New Portobello High School - on going issues

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Mar 2010, 16:41

Reminds me I'm going to see Alice in Wonderland tomorrow. Mind you, even Tim Burton would be stretched to come up with anything as fantastic as PPAG's world.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 15 Mar 2010, 22:24

There's no mention or threats of legal action in the PPAG article, wonder why? All 3 of my kids learned to swim in the pool at Porty high before they were anywhere near old enough to attend the school. And I know that this is true for some kids from PPAG families. Now they are claiming the pool is of no community benefit.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 16 Mar 2010, 22:37

Was I the only one not surprised the Green's raised "replacement green space" yet have been very quiet when it comes to identifying the same.
Reminds me of their last amendments.

Let's look at building Portobello High on the site of the vacated Lismore Primary School site - 14 storey's perhaps?

Or does anyone remember the other part of the amendment, the Freightliner site. They stated as VIRIDOR had failed to get their planning application passed that site should be re-investigated. Obviously ignoring the consultation and the fact that everybody knew VIRIDOR would appeal. End result PHS bottom of the phase 3 list and a delay of several years.

Am I paranoid, or is there a mole.

I do not mind an individual or a group holding an opinion, what I object to is stating that opinion. Then running away without offering an alternative.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 18 Mar 2010, 01:21

AATS. You. Come across as a bit of a cynic. As a result of which I'm a wee bit suspicious of your motives.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 19 Mar 2010, 17:57

It is difficult not to be cynical in view of the evidence, but I do try.

Before my next post, I will chill for an hour or so, watching the tide come in on Portobello Beach, listening to the Best of The Carpenters.

Such a feelings coming over me,
There is wonder in most everything I see,
Got the sun in my eyes,
Not a cloud in the sky,
And I won't be surprised if its a dream.

It works for me.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Mar 2010, 13:38

The Carpenters also worked for the suicidal dog who featured on POL a few years ago.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Apr 2010, 14:29

From the March PCC minutes- realting to the reports from our elected reps.

" 277.11j Councillors:

Stephen Hawkins ............... also said
that the City Council had reneged on the promise to provide replacement public space should the new High
School be built on public park land, and had asked the Neighbourhood Partnership to identify some, even
though the City Council could not."

Stephen Hawkins is a Lib Dem Councillor. His party recently proposed that compensation should take the form of improving existing open space rather than the creation of new. The proposal was voted for by 93% of councillors. It is not that the Council cannot identify new open space, the democratic process dictates that they don't even have to try. God knows what the NP are goiong to do with any space they identify?

It is a wild goose chase.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Apr 2010, 17:28

I'm pleased to announce that Portobello Online finally has it's Planning section working properly again.

And new this week? Nothing too controversial, just the erection of a new school:

http://porty.org.uk/planning/

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 May 2010, 15:11

Students of the School debate will recall the very first meeting in 2006, where PPAG hijacked the Golfers meeting, which took place in the school hall at PHS. Portyman and others leafleted their neighbours in the Park Avenue area. Apparently there was a good turnout by a lot of people who were disappointed to discover that theu had been duped into turning up to a preliminary meeting and none of the information promised on the leaflets was forthcoming. Well....... times have moved on an we are about to enter the pre-planning process and there are many meetings scheduled over a 16 week period, the first of which is this coming Monday at Towerbank.

The meeting is for Stakeholders in the School in the Park planning application and it is only fair that PPAG are invited to attend. The meetings are open to the public as oppsed to being FOR the general public. Here's how PPAG are portraying the meeting on their website:

PPAG wrote:
"That time has now arrived BUT THE COUNCIL IS NOW TRYING TO LIMIT YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS.

The first two consultation events are as follows:

Monday 10 May - a stakeholders’ meeting - that’s you - 7.00 - 8.30 pm in Towerbank Primary School

Tuesday 18 May - a joint Neighbourhood Partnership meeting between Portobello /Craigmillar and Craigentinny /Duddingston. The Council wants this meeting to be about the design of the school rather than the planning issues such as loss of open space and increased traffic that affect you so come along and make your opinion known. Time: 6.30 pm. Venue: Towerbank Primary school "

BOTH THESE MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND IT IS IMPORTANT THAT AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE ATTEND THEM TO RAISE THE PLANNING CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL."

It will be interesting to see the results of this rallying call. How many PPAG supporters willl show up? What, if any, will the relevance of their questions be? How long will it take then to absorb that the onsultation is about a planning application for a school on Portobello Park .......and nothing else.

The pre-application process willl last for 16 weeks and I believe most of the meetings are open to the public. Despite this PPAG clainm the council are "TRYING TO LIMIT YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS".

Doesn't seem right does it?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 May 2010, 00:32

No. Not at all.

There are lots of details to be confirmed regarding the consultation but from looking at the outline it's pretty extensive. There should be more than ample opportunity to comment for those that wish to do so.

