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?

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

Playtime at the new West End school?

We were wondering what playtime at the new West End school might be like, so we took one of the sketches from the council's planning application 10/00406/FULL, as viewed from the south-east corner, and added 400 children using the council's sketch of 4 children playing as a stamping tool.

Here's what we discovered, before and after modification. What do you think? What will the noise levels be for residents and nearby businesses? Will the children have enough space to play - or even move?

Full planning application 10/00406/FULL now online

The full planning application for the West End Schools project is now available on the city council's Public Access website:

http://bwarrant.dundeecity.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=L4IOIMGC03500&searchtype=WEEKLY

Comments and objections should be registered using the Submit Comments link online or in writing to the city council by 15 July 2010. According to the Applications for Planning Guidance Leaflet (p7), the address to send written objections is:

Director of City Development,

Dundee City Council,

Floor 15,

Tayside House,

Dundee, DD1 3RB.

Please note: The formal Planning Register which contains all planning application details is available for public inspection from 8.30am to 5pm Monday to Friday at City Developments Department reception, Floor 2, Tayside House, Crichton Street, Dundee DD1 3RB (information obtained from:http://bwarrant.dundeecity.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/tdc_home.aspx)

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?

Posters from public exhibition 1/3 April

Although well-attended, the public exhibition was held on the last day of school term and over the Easter weekend, so there may be a number or people who were unable to visit Blackness Library. The council officers were asked for permission to photograph the posters to share with others and they have also been asked if the posters could be made available on the council website. The council officers agreed to both requests.

Since comments on the planning application are to be submitted by Monday 26 April 2010, we are sharing the photos taken - apologies for the poor quality of these images, but hopefully they give a flavour of the exhibition.

The pictures may be viewed here: Public Exhibition

Public Exhibition 1st and 3rd April 2010 in Blackness Library

Dundee City Council have announced that there will be a public exhibition of plans for the proposed new West End schools in Blackness Community Library (225 Perth Road, Dundee DD2 1EJ) on:

Thursday 1st April 2010, 2pm - 7pm

Saturday 3rd April 2010, 10am - 1pm

Comments must be submitted to Gillian Ross Pond by Monday 26 April 2010 at the latest. Further information may also be obtained from Ms Ross Pond:

postal: Floor 8, City House, Overgate, Dundee DD1 1UH

phone: 01382 435161

email: gillian.rosspond@dundeecity.gov.uk

The Director of Education has written to all parents/carers of children attending Park Place Nursery, Park Place Primary, St Joseph's Primary and all staff at the three schools to:

"... strongly encourage you to take this opportunity to view the Council's plans. Council officers from the design team will be present to listen to your comments and answer any questions you might have."

"The planning timescale has been finalised, and it is hoped that the project will go to the Development Quality Committee for approval on 16 August 2010."

"... assuming the planning application is approved, work is scheduled to begin on site in January 2011 and be completed by March 2012. This would allow us to plan for pupil entry in mid April 2012."

Note that the latest set of plans shared with the Project Board are the same as the ones we obtained from Scottish Government under Freedom of Information and can be viewed on our website here.

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"

Shona Robison and Scotland's "Obesity time bomb"

Shona Robison is the SNP Minister for Public Health and Sport in the Scottish Government.

She has just launched the strategy document, "Preventing Overweight and Obesity in Scotland - A Route Map Towards Healthy Weight" to tackle Scotland's “obesity time bomb” which specifically includes:

...working with schools to continue encouraging young people to take up healthy habits.

What hypocrisy!

Is this the same Minister for Public Health and Sport who supports the Dundee SNP administration in building an £11.5m new local West End Primary School for 450 children that:

• Has no playing fields (in contravention of Government Regulations)?
• Has no outdoor sporting facilities and thus requires all exercise to be undertaken in a planned top floor Gym?
• Is on a site that is too small (which has been confirmed by the Scottish Government)?
• May even fail to meet the minimum playing area per child for school playgrounds?

We asked MSPs, on behalf of those least able to speak up for themselves, to question Shona Robson on why she and her SNP party are specifically preventing adequate playing space from being allocated for young primary children to play and exercise in in the West End of Dundee.

Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con) has kindly done so, in a debate on Preventing Obesity, 24 February 2010:

"I understand that new schools in Scotland are still being planned with no playing fields or outdoor sporting facilities and on sites that might fail to meet the requirement on the minimum playing area per child. I hope that the partnership with COSLA will ensure that, in future, there are adequate facilities for children."

