New west end school progress

The new west end school is scheduled to open after the October break (2012). We thought you might like to see how the building work is progressing.

The first two images show the all weather pitch (30m x 20m):







The next is the south facade of the school, where the pupils' art work, designed in conjunction with a local artist, will be displayed (Victoria Park to the left; St Joseph's to the right):





The next is a view of the playground:




This is Balgay Hill nursery:




This is the two storey car park on Glenagnes Road (upper and lower floors):

Education report uncertainty over nursery school independence

The latest report to Education Committee (report 539-2011) hints at the prospect of future integration of Park Place Nursery into the school building of Park Place Primary school. It states that the nursery's move to the new West End campus will reduce the number of nursery schools in the city (§ 4.2.8) and later (§ 4.3.2) proposes:

"There may be scope to integrate such schools into primary schools where it is practical to do so."

Does this imply that the nursery school might in future be relegated to a nursery class within the primary school?

Additionally, the report states that the Primary School Working Capacity of the new West End campus is 618, and with a combined pupil roll for Sep 2011 (the campus is not due to open until 2012) at 434, claims this is 70.2% of the Sufficiency on Working Capacity.

However, the previous Director of Education had assured parents that the maximum roll of the West End campus would be capped at 450, which would mean the Sufficiency on Working Capacity percentage should be quoted as 96.4%.

In other words, from the start, the new campus will be operating almost at full capacity.

If the current director of education now claims the Primary School Working Capacity of the campus is indeed 618, then he must find an additional 0.4 ha, that is 4000 sq. m., if the campus is to comply with the government's requirements stipulated in the School Premises (General Standards and Requirements) (Scotland) 1967 and as amended.

What are the director's plans for Park Place Nursery, and where will he find the additional space necessary for a campus with capacity for 618 pupils?

DCC Education Convener claims size issue was a myth

During a ceremony at the new west end school campus on 31/08/11 (11 mins into the broadcast), DCC education convener, Liz Fordyce, made this statement (transcribed from the video footage):

"It was built to house 1000 young adults, because that's what teenagers are, it was secondary pupils, and if it held a thousand secondary pupils, going from department to department, then it would be big enough to hold two primary schools that are not going to have anything like a thousand pupils between them, so it wasn't ever going to be too small to house two smaller primary schools, so it was a myth.

And the people who complained about it they had all sorts of different reasons for not wanting it, and they tried their best but now they realise that, yeah, this is a good idea, this is a good thing for the young people."

If the education convener had read the School Premises (General Standards and Requirements) (Scotland) 1967 and as amended, she would have noticed:

(2) Every secondary school shall have a site of not less than the area specified in Table II according to the number of pupils for which the school is designed except where the provisions of regulation 7(6) apply.

For a site with 751-1000 pupils, this equates to a site size of 2.4 hectares - the new school site is 1.27 hectares, almost half the minimum requirement. Note that each additional 100 (pupils) over 1000 would require an additional 0.1 hectares.

And that's not including provision for playing fields....

So either the former Harris Academy Annexe failed to comply with the government regulations - by a significant margin - or the regulations did not apply when the building was erected.

Or the city council of the time had also applied to government for dispensation from said regulations, just as the current city council did to get special permission for this proposal to proceed. The council's application and the decision from Scottish Ministers may be found here: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/91982/0091412.pdf and in it, the former director of education confirms:

1.5 The consent of the Scottish Ministers is required because the area of the site proposed for the joint campus does not meet the requirements in Regulation 7(1) in respect of two separate schools.

So which is it, and precisely which "people who complained about it" now 'realise' that it's a good idea?

Deputation to Development Management Committee - Monday 20 September 2010

Thanks go to all the elected members who asked a number of probing questions of the council officers. The planning application was approved and the project board has convened several times since to progress these plans.

We thought it might be of interest to share the text of the deputation presented by Mr Kiran Oza to the Development Management Committee on 20 September 2010.

Note that the first point raised by this deputation didn't need to be raised as the director of city development, Mr Mike Galloway, stood up first to apologise for an oversight in recording the application as 'local' rather than 'major', but claimed that in all other respects the application has been processed as if it were a major planning application....

"Lord Provost, Depute Lord Provost, Convener, Councillors: thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today. I have 7 points to make, each of which addresses a material consideration in respect to planning.

