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."

Proforma objection to the planning application 10/00406/FULL

We have drafted a proforma letter of objection for anyone wishing to use some or all of this information. If you wish to use this, you can download in Word or PDF format and submit to the Director of City Development by 15 July 2010. Remember to include your name, address and signature.


Proforma objection to planning application 10/00406/FULL

Proforma objections available to download

Following the public exhibitions on 1st and 3rd April 2010, the council has invited comments and objections from members of the public, to be sent to Gillian Ross Pond. The deadline for these is:

Monday 26 April 2010

Comments can be posted, telephoned or emailed:

Gillian Ross Pond
Floor 8 City House
Overgate
Dundee
DD1 1UH
Telephone: 01382 435161 or
email: gillian.rosspond@dundeecity.gov.uk

We have prepared a list of suggestions that you may wish to send or select items where you share our objections.

Note that if you are sending a letter by post, this should be posted by Friday 23 April to ensure delivery by Monday. We understand that comments by email will also be accepted but to ensure that these are valid, we advise including your full name and address so that the council can check that your submission can be authenticated.

You can download a copy of our proforma (shown on the left hand side of this website) or you can select from the following list of objections:

With regard to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Regulations 2008, I wish to state my objections to the approval of any plans for the proposed development of a new West End of Dundee primary School in Blackness Road, on the following grounds:

1. I object to this proposal due to the noise impact on the area.
2. I object to this proposal due to the traffic congestion that it will create
3. I object to this proposal due to the risks to child safety that the traffic congestion will create
4. I object to this proposal due to the lack of adequate car drop-off areas
5. I object to this proposal due to it failing to comply with Regulation 8 Playing Fields of the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967 and as amended
6. I object to this proposal due to the lack of a synthetic pitch which meets sportscotland minimum requirements as per School Playing Fields Planning and Design Guidance document ISBN: 978 1 85060 497 6
7. I object to this proposal due to it failing to provide children with the opportunity to reach their potential in external sports
8. I object to this proposal due to the impact on specialist PE curriculum if children have to travel to/from Victoria Park
9. I object to this proposal due to the loss of playing field provision already present at St Joseph’s (and recognised by council documents and by sportscotland)
10. I object to this proposal due to concerns over how Victoria Park could be utilised for playing fields if there is no dedicated provision of park land
11. I object to this proposal due to concerns over the safety of children walking to/from Victoria Park
12. I object to this proposal due to the risks of having a gym and kitchen on the top floor
13. I object to this proposal due to the gym space of 324 sq.m. needing to be divided by a curtain and thus being a smaller space than for St Joseph’s school at present
14. I object to this proposal due to the inadequate internal gym facility, which fails to meet government targets of a minimum 2 hours specialist PE per child per week
15. I object to this proposal due to the increased noise impact in the classrooms of having a gym above the classrooms
16. I object to this proposal due to the classroom sizes being smaller on average than the existing classrooms at St Joseph’s
17. I object to this proposal due to the contamination on the site, especially since the lack of a basement facility confirms council concerns about using underground space
18. I object to this proposal due to the nearby "very large electricity sub-station" as quoted from a report from the director of planning and transportation in 2006 (06/00103/FUL)
19. I object to this proposal due to the loss of school buildings at St Joseph’s and Park Place constituting a loss of provision for schools in the West End when space should be preserved for future generations
20. I object to this proposal due to the rising cost estimates (was £10.3m now £11.5m and will rise further) in a time of financial crisis where the money would be better spent refurbishing existing schools and saving jobs
21. I object to this proposal due to the choice of site failing to provide an open aspect for the children
22. I object to this proposal due to the site use being contrary to the Council Local Plan showing the site (H21) marked for housing
23. I object to this proposal as it fails to achieve the maximum market price for Council Taxpayers in the sale of the St Joseph’s School site and surrounding land
24. I object to this proposal due it failing to meet the unconditional provisos laid down by the Catholic Church "The Diocese sets out the unconditional provisos and conditions ..., that the joint site enjoys the acknowledged agreement of the school communities concerned...", as quoted in section 4.3 of HMIE report dated November 2009
25. I object to this proposal due it having failed to meet the recommendations "The council should also seek to reassure parents about the levels of contamination of soil at the proposed site and the level of danger from the nearby electricity sub-station", as quoted in section 6.2 of HMIE report dated November 2009
26. I object to this proposal due it having failed to accommodate the clearly stated wishes of the St Joseph’s parents in the recent Parent Council Questionnaire
27. I object to this proposal because it discriminates against disabled children by discouraging participation by disabled children in activities in a public building due to the multi storey nature of the building

St Joseph's playing field "may be a better alternative to Victoria Park"

We advised on 25 March 2010 that sportscotland would be liable to object to the council's planning application for the proposed new West End schools, and can reveal their further objections to the council's claim to use Victoria Park for playing fields. sportscotland wrote to the council on 16 March 2010 to:

"... raise concerns that the level of potential sports provision would be limited. The park's surface is primarily sloped so there is not great scope for formal pitch sports, although it may offer the potential to host races during a school sports day. There are no pitch markings or enclosures of any kind, which are operational. The park, although maintained well by the council will be subject to dog fouling as well. The wide open nature of the park would also make if difficult to monitor the children who would use the park. In its current form Victoria Park is not well suited for the schools' external pitch provision."

