Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 5th July 2008 Change Date

Life & Style - inside your Evening News every Thursday

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

ID card scheme is a huge waste of taxpayers' cash



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

IT is regrettable that the Scottish Grocers Federation (SGF) is again calling for the Government to introduce national ID cards (Shops' struggle to spot teen boozers an age-old problem, Evening News, May 13).
It is not necessary to identify a person in order to determine whether they are of legal age to purchase alcohol. Names, addresses and sundry numbers related to citizenship are superfluous.

Nor is it even necessary for a shopkeeper to know a cust
omer's exact date of birth – information which can be used by identify fraudsters; it is sufficient to know only that they are over a certain age.

There are several proof-of-age cards readily available on the market, mostly at very modest cost. Any of these can be used to prove that someone is old enough to buy age-restricted products and it would be a simple matter for SGF members to collectively insist that customers produce one or several of these.

If they are unhappy with the current offerings, they could produce and sell their own.

Instead, they are demanding that the Government waste millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on an unnecessary national ID scheme – money that could be spent on ensuring that our police are better resourced to deal with any abuse that shopkeepers do encounter.

Dr Geraint Bevan, NO2ID Scotland, Grovepark Gardens, Glasgow


Plenty of open space in Portobello

AS an observer based elsewhere in Edinburgh I am fascinated by the debate on the subject of the new Portobello High School and in particular the relocation of the school to part of Portobello Park.

Although I am neutral to the debate, as a council tax payer I do want to see value for money.

If my understanding is correct, the net cost to the city of a new school in the park is much less than for a rebuild on the present site, as well as being a much more suitable environment for modern day learning, AND the pupils and staff will have more space and outdoor sports facilities. Why spend more of taxpayers' money on a much poorer facility?

I do appreciate that cost is not the only issue and there is a degree of resistance from those who want to preserve the park in its entirety.

Looking at map and satellite website Google Earth, it is clear that Portobello Park is not the only park in EH15. I can make out at least seven other substantial parks and of course the promenade, which looks like it extends for more than a mile. Any time I have visited Portobello, there is a sense of an abundance of open space.

By building on Portobello Park, the council will save its taxpayers money and simultaneously give the children and staff of Portobello High a much more suitable working environment for years to come.

Margaret Black, Rutland Square, Edinburgh


A serious debate needs accuracy

STEPHEN McINTYRE in his letter of May 12, claiming to speak for the wider community, is wrong in the figures that he quotes.

The council's option to locate Portobello High School on the 5.7 hectares of Portobello Park was arrived at after an educational consultation and takes up the whole of Portobello Park. That is 100 per cent – not the ten per cent as quoted.

Similarly, the costs quoted are wide of the mark of the figures given in the 2006 appraisal even allowing for inflation. The reprovisioning of Portobello High School, which includes the loss of accessible green space, is a contentious issue within Portobello and one that is dividing the community. In this serious debate it serves no-one to make such inaccurate claims.

Stephen Hawkins, Lib Dem councillor for Portobello/Craigmillar


Wendy is leaving us all in the dark

THE similarity between the UK and Scottish Labour leaders is remarkable. Both were installed unopposed. Both were regarded as outstanding politicians. Both subsequently proved incompetent. Both have now forfeited authority over their fellow members of parliament.

Where they differ is in their reaction to current problems.

On the referendum fiasco, hapless Malcolm Chisholm epitomised the party's denial of reality when repeatedly asked on BBC's Newsnight Scotland the simple question "Do you reserve the right to vote against the SNP referendum?"

Mr Chisholm used the answer "We're not giving the SNP a blank cheque". Seven times!

Therein lies the major difference between the two leaders. Gordon Brown has acknowledged the blunder over the 10p tax band removal, with remedial measures being taken.

Wendy, meanwhile, deflects blames on to the SNP, while leaving us all in the dark as to what her exact position is on the subject.

Robert Dow, Ormiston Road, Tranent


Gibson would be welcome in church

HAD John Gibson's strictures on church ministers and their sermons (May 13) appeared a week earlier, I would have invited him to join me at a Leith Church where I heard four sermons preached last Friday, Saturday and Sunday, each lasting for about 40 minutes. The minister spoke entirely without notes and the central figure of his preaching to an appreciative congregation was the Lord Jesus Christ.