Will Ms Robison please decide which camp she is really in?

"Excambion [exchange] of property at Blackness Road"

On Monday 22 February 2010, the City Development Committee were asked to meet "as a matter of urgency" to discuss in private, excluding the press and public, "Excambion of property at Blackness Road". We understand this refers to the city council's discussions with the Al-Maktoum Foundation to exchange part of the grounds (stages 1 and 2) of St Joseph's for the Logie site (which the council originally owned and sold to Al-Maktoum in 2004), as well as the sale of the remainder (stage 3) of St Joseph's grounds once the school building is vacated.

Papers circulated earlier last week had cancelled the Committee meeting stating, "there is no outstanding business which cannot be dealt with at a later date", and we could not understand the urgency, so we asked the city council the following questions. The response from Roger Mennie, Legal Manager, and Patricia McIlquham, Depute Chief Executive (Support Services) are included below, and West End councillors have confirmed that these may be shared with the public.

Q1. Why does this item needs to be "considered as a matter or urgency...in view of the timescales involved"?

A. The proposed terms for the excambion have only just been concluded and the parties wish to proceed as soon as possible. The report could not have been drafted in time for the usual notice to be given for the meeting [on Monday] - hence the Convener agreed that the item be considered as a matter of urgency in terms of Standing Order 17(b).

Q2. What is the nature of the "exempt information" that will be involved?

A. The exempt information is as defined in paragraph 6 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (other than the authority) and paragraph 9 (any terms proposed or to be proposed by or to the authority in the course of negotiation for a contract for the acquisition or disposal of property) of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

Q3. What would be the specific reasons under which the Committee "may resolve...that the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the undernoted item"?

A. The reasons are as identified in paragraphs 6 and 9 aforementioned.

Q4. Why is this excambion being tabled before planning consent has been sought and how can it proceed when there is a school using the facilities?

A. The excambion will be conditional on planning permission being obtained. The legal documentation to be entered into will ensure that the new school is built before the transfer of ownership takes place.

Q5. What assurance can be given that the city council actually owns the land at St Joseph's and is entitled to complete the excambion? Was any part of the land gifted by people through bequests and are there any conditions that restrict the terms of its disposal?
A. The Title Deeds have been examined and there is nothing in the way of conditions or burdens which would prevent the intended sale and use of either piece of ground.

Q6. Why is the land not being offered to the open market, to ensure best value for public funds?

A. The two areas of land have been valued independently by the District Valuer having regard to open market value to ensure that the Council is receiving value for money.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank the West End councillors who took these questions forward on our behalf, and to the council officers for their prompt reply. Let's hope this is the beginning of more open dialogue with the council.

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.

New school design obtained from Freedom of Information

On 26 January 2010, the West End Parents Committee received material from Scottish Government as a response to a Freedom of Information request. This material included early stage designs for the Logie site (June 2009) as well as detailed designs submitted by Dundee City Council to Scottish Government as a follow up to their application for dispensation in August 2009.

We confirmed with Scottish Government on 10 February 2010 that this material is now deemed to be in the public domain, and specifically that we are permitted to print/publish the site designs, which we have done below.

Note that the city council have shared the same design with the new Project Board, which convened on 27 January 2010.

Please consider these designs and make an effort to attend the West End Local Community Planning Partnership meeting on 18 February 2010, 7pm, at the Tartan Cafe

(53 Perth Road, Dundee) where the project director will give a presentation of the schools project.

West End Schools Project presentation 18 February at 7pm, Tartan Cafe

The West End Schools Project is now in the pre-planning application stage (under the new planning regulations) and the local community has an opportunity to comment on this initial stage of planning. Brief details of the application (10/00048/PAN) are available from the city council's website at:

http://bwarrant.dundeecity.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=KX64KMGC03500

Note that the detailed site plans, which show the allocation of space for the building, playgrounds, green space, access road, car parking and areas of unused land, along with internal classroom layouts, are not included on this website. Hopefully the city council will share these soon.

As a statutory consultee, the West End Community Council was served with the Proposal of Application Notice and has a period of 21 days (which started on 1 February 2010) to comment.

Also, the next meeting of the West End Local Community Planning Partnership will include a presentation on the West End Schools Project from the Project Director, Ms Gillian Ross Pond.

