New Portobello High School - on going issues

by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Oct 2007, 19:37

Opinion piece in today's EN:

by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Oct 2007, 20:40

by **mr magnolia** » 03 Oct 2007, 12:10

Perhaps someone with a better memory than me could refresh us as to what the funding gap for Portobello High was seen as being?

I'd like to be hammering peoples letter boxes with a potentially achievable sum of money attached to my particular complaint, as I'm sure that there will be lots of factors effecting the other schools that perhaps don't effect Porty High.

ta

by **Maria** » 03 Oct 2007, 17:30

by **mr magnolia** » 03 Oct 2007, 17:57

by **Maria** » 03 Oct 2007, 18:13

by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Oct 2007, 19:09

by **wangi** » 03 Oct 2007, 21:06

Yeah, read it and it's probably accurate... All the committed plans are being seen through. The problem is with those not quite at that stage. Still in real terms means a delay, although with the previous council there wasn't a fixed timetable.

So, when's this whole Future's Trust thing coming together?

by **wangi** » 04 Oct 2007, 13:43

by **wangi** » 04 Oct 2007, 13:56

by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Oct 2007, 17:06

From today's EN:

by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Oct 2007, 18:42

by **mr magnolia** » 04 Oct 2007, 20:46

by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Oct 2007, 21:02

by **seanie** » 04 Oct 2007, 21:47

by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Oct 2007, 22:14

by **wangi** » 04 Oct 2007, 22:43

Bob, I don't think an SNP-this, Labour-that take on this is going to get anything done. Looking into it it's clear that there was no funding commitment to the rebuild/replacement of Portobello High. Indeed looks like a few lies were told early on re the buying of ground for a replacement golf course! The previous Edinburgh Council administration left the matter to be resolved until after the election (sounds reasonable). Where there was commitment the current government is sticking with it.

The real question is what does this mean for the timeframe of delivering a new Portobello High? As pointed out in the this was always a fluid timeline. In section 7.4 they detail the steps needed - only the first (identify preferred option) was completed.

by **seanie** » 04 Oct 2007, 23:14

Bit free and easy with the accusation of lies. My understanding is that the Council had negotiated an option to buy the land for the replacing the golf-course and had factored it into the initial proposal. But given the strength of feeling against development to help fund the schools relocating the golf-course was abandoned and so purchasing the land at Brunstane was no longer justifiable.

by **wangi** » 04 Oct 2007, 23:20

That sounds a reasonable enough explanation Seanie - my apologies. Of course the problem is that this is "commercially sensitive information" and therefore not in any council minutes etc - but that's another discussion.

by **seanie** » 04 Oct 2007, 23:37

by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Oct 2007, 08:07

by **Porty** » 05 Oct 2007, 09:31

by **Porty** » 05 Oct 2007, 09:33

by **wangi** » 05 Oct 2007, 09:35

by **wangi** » 05 Oct 2007, 09:36

by **Maria** » 05 Oct 2007, 09:50

by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Oct 2007, 10:37

by **mr magnolia** » 05 Oct 2007, 10:48

by **wangi** » 05 Oct 2007, 10:53

by **SoupDragon** » 05 Oct 2007, 12:15

New Portobello High School - on going issues

New Portobello High School - on going issues

Re: New Portobello High School - on going issues

Who is online