Existing school site - return to green space?

[Bob Jefferson]

The new PHS will, finally and inevitably, at some stage be built on Portobello Park. I don't think anyone seriously doubts that. At that point, what do we do with the existing site? Maureen Child has pledged that she will fight to have it returned to green space. Bear in mind, however, that part of the site will almost certainly be required for the re-build (or refurb) of St John's.

The alternative scenario is that the Council sell the remaining land to a developer, in which case the capital receipt would be ring-fenced to help pay for the other Wave 3 schools, including of course St John's.

The Council has made no decision on this and local opinion is likely to have a big influence.

Which is your preferred option? What are the pros and cons? Discuss here and then cast your vote on the poll at:

http://www.facebook.com/portobello.online

[Bob Jefferson]

One of the reasons I pose this question is that I'm unsure about this myself and would like to hear other opinions. I'm concerned that it would just become another dog toilet and I question whether we need another green space when Figgate Park is so close. On the other hand, maybe it could be used as a playground for local children?

How do you see this space being utilised?

[Franck]

Here's a thought, and one that might not be popular with many.I'd re-build St.Johns & Towerbank on the site of PHS, with outstanding communal facilities with the two schools running alongside each other, plenty space for two lots of primary kids.How many have kids going to one school but have mates at the other?They seem to have a great relationship and quite a few kids leave St.Johns to go to PHS (mine didn't)You then have the land at both Towerbank and St.Johns to punt,and a brand new school for all the kids of Portobello.


Otherwise-

Tennis courts,astro pitch,janitors house given over to St.Johns please, the rest, sell to the highers bidder and recycle the loot into schools throughout Edinburgh.

That parcel of land given to St.Johns could be the right sized footprint for a new school, allowing the current plot to be converted into playground.All my kids will have left by the time this comes to pass, but it's a terrific school and the staff and pupils deserve it.

[Bazza]

If it was turned into green space, it would have easy access to the Figgateburn Park across Hamilton Drive.

[Maria]

I think it is a shame that the big sports hall has to go when the school moves. Can anyone remember what the reason was?

[Chas]

I can't see the overall benefit in making the PHS site (or what's not needed for a new Primary School) in to parkland; it would in reality be an addition to the Figgate Park but with a road running through it (back to the discussions on kids and road safety...). Plus, the Figgy is already a large park (one of the best in Edinburgh if I may say so) and in percentage terms the add-on is not huge.

I do quite like the concept of building a joint campus on the site, likely leaving the St Johns side of Hamilton Terrace to go for housing along with the TB site. Might that actually be MORE land to sell in total?

At most I think only the area of Portobello Park being used for the School (can't remember the number but I do know it's not 25% of Portobellos parkland...) should be kept back from the PHS site, with the rest being sold.

[Grunk]

Surely, given the uproar with building a new school on greenspace, the site should be kept for either a new school or greenspace.

i.e. we keep one piece of greenspace and rotate the building of new schools to the current "space" Like leaving a field fallow in farming terms.

So if a new primary school is required, it fits into the space vacated by PHS, and when PHS falls down in 15 years time it goes into the latest vacated space.

[Pal of Porty]

I would build St John's up by the PHS Gym, perhaps even being able to incorporate the gym into the new design as it is a good building. I would then give the school as much open space and playfields as possible, leave the remainder as open space and then the school can be rebuilt on the same site inperpetuity every 50 years or so. Simples.

[Porty]

Personally I think the St Johns/TB joint campus is an interesting idea. Having said that, TB on the prom is iconic. one only need to observe the number of kids/parents who walk there. Would duddingston/st john's work? Not been to Duddy in a long time . When was the last time it had any serious capital improvement must be as old as PHS. A couple of hundred yards along the road it sits on already.

At the time St John's parent council rejected a new school on the old PHS and thereby resigned the "new" gym to demolition. We all know the reason for such a weird, wasteful stance and it may no longer apply.

[Chas]

[Sceptic]

If my memory serves me correctly, the PHS site was the Playing Fields of St. Johns. Why not return the site to that?
Everyone says children do not get enough exercise. By all means have a joint campus. Towerbank is just being extended to take it's children, Lismore was closed down, another building site? The problem is that school sites are now too small to build a new school beside the old, or are in the wrong site to begin with. As an example Portobello HS was built to be near the old building whereas it SHOULD have been where Holyrood is now, beside it's playing fields. I can say, from experience, refurbishing is the worst of all options.

[lg1726]

I do worry that we are seemingly a bit parochial in terms of looking at just this locally and not at the bigger picture of the educational needs of children across Edinburgh. If the existing site is sold off and the realised capital ring fenced for all Wave 3 schools, surely that is in line with our argument to build PHS on porty park? It can sound a bit hypocritical of us demanding to keep other local parks, or creating additional ones and so restricting much needed capital for much needed new schools in other parts of Edinburgh, Boroughmuir for example. I'm pretty sure the local residents would be outraged if the retention of a park in the bruntsfield area of Edinburgh had meant a reduced budget leading to a delay or compromise of the PHS built. We do not live in a porty bubble and the ripples extent wider than our boundaries, in both directions!

[Sceptic]

A New Boroughmuir was meant to be built on the Fountain Brewey Site, between Gilmore Park & Viewforth.

[lg1726]

It was a hypothetical - just suppose that Boroughmuir was first in line with PHS in Wave 3 and the residents of the area chose to fight to retain or create park space and not sell off a site, thereby impacting on the available budget of the PHS build. I was merely playing devil's advocate here and asking how it might come across if we choose to fight to keep the current PHS site, argue for parkland when we have made numerous cases to have the new build on porty park and just as importantly, not allow the site yo be sold off and so impact on the chances for other much needed schools in Edinburgh. I was not proposing a debate on where B/muir should/would go, but attempting to ask how we in this area may be seen if our subsequent actions have a detrimental effect on other areas. Particularly in light of the arguments we have put forward to get the school and to counter the PPAG case. Sorry if that was not clear!

[Snow White]

I quite agree Ig. We have to be realistic in these hard economic times. But it is good to have a little blue sky thinking once in a while!

[lg1726]

No problems with blue skies snow white. I just fear that any suggestions to keep the PHS site as green-space could be seen as hypocritical of us in light of the case we have made to support the current proposal for using porty park. Cyberspace is not Chatham House and it would be a great shame if such thinking, at this particular time, was high-jacked and used against us. As they said in the war, (according to my granny!) "the walls have ears!"