New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Maria]

[PortyMan]

[Pal of Porty]

[Dave Connelly]

[Pal of Porty]

Dave I am not avoiding you and I am genuinely flummoxed as to how I am misquoting Ros. I took the quote straight from the letter she wrote and had printed in the Evening News:

"IN his letter "Different schools of thought in Porty" (September 12) Mr McIntyre has misunderstood the position of Portobello Park Action Group (PPAG) in relation to St John's PS. What we have suggested is that a flat, featureless area of Figgate Park at the end of Hamilton Terrace could be considered for the rebuild St John's. The green space used would be completely reinstated on the vacated St John's site as open playing fields or a park area.
The key point here is that no green space would be lost either in the local neighbourhood or to the community in general.
The option of building schools on Portobello Golf course would necessitate moving the golf course out of the community, almost to Musselburgh (a fact acknowledged at a public meeting by Cllr Perry) and a net loss of green space"

R Sutherland,
Chairman, Portobello Park Action Group

If anything is being avoided it the answer to how a like for like re-instatement could possibly be achieved.

[Jbrock]

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN Letters Page (third letter down):

[Porty]

[Dave Connelly]

Last chance you are absolutely correct on that one.

You just can't see past the ends of your noses, thats the trouble with wee gangs.


I don't have to validate or justify anything. You are just struggling to find someone to be pedantic with


what I can do though as a last post, which no doubt will be edited is to put those who doubted St Johns School Board's intention of letting folk know whats going on in the picture. As a parent I received this, and if you are a parent at the school, so did you

[quote]St Johns School Board letter to Parents

22 September 06

Dear Parents

As you know, Edinburgh City Council have recently announced a public consultation to gather views regarding the proposals to rebuild St John’s (and also neighbouring Portobello High School). The proposal document, on which the consultation is based, is quite lengthy, but if you would like to read it in full, you can either view a copy outside the school office or you can download it from http://egfl.net/parents/ . The Council have also commissioned a feasibility study by a firm of architects. Unfortunately this is not available online, but can be viewed outside the school office, or in Portobello Library

In summary, the document suggests 3 options for a new PHS and 4 options for a new St John’s building . The options suggested by the Council for PHS are : rebuilt on current site (assuming St John’s moves elsewhere);rebuild on Portobello Golf Course ; rebuild on Portobello Park (the football pitches at the top of Portobello Golf Course)

For St John’s, the Council proposal document states:

St John’s Primary School Replacement

While the main generator for this project is the reprovision of Portobello High School, it would also be desirable to seek the replacement of St John’s Primary School given its fitness for purpose. The school building falls well short of the generic brief for primary schools, particularly with significantly undersized rooms and insufficient accommodation in the main building necessitating the use of Temporary Units. Nor does the school have outdoor sports facilities on-site.


One of the three options for the High School necessitates the relocation of St John’s as part of the proposal. The opportunity also exists for St John’s to be relocated alongside the High School with the other site options should sufficient funding exist.


The options for the redevelopment of St John’s are:


The site of the existing Portobello High School – should the high school relocate, then the surplus site could become available for the redevelopment of St John’s. This would represent the least long term implications for St John’s, with the school remaining central to its catchment.


Portobello Park pitches – either alongside a relocated High School, or as a stand alone facility should Portobello remain on its existing site. The main issue with this would be the loss of the existing park to the community – should both schools relocate here it would be difficult to retain any public pitches within the park area. This location is fairly central to the primary school’s catchment area.


Portobello Golf Course - either alongside a relocated High School, or as a stand alone facility should Portobello remain on its existing site. The main issue with this would be the loss of the golf course to the community. This location is central to the primary school’s catchment area.


Bingham Park – also requiring a loss of part of an existing park to the community, this site is poorly located within the catchment area and is more difficult to access given the narrow streets. The primary school will generate the requirement for more escorted trips to and from school for the younger pupils (whether by car, bus or walking) and thus its location is particularly important.


As part of the consultation process, the Council have promised to listen to the views of parents. The Council have confirmed that contributors are welcome to bring other suggestions to the debate. St John’s School Board have already asked that the Council consider 2 brownfield sites for St John’s (the current Powerleague site on Portobello High Street, and the Scottish Power site near the Kings Road roundabout). This would allow the new Portobello High School to be rebuilt on the existing site. An advantage for St John’s of this is that St Johns would be relocated first, which means that St John’s would get its new school more quickly, but also that it would be guaranteed the first “biteâ€

[seanie]

[quote]This would allow the new Portobello High School to be rebuilt on the existing site. An advantage for St John’s of this is that St Johns would be relocated first, which means that St John’s would get its new school more quickly, but also that it would be guaranteed the first “biteâ€