I may add that the congregation were not looking at their watches, hoping he would stop.

Donald Jack, Summerside Place, Leith


Value is the key for pricey music shops

MUSIC shops such as Sound Control have sounded their last note for one reason – they are simply too expensive (Capital stores strung out as musicians turn to the internet, News, May 13).

Many musicians are on a tight budget – should they be expected to dig deep to keep uncompetitive shops in business? Don't think so.

Pam Tandas, Easter Road


Home purchase is Adam good idea

THE approval by Edinburgh councillors of the bid by Heriot-Watt University to buy the former home of the "father of economics", Adam Smith, is to be applauded.

The decision over Panmure House in Edinburgh's Old Town, where he lived from 1788 to 1790 will now be scrutinised by the Scottish Government and one hopes they too see sense and approve this bid.

The restoration of this property will place Scotland at the international forefront of the study of economics, and bring substantial benefits to the national economy.

An international economics centre will also be of significant importance to the development of scholarly activity on the subject, and the hope is that Heriot-Watt's bid will prove successful.

Alex Orr, Bryson Road, Edinburgh






The full article contains 1076 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 May 2008 8:49 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Ghost,

16/05/2008 12:16:09
Margaret Black, of Rutland Square,(Plenty of open space in Portobello) says "I am neutral to the debate" and then "By building on Portobello Park, the council will save its taxpayers money and simultaneously give the children and staff of Portobello High a much more suitable working environment for years to come", which is a clear contradiction to her declaration of neutrality! Is she just having a laugh, or has someone from PFANS put her up to it?
2

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:42:40
Eh?

Margaret Black is quite correct. A school in the park would save the city a fortune (around £30M)and so unlees you are suggesting a tower block with no green space or sports facilities is better than a low level school with green spaxce and sports facilities? I don't know what your beef is? Identifying the best solution to a problem does not impair someones political neutrality.

As for the PFANS jibe- I know at times it must seem like it but PFANS don't have a monopoly on common sense.

Way to go on open space on EH15 Margaret, I hadn't thought of that angle. There's probably 5 or 6 public parks within 800meters of Portobello Park.
3

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:47:03
Ghost- does it ever cross your mind to deal with the substance of someone's argument rather than attack them personally?
4

Dav,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:12:02
Dr Bevan – The answer toThe Scottish Greengrocers Federation and everyone else’s problems with underage people buying alcohol illegally is very simple. Alcohol is far too readily available and from sources that are altogether unsuitable for this form of purchase. The sale of alcohol should be restricted to certain outlets. The issue of licences should be removed from local control and administered by central government. It has been well documented that profit comes before any ethical responsibility and always has.

With proper control over the retail of an extremely hazardous consumable the need for ID cards for proof of purchase evaporates.
5

Ghost,

16/05/2008 13:13:34
Stevie Mac

Building on Portobello Park might save a bit of money, (although your figure of £30m is nonsense), but it would be an environmental disaster.

And who are you trying to kid, when you say " Way to go on open space on EH15 Margaret, I hadn't thought of that angle. There's probably 5 or 6 public parks within 800meters of Portobello Park". It's been one of your (inaccurate) claims throughout the whole debate

Please don't take this as a personal attack. It is very much a question of substance.
6

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:41:15
Ghost- you finally engaged.

Could you quantify " a bit of money?" The consultants report says £15 and the land sale would bring another £15m. If St Johns pursues "brownfield" sites. You could add another £20m.

I don't think its inaccurate that there are 6 parks within 800M- theres:

The Jewel
Joppa Quarry
Rosefield Park
Brighton Park
Figgate Park
and that green bit behind Magdalene.

I honestly hadn't though of the power of that data. EH15 must be one of the least densely populated urban area in Scotland never mind jusr Edinburgh. Especially when one considers the promenade.