18 February 2010 at 7pm

in the Tartan Cafe, 53 Perth Road, DD1 4HY (Google Map)

This is an opportunity for all members of the public to ask about the council's plans for these new schools and the use of Victoria Park for the provision of school playing fields.

Please come along if you can.

More confusion over DCC plans for Victoria Park

This week's press has highlighted a number of worrying concerns raised by local councillors, as well as further confusing statements from the city council. To set the scene, the School Premises (General Standards and Requirements) (Scotland) Regulations 1967, and amended, state:

8(1) Every primary school shall have available and in close proximity to it playing fields not less than the area specified in Table IV according to the number of pupils for which the school is designed except where the provisions of regulation 8(4) apply.

Depending on the extent to which playing fields are shared between the two schools, Table IV indicates that the West End Schools proposal requires between 4000-6000 square metres (1-1.5 acres) dedicated for playing fields.

We have learned from Freedom of Information requests that the Director of Education wrote to Schools Division of Scottish Government in April and May 2009 as follows:

"With regard to the matter of playing fields, we are committed to providing facilities at this site for outdoor education."

"It will not have a playing field, although there will be one in close proximity."

Also, the Convener of Education stated on STV in May 2009:

"..there is no absolute need for them, for us to provide them with a playing field as part of the facilities of the school"

The Scottish Government decision notice, available from their website, grants dispensation to DCC for the size of site being less than that required by regulation 7, and states:

5.6 The provision of a hall, gymnasium and outdoor play area, along with the proposal for both schools to be able to use the nearby Victoria Park for outdoor activities and games, offer good potential for each school to ensure that all children receive the appropriate allocation of time for good quality physical education. As yet the council has not formally dedicated any space in the park for use by the schools, nor indicated what, if any, games pitches might be laid out for their sole or shared use. The draft plans for the proposed shared campus include the possibility of a small shared all-weather area which could be used for games and other outdoor activities. It is not clear at the moment whether or not this pitch will actually be built if the proposal goes ahead.

6.2 HMIE recommends that the council be asked to clarify its proposals for use of Victoria Park by giving a commitment to how it would dedicate part of the park for use of the two primary schools and a firmer indication of what pitches or sports areas might be laid out for their use at various times of the year.

Note the need for "appropriate allocation of time for good quality physical education" rather than occasional use of a public park, which any school at any time is fully entitled to do, in addition to its playing fields. Also, the city council is asked to give "a commitment to how it would dedicate part of the park" (emphasis added).

Now, read on and let us know if you can make sense of the council's plans ...

1. Plans for £10m shared campus get green light (The Courier, 11 Dec 2009)

The council said it will be "addressing" the Victoria Park issue - a draft proposal includes the possibility of a small, shared all-weather but no space has been dedicated in the park for schools use.

2. £10m schools plan to be discussed (Evening Telegraph, 11 Dec 2009)

The joint campus is expected to be three storeys high and include playing fields at Victoria Park for use by both schools.

3. Row over plans to use Victoria Park (The Courier, 12 Dec 2009)

... elected members, parents and teachers were not consulted about plans to use Victoria Park as playing fields for schools use. It was also claimed last night that PE sessions in the park could "change the nature" of a popular west end green space.

... Ministers were told that Victoria Park could be used for playing fields, perhaps with an all-weather surface installed, but Councillor Bidwell said a "detailed proposal" was not previously shared.

... a claim which Councillor Fordyce denied last night. "I can't say off the top of my head when it was first raised," she said. "It wasn't just tagged on at the end - it was raised."

4. City official not consulted on plan for Victoria Park (The Courier, 14 Dec 2009)

Director of leisure and communities Stewart Murdoch was not aware that education bosses had told ministers the park could be used for playing fields, perhaps with an all-weather surface installed.

... The plan, in particular the Victoria Park proposal, has caused much controversy locally and last night Mr McCready said it must be examined "in great detail" before being rubber-stamped.

... "Victoria Park is popular with local people in the west end and is well used," Mr McCready added. "Using it exclusively for educational purposes may impact on local people's use of the park and I want to be sure that their views are taken on board as well as the views of the education stakeholders."

5. School's park plan will not mean fence (The Courier, 15 Dec 2009)

Dundee City Council has stepped in to try to reassure west end residents that parts of Victoria Park are not to be fenced off for the exclusive use of pupils. The park has become central to the row over future primary school provision in the area.

