New Portobello High School - PPAG win legal appeal

[Franck]

[Porty]

Now on the face of it that does have some merit. After all, the school operated on two seperate sites for about 20 years between '64 and '84?. Much closer together of course.

I don't think the quarry featured in the feasibiity studies.

My gut feel is that it is too small an area and too narrow for a sizeable school,but its purely a gut feel.

Don't know about the CG status or the suitability of the soil, it used to be a quarry and there is quite a bit of subsidence in the vicinity. Is it as big as the St John's site?

As an aside- I believe the Figgate Park is Common Good land- I wonder of the current PHS is built on CG?

[Epykat]

[lg1726]

[wangi]

[seanie]

Joppa Quarry’s about 2.3Ha. The location in catchment isn’t great but it’s not too bad, however access is poor. Can’t imagine the Planners being keen but there might be a way of making it acceptable. You lose economies of scale so it’ll be more expensive than a single school, and you’re still likely to have decant costs although these could be reduced. The school and the Education department are likely to be resistant to a split site as they’re very problematic from an operational point of view, and keeping the existing PHS also restricts the opportunities for St John’s in the longer run. Again you’re starting from scratch so 4-5 years minimum.

[Franck]

[fresian]

Quarry Park would surely be subject to the same objections ( If these are indeed the "real" reason for objections) i.e loss of green space.

[gillian]

The Quarry park isn't green space?

[Bob Jefferson]

[Mark Cameron]

Let's leave aside whether Quarry park is CG or not - first of it's a park that is used way more than Portobello Park.

Even putting that to one side let's say it was legally possible to build a 'less than ideal' school on a smaller piece of green space. Could we not have the recreational facilities needed for our new school sited on Porty Park?

The way the deeds read to me the park needs to be used for recreational purposes for the common good - am I misinterpreting that?

So open the school recreational facilities up to the rest of the community and replace the kids park in Quarry park on Porty park and we'd all be happy - right?

PPAG would surely have to rebrand QPAG to campaign to retain Portobello's green space - surely they would need to or it would make their claims of protectors of green space to look quite ridiculous.

[Scoop]

[lg1726]

[Gillmck]

I'm a new contributor, so please be kind, especially if I am inadvertently asking a question which has already been asked and fully answered. (I have read the posts fairly extensively, but may have missed something!)

I have benefited from the recent recap of the various potential sites that were considered, so thanks for the summary & reminder. In my view, and as unfortunate as it may be, Portobello Park is certainly the most suitable site.

However, can I ask what talk / plans there have been concerning the use of the current school site when it is eventually decommissioned? It would seem to me to pose an opportunity to create a new, and perhaps innovative, 'green space' for the community of Portobello. I understand that in most cases, a Council would wish to recoup costs by using / selling such a site wholly for housing, but perhaps there are alternatives? How about a showcase eco-apartment complex with adjoining allotments and public garden? (Some of these allotments could be kept for both primary & secondary school use, keeping a link with the site's past.)

Any architects or planners out there with creative ideas?

An innovative 'green' use for the current site could offset any environmental harm from the loss of some of Portobello Park's green space, and even form a new and positive Portobello 'campaign' that the majority of people in the community could rally around.

Gillian McKinnon

[Mark Cameron]

LG - I too live 2 minutes from QP and would not object if it was proved to be a viable site plus had the scope to cope with the projected growth in schoool pupil numbers in Portobello catchment.

I do however feel we'd be accepting a lesser option.

Gillian - I think the money generated from the sale of the current school site will go towards the next schools on the list in need to rebuilding. So this decision not only affects the children and families in Portobello.

[wangi]

And lets not forget St John's is "next on the list" for replacement. Use of PHS site may be key there.

[seanie]

There was no final decision on what would happen to the existing PHS site should the school move. The Education Department's view was that it should be sold for further investment in the 'Wave 3' schools, the next of which in line would be St John's. A recommendation to that effect was put to Council but a decison was deferred. There was also the issue of St John's being on a very cramped site, and the departmental view would favour a re-build rather than a refurbishment and extension. In such circumstances you'd pinch a bit of the PHS site for St John's and sell the remaining.

However, given the current situation, such considerations may be entirely academic.

[lg1726]

[Bob Jefferson]

Welcome Gillian, it's always good to have a new contributor to the debate. One or two of the posters here do have a caustic sense of humour but that's part of the rough and tumble of internet discussion, which is admittedly not for the easily-offended. But in reality, most of them are just big pussycats, believe me.

The Council has a duty to spend their money wisely and with so many schools, including St John's, waiting to be re-built or refurbished, it would be difficult to put together an argument for not selling the land to the highest bidder. Any receipt would be ring-fenced. But no decision has been taken yet so they could be lobbied to do as you suggest.

[commander114]

removed

[seanie]

I'll give you the e-mail address for Billy MacIntyre, and you can outline your plans to him.

He could probably do with a chuckle.

[seanie]

Personally I've spent a fair bit of time thinking through alternatives. I think that the comparative advantages of the park are so strong that options to proceed with that have to be looked at, and if there's a realistic route it should be pursued. At the same time we need to look at alternatives. The depressing thing is that the alternatives appear to be grim.

You never know though, there might be half-decent idea out there that's not yet been tapped.

[Bob Jefferson]

Scoop, from around 400 respondents so far on the online poll, 356 have indicated that Portobello Park is their preferred site. I'm sure they will be delighted to know that you consider them to be 'spoiled brats'.

Where do you think the new school should be built, if not on Portobello Park?

[Sceptic]

Can we stop resorting to name calling, please?
I know I am as guilty as anyone for resorting it, but realise it gets us nowhere.
Building a school on stilts over rail lines may seem to have merit, but has anyone experience of noise and vibration in such a building? Was there a swimming pool or playing fields in the mix. The park site would seem to be the only one to offer a large school such as PHS the resources it needs for a modern, up to date curriculum. Putting the school up to Craigmillar takes it outwith Portobello altogether and thus it would deny the Portobello Community of much used facilities for after school sport and learning opportunities.
The existing site is much too small as the tower would require demolishing, rebuilding the tower would increase costs to a new level which would put off some, if not all, developers off completely.
It would seem that some people are not interested in the future of PHS for whatever reasons, suspicion is that they use private schools, do not have children of school age or whatever.This is an issue that should involve everyone and everyone should be interested in their local school.
Yes, the existing school was built in the wrong place years ago, but can we avoid making the same mistake again.

[seanie]

Judges aren't infallible, and they're not the only ones who get to decide what is and isn't legal.

[regent]

why are there no council officials coming to the meeting tomorrow?

[regent]

would have thought that since they were the folk that came up with the original sites and ideas where the school could go, their input and availability to answer questions from the public would be essential.

[Epykat]

[regent]

whether they caused the mess or not it would seem to me that they are essential to any forward planning.

[seanie]

A week and a half after the judgement they're unlikely to be in a position to say anything more than that they're taking further legal advice and considering what options there are.

[regent]

So is tomorrow to discuss the community trust idea?

[Bob Jefferson]

I think the facilitators (local politicians) are there to listen and feedback what the community has to say and to explain, to the best of their ability, the various options, including the community trust idea.

[regent]

thought there had already been a meeting with them at the library

[Bob Jefferson]

No, PFANS held a meeting at the library, which Kenny McAskill attended in an advisory capacity, but there were no other politicians there.

[regent]

seems a lot of meetings about meetings, I have 3 kids due to go to the high school in a few years and am totally astonished that a school appears no nearer now than it did when my eldest was in nursery.