Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The £10.3m question

During the course of some reasoned debate within the Meeting at Club Romano comments, an interesting question has been posed:
Anonymous said...

To everyone who is against the proposed move to a new site I have one question. The council have stated that they need to sell the land St. Joseph's is currenly on to fund the building of a new school. If you want the school to remain on the exisiting site where is the money coming from to do this? The teachers have stated that the school is now not suitable for modern day teaching. I have read lots of views and concerns about why the school should not be moved. Do our children not deserve to be taught in suitable surroundings?

To initiate discussion, the council's proposal 69-2009 states in section 3.1:

"The estimated cost of building 2 x 1 stream primary schools with 6 additional
classrooms, a nursery and full ancillary accommodation totalling approximately
4595m2 is £10.3m based on a start date of Q1 2010 and a completion date during Q2
2011. This project can be funded from capital receipts (£2.05m) and prudential
borrowing from revenue savings £0.6m) and the balance (£7.65m) will have to be
funded from capital receipts from the sale of school sites vacated as part of the PPP
project."
Note that the term "PPP project" does not refer to this proposal because it is not PPP. At the St Joseph's consultation meeting it was confirmed that the £7.65m is already available.

19 comments:

  1. Confused by financesApril 21, 2009 at 9:55 PM

    As has been discussed on the Meeting page, I am confused about the financial side of the project. I understood that the £10.3m required was to build 2 new schools and 1 nursery. Surely then if you want St. Joseph's to be rebuilt on the existing site you would only be entitled to one third of the money available. So where is the rest of the money required coming from?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Confused by finances. Can westendparents tell us how much is needed to rebuild or refurbish just St. Joseph's? If you want to keep the school on the existing site lets see a plan of how that could be achieved instead of all this moaning that's been taking place.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Isn't that what we pay the council for?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maybe so but are the council are not backing a new school on the same site so inless you do something yourself you are not going to get a result.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The council are supposed to gather up options from all of us who would like to put an idea forward.then the list would be narrowed down. that is the procedure advised. Its sounds likek yuo have a good head on your shoulders and would come up with some good ways of investing such a sum of money. Maybe your suggistions would prove undoable but the whole point is that the more choices available to us the better chance of exploring all avenues and getting a good all round result for the people by the people. You should be part of generating ideas. I think from listening to you youd come up with some solid ones. Shame that did not happen as it should have. I'dhave enjoyed doing a list of proposals down the pub with someof the lads. If it happens that we get that chance you are having first pint on me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In reply to the Anonymous comment of St Josephs not being suitable for modern day teaching, I have some questions

    1. Why is St Josephs suddenly not suitable for modern day teaching?
    2. Where does it infer that in the HMI report?
    3. What exactly is it that is so different about modern day teaching that requires a new school?
    4. Why does modern day teaching for the Curriculum for Excellence require the building of a high rise, multi-school campus on a contaminated sloping overlooked site, with slashed school rolls, reduced play areas and weakened links to the church?

    The only tangible improvements this proposed school is likely to deliver are wi-fi broadband & mobiles that work inside!!

    If this is the way forward for Modern day teaching then God help us and our children.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What a pity that the wonderful chair of the Parent Council has, in the light of recent events, decided to resign from her position. Here was a person who facilitiated open and honest discussion and acted with total good manners throughout the discussion of the whole issue.
    We cannot let these people [a small minority] and their bullying tactics and rude e mails deprive the children of PP, St J's and PPN of madern state of the art facilities.

    Shame on them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In reply to anonymous 1:08
    The weakened links to the church does not refer to the school moving 500m up the road but to the feelings that the whole episode has damaged the trust that many parishoners had in the Church leadership.

    If you want a new school of ANY standard on ANY site at ANY cost then that is exactly what you will get.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To Anonymous 2:11
    The shame is on you too.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Can anon 2.11 explain a bit more about the resignation of the Parent Council chair? I was unaware this was connected to the issue at hand and would be interested to know a bit more of the background to this comment if possible. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  13. When are the committee meeting about the school. How do we know what they decided. will it be in the tele or courir or will we be told by the school.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree with 2:11. That is despicable behaviour - and one person in particular needs to hang his head in shame for being the ring leader in all of this. And shame on the rest of you lot for associating yourselves with him. That news has really saddened me and just goes to show what a narrow minded bunch of hooligans you lot are. I can't stress how much loathing I have for this sort of behaviour. Shame on you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 2:46 - get a grip. Do you know what he's been up to? Maybe you should ask him to share some of the info with you...

    I wonder if the press would be interesting in this...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon 4.32 - What who has been up to? Why is everyone talking in riddles? What is this all about? Can the info not be shared with all? Is it relevant to the school issue.

    Dazed and confused blogger????

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm really sad to hear the chair of the parent council has resigned, if indeed she has. Can someone confirm this? I have never given up my time to attend parent council meetings and respect the fact these people do, giving there time to help all our children. It sounds like she has received negative messages from someone and if thats the case its the most un christian way to go about things. I keep hearing people talking about the importance of the church so can we remember the issues of respect, tolerance, love and understanding that are the cornerstone to our faith. I don't know the facts and hope I'm getting it wrong. Also, I can't believe how many people have stopped me recently knowing my children attend the school to quiz me on recent press. Its really upsetting. I really feel this is having such a detrimental effect on the ethos of our school. We all have a role to play here. Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions but this is getting dirty now. Wouldn't it be a good idea to bin the site now? It seems to be being used to stoke up bad feelings. The date has passed by for objections to be lodged. All we can do now is wait for the next meeting and then attend it to share our views once more.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous April 22, 2009 1:08pm said:

    "Can someone explain how you think that moving the school 200 yards up the road is going to weaken the links with the church?

    [personal comment deleted]

    What is so fantastic about the church from the kids point of view?"

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous April 22, 2009 1:36pm said:

    "Got to agree with anonymous 1:08 - the links with the church will not be changed in any shape or form. [personal comment deleted]"

    ReplyDelete