Chernobyl was an environmental disaster.
7

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:46:52
Its subsequently been pointed out to me that there may be another park or tow that fit the criteria.
8

RecentEXPupil,

Porty 16/05/2008 13:52:59
Don't forget the Daisy park according to google it is within 800 and there is also a public park in bingham under a kilometer away.
9

Agoraphobic,

Portobello 16/05/2008 15:04:17
And don't forget the Masterplan for North West Portobello proposes creating a new park on the old Scottish Power site.
10

RecentEXPupil,

Porty 16/05/2008 15:17:32
A park to replace the lost green space of portobello park? Sounds promising. Mind you we have to survive the 'environmental disaster' first. Please send your AID to Burma and not the people of portobello.
11

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 15:34:43
Not that an area can ever have too many parks or open spaces! I dislike the term "over-provisioning" but its going to very hard to argue that EH15 will be starved or even slightly restricted in its access to open space.

We need to get armed with the facts and figures - to combat the emotive "lungs of the city" type arguments. Especially when there is a comittment to preserve all of the trees.
12

Farky,

16/05/2008 16:01:22
Save the city and it council tax payers an even bigger fortune by refurbishing the current building. Surely not beyond the the realms of possibility!

I can't for the life of me understand why so many people are h*ll bent on building a new school when the current one could be completely gutted and refurbished at a fraction of the cost of a brand new one.

Yes, I have said that before!
13

Ghost,

16/05/2008 16:14:38
Recent ExPupil, why go to the touble of converting the old Scottish Power Site into a park, so that you can use Porty Park for PHS? Why not just put PHS on the old Scottish Power site in the first place?
Farky, you're being a bit too sensible here. People don't like it, please stop.
Stevie Mac "EH15 must be one of the least densely populated urban area in Scotland never mind jusr Edinburgh" and "Could you quantify "
And are you ready to admit you were talking complete rubbish with your 10% claim? Makes you more credible.
14

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 16:22:40
Farky, refurbishing the existing building is indeed possible but is likely to cost a lot more than a brand new school. Cost is important but it is not the issue.

You could dress the school like Trump Tower but it would still be unfit for purpose as a modern day educational facility. Its a terrible design there's not enough space and it can't be configured for modern day schooling. I hope that helps your understanding.

Aany way its tine to get over it. The wider community wants a school on the park. Now that just happens to cost a helluva a lot less money.
15

Ghost,

16/05/2008 16:22:59
Forgot to mention, Stevie Mac, that all your calculations about the cheaper costs of building on Portobello Park have failed to recognise the costs relating to the common good fund - both the legal costs, and any subsequent payments which will be made to the common good fund for "alienation" of the park. These costs will all have to be met from the education budget.
16

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 16:27:13
Ghost asks "Stevie Mac "EH15 must be one of the least densely populated urban area in Scotland never mind just Edinburgh" - "Could you quantify? "

That was an opinion not a fact. However, I am working on the number of parks, areas and percentages of opeb space available. Its facts that will count at the plannig showdown.


17

RecentEXPupil,

Porty 16/05/2008 16:36:55
I have to agree ghost that is a good idea about the old scottish power site has this been consider yet?
18

seanie,

16/05/2008 16:37:16
There are recent precedents where the courts have goven the green light to building schools on Common Good land, but it's still concievable that the status could present a barrier. But not really a financial one.

Establishing first whether or not Portobello Park is a Common Good, and then whether a school could be built on it isn't that complex a procedure. It's hardly going to cost millions. And if it's decided that the school would have to pay a 'rent' into the fund it has precious little practicla implications given the wide powers the Council have in using the fund. It'd really just be an accounting exercise; shifting money within the Council budget onto different ledgers. It shouldn't have any significant revenue inplications.
19

seanie,

16/05/2008 16:42:46
The Scottish Power site is outwith the Council's ownership and it would cost a significant amount of money whto purchase.

It's also only 2.1Ha which is smaller than the current PHS site.

Its poor location within the catchment rather pales into insignificance compared to those two factors.

Which is why, when it was considered, it was quickly rejected.

It's a really very silly idea indeed.
20

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 16:43:46
Ghost is mistaken. I did allow for the costs of establishing common good status and for any ongoing costs. My concern was cost to the city and the citizens of the city and the costs all come out the same pot. It seems to think that there's some sort of benefit to have the citizens of the city sue the city so that the city can compensate itself. Whatever?

