New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

UPDATED: We now have the revised submission by Portobello Amenity Society.

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 UPDATE NOV 29 2006


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

PORTOBELLO AMENITY SOCIETY


LIABILITIES
PPAG*




YET TO DECLARE

Duddingston Primary, Brunstane Primary, Parsons Green Primary, Lismore Primary, MP, MSP, Councillor Berry, Portobello Thistle[/quote]

[Dadaist]

Porty

I appreciate you think your "balance sheet" is useful and I'm not accusing you of concocting crass propaganda purely aimed at annoying PPAG.

There are groups with conflicting aims in the same list now, where the common factor is building a school on a park.

Rather than being useful, this makes things more complicated - in that it's being left to the reader to work out which school they want built and on which bit of the Park/park/golf course.

If you were an independent consultant and were given the job of making a summary of the various groups/bodies involved in and/or commenting on the consultation, is this the list you would come up with?

I note you say "individuals or groups who have spoken up" - I would argue for the inclusion, for the sake of completeness, of the Community Council in any list/document and the reasons why they haven't "spoken up".

[Porty]

UPDATED: We now have the revised submission by Portobello Amenity Society.

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 and those who may still comment. 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 UPDATE NOV 29 2006*


ASSETS


FOR PORTOBELLLO HIGH SCHOOL ON PORTOBELLO PARK

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

FOR St JOHNS PRIMARY ON PORTOBELLO PARK

PORTOBELLO AMENITY SOCIETY
St JOHNS SCHOOL


LIABILITIES

PPAG

*There are e a number of groups that would accept both schools colocating on the park

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

NEUTRAL

Portobello Community Council,

[Porty]

Edit- accidental deletion.

[Dadaist]

Porty - you have Towerbank listed 3 times (staff, parents, school board) but St Johns only once as "St Johns School".

Why?

You also have "Assets" listed vertically in upper case, but "Yet To Declare" and "Neutral" seem to be horizontal and in mixed case.

Why?

As those in "Yet To Declare" and "Neutral" don't, at the moment, support a school in the Park, did you consider listing them as "Liabilities"?

You have put Laurence and Maureen - councillors - on their own lines. Do you think it would be worthwhile listing individual community councillors in this manner?

[Porty]

[Maria]

Several posts have been moved to

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

[Bob Jefferson]

[gilo]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Pal of Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[mr magnolia]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Maria]

A copy of the report it is available online at - please go to current consultations.

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

[Porty]

I did not attend the meeting at St John's so I was interested to see what questions were asled and if there was a demonstrable support for St John's in Portobello park. There were 21 questions asked, the questions in red have, in my opinion, got nothing to do with the provision of a new school. They are questions on funding, housing, the process, the loss of green space etc. Out of 21 questions only 8 ; the ones in black do have some relevance to a new school. Even then the questions were very negative, For example Question 13 seems to be saying "what on earth are you doing providing us with a larger school?"

St Johns' did not get what they asked for in the consultation. Clearly their school on the park does not make the most educational sense. However, they cannot feel miffed as at no time during the process was a real desire or support for a move to portobello park demonstrated.

Q1 The parent of a child at St Johns PS asked how the consultation processworked taking the two schools in isolation. The community should not be broken up, the two schools impacted on each other and there needed to be joined up thinking.

Q2 The parent of a child at St Johns PS referred to the cost of purchase of part of the golf course. It was necessary to put money into the Common Good Fund for the purchase of the land. Also, a firm assurance was needed that houses would not be built on the site.


Q3 The parent of a child in the area commented that this was a good school. It was not possible to build on this site four years earlier, it was not acceptable to give up the green site at that stage.


Q4 The parent of a child at St Johns PS referring to the funding issue, relating to the market value attached to the site, suggested that this would preclude building.

Q5 The parent of a child at St Johns PS stated that the children received a good education, so why should the present building be renovated and term and conditions could be included. If there was a move to the other end of the site, the new sections of the building could be possibly included. It was a spurious exercise to link the two sites.


Q6 The parent of a child at St Johns PS raised health and safety concerns, which ncluded asbestos, if the existing site was retained, under Option A.


Q7 The parent of a child at St Johns PS commented that the proposed rebuilding of St Johns in 2011-2014 involved a big time factor and asked were there any plans for refurbishment at present. There were no significant savings through colocation, but how would financial gains be achieved.


Q8 The parent of a child at St Johns PS indicated that the sustainability issue had been cited, but there was no mention of the sustainable use of land, which was disappointing. All the brown field sites had been rejected and Holyrood Park site was not being considered. Construction in this location might be advantageous.


Q9 A further question was raised about the development of houses. After the May 2007 elections, the Labour Party would probably retain influence. Therefore what would their policy be on the use of the park.

Q10 The parent of a child at St Johns PS asked if the two schools were built on the golf course, how much would it cost to build other golf course.

Q11 The parent of a child at St Johns PS asked for clarification of the option whereby St Johns PS moved out and the High School was located in this vicinity. If there was to be a loss of a greenfield site, St John’s should be built on the Park and the High School would be built on the present site. She thought there should not be a primary school near a High School.


Q12 The parent of a child in the area commented that there was a more difficult decision to be made at the High School. People needed assurance about the move from the brownfield site and an explanation was required to explain the process of the move. The majority opinion was for a move to the Park.



Q13 A parent of Child of St Johns PS expressed the view that the funding was forthcoming. Was it advantageous to have an exchange of green space. Were Options B and C not similar here and why was the space requirement for St John’s School increasing in size by a factor of 2.5?

Q14 A parent of Child of St Johns PS referred to the funding process, stating that there was a need for a replacement, therefore when was it was recognised that this school had a finite time.

Q15 A parent of a child in the area asked what would be the life span be of the new school?

Q16 A parent of Child from the area commented that not everyone at the previous meeting was in favour of Portobello Park. Regarding St John’s PS, the Holyrood site was the preferred option. How could there be constant change taking place, such as separate consultations. The public was being told that there was funding from the Scottish Executive, which did not exist previously.

Q17 A parent of Child at St Johns PS indicated that she was pleased with the momentum that was taking place. What involvement would the City of Edinburgh. Council have with the design process?

Q18 A parent of Child of St Johns PS asked about the desirability of swapping green spaces.


Q19 A parent of a child of St Johns PS commented about the potential design of the new High School from the previous meeting. Co-location was a bigger issue for primary children then secondary children, as there needed to be distance between the schools.

Q20 A parent of a child of St Johns PS referred to the timescales of the various options and the implications for the locations of the two schools, and the possible
loss of parkland.

Q21 A parent of a child of St Johns PS indicated that she was not in favour of collocation and she thought that ensuring the safety of the primary children was an issue.

[Bob Jefferson]

[Pal of Porty]

[Nelson Hatstand]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[bellybabe]

A refurbishment instead of a new school? You're kidding me, right?

Is the school board allowed to do that? Surely after a consultation process where they stated a new school was favoured they can't simply turn their backs on the parents' and teachers' views? I thought about odging a formal complaint about the conduct of the board before now but decided it wasn't worth it, but I can't believe we suddenly get completely shafted by them at the last minute. And of course by a board whose parent members will not have children affected by the changes - a bit of an I'm-alright-Jack kind of thing?

I can't believe this.

And of course on the last day of term...maybe they're hoping we'll have calmed down by the start of the new term.

[Maria]

[Izzie]

There goes yet an other park

[Pal of Porty]

Here comes a fantastic opportunity for all children in the Portobello community.

[Porty]