New Portobello High School - PPAG win legal appeal

[gillian]

Even if PPAG woke up tomorrow and said, "ah yes, what a good idea, let them have the park" It wouldn't happen surely? It's not within their power any more?

[Porty]

Well they are already misrepresenting the Council as having "identified" Baileyfield as a site for the school. The Council are conducting a feasibility study on Baileyfield. It is a potential site.

PPAG will love the feasibility study if it comes out as doable and mailign if not.

[seashell]

The new park is not on their doorstep for one but the school will be! When has this ever been about green space for PPAG?

But we've had countless reassurances from some of the more vocal members of this board that this is not about NIMBY-ism, but about green spaces. Surely you believe them?

[little miss moffat]

But we've had countless reassurances from some of the more vocal members of this board that this is not about NIMBY-ism, but about green spaces. Surely you believe them?

Well..... let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's see if they now support the school on the park due to green space being provided elsewhere

[seashell]

That sounds like a super idea, LMM.

And let's also hope that the children of Portobello can get the great new school they deserve.

[little miss moffat]

Ah well, seems like I might be wrong when I said hopefully they will support the school on the park now that green space has been provided elsewhere. SPP site are now going on about the Baileyfield site. Correct me if I am wrong here, but weren't they concerned that the school on the park was on the A1, now they want to put the school on the Baileyfield site - in between 2 busy roads!

One poster put the following on the SPP page:
So PFANS think that by turning the existing site intoa park that it's a win win. Tell that to the folk in Magdalene and Christians.

She seems to think that the people of Magdalene/Christians will be against the idea. These are the people who see on a daily basis the wasted space that the park currently is. These are the people who's children attend PHS and St Johns Primary. I think the "poster" would get quite a shock if she actually canvassed both neighbourhoods lol. I am aware of many people in these areas who support the school on the park. They see it as losing a dogs toilet and gaining a new state of the art high school.

[little miss moffat]

The new park is not on their doorstep for one but the school will be! When has this ever been about green space for PPAG?

Spot on ! I lookforward to hearing their objections as they will undoutedly be some

Looks like you were both right.

[fresian]

LMM, You surely dont expect PPAG to go and speak to the "common people" who live in Magdalene and The Christians? Whatever next?

[Neko]

Good afternoon, does anyone have a link or map to show where the proposed Brunstane estate site is located?

[portygeoff]

Do anyone else think it odd that PPAG is banging on about how the Council should not be spending our money to check the legal postion of the land as common good but are happy to push for a school to be built on a site which is likely to cost hundreds of thousands, probably millions. The cost of designing a new school will cost more than going down the legal route.

[gillian]

PPAG odd? no!

[little miss moffat]

Good afternoon, does anyone have a link or map to show where the proposed Brunstane estate site is located?

Have edited my comment as I had the wrong place. (don't know how to delete the whole post lol)

[little miss moffat]

Do anyone else think it odd that PPAG is banging on about how the Council should not be spending our money to check the legal postion of the land as common good but are happy to push for a school to be built on a site which is likely to cost hundreds of thousands, probably millions. The cost of designing a new school will cost more than going down the legal route.

Not to mention the roads either side of it - didn't they use the A1 as an argument against the school on the park?

[Pal of Porty]

As soon as you understand that that PPAG are not committed to anything other than saving their own park most of what they do falls into place.

[wangi]

Good afternoon, does anyone have a link or map to show where the proposed Brunstane estate site is located?

I think they are talking about the old Big W Site on Milton Road, Maybe someone could confirm this.

Nah, it is within the two fields which are bounded by Brunstane Burn to N, railway to E, Newcraighall Village to S and Gilberstoun / Brunstane House to the W. I understand they are owned by EDI (or they have first dibs).

See maps on p42 and p54 of the report attached to this post; this map: http://goo.gl/maps/IWPrT

PHS catchment (blue); possible site somewhere in the "Brunstane Estate" (orange)

[Sceptic]

I somehow get the feeling that the idea of the "feasibility" study is to show that there is only ONE site feasible, Portobello Park. When it comes down to it, they are trying to show that it is not the percentage of "parkland" or "green space" that is the problem, it is THEIR "greenspace" and "parkland" they wish to save. In other words, PPAG are shown to be Nimbys.

