New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Stephen McIntyre]

[quote="Charles"]
Just for the record, I have never been a maths teacher, although I do admit to being a history teacher for many years, and having taught in ......, the annual increase in road crossings = 190 (school days per year) x 2 (crossings per day) x (910-490) = 159,600. Which is nowhere near half a million, although it is still a pretty big number. But if you plan to use statistics make them credible. We all know the saying “lies, damned lies and statisticsâ€

[Charles]

Bob and Stephen, thanks for your comments. I appreciate the points you have made, and acknowledge that there are valid reasons why the new Brunstane site would not work for the high school. My main concern regarding the development of the existing golf course is not so much the high school, but the proposition by the council that they fund the provision of the school by building houses on the remainder of the site, cutting back to a minimum any green space left. I still remain to be convinced that this is the only/best option (although I am sure it is the one which generates the most income for the council).

[Bob Jefferson]

Charles, I agree wholeheartedly that the amount of housing on the site should be minimised to that which is absolutely necessary to raise the funds required. We should be demanding not only this, but also that every penny of the money raised from the various land deals is ring-fenced and I'm confident that we can make both of these things happen. The percentage of the site that would be developed for housing has still to be finalised but there will certainly still be a large area remaining as a public park.

If there was any way of getting the new schools we desperately need AND saving the golf course then I would be delighted to support that proposal but unfortunately I don't believe there is. If anyone knows better then we would all love to hear your suggestion.

[seanie]

the Education Department’s annual capital budget for 2004-5 is given as £17.6 million.

the (hideously titled) Children and Families capital budget for 2006/7 is given as £33.859 million.

I doubt a new secondary and primary school would leave you any change out of £35m.

That's a huge sum of money. It totally outstrips the capital funds available. You could only do it by diverting virtually all the money spent across Edinburgh to the one proposal. For a couple of years or more. That's a political impossibility.

If PPP isn't avilable (no bad thing to my mind) specific capital for the project has to generated. Housing development isn't about "income" for the Council. It's an essential part of the proposals for the schools

Unfortunately, given the sums required, that probably means a fairly substantial amount of housing. And whilst I wholeheartedly agree that housing should be kept to a minimum, I'd want it kept to a minimum consistent with a good, sustainable development.

All other things being equal, a shoddy building is cheaper to build than a good one. Quality costs, at least up front. And more cost incurred now may mean better value in the long run. It's a difficult balancing act, but it's worth bearing in mind.

[Bob Jefferson]

I agree entirely. If we are going to build two new schools then let's do the job properly and learn from the mistakes of the past. If that means building a few extra houses to avoid having to cut corners and compromise on build and design then so be it.

[PortyMan]

Hi - thought I’d join in on the ‘discussion’… There’s quite a lot to comment on, even if it is all conjecture, rumour and gossip? So apologies in advance if this rambles…

First, I declare an interest… I chose to live on Park Avenue. That is, I didn’t stick a pin in a map and I didn’t find it in a lucky bag. My, then pregnant, wife and I selected this area from a variety of alternatives, largely, but not simply, because it overlooks the park and golf course – an ideal situation to raise a family in our view. We did, of course, pay a premium for this, but were happy to do so.

I have since come to love and enjoy the eccentric nature and community spirit of Portobello (Hence my forum ‘name’, which I also use in a variety of completely unrelated situations… despite, technically, not being in or from Portobello.)

Now, seventeen years later… I find that this fine amenity on my doorstep is to be destroyed, with a direct impact on my immediate environment, the quality of my family’s life and the value of my home. And for what? To compensate for the failure, short-sightedness and incompetence of the education authority and council?

This isn’t about a new school. Everyone – pretty much - agrees a new school is needed, or at least ‘a good thing’. It’s the location that’s at issue (and in turn, the funding, because we can’t build anything in Edinburgh without giving housing/supermarket developers their ‘cut’).

There is no alternative, we hear (where have we heard that before?). But, no mention is made of any alternatives; no discussion is enjoyed, no thought given. Just mysterious experts who’ve already made the decision but are unable (or incapable) of informing those most directly affected (I’m also a parent of a child at the school)?

So - the ‘old’ school site (which was previously playing fields!) becomes housing. Bearing in mind there’s an eight-storey building on the site at present and that precedence is a major consideration in planning decisions, that’s a lot of flats!

And the Golf Course becomes two schools and houses… and “Powerleagueâ€

[wangi]

[Dadaist]

[Alison Connelly]

[Dadaist]

[Stephen McIntyre]

[Pal of Porty]

[Dadaist]

[Stephen McIntyre]

[Dadaist]

[PortyMan]

Hi again,

Just to say - Sorry for the misleading quote from the Planning Document. Who'd have thought that the council would have a rule that says 'NO building on parks/recreational ground' for one part of Edinburgh and another that says (I presume) 'What the hey! Build houses everywhere/anywhere sod the green space!' for another part!?! (No, I'm not really surprised.)

Stephen - whilst I understand you comments re caveat emptor - I fail to see how your buying a house beside the old school annexe and selling it when it was still the old school annexe compares? I'd be quite happy having bought a house opposite a park to sell it when there was still a park... Or, if I'd bought opposite a school and housing estate to start with. That's, kind of, my point. Do you really think that being opposite a green space doesn't add to the value/cost of a property? I'd been led to understand you used to be an estate agent? Wouldn't you have used that location factor to your clients advantage?

I know, it's just tough luck and all that. *** happens, after all. Though I'm not convinced you'd be so sanguine if the school was to relocate to Rosefield?

Much of my anger is a result of the whole deal being done and dusted before anyone in Park Avenue, 'The Christians' or Milton Road/Apostles has been advised of anything?(other than Lawrence's pals) We're told there's to be 'consultation' but then told there's nothing to debate, that's the only option, has to be done. Grass 0 Concrete 1, thank you and good night!

And by the way... the value of houses besides the old school sites may well increase... or they might fall. It will really depend on the number/quality/height of the housing development. Maybe the residents there will get a say in the matter?

[Bob Jefferson]

More from the letters page of the Evening News:

[Bob Jefferson]

I received this today:

[Stephen McIntyre]

[seanie]

[Maria]

[Bob Jefferson]

[wangi]

[seanie]

[Dadaist]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Dadaist]

[Bob Jefferson]

[kittywink]

[Stephen McIntyre]

[wangi]

[Dadaist]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Stephen McIntyre]

[dccairns]