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."

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.

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.

Scottish Government confirms Logie site is too small for regulations

We've received confirmation that the proposals for new schools in the West End will not meet minimum government regulations governing size of site. Scottish Ministers have approved the city council's application for dispensation from the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967 and as amended, on the basis that:

"Scottish Ministers are content to approve, in terms of regulation 7(6), the area of the west end site for the proposed two schools and nursery. They take the view that, in all the circumstances, it would be unreasonable to apply the standards prescribed in the regulation."

The city council has also been instructed to follow HMIe recommendations:

"...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. 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. HMIE also recommends that the council shares and discusses the detailed plans for the joint campus with parents."

We look forward to receiving the council's detailed plans and glad to see that the council has been made aware that the provision of playing fields is a requirement, not a guideline, nor as the Education Convener stated in May 2009,

"there is no absolute need for them...for us to provide them with a playing field"

Update on DCC application to Scottish Government

Cllr Fraser Macpherson has posted an update on his website (www.dundeewestend.com) advising that the city council's application for dispensation should soon result in a decision from Scottish Ministers. The Director of Education is quoted to be looking forward, "with somewhat bated breath", to a decision being made soon.

Remember that the application was made on 4 August 2009, over 4 months ago, but the council has not kept parents or residents updated with developments. It has made no statement about the inclusion of Victoria Park in its application, although Schools Division in Edinburgh have confirmed that the application intends for this public park to provide playing fields for the new schools.

When a West End councillor recently asked the Director of Leisure and Communities about "a briefing on any plans to use Victoria Park in the West End Ward for school playing fields for the proposed West End school located at the former Logie site", his official and confirmed reply was:

"We have no such plans"

What is going on in Tayside House?

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?

Council's "confidential letter" to Scottish Government

The Education Convener, Councillor Liz Fordyce, has declined to divulge what she considers to be a "confidential letter" between Dundee City Council and Scottish Government. The letter she refers to is the Council's application to Scottish Government, dated 4 August 2009, for dispensation from the minimum government regulations regarding the size of site and provision of playing fields, and relates to the Council's £10.3m project to build new schools in the West End of the city, on the site of the former Harris Academy Annexe on Blackness Road.

Councillor Fordyce had previously said in May 2009 that "there is no absolute need...to provide them with a playing field as part of the facilities of the school." She has today advised that she does not feel it is a good thing to "waste people's time or council resources."

It is unfortunate, then, that the Council has spent 6 months of public funds and Council resources repeatedly assuring parents, elected members and church representatives that the proposed site for the new schools was big enough and there would be adequate recreational/outdoor space, and that this had been "confirmed by Scottish Government" (Report 274-2009 to the Education Committee, 11 May 2009), but has now determined that it is no longer certain of this.

Some might consider that to be a waste of people's time and council resources!

Let's hope that the Chief Executive Designate will review this decision to withhold the letter and in the spirit of openness and transparency, offer up the Council's application for dispensation to public scrutiny.

Council U-turn - WEPC response

Education Committee was Misled

In a press release issued yesterday, Dundee City Council has finally admitted that it does not know if the site for new schools in the West End will comply with the School Premises (Scotland) Regulations. It is now seeking special dispensation from the Scottish Government.

The council's "extensive consultation" left key questions unanswered and parents misrepresented: 81% of written representations were against the proposal, yet this was not mentioned in the post-consultation report! More importantly, report 274-2009 to the Education Committee, on the basis of which the councillors "agreed to move forward with the plans", included this answer to a “Frequently Asked Question”:

Q: "Is the site big enough and will there be adequate recreational/outdoor space?'
A. "Yes. This has been confirmed by the Scottish Government."

The Scottish Government has since verified that no such confirmation had been given - nor could it have been! Clearly that confirmation is only now being sought. Thus the Education Committee, as well as parents and church representatives, were deliberately misled on this very important matter. Indeed, the Director of Education was questioned on this matter in City Chambers and gave his assurance that the site met the regulations. He was in no position to give any such assurance as yesterday's press release now makes clear.

Clearly this brings into question the validity of the Education Committee's decision on 11 May 2009 to approve the proposal.

We have learned through Freedom of Information requests that only one school project in the entire country has needed dispensation in recent years. Indeed, Dundee primary schools built under the PPP initiative all have considerably more site area per pupil than the proposed new West End schools. Obviously the proposed shared campus with two schools and a nursery will need more space than a single school and nursery with the same total rolls. Furthermore, the regulations require a playing field on site or in close proximity, and Colin Rennie from Fields in Trust has already cautioned the Director of Education "not to treat these regulations lightly", and especially so given "the appalling levels of childhood obesity" in Scotland.

SNP administration seeks to Limit Parental Involvement in Planning of New Schools

The SNP administration, including the Convener of Education, recently voted against an amendment to widen parental involvement in the project boards created to take these proposals forward. It is therefore clear that it wants to limit the involvement of parents in the planning of these new schools.

Valuable School Site may be Lost for Future Generations

The council argues that "Dundee contains only a limited number of available spaces where schools could be located", yet this makes it all the more incredible that it is prepared to lose the site that currently accommodates St Joseph's Primary School (and until recently Bellfield Nursery). This site is sheltered, well-situated and until recently had a single large playing field, which the council turned mostly into a school/church car park (of sorts) a few years ago. The council plans to sell all of this to the Al-Maktoum Foundation without even putting it on the open market, part-exchanging some of this land for the proposed site for new schools - the so-called Logie site of the former Harris Academy Annexe on Blackness Road.

