Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Police deserve a blasting over bagpiper Asbos

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 14 June 2008
WITH regard to the article on the front page of the Evening News (Asbo order to hit pipers, June 12), I think it is scandalous that the police/authorities are getting involved in an issue like this.
If the pipers are playing at midnight or 2am in the morning then I think the police might have a case but surely there are simple solutions to any perceived problems that could be worked out by all involved and I would urge all parties to discuss it
and come up with a proper and sensible solution.

What concerns me more though is Lothian and Borders Police seem to be getting a bit of a reputation for getting involved in matters that are not directly related to policing. Recent examples being the type of flag being flown at the Fettes HQ and now people playing bagpipes.

Where are the police when acts of vandalism are taking place at my work? I currently work at the bowling greens at Leith Links and Victoria Park and almost every Monday morning I have to sweep up broken bottles and regularly find used needles as well as damage to buildings. The bowling greens at Leith Links are about 100 yards from a police station (Queen Charlotte Street) and yet the vandals still manage to wreak havoc at the place.

I would far rather the police deal with problems such as those at Leith Links' bowling greens than chasing after bagpipe players in Edinburgh city centre.

Mr Alastair Macintyre, Webster Place, Rosyth, Fife


Time to debate historic buildings

I FEEL I ought to address some of the points made by Shirley-Anne Somerville MSP in the Mouthpiece column of the Evening News (June 9).

Scottish Ministers have a duty to consider buildings for listing under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.

This is carried out on their behalf by Historic Scotland, drawing on criteria of age, rarity, architectural interest and historical associations.

Post-war buildings, such as the BHS building in Edinburgh, do tend to evoke strong feelings either for or against protection.

However, as the highly successful recent exhibitions on Basil Spence in Edinburgh and Gillespie, Kidd and Coia in Glasgow have shown, the importance of Scotland's architects and architecture did not cease in 1939 and the fact that a building is from the 1960s is not in itself a restriction to its consideration for listing.

There is undoubtedly a need for a wider debate on Scotland's post-war architecture and to provide a platform for this debate, Historic Scotland will host a conference on post-War architecture and publish an introductory book at the end of this year.

The purpose of listing buildings is not to preserve them in aspic – historic buildings are flexible and are regularly adapted to meet current needs without losing their significance.

Historic buildings contribute to the government's broader, long-term agenda, including tourism, sustainability and regeneration.

While it is usually possible to balance preservation and regeneration, on occasions like Caltongate, this is more challenging.

Rather than being an unhelpful process, listing ensures that the historic merit of buildings is understood and can be taken fully into account in any decision-making process.

Malcolm Cooper, chief inspector, Historic Scotland, Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh


Schools chief needs to be taught lesson

EDUCATION convener Marilyne MacLaren removed a parent representative from a cross-party working group because she had "incontrovertible proof" the said parent had been leaking information to the Press (MacLaren is accused of witch hunt against campaigner, News, June 10).

That "proof" turns out to have been nothing of the sort. But I, in turn, have incontrovertible proof of Ms MacLaren's incompetence.

Under her brief tenure as education chief, 22 schools and community centres faced the stress of last year's woeful "consultation" on closures, which was rightly but shambolically abandoned.

Primary schools have each taken a hit of £15,000 on average out of their core budgets, with even bigger cuts in secondary schools. Meals in stand-alone nurseries have been downgraded to the point that councillors concede they are almost inedible.

On that evidence, should not Ms MacLaren's colleagues do the decent thing and remove her from office?

Gavin Corbett, Briarbank Terrace, Edinburgh


Park base is vital for new Porty High

I CAN give A Connelly (Letters, June 11) many reasons for building the new Portobello High in the park, but two stand out in particular.

Moving Portobello High releases land for the necessary expansion of St John's Primary School. The sizes of site proposed for St John's in the council's feasibility study range from 2.0 to 1.1 hectares. The current school is obviously too small at 0.66 hectares and all three options considered require land vacated by Portobello High.

Rebuilding Portobello High in the Park avoids a costly decant with a damaging two to three years schooling in Portakabins.

William Wilson, Portobello High Street


Stop handouts for Edinburgh Leisure

I READ "£1m deficit is deep trouble for leisure" with utter amazement (News, June 10). What an utter shambles with the public having to pay again for sheer utter incompetence and lack of any budgetary control.