By arranging a wide number of consultation events, over a wide area, there's at least the chance of geting feedback from a genuine cross-section of people. An accurate reflection of what the community thinks is surely essential, but the difficulty in establishing that is obvious. The meeting on Monday is evidence enough;

It's a 'key stakeholder' meeting whereby numerous interested parties are invited to send a representative to be informed of and discuss the impending process. What do PPAG do? Tell their supporters that it's a meeting for them to "make your opinion known".

But it's not. That will come later.

And of course the meeting isn't being pushed as 'public' in any meaningful sense of the term. I don't see flyers or posters from PPAG telling everyone they should attend this meeting; just their supporters. Telling supporters to turn up en-masse to what isn't actually a public consultation event doesn't just display a disregard for the process.

They're seeking to express their opinons not alongside others, but to the exclusion of others.

All in all it displays an utter contempt for the views of the community at large.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 08 May 2010, 22:31

They've come up with a brilliant idea though. Let's just not make enough car parking spaces for the amount of staff wanting to use the car park despite there being ample room. Let's just have them parking on the street or persuade them to use a bike instead.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 May 2010, 00:39

Have they?

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 10 May 2010, 10:27

Epykat wrote:They've come up with a brilliant idea though. Let's just not make enough car parking spaces for the amount of staff wanting to use the car park despite there being ample room. Let's just have them parking on the street or persuade them to use a bike instead.

That is similar to what they did at QMU. in Musselburgh.
The rational - so they can boast of being "a green campus". The result - they push the carbon footprint onto the surrounding area. People do *not* stop using their cars because there is no onsight parking. And the resulting congestion in residential areas meant the council had to impose a "residents only" parking scheme, that cost thousands to implement. A totla mess - albeit an expensive one.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 May 2010, 12:09

Parking is a problem. Personally, I would rather the surrounding streets took the strain for 40 weeks of the year, than sacrifice green space that could be used by the public and the school community. Is it too much to hope for a PFANS/PPAG coalition to petition for on-street parking in Park Avenue and the vicinity?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 May 2010, 12:55

Porty wrote: Is it too much to hope for a PFANS/PPAG coalition to petition for on-street parking in Park Avenue and the vicinity?

I reckon that's as likely as a Con/Lab coalition.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 May 2010, 13:02

I'd be prepared to broker the deal.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 11 May 2010, 14:12

Going back to the original point on the latest PPAG gaffe.

There has been a consultation. There have been public meetings. There is a consultation underway where all the stakeholders identified should have an opportunity to have an input.

Sadly PPAG are intent on employing bully boy tactics. Gate crashing meetings again. All that will result in is the same voices being heard over and over again as their vociferous opposition will retaliate, while many who may have a valid point to raise will be turned off and walk away thus devaluing the process.

Whatever PPAG say or do their actions will be transparent to the design team and the CoEC. Quite simply, it won't work. Personally I am delighted as it shows their passions override their thought processes.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 18 May 2010, 22:41

I must confess that I had been looking to this pre-planning consultation with a bit of a sinking feeling.

But now that it's underway I'm beginning to find it quite entertaining.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 19 May 2010, 12:07

First up on the night was most certainly entertaining. When he came up with his board with a plan of the park and his little models of the outline for the school and pitches I nearly took a fit of the giggles.

Big idea, align the pitches down one side (in front of the Christians), put the parking next to the road at the bottom (next to the Christians) and move the school to the bottom corner of the golf course (next to the Christians) thereby redisigning the whole golf course and moving all aspects of the school as far away from the top of Park Ave. as possible.

He may have had good intentions but must have known you can't overturn consultations thereby going round in circles.

Back to 2006?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 May 2010, 16:29

allaboardtheskylark wrote:
Big idea, align the pitches down one side (in front of the Christians), put the parking next to the road at the bottom (next to the Christians) and move the school to the bottom corner of the golf course (next to the Christians) thereby redisigning the whole golf course and moving all aspects of the school as far away from the top of Park Ave. as possible.

So there we have it. Now I understand why PPAG were still telling people the new school will encroach on the golf course............they had an architect come up with a plan to put it there.!!!! Is there no level they wont stoop to to keep the school away from Park Avenue.

The audacity of sending an architect along to do a counter presentation for his own £41.5M school project is staggering. When the issue on the table was to duscuus the desiign of the school on the park , how did he set the scene for his presentation?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 19 May 2010, 17:44

PPAG have been keen on building on Figgate Park, Bingham, The Jewel and Cavarly Park and campaigning to save the Golf Course. Now that the school is going to be built on Portobello Park - their final act of NIMBYism is to put it as far away as possible and totally reconfigure the Golf Course. Can they possibly stoop any longer than this?

How pleasing to know that it is death throes of a dying body.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 19 May 2010, 21:44

This was a newbie resident to Park Ave. who seemed like a nice guy, but obviously had no grasp of irony. Perhaps he was poorly informed by his neighbours.

The worry about this meeting was always going to be the subject returning to which site, traffic parking, anything to stop the school on the park. Not the most pleasant of nights overall. But it was obvious not all the local residents were there.

