Questions And Concerns 69-2009

CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED SCHOOL ESTATE CHANGES IN THE WEST END: SOME QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS FROM PARENTS March 2009

The Council's proposal can be found at: www.dundeecity.gov.uk/reports/reports/69-2009.pdf The city council must be commended on its aims to provide “new schools with a highquality teaching and learning environment with modern resources “ and to ensure that “new buildings are energy efficient and the number of places is matched with the projected rolls”. During the current consultation we must seek to determine whether the proposal is a good way to achieve these aims for our children. If it is then we should support it. If it is not then the proposal should be rejected and a fresh appraisal of the options sought involving all stakeholders from the outset. This document summarises some of the serious questions and concerns raised by a group of parents based on their current understanding of the proposal. If you share all or some of the concerns and questions outlined below, please provide a written representation to Gillian Ross Pond by Monday 6 April. It is important that you do this because if you do not, Dundee City Council will assume that you are satisfied with the proposal. Please ask for confirmation of receipt of your letter. Her contact details are: Mrs Gillian Ross Pond PPP Project Director Dundee Schools PPP Project Floor 8, City House Overgate Dundee DD1 1UH Tel.: 01382 435161 Email: [email protected]

To contribute to the debate, read others’ comments, and share information, please visit:

westendparents.blogspot.com

THE CURRENT PROPOSAL (1)

The current proposal is to build two primary schools and a nursery school on the Logie site during 2010/2011. The nursery will provide 180 places (and possibly more). Roll projections for 2011/2012 are 188 for Park Place Primary School and 257 for St Josephs Primary School.

IS THE PROPOSED SITE SUITABLE FOR TWO PRIMARY SCHOOLS AND A NURSERY? The site is too small

The area of the proposed site does not even meet minimum statutory requirements. The 2 Logie site (Figure 1) has an area of 12,700m (1.27 hectares). Some of this area is restricted: it includes a category B listed building (the old janitor’s house) and many (2) mature trees that are protected by Tree Preservation Orders . Scottish government regulations

(3)

state that:

• every primary school with 141-315 pupils shall have a site of not less than 2 6,000m • a nursery school designed for 90 pupils shall have a site of not less than 2 2,250m . (This figure is probably too low because the nursery will probably have larger capacity than 90). 2

Since there are two primary schools, that gives a total of at least 14,250m . Even if the entire Logie site was available for the new build, it would still be considerably smaller than this required area. Furthermore, Scottish government regulations

(3)

state that:

• every primary school with 141-315 pupils shall have available and in close 2 proximity to it playing fields not less than 3,000m • a nursery school with 90 pupils shall have available and in close proximity to it a 2 garden playing space of not less than 837m (4)

SportScotland guidance states that a typical single stream primary school should have use of a synthetic grass or grass pitch for 9.8 hours per week. The two schools therefore need 19.6 hours per week. The council has confirmed that there will not be playing fields at the proposed Logie site. Where then will playing fields in close proximity be available? A shared playground will need to be large enough for both schools to use simultaneously so that the quality of education is not affected. (Pupils would be distracted if the playground was being used by the other school during their lessons). A 2005 House of Commons Education and Skills Committee report concluded that "school grounds are a vital resource for learning. Capital projects should devote as much attention to the outdoor classroom as to the innovative design of buildings and indoor space". A 2004 Ministerial Review Group on Physical Education reported that future new or refurbished facilities should ensure well planned space for physical education and physical activity appropriate for the needs of (5) both schools and the wider community .

The proposal would squeeze the children onto a site that is clearly too small and would deny them the space to which they should be entitled according to Scottish government regulations.

Concerns over parking

Parking is a major planning concern. The proposed site will need to incorporate access, parking and drop-off for at least 625 pupils. The council has not provided any information about how this might be achieved safely.

Further concerns about the site

• Dundee City Council has indicated that it will “build up” because the site is so small. It has indicated that the primary schools are likely to be at least three storeys high and that the nursery could also have multiple storeys. This is unusual and clearly not ideal. (6) • There is “a very large electricity sub-station in a large compound” next to the site. There is evidence of a relationship between prolonged exposure to the electric and magnetic fields emanating from such sub-stations and increased (7) risks of childhood leukemia . There is also an environmental noise impact. • The proposed site is overlooked by tenement housing. • Is it true that two tenements that overlook the site are reserved to house homeless people, the majority of whom are ex-prisoners, including many sex offenders? • Is it also true that a street opposite the site has a high proportion of drug users? • The Al-Maktoum Foundation was granted full planning permission in January 2006 to build a cultural centre on the Logie site. This has not been progressed. Why not? • Planning was granted to the Al-Maktoum Foundation subject to the proposal and completion of a scheme to check and remove any contamination in the land. However, there has been no activity on this apart from an initial ground inspection.

Figure 1: The proposed Logie site showing the electricity substation.

WERE THE OPTIONS FULLY AND FAIRLY APPRAISED? Detailed option appraisal not made available (1)

The report to the Education Committee states that “a detailed option appraisal has been undertaken before arriving at the recommendations”. When asked to produce this detailed option appraisal, the council eventually admitted that there was nothing they could make available other than the cursory information provided in the report to the Education Committee. When asked to explain the summary costs given in the report, the council said that such calculations were commercially confidential and could not be made available. To the best of our knowledge, no-one being consulted has been able to understand how the Net Present Values given in the report were obtained.