... Attempting to answer the criticism, the council pointed to other schools in the city that use public parks and said there would also be outside space available on the shared campus itself.

"There will be playground areas, including a grassed area, located within the proposed shared campus," a council spokesman said.

"There is also the possibility of including an all-weather area in the draft plans for the former Harris Academy annexe site.

... the spokesman added, "The use of Victoria Park for sporting activity will form part of our plans but it is not our intention to erect any fencing around a dedicated area or to construct an all-weather surface at the park."

6. Worries over Victoria Park (Evening Telegraph, 15 Dec 2009)

Doubts have been expressed about the use of Victoria Park for playing fields, and west end councillor Fraser Macpherson revealed today many west end residents had contacted him with concerns.

One Blackness Road resident had written, "I find it unbelievable that a decision such as this appears to have been made with no public consultation. The park has been in use as open public space for over 100 years and a change of use of even part of it would be seriously detrimental to its use and to the west end as a whole. I would like to know why this is the only option being looked at, and what other options are available."

7. Concern at St Joseph's proposal (Letters, Evening Telegraph, 15 Dec 2009)

I feel the new school, with its wifi, and hopefully no leaks, is a double blow to the many St Joseph’s pupils who live in the west end tenements, as not only will they be robbed of the vital opportunity to explore the outdoors while at school, those whose parents take them to play at Victoria Park will have their space to play constrained as sections will be cordoned off for the new school’s facilities.

8. Council pressed on park proposal (The Courier, 16 Dec 2009)

The city council has pointed out that other city schools use public parks, and also said there would be outside space on the shared campus itself.

... (Councillor) McCready pointed out that the school inspectors' report issued last week talked about there being a "dedicated" part of the park for the schools to use.

9. Victoria Park talk "most unhelpful" (Evening Telegraph, 16 Dec 2009)

West End SNP Councillor Jim Barrie spoke out over "rumours" associated with the proposal after talks with the director and convener of education.

... Councillor Barrie said, "It is important the public are aware and assured there will be no area 'cordoned off' for dedicated school use and full access for members of the public will continue."

... Mr Barrie said, "... I remember as a five-year-old pupil the excitement of the rare visits to Victoria Park for summer sports day, and being introduced to the many varieties of trees in Balgay Park. That is what Balgay Park is there for, and the occasional use of its facilities should be encouraged. I am sure the regular users of the park would love to see more children playing, not only in Victoria Park, but exploring the trails up Balgay Hill and visiting the Observatory."

10. Don't despoil Victoria Park (Letters, The Courier, 18 Dec 2009)

The Friends of Balgay heard a brief hint of this plan a few weeks ago and immediately protested.

Victoria Park is very well used by families and young people who gather together there, picnic when the weather is fine and enjoy the friendly atmosphere.

If football is played there, the ground will be churned up and lying on the grass will no longer be comfortable or even possible.

... To get to Victoria Park from the planned school site, children would have to walk quite a distance up Blackness Road, negotiate what is quite a dangerous crossroads and make their way round the flower beds. It would seem that a simpler solution would be to bus the children to Lochee Park and allow them to use the facilities available there.

11. Pledge to consult Victoria Park users (Evening Telegraph, 18 Dec 2009)

In an email to Cllr MacPherson, Mr Collins pointed out that new regulations now give easier opportunity for anyone who wishes to make comment on a planning issue and emphasised no major takeover of any of the park space is envisaged.

He added there are “no proposals to erect fences and the statement I have read in the Press about a possible all-weather facility is quite simply wrong — no such facility is proposed.

12. Victoria Park concerns - feedback from the Director of Education (Councillor Fraser Macpherson's blog, www.dundeewestend.com, 18 Dec 2009)

... the City Council's Director of Education has responded to me about the department's proposals for use of Victoria Park by the schools on the proposed shared campus on the former Logie Secondary School site as follows :

"I want to emphasise that no major take over of any of the park space is envisaged. Primary schools in Dundee who do not have dedicated playing fields occasionally make use of park space for events such as sports days and football matches, but their use tends to be rare. I do not envisage the new West End campus requiring anything more frequent in Victoria Park."

If you can decipher the council's plans and align these with the Scottish Government and HMIe decision notice, please leave a comment and help us understand.