New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[bellybabe]

[Porty]

[Pal of Porty]

[PortyMan]

[Porty]

[PortyMan]

[Porty]

[bellybabe]

[Porty]

[Dadaist]

[PortyMan]

[PortyMan]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

Thought it may be useful to have an easy to read balance sheet to keep track on individuals or groups who have spoken up on a school in portobello park. A sort of where we are at at a glance. As other gropus, individuals declare we can adjust the balance sheet. Some groups like PHS have declared in sub-groups. Apologies if I missed anyone off.

SCHOOL ON PORTOBELLO PARK-THE BALANCE SHEET


ASSETS

PFANS
PHS STAFF
PHS PUPILS
PHS PARENTS
PHS SMT
PHS SUPPORT STAFF
PHS SCHOOL BOARD
St JOHNS SCHOOL
TOWERBANK STAFF
TOWERBANK PARENTS
TOWERBANK SCHOOL BOARD
MAUREEN CHILD
LAWRENCE MARSHALL


LIABILITIES
PPAG*




YET TO DECLARE

Duddingston Primary, Brunstane Primary, Parsons Green Primary, Lismore Primary, MP, MSP, Councillor Berry, Portobello Thistle

[bellybabe]

I voted for rebuilidng on the PHS site.

[Bob Jefferson]

Thank you. May I ask you a further question?

Do you think that the results should be made publicly available?

[bellybabe]

Yes.

I don't remember the letter saying results wouldn't be published; I thought it said individual comments wouldn't, but maybe it said individual "responses" which i would have taken to mean the more long winded answers - I assumed the statistics would be made available. But if Ms Service says that what it said I mustn't have been paying attention.

"Bellybabe could do better..."...!

Presumably it can be obtained thorugh a FOI request?

[Bob Jefferson]

Anyone still have a copy for clarification? I agree entirely that it would be inappropriate to make public individual comments, although a representative selection could be published (without being attributed to a particular author) to give a flavour of opinion expressed.

In any case, that's not what is being asked for. All that is being requested is the numbers, expressed in real or percentage terms, of parents who voted for each option.

Anyone else for the exit poll?

[Bob Jefferson]

The Scottish Executive 'Common Good' session is now available to view on Holyrood TV.

You can FF to 2 mins 50 secs when the action starts. The Q & A teleconference with Andy Wightman continues until 42 mins. Sound is a bit dodgy but listenable. To listen to the petitioners session, FF to 1 hr 42 mins. This again lasts for around 40 mins.

[Bob Jefferson]

I have now located the minutes, basically a transcription in fact, of the meeting on the 14 November:



Further evidence relating to this matter was considered on 21 November:

[Bob Jefferson]

Again, the meeting on 21 November can be viewed online on Holyrood TV. It runs for just short of 90 mins:

[gilo]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

Meanwhile, over on the Pottygreenkeepers forum there still appears to be no way to register or contact the administrator.

Have a go yourself at www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/forum

[seanie]

Since Jamesie seemed to want a summary I’ll provide one, albeit from the perspective of a sneering, cynical propagandist.

Portobello School is in poor condition and is no longer fit for purpose. A refurbishment, itself disruptive and expensive, would not address the underlying physical inadequacy and so a new school is required.

For the purposes of evaluating sites the model chosen was for a school of 1200 pupils (less than the current role of 1400+) with an on site all-weather pitch. The optimum size for such an arrangement was considered to be 4.5Ha. This would not meet all sporting requirements, off-site pitches would still be needed, but is more manageable than the 6.2Ha minimum (as set down The Schools Premises (Scotland) Regulations 1967).

Of the brown-field sites put forward most were too small, not in Council ownership, or both, which ruled them out as viable prospects with the exception of the existing (enlarged) site – Option A.

Under the PPP2 round a couple of years ago it was proposed to replace the school on the existing site. This is possible but has a number of drawbacks. The site is fundamentally too small (2.4Ha). Leaving aside the issue of playing fields the site is still below the statutory minimum and that statutory minimum itself falls well short of what would be regarded good practice by today’s standards. However by extending the site to include St John’s the shortfall would be eased.

The combined site, at 3.5Ha, would still fall below the optimum 4.5Ha but an on-site all weather pitch could be accommodated. However there is a significant risk that the resulting design would be compromised. The limitations of the site would impose more constraints on the design and could recreate the same sort of problem the existing building presents: a school on a site fundamentally too small, unable to cope with adaptation or change. Most sports provision would continue to be provided off site, at some distance which is far from ideal, and a decant for 2-3 years would be required involving considerable disruption and expense.

From a purely educational point of view option A appears the least satisfactory but in its favour it would involve the least loss of green space. It requires the relocation of St John’s, almost certainly to a green-field site, but that’s considerably smaller than the high school. It also represents a low planning risk in itself but does carry the planning risk of the prior relocation of St John’s. That prior relocation would make this the longest to deliver: a new PHS might be ready in 7-8 years time. It's also expected to be the most expensive option.

