New Portobello High School - PPAG win legal appeal

[Snow White]

[seanie]

[Porty]

When was the Jack Kane Centre built? I went to Porty in 1971 (I think) and I can remember being bussed to Meadowbank (which was new and exciting, although you lost loads of class time) and to Cavalry Park but not JKC.

Early 1970s.It's 90 acres.

[seashell]

When was porty the biggest school in Europe?
I know it's oft-quoted, but can't find any sources. And what was the roll at the time?
For reference, GWC was the largest school in Scotland in 1974, with a roll of over 2400 (Guinness Book of Records).

[seanie]

Update from PFANS.

PFANS position statement (2).pdf

(458.81 KiB) Downloaded 849 times

[Sceptic]

Cannot remember exactly when Jack Kane built, posible late 60s. Do remember playing Rugby against Portobello at Hunter's Bog. We changed in Niddrie Mill Primary, crossed the road and walked through the trees to where the pitches were, that was mid 60s. Cavalry Park was not built until early 70s, if my memory serves me correctly.

Portobello peaked at a roll of about 2000,which still used the old Annexe.

[seashell]

in 1974 GWC still used the George Square buildings for the girls. The playing fields were all the way up at Double Hedges Road in LIberton, and although buses were laid on for primary 6 and 7 pupils, senior girls had to make their own way there

[Pal of Porty]

[Sceptic]

Watson's Ladies College was a separate entity then. That is why they did not play games at Myreside. When the pavilion burned down, Liberton FP used the pitches until housing was built on it.

[Porty]

I reckon the school role peaked at 2600 in 74/75. The annexe, in park avenue, accomodated about 650 of those. In 1971, which was my first year., there was 16 classes with at least 32 kids in each class. PHS appeared in the Guinness book as largest in Europe.

[Porty]

[Sceptic]

It was Hunter's something, it might not have been Bog, it was soft enough to be a bog. Anyway, we went over the football pitches, throug the trees and the rugby pitches were there.

[rathbone]

[seashell]

[Porty]

I'm sure its true but I could be out on the year, I remember reading it in the GBoWR. I don't know if those who had to repeat a year or two were counted in the overall total, Scoop?

[Sceptic]

Ah, Rathbone, the fountain of knowledge!

[neilking]

[Epykat]

[Porty]

[seanie]

A comparison between the existing site and the park site.

[seanie]

And if anyone tells you that the proposed school only has one additional all-weather pitch, so it's not a significant improvement, bear in mind the size of the pitch they have at present.

[Doris]

This from Save Porty Park fb page

The option appraisal commissioned by the council in 2006, ruling out most of the alternative sites contained some serious errors and inconsistencies. Prior to the planning application for Portobello Park, msp Kenny MacAskill asked council colleagues to review the process, but they refused to do so.
Our concern is that the appraisal was carried out with a predetermined outcome. The council had alre
ady cleared stated that the plan was to build on Porty Park. They even produced glossy promotional leaflets detailing their plan. The feasibility study was constructed to support that outcome.
Let's hope they don't make the same mistake again. The option appraisal must be open minded, factually accurate and challenging. New and imaginative solutions should be sought. There is no point just rehashing the previous one.

[seanie]

Also bear in mind that the current St John's site, at 0.66 Ha, is less than half the minimum statutory size for a two stream school and nursery (1.4 Ha).

[seanie]

[Porty]

The battle about the desirability of the park is over. It has been for a number of years. The only thing preventing the school being built is a poorly worded law. Which can hopefully be fixed quickly .

[David Robertson]

[regent]

[David Robertson]

[regent]

i mean if the council say that it is not common good will this decision be appealed in some way? It seems having read the articles posted that the council bought the land at a time when it had statutory powers to do so. What seems a bit unclear is whether it used those statutory powers to buy the land or just came to an arrangement to take ownership on a voluntary sale basis with the condition that it was not built on.
Seems to me that lawyers etc will be able to interpret the information in different ways and my concern is that this could all end up in court for many years.

[seanie]

If the status was to be tested, you'd do it in the Inner Court so that there was only one possible further stage of appeal, and that wouldn't be an automatic entitlement. The problem might be less timescales and more uncertainty of outcome. Whether or not the land is Common Good comes down to the circumstance of it's acquisition, so the recent court case should be irrelevant to that. But would the Inner House be able to look at it without the recent ruling influencing them? Not sure how much confidence I'd have in that.

[portygeoff]

Why go through the Common Ground issue, a Bill through Parliament will ensure that the will of the majority of Portobello is carried out. Wasted too much time already.

[David Robertson]

[regent]

Who raises this in the parliament and what is a realistic timescale?

[seanie]

There could be more than one route via Holyrood, but I'm told a Private Bill could take less than 9 months with sufficient support. Of course different avenues aren't mutually exclusive, more than one can be pursued simultaneously.

[regent]

That is quick. Who raises it though?