New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Maria]

[Pal of Porty]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Dadaist]

I know nothing about the ins and outs of "common good" land in terms of building on it.

I understand that if they sell land, the proceeds would have to go into the common good fund, which would scupper funding if the SE said "no" and it turned out the land they wanted to sell was common good.

But if all they want to do is build on it and retain ownership - like options B & C - what does common good have to do with it?

Are neither PPAG nor the council letting us read their respective legal opinions?

If PPAG went to court over this, how would they pay their legal bills? We'd have to pay the council's I assume, unless part of the SE funding they are applying for includes legal fees!

Imagine if the SE said no and PPAG took the council to court to stop them selling common good land to pay for houses to pay for a school. If they won, the council might have to sell common good land to pay their legal bills!

[Bob Jefferson]

Here's Andy's magnus opus on the question of Common Good land, all 72 pages of it. Would anyone like to attempt a 100 word précis to save the rest of us the bother of having to read it?

- Andy Wightman & James Perman.

[Porty]

[PortyMan]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Poppy]

Andy Wightman does not seem to realise that Portobello is not the same sort of Burgh as the likes of Banff. Banff is a Royal Burgh and has been for centuries (since 1203-6 in fact) whereas Portobello is/was a Parliamentary or Police Burgh and has only existed as a place for around 200 years and only became a Parliamentary Burgh in 1833. I mean, yer man only built his Hut in 1742!! Before that, some monks appear to have grazed their cattle here...

This sort of distortion makes me view anything he's written with reservations - a man with an agenda does not necessarily make a reliable or unbiased author. IMHO.



Edited a couple of times to add in some dates!

[seanie]

[Dadaist]

[Poppy]

As an aside: I have not read the whole context of Andy Wightman's paper, but it seems to me that that it could be inferred from what is quoted that the Park was feued to Portobello Council when the feu was granted after the amalgamation of Portobello into Edinburgh in 1896 or whenever. It is unlikely that this makes any real difference but it does rather colour the argument if the facts are not made clear.

[Porty]

[Porty]

And here's the joint statement as mentioned above:

STATEMENT FOLLOWING A JOINT MEETING WITH THE BOARDS OF PORTOBELLO HIGH SCHOOL AND ST JOHN'S PRIMARY SCHOOL

A meeting took place jointly between the Schools Boards of Portobello High and St John's Primary on 19 June and subsequently by correspondence in order to consider the Council's proposals for the two adjacent schools.

This Consensus Statement reflects views expressed in the meeting and is issued on behalf of both Boards:

1. Both Boards welcome the proposal to replace the Schools on the following terms:

(a) Boards accept the need for action urgently;

(b) Boards have no objection to co-location of schools as long as arrangements ensure their distinct and separate identity; and

(c) Boards challenge the City of Edinburgh Council to make rapid progress on an acceptable, affordable and high quality solution.

2. The educational case for replacement of both schools is strong. Both Boards believe that a much improved learning environment will allow the delivery of modern learning and teaching, release the potential of staff and students to attain to higher levels of achievement, promote health and wellbeing, and offer facilities and an environment for the educational benefit, outdoor and indoor, of children and all generations in the community.

3(a). There is a strong community case for replacement of both schools. Wherever the new schools will be sited, there will be a larger land requirement than before, a net loss of land for other use and displacement of other activities. However, there should be a clear balance in favour of the development when looking at the broader community benefit, taking all matters together.

3(b). No matter where the schools will be sited, there must be better use of open parkland.

4. The case for children is very clear - the current school buildings have effectively come to the end of their lives and are capping educational achievement. Green spaces around schools are very important and achievable in a suburban area. The health, wellbeing and fullest potential of children are not best served by current arrangements, nor is delay in moving to new buildings.

5. Both Boards will, in partnership with School's management and the City of Edinburgh Council, consult with staff, pupils and parents in developing, examining and promoting plans for school replacement.

6. Both Boards are committed to work with the local community to arrive at a decision that carries the broadest support. Boards believe that new schools should have the community's support with the right proposal.

7. There should be no cap to the ambition of Portobello and the surrounding area. Core to the Boards' consensus is that the East of Edinburgh is a place where children will want to stay when they grow up.