There should be more sackings, surcharging and a lot less excuses. If Edinburgh Leisure was a private company, it would have gone into liquidation years ago. It hasn't for the simple reason Joe Public props it up with public money and now they want to increase their prices to continue their incompetent life. What fools they must take us for. The gravy train at public expense must stop now.

John Arthur, Craigmillar Castle Road, Edinburgh





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 14 June 2008 9:40 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

joppa jock,

Huntingdon 14/06/2008 11:48:33
The simple fact is that tourists visit Edinburgh because of its history, the castle, Holyrood Palace, the High Street, etc.. Pipers may be a bit annoying to the residents but they are an attraction to many visitors and are part of the city's street theatre. Beggars,however, are a different story and police resources would be better employed clearing them off the streets.
2

Dragonlord,

14/06/2008 12:08:55
1# Don't be silly, the police tackle an agressive drunk beggar? No chance. The piper is a much easier target, along with motorists, they can fill the coffers without the risk of having to fight with someone.
3

Save Portobello Park,

Duddingston 14/06/2008 12:40:17
Willie Wilson why not drop by and sign the petition

http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/

Keep the school of our park
Keep the kids off our park
Keep flats off our golf course
4

seanie,

14/06/2008 12:53:53
Keep kids off your park?

What a deeply weird thing to say.
5

Porty Pirate,

The Beach 14/06/2008 13:11:58
Dear "Save Portobello Park" Just about sums up everything you and your colleagues stand for - keeping kids off the park. You should be ashamed. By the way it is my park too.
6

Jasbar,

Edinburgh 14/06/2008 13:40:55
Yes Porty Pirate. The operative word being "park".

Not "school" you note, but "park"
7

Jasbar,

14/06/2008 13:44:54
As for the pipers, Alistair Macintyre is not wrong.

There again, anyone with half a wit saw up front how asbos would be abused.

We gave too much power to the police, just we are doing with ID cards, the snooping database attached to it, summary justice, extended detention etc.

And this Labour government wants to read our emails and internet surfing?

Why is nothing being done about this. We could start by kicking out Labour. The party determined to use Orwell's warnings as a template.

While the rest may not be much better, it would perhaps make them sit up and take some notice.

8

James (1),

14/06/2008 14:42:32
Alastair Macintyre shows the problem in a nut shell. These bagpipe players are causing annoyance to residents and businesses but not Mr Macintyre. So he decides to fall in favour of the bagpipe players. He sees people stopped from being annoyed as trivial. Now with regard to his own annoyance whilst unfortunate does not really cause any problem to others so I say just let it continue. At least the bother is in a secluded spot and not affecting resident. He is obviously quite capable of cleaning up after them?
Oh wait, the bottles and needles are causing him annoyance, kind of like the grief this noise pollution is causing others.
9

seanie,

14/06/2008 16:12:10
There are still a number of things to be resolved regarding Portobello High School, most significantly the funding, but the underlying problem is pretty clear.

The current site is far too small (less than half the statutory recomendation) and the school building is not only in poor condition but is also fundamentally flawed. The high rise design, driven by the constraints of the site, is ill suited for a school. Ask yourself how many high rise schools can you think of?

So the school needs replaced sooner or later. And given that much of the fabric is reaching the end of it's lifespan we're talking sooner.
10

seanie,

14/06/2008 16:18:53
Replacing the school oin the existing site is possible but there are fundamental problems.

The site will continue to be too small. Even with a high rise design the area can't accomodate sufficient sports facilities.

Also any redevelopment on site would realistically require a complete decant for two to three years. This in itself would present a huge logistical challenge and in addition to the disruption to the pupils and staff would cost several million pounds, at a time when resources are tight.

So, whilst possible, rebuilding on site would be disruptive and expensive and would also result in a replacement school that was severly compromised by the limitations of the site.
11

seanie,

14/06/2008 16:25:21
So there are good reasons for considering a new site. A new site, of sufficient size, has the potential to result in a better school, more cost effectively, and with little disruption to pupils and staff.

However finding a suitable site is not easy. Although a number have been suggested most have been complete non-starters. Most have been either smaller or no bigger that the existing site and not in council ownership, therby involving huge purchase costs that simply can't be met given financial constraints.

Pretty much the only viable alternatives to the existing site are on Portobello Park, either the golf course or pitch area.
12

seanie,

14/06/2008 16:38:42
The Council decided to locate the new school on the pitches, with the golf course unaffected. Whilst this does involve the loss of open space, in terms of public use, the proposal has potential benefits given community use of the facilities.