I did make an allowance for those potential costs- it would still cost around £30m more to rebuild the site in situ.
21

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 16:49:30
In any case Margaret Black has made some very good points; A) why spend significantly more money for a vastly inferior school b) yes EH15 does have lots of open space.
22

seanie,

16/05/2008 17:03:59
The refurbishment of PHS isn't really viable.

Most of the schools in the building wave of the 60's were poorly constructed, to standards unacceptable today; they're expensive to maintain, extortionate in energy terms, unpleasant and ineffective environments, too hot in summer, too cold in winter, with poor ventilation, terrible acoustics, they lack flexibility and are difficult to adapt. In non-technical language they're crap.

And many, such as PHS, have reached they're useful lifespan unless subject to a major overhaul. But refurbishment, of the sort required, is actually very expensive. Once you start stripping things out you usually find more and more problems. You're quite likely talking about stripping the building back to it's most basic structure and starting again.

And even if you can get away with less you still have the problem of what to do with the pupils. Children and building sites are not a good combination. So you need to decant the pupils. You need to find the space to put a whole lot of Portakabins you've hired for the duration. And that in itself is expensive as well as inconvenient.

In many instances proposals for refurbishment turn out at a cost not too far short of new-build, at higher risk and with a less satisfactory outcome.

A refurbishment would still be fundamentally undermined by the physical layout of the existing building. A high-rise tower on a tiny site, with the unavoidable circulation and space constraints, with accomodation that lacks flexibility, adaptability and does not suit current needs.

And an "extension" is hardly going to help since the most blindingly obvious problem with the existing site is the lack of space. The current site is around 40% of the recommended statutory minimum.

A complete refurbishment, to extend the life of fundamentally inadequate accomodation for another 20 years, would be significantly different from a new build once long-term cost and savings are factored in.
23

Ghost,

16/05/2008 17:24:10
Seanie, you've made some good points about why a refurb of the existing building would not to too good, but I'm not convinced that the site itself is unsuitable - eg for a total rebuild. Although it is significantly smaller than the generic brief recommeds, it is still much larger than sites for other city schools which have recently been rebuilt - even relative to the size of the school, so I don't understand how it can be a "statutory" minimum, or the other schools (I'm thinking in particular of St Thomas) wouldn't have been allowed. The current site includes large bits of wasted space (eg the large car park), and the current layout seems very mish-mash, but presumably a good designer could come up with something which would do the job?

Another cost to be factored into the cost of building PHS on Portobello Park is the purchase price of any land used to replace the lost green space, as promised by the council in 2006 decision - and I don't suppose that will come too cheap - perhaps the council can buy the existing school site from themselves for £15million???
24

seanie,

16/05/2008 17:31:48
There are various ways the Council could replace the green space lost, either cheaply or at no cost at all.

Either it finds an area of greenbelt land, which by definiton is going to be relatively cheap, or it could require a green space as a condition for developers.

For example; the green space indicated within the new NW Portobello Framework wouldn't have to involve a purchase cost to the Council. It could be required as a planning condition; effectively a developer contribution.

The area indicated probably wouldn't be sufficient on it's own but there was no stipulation in the original decision that the replacement green space had to be in one piece. The Council might be able to identify a few sites that could be obtained at little or no cost.
25

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 17:35:58
What makes you think the council don't already own the land which will replace the bit of park that's used? It could be greenbelt and virtually valueless?

Should we factor in the £millions of council tax revenue from the homes built on the existing site?

I guess much of this no longer matters, I just hope we get through planning and the wider community gets what it wants.

26

Ghost,

16/05/2008 17:39:28
Seanie, I thought your points were quite reasonable up til now, but this last bit scares me. What you're saying is that the bit of the council decision which said that the green space lost would be replaced locally might mean that a 5 hectare park could be replaced with wee patches and verges dotted round new housing developments - not a single large area where people could enjoy space. And that would only work if these new developments weren't already green space?
The greenbelt idea I can't see working, because there isn't LOCAL greenbelt - not local in the sense that the people who currently access Portobello Park on foot would still be able to access.
27

Ghost,

16/05/2008 17:40:44
Stevie, for once we agree. I too hope that the wider community gets what it wants.
28

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 18:07:34
Yep- the wider community, thats the one that will pay for and run PHS ,is represented by its Councillors and those Councillors have twice unanimously supported a school on the park. In relation to Edinburgh it doesn't come wider and more emphatic.

