by Porty » 30 Oct 2006, 23:53
I am pleased that lawrence has given his support to a school in the park. I'm also pleased that Maureen has spoken favourably about a school in the park although I felt all along that she would support it. I guess we will know in the run up to Dec 21st.
I don't want to pick holes in Lawrence's statement but I would like to draw attention to his style versus the PFANS response. Lawrence speaks of a "significant loss of amenity" in relation to the use of the football pitches. PFANS took the trouble to reserach the actual pitch bookings, which work out at less than 4 hours use per week for each pitch for the 36 weeks of the football season.
From the PFANS response:
[i]"Apart from the occasional dog walker, Portobello Park is used by a relatively small number of footballers. During the 36 week football season the three pitches are booked for a total of only four to five games a week, less than two games a week on each pitch.(21 is a reference to the data source) Ironically, two of those bookings are for Towerbank Primary School, the largest feeder primary school for Portobello High School which also has no playing fields. The park currently offers little else in terms of the recreational or leisure amenity normally associated with Parks. We have a considerable public green space, at the “heartâ€
Last edited by
Porty on 31 Oct 2006, 00:12, edited 2 times in total.