St John's School

[Bob Jefferson]

Haven't seen it either, but my son tells me it runs across the way, ie the goals are to right and left of the photo. He thinks that at least 3 of these pitches would fit onto the old tennis courts.

[Bob Jefferson]

I think a site visit might be in order if anyone is interested?

[seanie]

Sounds like one 5-a-side pitch.

[Porty]

From the business case submitted to the Scottish Government for the Wave 3 schools.

St John’s Primary School - Existing site

3.2.4 Currently located immediately next to Portobello High School, St John’s Primary School also featured in the consultation exercise to replace the schools. St John’s faces acute fitness for purpose issues, having among the smallest classroom sizes in the city; significantly undersized support space; a lack of outdoor education spaces; and accommodation supplemented by temporary accommodation.

It is well worth reading the business case, you will find it here:


The costs given for each option are:

4.6.9 The feasibility study identified a number of locations for a new build St Johns on the current site. Option 2 saw the development of a building adjacent to the Portobello building, which could be developed while the high school continued to operate. A third option could see the provision of a new build primary school on the site of the old Portobello High School with potential co-location alongside the recently built existing high school sports facilities. This third option however has implications for the timescale of delivering a solution for St Johns. In all cases the primary school would be sited to allow an increased area of play space and the provision of an all-weather pitch.


Costs and Programme
4.6.10 The total project costs, based on completion dates of March 2013 (option 1), August 2012 (option 2), or January 2015 (option 3) identified within the report are:
• Extension and refurbishment £11.96 million
• New-build, (not phased) £10.76 million
• New-build (phased) £12.22 million

4.6.11 The likely programme for implementation of this project is four years for the single phased new-build option. An additional seven months would be required for the phased alternative. (Not sure if decant costs are included?)

The only risks identified in the report:

4.6.12 The key risks specific to this project which have been identified at this stage are:
• Refurbishment: issues relating to works progressing next to an operational school- this suggests decant costs are not included

4.8 Option Appraisal Process

4.8.1 An external consultant was commissioned to facilitate an Option Appraisal Workshop, which was attended by representatives from the Council’s Children and Families, Finance, Legal and City Development Departments.
4.8.2 Below is a summary of the options considered for each school within the feasibility studies:-
• Portobello High School
- New build at southern end of Portobello Park

• St John RC Primary School
- Extension and refurbishment of existing school
- Phased new build on existing site
- New build on the adjacent area of land to the immediate west of the existing site
- New build on the land of the existing Portobello High School



4.8.3 The workshop followed the format of the guidance set in the Option Appraisal guidance issued by the Scottish Government in 2004. Each option was considered against the following criteria, and in each case, a ‘do minimum’ option was also considered for each school (which represents the status quo for the Council in terms of maintenance).
A Building Condition/Asset Management/Cost-in-Use
B Sufficiency/appropriate site
C Accessibility (needs)
D Education amenity/enhancement
E Sustainability (how well the building would meet BREEAM indicators)
F Future flexibility
G Community access/integrated services
H Design
I Deliverability – capital cost
J Deliverability – time
K Deliverability – land
L Avoidance of educational disruption

4.8.4 Each objective was given an importance weighting from a range of 1 to 5 (1 – low, 5 – high). Each of the options for the schools was scored on how well they would achieve the objective from a range of 1 – 10 (1 – low 10 – high).

The highest total score then determined the preferred option for each school, as noted below:

• Portobello – New build on alternative site
• St John’s RC Primary School – Phased new build on existing site
• St Crispin’s Special School – New build on alternative site
• James Gillespies High School – Phased new build on existing site
• Boroughmuir High School – New build on alternative site

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

Sorry, you will have to imagine the sound effect.

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

UNBELIEVABLE! I have just learned that David Manson, the chair of St John's Parent Council, has TURNED DOWN an offer from his counterpart, Ken Aitken from PHS Parent Council, for the two groups to meet to explore ways the schools could work together to produce a deliverable solution.