[David Robertson]

I somehow get the feeling that the idea of the "feasibility" study is to show that there is only ONE site feasible, Portobello Park. When it comes down to it, they are trying to show that it is not the percentage of "parkland" or "green space" that is the problem, it is THEIR "greenspace" and "parkland" they wish to save. In other words, PPAG are shown to be Nimbys.

I can see some logic in what you write but does anyone - PPAG apart - need to be shown they are Nimbys ?

[Sceptic]

Probably

[little miss moffat]

Cheers for the map Wangi, wow, the Brunstane Estate is not even in the catchment area lol.

[gillian]

Live coverage of debate on CEC website

[seanie]

Pretty much my presentation to the Council.

Good morning and thank you for allowing me to come before you today. I’d like to say I’m pleased to be here once again, but that wouldn’t actually be true.

This has been a long process and I’m sure most of you are just as frustrated about what’s happened recently. However, the central issue remains unchanged; the urgent need to replace Portobello High School.

That’s also inextricably linked with another pressing issue; the need to improve the accommodation for St John’s. We have two schools here, both crying out for major investment, and we need to find a way forward.
Now I don’t want to go through all problems with the existing High School again...but...the accommodation is sub-standard, it isn’t fit for purpose, it’s at the end of its useful life, and it is hugely compromised by being on a site that is far too small. As is St John’s. We have two schools sitting side by side, both of which are on sites that are grossly undersized. 50 odd years ago, when the decision was made to build Porty High on that site, I don’t doubt it was taken for pressing reasons, but it created a legacy that’s still causing problems today.

Going back more recently to 2006, when there was extensive discussion and investigation of possible sites, one thing was clear. There was no ideal site. There was no ideal site that would tick every box and keep everyone happy. But as to what site would deliver the best result for the school, the situation was clear cut. In terms of location, in terms of size, in terms of the facilities that could be delivered, Portobello Park stood out as the best site.

I absolutely appreciate there are people who find the idea of building on a park unacceptable. But the idea that there’s an alternative that can deliver a final outcome for the school even close to what the park can offer, doesn’t bear scrutiny. It is wishful thinking at best. As today’s report states;

“The approved location for the new Portobello High School on part of Portobello Park remains by far the best option in, or around, the catchment area for the new school.”

By far the best option.

So if there is a realistic means to deliver the school on the park, it should be pursued. This is a huge investment, an investment that will shape the experience of tens of thousands of young people over the coming generations. It would be good to get the best possible school out of that, and to not repeat the mistakes of the past.

However, sometimes the best outcome can’t be achieved. So it’s only sensible to look at fallbacks. I have to say that a brief look at the alternatives outlined so far only remind me why the park was chosen in the first place. Quite apart from the 4-5 years any alternative would take to deliver, when you look at sites barely bigger than the existing, options requiring extended decants, or locations that aren’t even within the catchment, then the heart does sink a little.

Having said that, it is important that alternatives are explored. We very much welcome that informal feedback is being sought from the school communities on these matters, and in turn we welcome that leading to a broader consultation with the whole community once the situation is more clear.

In the immediate term the most sensible way forward is the approach proposed in the report.

To look into ways the school might still be delivered on the park, the best site for the school and quite probably the quickest. At the same time looking into alternatives should they unfortunately be required, and in tandem exploring the options for St John’s.

Both Portobello High and St John’s are very good schools, but the problems they face need to be resolved. Portobello High has been looking forward to a new school for years now, and to have that prospect recede is particularly hard to bear. It’s a tribute to both the staff and pupils that they continue to maintain such a positive ethos, in what are trying circumstances. Investment over the short term, to make the current school environment the best it can be for pupils and staff is also required.

Portobello High School is a credit to our community. I hope that as a community we value that, and I hope we can provide the pupils and staff of Portobello High the school they deserve.

[seanie]

The only notable point of the meeting was really the Green Group's continued shallow political opportunism, seeking to distance themselves from the Council by not supporting the report, but at the same time hedging their bets and not quite having the balls to come out against the school being built on the park, instead opting for a mealy mouthed 'free from uncertainty' angle.

[gillian]

And the notably lacklustre, flat performance from Mr Hawkins

[seanie]

And let's not forget what Convenor of the Green Group Cllr Burgess said in the run up to the last election on the issue.

