New Portobello High School - on going issues

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

[rmolehusband]

[seanie]

[Pal of Porty]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

For those of you who couldn't make last night's meeting, here is a copy of the presentation that was given by the architect. I requested it as a slide show with voiceover but that doesn't seem to be possible. However, if you need any clarification then I'm sure someone who attended could probably assist or we can ask the architect firm for further info.

[Bob Jefferson]

[wangi]

Well it would be worth remembering the boundary of the Portobello Conservation Area in the first instance.

"enclosed to the north east by the sea and to the south west by Sir Harry Lauder Road which creates a visual and physical boundary for the conservation area as far as Windsor Place. At this point, the boundary turns north down Windsor Place and excludes the housing on the former Mount Lodge Estate. The north western and south eastern boundaries are less well defined: the north western boundary being generally defined by Beach Lane on the north side of the High Street and to the rear of Adelphi Place properties on the south side of the High Street, and the south east boundary extending to the end of Joppa Road taking in Dalkeith Street and Morton Street." ()

In the Viridor case the clear issue was the visibility of the proposed structure from the conservation area, and the resulting impact. The proposed school will clearly not be visible from anywhere in the conservation area. Unless you're hanging from the spire of St Philip's or St John's!

[allaboardtheskylark]

Interesting to see how pleased the panel were when they left the building. They did not deal to well with the early guffaws from the anti's, but gained their composure as the meeting went on. Felt sorry for the lovely young lady who was getting a bit of a tough time.

Personally I thought it was just a bit of bullying and they should be ashamed of themselves.

On the other side the anti's lost confidence as the meeting progressed.

Desperation set in from PPAG as they tried to put some rationale behind their arguement. One contributor had difficulty asking his question while searching for his mobile phone to switch it off. Another seemed to be asking for immunity to hit PHS pupils with golf balls and the final reposte.........what are three fours.

ps, there was another shouting liar, liar.
Does anyone know what that was about?

[allaboardtheskylark]

As for the PCC. Surely the whole of the communities views should be reflected.

It seemed to be thanks for the meeting but, traffic, open space, loss of amenity blah, blah.

No thanks for a £41.5M investment with a further £0.5M for "loss of amenity". No suggestions as to how this £0.5M could be spent.

Has the PCC been aware of the poor state of the school. Not to mention the discredited design and the potential for long term closures. Has this been reflected in their minutes over the last 10, 20 etc years.....or does the school only get a mention when a hardcore of campaigners want to stop it being relocated. This without any suggestion as to how to resolve the issue.

Who do they really represent!!!!

[seanie]

[seanie]

[Porty]

[Maria]

[seanie]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Pal of Porty]

[Pal of Porty]

Traffic and the safety of all children was another very valid concern that was raised at the meeting. Unlike primary school pupils, many secondary school children do not use a car to get to and from school and I think that Milton Road offers a much safer environment for children than the trafic mayhem that surrounds St John's during the morning and afternoon drop off/pick up sessions. I hate having to negotiate around St John's on my bike in the morning.

[Bob Jefferson]

[Franck]

[seanie]

[Franck]

[seanie]

[allaboardtheskylark]

[wangi]

[Mate of Marya]