I'm sharing this information because I think that it is important that St John's parents are aware of what the Parent Council is doing on their behalf. I'm sure that many will be very disappointed.

Until now, most members of the PHS Parent Council were prepared to allow St John's to use the tennis courts area before PHS was re-built.

In the light of this rebuff, that is clearly something that will have to be reconsidered.

(copied over from PHS thread)

[bones]

[Bob Jefferson]

[bones]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[Porty]

[Porty]

[bones]

[seanie]

[seanie]

There were three options put forward by the Council;

1. Refurbish and extend the existing building.
2. New-build on the 'tennis courts'.
3. New-build on the existing site.

All three need the same site in total, with land taken from PHS to accommodate the three basic elements; school, playground, all-weather pitch.

All three, as far as the council are concerned, cost pretty much the same.

The Parent Council (in whole or in part) appear to have ignored option 3, misunderstood option 2, and promoted option 1 on the basis, primarily, that it's 'considerably cheaper' and therefore more readily deliverable.

Even though, as far as the council is concerned, refurbishment is not considerably cheaper and may even be more expensive than a new build option.

Is this making any sense?

[seanie]

Put it another way...

If you were the City of Edinburgh Council, considering what option to pick, just how seriously would you take the views of the St John's Parent Council?

[Bob Jefferson]

What we need now is transparency. This is an issue that is of importance to St John's parents but it impacts on PHS parents as well, so we deserve to know the facts.

If the re-development committee has a preferred option for refurbishment and a costed plan then they should be sharing it with St J parents, and preferably with the wider community as well.

If the re-development committee has misrepresented the options available then they should admit as much and do what they can to rectify that situation.

If St John's PC has refused a meeting with PHS PC then we deserve an explanation. If there is a difference of opinion regarding what took place, then let's see the correspondence between the relevant parties and we can judge for ourselves.

What do they have to hide?

[Porty]

[SoupDragon]

[Porty]

I remember that campaign well- there were so many parents involved and we succeeded. I recall one meeting in Lee Crescent and there was around 20 of us working on the presentation to the council.

One of the galling things about the property committee desire to refurbish and extend the school on its existing site (no extra space) is their total disregard for what the various independent experts have said about the constraints of a site that is about 33% the size it should be.

Their justification is that, according to their own plans and costings, (not shared with parents) this option will be "considerably cheaper" and the implication is the school will be more quickly delivered. Even if this was true and according to council officials and the business case it is NOT. Why is getting a quicker, cheaper facility say 5 years earlier, more desireable than a costlier but more spacious and flexible facilty, that will serve for for the next 40 or 50 years?

Make no mistake the not particulaly well hidden agenda of the property committee - to minimize the size of the St Johns site- in the vein hope of having PHS in situ, could impact negatively on the school for the next 50 years, maybe forever.

This has been a long debate and St John's have been offered about 5 different options for a new build school, none of which the property committee have thought worthy of serious consideration.

Were she still a SJP Soupdragon intimates her reluctance to participate in any deputation to the council on behalf of the current parent council. You needn't worry. Its been almost 3 years and no SJP outside the parent council/school board has represented the school or attended in support. They have not nurtured parental support.

I'm always banging on about how the property committee are basically PPAG in disguise and I've mistakenly thought that the idea of a refurb came from Alison Connelly at the meeting of the Executive on December 21st 2006. And it is recorded in the minutes, However, looking back, Alison was not the first to ask for a refurb. Here's an extract from the minutes of the May 4th 2006 meeting. It confirms that the remodel now being peddled bu the property committee is in fact a PPAG idea.

The City pf Edinburgh Council Yesr 200612007
Meeting 1 -Thursday 4 May 2006
Edinburgh, 4 May 2006 - At a meeting of The City of Edinburgh Council.