1. First of all, there is a 'Major' flaw in the report by the director of city development.

This planning application (10/00406/FULL) has been classed as a 'Local' planning application, which is contrary to The Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. Regulation 2(1) states in paragraph 9 of the description of development that where "The gross floor space of any building, structure or erection constructed as a result of such development is or exceeds 5,000 square metres", shall be categorised as a "major development". Circular 5 2009 Hierarchy of Developments advises that education developments of projects fall under paragraph 9 of the regulation and also stipulates "there is no scope for local interpretation of what constitutes a major development or a local development either by planning authorities...individuals...or other stakeholders in the planning system."

The planning application before you states that the proposed floor space for this non-residential development for School Education is 5,600 sq.m., which exceeds the 5,000 sq.m. stipulated in the regulations and therefore should be classed as a 'Major development'.

What is the impact of this error? My second point...

2. As a result of this error, the objection that "pre-application consultation was not carried out appropriately" could not have been given due consideration since the director's report incorrectly claims, "As this is not a defined major application there is no statutory requirement for preapplication consultation." Similarly, the case officer may not have fully scrutinised the statutory requirements, such as the Design and Access Statement, since the report also claims, "There was not a mandatory requirement to submit a Design and Access Statement for this development."

3. From the early days of this project, including the previous director of education's proposal to the Education Committee in January 2009 (report 69-2009), through subsequent consultations and meetings, to both versions of the planning application form (the one with the council owning the land, and the 'corrected' version stating that Foxmead Ltd is the current owner), the site size has been 1.27 hectares, in other words 12,700 sq.m.

Miraculously, in the Design and Access Statements (again there were two variants of this), the site has grown to 1.35 hectares, in other words 13,500 sq.m., and this is repeated in the report before you today.

From where has this additional 800 sq.m. appeared? If it is indeed the correct area, then it has a material impact on this acknowledged "tight site" and makes a difference to the range of possible designs. For example, if it is adjacent to the proposed 600 sq.m. multi-surface outdoor playing area, adding 800 sq.m. makes this a much more viable proposition to parents and others who wish for good outdoor provision for the children of this new school.

4. The inclusion of a formal consultation with Sportscotland is not material to this development and should not be included in the director's report. Sportscotland are a statutory consultee only if there is will be a loss of playing field provision in excess of 0.2 hectares (2000 sq.m.). In written correspondence with Sportscotland on 21 April 2010, the council states, "the former blaes pitch adjacent to St Joseph's Primary has not actually been used as a sports pitch for at least 20 years."

If this is the case, then there is not a loss of playing field of 0.2 hectares or more, and Sportscotland should not have been consulted not should their views have been included in the director's report today.

If the area has indeed been used as a sports pitch in more recent times, as attested to by:

• the fact that satellite imagery (Google Earth, DD1 5HX, historical imagery for Dec 2001) over the last 10 years shows football goalposts at either end of this 'car park',
• the fact that the school has until very recently held its annual Sports Day on this pitch,
• the fact that the children of St Joseph's enjoy both football training and cross country training on this pitch,

then Sportscotland may well revert to their previous intimation of 16 March 2010 that they would be likely to object to planning. In the same correspondence, Sportscotland proposed that a 60m x 40m Synthetic Turf Pitch on the St Joseph's blaes pitch "may be a better alternative to Victoria Park. The site is enclosed therefore it would be easier to monitor the children."

Consider also that the proposal by the Council for a 600 sq m synthetic pitch for 430 pupils is a mere 25% of the minimum size synthetic pitch that is recommended by SportScotland for schools of this size.

In case you are wondering that is 1.4 sq m per child.

5. Regarding the potential noise from the proposed buildings, the director's report notes the Noise Impact Assessment, which considers the potential impact any noise from any mechanical plant serving the schools may have on residents in the vicinity. This NIA concludes that any noise would fall within the NR25 and NR35 requirements. However, it is clear from the report submitted that the plant proposed can not satisfy this condition. How could the report come to the conclusion it has on the basis of the information provided. Does the noise condition (9) not contradict the conclusion in the report, if not then the condition would not be required!