"The better thing would have been to find a site that didn’t involve the park.”

He adds: “Possibly it’s both councillors’ and officials’ fault, but ultimately it stops at the politicians. Councillors are paid to take responsibility. A Green administration would have said, “no, go away and find an alternative” . You can’t keep on getting rid of such assets."

So today were the Green Group willing to take responsibility, stand up and say the park was unacceptable, and that an alternative had to be found?

Er...no.

Having insisted unsuccessfully on an amendment calling for a plan 'free from uncertainty' they've issued a statement suggesting that;

If we go ahead and build the school on the park then it must be because we have re-confirmed that it is the best site and, most importantly, we can be confident that we can actually deliver it.

You'll note that "confident" and "free from uncertainty" aren't the same thing.

What are to make of all this?

I make "let's sit on the fence, hedge our bets, not quite come out either in favour or against, whilst criticising the other parties".

In other words shallow political opportunism.

[Bob Jefferson]

Agreed. They really are pathetic. The vote was 52 to 5 in favour. The Greens have 6 Councillors so presumably they weren't all present. Do we know how Walker voted?

[seanie]

Walker voted reluctantly in favour, Cllr Booth has a new baby as of early this morning so couldn't be there.

[Porty]

Well done to Sean and Emma, excellent, impassioned and factual presentations. The pupils were great too.

[seanie]

Is 'unconcur' a word?

[Scoop]

No, but "sycophantic" is.

[seanie]

Seems a pretty reasonable outcome for now though, doesn't it?

The Council continue to see if the school can be delivered on the park, the best and possibly quickest outcome for the school, also allowing for the expansion of St John's next to replacement green space.

At the same time they look at fallbacks that, whilst inferior in terms of the resulting school, may be viable. Given that any alternative takes 4-5 years to deliver at best, it's only sensible to make a start on the long process of an alternative whilst still looking to deliver the school on the best site in the shortest timeframe.

Can't see much to object to in that.

[geofflynn]

Have to say I'm a bit unnerved by the Children and Families Dept consultation on the closure of Castlebrae Community High School and the enlargement of the PHS catchment area.

Two reasons:-

1. The council as a whole have not covered themselves in glory with their handling of building a new Porty High School and now they want to close another school in the east of Edinburgh and send some of those kids to PHS.

2. The enlarged catchment now includes Brunstane Estate (see Wangi's map above showing this out of catchment).

Could be paranoia, but I can't help thinking there may be a Plan C developing here.

Have your say on the Castlebrae closure consultation here --> http://bit.ly/Y4fvoG

[geofflynn]

A quote from the letter issued to parents in Portobello (full letter attached):-

Although not mentioned specifically above, the option of creating a combined school for Portobello and Craigmillar was considered and two potential sites identified on the Brunstane Estate and in Craigmillar Town Centre. The details are set out in the last Council report at Section 3.6 and in Appendix 5. Any feedback from your school community on such a proposition would be helpful.

Gillian Tee, Director of Children and Families Dept

[Sceptic]

I did say, in a previous post, that the absence of strategic thought in the education department. By that, no thought was to housing development in Edinburgh. Castlebrae's roll is low, but is that due to Craigmillar being largely demolished? When, hopefully, the area is rebuilt, where will the children, as I suppose there WILL be children, be educated? We have already seen Fort Primary reopened due to need, only after being closed due to "lack of need" according to the Department of Children and families. The is little money left for Education after paying for "families". Social Work has decimated the department's budget.

[seanie]

A new Craigmillar Community High School is part of the plan for the regeneration of the area. They already have outline planning permission for a school of 600, and were on the verge of submitting for full planning when the credit crunch stalled development in the area. A large part of the funding for the school was going to come from that redevelopment, so the knock on effect was the project being mothballed. At the time they were talking about a new school post-2018 but that's probably dependent on the re-development picking up.

[geofflynn]

Parent Councils at Portobello High School, its feeder primary schools and St John's RC Primary School have been asked by the city council's children and families dept to gather feedback on the different site options which have been identified.

If you are a parent of children at one of the affected schools, please go here for more info (and to have your say) --> http://www.newportyhigh.co.uk/council-s ... e-options/