"Blackness Road is a fairly busy road and if any children were to go from the school to the Park they would have to be accompanied by at least 3 members of staff, stopping at each of the four road junctions. For a group of children travelling time could stretch beyond 10 minutes per journey, taking 20 minutes away from a PE lesson. The alternative route further north through the quieter streets of Logie Avenue, although safer would still require about 10 minutes walking time each way. Although Victoria Park seems to be the preferred option for the council, the limited sports offer makes it less than ideal."

There is a final irony in Sportscotland's advice, given that the council has agreed to transfer ownership of St Joseph's grounds to the Al-Maktoum Foundation on 16 August 2010, if planning is approved on that date:

"I am aware that St Joseph's primary school has a blaes pitch nearby, which is partially used for a car park. This site is also approximately 500m from the proposed site. If a 60m x 40m Synthetic Grass pitch was provided here this may be a better alternative to Victoria Park. The site is enclosed therefore it would be easier to monitor the children [our emphasis]. Has this site been considered?"

Their letter to the council ends:

"Overall, given that the application does not provide sufficient playing fields in accordance with sportscotland's 'School Playing Fields' - Planning and Design Guidance, sportscotland would be liable to object to this application. I would encourage the council to consider upgrading sports pitches in the local vicinity in order to address this underprovision."

The council received qualified approval from Scottish Ministers to proceed with the schools project, on the understanding that:

"Playing fields of the requisite size for two primary schools (0.6ha) will be carved out of Victoria Park, approximately a quarter of a mile away"

but given sportscotland's expert opinion that Victoria Park is "less than ideal", will the council now go back to Scottish Ministers to ask for further permission to proceed with this proposal?

Having already asked for unprecedented permission to proceed even though the site does not meet the minimum government regulations governing site size, will the council now ask for permission to proceed even though the proposal will not provide for playing fields as required by the School Premises regulations?

Sportscotland liable to object to the West End School proposal

Sportscotland are the national agency for sport in Scotland.

After considering the latest plans from DCC for the West End School, their opinion of the facilities was clearly communicated to DCC and contained the following comments on external provision.

"it does not provide sufficient playing fields"

"There does not appear to be any pitch provision proposed within the ground of the school, which is contrary to sportscotland guidelines. For a school of this size sportscotland recommends a minimum provision of a single synthetic pitch (60m x 40m)"

"the external pitch provision is contrary to sportscotland's 'School Playing Fields - Planning and Design Guidance' and is therefore insufficient for the needs of the school"

Notes from the West End Local Community Planning Partnership - 18th February 2010

Following our request inviting the public to attend last week's West End Local Community Planning Partnership meeting, we're pleased that there was a good turn out. We report below some notes from this meeting:

It seems that the council do not intend to comply with the recommendations from HMIE regarding provision of playing fields, as Dundee City Council have nothing in their budget for playing fields at Victoria Park despite telling the Scottish Government that this was their intention. When asked why they were ignoring HMIe’s recommendations, the Project Director said that it was not her department, but that the Education Department could answer this query.

One of the West End councillors stated that when this point was raised at the Project Board meeting (27th January) a representative from the council indicated that they would contact the Scottish Government to state clearly what the council would have to provide in Victoria Park.

They are still awaiting this response.

A member of the public pointed out that if the council do not provide playing fields then they are in breach of the Schools Premises (Scotland) Regulations and they cannot therefore proceed with the project. A member of the St Joseph’s Parent Council brought up the fact that in a questionnaire completed by parents (soon to be issued to the Parent Forum of St Joseph's school), more than 90% of the parents want outdoor space and outdoor activities for the children on the new site.

Parents are still very concerned about the road safety aspects of the site, yet the police remain to see the plans so could not offer an opinion on the safe pick up and drop off of children.

Members of the public raised concerns about the consultation process by the Council and Diocese. They were told that it was the committee's understanding that both the parish, and school had been consulted, and not only was the Diocese in favour, but so were the parish and majority of parents.

