New Portobello High School - PPAG win legal appeal

[wangi]

I can ensure you the cost effectiveness will firmly stack up in favour of a new build.

The current PHS is not listed.

[Makaveli]

[seanie]

If anyone genuinely thinks the PHS should be listed, then really, they're beyond help.

[portygeoff]

[portygeoff]

[seanie]

The design was driven by the constraints of the site. A 9 storey tower isn't really suitable for a school, and add into that the fact that buildings of the 60's haven't generally aged well, and you're looking at an unappealing option.

Spends huge sums of money, not far of a new build, plus the disruption of an extended decant, to end up with a building that is still essentially poor. It really is the option of last resort.

[Epykat]

[seanie]

That would depend where the new build was, wouldn't it.

[Epykat]

[seanie]

Please give the the park it's proper title, as acknowledged from at least 1900.

[Betty Windsor]

I wonder what a new build can provide that a refurb can't. The current building can certainly accommodate 1400 + pupils. I don't understand why there is more concern over the area that the school sits on than the actual floor space. This could look really amazing if the right people were brought in to do the job.
And sorry Seanie, for some of us, Portobello Park will always be the Golfie. We've been calling it that for generations and most of us only realised in the last few years that that was not its real name.

[rathbone]

[Sceptic]

Why a refurbishment simply will not do.

1) building is now the best part of 50 years old. It's structure, although I have not seen an engineer's report would, probably, conclud that demolishing the tower is badly needed. The flats build in the same era were demolished, mainly for the same reason.

2) it was not built with 1400 children in mind, if I remember correctly, it was built for about 2/3 that number.

3) standards for classrooms has moved on in 50 years, teachers do not do "chalk and talk" any more. Modern teaching needs modern teaching aids.

4) Cost effectiveness, apart from 1 school, every school under PPI has been a newbuild, if it were cheaper and more efficient, schools would have been refurbished, the people who are behind the PPI schools are no fools, they do it for minimum cost and maximum income and gain.

5) Health and Safety, it is easier and safer to build when not surrounded by masses of children on the site.

By the way a 1960 /70 s car fares worse off in a collision, mainly due to safety features on 21st century cars, it has nothing to do with maintainance or anything, just it's now better by design.

[gillian]

[seanie]

[rathbone]

I stand corrected and am grateful for the information. I was basing my comment on the school newsletter of last November and comments made to me by a friend whose son goes to the school. I have now fully appraised myself of the Fountainbridge option.

I’m not personally advocating refurbishing the existing tower, but it is an option worth exploring. (I do get irritated by things being dismissed with sweeping statements without evidence being cited to back them up.): It’s refreshing to have some points on which we can have a proper debate

1)Most tower blocks were demolished for two reasons: social stigma and housing stock transfer schemes, not structural problems. Most people did not like living in tower blocks and when housing stock transfers were taking place the partners wouldn't take them on because of high maintenance costs.

2)At the time it was designed for 1,000. (I subsequently worked for Bamber Hall, the architects who designed it and got that figure from Jim Laidlaw, the guy who actually did the designing.)

3)Modern teaching does indeed need modern teaching aids. That is not inherently relevant to new build vs. refurbishment.

4)It isn’t true that most schools under PFI have been new build. The National Audit Office report ‘Renewing The Secondary School Estate’ published in 2009 found that it was exactly 50/50. In studying the actual costs they found that the average cost/pupil was £8,028 for new build and £3,660 for refurbishment.

A similar report into the NHS found similar. A hospital scheme in Coventry was reverse-engineered by health chiefs to attract private capital. The city’s two hospitals were to have been renovated by the public sector for £30m. Instead they were demolished and one was rebuilt for £410m In most PFI schemes the return to the private sector partner is a percentage directly linked to the cost of the scheme. The reason for them preferring new build is because they cost more, not less.

5)I will concede that the health and safety issues associated with school refurbishment are different with people in situ.

[Epykat]

I just find it interesting that - the PPAG opposers posting here at least - are so closed to any other proposals. Most of the people on here who have tried to find a solution to your problem (and ultimately it is your problem because I know for a fact that several people on here have no vested interest at all) have been dismissed forthwith because they're not suggesting building on the golfie.

