We contacted the Director of Education about the council's proposal and have obtained his permission to quote his responses.
Director of Education: “In Dundee we take account of the number of children that can be taught in a classroom by one teacher, and we have regard to both local and national guidelines and regulations regarding class size. Therefore, in a one-stream primary school, in Dundee the capacity is likely to be 217 (25, 30,30, 33, 33, 33, 33 respectively in each of the 7 classes). This takes account of Circular 1/2007, issued by the Scottish Executive on 2 April 2007, which contains formal guidance on class sizes in P1, the Education (Lower Primary Class Sizes (Scotland) Regulations 1999 and the Scheme of Salaries and Conditions of Service for Teaching Staff in School Education. As you are aware, our proposals for the West End allow for 6 additional classrooms to be used as needed by the two schools, so in theory the capacity of each school could increase by up to 198 (i.e. if all 6 classrooms were used by one of the schools, with up to 33 pupils in each room).”In other words the combined capacity for the primary pupils is 217+217+198 = 632. Even if the proposal was for ONE primary school with this capacity, the regulations state that the site area for this school should be at least 12,000 sq. metres. Of course, the proposal is not to build one primary school, but to build TWO with shared facilities. And then there is the nursery which it has been stated will have a capacity of at least 90 a.m. and 90 p.m. Any reasonable interpretation of the regulations leads to the same conclusion:
Minimum statutory requirements on site size cannot be met by this proposalThe size of the proposed site is 12,700 sq. m. according to the report to the Education Committee (although see comments below on usable area of the site). Even if the schools were merged, nursery capacity was only 90, and the entire site was usable, this would be 1,800 sq. m. short.
ONE primary school with capacity of 632: 12,000 sq. m.In addition, there should be a playing field available on site or in close proximity of 6,000 sq. m.
Nursery with capacity of 90: 2,500 sq. m.
Total area for minimum statutory requirements: 14,500 sq. m.
Director of Education: “Any proposed demolition of the listed janitor's house would have to be included in the development proposals, and any request for tree removal would go through normal planning approval processes.”We infer from this response that no assumption can be made at this stage about the demolition of the janitor’s house. Therefore, the area of site that can be assumed to be available for new build is considerably reduced, by our estimate to no more than 11,000 sq metres (taking into account also the steep slope at the north of the site). The current St. Joseph’s site (including car park and pitch) is approximately 11,000 sq. metres and accommodates one school, not two schools plus a nursery!
Really, I did not know that. I need to look into this further obviously. Surely though the council will not be doing this if this is factual.
ReplyDeletesurely the carpark and pitch do not belong to St. Joseph's PS? and should not be included as they belong to the church?
ReplyDeleteThe actual school site excluding the carpark and pitch is more like 4300 sqm. [ http://www.acme.com/planimeter/ ]
Can someone please post a link to the School Premises Regulations (Scotland) report? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThe Education Committee report estimates the total Primary roll to be *less* than 450 - http://www.dundeecity.gov.uk/reports/reports/69-2009.pdf
ReplyDeleteWith a Nursery attendance of 90, that makes a probable combined roll of less than 540
Do the car park and pitch belong to the church or to Dundee City Council?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 3.35pm said: "surely the carpark and pitch do not belong to St. Joseph's PS?"
ReplyDeleteWe have asked the Director of Education and await his response. Council report 283-2007 (http://www.dundeecity.gov.uk/reports/reports/283-2007.pdf) states:
"Bellfield Nursery School is located to the west of the town centre, within the grounds of St
Joseph’s Primary School..."
from which we presume that the car park and pitch belong to DCC. We have also asked the Director of Education to confirm site areas and boundaries for the St Joseph's "site" versus "grounds" and await his response.
Anonymous 6.14pm said: "...makes a probable combined roll of less than 540".
ReplyDeleteCorrect. However, the "School Premises Regulations (Scotland) 1967 as amended in 1973 and 1979" are in regard to school "capacity", not "roll". Please see: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/01/20528/50015 for Scottish Government guidance on this.
@ Concerned Parents 7.17 pm
ReplyDeletere: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/01/20528/50015
The guidance you cite is in relation to an education authority's duties and responsibilities to deal with placing requests.
It is NOTHING to do with regulations as to the physical dimensions of a school building and provides no support to your claim that the old Harris Annex site is too small.