In addition, this completely fails to take into account the noise impact of children playing in the playground and the multi-surface 5-a-side pitch. Some 430 primary children and upwards of 70 nursery children will be outdoors during playtimes and lunch breaks. Even if these are staggered to accommodate pupil numbers in the outdoor space and dining hall facilities, the noise level, though less, will be for a longer duration. It may surprise those present to consider how modern legislation can curtail the ability of children to play boisterously outside as was recently reported in Barlby Primary School.

Also, the recent planning application by the High School of Dundee, 10/00397/FULL, was refused on the premise that it would have:

"an adverse impact upon the level of environmental quality afforded to neighbouring residents by virtue of noise disturbance from the use of the all weather pitches, road safety from increased traffic, light pollution from the proposed flood lights and visual amenity due to the appearance of the proposed flood lighting columns and fencing."

The proposals were therefore deemed "contrary to the requirements of Policy 1 (Vibrant and Sustainable Communities) of the Dundee Local Plan Review 2005."

It is presumed that the same material consideration will be given to the planning application before you today.

6. The report compiled by Scottish and Southern Electricity found that the site is not currently affected by electro-magnetic fields. However is it not the case that EMF can be attracted and thus the danger here is that the building and internal electrical equipment will attract and even amplify the EMF from the adjacent electricity substation?

7. The conditions attached provide for an investigation of the contamination present on the site. This is an acknowledgement that the site is contaminated. Is it therefore wise of to approve a school on the site prior to knowing what contamination is present on the site? If this application is moved for approval, the decision should state that a condition of the approval is that the excambion must not proceed until conditions 2 and 3 are satisfied."

Planning application to be decided 20 Sep 2010

The proposed West End schools' planning application is finally to come before Development Management Committee on Monday 20 September 2010.

The report, which recommends the planning application for approval, can be read on the council website at: http://www.dundeecity.gov.uk/reports/agendas/dm200910.pdf

If the application is approved by our elected members, then the St Joseph's car park and green spaces could be transferred to Al-Maktoum Foundation ownership soon after.

Where will parents, teachers and church parishioners park and where will the children play, during and after school?

Janny's folly?

As reported on this blog, the council's deadline for comments on its planning application for the new west end school was extended to 16 August 2010, perhaps in part because the application was updated to admit that the land is owned by Foxmead Ltd (Jersey) rather than by the council, as originally claimed.

It seems that a related application to demolish the janitor's hut on the Logie site was also incorrectly completed. It has also been updated (06 August) indicating that Foxmead Ltd (Jersey) own this land; the application had previously claimed that the council was the only owner of the land.

Was this another administrative error?

Why has the deadline for comments not been similarly extended for this application?

If this application is to be determined by 23 August, why did it not appear in the agenda/reports for Development Quality Committee yesterday (16 August)?

Why does this renewed application state there will be no car parking spaces after development, when the corresponding application for the new school clearly states there will be 49 car parking spaces - is this yet another administrative error?

Expiry date for planning application 10/00406/FULL extended to 16/08/2010

Due to submission of a modified planning application (10/00406/FULL) on 26/07/2010 with an amendment to the Land Ownership Certificate, the overall expiry date of the application has been extended to 16 August 2010, with a target determination date now set at 25 September 2010. The original application was completed with Certificate A, claiming:

"no person other than *myself/the applicant was an owner (Note 2) of any part of the land to which the application relates, at the beginning of the period of 21 days ending with the date of this application..."

The modified application has been completed with Certificate B, stating:

"The applicant has served notice on every person other than the applicant who, at the beginning of the period of 21 days ending with the date of the accompanying application was owner (Note B) of any part of the land to which the application relates."

The persons to whom this notice was served are stated to be 'Foxmead Ltd'.

Why was the original application completed using Certificate A, which should be done

"...where the applicant is the only owner and the land is not an agricultural holding" (Note 1)?

Was this an administrative error?

Was it in response to public scrutiny using objections lodged based on our proforma letter?

Why did Dundee City Council claim to be "the only owner" of land it sold to the Al-Maktoum Foundation in 2004?

The details of the excambion of land are being withheld from the public, and the "urgent" council meeting held on 22 February 2010 excluded members of the public and the press. Isn't it about time that the full facts surrounding these negotiations were disclosed so that the public can be assured this is in the best interest of the public purse?