Locating the school on the park should not only result in a better outcome fot the school and its pupils, but would also provide an important facility for the wider community. And it should also be more cost-effective and significantly cheaper than any redevelopment on site.

Yes there are some negatives about about building on the pitches, but there are also a lot of positives. Particularly in comparison to the alternatives.

As things stand there seems little prospect of a new school given the absence of any credible funding strategy. Given the near universal recognition that a new school is required, it would seem far better to focus on that and work towards making a new school a reality.
13

Ghost,

14/06/2008 20:32:11
Seanie, do you think that the rebuild of St Thomas in the city centre has been a success? Its site is about a quarter of the existing Portobello High site, and yet a new school for 800 pupils has been successfully created, without being a tower block. The desgin is widely praised, but there is not much outdoor space within the site. This doesn't seem to be a problem as the pupils have access to the meadows, and at lunch time have the facilites of the local shops. For Portobello, a similar scenario could be provided - a good design, with open space available for recreation at the nearby Figgate Park and Portobello Park. Many pupils choose to leave the premises at lunch time anyway - this is true even of schools with lots of open space within the campus. St Thomas' exam results did not suffer while the school was rebuilt and the pupils decanted, so why would it be so devastating for Portobello? Surely the financial cost of a decant is a small price to pay, if it allows us to keep our local green spaces.
The excuse that they have to vacate the site to allow St John's to expand is also not very convincing.
14

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 14/06/2008 22:20:28
from the consultation paper from which Councillors based their unanimous decision to build on Portobello Park

Option A: Existing Site October 2012 - March 2014*
Option B: Golf Course May 2012**
Option C: Portobello Park October 2011 – March 2013
* dependent on the relocation of St John’s Primary School
** allows for relocation and establishment of golf course

Comparative Costs
The following table illustrates the required cost of each option at current prices:
Option A Option B Option C
Build costs £33.6m £32m £32.2m
Decant costs £5.8m - -
Relocation of Other Users £8.5m £3.25m £0.5m
TOTAL £47.9m £35.3m £32.7m

Option A, rebuild on site,costed at £15.2m more than new build on the park. And of course Option A would mean that there was no capital receipt for the sale of the existing site. You can add another £15-£20m. £30-£35m more for an inferior school and kids having about 50% of the minimum recommned space.

A small price to pay? Get real.
15

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 14/06/2008 23:31:49
Ghost announces "The excuse that they have to vacate the site to allow St John's to expand is also not very convincing"

Really? Out of 65 councillors a total of 65 were convinced to ditch the option of a rebuild on site. In what way is that not very convinving>

I think what you mean is; you are not convinced by any factual information that undermines or negates your position. You'd rather operate in fantasy land.

And if St Johns wanted to move the brownfield site you could add another £20m to the cost. If they don't want to move, which seems to be the case, Option A, rebuild on site, is totally scuppered.
16

Ghost,

15/06/2008 08:53:33
The figures you quote are misleading. You should not really include the £8.5million for relocation of St John's, as even if the High scholl moves and St John's stays where it is, the council intend to rebuild or refurbish it, at a cost of £8.5m, so if you include it as a cost for option A, you also have to include it for the other options. Secondly, you are guessing a figure for capital receipts, but there is no formal valuation on this land, and given that if St John's stays where it is and Portobello High moves, then going by your argument that a primary should have 1.4 hectares, there will only be 2 hectares left to sell. I don't know land prices, but I doubt it would be anyhting like the amount you quote, especially in the current build climate. Even the decant figure is a vague guess, as an accurate figure could only be provided if there was a decant proposal - ie would the decant be to an existing building, or would a temporary facility have to be provided. The costs would be very different.

You quote the 65 councillors who made this decision, but the point is that the decision was based on poor information. Many of those councillors have now changed, and hopefully there is a will in the council to revisit this information properly and make choices based on the facts rather than on political spin.
17

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 15/06/2008 09:55:14
"The figures you quote are misleading. You should not really include the £8.5million for relocation of St John's, as even if the High scholl moves and St John's stays where it is, the council intend to rebuild or refurbish it, at a cost of £8.5m, so if you include it as a cost for option A, you also have to include it for the other options"

The figures quoted are not mine and its not me that's including St Johns. Its the independent consultants figures and they will be have very accurate data on how much it costs to build 1sqm of secondary school. Seeing as how dozens get built each year. They don't "pluck figures out of that air" and they have to follow accounting guidelines, which is why the costs are laid out as they are. PHS could get build on Portobello Park and St Johns not get a penny spent on it.

