New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[wangi]

[Bob Jefferson]

Kids getting restless over the Easter holidays? This one is for them, though big kids can join in! Colour in and post somewhere where it will be seen in Portobello.

drop_kids.pdf

(18.65 KiB) Downloaded 290 times

[Pal of Porty]

[seashell]

[Porty]

[joeshmoe]

[Lashylass]

There is a lot of misinformation and various figures being given for what is to be lost should the Park be built on. Let us get one thing straight from the start - the Council has always differentiated between the Park and the golf course, which is also common good land and if you don't believe it then look back at the educational consultation documents from 2006. So let us concern ourselves with... the Park, besides, as has been said, have you tried playing football on the golf course?

Here are the correct figures as presented in Court and during the planning process:
100% of the Park is to be appropriated for the school - see the Council's plan accompanying the appropriation notice;
the Park represents 25% of parkland in Portobello - the Council's own open space audit;
Only 8% of the land taken will possibly be freely accessible - plan relied on by the Council in evidence;
Over 100 car parking spaces will be provided on a tarmac area - planning application;
This means that 92% of the Park will be developed, so the assertion that only "part" of the Park will be built on is just a myth.

Whether you support the retention of the Park or wish it to be developed, thereby also risking the loss of the golf course, the Council's own figures should be accepted.

[seanie]

at the Evening News have taken a bizarre turn.

[seanie]

100% of the park is not being appropriated. The whole park, golf course and pitches, is held on a single title. The golf course and the remaining space are sometimes classified separately for administrative purposes, but legally it's a single bit of land. The school will only take up a small portion of that land.

[Pal of Porty]

I got deleted off the Porty Greenkeepers Facebook page for asking clarification of Ms Coventry as to why she made such a play of many family members attending Towerbank but made absolutely no mention of any high school. People can send their kids to any school they wish and it is neither any of my business nor of any interest to me. I did however want to challenge her inference that even as a potential PHS parent she is against the school in the park when the reality is that none of her childern to date have attended PHS.

Rather ironic but in no way surprising that on one site PPAG are talking about Aristotle and tolerance of conflicting opinions and on another they are practicing censorship.

[Pal of Porty]

[Chas]

[Porty]

[tufty]

See CEC Portobello High School Report page 4
Total site is 19 hectares, 13.3 golf, 5.7 park.
The school will be 9,550 square metres footprint, granted there will be parking and pavements, but there is also pitches and landscaped areas. the actual brick build will only be 0.95 hectares, 5% of the total green space, or16.6% of the park area. This will look very small in the green space.

I would need to see proof of this 25% claim I keep reading. If the total park was built on it would still only be 30% of the park and golf course green space. (5.7 divided by 19 times 100 in case you can't do percentages).

What about Abercorn Park, Rosefield Park,Bingham Park, Figgate Park, Brighton Park, the park at Morton street, were these included or do you change the bounderies to suit?

Any way the fact that this is the best solution in this case is constantly ignored by PPAG, I fear they will continue blindly, ignoring the rights of the many, while shouting about their own personal goals. Life is about give and take, compromise and understanding.

[tufty]

from report- Just noticed that 8.8 % of park is to be left as public amenity or parkland. It clearly says that there will be no building on the golf course, apart from a new boundary path, this is on page 5 of the report on web. There is also a paragraph about new planting of hedges and trees.

[wangi]

[seanie]

[seanie]

[Franck]

[Porty]

The arrangement with the new pitches will be exactly as it is at the moment; freely accessible when unlet. Logic dictates there will be more lets, one would think there will be less freely accessible time. In any case, when pitches are let, they are being used by the community.

[Lashylass]

Yes, this is from the CEC Parks and Gardens strategy:


Portobello Park - 6.072 ha
Abercorn Park - 0.809 ha
Brighton Park - 0.864 ha
Figgate Park - 12.614 ha
Joppa Quarry Park - 2.337 ha
Rosefield Park - 1.353 ha


Total - 24.049 ha.
Portobello Park = 25.25% of the total.

[seanie]

[Franck]

[seanie]

The point is that the pitches are open to the public and can be used without charge when not let, which is no different from the grass pitches at present. How does that not qualify as freely accessible?

[tufty]

Lashylass, I like what you've done there.

No Bingham Park even though it is only 750 metres away from Portobello Park.

[wangi]

I would just add that for any figures to be truthful they really must consider open space in the complete catchment area. It might be called Portobello High School, but the :

And then compare that against the .

[Pal of Porty]

[Franck]

[tufty]

Taking Bingham and the 8.8% being left the percentage comes to just under 19% of Park land, not green spaces, open spaces or sea front.
if I could be bothered I'm sure adding other open spaces would bring the percentage right down, but this is just a smoke screen to the real issue, why are the children of Portobello being left without a school fit for purpose. My kids are glad to be home today as the 8th floor would be hell in this weather.

[seanie]

So the present pitches are so crap and underused that there's plenty of opportunity for casual use, even though nobody does, whereas the all-weather pitches will be so popular and well used that there won't be plenty of opportunity for casual use? OK, I can see that, but it would be a pretty peverse argument for PPAG to advance.

Makes you wonder why they haven't.

[Franck]

[Epykat]

Interesting article in the Scotsman the other day:

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sc ... -1-2210277

[seanie]

[Betty Windsor]

[Betty Windsor]