I don't know what wider community you have hopes for?


29

seanie,

16/05/2008 18:21:39
I never said anyhting about wee patches and verges. that's your invention.

I'm just pointing out that there was nothing in the original decision saying that the replcement public green space had to be provided in a single area. replacing 5Ha in one go would obviously be tricky, the paucity of possible sites for a new school suggests as much.

But if you were trting to replace the 5.7 Ha in three or four seperate locations that'd be a far easier prospect. And if they were spread around the area it would make green space more accessible to people on foot not less.
30

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 18:30:34
Seanie when Ghost says "What you're saying is that the bit of the council decision which said that the green space lost would be replaced locally"

Is that accurate? Was it specified that the green space lost would be replaced locally and how would locally be defined?
31

Ghost,

16/05/2008 18:37:24
Stevie, the councillors have not twice unanimously supported a school in the park. It has not been put the vote - it was unopposed at the Dec 06 meeting, but not voted on, and presumably the second time you mean is Andrew Burns motion after the new council took over in 07 - but the wording of that motion made no mention of the park, and only reaffirmed the commitment of the council to provide a new school - which is a different thing altogether.
32

Ghost,

16/05/2008 18:47:40
Stevie, the wording of the decision was :

To approve the selection of Option C (Portobello Park) as the preferred location for a new Portobello High School, subject to:

confirmation, through the courts if necessary, of the land being useable for this purpose;
an audit of usage of the current park being undertaken to inform the re-provisioning of adequate facilities to meet that need;
the identification of local available land for open space provision in compensation for the loss of part of Portobello Park;
this land (which may include the current St John’s Primary School site) being identified and secured prior to the commencement of construction of any new Portobello High School;
and
assurances that no housing would be built on the remaining green space of Portobello golf course.
33

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 18:48:36
I deliberately used the word supported rather than voted. I deliberately used the word unanimous. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. The school is going on the park. Subject to planning. We are just waiting on the money.

34

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 18:53:59
Thanks for that Ghost "the identification of local available land for open space provision in compensation for the loss of part of Portobello Park;"

So no definition of local and no requirement that it had to be park. Seems like just open space will do. Those buggers can be bloody tricky.

I believe they already have an option on the replacement land and its an "in kind" rather than monetary arrangement. Either way, I agree, the condition will have to be met.
35

Ghost,

16/05/2008 18:57:29
What leads you to believe that there is replacement land available on an "in kind" arrangement? Would you be able to provide more details?
36

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 19:01:51
Why the sudden interest in details?
37

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 19:20:43
I may as well strike when the iron is hot and you are in the mood for details. When you say that the £30m additional cost (£15m from the report plus £15m from the sale of the site) is and I quote "nonsense". Whats the detail behind your admission that will cost "a bit more money"?

And

Can you identify this "wider community" you seem to know so much about?
38

seanie,

16/05/2008 19:24:02
Strictly speaking the decision doesn't even say that an amount of land equal to that lost to the school is required. Given that the major part of the Park's current role (playing fields)could still be fulfilled by the facilities of the school, the council might take the view that a smaller area of open space might be sufficient compensation.

However we'd probably need an open space audit of the local area to identify the level of provision.
39

Stevie Mac,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 20:02:51
So let me get this straight; there is no commitment to amount, location or even it being in one tranche for the new open space that has to be created? (i'm assuming it will have to be reasonable)

Is the golf course open space? Could the council remodel the remaining 15ha to open up a bit park and slightly reduce the golf course in size?
40

seanie,

16/05/2008 20:24:15
Well the decision as described above certainly seems to imply that replacement open space of the same size isn't necessarily required. Look at it again;

"an audit of usage of the current park being undertaken to inform the re-provisioning of adequate facilities to meet that need;
the identification of local available land for open space provision in compensation for the loss of part of Portobello Park;"

They made a committment to an audit on how the current park is actually use, in order for that to inform the re-provisioning of facilities.

It would seem from that that usage, rather than simply size, is a key factor in the re-provisioning of space. Yes they committed to new local public space as compensation, but as long as amenity in terms of use continued to be met, the decision seems to leave the door open as to how exactly that open space is re-provided.


 

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.