New Portobello High School- Where and how?

by **christine s** » 26 Sep 2006, 20:45

I am not sure how this works - but here goes for a 1st post...

I am happy to declare my self interest as having 2 children due to attend PHS in the next 1-3 years - I would love a new school and giving up a portion of the park for this seems to be an unfortunate but appropriate price to pay given the alternatives on offer. However without real positive impetus from the local community the Council will drag their heels on a decision which as already moved several months to the right. I do not expect my children to benefit from the enhanced educational opportunities provided by the new school but I will fight for them to have a secure and consistent education at the current PHS with no decamp. I hope that more parents of children who are currently in P4 -7 and the lower years and PHS recognise that this is a very real prospect and make their concerns heard.

by **Alison Connelly** » 27 Sep 2006, 12:12

by **kings roader** » 27 Sep 2006, 12:29

and a very good point too !!

by **bbbrown** » 27 Sep 2006, 13:48

What utter rubbish from Stephen McIntyre.

There is no small print on the PPAG petition. It clearly states, and I quote the text of the petition....

"To: Residents, parents and users of Portobello Park
We call upon the City of Edinburgh Council to consider and evaluate a full range of options and alternatives, cost comparisons and funding options for the re-provisioning of Portobello High School and St Johnâ€™s Primary School. We oppose the use of Portobello Golf Course and Park for re-siting the schools and building houses on. This land belongs to the people of Edinburgh and should not be sold or built on until a full debate is had and all the options, including keeping the land for public recreation, have been fully consulted upon with people who use the facility, live or work in Portobello and Joppa. "

There, are, at present 588 signatures, on the petition online.

*Post moderated Wed 27 Sept. 4.55 p.m.

by **Pal of Porty** » 27 Sep 2006, 14:34

by **Dadaist** » 27 Sep 2006, 14:55

by **Maria** » 27 Sep 2006, 16:52

by **bbbrown** » 27 Sep 2006, 17:20

by **Maria** » 27 Sep 2006, 17:23

by **bbbrown** » 27 Sep 2006, 17:34

by **Maria** » 27 Sep 2006, 17:43

by **christine s** » 27 Sep 2006, 18:22

by **Dadaist** » 27 Sep 2006, 18:26

by **christine s** » 27 Sep 2006, 18:51

by **Maria** » 27 Sep 2006, 18:51

by **Pal of Porty** » 27 Sep 2006, 19:21

by **Dadaist** » 28 Sep 2006, 10:39

I didn't know that people who want to save the park were up against this mindset.

I didn't know that there were people who would make it policy to just find a park and build on it simply to avoid a decant.

There's no point arguing against that mindset - it can only be legislated against either through a planning policy which protects green space or some other law.

PoP - Why mention things like the Golf Club not having a junior section if you'd be willing to build on their land regardless of any other consideration than avoiding a decant?

by **Pal of Porty** » 28 Sep 2006, 14:24

by **gilo** » 28 Sep 2006, 14:56

by **Dadaist** » 28 Sep 2006, 15:44

If the current PHS site is too small, why were drawings prepared for this site?

If that's not the case and there are options, do we know for sure that we'd get a better (qualitatively or quantitatively) school on the park than anywhere else?

by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Sep 2006, 17:10

by **Maria** » 28 Sep 2006, 17:20

Arguing to rebuild on site doesn't necessarily protect the Park Dadaist as St John's would have to move.

My ideal scenario would be PHS on the Park with St John's being rebuilt on the old PHS site. That way the golf course stays put and the current playing fields are replaced with a school and playing fields. Then a few more decades down the line when the school starts to show its age you just rebuild on the playing fields and move the pitches to the site of the demolished school.

by **Dadaist** » 28 Sep 2006, 17:32

by **seanie** » 28 Sep 2006, 18:01

by **Dadaist** » 28 Sep 2006, 18:41

by **seanie** » 28 Sep 2006, 18:57

by **Dadaist** » 28 Sep 2006, 19:09

by **seanie** » 28 Sep 2006, 19:30

by **Maria** » 28 Sep 2006, 19:36

by **administrator** » 28 Sep 2006, 20:24

by **Dadaist** » 28 Sep 2006, 20:37

Yeah, probably should have read the document :oops:

I love the enormous "merits" list for the Portobello Park relocation option - they look almost like they were lifted from the propaganda glossy they sent out when this all kicked off.

So there's only a Â£1.4 million difference between the rebuild onsite and the one on the park - given the scale of the project, does this not look like we'd be getting almost the same school?

Decant, St Johns siting and playing fields aside - what are the educational benefits of having a Â£32.2m school on the park as opposed to a Â£33.6m one where it is at the moment?

by **seanie** » 28 Sep 2006, 22:06

And what have the Romans ever done for us?

:lol:

by **Dadaist** » 28 Sep 2006, 22:48

by **Alison Connelly** » 28 Sep 2006, 23:05

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Who is online