New Portobello High School - PPAG/"Save Porty Park"

[seanie]

The park's not without it's good qualities. But the overall quality and amenity value of the park were relevant factors for consideration in the Planning process, hence the inclusion of a quality assessment and usage survey in the application. That concluded there was very little casual use of the park outside dog walking, and very little use by younger children. In any event the mature woodland is being retained, and additional planting to compensate for the loss of millenium planting going in, so it's not as if that amenity is disappearing. Also the all-weather pitches are to be open access, so kids will have a better surface to play sports on.

Why would supervision be required?

[Franck]

[seanie]

That's not the intention. The intention is to have them freely accessible. The school will have first call on them, and they'll be bookable as well, but outside of that you can just wander on and play.

And if you can go unsupervised to a grass pitch, you can go unsupervised to a synthetic pitch in the same location.

[Franck]

And with all that said, I'm of the opinion that the school is being put in the right place, I just don't like the way either side is conducting themselves and the smugness when either side wins will be nauseating.

[seanie]

The problem of access to pitches at other schools has frequently been down to PFI arrangements. That doesn't apply in this instance and this type of access is used successfully elsewhere.

[Epykat]

Will the pitches be free? Can't see the Council missing out on that potential revenue for long. I know for a fact that schools have to give a percentage of their 'takings' from renting out halls, pools etc back to the Council. That percentage was increased substantially this year and therefore the cost of the bookings has to go up too. If they do start off free, it won't last.

[Franck]

[seanie]

Well unless something's changed recently Primary schools go no money at all from lets; it was all centrally collected.

However the intention, reflected in the design, is open access.

[Porty]

I guess I may have be one of the people Franck is talking about derogating the park.

I had some good times in the park over the first 20 or so years of my life, that's true. However, PPAG continually misrepresent the usage, beauty, value and legacy of the Park ,one does get a bit fed up with it and retaliates.

As for smugness; I won't feel smug or triumphal. I see a fit for purpose PHS in the park as a basic right for our community. When we do win; justice will be my major emotion.

[Makaveli]

Franck I think you are missing my point.

What I am trying to say is that some people that are trying to save the park have offered up the Figgy as an alternative place to build the new school - anyone who tries to comapre the two parks needs a reality check.

[Bob Jefferson]

[Franck]

[Franck]

[wangi]

[seanie]

Interesting use of the word 'probably'.

[Franck]

[Franck]

[seanie]

No.

[Franck]

[seanie]

Joppa Quarry's about 2.5 Ha and the site at Portobello Park around 5.6 Ha.

[Franck]

[seanie]

The Council's conducted an Open Space Audit of all open spaces across the city, categorised by type and size. Joppa Quarry is listed as 2.42 Ha for the main park and 0.5 Ha for the play area. There will be a margin of error but about 2.5 Ha seems reasonable. The site of the school has always been described, in various documents, as either 5.6 or 5.7 Ha, depending on where you drew the boundary with the golf course.

[Franck]

[seanie]

Well if you want to come back with actual evidence then fine. But please spare me your "that doesn't seem right to me" bluster.

[Franck]

[wangi]

Franck, what you want to use to convince yourself of the relative sizes is the .

Rough plotting around the areas gives me 5.6 Ha for Porty Park; 2.3 Ha for Joppa Quary.

L/

[Franck]

[seanie]

I've followed this issue for a long time, I've read all the reports and documentation, attended meetings, researched various aspects of it and generally spent quite a bit of time on it. Clearly not everyone has the time or inclination to do that, and that's not an issue; we're all pretty ignorant about most subjects.

So when someone comes along and says that Joppa Quarry is "probably about the same size" as the park site it's a little annoying. Because, and this is quirk of mine, I then feel compelled to set the facts straight. But that's no big deal.

But then, having pointed out what the figures are and where they come from, it's even more annoying to have them dismissed out of hand on the basis of "that doesn't look right to me" or that it's some kind of Council conspiracy. The first is annoying because I can look at Google too and so can see for myself that Joppa Quarry is about half the size. The second is annoying because it's very unlikely.

The planning department are unlikely to have manipulated the Open Space Audit simply to show you up on a community forum.

[seanie]

The relevant bit of Portobello Park is the bit they're actually using, which extends into the area if millennium planting.

So try again.

[wangi]

[Franck]

[seanie]

You're using 'I'm under the impression' in the same way you used 'probably'.

In the 'I don't know if this is actually true because I haven't checked but I'm going to say it anyway' sense.

[Franck]

[Franck]

[seanie]

Your ignorance is your own responsibility, nobody elses.

There is no path between the school and the golfie, and whilst there will be a wooded strip it will be reduced. About 50% of the millenium planting goes to accommodate the school. Also it's a pretty weird definition of 'park' that excludes any area with trees on.

To go back to your earlier point, put it this way; Joppa Quarry Park is smaller than the existing school site. The existing school site that's far to small to meet curricula requirements.

Now can you see why Joppa Quarry wasn't pursued as a site?