It has to be said though, the designs looked fantastic and all bar one of the top table seemed impressed. The officials stated the planning application will be lodged in September. You could feel the quiver of indignation

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 May 2010, 11:22

allaboardtheskylark wrote:This was a newbie resident to Park Ave. who seemed like a nice guy, but obviously had no grasp of irony. Perhaps he was poorly informed by his neighbours.

At least his neighbours didn't use face make up to make his smile look huge, kit him out with a red nose, straggly orange wig, polka dot suit and long curly shoes. Well I'm assuming they didn't, did they?

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 21 May 2010, 01:38

Perhaps they could have used a magician.

Set the scene.

The map appears in a flash of smoke.

The outline of the pitches realigned, untouched by hand, down the east side of the park.

As if by magic the parking area's move to the South of the Park.

The outline of the school is gone, but wait, there it is in the far corner of.. you guessed it.... the Golf Course.

Then a squeaky little voice at the back shouts, but where do you stay?

Drum Roll, clash of cymbols. A house lights up, furthest away corner from the school.

One side of the hall cheers and the other rolls about in hysterics.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 May 2010, 12:22

allaboardtheskylark wrote: The map appears in a flash of smoke.
.

Magic; did he say, in a quivery voice "I've been sent to you by the majority of the community and arrive straight from our own independent consultation"

"Tonight, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am going to make a few holes disappear but never fear; once they are gone they are not gpne forever. The displaced golfers will get their holes."

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 May 2010, 21:06

The whole thing is just hilarious. You couldn't make it up.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 May 2010, 12:59

[admin: deleted] [PPAG could] now claim they attended a recent meeting of the Neighbourhood Partnership, where they watched a presentation from an architect of a school on the golf course- its true!! They wouldn’t need to mention that it was their own tame architect who had no remit whatsoever.

Would they do that? Well yes, they have deployed similat tactics in the past. I recall attending a meeting of PHS parent council, Alison Connelly also attended as part of a delegation from St John’s parent council, who had been invited along as a gesture of inclusiveness and courtesy.

We learned that a firm of architects, who had not been appointed by the council or anyone else for that matter, had invited the chair of the PHS parent council to a presentation of how a Scholl may be laid out on the Park/Golf Course. He informed us that there were 4 options. They were touting for business, no more and no less. Next thing you know. Right here on Talk Porty, Dave Connelly tells ud has been talking to "someone" who has reliably informed him that St John’s have been excluded from seeing detailed plans of the new PHS !!

So St John's parent council were offered the courtesy of attending and then deliberately excluded from learing about plans that didn't exist- doesn't seem right, does it?

This was about 4 years ago and only now are we about to see the proposed plans for the new school.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 24 May 2010, 17:44

From the EN Letters Page:

Durability of private school buildings must be a lesson

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 May 2010, 15:20

Babs Tulloch has produced the daftest school related letter since the Sheilds' contribution on a school in the sea. Does she genuienly believe that private schools do not invest in new buildings because the old ones are so wonderfully fit for purpose?

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 26 May 2010, 17:26

I can't really understand the point of this letter. It's just having a rant for the sake of it.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 26 May 2010, 20:42

She must have missed the shuffling around St Margarets has done over the past decade or so

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 May 2010, 22:18

Good point SD and there's plenty of other examples. I'd wager that many private and public shools that are housed in Victorian era buildings would happily trade some durability for more flexibility.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 May 2010, 06:19

And they spend a small fortune keeping their original building up to scratch because a) they can afford to and b) they are listed buildings so they don't have the option of knocking them down in any case.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 May 2010, 11:43

I suppose it is very encouraging to see a letter from a resident of Duddingston Park that is concerned with the quality of school buildings, as opposed to just raking over the ashes of the park debate. Well done ms Tulloch.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 May 2010, 12:07

A reminder to parents of PHS pupils and feeder primaries of Monday evening's meeting at Portobello High School. Starts at 7 pm.

There will be a presentation by the architects... and this will be followed by an opportunity to ask questions.

Also planned:

The consultation events that have been confirmed are listed below and attached. Additional 'road shows' & 'street events' are intended and when confirmed details should go up on the following website.

www.edinburgh.gov.uk/newportobelloschool

Public Meeting

A public meeting at the Town Hall has been confirmed for Wednesday 9th June, 7:30-9:30pm.

Consultation Events

Tuesday 8 June - Portobello Town Hall (12.30pm - 6.30pm)

Wednesday 9 June - Portobello Town Hall (10.15am - 1.15pm)

Thursday 10 June - Royal High Primary School (Open to the Public 4pm - 6pm)

Monday 14 June - Towerbank Primary School (Open to the Public 4pm - 6pm)

Tuesday 15 June - Duddingston Primary School (Open to the Public 4pm - 6pm)

Wednesday 16 June - Brunstane Primary School (Open to the Public 4pm - 6pm)

Friday 18 June - Parson's Green Primary School (Open to the Public 1pm - 4pm)

Exhibitions

Portobello Library 7 June - 27 June

Piershill Library 7 June - 27 June

Hope as many of you as possible will get along to show your support for the new school.