A member of the St Joseph's Parent Council refuted this information based upon their own survey of parents and a parishioner of St Joseph's Church added that the parish were not consulted on support for the proposal.

The Project Director referred to the report to Education Committee on 11 May 2009 when the consultation ended and was then passed by the Education Committee, with no objections.

It was then pointed out by a member of the public that the report she referred to, did not include the fact that 81% of respondents with comments about the proposal were firmly against the proposal, yet this information was not mentioned in the report.

Another member of the public said they were very concerned that the land deal was still proceeding even although planning permission had not been granted. What if it was refused? St Joseph’s school grounds would be seriously diminished.

The Project Director gave a timetable of milestone dates re planning and tendering, which appear to be optimistic based on current EU regulations.

The topic of contamination was also raised and it was asked if any study was done to date. The answer was that is has not and the council was questioned why the land swap process was taking place even before a study was made.

DCC application for dispensation from School Premises Regulations obtained under Freedom of Information

Regarding the West End Schools Project and the council's application to Scottish Ministers for dispensation from the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967 and as amended, the West End Parents Committee have obtained documents under Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 which the local authority have refused to publish, have refused sight of to elected councillors of the council's Education Committee, and which the Education Convener, Cllr Liz Fordyce, has claimed she considers to be a "confidential letter". The council has also refused to make the information available in response to an FOISA request. The council's formal position on this is that they are withholding the documents because:

"...it has been widely reported in the media that parents of children affected by the proposed West End schools merger are considering taking legal action against the Council, presumably by way of Judicial Review in the Court of Session. Accordingly Officers are not at liberty to disclose documents that will form part of the Council's defence to such an action, including the application made to the Scottish Government under the 1967 Regulations, at this time."

We would question what is so confidential in the application that it cannot be made public. The documents we have received under Freedom of Information suggest that the council's application includes: derogation to be granted since the regulations do not define how to interpret them with regard to a shared campus - however it is clear that other Scottish authorities have managed to deliver new shared campuses without recourse to Scottish Ministers for dispensation.

The documents we have obtained also include maps showing Victoria Park and the distance between this public space and the Logie site. We would ask if the council intends to use Victoria Park to provide playing fields in close proximity to the Logie site, as it is clear that there will be none on the site itself. We would also ask:

1. What is so secret that the Education Convener wrote in an email that she considers it to be a "confidential" letter? It has not been made available to other councillors so we would assume the council would not have given any elected member access to the documents?
2. What do parents think of the children using Victoria Park for the provision of playing fields for the new schools?
3. What do the Friends of Balgay Park think about this information?
4. What does the West End Community Council think about this?
5. What do local residents on Blackness Road and surrounding areas think about this?
6. What do teachers think about this, as they will be the ones that have to make time in the PE curriculum to walk with the children and supervise them in a public park which members of the public are entitled to visit and exercise their dogs?
7. What will the council do to ensure the provision of suitable facilities with running water, changing facilities, first aid, telephones, marked sports pitches, fenced off areas for safe play, protection from dogs, enclosed all-weather pitches?
8. What does Colin Rennie from Fields in Trust make of this, having previously cautioned the Director of Education against "seeking a waiver to obtain a level of provision less than is required by the regulations"?
9. What is the view of Sportscotland regarding the loss of the existing St Joseph's playing field when the grounds are sold to the Al-Maktoum Foundation?

Victoria Park is not zoned for this in the Dundee Local Plan and council officers stated during public consultation, when asked, that they could not site the new schools in Victoria Park for this reason. What has changed between March and now?

"No absolute need for them ... for us to provide them with a playing field"

Speaking on STV last night, Cllr Liz Fordyce (Education Convener of the Education Committee) had this to say:

“It is tight, but … where we’ve had room we’ve built out the way and schools are only one storey high. This one we could build up the way and they’ll still have all the facilities. It is an inner city school so there is no absolute need for them ... for us to provide them with a playing field as part of the facilities of the school.”

Confirmation that there will be no playing field

We contacted the Director of Education about the council's proposal and have obtained his permission to quote his responses.

Director of Education: “With regard to the matter of playing fields, we are committed to providing facilities at this site for outdoor education. Many inner city schools, including St Joseph's and Park Place, do not have playing fields in close proximity, and the regulations acknowledge that there will be occasions when enforcement of this regulation is "impracticable or would be unreasonable". The reference to SportScotland is for guidance only, and is generally to be taken into account when building on a new greenfield site.”

We take this as further evidence, if any was needed, that there would be no playing fields, should the proposal go ahead. This does not meet the minimum standards in the regulations. Furthermore, the SportScotland guidance makes no reference to any distinction between greenfield and brownfield sites.