New Portobello High School - PPAG win legal appeal

[Betty Windsor]

Betty don't start all that again. The children of Magdalene and the Christians don't use the parks. You know that, we know that. You also know that the children of Magdalene and the Christians matter as much as any child. Which is why there is the fight to get them a new school. Your new attempt to try to introduce some sort of class, us and them situation is as patronising and offensive as the last attempt.

So they are not using the park, why would they? The council have dug it up and not fixed it. They have also allowed the grass to grow (although I believe it is being cut now). The council also stopped taking bookings for weekend football before they did their usage survey.
It is a completely irrelevant argument although I am aware that is how many of you justify your position on building on green space.

[Scoop]

Once the accessible all weather pitches are in place, the usage figures for the park will increase, possibly by a factor of 10 or more on a weekly basis.

One only has to look to the Powerleague site to appreciate what all weather and floodlights can do for a site, in terms of usage.
The open air pool was open maybe 5 months a year and numbers were inextricably linked to weather conditions. Now the site is open and busy 360+ days a year. The idea that floodlights and all weather pitches will somehow impair the general health of the community is bonkers.

The Powerleague is a fine example of all weather, floodlit pitches in Portobello, and a greatly underused amenity situated in the heart of the community. Your observations are out of date.

[Betty Windsor]

The Powerleague site is rarely used during the day. If the council build the school on the Scottish power site they could surely come to some agreement with Powerleague to use the astro turf, so beloved of many PFANs, in school-time. This would allow the site of the new school to be smaller.

[Porty]

I agree that the Powerleague site is underused during daytime, especially during the week.

That won't be a problem at Portobell Park what with 1450 customers on site, who are obligated to do PE on a weekly basis. The usage will be exponential compared to what it is at the moment.

[seanie]

So they are not using the park, why would they? The council have dug it up and not fixed it. They have also allowed the grass to grow (although I believe it is being cut now). The council also stopped taking bookings for weekend football before they did their usage survey.
It is a completely irrelevant argument although I am aware that is how many of you justify your position on building on green space.

The park has never had much casual use apart from dog walking, and the sight of a child in it was a rarity. And has already been explained countless times, the usage survey was to determine the casual use of the park not assess how often the pitches were used formally for football. A survey wasn't needed for that because all they had to do was check the record on bookings.

Why is that difficult to understand?

[seanie]

Obviously I remain convinced the park is the best site for the school, and I can't think of any alternatives that don't have very significant drawbacks, but the only sensible way forward is to explore both options for now; legal/legislative means to enable the school to be built on the park on the one hand, and further investigation into possible alternatives on the other.

admin: some posts moved

[little miss moffat]

I agree that the Powerleague site is underused during daytime, especially during the week.

That won't be a problem at Portobell Park what with 1450 customers on site, who are obligated to do PE on a weekly basis. The usage will be exponential compared to what it is at the moment.

[seashell]

Oh, what memories that mention of the open air pool brings back.
A real right of passage for a teenager...

But there is no doubt it was seasonal - and freezing cold even in the middle of summer.

Porty Park was never well-used, not even back in the 70s when I was a teen. I'd go there with my mates to smoke illicit ciggies and you were pretty well assured that there wouldn't be anyone about to spot you having a fly puff. Even the amount of dog walkers is minimal, compared with Newhailes Estate. And most people who go there clear up after themselves.

[regent]

seems to me that all the posts about whether the park is used or not are a bit pointless.
I use it, a lot, I really like it and I see others using it, but this really isn't the point. Just because it is popular does not mean that the school should not be built there, equally just because it is a dog toilet doesn't mean that the school should be built there.
Portobello high school is used by over 1200 kids (or whatever the present role is). But everyone agrees that a new school is needed.
So Sean's post about the council moving forward on all fronts seems to be the most sensible and to have the most chance of getting the school built sometime this decade!

[Porty]

Not sure that everyone agrees a new school is needed but I am am sure everyone does pay lip service.

[Porty]

Not sure that everyone agrees a new school is needed but I am am sure everyone does pay lip service.