Deputation Portobello Park Action Group

Steven Hawkins and Garry Gowans explained that the Portobello
Park Action Group had been formed to allow the community to keep
Portobello Park and to prevent it becoming a site for the new high
school. They stated that: -

- there was a need to retain this well used park at the heart of
Portobello and the 5-a-side football pitch in it
-
the deeds of the park stated that the land should be solely used
as a park and that it was common good land

--the Council should consider a partial re-design at St John’s
School and further investigate the two schools option and
rebuilding the schools on their existing sites

- the Council should not dismiss potential brownfield sites
He urged the Council to explore all available options more fully, to
extend the consultation period and to take into account the views of
the whole community.

So there's the evidence a refurb was PPAG's idea all along and the same goes for the brownfield sites Alison asked for in subsequent meetings.

[SoupDragon]

Seen this bit the ?

[Bob Jefferson]

[wangi]

Why didn't they just not stick their fingers in the door...

Or is common sense in short supply?

[Bob Jefferson]

I don't know exactly what the issue with the door(s) is but three incidents of a similar nature tells its own story. I assume that these are heavy self-closing fire doors but maybe someone else has more details?

I believe that the first two incidents both involved nursery school children and that both required hospital treatment.

As a parent, I wouldn't be happy.

[seanie]

I don't know the circumstances here but it's not always straightforward to make such doors completely safe. Fire doors have to conform to very strict tolerances and it's not always possible to meet those and still fit fingerguards. Sometimes you can fit hold-open devices but they'd have to be tied into a fire alarm and again that's not always easy.

[Porty]

[SoupDragon]

Our door into the stair used to close sharply.
We loosed the closer and eventually took the closer off, which I know defeats the perpose but it saved fingers, getting locked out or a sore arm trying to keep the door open when somebody rang the bell

I'm surprised that no action was taken when the first child got hurt

[Porty]

"David Manson, chairman of St John's parent council, said the proposal would leave the school looking like "Alcatraz".

He said: "We only want the two options of either refurbishing on-site or rebuilding on-site. We specifically asked that this option wasn't included because it would just be a disaster.""

Edinburgh Evening News


“Your opinions will be taken into account in the decisions being made by Edinburgh Council in December, and therefore we hope you will be able to spare the time to make your voices heard. We believe that St John's has a very strong case for being refurbished quickly - it is vital that we make the right choice."

Kind regards,
David Manson
Chair, St John's Primary School Parent Council


“The parent council at St John's wrote to all parents regarding this option saying: "The option of building a new school for St John's on the adjacent tennis courts causes us very real concern because we are unsure of what Edinburgh Council would do with the existing St John's building. We are very concerned that we may end up with a new school squeezed up against a block of flats (the existing St John's building) and very close to Portobello High School which may not move for several years yet. This narrow plot would restrict the design of a new school and its facilities to fit into the tennis courts and have very poor access."

Additionally, since Portobello High has only very recently started to use part of this area for an Astroturf pitch, it is possible that Edinburgh Council would only want to proceed with this option if/when Portobello High is relocated, and they have acknowledged that this could take up to 14 years, depending on funding constraints, common good battles, and the identification of alternative local green space to replace that lost on the park."

It really is a poor option.
Alison Connelly, Duddingston Park, Edinburgh

“. An advantage for St John’s of this is that St Johns would be relocated first, which means that St John’s would get its new school more quickly, but also that it would be guaranteed the first “bite” at the funding. “

Letter to Parents from St Johns School board in October 2006


St John’s parent council/school board led themselves and the school up the garden path.

It is a great pity that St John’s has to wait for several years for a new school but at least by that time the dark influence of PPAG will be gone and whoever leads the decision will hopefully have open minds, no hidden agenda and encourage fully informed discussion. And of course PHS should no longer complicate the options for their new school.

It is short-term bad news for St John's but in the longer term they are bound to have a better school on a larger, fit for purpose site. In my view they have had a lucky escape. An Escape to Alcatraz?

[Porty]

The Wave 3 report.