New Portobello High School - on going issues

[allaboardtheskylark]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

For those of you, like myself, who were unable to make last night's presentation, or if you would just like to peruse the latest drawings at your leisure:

[seanie]

[seanie]

Which brings us to another issue; there seems to be a consensus that drop-off should not be encouraged, but a recognition that it’s inevitable to some extent. The actual numbers aren’t huge; from existing data maybe around 140 cars. It’s reasonable to expect that, similar to the current school, they’ll be dropping off in a variety of locations over a period of time, instead of being concentrated. Where that will happen is difficult to predict but if it is distributed round the surrounding network it shouldn’t be a big issue. Kids are dropped off on Brighton Place each day because that’s where they meet their mates before walking up to PHS; that might not change.

And whilst relocating the high school will change some travel patterns the proposed school is still pretty central to the catchment and not a great distance from the existing. Just as a point of reference I googled directions from Greggs. To the existing school the distance is about 850m; a 10 minute walk. To the Park Avenue entrance of the new school it would be about 250m further; an extra 3 minutes. The school will be slightly further from some people and slightly closer to others; I can't see that changing how people travel much, or increasing vehicle traffic on the wider network. The new site is also better served by buses so that may help reduce traffic generated by the school.

And whilst I appreciate concerns about Milton Road, there is also a wider picture to consider. Portobello High School has a very large catchment; from up by Meadowbank Stadium to the boundary with Musselburgh, from King’s Road to Bingham. And if you look at the accident statistics for pupils in general, they don’t tend to be concentrated around schools themselves. Accidents tend to happen on the way home, at the home end of the journey. So whilst engineering solutions around the school are important, they’re not the be all and end all.

To really address road safety and transport issues surrounding the school, you need an on-going catchment wide Travel Plan, that can highlight problems and develop strategies to tackle them. Travel Plans are sometimes required as a Planning Condition on a development. If such a condition were attached to any approval for the new school that would allow time for a comprehensive strategy to be in place by the time the school was operational.

That might highlight additional measures that would be beneficial, but as things stand I really don’t see any huge, glaring problem with what’s proposed.

[Porty]

As per, your synopsis makes total sense and seems entirely reasonable. However, it is not me or those of my ilk that you have to convince.

The Traffic Traffickers will need more convincing. May I propose a minor alteration to your presentation that may help persuade them. Try editing your final sentence thus:

That might highlight additional measures that would be beneficial, but as things stand I really don’t see any huge, glaring problem with what’s proposed.

I think that should do it.

[Maria]

[allaboardtheskylark]

[wangi]

[seashell]

[Franck]

[seanie]

[SoupDragon]

What's the current roll of the school? There's always applicants from outwith catchment areas.

As for pupils crossing Milton Road there are at present 3 controlled crossings between the park and Milton Link, (near Hope Lane, Magdalene Drive and Milton Link/Bailyfield Road ) there's also an underpass that goes along the side of the old Big W and along to Asda.

[wangi]

And any kids that will have to cross Milton road for the new High School surely have to cross it already for the current one?

[seanie]

The actual roll has been between 1400 and 1450 over the last few years, but only about 1200 have been catchment pupils.

The original proposal for replacing the school was for 1200, but the school preferred 1400 as it allows a broader curriculum. Eventually the Education department accepted a 1400 replacement. There's a blip in catchment pupils expected but the school as sized is comfortably larger than the current and projected catchment demand.

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

1. "One third of the community are against...."

I don't know where the one third figure comes from (although it does raise a question about the other two thirds) but in any event there's a problem. The PPAG web-site says they represent a SIGNIFCANT MAJORITY. Those are not compatible claims. So at best they're spreading falsehoods on one web-site, at worst two.

2. "The park is supposed to be protected as Common Good land, which means that it is community property held in trust by the Council...

Common Good land is not 'held in trust'. It is legally owned by the Council. That fact is established by the 1973 Local Government Scotland Act and is beyond question.

3. "...and should never be built on"

Whilst there are restrictions on the use and disposal of Common Good land, that does not mean Common Good land should never be built. Indeed, the Courts have gone so far as to say that their permission is NOT REQUIRED for schools to be built on Common Good land.

4. "The community are preparing for a legal battle against the Council and are having to find £20-30,000 to prove that the land belongs to the them."

This sentence may not actually be a falsehood so I include it only provisionally. Instead it may just be a sincere statement of utter nonsense. I'll take it in two parts;

"having to find £20-30,000"

To raise an action in the Inner house of the Court of Session? That may be enough for a couple of consultants at a Planning Inquiry but QCs and court cases? Dream on. There's also the additional risk to consider. Take a case to court and lose and the Council might pursue it's own legal costs. You need to raise enough money, not just to cover your own costs, but the other sides should you lose. Otherwise those who mount the action could face very serious financial difficulties, because such an action can only be mounted by an entity that can be held liable; an individual, a group of individuals, a company etc. I'd suggest £100,000 as an absolute minimum.

5. "to prove that the land belongs to the them."