[regent]

Not sure that everyone agrees a new school is needed but I am am sure everyone does pay lip service.

Who cares? I think it is safe to say that the majority do want a school built and it is truely a minority who pay lip service, but as with most things the devil is in the detail.

[seanie]

The core issue remains the need for a new school. Working towards that should be the prime focus. Since there appear to be routes to allow the school to proceed as planned they should be pursued, given that any alternative inevitably involves a long delay and significant additional costs. At the same time the Council should be looking for an alternative, even though the alternatives seem extremely limited and inherently poorer.

[little miss moffat]

The core issue remains the need for a new school. Working towards that should be the prime focus. Since there appear to be routes to allow the school to proceed as planned they should be pursued, given that any alternative inevitably involves a long delay and significant additional costs. At the same time the Council should be looking for an alternative, even though the alternatives seem extremely limited and inherently poorer.

Completely agree, both avenues need to be explored.

[Porty]

I agree too. The search for an alternative site may not prove futile. A kid found an entire mammoth in China the other day.

[Sceptic]

Ah, but was he LOOKING for an entire mammoth?

Like most things, you stumble upon the unexpected when you least expect it.

[Bob Jefferson]

it ain't over...

[JLS ROCKS]

I think there are a few things that we need to all remember here and I am speaking as someone who does not have children of school age - there are many hundreds of children who live in and around Portobello who do not have and have no intention of attending PHS no matter where it is sited.

The building of a new PHS therefore does not effect every child in and around Portobello, it merely effects some of them. A large majority of children and their parents have no interest in the building of a new school but they perhaps do have an interest in the Council not destorying another part of our city - open public space is hard to come by these days without countless blocks of flats being errected on them.

If the council didn't allow new housing developments on all open ground, the current site of PHS may well be big enough for the children that do live in the area - there has to be a cut off point where someone eventually states that, 'Actually, this school is full, sorry!'

From a neutral point of view, I have to say that I attended a school that was falling down around us, most of it closed off for my six years there due asbestos and I have to say, we all got on with it and the majority of us all do very well in life - largely due to our own dedication and the skills of the teachers, the fact that plaster fell off the roof, regularly, did not have a negative impact on our education.

The angry exchange of words between both sides, particularly on this forum, is laughable, many people are making themselves look very stupid while some more level headed people, again, on both sides, are trying to move forward to make improvements for 'some' of the children in and around the area.

I think some folk need to sit back, take a deep breath and get some other interests in life and realise that there are an awful lot of more important things than winning a stupid argument about a school and a park to worry about.

I think the most simple suggestion is to limit the numbers attending the feeder schools instead of multiple classes per year and build two schools on two smaller sites.

The rest of us in Portobello are totally fed up hearing the same people going on about the same argument over and over again - and yes, myself and my family have lived in Portobello for generations, before any 'newcomers' give me a hard time for having an opinion.

[seanie]

There are also many people who don't have children who will attend PHS who nevertheless support the proposals for the new school because they value schools as important to a community, regardless of any personal benefit, and consider the park the best site for the school. And attitudes to the erection of countless blocks of flats on open public space seems slightly irrelevant given that's nothing to do with what's being proposed.

The need to replace Portobello High School is not driven by capacity. New developments within the catchment would never contribute much additional numbers anyway. The problem is that the school is unfit for purpose, at the end of it's useful life, and fundamentally flawed by having been built on a site far too small in the first place. The new school would provide vastly improved facilities, but it wouldn't increase capacity, because increased capacity isn't necessary.

Primary school face increased pressures over the next few years as pupil numbers are expected to rise, but that's down to the residual wave of the post-war baby boom, not housing development, and a PHS roll of 1400 should be able to accommodate that.

So limiting numbers attending feeder schools wouldn't do anything to solve the problem we're actually faced with; the need to replace Porty High.

[Makaveli]

What does it matter if you have lived in Porty for years and years JLS ROCKS (there's a phrase I never thought I would write!!!)? Why should this give you more of an opinion than others? Should myself and others that have moved into the area in the last few years shut up and sit in the corner till you 'locals' have sorted this mess out? I am sick to the back teeth of the attitude of some folk in this community.

