DEPUTATION TO THE COUNCIL - 4 MAY 2006

Portobello Park Action Group has been formed by people who enjoy Portobello Park and Golf Course for sporting and recreation and who are concerned about the council's proposal to build housing and school(s) on the Park. This is the only sizeable piece of green land for the area of western Portobello and the Christians and Magdalene. It is much used and loved by a wide variety of local residents, school children, golfers, dog walkers, footballers and nature lovers. The key point about Portobello Park and Golf Course is that they are situated near to where people live; they are central and accessible, which is critical in an urban setting. Having amenities close to where people live reduces the need to travel by car, one of the council's laudable aims. Our aim is to preserve this piece of central, accessible green space for future generations to enjoy because, once built upon, it will be lost forever. There is strong support in the community for protecting this space, with over 1100 signatures on our petitions.

There have been conflicting statements on how much of the park will be used for the developments, a third for housing, a third for the schools but at the briefing last week, we were told that the size of the remaining park was not assured - so presumably that means there could be less than a third designated as parkland. Until this proposal was made public, the park was the site most talked about for the PowerLeague five a side football pitches relocation - where does that fit into the equation now? In fact, you are being asked to consider a part of much wider development for this part of the town.

Interestingly in the new draft local plan, planning guidance NPPG11 is quoted: It states that “local plans should include policies to protect and enhance existing open space, including public parks and playing fields and other land of recreational, amenity or wildlife value and prevent the piecemeal erosion of playing fields and pitches through a succession of small developments over a long period.”

Also, in the draft plan there is a presumption against the development of this green space.

The council bought Portobello Park in 1898 but the deed states quite clearly that the land was to be "used exclusively as a public park and recreation ground for behoof of the community of said city [Edinburgh] and it shall not be competent to ...erect or build or give liberty to any person or persons to erect or build houses or buildings of any kind whatsoever." Some people might say that the legal case is clear because the feu superiority lapsed recently unnoticed by the general public but how clear is the moral case? It is still questionable whether the council can build on the land as it is common good land.

We would urge you in coming to a decision about this matter to: - think about the long term consequences of building on the park - look at the bigger picture - give serious consideration of a rebuild on site for PHS as per the 2003 feasibility study, which includes three storey teaching accommodation, a new swimming pool and an all-weather pitch. The playing fields at the top of Portobello Park could be used, to do away with the need to bus pupils to playing fields. When the study was done, it was considered acceptable to rebuild Portobello High School on site. Why is that not the case now?

- consider a refurbishment and partial new build on site for St John's primary school as per the council’s internal 2004 feasibility study which (according to the study) would “rival the best examples of recent newbuild schools...but will also reflect the particular character of this school”. This would cost about £3M as opposed to £7 for a new build and would solve the current problems with the school as it is now. The inclusion of St John’s in the plan to build a joint campus on Portobello Park came as a complete surprise to parents at the school who did not consider a complete rebuild necessary.

- fully investigate the two schools option; There is very real possibility that there will be a substantial amount of new housing built in Portobello over the next five years so there is a danger that the new school for 1400 would end up being too small. Why not be proactive and build two smaller schools, each capable of accommodating up to 900 pupils?

- do not dismiss brownfield sites on the grounds of land costs, ownership or size;

- the extension of the consultation period in order to consider these other options more fully, particularly as a large proportion of the consultation period will be during the summer holidays.

Would like to finish with a quote from a former teacher, a mother and grandmother, who saw the same arguments used 40 years ago in favour of building the current PHS - which is now claimed to have been a mistake. She says: “The children deserve a pleasant environment for their school and the best education the city can give them but they also need open spaces for their after school hours, for holiday time and also for their years in Portobello when they have left school. They should not have to sacrifice green space in order to get a good education. They are entitled to both.”

Finally, we believe that we should not have to dispose of important public assets to pay for essential services. Please take into account the interests of the whole community when coming to a decison about this.