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

Electronic survey field test results for Logie site

The city council's planning application (10/00406/FULL) includes an Electronic Survey Document regarding field tests conducted by Scottish and Southern Energy (Report-285685.PDF), and which reports readings of 0 (zero) microtesla at various points on the Logie site.

We asked Alasdair Philips, from EMFields and Powerwatch, to comment on this report:

The "0" microtesla is a nonsense. There is no way it can be zero. It may well be low, but on a 0.00 resolution scale (the usual one measuring to 0.01 microtesla) I would expect between 0.01 to 0.10 at least. I suspect the site is fine for the school, but they should not get away with such a document.

Also, the 50 microtesla "natural fields" level statement is inexcusable - that is a static (permanent magnet) field and cannot be compared with a 50 Hz oscillating field. I thought the industry had got away from such stupid statements - apparently not Scottish and Southern. I will send this report to some senior electricity industry people for comment. The background ELF oscillating field is actually less than 0.0001 microtesla - compare that with 50!

The SSE report is presumed to be the council's response to the HMIe recommendation: "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.

Unfortunately, if the report is as inaccurate as suggested by Mr Philips' comments, it gives parents no such assurance.

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

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.

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"