To be honest if you want Porty to stay a backwater with no investment in it then fine have it your way I can easily move somewhere else and spend my money somewhere else and leave you lot to your Deliverance.

[seanie]

Leaving aside the question of where primary pupils are supposed to go to school if all the feeder primaries arbitrarily restrict their intake to a single class, splitting the school into two has its own difficulties.

There's no ideal school size. Very large and very small schools can be problematic, but there's a wide range between that can work very well. And context is hugely important to that.

In PHS we have a very good school that has served the community for over 100 years. And part of what is valued in PHS is its size that allows for a broader curriculum that a smaller school would struggle to provide.

Also having 2 schools wouldn't make the difficulties of finding suitable sites go away. A school of 1400 should have a minimum site area of 6.8 Ha. A school of 700 should have a minimum site area of 4.5 Ha. So halving the size of a school only reduces the site requirements by a third, and at 2.9 Ha the existing site would be less than 65% of the required size for a school of 700. Finding two sites of suitable size would still be challenging given that we've already explored site options and precious few were viable.

I'm not saying it's not worth looking into, just that it doesn't seem promising.

The core issue remains the need for a new school. Working towards that should be the prime focus. Since there appear to be routes to allow the school to proceed as planned they should be pursued, given that any alternative inevitably involves a long delay and significant additional costs. At the same time the Council should be looking for an alternative, even though the alternatives seem extremely limited and inherently poorer.

[gillian]

- there are many hundreds of children who live in and around Portobello who do not have and have no intention of attending PHS no matter where it is sited.



The angry exchange of words between both sides, particularly on this forum, is laughable, many people are making themselves look very stupid



.

Many hundreds??????

Ah, very stupid........

[portygeoff]

...

A large majority of children and their parents have no interest in the building of a new school but they perhaps do have an interest in the Council not destorying another part of our city - open public space is hard to come by these days without countless blocks of flats being errected on them.

Er, where did you get your majority from; I think you will find it is the other way around.

and my family have lived in Portobello for generations, before any 'newcomers' give me a hard time for having an opinion

Again I think you will find this happens the other way; I've lived here for over 20years and raised a good 'Porty' family but was told by PPAG activists that my views should not count because I am an incomer!

From a neutral point of view

[Porty]

A neutral point of view: delivered on behalf of ? "The rest of us' . Did your family's lenghty history of living in porty earn you the right to speak for them?

[seashell]

It sometimes appears that the length of family residence in Porty (as boasted off by a few posters) is in direct proportion to how spurious and ill-informed their comments are.

Jeepers, you sometimes get the impression they want to ethnically-cleanse the area.

newsflash: the length of time your family has lived in Porty matters not a jot when it comes to providing the best possible education for the majority of children in the area. Nor does it make your points any more valid than anyone else's. Why would it?

[portygeoff]

Correct seashell.

[little miss moffat]

I think there are a few things that we need to all remember here and I am speaking as someone who does not have children of school age.

I too speak as someone who does not have school age children. I also speak as someone who has lived in the area for many years and have raised my family here. I also do not personally benefit from building the school on the park.

I would love to see the school built on the park and hope that CEC can find a way around the latest court ruling.

My reasons: 1400+ school children (and the thousands that will follow) would use this part of the park daily as opposed to a few dog walkers. Oh...... and my conscience wouldn't allow me to deny these children their desperately needed school and playing fields.

Even if it does turn out that this is common good land, I couldn't think of a better use to the community than a school to educate the community's children.

[seashell]

LMM - stop talking sense!!

You have summed things up in a nutshell for many of us here. Regardless of the legal status of the land, what better use could there be for community land than to be used for a school for the community?

And those of us without children (school age or otherwise) could also benefit from adult education facilities.

[portygeoff]

And community sports facilities.

[wangi]

And here are copies of the latest sort it out posters. Click on them for higher res versions, or click here for a PDF of them all if you want to print your own.