[seanie]

[Pal of Porty]

[Breenjohn]

[Porty]

[quote="seanie"][quote]This would allow the new Portobello High School to be rebuilt on the existing site. An advantage for St John’s of this is that St Johns would be relocated first, which means that St John’s would get its new school more quickly, but also that it would be guaranteed the first “biteâ€

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

[Bob Jefferson]

Meanwhile, the 'Figgate question' saga rumbles on in today's EN Letters Page:



and

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[bbbrown]

[Porty]

[bbbrown]

[Porty]

[bbbrown]

[Porty]

[bbbrown]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN Letters Page:

[bbbrown]

All I can say is that it was a very positive meeting. The council presented the options and committed to a new st johns, either along side PHS or stand alone. The board rep spoke positively for the school getting renewed, saying they were not plumping for any option at present cause they are still seeking, and getting, the views of the parents. There was no stress on any particular site. I think think this is fine, and there was no dissent from any one. Certainly no feeling of any sinister or under hand agendas.
The Councillors seemed to put paid to the idea of houses on the golf course, and seem positive of funding from the Exec, though this is, of course, not in concrete. We shall have to wait and see.
There was a fair bit of feed back from the floor that it may not actually be in St Johns best interests to be alongside the PHS, especially in view of the antagonism towards the primary school kids from the PHS kids.
Over all, what I took away is the councils commitment to the two schools and also to taking on board the parents views from the consultation.
It seemed clear, and I can only hope sincere, that the council are listening to parents.

[Bob Jefferson]

Thanks and sorry to repeat but, have St Johns parents been polled on the issue, and if not, are there any plans to do so? I'm still no wiser as to which option St Johns parents prefer. Would you say that, from the views expressed, any one option was considered preferable? Was there strong opinion against any particular option? On balance, how would you summarise the views of the parents who attended?

[PortyMan]

Just a few thoughts...

1) The 'bussing' issue gets a lot of press, but in the main, the children are bussed to Jack Kane ONCE a week (if at all). Swimming, badminton, basketball, etc all take place at Portobello. Football and Hockey take place at JK on an astroturf surface. No games are played on grass. (The new Holyrood, for example, would still be bussed for swimming).

No evidence has been provided by the council to show that PHS children are suffering physically from the lack of on-site pitches. (Far from it, running up and down 8 flights of stairs seem to have kept them very fit Apart from those who can't quite hold their bladders for a whole flight... )

2) The decant could be made to Holyrood instead of Portacabins. Roy Jobson's argument (at PHS meeting) that they need the builders to move from building Holyrood to demolishing the old one is pretty lame, the 'builders' will be long gone before the fitting-out is complete and the school ready to move into. In any case they could just move to Portobello and demolish that.

This would enable the school to move out of PHS sooner rather than later (the school's in a very bad way...isn't it? Isn't it?)

Additionally, Roy Jobson quoted an example where a school had burned down and they needed to construct a school very quickly... In this case we have 3 or 4 years to plan a decant. Surely, they can organise something in that time to minimise disruption and inconvenience? Or don't they learn from their experiences?

Alternative sites could be Meadowbank House (not too far away and with excellent sports facilities nearby - if they're quick!) Or even the old Royal High School... Surely with three years planning they could come up with something?

Much is made of the 'problems' associated with decant. But no mention is made of the 'problems' remaining in PHS would entail. Or have the circumstances of the children who will attend PHS between now and the new build not been considered? (Or the problems currently being experienced, overstated?)

3) The costs for decant seem to be based on the assumption that staying on at Portobello High School until 2011 will incur no costs? I would have thought they would be required to spend some money on providing safe and functional facilities in the meantime? Thus, decant costs are really the difference between the two - a bit less than £6m, I'd guess.

4) Strange how some people have gone all quiet about the U-turn the council appear to be making on the funding front? Only a few weeks ago anyone who suggested that we should push the council to insist on central funding rather than selling off public land were castigated as idiots and dreamers... Now it seems the council propose to do just that. Expect ponies for Christmas (or religious festival of your choice).

5) Numbers games. Some of you like the challenge of doing hard sums...

1200 pupils
That's 200 pupils per year-stream.
Over say 30 - oh, let's be generous 40 years - that's 8,000 children.
8,000 - that's quite a few kids, but not quite as many as many might have imagined (less than the number of kids who have been educated at the existing school...).

---

Providing them with a decent school is a good idea .
Destroying a park and golf course to provide them with a couple of football pitches seems less so.
---

Anyway, I look forward to the nitty-gritty debate (or is that nit-picking debate?).

[Bob Jefferson]

[Maria]