New Portobello High School - on going issues

by **Porty** » 11 Jun 2009, 22:55

From the Evening News "Something Luby or Ghost said yesterday made me think about 1964 when the existing school opened. According to PPAG the council are simply repeating what happened then, when the school was built on St John's playing fields and the old building sold off, which is not the way it was.

PHS was about to go through a massive increase in role and the old school, capacity around 600,could not hope to cope with 2000 plus. So the council HAD to provide a new but additional school. Both school buildings operated in tandem for almost 20 years, by which time the school role had dropped and the old building was sold off. That puts a different light on things doesn't it?

They would have you believe that the council simply sold off assets- what were they supposed to do hold onto a surplus building?"

I know we have enough on our plates discussing the existing school but what must it have been like then? I could never understand why they put the school where it is now. Is it possible that in those days they had even fewer options. I think so.

The Freightliner Terminal, Powerleague, Portobello Park were not available and I'm not sure what the status of the Scottish Power site was? Contrary to popular conception we may have more flexibility in our potential sites for local schools than they did then?

by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Jun 2009, 23:47

by **Pal of Porty** » 12 Jun 2009, 10:35

There certainly is. It has all started as a result of Alison Connelly of PPAG's letter. It is the second one down but the comments go on for miles.

by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Jun 2009, 11:52

From today's EN Letters Page:

by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Jun 2009, 12:47

From today's EN Letters Page:

by **Porty** » 15 Jun 2009, 21:22

by **Pal of Porty** » 16 Jun 2009, 15:12

The debate about the new PHS continues in the letter pages of the EEN. Here is another one from today:

P.S. Thanks Bob

by **Grunk** » 17 Jun 2009, 10:10

I only dip into this thread now and again, and I don't really understand what is going on, so please feel free to fill in the gaps...

Essentially they built a poor school in the 60's which is now falling apart, so they need a new school?

They can't use the current site, because during the building works there would be no school (or is it too small?), so they have ot pick an alternative site?

The nearest large enough council owned site is portobello park?

Folk who like the park don't want a school there.

What is going to happen to the original site after the new school is going to be built? Is it the case that another school will then move in? or will they replace it with a new park? Or will they just sell it off to the highest bidder?

The other thing I don't get is that currently we are having the biggest boom in newborn babies ever seen in the area. So why are they closing primary schools instead of rationalising the space to current student level and keeping the existing schools in decent state of repair for when they will be needed?

by **Porty** » 17 Jun 2009, 12:45

by **seanie** » 17 Jun 2009, 17:44

by **mr magnolia** » 18 Jun 2009, 08:45

is this connected with us in Porty at all? I'm struggling to keep up with all the non-happenings re schools and funding.

by **Grunk** » 18 Jun 2009, 12:33

by **seanie** » 18 Jun 2009, 13:52

by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Jun 2009, 18:52

From today's EN Letters Page:

by **Bob Jefferson** » 19 Jun 2009, 17:15

The war of words rages on in today's EN Letters Page:

by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Jun 2009, 07:45

From yesterday's EN:

by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Jun 2009, 16:38

From today's EN Letters Page:

by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Jun 2009, 11:07

From today's EN Letters Page:

by **Porty** » 27 Jun 2009, 17:00

"I can't help wondering" - er I think we were already aware of that. Anything is preferable to reality.

I can't help but wonder why the council act on the advice of senior and junior counsel and not on the behest of 3 or 4 self interested ignorami.

by **Pal of Porty** » 29 Jun 2009, 10:10

This is a bit of a non-letter really.

The Council have sought legal opinion and made their decision to proceed on this basis. The replacement green space is a condition of putting the school on the park so it will obviously be addressed.

Waste of ink.

by **Porty** » 29 Jun 2009, 10:46

I'm going to risk the wrath of Seanie, as I'm sure he will have addressed this before;

The replacement green space has to be local. What does it mean exactly?

Can the council revamp some of the 92% of accessible open space? how local is local and does the replacement land have to be the same or a similar size?

by **seanie** » 29 Jun 2009, 15:23

by **Porty** » 29 Jun 2009, 16:26

by **Porty** » 29 Jun 2009, 16:37

by **Eck** » 15 Jul 2009, 03:43

by **seanie** » 15 Jul 2009, 09:19

by **seanie** » 17 Jul 2009, 13:00

by **Porty** » 17 Jul 2009, 16:30

by **Porty** » 17 Jul 2009, 20:01

by **seanie** » 07 Sep 2009, 22:43

Saw a presentation form the architects of the new school this evening. Very encouraging overall. It's still early days but it looked like they were developing a really good approach.

by **Porty** » 08 Sep 2009, 16:43

Yeah I heard it was pretty good and well received. long way to go tho.

by **seanie** » 21 Sep 2009, 19:46

Looks like James Gillespie's might be in with a shout for funding. St John's came equal third in the prioritisation with Boroughmuir so it might be in with an outside chance, though I can't imagine the capital allocation being huge.

by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Oct 2009, 08:50

by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Jan 2010, 18:48

New Portobello High School - on going issues

Who is online