New Portobello High School- Where and how?

by **Porty** » 30 Oct 2006, 19:09

It does help, thanks.

At the town hall meeting someone asked thatif schools were built on the park could the remaining land be bequesthed to the people in perpetuity and preserved as parkland and or recreational space. From what you have said the restrictions would only apply if the council didn't then sell the land. Is that correct?

by **Poppy** » 30 Oct 2006, 19:34

by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 Oct 2006, 19:54

by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 Oct 2006, 20:10

by **Dadaist** » 30 Oct 2006, 20:45

by **seanie** » 30 Oct 2006, 21:10

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 â€œheartâ€

by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 00:03

by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 00:15

by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 09:46

by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 11:24

by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 11:31

by **Bob Jefferson** » 31 Oct 2006, 12:31

by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 12:53

by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 13:16

by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 13:36

by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 13:41

by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 13:46

by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 14:40

by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 15:00

by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 15:48

by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 16:51

by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:35

by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:37

by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:39

by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:47

by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:47

Here's the offending paragraph :

Right - so turning an open green space into a complex of buildings represents "environmental justice" ?

Whoever wrote that is either a cynic or an idiot.

by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:49

Hey - where did you get text from?

Can you also please address your reaction to my explanation?

I'll happily go into detail about the paragraph itself, but would first like to know exactly what you mean by "aye right" when I gave you a straight explanation as to what I meant by "whoever".

by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:50

I did ask for your views and I meant it. My view is that the above is a very reasonable argument for "environmental justice" in the micro environment that is Portobello. Why do you believe it ain't so?

by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:52

by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:52

by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:54

by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:57

by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 18:08

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Who is online