New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[bellybabe]

[Pal of Porty]

[Porty]

[Maria]

[Porty]

[Porty]

PPAG are going through a "cleansing" operation where they are removing the references to building on Figgate Park etc. I've heard they are denying they ever said it. Which is astonishing in itself, the evidence is all over the evening news and will be minuted at the council meetings. You won't find the following letter on www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk any longer but I had the foresight to keep a copy and a screen capture.

Dear Park Supporter

The council has produced its report on the investigation into site options for the re-provisioning of Portobello High School and St John's Primary School.

The Council's Executive will consider the report and ask for permission to start consultation at a meeting on Tuesday 12 September. You can find a copy of the report at:

http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=87316

but please be aware that it takes several minutes to download. There are also copies of the feasibility studies in Portobello Library.

The options they have identified as suitable for PHS are: the current site (but only if St John's moves elsewhere), Portobello Park and Portobello Golf Course (for some reason they are considering these last two as separate locations).

The options for St John's are are the current site (but only if PHS moves elsewhere), Portobello Park, Portobello Golf Course and Bingham Park.

We believe that some of the options they have dismissed should be reconsidered.

Your response to the previous report was fantastic last time and resulted in major amendments to the decision made by the Council.

So, if you are concerned, please write, before 12 September, to the councillors listed at the bottom of this message (you can copy and paste their names into the address field of your e-mail), making the following points.

We believe the council should reconsider the following options, not having given adequate reasons in the report for the their rejection:

A rebuild on site for Portobello High School and a refurbishment on site for St John's. The previous feasibility studies indicated that this was possible so why has this option been ignored? No adequate reason has been given for this omission. A rebuild and refurbish for both schools on their existing sites should be consulted upon.

The Powerleague site has been dismissed as too small for Portobello High School but why is it not being considered for St John's? This option should be in the consultation options for St John's.

The Figgate Park is dismissed as an option for a rebuild of St John's because of risk of flooding. This site is only one metre below the level of the current St John's and a good ten metres above the level of the burn; the risk of flooding is negligible and could be totally eliminated. This site should be consulted upon for St John's.

The Freightliner site is dismissed because to build on it would be against the local plan but so would building on the golf course or park. It is said that it is needed for industrial use but there is already a surplus of industrial land in the area, for example, at Baileyfield. The site is also criticised for being between a busy road and a railway line but so is the golf course/park. The Freightliner site should be consulted upon as an option for Portobello High School and/or St John's.

[Poppy]

[SoupDragon]

[Poppy]

[SoupDragon]

[Porty]

Yes that is the one and thanks very much SP:

Portobello Park could be turned into something really magical and if it can be done at Meggatland then planning etc at Portobello ought to be achievable.

I think 12% housing would be a wortwhile trade for quality sports facilities but I gues that an argument for another time.



"MSPs came out against the proposal to build homes in order to invest in quality sports facilities. None of them, however, were able to point the city council in the direction of an alternative source of finance for improving the pitches.

I was delighted when the Scottish Executive's independent public inquiry ruled in favour of our partnership proposals. The inquiry found the proposal would allow 50 per cent more useable pitch space than was then
available and that the local area and the city were well provided with pitches.

The inquiry reporter also found the vastly-improved changing facilities would be likely to encourage greater participation in sport. I particularly welcomed his comments that the creation of a park and the associated landscaping would improve what he described as a "windswept site with a collection of dilapidated buildings".

Now the construction of the new sports pitches and indoor facilities is complete, it is appropriate to reflect on this development in particular and the issue of building on sports fields in general. Indeed the Executive is consulting on a review of Scottish Planning Policy 11, Physical Activity and Open Space. Interestingly the Executive's document does not propose a total ban on developments on playing fields.

It argues that the main objective should be to ensure there are sufficient playing fields in terms of "quantity, quality and accessibility to satisfy demand within the community". Playing fields, the Executive argues, should not be developed except where, for example, the proposed development upgrades "an existing playing field to provide a better quality facility".
And this gets to the heart of the issue. There is no point in having acres and acres of sports fields if they are unusable. Research carried out by the council into the use of Meggetland showed that there was a consistent decline in the hiring of the sports pitches due to their abysmal quality.

[Bob Jefferson]

I am very disappointed that Alison has chosen to delete all of her posts and can see no sense in this action. I can understand why she may no longer wish to participate in this thread. I appreciate that her dual roles of school board member and a prominent PPAG supporter must be difficult to balance and put her under a good deal of scrutiny.

It is my personal belief that PPAG lost the debate a long time ago and that has led to the difficulty that their supporters have experienced on this thread. It has been a very difficult topic to moderate because people have very strong feelings on the subject. The moderators have done their level best to find a balance, to uphold the principle of free speech while enforcing the posting guidelines in a fair and consistent manner.

Clearly, not everyone feels that they have succeeded in this. Nevertheless, Portobello Online remains committed to facilitating debate and discussion on this and other matters of importance to the community.

[seanie]

It may not be of interest but in looking into the Peebles case I came across the report produced at the end of the same statutory consultation we've been through. It shows the sort of thing we should expect come December. It lists the numbers for and against, separated into statutory and non-statutory consultees, and summarises the points made and responds to them.

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

[SoupDragon]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

"So far the council have refused under the freedom of information act to allow us relevant information about this case, quoting section 36."

I take it section 36 gives protection to parties that have paid for legal advice? I'm assuming they can invoke section 36 to protect their position. If so, it is a very good idea. it is just, fair and reasonable otherwise one party could pay for no legal advice and simply use their advesaries.

PPAG are attempting to validate the ground as common. For what purpose? Are schools not in the common good? What is the point of making the council shift money from one account to another? The only conclusion i can reach is PPAG are using it as a delaying tactic. Its a game of poker, their hand is very weak but hey its not their own children's education they are gambling with so its not costing them anything.

[seanie]

[Poppy]

Try reading this if you want to know about s36 of FOI/Andy Wightman/Council/lose the will to live(!). Seanie's succinct reply covers it!

[Porty]

If my understanding is correct the council were able to sell land that was definitley held in the common good account for the benefit of the common good (in this case new headquarters) without having to go to court to get permission. And they used the proceeds for the common good without having to reimburse the account.

To me, it has not even been established tha PP is CGL but if it does turn out to be; big deal. The cosequences are inconsequential.

I also understand the reason why the FOI request was refused and think it is fair enough.

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Charles]

[Pal of Porty]

[seanie]

[PortyMan]

[Porty]

[Porty]