In respect of circular 3/2004 - is this not just best guidance - I don't read it as being legislative? Phrases as below seem to confirm this:
ReplyDeleteCONCLUSION
25. It is for education authorities themselves to determine the capacity of individual schools. Whilst this guidance sets out some of the factors they will want to consider when determining school capacities it is not exhaustive. Authorities will, of course, want to exercise discretion and take into account the individual circumstances of schools.
well I could only match the St Josephs parents claim of 11000 square metres by including all the overgrown areas between Blackness Road and Hawkhill as well as the car park
ReplyDeleteThe church has to keep the car park for the congregation, and the Blackness side of the land is really steep!
Now that the forum is open again does anyone have any points regarding the £10.3m question? How much is required to build a new school on St Joseph's site and how can this be funded with only a partial allocation of the £10.3m?
ReplyDelete@ A Really Concerned Parent 9.02pm and @ Anonymous 9.21pm:
ReplyDeleteThe Director of Education referred us to this circular in regard to calculating school capacities and provided the numbers quoted in the blog post.
As stated earlier, the School Premises Regulations (Scotland) 1967 as amended in 1973 and 1979 are in regard to "number of pupils", i.e. capacity, not roll.
We have asked the Director of Education to confirm the planning capacity for new schools in the council's proposal 69-2009 and await his reply.
'Concerned Parents' have yet to post anything on here to back up the school area regulations. Would be useful to the debate if you could do this as you can see, many people like myself are extremely sceptical about the careful use of the figures.
ReplyDeleteWe seems to be covering old news here as this has been talked to death already.
Let me pose a hypothetical question to 'ConcernedParents' (hypothetical because it will not happen I may add): -
If a new school was to be created on the existing site, would you be happy with this?
If yes, then I would ask the question - why highlight playing fields and land area because the current size offers neither of these 2 points? St Josephs have no playing fields and the current site is just a shade over 4000 m² which doesn't come close to the figures you publish.
It seems to me that you are still using these arguments as a smoke screen for your other less palatable motives of segregation and xenophobia.
It has been talked about in the past and is obviously being lost on a few of the 'Concerned Parents' but it is common knowledge that if St Josephs/Park Place does not happen Blackness/Park Place will happen. They need to sell the land so St Josephs will be moved. Yes, no one has said this officially but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out... have you thought about this possibility?
If you don't put up a clearly costed alternative, this is what will happen. And you're are not doing this at the moment. What you are doing is picking out recommendations and guidelines and saying these are regulations - regulations that would not stack up for the current St. Josephs anyway.
I would suggest you have a conflab and discuss this - you are pushing this down the road of no return. If I were you, I would not like to be responsible for this sort of thing happening. Don't get me wrong Blackness is supposedly a wonderful school but you can't get away from the fact it is even smaller than the Joeys with even less outdoor space - and it's as far away from the church as Logie - oh and it's at the end of Peddie Street which some people have likened to the Bronx before.
I apologise if this sounds inflammatory (I really don't want it to be) but I just want the 'Concerned Parents' to think about the 'what if' and the REAL motives for their actions. I welcome a healthy (adult!) debate!
You welcome a healthy adult debate. Yet you remain hidden. Why have you not come forward to engage dialogue face to face with these people. You seem so convinced of yourself yet you hide. These people have welcomed others to discuss things. I have spoken to one of them in the yard and I might not always agree but I admire them for having courage and conviction. You though, are critical of others and push theories forward without evidence. I object too the the idea that people who do not agree with you are xenophobia.I have not seen any suggestion of such.You are the one aiming to stir trouble and mischief. Behave.
ReplyDeleteOn the proposal - profesionally speaking, if the proposal in its current shape or form were to be presented to a potential customer for their business, this one will have no chance at all. It is vague, lacks detail and information required for the recepient to make a decision. On a scale of 1-10 for proposals, this one scores 0.
ReplyDeleteIf the proposal does not go ahead the only ones to blame are the very people who wrote this as they have left it open to so many questions and concerns.
The Education Committe will be making the decisions. Hopefully their decision will be made based on the integrity of the proposal and the consultation process rather than their party line.
Apologies, my intention is in no way meant to stir trouble. I am stating what's on my mind and if it came across in a mischievous way then I am truly sorry. Unfortunately I can't get to the school due to work commitments so can't chat in the yard.
ReplyDeleteI'm still very interested in the response however. Maybe you could put my mind at ease? I was at the first meeting and heard some somewhat unsavoury comments. Hence the reason for me being interested in what the concerns are, if size of land and playing fields are no better (and in fact worse) than what we have today. I also note that townhouses are to built along side the existing Joeys site. Is that a concern to you?
Would be good to see the legislation on the land area that has been quoted here too.