The councillors trusted the info its only yourself and PPAg that don't everyone else is happy to trust the consultants and work on the basis that they are knowledgeable and informed.Whereas you think they are corrupt. You say the decant figures are misleading but offer no explanation why. You may be misled but its not by the report or by the decision.

You admit you don't know about land prices but you know enough to know i'm wrong- £7.5m for 1ha of land No problem at all. And if St Johns doesn't move then PHS on site is dead, hell its dead if St Johns does move the councillors were unanimous against it.
18

seanie,

15/06/2008 10:10:15
Decant strategies were considered and reported on for the consultation, along with costings. There is no suitable "school like" building in the catchmnent area just sitting around waiting to be used. A decant would require a forest of portacabins, most likely on Portobello Park, for up to 3 years.

The cost of providing that woiuldn't be far short of actually building a new primary school. Spending considerably more money, just to get a poorer quality school at the end of it, doesn't make much sense to me.
19

Life of a Liberal?,

Portobello 15/06/2008 13:34:22
Save Portobello Park
You state
"Keep the school of our park" - its not your park
"Keep the kids off our park" - thats more like it - a child hater confesses
"Keep flats off our golf course" - PPAG propaganda from a failing campaign.

Its a bit like the person who suggested moving PHS to Lismore and building St. Johns on the PHS site.
Very convenient when you send your kids to St. Johns, then on to a private school and stay near to Portobello Park - your park.

People are not as stupid as you presume, its all about your house price, not the COMMON GOOD.
20

Life of a Liberal?,

Portobello 15/06/2008 13:37:54
Again the COMMON GREED of the PPAG few in low density housing.
Cant wait until you try to stop another school from being rebuilt to promote your NIMBY agenda.
The only thing green about you lot will be your faces when the school gets the GREEN FOR GO.
21

Save Portobello Park,

Duddingston 15/06/2008 17:43:20
Portobello Park is OURS it is Common Good it should remain as is.

Figatte Park is not and it is huge and we have yet to get an answer to why St Johns can't go there.

Lismore is unfamiliar is that big enough has it been considered.

Sign the petition at

http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/
22

Porty Pirate,

The Beach 15/06/2008 18:28:40
Mr "Save Portobello Park". That's more like it. Out comes the 'stick it on the Figgate Park' again as soon as the going gets tough. Your beloved leader already tried this on in the Evening News a while back. It just demonstrates what you are all really about -STICK IT ON ANY PARK EXCEPT THE ONE NEAR WHERE I LIVE. Pathetic.
23

Ghost,

15/06/2008 19:27:08
So, do you think it would be wrong to build a school on Figgate Park? If so, why?
24

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 15/06/2008 19:54:17
The reasons why Figgate Park is unsuitable are covered in the consultants report. It has been debated over and over again I thin it would be wrong because it is the wrong shape and size but its also a flood plain. Silly of me I know.

Surely the more interesting questions are: why do PPAG want to build on Figgate Park? And why do they want to keep kids off Portobello Park?
25

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 15/06/2008 22:36:43
"Save Portobello Park"- we did get an answer. Here's what the abbreviated interim report to the full council said about Figgate Park after it had been considered as a potential site for St Johns,

" Site 14 Figgate Park (Relocation of St. John’s)

31. Discounted as the developable area of the park would be too small, with the site being prone to flood risk."

SPP you don't have to follow the PPAG party line, why not do research before you speak?

I have a question for you as a PPAG supporter; you mention Lismore,which is situated on the edge of a park in the catchment area of PHS. When Lismore closes would you support building a school on that park as well as Figgate Park?
26

Porty Pirate,

The Beach 16/06/2008 10:22:19
well said Mr Mac & Seanie. Does anyone from PPAG ever bother to read the Consultant's Report or is it just selective memory syndrome?
27

Save Portobello Park,

Duddingston 16/06/2008 12:21:31
Flood risk, did they build schools in New Orleans it is the modern world!!!

Sign the petition at

http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/
28

Porty Pirate,

The Beach 16/06/2008 14:20:58
#27 - Flood risk, did they build schools in New Orleans it is the modern world!

And look what happened to them........................

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.