Now, we all know that you want the golfie site but, let's be realistic. There is a very real possibility that this is not going to happen. It has to be said that some people were incredibly confident, smug even, suggesting parties on the site, half price champagne, a welcome committee for the diggers - but it didn't happen and if it does ever happen it will take several years now.

If you really, truly want anything to happen you're going to have to open your mind to an alternative because otherwise the only people letting down your children is you. To not have a Plan B is naive and unrealistic and constantly ridiculing people and attempting to make them sound ignorant and selfish isn't really going to get anybody anywhere.

Should the latest ruling be upheld you're not getting on the green site, so your only options are to rebuild on site or refurb - both of which will require a decant - one having less of a decant than the other. You can take the p**s out of that idea if you like but it could be an option, and you may not have all that many of them.

[seanie]

I think we have to be open to other possibilities, but I think the reality is there aren't many that are viable. additional funding might make a difference but the scope for that may be pretty limited.

[Porty]

[commander114]

deleted

[AndyB]

Can't say I've read back through all the recent pages but has anyone mentioned that the park may actually not be on Common Good ground. Would this not leave the latest judgment somewhat in doubt? What are the avenues for taking this forward as building on the park is only merely delayed by the latest judgement.
http://www.andywightman.com/?cat=7
As Bob said the insincerity of PPAG's offer to 'work together' to find a solution is staggering and makes me chuckle.

[Sceptic]

It is amazing that some people can come up with design that, according to them, solves all the problems. However, have they conducted tests as to suitability of their design? Will the lower strata of soil / rock support such a structure, access for vehicles, during and after construction, access by pupils, whether they are part of the school run, or by public transport, impact on surrounding areas? There are so many tests that need to be done before you even turn over the first sod.

Rathbone, as an architect, am I being unreasonable in asking these questions?

Has anyone asked what happens to staff and pupils with disabilities in the present school? Do they go up in a lift? What happens during a fire alarm? Are they evacuated by evac chair down eight floors, or are they kept at low level, which may be contrary to equal opportunities legislation. Would the school employ a member of staff who is confined to a wheelchair? If not, why not? If it is down to safety concerns, then the point is made, CEC is in breach of equal opportunities legislation. So to those who say the tower is fine, ask yourself these questions.

[rathbone]

[seanie]

A pre-fab modular school on stilts above Figgate Park?

[Makaveli]

I can't speak for Porty (the person not the place) but I am sure he is, as the rest of us are, frustrated at this 'plan B' approach that certain folk are taking. As others have said it is a smoke and mirrors tactic trying to put people off track from the real issue which is to get the school built where it should be built - the only place in catchment it can be built correctly and that is on a section of Portobello Park.

So please no more about schools on stilts, or schools offshore, or schools being built on Figgate Park.

[Underscore]

Porty is going to end up a one horse town pretty soon. If people dont understand that having a decent school in the area is vital to the success of the "village" then we really have no hope. If you move the school further away people will move with it. I know 3 friends already who are selling up and moving into town to find a decent school. The whole thing is a disgrace and i pity some people and there petty attitudes to life.

[rathbone]

[seanie]

Porty High is a decent school, in fact it's a very good one. But the accommodation is sub-standard and deteriorating. If you're going to spend 10's of millions on a new school for the community, serving the next few generations, then it's worth trying to get it right.

[Makaveli]

Or any serious discussion on what happens if all attempts to get the school on the park fail?

Fixed that for you

[seanie]

[Epykat]

[seanie]

Don't know if that's a productive avenue but the point is sound. The question of whether the land is or isn't Common Good has never actually been determined by the courts. So there is still a question mark there, although it may be a small one.

[Epykat]

[Epykat]

[seanie]

Well I'm aware of a number of possible ways that the school could still be built, via legal or legislative routes, so building on the Park is certainly still possible. What I don't yet know is how deliverable these alternative processes are; timescale, cost, risk etc. At the moment my priority is exploring these, because the Park is still the best site and the alternatives are poor. If none of the ways of getting the school on the Park are promising then I'll re-evaluate.