Decision awaited from Scottish Ministers

The School Premises (Scotland) Regulations are quite clear, and we have long argued that the plan cannot meet them. We are confident that Fiona Hyslop and her colleagues will safeguard our children and uphold the regulations.

Courier article: "Parents to join schools project"

As reported on p5 of The Courier, 1 June 2009 (not available online):

A well-attended public meeting yesterday gave a mandate to the West End Parents group to pursue their concerns over the planned merger of St Joseph's and Park Place Primary schools on the site of the former Harris Academy annexe.

Chairman Kiran Oza said their next step will be to meet officials of Dundee City Council education department as soon as possible to become involved in the planning process and ensure their concerns are addressed.

He said, "The council is proceeding with their plans and it is important we engage with that. At the education committee on May 11 (when councillors voted to combine the two schools and the Park Place Nursery) it was said they were setting up a number of groups, including a project group and an implementation group, and we would look to get involved with those groups."

Mr Oza said the principal issues raised from the floor of the meeting, held at Club Romano, included whether the council conformed to existing legislation in trying to do all they want at the site, and questions on parking and traffic.

"There was also concern that officials have said they would look at tarmac or concreting over the area as a solution to possible contamination at the site. People were unhappy about this as both are porous and we will need to get some advice on that", Mr Oza said.

Parents have complained the site has insufficient space for playing fields.

"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.”

Outcome of Education Committee Meeting 11 May 2009

Last night, the Education Committee of Dundee City Council approved the proposal to build new schools on the Logie site and relocate St Joseph's Primary, Park Place Primary and Park Place Nursery schools to that site.

Actually, they voted on this proposal in January 2009 and last night was simply a confirmation of this following public consultation and the Director of Education's report (274-2009) on the outcome of the consultation exercise.

They listened to our deputation and that of the St Joseph's Parent Council, but they didn't ask any questions, so they must have agreed with the speakers, and still they approved the proposal.

Plus ça change.

We issued statements to The Courier and Radio Tay. The Evening Telegraph has expanded (and misinterpreted) the words in our statement, the BBC website asked for a statement for a story they were running, and we've been interviewed and broadcast on GMTV and STV.

We are committed to working to ensure that the Director of Education keeps to his promise to cap the pupil intake for the new schools at 450 (combined) and to ensure that the Council delivers genuine improvements to the schools estate for the West End.

Meeting at Club Romano

Today's meeting at Club Romano was a great success! It was well-attended with over 50 parents, parishioners, residents, councillors, press and other interested parties. The presentations were well received and everyone participated in an open, fair, informative and reasoned debate.

We are delighted that so many people came to listen and ask questions, despite the lure of the sunny weather outside the club - thank you.

We hope that the handouts at the meeting will provide you with information to help you write to your local Councillor, who is an elected member of the Education Committee. This information will be published on the website in the near future. The Director's report is anticipated imminently and we look forward to reading this.

We have added a proforma letter to the website and you can print it or download and modify it if you wish to share your concerns with your local Councillor, or to one of the 5 non-elected members.

The consultation period ended on 6 April, but we anticipate that the Committee will vote on the proposal at the next meeting, which is scheduled for 27 April. Therefore it is very important that you write to your Councillor urgently. We have already sent them the handouts but please let them know of any specific or additional concerns that you may have.

The list of all 29 Councillors and their contact details (phone, address, email, surgery dates/times) is available on the Dundee Council website.

Please also continue to raise awareness of the concerns about the size and suitability of the site by sharing this information with your friends and neighbours.

Website reopened for discussion

The Council's public consulation period ended last week on 6 April 2009. We hope that you were able to make written representation to the Project Director, Gillian Ross Pond, in time for the deadline.

We have been advised that the Director of Education will now review all the representations and write a report to go before the Education Committee to consider whether to accept or reject the proposal. All 29 local Councillors will be involved in this decision so it is important that you let your local councillor know your views and if you have any concerns.

We are advised that the date of this event has yet to be confirmed, but it may be near the end of this month. We are therefore reopening this website for comments and open discussion.

In order to ensure clarity in the discussion, comments can only be posted if you have signed up to one of several online systems. Although you can no longer post Anonymous comments, you can sign up to one of these systems using whichever nom-de-plume you wish (as long as it complies with the system's terms and conditions). This should make it easier to follow discussions.

Contact your local Councillor

In response to an email sent from West End Parents to Ward Councillors, Cllr Fraser Macpherson has requested that members of the anonymous group contact him directly in order to validate that this is a website constructed by parents and carers.

Cllr Macpherson has offered the following statement:

"I am very happy to speak at any time to any constituent; something I have practised throughout 8 years representing the West End on Dundee City Council. I will ensure that the questions you have raised are brought to the attention of the Director [of Education]."

He also assures that, "It goes without saying that the contact by any constituent to me is treated as confidential between myself and the constituent concerned."

Other ward councillors would no doubt be as happy to speak with constituents directly, whether they have concerns or are in favour of the proposal as it stands.

Please contact Cllr Fraser Macpherson directly, but remember to make your written representation to the Council by 6th April 2009.