. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the nuts and bolts of it now that PFANS want PHS to be built on golf course/park and PPAG don't?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 20:31

Gilo, I think that PPAG supporters are a bit of a mixed bunch. Sure they have lots of signatories to their petition but I'm not sure that they all support the same cause.

A lot of people signed it because they believed that there were alternative sites for the schools. They were being told that PHS wasn't that bad, that it just needed a refurbishment. They were told that the land had been gifted to the community by a benefactor who would be turning in his grave. They thought they were saving green space. They thought they were losing their football pitches.

I believe that many of these people will accept a new school or schools on the park as long as there is no housing on the park as well. There may be no middle ground with the PPAG hardliners, who will not countenance any development of the park even if that means that no new schools are built, but there are plenty who will see this as a reasonable compromise.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 21 Sep 2006, 21:21

Gilo wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the nuts and bolts of it now that PFANS want PHS to be built on golf course/park and PPAG don't?

That is exactly right, you are correct

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 21:32

Dave, you have asked others to state where they think the schools should go and I have certainly been happy to offer my solution.

What is your solution? I'm assuming that you think that PHS could be re-built on the combined PHS/St Johns site? Where does that leave St Johns?

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 21 Sep 2006, 21:48

Bob Jefferson wrote: There may be no middle ground with the PPAG hardliners, who will not countenance any development of the park even if that means that no new schools are built, but there are plenty who will see this as a reasonable compromise.

Isn't it the 'hardliners' that dictate the direction of this orgnisation? Maybe the sympathisers should rise up, storm Dave and Alison's house, along with other high ranking officials and seize the means of production, well Dave's computer and password to website anyway. Then they could back PHS in the park, safe in the knowledge that it's the only realistic option.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 21 Sep 2006, 21:50

Bob Jefferson wrote:Gilo, I think that PPAG supporters are a bit of a mixed bunch. Sure they have lots of signatories to their petition but I'm not sure that they all support the same cause.

The signatories read and signed the petition which has remained the same since day 1. I'm sure Gilo has read it and possibly signed it

There are almost 600 online and I believe about 2000 on paper. (Dont know the exact figure)

Whereas the Pfans petition has changed as have their goals. This isn't a slight on Pfans, there's nothing wrong with changing goals according to the changing environment. Emphasis on environment.

The petitions in the library though should have been checked.

its worthy of note that some supporters of Pfans have now signed the PPAG petition.

Bob would have everyone believe that some of the supporters of the petition are campaigning to have the schools built on the Figgate Park, thats not true, The Figgate was suggested as one of the alternatives but only if the amount of green space was replaced in the same street. That is a matter of public record.

Bob Jefferson wrote: A lot of people signed it because they believed that there were alternative sites for the schools.

That is correct there are alternatives, thanks for pointing that out again Bob.

Bob Jefferson wrote: They were being told that PHS wasn't that bad, that it just needed a refurbishment.

Correct again as the council pointed out at the last deputation, there are schools, (Boroughmuir in particular) which are in more need than Porty.

Bob Jefferson wrote: They were told that the land had been gifted to the community by a benefactor who would be turning in his grave.

Probably did turn in his grave

Bob Jefferson wrote: They thought they were saving green space. They thought they were losing their football pitches.

True again, thanks Bob, whose side are you really on

Bob Jefferson wrote: I believe that many of these people will accept a new school or schools on the park as long as there is no housing on the park as well.

One or two, I believe, not many and definately not me. I dont think thats "hardline", its just common sense to protect the environment by preserving green space. As opposed to Pfans new Give a little green campaign which clearly advocates giving away green space. I think Pfans will lose a lot of goodwill with that one.

Bob Jefferson wrote: There may be no middle ground with the PPAG hardliners, who will not countenance any development of the park even if that means that no new schools are built,

That's not going to happen Bob and you know it. The council are statutorily bound to provide new schools, they appear to be just trying to do it on the cheap by selling off public land to make cash through housing.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 21 Sep 2006, 21:52

Further to that, If the "FUNDING" is secured, as Roy Jobson indicated that it might be, through PPP or other means then the twelve million you mentioned as Portobello's contribution is irrelevant. Wouldn't you agree?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 21:56

Sorry, but I can't be bothered with all that point by point stuff. Will you tell us what your solution is?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 21:58

Gilo wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote: There may be no middle ground with the PPAG hardliners, who will not countenance any development of the park even if that means that no new schools are built, but there are plenty who will see this as a reasonable compromise.
Isn't it the 'hardliners' that dictate the direction of this orgnisation? Maybe the sympathisers should rise up, storm Dave and Alison's house, along with other high ranking officials and seize the means of production, well Dave's computer and password to website anyway. Then they could back PHS in the park, safe in the knowledge that it's the only realistic option.

Gilo, sometimes I wonder if you are taking all this seriously? You didn't sign their petition, did you?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 22:01

Dave Connelly wrote:its worthy of note that some supporters of Pfans have now signed the PPAG petition.

OK, I can't resist that one. Name them.

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 21 Sep 2006, 22:07

Gilo wrote: Isn't it the 'hardliners' that dictate the direction of this orgnisation? Maybe the sympathisers should rise up, storm Dave and Alison's house, along with other high ranking officials and seize the means of production, well Dave's computer and password to website anyway. Then they could back PHS in the park, safe in the knowledge that it's the only realistic option.

Batten Down the hatches Mr and Mrs C, they are just a few minutes away

"Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from the otherâ€

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Sep 2006, 22:32

Dave Connelly wrote:. Bob would have everyone believe that some of the supporters of the petition are campaigning to have the schools built on the Figgate Park, thats not true,

Bob has no part to play in this. Its the head honcho of PPAg that's calling the shots.

Ros Sutherland Chairperson of PPAG wrote:.
What we have suggested is that a flat, featureless area of Figgate Park at the end of Hamilton Terrace could be considered for the rebuild St John's.

Ros goes on to say:

Ros Sutherland Chairperson of PPAG wrote:.The green space used would be completely reinstated on the vacated St John's site as open playing fields or a park area.

The key point here is that no green space would be lost either in the local neighbourhood or to the community in general.

Dave talk us through "complete reinstatement".