The refurbishment option was rejected using criteria that have not been defined Option 4 in the report is to refurbish Park Place and St Joseph’s to increase the life of the buildings by approximately 25 years, an option that is considerably cheaper than the proposed option. This option was rejected by the council because it did not meet three “non-monetary” criteria : i) Satisfies long term demand (capacities) ii) Satisfies long term demand (property) iii) Deliverable while schools operational Criteria i) and ii) have not been defined. No further written explanation of why Option 4 cannot satisfy these criteria has been provided.

The option to merge Park Place and Blackness was not fully explored

Option 3 in the report involves merging Park Place and Blackness. Why was this merger not fully explored?

The option of developing the St Joseph’s site was not considered

The combined St Josephs/Bellfield site is approximately the same size as the proposed site and has many advantages. Why was its redevelopment not even considered as an option? Responses to this question given by the council during the consultation process have been: 1) “It is not a neutral site”. 2) Without selling the St Josephs site, the council cannot afford to build a new school. Where do the supposed concerns about “neutrality” come from? The council confirmed that £7.6M is already available.

IS THE CONSULTATION PROCESS BEING CONDUCTED PROPERLY? No consultation during option appraisal

Parents were not consulted during the course of the option appraisal mentioned in the (1) report to the Education Committee . The Scottish government official guidance on (8) Option Appraisal advises that: “Throughout the course of an option appraisal, you will need to ensure that all those people with an interest in the outcome of the project are consulted. A lot of options can be generated through consultation, while others may be

ruled out before a detailed appraisal takes place as a result of stakeholder feedback.” This guidance appears to have been ignored by Dundee City Council. The guidance also advises that “if new information becomes available it is important to revisit the consultation process with all interested parties”.

Consultation meetings

A large number of teachers were present at the St Joseph’s consultation meeting at 7pm on 18 March 2009. Several parents have reported that this was intimidating and discouraged open debate. The meeting was stopped after about 90 minutes when parents still clearly wanted to ask further questions and make further comments. Despite this, the meeting was ended with a request by the council for a show of hands to allow them to gauge the level of support for a new school at the proposed site. There had been no indication to parents prior to the meeting that any such ‘vote’ would be taking place. Clearly, if parents had known there would be a show of hands this would have impacted on attendance at the meeting. The show of hands indicated very mixed opinion across those parents present. The council have stated that they will not provide parents who attended consultation meetings with any written record of the questions that they noted, or even of the headcount, until after the deadline for written representations.

Details on basis for St. Joseph’s Parent Council support are not available

There was only one Parent Council meeting held on 18 February to discuss the limited information available at that time about the new school. This information was taken mainly from newspaper articles. The St Joseph’s Parent Council consultation meeting with Dundee City Council was held at 6pm on 18 March, immediately before the parents’ consultation meeting at which it was announced that the Parent Council was in support of the proposal. There is concern over how the PC Chair managed to arrive at the conclusion that the proposal was sound and had wide support with the limited information at hand and without properly consulting the parent forum and all the PC parent members about their concerns and views. There was no vote conducted within the Parent Council regarding support of the proposal. The only form of communication that had been provided with parents was a note inviting parents to the consultation meeting and requesting that questions be provided to the Parent Council Chair. The communication never asked for a view or vote from the Parent Forum. Only four parents shared their questions with the PC Chair; other parents opted instead to raise their questions and concerns through other means (i.e. during the consultation meeting, by writing or contacting the council directly, or by asking to be represented by other members of the Parent Council). Members of the Parent Council who could not attend the 6pm meeting sent partners as their representatives. They were excluded from the meeting. One of the excluded partners had been entrusted by other parents to present a list of questions and to represent their views. Therefore, the views of the Parent Forum could not have been properly represented and used as a basis for the Parent Council supporting the proposal. No agenda and no written record of this statutory meeting have been made available, and it is not clear whether such documents even exist.

Children misled

The day after the meeting, St Joseph’s pupils came home from school reporting that they would be getting a new school with ensuite toilets, huge play areas complete with swings, slides and playframes, and saying that they had been told how good this would be. Some are now expecting a party to mark the occasion. Given that the consultation process is not finished and that there is no detailed plan for the schools, the setting up of these expectations in the pupils’ minds is entirely inappropriate. (1) Report to the Education Committee on School Estate Improvements in the West End of the City, 26 January 2009. http://www.dundeecity.gov.uk/reports/reports/ 69-2009.pdf

(2) Dundee City Council Planning Application No. 05/00780/FUL Cultural Centre Proposed in Blackness Road, 2006. http://www.dundeecity.gov.uk/reports/plan_apps/ 05-00780-FUL.pdf (3) School Premises Regulations (Scotland) 1967 as amended in 1973 & 79 (4) School Playing Fields: Planning & Design Guidance, SportScotland, 2007. http://www.sportscotland.org.uk (5) Report of the Review Group on Physical Education, Scottish Executive, 2004. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/06/19466/38538 (6) Dundee City Council Planning Application No. 06/00103/FUL, 2006. http://www.dundeecity.gov.uk/reports/plan_apps/06-00103-FUL.pdf (7) Ahlborn A et al., Review of the Epidemiologic Literature on EMF and Health, Environmental Health Perspectives 109, Supplement 6, 911-933, December 2001. http://www.icnirp.de/documents/EPIreview1.pdf (8) Option Appraisal – building our future: Scotland’s School Estate, Scottish Government, May 26, 2004. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/05/19436/ 38226

To contribute to the debate, read others’ comments, and share information, please visit:

westendparents.blogspot.com