The only realistic alternatives involve building PHS on a greenfield site. That inevitably represents a significant planning hurdle, albeit to different degrees depending on location. Most sites were ruled out for a combination of factors: particular planning considerations, catchment location, access etc.

Two were taken to consultation: Option B – the golf course, Option C – the pitches.

Option B, on the golf course, easily allows the 4.5Ha optimum size and the adjacent pitches (at 5.7Ha) would provide more than sufficient additional pitch provision, easily accessible. The principal difficulties would appear to be planning related; the loss of green space; loss of amenity regarding the golf course; traffic issues; public prominence.

The loss of green space might be acceptable in planning terms given the size of the site. The total area of park and golf course is 19Ha so a school at 4.5Ha would still leave 14.5Ha of publicly accessible green space. Given that the golf course could be relocated at Brunstane and the remaining green space reconfigured to increase use, the Planners might be persuaded that this represented a marginal loss of amenity. However the Planners would appear to favour Option C over B.

Option C would give the school a prominent public location and access off Milton Road would be easier to manage in terms of traffic. The loss of greenspace would be a planning obstacle but again there would still be14.5Ha of publicly accessible green space and the two existing community pitches would remain. Not relocating the golf course would also be easier and cheaper.

In educational terms the large question mark over option C is the pitch provision. One all weather pitch and two community grass pitches for shared school use falls well short of the statutory minimum required under the regulations. Whether that level of provision is sufficient to sustain the needs of both the school and community is questionable and certainly hasn’t been demonstrated.

Both options B & C obviate the need for a disruptive and costly decant and, even with the anticipated lengthy planning process, are considered quicker to deliver than Option A: 5-6 years.

Other suggestions have been put forward for replacing PHS but none seem plausible. Options A, B & C probably do represent the most viable solutions presently available.

There are two other question that should be mentioned if only in passing.

The fundamental issue of funding has not been resolved. The Council doesn’t have the capital resources to fund a project on this scale and their capacity to borrow is severely restricted. They’ve stated their intention to approach the Scottish Executive for funding but if that should be unsuccessful, or provide only partial funding, then the sale of assets to generate capital may be required. No indication has been given of what might be sold or where but Labour has promised a manifesto commitment that no housing will be built on the golf course or park. Quite where that leaves the financial viability of new schools is unclear.

The other issue that seems to be coming to the fore is whether the park & golf course is Common Good land. The Council’s legal advice is that it isn’t, PPAG’s legal advice is that it is. However it’s not clear whether this is a significant issue or not. LA's don't appear to be aware of a legal constraint on such a use and there’s at least one current example of a school being built on Common Good land, with others that have been proposed, without an apparent legal impediment. In any event the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 makes express provision for transferring land out of the Common Good and substituting it for other land. Given the newly acquired land up at Brunstane a fairly obvious (and cost free) resolution would seem possible should the land be Common Good.

[Porty]

Brilliant summation Seanie balanced and fair although I don't imagine Portyman would agree. So to even things up for Jamesie here's Portyman's landmark opening post from way back when:


[quote="PortyMan"]Hi - thought I’d join in on the ‘discussion’… There’s quite a lot to comment on, even if it is all conjecture, rumour and gossip? So apologies in advance if this rambles…

First, I declare an interest… I chose to live on Park Avenue. That is, I didn’t stick a pin in a map and I didn’t find it in a lucky bag. My, then pregnant, wife and I selected this area from a variety of alternatives, largely, but not simply, because it overlooks the park and golf course – an ideal situation to raise a family in our view. We did, of course, pay a premium for this, but were happy to do so.

I have since come to love and enjoy the eccentric nature and community spirit of Portobello (Hence my forum ‘name’, which I also use in a variety of completely unrelated situations… despite, technically, not being in or from Portobello.)

Now, seventeen years later… I find that this fine amenity on my doorstep is to be destroyed, with a direct impact on my immediate environment, the quality of my family’s life and the value of my home. And for what? To compensate for the failure, short-sightedness and incompetence of the education authority and council?

This isn’t about a new school. Everyone – pretty much - agrees a new school is needed, or at least ‘a good thing’. It’s the location that’s at issue (and in turn, the funding, because we can’t build anything in Edinburgh without giving housing/supermarket developers their ‘cut’).

There is no alternative, we hear (where have we heard that before?). But, no mention is made of any alternatives; no discussion is enjoyed, no thought given. Just mysterious experts who’ve already made the decision but are unable (or incapable) of informing those most directly affected (I’m also a parent of a child at the school)?

So - the ‘old’ school site (which was previously playing fields!) becomes housing. Bearing in mind there’s an eight-storey building on the site at present and that precedence is a major consideration in planning decisions, that’s a lot of flats!

And the Golf Course becomes two schools and houses… and “Powerleagueâ€

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Dadaist]