THOSE PRESENT


St John's Primary School

Alison Connolly, School Board Parent Member
Erin Hislop, School Board Staff Member
Barbara Service, Head Teacher

(Susan Scotland, School Board Chair was unable to attend at short notice and has corresponded on subsequent drafts)

Portobello High School

Ken Aitken, Parent Member
Archie Burns, Parent Member
John Burnside, Staff Representative
Marjorie Cook, Senior Depute Head Teacher
Andrew Fraser, School Board Chair
Duncan Lauder, Parent Member
Peigi Macarthur, Head Teacher
Steve MacIntyre, Co-opted Community Representative
Sally Wyke, Board Deputy Chair
Paul Saddler, Staff Representative

[Porty]

Another section of the PHS response that one may find interesting is the one that deals with the only member of the board who opted for A. He gets his own section as their is a commitment to a fair and representative response.

Dissenting School Board Parent Member

The School Board is almost unanimous in its firm and strong view of options available to the school, with one parent member dissenting. He does so on the following points:

(a) disturbance of cherished green space should not be allowed on any account;

(b) that there may still be some way, not so far detailed, that designers could find to build a school on the existing site, while avoiding a decant of children (some or all) during re-construction, by designing the new building on vacant parts of the current site; and

(c) children could still travel to an off-site venue for supervised physical education (PE), perhaps using Portobello Park instead of the Jack Kane Centre - children could walk there.

Eleven per cent of parents who responded to the questionnaire survey agreed with this view. All other members of the Board strongly disagree with the practicality and balance of values of these matters.

Comments from supporters of Option A

Option A - (If any) - I feel that brown field sites options were dismissed too readily, and also the crucial issue of taking the opportunity to downsize the school, to 2 smaller human-scale schools has also dismissed. Golf course or park options save the Council money, but means loss of what originally has "common land". What if there was a proposal to build Boroughmuir on the Meadows? There would be an outcry!!

Option A - Don't want the school to be relocated

Option A - Great location - Option B and Option C stay untouched

Option A - Green spaces in towns and cities are lungs to the community and are now given special protection under the new planning rules recently announced by the Scottish Executive. This park is used by young and old and is situated in the heart of a community

Option A - has less impact on the environment and is cheaper.

Option A - Portobello Park and Golf Course are a valuable resource to the community at large and are used by many, young and old in the area. For children around the Milton Road area, it is their only open play area. It provides a large sofa area to play. It supports a wide range of wildlife.

Option A - The fact that the school would stay in familiar surroundings and the open space wouldn’t be affected
Option A - The ground at the park was gifted to the people of Portobello. It is used by Walkers and golfers alike. "MORALLY" it is wrong for the Council to re-claim it!!!

[Poppy]

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Porty]

St John’s School Board
Response to Statutory Consultation


St John’s School Board have considered the opinions of parents and teachers by issuing a letter, issuing a questionnaire (appendix A) and attending the consultation meetings.

The Board has now reviewed the responses and the main findings are as follows:

· There is universal acknowledgement that our current building fails to satisfy fitness for purpose, and that upgraded facilities are urgently required.

· The clear majority of the St John’s Community are not in favour of co-location with the High School, for reasons of pupil safety and welfare

· There is widespread desire to minimise the loss of green space.

· Taking into account these factors , and the difficulty securing a suitable brownfield site for St John’s the School Board have concluded that:

St John’s Primary should be rebuilt on Portobello Park. This would allow the existing school site to become available for the rebuilding of Portobello High School.

With the following benefits:

· Given its poor fitness for purpose St John’s would benefit from a new building in the earliest possible timeframe.

· The loss of green space would be minimised, as the footprint of a Primary School is significantly smaller than that of a High School.

· There would be an opportunity to enhance the playing fields for community use by providing floodlighting and new changing facilities.

· The development is likely to be less controversial in Planning terms than a large scale project.

· The current St John’s site, along with the adjacent tennis courts and playground area is certainly large enough to construct a new High School building. (see appendix B). Therefore the decant of pupils from Portobello High School should be unnecessary.

· Reusing the existing site should make it possible to save additional costs by retaining the swimming pool and the recently constricted gym hall for the new High School.

St John’s School Board
30 October 2006

[Dadaist]

I love the bit about a recently constricted swimming pool. What did they do - rope off several lanes?

[Porty]

[Dadaist]

[foxy]

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN Letters Page:

[Pal of Porty]

What an excellent letter from Ros Sutherland

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Dadaist]

[Porty]