If the land isn't Common Good, it belongs to the Council. If the land is Common Good, it belongs to the Council. Under no conceivable circumstances does it belong to a self-declared 'one third' of the community who don't like the High School proposals.

6. "But now the Council are hoping that they win a legal case..."

No they're not; there is no legal case, they're not expecting one, and so they don't have any hopes regarding said non-existent legal case.

7. "If they do win, it will give a green light to build on or change use of Common Good land throughout the country."

If they win the non-existent legal case, it will not change the situation one iota and will not give the green light to anything. The Council received legal opinion from two QCs that permission from the courts was not necessary for the school to be built on Common Good land.

That opinion was in line with recent ;

An actual court case;

"the petitioners wish to use the land for the construction of two schools on a shared site with shared facilities. Both areas of ground form part of the petitioners' common good."

North Lanarkshire wanted to build two schools on parks forming part of the Common Good and went to court to seek permission. And the Court said?

"...the use of land held for the purposes of the public park to construct a school and playing fields does not involve any "disposal" for the purposes of the subsection. In view of that decision, which is obviously binding on me, I consider that there is no "disposal" in the present cases. It follows that section 75(2) has no application. In these circumstances I refused the prayers of the petitions as unnecessary."

The Court held the petition was uneccessary.

Since the land would still be owned by the Council, and used to the benefit of the community, the Court decided that the Council didn't even need to seek permission. The proposal was perfectly legal as far as the court was concerned.

To be generous for a moment, there is always a legal case that can be made for or against something. That's true no matter how inauspicious the circumstances and that's why lawyers can command such eye-watering fees. So I've no doubt at all that some sort of legal challenge against the Council's position could be brought to Court.

But the Council's position is based on recent decisions from both the Inner and Outer Houses of the Court of Session. So any legal challenge would have to overturn those previous rulings.

Going to the Court of Session and arguing the Council is wrong is one thing.

Going to the Court of Session and arguing the Court of Session is wrong is another.

[wangi]

[seanie]

Whilst not technically earmarked for housing, that's what's expected.

The Council considered whether compensatory Open Space could be provided on the existing site but concluded that it didn't make much sense;

a)Because of the proximity of Figgate Park, it wouldn't actually address any shortfalls in Open Space provision in the wider area; it's just not a very sensible location for it.

b) The site's valued at about £3.9M. Given the fairly horrendous financial squeeze looming it doesn't make sense to forgo that capital receipt; the site will be sold with the money ring-fenced for Education, Children & Families capital expenditure.

It's not confirmed but part of the site will almost certainly be allocated to St John's since their site is significantly under-sized. So that bit's not a falsehood, although it could still be misleading. Some people, unfamiliar with the issue, might read that and conclude;

"Aha! That's why the Council's building a new school on the park. They just want to sell the existing site for housing."

But, if in possession of the facts, that's clearly a very silly conclusion to come to.

Nobody would invest £43.5M in a new school, simply to get £3.9M to invest in another school in a few years time.

[Porty]

[Pal of Porty]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

This is the official PCC response to the PHS designs proposals. The points made therein were collated from a meeting of a small sub-group of members. Seanie, can you remind us who that sub-group consisted of?

[Bob Jefferson]

Here are my thoughts on the response:

1. Design proposals - it's great to see such positive comments from the CC and I sincerely hope that the CC and individual members will continue to be so positive about what is an outstanding design throughout the planning process.

2. Basketball proposals - I share these concerns and I note that CC members feel that some of the open space compensation fund should be used to upgrade the basketball facilities.

3. Traffic and road safety - one or two red herrings here. The footbridge lies outwith the scope of the design and is not in the ownership of the Council. I doubt that many pupils will choose to shop in Asda at lunchtime and re. Big W, we can't judge one application in terms of what might happen at another unrelated and undecided development. Re. pick ups/drop offs I think this issue is greatly exaggerated. If the area is congested then parents will simply drop their kids off a little further away. If double yellow lines reduce parking space for residents then too bad, safety is paramount. Traffic lights might help, so might a 'no right turn' sign.

4. Open space provision - I have some sympathy with the points expressed here. Although I'm happy with the upgraded paths, I agree that they shouldn't be at the expense of such a large portion of the compensation fund. Re. informal space, there simply isn't room for this, unless you want to annexe a bit of the golf course. Feel free.

A total of £41.5 million is set aside for the new school. We know that the procurement and tendering processes are running in parallel with the planning application. In the present economic climate there are potentially large savings to be made. The project could come in under budget. And then what? The compromises that have inevitably had to be made, such as the basketball court, can be rectified? Unfortunately, that's not how the Council see it. There is a long list of other schools, including St John's, that desperately need to be replaced or upgraded and that's where any savings will be directed. That's entirely understandable but we need to fight our own corner and squeeze every penny out of this once in a lifetime opportunity.

[Franck]

[seanie]

[seanie]

The Towerbank School Council response can be found

[Franck]

[Doris]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

[Franck]