[Porty]

If the council didn't allow new housing developments on all open ground, the current site of PHS may well be big enough for the children that do live in the area - there has to be a cut off point where someone eventually states that, 'Actually, this school is full, sorry!' .

I think some folk need to sit back, take a deep breath and get some other interests in life and realise that there are an awful lot of more important things than winning a stupid argument about a school and a park to worry about. .

myself and my family have lived in Portobello for generations, before any 'newcomers' give me a hard time for having an opinion.

I have to say that I attended a school that was falling down around us, most of it closed off for my six years there due asbestos and I have to say........................... the fact that plaster fell off the roof, regularly, did not have a negative impact on our education..

[wangi]

https://twitter.com/talkporty/status/255251576191586304

TalkPorty~Portobello @talkporty New Portobello High School: close the legal loophole, get it built! #edinburgh http://goo.gl/Z0g9k pic.twitter.com/goug130g

Ros Sutherland ‏@rosts14 @talkporty This is misleading. There is no 'legal loophole'. There is a clear unambiguous unanimous decision.

Correct Ros, there is a clear unambiguous decision - Portobello Park cannot be appropriated for a new high school if it is inalienable common good land. Unanimous, well we all know about appeals!

However consider the legal loophole(s):

• 1: Court took such a narrow view of well being, rendering the the 2003 Act pointless. Parliament can clarify what was intended under the 2003 Act...
  2: Clearly it is nonsense for a law (the 1973 Act) to allow a council to dispose of land and allow a school to be built on it, but not keep the land and build a school on it (a drafting error?)
  3: Is the park even common good?

Plus add into that mix a private bill in parliament could allow the building to proceed, as was done on the Mound.

[Porty]

Liked!

[Underscore]

I think there are a few things that we need to all remember here and I am speaking as someone who does not have children of school age - there are many hundreds of children who live in and around Portobello who do not have and have no intention of attending PHS no matter where it is sited.

The building of a new PHS therefore does not effect every child in and around Portobello, it merely effects some of them. A large majority of children and their parents have no interest in the building of a new school but they perhaps do have an interest in the Council not destorying another part of our city - open public space is hard to come by these days without countless blocks of flats being errected on them.

If the council didn't allow new housing developments on all open ground, the current site of PHS may well be big enough for the children that do live in the area - there has to be a cut off point where someone eventually states that, 'Actually, this school is full, sorry!'

From a neutral point of view, I have to say that I attended a school that was falling down around us, most of it closed off for my six years there due asbestos and I have to say, we all got on with it and the majority of us all do very well in life - largely due to our own dedication and the skills of the teachers, the fact that plaster fell off the roof, regularly, did not have a negative impact on our education.

The angry exchange of words between both sides, particularly on this forum, is laughable, many people are making themselves look very stupid while some more level headed people, again, on both sides, are trying to move forward to make improvements for 'some' of the children in and around the area.

I think some folk need to sit back, take a deep breath and get some other interests in life and realise that there are an awful lot of more important things than winning a stupid argument about a school and a park to worry about.

I think the most simple suggestion is to limit the numbers attending the feeder schools instead of multiple classes per year and build two schools on two smaller sites.

The rest of us in Portobello are totally fed up hearing the same people going on about the same argument over and over again - and yes, myself and my family have lived in Portobello for generations, before any 'newcomers' give me a hard time for having an opinion.

"A large majority of children in portobello do not attend PHS" Really? Care to back this up? For those of us that dont want to send our children to Private school I'd like to know which school i should send my kids to. The idea that a local school shouldnt be improved or increased to match the change in local population is madness, and there is NO JUSTIFICATION for it.

[seanie]

Greens tell council not to ‘jump gun’ over Castlebrae

Now, city councillors from the Scottish Greens have tabled amendments calling on the closure plans 
to be halted. Councillor Melanie Mains said once the “trigger” has been pulled it “becomes very difficult to turn back the tide”.

She said: “It seems that the council has jumped the gun. Since Portobello is one of the main alternatives to Castlebrae, it would be irresponsible to close and bulldoze Castlebrae while the future of Portobello hangs in the air.